![[mccookgazette.com]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/nameplate31.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 87°F ~ Low: 57°F Wednesday, May 16, 2012 |
|
A Memo to the BirthersPosted Monday, June 22, 2009, at 12:18 PM
No person except a natural born citizen, OR a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. There's a pretty big word in their that takes the steam out of their argument, I've put in all caps to bring it to attention. That little word, OR, is pretty big in this phrase. The first part of the statement clearly says "No person except a natural born citizen, OR a citizen of the United States. Just to clear it up a little more later in the section it clarifies what the citizen part means when it states "... and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States." So right there, Barack Obama is eligible to be President. The other sticking point for the birthers is their insistence that his birth certificate is faked, or forged. www.snopes.com has done research into the matter and proven that the claim is false. Of course I have already mentioned this in another blog and a poster actually stated that scopes rarely gets anything right, though a quick search of their other articles points to the fact that yes they actually do a lot of research before the debunk a conspiracy theory or claim that it is true. This same poster then went on to herald a youtube video of some man presumably dressed as Benjamin Franklin preaching to all of us about being cowards, using a quote that wasn't true. The only problem for them, and it's a big one, is that not only was Obama born in the United States but his birth appeared in the papers there which is what the picture you see attests to. Another shot to the sail of the birthers is that Obama was born to his mother who was an American citizen, so no matter where he was born, under United States law, he was in fact an American. Unfortunately I cannot post the article from snopes on here so here is the link, along with the picture above that is from the article http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bir... Also to note from the article is that state officials in Hawai'i have vouched that they have seen the original birth certificate and that he was undoubtedly born in Hawai'i. The governor has seen it as well. State law, however bars anyone from seeing any birth certificate from that state unless they have a tangible interest in it. Apparently they don't consider a witch hunt to be tangible and neither does the court system, as two federal courts have dismissed two cases and the Supreme Court won't even listen to it. It's nothing but a smoke screen set up by the VERY radical right in an attempt to overturn a fair but lopsided election that went against them. Nothing new for a group of people that have been using the same scare tactics since 2001, the odd thing is they think it is still working. A quick self-serving plug for myself. I am on twitter now if you want to follow the daily life of a rabid liberal. Just type in ekimsitruc or Michael Hendricks to follow me. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics A Case Against Merit Pay(12 ~ 6:08 PM, Mar 2)
Hot Springs, America's First National Park
President Obama's Speech
A Most Disgusting Lie
Republicans and the Far-Right Have Hit Rock Bottom
|
Email link
Read comments (96)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Mike,
I'm not really into the illegal Obama birth certificate fiasco because it's a foolish argument that nobody with any understanding of the Constitution would make in the first place.
However, I find it interesting you bring up the qualifications for President. I was curious what your thoughts are on George Washington's qualifications for President. Technically, he couldn't have been 14 years a citizen or a natural born citizen since the country did not exist as the United States in any formally recognized way until 1776. The United States had only existed for about 13 years upon his inauguration in 1789 and he couldn't be a natural born citizen of a country that did not exist upon his birth.
I'm not really sure how they justified that legally at the time because the first few presidents at the least were not naturally born or legal citizens for 14 years before taking office. Without doing any research on it, I would have to say that they made exceptions since they became United States citizens automatically when the country was founded.
Exceptions to the Constitution without ratified Amendments?! Now, that's something I would have been worried about... if I was living in the late 18th to early 19th century. It's more of a food for thought kind of question but interesting to think about, nonetheless.
You've got to be kidding me! Please tell me this is a spoof of some sort.
It is NOT either NBC OR Citizen....It is NBC OR Citizen AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED.
You can't just leave out words so that the meaning is altered to say what YOU want it to say.
Obama MUST be a NBC or a US Citizen AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED. Since he was supposedly born in 1961, he hardly qualifies based on the OR exclusion, as you would have us believe. The OR exclusion was just so that those writing the Constitution were grandfathered in - since they couldn't possibly be NBC. They were dual-citizens (British/US) and if they had felt that was an accepted citizenship status, why put in the exception clause?
WHY?
Because they KNEW dual-loyalities would be a problem. They wanted POTUS to be free of any other allegiences to any other countries; therefore, they made it a REQUIREMENT that anyone NOT a US Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution MUST be a Natural Born Citizen.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama's Birth Certificate, it has to do with his father passing on his British citizenship to him at birth - something that Obama freely admits.
It is not a conspiricy issue, it is a legal issue. And issue that the Supreme Court needs to take up and rule on. Does being born a dual-citizen preclude you from being a Natural Born Citizen.
Personally, I prefer to look at Obamas ACTIONS rather than words on a paper that may or may not be legitimate. Well after his 21st birthday, Obama travelled to Kenya (on US Taxpayer dollars) to campaign for a paternal relative who believes in Sharia Law. Now the REAL question becomes, did he do this out of CONTINUED loyalty to his father (British/Kenyan) or because he too believes in Sharia Law? To help answer that question, one needs to undestand why he appointed Harold Koh as a legal advisor. Koh not only believes in Sharia Law, but also transnationalism. BOTH of which are very UN-American.
Actions speak louder than words - it would appear that while his dual-citizenship may very well have expired, he CONTINUES to exhibit allegiences to another nation - which is VERY dangerous (as our forefathers were well aware of) for this Nation.
Read the Constitution AS IT WAS WRITTEN and NOT for what you want it to say.
sally,
Why would the founders make a requirement for 14 years when none of the people at that time could have possibly met that requirement. You can't be a citizen of a country for 14 years when the United States, at it's best, had only been in existence for 11 years at the time the Constitution was signed. How would that help any of the founders to be considered citizens for the purpose of running for President?
IF you read the Constitution as you suggest Sally, then the first three presidents were not really presidents. Also if you insist on reading it the way you want us to read it then none of us can serve as president since none of us were born at the time the Constitution was adopted.
You leave out most of the wording of the section and then get on me for doing it? If it is understood that all became a US Citizen at the time of adoption then why add the 14 years into it?
Only in America where a man can be crucified for having a loyalty to his father.
What digging up of Romney's religion are you referring to Steffanie? There was no digging. Everyone knows he is Mormon and that's why he didn't win the Republican nomination. He was Christian enough.
There you go again making up stories and lies about what I have said. I never said it was okay to make fun of performing sexual acts on a 14 year old. I assume you are referring Letterman (and you accuse liberals of trying to keep stories alive). Since the joke wasn't about the 14 year old then there really is no basis for your hate spewing at me.
I've noticed that David Letterman is the only person that Sarah has gone after. Tell me Steffanie, if she is so protective of her children's privacy and her own why has she not gone after any of the other comedians who have told the same joke time and time again or gone after Eminem who has portrayed her in two different songs as a prostitute and even in a video having a look alike of her performing sexual acts? The answer is rather simple, she was starting to fade into the background of news, David Letterman is currently ranked number 1 among late night talk show hosts, she saw a political opportunity and took it. You only need to look at her so-called apology to know she was looking for political points. What do the troops have to do with her daughter?
I am guessing that since you are against trying to dig up phony records to embarrass or disqualify Bush or Romney then you are also against doing the same with Obama. Nice of you to take Obama's side on this.
