1. All meat in Brunswick Stew is GROUND. No pulled, diced, cubed, chunked, shredded or otherwise mangled meat is in genuine Brunswick Stew. Whatever meats your recipe calls for, they MUST BE GROUND UP to achieve the consistency of authentic Brunswick Stew. If you don't like ground meats in your stew, then you won't like authentic Brunswick Stew. Go make a pot roast instead.
2. Attention all you Yankees out there: THERE ARE NO POTATOES in authentic Brunswick Stew. You might find recipes calling for corn and tomatoes and okra and even peas, but you will NEVER find a recipe for genuine Brunswick Stew that contains POTATOES. Got it?
As a lifetime southerner raised on authentic Brunswick Stew, I declare this the Official Brunswick Stew Code. If you're eating stew with chunks or strands of meat, or with any kind of potatoes in it, it ain't Brunswick Stew.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Hair On Fire Roundup
Madoff: Warnings were ignored
This WaPo article says that the SEC had received several credible warnings over the years about the Madoff business being a ponzi scheme, and the SEC is beside itself trying to defend its multiple failures to detect and act on the fraud.
Who can read that and not remember all the warnings our government received over the years about 9/11 but failed to act?
As with 9/11, and Enron, and Katrina, and the meltdowns in Iraq, they didn't see this Madoff crisis coming, despite all the hair-on-fire warnings over the years. Even though the government's main priority: tax revenues will take a tremendous beating as a result, they still dropped the ball. Forget about us, they can't even protect their own interests. How's that for a laugh? God forbid these incompetents assume control over the auto industry and healthcare too.
Here's another couple genuine hair on fire warnings that nobody is taking seriously:
David Walker: this country's bankrupt.
Celent Report: On the Road to Weimar Republic inflation.
Who out there actually believes that we can spend our way out of any problem?
--
Bush Approval Rating at an All-Time High
At least, according to this UPI headline: Survey: Bush disapproval at new low. The article itself reports Bush's overall approval rating at 24%, and his "positive legacy" rating at an astonishing 11%. LOL
--
Where's the turning point?
Negative public sentiment regarding local law enforcement seems to be growing, no thanks in part to incidents like this, where an innocent 12-year-old girl was beaten in her own front yard by 3 unidentified police officers alleging she was a prostitute even though she didn't match the description they were given, then was belatedly arrested for assault when she tried to fight off her assailants. Not to mention all the no-knock raids on the wrong houses that we read about regularly, and the general thuggish behavior routinely exhibited by police. (Sidenote: Here is an excellent resource to see just how bad the problem has become.)
Mistakes can and do happen, and the appropriate response in a civil society is to acknowledge the mistakes when they happen, apologize, and take steps to minimize them in the future. What we have instead is a policy of official defense of the indefensible when municipal authorities determine these unconscionable actions of the officers are appropriate and they'd do it again if given the opportunity.
I'm sure there are good cops out there who take their roles as public servants seriously, who don't appreciate being the target of increasingly negative public perceptions, but when they stand shoulder to shoulder defending and protecting the thugs among them, they acquire the taint as if they themselves are the culprits.
The late entertainer Aaron Russo had an easy test everyone should try. He once asked his audience to notice their response when they see a police car driving behind them. If they are taken by a sense of comfort and security at the sight of the police behind them, they live in a free and just society. However, if they are immediately overcome with apprehension upon seeing the police car, they live in a genuine police state. It's an easy test: When a police car pulls in behind you, do you calm down or tense up?
Will this be turned around in my lifetime so that the public can believe and trust the "protect and serve" motto, or will the public trust continue to erode until the police and the public ultimately become warring factions in the long lost land of the free?
--
God's Law or Man's Law?
Here we have an interesting case where a church member confided in her mentor about her relationship with her boyfriend. Being that this relationship is sinful in the eyes of the church, they proceed to act upon Matt. 18:15-17,
Seeing as how the woman thought her conversations with her mentor would be kept confidential, you can see why she has a problem with this, and formally resigned from the church. Thing is, the church is going to announce it anyway, even though she's no longer a member there.
It would appear that the church may already find themselves in a bit of hot water, to the tune of 5-15 years in prison. Florida statute 836.05 states thusly:
This might explain in part why they've essentially gone into hiding.
But the question is, which law prevails: God's Law, or Man's Law?
--
This WaPo article says that the SEC had received several credible warnings over the years about the Madoff business being a ponzi scheme, and the SEC is beside itself trying to defend its multiple failures to detect and act on the fraud.
Who can read that and not remember all the warnings our government received over the years about 9/11 but failed to act?
As with 9/11, and Enron, and Katrina, and the meltdowns in Iraq, they didn't see this Madoff crisis coming, despite all the hair-on-fire warnings over the years. Even though the government's main priority: tax revenues will take a tremendous beating as a result, they still dropped the ball. Forget about us, they can't even protect their own interests. How's that for a laugh? God forbid these incompetents assume control over the auto industry and healthcare too.