OK, just so we can all stop fighting about the words. Here is the actual text:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
So you either have to be a natural born citizen, OR a citizen as of June 21st, 1788.
Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't give a full definition of what constitutes "natural-born" citizenship. There have been many court cases and published legal opinions regarding what constitutes "natural-born" citizenship.
However, Obama is certainly a natural born citizen according to all legal definitions. It doesn't matter what his Kenyan relatives say, or what "birthers" say. He is on record at the Hawaii dept of health as being born in the state. The existence of his original birth certificate has been verified by multiple state officials, and a "certificate of live birth" which is legally equivalent to his original birth certificate, has been released and inspected by multiple fact-checking organizations (snopes, factcheck, etc.). The original certificate remains sealed to the public as per Hawaii State Law.
Many court cases HAVE been brought to court to protest Obama's citizenship. They have been thrown out, because, in the court's opinion, the evidence is clear that he is legally a natural born citizen, legally qualified to hold the office of the President.
I know that none of that will change the opinions of "birthers", any more than an examination of the evidence would change the opinion of "moon-landing deniers".
(As for the 14 year residency requirement, I'm not sure how Washington got around that. Maybe they counted his time living in the colonies.)
The thing that has always amazed me is that there are people, that when presented with fact and stare you straight in the eye and either say I don't care or refute the facts.
jhat thanks for your attempt at trying to clarify what I posted. I did post the entire section in my original blog and then gave my opinion on how I read it. But for some they chose to focus on my interpretation and accuse me of leaving parts out. Six of one, half a dozen of another.
Yeah well everyone knows Clinton had sex with her, for him it was the question of what exactly constituted sex.
I think it's hilarious you will only refer to Obama by emphasizing his middle name. Very adult of you.
Hilary has nothing to apologize for because there is a right wing media and a left wing media. The right wing is just more prevalent since they have an entire network that was dedicated to kissing Bush on the rear for eight solid years and has spent the first six months trashing everything Obama says and does. They are unabashed about it too, until they are called out on then it's deny, deny, deny.
I do like that you say alleged, so you are of course, then a birther.
Wow the attacks are just getting vicious and personal now aren't they ... and they say they don't practice hate.
President Obama was born in Honolulu.
He is a natural born citizen.
He is eligible to be POTUS
OK Mike, a few thoughts on your article...
You are off base on the "OR a citizen of at the time of the signing of this constitution". This leaves everyone out that wasn't alive during the adoption of the constitution. So your point is not valid.
So this leaves us with a "natural born citizen". To fully unbderstand this issue, you must know the definition of a natural born citizen. This is different than a citizen. Anybody born in the USA, or having a citizen parent can be a citizen. However, a natural born citizen, must have both parents as citizens. This was the definition used at the time of our constitution. The definition at the time came from a popular book written by Emer de Vattel, "Law of Nations".
Yes, but as I have stated a few times now, that is why the founding fathers put in an addition to that part of the statement, where a person who had been a citizen of the United States for 14 years could run of the office of President.
My friend, trying to change the wording won't change the Context of the Constitution to fit your personal desires.
The only reason the passage "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
A Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the United States or it's Territories, of U.S. Citizen Parents, to which John McCain qualifies, but he is not in question here.
Or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office, This portion was added simply because at the time there were not very many people that were actually Born and attained enough time in Country to meet the First Qualification Standard set, so they allowed for the statement to have a body of Candidates to choose from, Like say the Founding Fathers none of which were Natural Born Citizens of the United States.
Neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
This last statement was to set some criteria for qualifications to become a Candidate.
Try as you may, there is no way you will find Obama meeting any of the Article II, section I, clause 5, of the Constitutional Qualifications aside from Age and time of Residency, two out of three don't get you a brass ring.
My friend, trying to change the wording won't change the Context of the Constitution to fit your personal desires.
The only reason the passage "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
A Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the United States or it's Territories, of U.S. Citizen Parents, to which John McCain qualifies, but he is not in question here.
Or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office, This portion was added simply because at the time there were not very many people that were actually Born and attained enough time in Country to meet the First Qualification Standard set, so they allowed for the statement to have a body of Candidates to choose from, Like say the Founding Fathers none of which were Natural Born Citizens of the United States.
Neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
This last statement was to set some criteria for qualifications to become a Candidate.
Try as you may, there is no way you will find Obama meeting any of the Article II, section I, clause 5, of the Constitutional Qualifications aside from Age and time of Residency, two out of three don't get you a brass ring.
My friend, trying to change the wording won't change the Context of the Constitution to fit your personal desires.
The only reason the passage "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
A Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the United States or it's Territories, of U.S. Citizen Parents, to which John McCain qualifies, but he is not in question here.
Or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office, This portion was added simply because at the time there were not very many people that were actually Born and attained enough time in Country to meet the First Qualification Standard set, so they allowed for the statement to have a body of Candidates to choose from, Like say the Founding Fathers none of which were Natural Born Citizens of the United States.
Neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
This last statement was to set some criteria for qualifications to become a Candidate.
Try as you may, there is no way you will find Obama meeting any of the Article II, section I, clause 5, of the Constitutional Qualifications aside from Age and time of Residency, two out of three don't get you a brass ring.
All that is required to be a natural born citizen is to be born a citizen, regardless of who your parents are.
There is no getting away from that fact.
President Obama was born in Honolulu, therefore he is a natural born citizen.
You lose birthers.
Mike,
Your understanding of the US Constitution is flawed a little. Your attempt to analyze that paragraph needs help.
BTW if you live in Russelville, AR my cousin is Dr. Carter.
In reading the Constitution, you cannot simply parse it the way it suits you best. I agree with Kelly J and wallismarsh, you need to re-read the Constitution carefully and understand the whole paragraph. Trying to parse it up, doesn't work.
The cases brought before the Supreme Court have NOT been dismissed. No statement has ever been made as to the merits of any of the cases. There must be a concensus vote for the Court to hear a case and that has not happened. It is for THAT reason and that reason alone that the cases have yet to be heard. This statement is an out and out falsehood: "They have been thrown out, because, in the court's opinion, the evidence is clear that he is legally a natural born citizen, legally qualified to hold the office of the President." The Court has NEVER issued any statement in ANY of the cases brought before them.
Simply being born here does NOT make you a NBC. If that were true then Anchor Babies would be considered NBC's and they are NOT. They are considered US Citizens ONLY, but not NBC's. According to Senator's Leheay and McCaskhill, it takes 2 US Citizen Parents to make you a NBC. That was the criteria they both used to assess whether McCain was NBC or not. You can't have it apply to one and not the other.
"Only in America where a man can be crucified for having a loyalty to his father." WOW - WOW - AND WOW~!
So, it's ok to be loyal to your father even if that constitutes UN-American ideals and beliefs? Do you not understand that this is precisely what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent?
Personally, I have a REAL problems with Sharia Law as well as Transnationalism. If you see no problems with either of these beliefs being brought into the US and practiced here, then I just don't know what else to say except perhaps you are either a male or you don't understand what either of those things truly mean.
On the issue of race. When I look at Obama, I see an extremely liberal white man. He was raised by a white mother and white grandparents. He lead a priviliged white life, by attending predominately white schools and ivy league colleges. I'm wondering just how black he would appear to this country had he married a white woman instead of a black one?
So Kelly you complain about me changing the wording of the Constitution and then you do the exact same thing to exempt McCain as being eligible? The word "territories" appears no where in the section.
To answer the "natural born" part that people seemed confused about the law that to be natural all someone needs to be is born on US soil to be a natural born citizen. Obama was born in Hawai'i, therefore he is a citizen of these United States.
sally, I suggest you do a little more research as the only two cases brought up regarding his birth certificate were in fact thrown out and both judges said there was nothing in either case that could be proven.
Just because you want it to be so, doesn't make it so. Sorry, you lost. Move on.
obominator, why don't you tell everyone what you think of Stanley Ann Durham, President Obama's late mother.
Isn't it true that on other threads you have referred to her as a "white slut," a "whore" and a "race traitor?"
Please expound on this theme so that everyone here can see exactly where you are coming from.
The only problem with your assessment there dear steffanie is that in two consecutive polls over 70% of Americans favor a system where private sector and government are competing and over 50% of Americans believe that the government is better suited to run health care than the current crop of providers.
So, if the the Democrats can actually get together this will actually be a swell for President Obama.
What guns are you talking about? The scare tactics or the absolute lying about what the plan is.
I see now that one person has come out race baiting, some of the others, who are obviously followers, are doing it unabashed now.
Nice copy and paste job Sceptre. Unfortunately all that information is wrong and has been proven wrong time and time again. But I do applaud your beating a dead horse meme you are running with.
The case that is mentioned in your post was thrown out, dismissed, had no proof, etc., etc.
What your little post forgets to mention, which isn't shocking since it would have completely ruined that case from the get go is that the state of Hawai'i bars birth certificates (the actual ones) from being released.
What is also fails to mention is that the grand total of THREE forensic experts were paid by the plaintiff to make the assessment and therefor in a court of law their testimony would be stricken. They were NOT in fact independent experts.
Since Sceptre either forgot to include a link to the actual finding on this case or just didn't here is a link to the ruling on Berg's case (interesting to note Berg is the same person who has filed a complaint to have most of the Bush Administration tried for what happened on 9/11. Yes he blames them for actually perpetrating 9/11. Careful who you lay next to).
http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/berg_a...
"According to Senator's Leheay and McCaskhill, it takes 2 US Citizen Parents to make you a NBC"
Well, it's not really up to those two senators to decide what constitutes a "natural born" citizen. It's up to the law. Unfortunately, not many laws actually contain the term "natural born citizen".
The only law to ever use that actual terminology was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which specified that children born to American citizen parents in other countries were "natural born citizens". When the act was changed in 1795, the words "natural born" were removed. (wouldn't apply to Obama anyway, because he was born in Hawaii).
As far as US citizenship goes, the 14th amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States who is under US jurisdiction (like Obama). The Immigration and Nationality Act also grants citizenship to people born in US territories (as well as some other people).
However, the actual term "natural born citizen" is not used in these. It seems to be a term that legislatures gave up using back in the 18th century (in actual legislation anyway).
State Department policy states that:
"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
Now this seems like something that could be used to assert John McCain is not a "natural born" citizen. Of course, I'm not saying that. And I'd like to think that if he had won the election, people on the left wouldn't obsess over something as tenuous as that, the way the "birthers" are.
Ultimately, the definition of a "natural born citizen" will eventually have to be decided by a supreme court ruling. Which will in all likelihood happen when a US citizen born abroad is elected president.
Because there is no legislation defining a "natural born" citizen, we have to default to the legislation that defines a "US citizen". And according to ALL legislation regarding citizenship, Obama (and anyone else born in the US under US jurisdiction) is a citizen of the United States. As far as being "naturally born", there doesn't seem to be an actual measuring stick to determine WHO is "naturally born". We could probably ASSUME that it means born in America, or born to American parents.
I must apologize. In my previous post I posted a link that just addressed a request for dismissal. As I researched more I found something interesting. Sally mentioned in one her posts that the Supreme Court has not dismissed any cases. That is true to a point. But if you READ what I typed I never said the Supreme Court has dismissed, I said they won't even listen to the complaints and on this this Berg case alone he has made four attempts and been denied four attempts. That should, alone, point to how frivolous this case is
Here are the actual links to the dismissals and non-hearings.
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/o...
The above link is the actual dismissal
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/doc...
The above link are the actions taken by the Supreme Court
MORE PROOF BIRTHERS ARE RIGHT AND OBAMA*****ES ARE WRONG. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAZAbqgpo... THIS IS A TRULY RACIST MAN IN THE BELOW VIDEO! SHAME SHAME. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUtwzuQm7... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FptGQrqxZ... -- Posted by obaminator on Mon, Jun 22, 2009, at 8:02 PM A KENYAN BORN MUTT IN THE WHITE HOUSE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7KO2bUOb... A MUSLIM IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2o2fKbLJ... A REAL BLACK MAN. SPEAKS OUT! THE MEDIA DOWN GRADES HIM OF COURSE. BECAUSE HE IS A RACIST AND A BIGOT. WOW HE MUST HAVE USED GREAT MAKEUP TO LOOK SO BLACK, BUT OH WAIT OBAMA ISN'T EVEN BLACK. HE IS A MUTT WITH A WHITE MOTHER. SO SAD! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZvdQitzJ... -- Posted by obaminator on Mon, Jun 22, 2009, at 8:16 PM
MORE PROOF BIRTHERS ARE RIGHT AND OBAMA*****ES ARE WRONG. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAZAbqgpo...
THIS IS A TRULY RACIST MAN IN THE BELOW VIDEO! SHAME SHAME.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUtwzuQm7... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FptGQrqxZ...
A KENYAN BORN MUTT IN THE WHITE HOUSE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7KO2bUOb...
A MUSLIM IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2o2fKbLJ...
A REAL BLACK MAN. SPEAKS OUT! THE MEDIA DOWN GRADES HIM OF COURSE. BECAUSE HE IS A RACIST AND A BIGOT. WOW HE MUST HAVE USED GREAT MAKEUP TO LOOK SO BLACK, BUT OH WAIT OBAMA ISN'T EVEN BLACK. HE IS A MUTT WITH A WHITE MOTHER. SO SAD!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZvdQitzJ... --
I AM OFFERING A $5,000 REWARD TO ANYONE THAT WAS AT OBAMAS BIRTH IN HAWAII AND HAS PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS BORN THERE.
PRIMA FACIA INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO:
THE REAL ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. I HAVE POSTED AN EXAMPLE OF A REAL COLB FROM ABOUT THE SAME YEAR AS OBAMA WAS BORN AND ALSO WHAT OBAMA POSTED.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PA...
AS YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
FILM,PICTURES,OR SWORN AFFIDAVITS FROM MEDICAL PERSONNEL PRESENT AT THE TIME OF BIRTH.
SUBMIT TO A POLYGRAPH TEST.
COLLECT YOUR REWARD BY PROVIDING
REDWHITEANDBLUE72@YAHOO.COM
What's the difference between the two birth certificates? Well it's pretty obvious, one is a long form, the other is a short form. Wow, proved your point. This is just getting ridiculous.
Because I knew this is the response that I would get if I dared state with fact that the President is an American citizen. The hatred for this man on this blog is so deep that you will go to any depths to assert why he isn't the president.
Maybe I changed a mind, made someone think a little more clearly. Obviously the fact that this blog has stirred race baiting pretty much proves that you all will do or say anything to demonize the president of the United States.
Here's an idea. Move to Hawaii, run for the Hawaiin legislature, get elected, convince enough legislators to pass your bill that makes all birth certificates public information and then you can see the actual birth certificate... problem solved.
I think we need to table the birth certificate issue for a few months. At the rate this president is going, even more of his own party will start looking for ways to remove him from office.
Every person that looks at their tax statement will resent him for his tax-cheaters.
Every person that wants a smaller federal government and less government oversight will resent him for taking over the auto companies and mandating pay scales.
Every person that watches his response to Iran...and the fact that it makes FRANCE look tough...will resent his cowardice.
Every person that screamed over the costs of defending our country will resent the quadrupled deficit used to destroy private businesses.
Every person that follows the trail to the foundation of the housing crisis will resent the Democratic-written laws that brought on that crisis.
Every person that now fears North Korea will resent the Democratic gift of nuclear power given them.
We can't have a better advertisement for a truly conservative president than the current Democratic party!
Sceptre,
You've been had.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/occ...
Isn't it a little late for April Fools jokes anyway?
I was just about to post that McCook1.
Snopes is so useful.
and Sceptre,
You think if there was legitimate information of that nature, the media wouldn't be ALLLLLLL over it? They would eat that up for breakfast. I know, I know, you'd say "they're all in the tank for Obama, so they wouldn't publish it!!".
Bull. Even if the mainstream media were completely in the tank for Obama, they would publish that. Why? Ratings. Ratings and MONEY. And even if they didn't publish it because they are all secretly part of a democratic cabal, you would see it played constantly 24/7 on Fox News.
Hell, the "Obama went to a Madrassa!" story played constantly one all the networks for HOURS before ABC decided to actually CHECK the facts and correct the story.
Obomination wrote:
"HE IS A MUTT WITH A WHITE MOTHER. SO SAD!"
------------------------------------
What is so sad about that?
Didn't you once call his mother a "whore," a "slut" and a "race traitor?"
Sceptre wrote:
"SNOPES confirms that Occidental College did, indeed, release records that Obama had been admitted to that California college as Barry Sortero ( one of Obama's known 6 names) on a Fullbright Scolarship with his country as INDONESIA!!!! Finally, just maybe the mask will come off. TRUTH OR FICTION takes a neutral position."
---------- ---------------
Dude you can't even get your lies straight.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/occ...
From the above snopes article:
Obama attended Occidental College in California for two years as an undergraduate from 1979-81 under his birth name of Barack Obama, not as "Barry Soetoro" (the latter is the surname of his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro).
Fulbright scholarships for foreign students are coordinated through the American Indonesian Exchange Foundation (AMINEF), which does not not fund Indonesians for undergraduate study in the United States (only for master's or doctorate programs).
Occidental College has neither released, nor been ordered to release, Barack Obama's student records.
SallyHill wrote:
"Personally, I have a REAL problems with Sharia Law as well as Transnationalism. If you see no problems with either of these beliefs being brought into the US and practiced here, then I just don't know what else to say except perhaps you are either a male or you don't understand what either of those things truly mean."
----
What does that have to do with anything being discussed in this thread?
ekimsitruc wrote:
What your little post forgets to mention, which isn't shocking since it would have completely ruined that case from the get go is that the state of Hawai'i bars birth certificates (the actual ones) from being released."
--- ---
I would be totally shocked if they still had the original paper copy. My guess is that they would have all been microfilmed ages ago.
Didn't Obama just file his taxes not too long ago? In order to file taxes I believe you need a valid social security number. I'm not aware of any non-citizens with valid social security numbers... if we want to address this in a roundabout way. Wait for it...
Didn't Obama just file his taxes not too long ago? In order to file taxes I believe you need a valid social security number. I'm not aware of any non-citizens with valid social security numbers.
- ---------- -------- --
Wait, did you say "social" security number? as in "socialism?" since Obama is a socialist, then he should have had no problem in getting a fake
;)
Ah, you spoiled all the fun. I was waiting for someone who really meant it. I wasn't thinking the socialist angle but close enough.
Just wait. I'm sure one of the 10 birthers that write 95% of the internet posts will show up soon and make that claim.
I just get tired of hearing the same repetetive argument I thought I'd put a new spin on it. The same old argument gets old after awhile. I'm sure they will.
MrsSmith, what would you have had Obama do or say about Iran? It is not our issue. We have meddled enough in Iran in the past and that's why they have the government they do now.
Honestly how would you have felt if after the 2000 election countries started coming out demanding that WE as Americans hold a new election and inciting riot in the streets? I seriously doubt you would have liked that.
I've noticed especially on this thread that when presented with evidence that refutes the claims of the birthers they react with anger and hate.
OR
They try to change the subject.
Like talking about Shariah law ... conspiracy theories and paranoia is one thing but this? Wow.
"It is not our issue. We have meddled enough in Iran in the past and that's why they have the government they do now."
I agree tentatively. But if the Iranians begin a full-on revolution for a completely democratic government, we should back them. We asked the same of countries like France during our revolution.
Of course, what they have right now is not a revolution, but protests against a contested election. Which we should absolutely not meddle with. The last thing we need is for their state-run media to unite the country against us with half-truths and propaganda.
From a conversation I had with a conservative friend over lunch this afternoon. Not my words, his:
"I can't stand the people who keep claiming that Obama is not a citizen. And I can't stand the people who are claiming he's a secret muslim. These people's views are not based on objective facts, but lies and half-truths they've been fed by others who intend to incite hatred and confusion.
These inane ramblings diminish any REAL criticism myself and other sane conservatives have against the current administration. Because their continued incoherent shouting and anger drown us out, and allow our opposition to paint us with the same brush as them. It's hard to hold a legitimate debate about the president's fiscal policy when half the people on your side are shouting "he's a muslim!! He was never born here!!! He can't be president!!!!!" The opposition and the general public just sees my entire SIDE as crazy because of those people, and I'm sick of it."
All I can say is I feel his pain. I felt the same way when there were loonies on the left shouting "Bush is Hitler!" "He's trying to take over the world", etc. Although I'm glad they weren't as loud as the loony right. :)
In another side of what's happening on the right side of the aisle, Mark Samford, governor of South Carolina left five days ago from the capitol and hasn't been seen since. The Liutenant Governor doesn't know where he is. His WIFE doesn't even know where he is. He left on Saturday, missing Father's Day.
His staff has stated they are in contact with him and that he has let them know he will return on Wednesday.
Samford is a potential presidential candidate for the Republican nomination in 2012.
Can you imagine, a president, who after a legislative session just disappears off the job for about a week? Oh, sorry we've already had one of those.
Mike,
"Honestly how would you have felt if after the 2000 election countries started coming out demanding that WE as Americans hold a new election and inciting riot in the streets?"
Except, we're not inciting riots or even protests in Iran. I only bring this up because there are people (mostly in the Iranian government) who are accusing the US of starting the protests in Iran which is completely false.
In regards to Sanford, his staff says this is not something new so it's not some kind of stunt to make people talk. The media is just paying attention this time.
He is still in contact with his staff so he can still be contacted if there is something that requires his immediate attention. Whether his wife knows where he is or not is more important to his wife than it is to me.
Anyone who has been in government knows there is a "bubble" that exists with the opinions of your staff and advisors especially for the president, governors and full time mayors. Sometimes, you need to just take time away from all of them, clear your head and address the issues of your state with your own ideas that you come up with yourself. Once you've done this, you can go back and coordinate with your staff and advisors to work out the details. After all, the people of S. Carolina elected him to enact HIS policies.
Besides, wasn't it you who was criticizing Palin for spending too much time getting in front of the camera and not addressing the needs of her state. Sanford isn't speaking at events out of his state or going around giving interviews. He's keeping to himself so that he can concentrate on the needs of his state without distraction for awhile. As long as his staff can contact him, I don't see why it's a problem if the media can't film him or interview him.
You presume, as usual, wrong steffanie. I refer to Bush who spent almost as much time on vacation as Reagen. Bush was on vacation over 450 days. Clinton on the other hand was on vacation 152 days.
By the end of Bush's first term he had been on vacation 20% of his presidency.
He was on vacation when Hurricane Katrina hit the United States and he stayed on the vacation for a few days before "flying" over the destroyed coast on his way back to Washington.
jhat,
"But if the Iranians begin a full-on revolution for a completely democratic government, we should back them. We asked the same of countries like France during our revolution."
I think a more recent example would be our backing of Afghanistan in the 80's. That didn't work out too well for us, in the end.
I also believe that at the time of the French Revolution, not a lot of people wanted to give any assistance to France in the name of remaining neutral. We began with a position of neutrality before our involvement in WWI and WWII as well.
I understand all of that, but that is missing the point. I don't care if Sanford takes a break, God knows he probably needed it, but to just completely disappear is just odd. If this had been a Democrat it would be the top story everywhere, but for a Republican, it's just essentially Sanford being Sanford? I don't buy that. He didn't even tell the lieutenant governor know where he was going. The LT Governor is second in charge. He is also a Republican, and not very happy with Sanford. And, as it turned out he was in Argentina, not on the trails where he told his staff he would be.
I don't really get the comparison to Palin, because in both cases they are somewhere else not taking care of their state. BUT, I don't care if the media cares. Hell if he wants to go on vacation, that's fine, but to disappear is just odd for the CEO of a state. All of us need to occasionally recharge the batteries.
I think you missed my point, though. I'm not complaining about him going on vacation, the complaint is that he didn't tell anyone where he was going. His staff fully didn't know where he was, and in the end, apparently, didn't know where he was at all.
During the French Revolution, Washington was asked personally by the French to get involved, since they had helped us in our revolution. Washington, in the end, decided to stay out of it.
Unfortunately, the United States does not have a great track record when it comes to helping other countries install new governments.
After all we backed Saddam Hussein after he took over in Iraq and look what that got us.
I know this may surprise a lot of people, but I have been, for most of my life, an isolationist. I believe that we need to bring ALL our troops home and we need to focus on the issues we have at home. We are not the policeman of the world.
Mike,
Sanford's absence from his office was news everywhere. I heard about it plenty. The only time it would be serious is if that person had been gone longer than the time of an average vacation.
"I don't really get the comparison to Palin, because in both cases they are somewhere else not taking care of their state."
With Sanford, the legislative session had just ended so what were the specific things he had to physically be in his state to address? We do live in the 21st century, we've got phone, cell phones, satellite phones, fax, e-fax, email, pagers and all kinds of communication devices. He said he had "considered" going to the Appalachian Trail but changed his mind at the last minute. It sounds to me like he had a clueless staffer in charge of PR. That or he just didn't want the press to know where he was so he could have some piece and I doubt he would've trusted the Lt. Gov. to keep quiet to the press about it.
Maybe he was in Argentina for a vacation, maybe he was there for the state or maybe it was a little of both. None of us really know for sure. His staff said they were in contact with him so I wasn't concerned because the LT. Governor's knowledge of where Sanford was wouldn't affect succession anyway. Governors rarely ever hand over authority to the Lt. Gov. just like the President rarely hands over authority to the VP.
Mike,
Having troops around the world in the countries of our allies gives us a strategic advantage to protect our interests and citizens abroad. If we have an embassy under attack but have troops nearby then we can protect that embassy and the people inside. If it weren't for our troops not being at home we wouldn't have been able to respond to the ship that was hijacked by the Somalian pirates and the outcome might have been a whole lot different. It also gives us a foundation to build from if we ever find ourselves in a war near a country where we have troops.
I think Obama is handling military operations well so far. I don't agree with the policy Obama has of slashing the DOD budget via Robert Gates. If Obama wanted to slash the DOD budget I think he should've been man enough to put his own face on the proposal and not hide behind Gates. The fact that Gates proposed slashing the new Presidential helicopter is what gave away the fact that Obama was behind it. No Secretary of Defense would ever slash funds for a presidential helicopter unless the President had requested it.
McCook1 and ekimsitruc,
I wasn't necessarily saying that we need to go to war with the Iranian government if the people start a revolution. But I think they should most definitely have our support in some way if they begin a democratic revolution. Whether it be supplies, sanctions, military assistance, or simply a public statement of support.
Ideally, I would want all democratic countries to support ANY population that decides to overthrow a dictator and install a democratic government, as long as the revolution in the country is large enough that it constitutes a majority of the citizenry.
What I don't think we can do is incite the revolution or force a country to establish a democratically elected government. I think the natural process of fighting against oppression and for democracy is what makes a country's democracy work. It makes the people actually VALUE the democracy that they have, instead of resenting the foreign power that installed it.
I know that's an anti-isolationist stance. And I am usually an isolationist when it comes to other countries' activities. But if population decides to overthrow it's government and install a democratic government, it's in THEIR best interest to have help. And it's in OUR best interest to ingratiate ourselves to the people of that new nation, so that commerce and relations can begin on their best possible terms.
And maybe I've got my history wrong, so please correct me if I do. But we supported the Mujahideen resistance that was fighting against a communist government.
I'm not saying the communist government was all good, certainly they were opressive in many areas, but they did:
give women equal rights
allow the practice of all religions (though they promoted atheism)
ban forced marriages
raise the minimum age of consent for marriages
The Mujahideen resistance formed because many of these principals were counter to Islamic law and tradition. The Mujahideen were not fighting for democracy, they were fighting for Islam. The Soviets intervened to counter the Mujahideen resistance.
We supported them not because we agreed with them and wanted to see an Islamic government, but because we saw the Russians as the greater threat. So I'm not really surprised that came back to bite us.
If there were a democratic revolution in Iran, the situation would undoubtedly be different, as we would be supporting them because of their democratic ideals instead of just wanting to stick it to the Russians.
McCook1,
Obama/Gates have NOT cut the DoD's budget. Quite the opposite
The DoD base budget for 2008: $481.4 Billion
The DoD base budget for 2009: $515.4 Billion
I believe the budget for the "War on Terror" was cut significantly. However, this is due to different approaches on the budget. Bush budgeted $140 Billion. Obama has budgeted only about $70 Billion, but has indicated that he will request more as/if needed. I believe the rationale behind that is that if the "war on terror" will be funded as necessary, but that if money is budgeted it WILL be spent, regardless of whether it's necessary or not.
What else they have done is re-direct traditional military funding (jet fighters, battleships, missles, etc.) to go to non-conventional military investments (guerrilla warfare, combat armor, anti-guerrilla tactics, etc).
Forgot to cite my sources!!
2008 DoD budget
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2...
2009 Dod Budget
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2...
So, it turns out he wasn't simply recharging his batteries. He was having an affair on his wife with someone from Argentina. WOW. Explains why his wife didn't know where he was.
I'm really enjoying all these Republicans and moralitites out today almost demanding Democrats not use the Gov Sanford affair to score political points. These are the same people that will bring Clinton's affairs up every chance they get.
Gotta say I'm loving it. Who will be the next moralitite to come crashing to earth?
I'm so sick of people caring about the sexual affairs of politicians. This isn't the celebrity world, these people run our country. And frankly, I don't care who they're having sex with, as long as they are capably doing their jobs of representing their constituents and the country.
I know, I know. The republican's position themselves as the party of "family values" and morals, so it's hypocritical of their politicians to constantly get caught in sex scandals. But are we really still shocked by this hypocrisy? Do we really think it's actually going to change anyone's mind? If someone didn't jump parties in disgust after Larry Craig and Mark Foley, is Sanford's infidelity really going to make a difference?
Sorry for the rant. I'm just sick of our society taking sex scandals more seriously than actual FRAUD scandals. Sometimes I feel like we are a nation of highschoolers.
I'm sure the left will jump all over this, just like the right would if it was the other way around.
That was the point, maybe not so clear, that I was trying to make. Our personal lives, whether we be a private person or public, is just that, personal. It's really no one's business what we do behind closed doors.
But it always tickles me (maybe that's sophomoric of me, but so be it) when these so called "family values" politicians, or what I call moralitites get caught with their pants down. They yell and scream about how we have to protect the morality of our country and yet they can't keep their pants on to save their political lives. Karma can kick a person in the butt.
jhat,
Maybe I should have been more clear. When going through the budget process saying that the budget has been "cut" can be interpreted a number of different ways. I was not referring to the difference in the prior FY's budget. I was referring to the difference between the proposed projects from the various DOD agencies and the proposal from Gates.
Just because he "moves" the money into something different doesn't mean that he's not cutting something. Obama wants to include the war funding in more of the Defense budget which is the biggest reason for the notable difference in this FY's budget and last FY's budget. It's not because of a drastic increase in operations, equipment or programs in the DOD, it's a difference in the budgeting process. What Gates is including in that 515.4 billion is including war funding that Bush used to get in supplemental bills. Obama will still need to do that but he is including more in the base budget to reduce the need and size of such supplementals.
This article is probably the best way of giving some background on the process. This concept is not complicated but if you start going line by line you can see a lot of how governments overbudget in some areas and transfer those savings to others and in some cases they eliminate entire programs to pay for other line items.
http://www.thestate.com/166/story/811083...
Mike,
I thought he needed to unload but I can't say I saw that one coming. Ok, that's all for the innuendo jokes. I thought he was taking some time to himself but this obviously wasn't the case and he deserves everything he gets and everything he doesn't get (ok, well maybe a little divorce innuendo too).
I have zero respect for someone who cheats on their wife and to do it over Father's day is just adding insult to injury. If he needed time to just clear his head or focus on the matters of the state then I could understand it but that obviously wasn't the case.
Democrats position themselves as being strong on "family values" just like the Republicans do. Obama does it, so technically he's a "moralitite" too, I guess. I didn't hear what Sanford has said about family values but I'm sure it was about the same as all politicians.
I find it odd that you somehow believe family values are specific to Republicans. I recall Kleeb trying the "Nebraska values" campaign slogan the last couple times he tried running for something in this state and by the time he runs next time maybe he'll have a definition of what that is exactly. I think it was an easier fit for him since he wasn't married at the time. Who knows, maybe now he'll change the slogan to "family values".
Sanford was in Congress when the Clinton affair broke and he demanded that Clinton resign then, saying that lying about this type of thing is basically a disservice to the American people. So he's a hypocrite.
Democrats don't even come close to the family values claim that Republicans attempt. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans not only will tell you they are the more moral party they try to legislate it all the while not even coming close to practicing what they preach.
I'm not saying it's widespread among Republicans but it sure seems to be hitting the supposed leadership of the party recently.
Now the bastion of conservative news, Fox News, has "accidentally" labeled Sanford a Democrat. This isn't the first time, so is it really an accident? When Foley got caught in his pedophilia ways, they labeled him a Democrat. When John McCain was campaigning for President, they labeled him a Democrat. Long before Arlen Spector went back to the Democratic Party and he was voicing his dissatisfaction with the Republican Party, Fox News labeled him as a Democrat. Oddest of all, when Larry Craig was caught propositioning an undercover cop for gay sex, Fox News didn't identify him as anything.
They either need to fire the people in charge of the chryon's at Fox News or admit they are doing it on purpose.
Neither will happen though.
McCook1,
Thanks for the info. I was actually aware of that already. It's pretty obvious from reading the 2008 and 2009 budgets where the difference lies. I just assumed that by 'cut' you meant that they had a smaller operating budget, which isn't true. They simply don't have as big a budget as they projected.
And I also understand that moving money is 'cutting' from one project and increasing others. But my point was that I think the move to non-conventional warfare is what we SHOULD be focusing on. In the foreseeable future, we are MUCH more likely to be engaging in non-conventional warfare (guerilla warfare, counter-terrorism) rather than classical military battles.
Being a government contractor, I'm well aware of how screwy the government budgeting system can be. I've seen so many departments waste their budgets on frivolous projects, because if they DON'T use their entire budget, they won't get as much next year. I really want to see some serious budget-reform legislation that targets the way money is allocated and distributed to governmental departments.
Oil about to resume uptrend. Dollar going lower.
Lot's of bonds to sell.
Iran conflict gearing up.
Mexio oil production down.
Nigeria oil prodction down.
I personally think this goes way deeper than just simply an affair on his wife. This was at least the second time that Sanford completely disappeared off the map to off to a foreign country. The first time he was in France when wildfires broke out and his staff had to get a hold of him just to bring him back.
Look I have nothing against him taking a break and getting away, but he is a publicly elected official and the CEO of his state, he doesn't have the luxury to JUST disappear.
I think the bigger question on this is, did he go to Argentina on the people's money? If he did, then the people of South Carolina were paying for his affair.
Mike,
"Sanford was in Congress when the Clinton affair broke and he demanded that Clinton resign then, saying that lying about this type of thing is basically a disservice to the American people."
He didn't lie about cheating on his wife to the American people and he certainly didn't do it under oath. In fact, nobody even accused him of it publicly, that I'm aware of, before he made the announcement himself. So, I'd say there is quite a difference between the two. It doesn't justify his actions but the circumstances are much different than Clinton going on national tv and in court then lying about his affair.
I'm fairly ambivalent about politicians' affairs in the news. I don't really think it's any of our business but on the other hand they deserve every bit of criticism and humiliation they get too. I just don't have any love for cheaters.
"I think the bigger question on this is, did he go to Argentina on the people's money? If he did, then the people of South Carolina were paying for his affair."
I very much doubt that for the simple fact that Sanford is a millionaire. I'm sure he paid for his own expenses plus that would have meant that he'd have a record of where he was going billed to his office. If he didn't want his office to know where he went in the first place then he definitely wouldn't have used state funds.
jhat,
"In the foreseeable future, we are MUCH more likely to be engaging in non-conventional warfare (guerilla warfare, counter-terrorism) rather than classical military battles."
That is true but we should still be well prepared for a conventional war as well. The F-18s we will be retiring need to replaced with newer technology whether it is an F-35 or F-22. Every plane that is taken out of service should be replaced.
With the threat of N. Korea developing a missile that could reach the US, I think we should put a serious focus on our anti-missile defense program too. We have had successful tests of this system in the past but the program is still under development to make our defense more reliable.
"I really want to see some serious budget-reform legislation that targets the way money is allocated and distributed to governmental departments."
Budget-reform legislation is pointless because the departments are not the problem, the politicians are the problem. The reason they spend in fear of losing funding the next year is because they know that politicians don't look at the details of what happens in their department, they only look at the bottom line. If they don't need the funds one year and explained why, then the politician is going to try scoring political points by cutting next year's budget based on last year's budget regardless of whether there are entirely different circumstances in the two differing budget years. It's all done so that the politician can syphon praise from the people for "saving the taxpayer's money" when they really just send that department's money to another department.
I propose that we need politican-reform legislation. That would require politicians to actually do their homework but that would mean lots of research, hard work, a sizeable amount of time, really tough and possibly unpopular decisions... yep, that'll never happen.
Pandering politicians are probably the biggest threat to running an effective government and we've got them in spades.
McCook1,
"I propose that we need politican-reform legislation".
It will be a cold day in Death Valley before politicians pass legislation reforming politicians, haha. (which I think was your point)
I submit that we don't need legislation to reform this, what we need is people to actually PAY ATTENTION to the people they are voting for, and for the media to actually do their job better.
We have such an abysmal voter turn out in this country, and many of the people who DO come out to vote know very little about most the candidate's stances and records. They vote for either a party, or on single issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc) without even considering the candidate's other stances and their previous records.
And the media does a horrible job educating people about the political process as well. Although, it's not completely the media's fault. If unbridled sensationalism, hyper partisan-ism, and tabloid news is what gets ratings, then that's what they'll report. Of course that feeds our public appetite for such drivel, which just makes everything worse. A cycle of trash.
I'm just astounded by the amount of people I meet who:
A) Are apathetic and unlearned about politics/government
B) Are so blinded by party/idealogical loyalty that they can't even think straight about most issues.
C) Are SO convinced that they are right and that everyone else is wrong, that they can't even ENTERTAIN opposing ideas.
D) Are so obsessed with individual issues that they don't look at the larger picture when considering who they will vote for.
That's why I enjoy coming to sites like this on the web, because while there are undoubtedly MANY people who fall into those four categories, there are usually at least a handful who are actually interested, intelligent, and not blinded by ideology/party.
jhat,
I think you pretty much nailed it except for one fact. In more elections than I care to recall, neither side has a really good candidate. You're right though, too often it comes down to an issue, a gaffe, a scandal, personality or party to pick our leaders. People choose the lesser of two evils more often than not.
I think Osborne was a good Congressman but he was eaten alive in Washington with his honesty and cooperative attitude. I also think he truly got fed up with Washington. I think he would've been much better suited as our Governor but we got Heinemann who is really just another typical, pandering politician. I still think people voted against him so that he would be out of a job and go to NU looking for a job as coach again. ;)
You can also tell a lot about a person by meeting them. I've met both Nebraska's senators, my congressman, the Governor and Osborne. Out of all of them, Osborne is the only one who speaks with undeniable sincerity. The others except Smith, are just spewing the same things they think you want to hear. Smith isn't fake like the others and speaking to him is like talking to your neighbor but he does vote the party line A LOT.
So the fact that he told he told his staff he was going on a nature hike and instead went off to Argentina isn't a lie.
I know you are trying to paint what Clinton did as worse than what Stanford did, but in the end they both cheated on their wives. Clinton, though never claimed to be a "family values" guy and certainly never demanded that anyone resign. Sanford did. The fact that people on the right and Fox News, yes I did watch some of their coverage yesterday, are actually trying to give Sanford a pass is testimony to the hypocritical state of the Republican Party today.
Mike,
I'm going to have to disagree with you a little bit before I agree with you.
The Clinton situation is not the same as the Sanford situation. Clinton lied on national TV to the American public, as well as under oath when testifying. Sanford lied to his staffers, likely to try and keep his affair a secret.
(Of course, I would be remiss for not criticizing the republican congress who stuck their noses waaaaay to far into Clinton's private sexual life in the first place.)
But I do agree that the Stanford situation reeks of much more hypocrisy. Clinton didn't campaign as a 'family values' candidate, nor does he belong to the party who claims to be the "moral majority" of the country. That's simply not what he
Cheating on your wife is not right in either case, but cheating on your wife after parading yourself as a member of the moral party and condemning others for the same actions is inexcusable.
But let me also say, Mark Sanford shouldn't resign. He should not. The people of that state elected him to lead them. If they want him gone, he should be gone. But not because he's a hypocrite. Not because he feels guilty. And certainly not because the democrats want him out of office.
He should take a stand, and say "OK. I had an affair, and I'm sorry. But I'm still going to be the best damn governor I can be. This will not change the way I govern the state. And if you want me gone at the end of my term, don't vote for me again."
I don't care if you are a Republican or a Democrat. I'm sick of sexual affairs being grounds for career-ruination in this country. People have sex! And sometimes they do it with people other than their wives/husbands! Let's accept this, and move on.
Mike,
I didn't say Sanford didn't lie. I said he didn't lie about cheating on his wife to the public or under oath. He lied to his staff, the media started a big storm about where he was, he came back and told everybody exactly what he was doing before anyone even accused him of anything.
I think I stated it as clearly as I could earlier when I said, "It doesn't justify his actions but the circumstances are much different than Clinton going on national tv and in court then lying about his affair."
Of course, they are both guilty of equal betrayals but the way they handled it publicly is much different. Clinton continually lied about his affair and Sanford admitted his affair before anyone even accused him of having an affair... well, except his wife who has known for months.
The wives always know these kinds of things. I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary knew about all of Clinton's indiscretions years before anyone even suspected him of having an affair.
You're worried about Fox giving him a pass. Well that's one network. Every other network is all over this. This story is actually starting to beat out their Iran coverage. This is a HUGE story on all networks regardless.
Now, was Corzine's affair this widely reported? I don't think so. His affair was even with a woman he gave a $470,000 loan for her house, got her union's endorsement and forgave the loan. Not to mention the contract negotiations he was undergoing with her union. That story didn't receive half the coverage that the Sanford story is getting.
I can't watch FOX so I can't comment on their coverage but I have seen CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and CNN bombarding their networks with coverage on Sanford compared to the kid gloves that Corzine got when he cheated on his wife. I've said it time and time again, FOX has a conservative bias and the rest I've mentioned, range from a fairly liberal to an extremely liberal bias depending on the stories they choose to report.
I have heard almost nothing about the firing of Walpin on any of the other stations until a couple days ago and that was only a very brief report and I've heard nothing since. I read it on the Fox website at least a week ago but could not find any mention of it on the other news stations until Senators started crying foul on the firing. However, I remember a heckuva lot of coverage on the US Attorney firings with Bush.
I have accepted the fact that all news stations have their own bias whether they be conservative or liberal. That's why I'm glad FOX is around. I can find stories there that I can't find on CNN and I can find stories on CNN that I can't find on FOX. It's just another good reason to weigh information from several sources. Not to mention, FOX has some hilarious non-political stories.
However, they all have one thing in common and that is, they will turn on even their most favored personality if that person is thoroughly busted for something and they can make money from a story about it.
jhat,
I wouldn't say we should just accept what they do but in reality it does have very little effect on us as constituents of unfaithful politicians. However, when asked about their affairs, they always have the right to tell us that it's personal and they won't comment. They don't have to lie and if they're truly innocent then they can still deny it. Personally, if they told reporters to "mind their own business" when asked that question I'd accept it and let them deal with their personal problems in private. When they lie to their constituents and a court of law is when things change.
This memo's arguments are obviously bogus and here is why:
1. Article II says: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; ..."
It is obvious from the wording "at the time..." that the commas are not used to denote a list of options but rather, as was common in the day, to create pauses in the flow of the language to separate phrases as if one were speaking aloud. In proper English of that day, one always used "and, or, nor" directly and commas were not used as "dittos" of those to save writing. So, there are two clauses separated by "or" and "shall", not by commas alone. The two clauses are:
a) "No person except a natural born citizen,... shall be eligible to the office of President; ..."
b) "No person except ... a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; ..."
The courts well understand and have consistently ruled that persons who are merely "citizens of the United States" cannot meet constitutional muster for POTUS unless they are also "natural born citizens" or if not natural born, then "citizens at the time of the adoption of this Constitution"; the latter of which would require a person well over 200 years old in order to be applicable. If this were not true, Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for President and every other naturalized US citizen.
2. Even if not altered, the document that has appeared on snopes and other internet sites is NOT a valid Birth Certificate it is merely a computer generated image of unknown origin that "looks" like an official document, but of course only a document that you can hold in your hand can ever be real and only a court of law can rule on a documents bona fide legal status.
Now lets go one step further. The Document is called a "CertificaTION of Live Birth", but how can the document make that claim? It can't, because it is only a state generated document that is used to indicate that a real certificATE (one that was created at the time of the person's birth by a doctor in a hospital) is on file. So which do you want to see if you want to know exactly where a person was born, because that is what you want to know if you want to establish Natural Birth within the United States status.
The certificaTION can't answer this question because it wasn't designed to answer such a question. It doesn't say where the person was born, only that the State certifies (at some much later date) that their records show that they were born, when they were born, and what their name was at birth. Adding to the uselessness of Hawaiian certificaTIONs is that it is well documented that it was common practice in Hawaii to issue such documents to babies who were not in fact born in Hawaii, but who had one or more US Citizen (or Hawaiian native) as parents. This is not useful for establishing Natural Birth on US soil. So we must look at the document that the CertificaTION is derived from, namely the Original Birth CertificATE, the one that says where the person was born, and gives the doctor's name. Why do we want to know those two things? Because we can find the hospital on a map and we subpoena the doctor (and/or his records) to establish that he (the doctor) witnessed the birth. Then a judge can rule on the question of what patch of soil was this person born on and was it US soil at the time of the person's birth.
3. The memo also claims: "...so no matter where he was born, under United States law, he was in fact an American." This is a matter of some debate in legal circles and is far from being established law. If both of his parents had been citizen's and he never took citizenship in another country, there would be little question as to the validity of his US citizenship, but with Obama, we can't say with any certainty that he ever legally had US citizenship through is mother alone (who had not reached major age yet), or if he did, that he kept it after adoption by Lolo Soetoro (an Indonesian), establishing residency, and apparently some form of citizenship in Indonesia (otherwise he would not have been able to stay and attend school). There is also the ongoing debate that questions whether dual citizenship by birth to two parents with different nationalities invalidates a person's natural birth status, one US citizen parent doesn't seem to be enough and if not born on US soil, the person may not even be entitled to automatic US citizenship; and since we can't establish a US birthplace for Obama, the question remains open until official supporting documentation can be obtained for his claim.
Actually everything he mentioned, dear Steffanie, has everything to do with education. Proof yet again that you have no idea what you are talking about. Am I attacking? You bet your butt I'm attacking. I've grown sick and tired of people that have no clue as to what actually goes on in a school on a day to day basis proclaiming they know everything that is wrong with the system, and yet when you question them on what's wrong with the system all they can come up with is indoctrinations and absolute falsehoods that have been debunked time and time again. It's a bunch of crap.
I think you're right, Steffanie. It is possible to educate any child and all children, despite the odds.
Okay so tell us why Steffanie. You are so convinced that it isn't tell us why.
Okay that was pointless
Wait, wait, wait. First you were a student at the school I taught at, then you had no idea when summer session started at the school you supposedly attended, then you stated that you had dropped out (calling me a moron while stating it, as if I had known and then forgotten). Of course during these little exercises of your lies you were working at Taco Bell.
Now, come's another whopper, in that NOW you have children going to school. In order for that to even be close to happening you would have had to have been around 10 AT THE OLDEST to have a child that is old enough to be in school.
And I have to disagree with you GI her rant is just that a rant that gives her the opportunity to once again trash teachers.
btw, re: the above picture of the newspaper birth announcement... seems it is a forgery:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/blogge...
MGB59,
Your citation is from a single person posting on a conservative website.
Did you know that people, and even websites, on the Internet can lie?
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.as...
:)
If you seriously believe that The Globe is telling the truth then there is nothing to say to you, MGB. If you actually look at what they pronounce as the points that the announcement is fake you see quite clearly they are making it up.
Wow, steffanie, using the same old tired line that was debunked over 9 years ago. Gotta give you credit for attempting to keep the lie alive though.
Oh dear steffanie. Yes it is. Gore never said he invented the internet, conservatives said he did and it caught on with people like you.
While he was instrumental in helping the internet get rolling and even the "founding fathers", if you will, say that he was, he did not invent the internet, so for you to say "Al Gore invented it you know." is factually a lie.
Talk about beating a dead horse. Of course, since you graduated from the school of "Say it over and over and over and over again and it will come true" this really isn't a shocker.
Mike and GI,
Please stop. By this point, Steffanie is either just trying to egg you on, OR she is actually being willfully ignorant of the facts. Either way, further discourse on the matter will lead nowhere.
I understand that you might also feel compelled (as I did) to correct her, so that other (more rational) readers would actually look into it and see she's wrong. You've done that already. And any intellectually inquisitive person who sees this thread will know what the actual facts of the situation are.
Or, in Internet slang, "Don't feed the trolls"
jhat, that's why I tend to only correct once, to get the real information out there and then I let her go on her rantings. The only time I've changed that is when she's goes after my family. You can attack me on here all you like but the second you go after my family, forgive me if I go to the lowest common denominator and attack back.
In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
It would have been far more accurate for Gore to have said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in expanding the internet, and in making it available to the general public."
(The internet was actually "invented" in the 1960's. It didn't fully go "public" until the early 1990's.)