Here's another couple genuine hair on fire warnings that nobody is taking seriously:
...there has been an entirely unprecedented increase in the money supply. By the week of 3 December 2008, the money supply was a staggering $630 billion, or 74% higher than it was during the week of 3 September 2008. An increase of this size in the past took on the order of a decade.
Such an increase in the monetary base should be cause for alarm, and would normally be seen as an indicator of a pending bought of hyperinflation. [...]
...one might be excused for thinking that the frequent comparisons with the Great Depression of 1929 are not the most apt. Perhaps the economic crisis in the Weimar Republic some seven years earlier could provide a better comparison.
Who out there actually believes that we can spend our way out of any problem?
--
Bush Approval Rating at an All-Time High
At least, according to this UPI headline: Survey: Bush disapproval at new low. The article itself reports Bush's overall approval rating at 24%, and his "positive legacy" rating at an astonishing 11%. LOL
--
Where's the turning point?
Negative public sentiment regarding local law enforcement seems to be growing, no thanks in part to incidents like this, where an innocent 12-year-old girl was beaten in her own front yard by 3 unidentified police officers alleging she was a prostitute even though she didn't match the description they were given, then was belatedly arrested for assault when she tried to fight off her assailants. Not to mention all the no-knock raids on the wrong houses that we read about regularly, and the general thuggish behavior routinely exhibited by police. (Sidenote: Here is an excellent resource to see just how bad the problem has become.)
Mistakes can and do happen, and the appropriate response in a civil society is to acknowledge the mistakes when they happen, apologize, and take steps to minimize them in the future. What we have instead is a policy of official defense of the indefensible when municipal authorities determine these unconscionable actions of the officers are appropriate and they'd do it again if given the opportunity.
I'm sure there are good cops out there who take their roles as public servants seriously, who don't appreciate being the target of increasingly negative public perceptions, but when they stand shoulder to shoulder defending and protecting the thugs among them, they acquire the taint as if they themselves are the culprits.
The late entertainer Aaron Russo had an easy test everyone should try. He once asked his audience to notice their response when they see a police car driving behind them. If they are taken by a sense of comfort and security at the sight of the police behind them, they live in a free and just society. However, if they are immediately overcome with apprehension upon seeing the police car, they live in a genuine police state. It's an easy test: When a police car pulls in behind you, do you calm down or tense up?
Will this be turned around in my lifetime so that the public can believe and trust the "protect and serve" motto, or will the public trust continue to erode until the police and the public ultimately become warring factions in the long lost land of the free?
--
God's Law or Man's Law?
Here we have an interesting case where a church member confided in her mentor about her relationship with her boyfriend. Being that this relationship is sinful in the eyes of the church, they proceed to act upon Matt. 18:15-17,
[15] Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
[16] But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
[17] And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Seeing as how the woman thought her conversations with her mentor would be kept confidential, you can see why she has a problem with this, and formally resigned from the church. Thing is, the church is going to announce it anyway, even though she's no longer a member there.
It would appear that the church may already find themselves in a bit of hot water, to the tune of 5-15 years in prison. Florida statute 836.05 states thusly:
836.05 Threats; extortion.--Whoever, either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
This might explain in part why they've essentially gone into hiding.
But the question is, which law prevails: God's Law, or Man's Law?
--
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Amending the Constitution to eliminate the Natural Born Citizen requirement
As I said in my first post on the Obama Birth Certificate/Citizenship issue, the left has been trying for several years to eliminate the natural born citizenship requirement for anyone to serve as POTUS.
While their arguments are based on the requirement's impediment to globalization, something I'm vehemently against, I do tend to agree that the requirement should be expanded to include naturalized citizens. Emotional arguments against it using the spectre of stealth candidates with anti-American ulterior motives fail to consider that those with un-American ideals can just as easily be born here as abroad. Especially since the America we have today isn't so much the land of freedom that once stood in stark contrast to a world of tyranny, a land by its respect for liberty and its equitable system of laws once inspired the sacrifice of life, limb and fortune to preserve, the very rationale behind the Constitution's 14 year residency requirement. The inherent motivation of our natural born citizens to preserve our precious freedoms has been eroded right along with those freedoms themselves through decades of big government liberalism followed by such heinous legislation as the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, numerous executive orders and the behemoth that has become our federal government over the last few decades.
I believe that people from abroad who are lured to this country for its historical promise of freedom and prosperity, and who go through the pains of learning about the foundation of those promises, are much more inclined to protect them than the natural born citizens who seem to know little about our founding principles, take for granted what freedoms we still have, and allow the rest to slip into obscurity out of fear. I won't go so far as to call us a nation of wimps, because we face down death every single day as people crowd themselves onto highways, malls, subways, office buildings with a potential bevy of armed or drunken loose cannons in our midst. Not to mention our propensity to establish residence in the belly of earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, mudslides... the risks to life and limb are enormous and we taunt and tease them every single day by virtue of our lifestyles, yet we clamor in fear for 100% protection from a handful of evildoers half a world away, so much so that we throw our freedoms out the window for the mere illusion of gift-wrapped protection. Those who venture here seeking relief from the oppressive regimes of their homelands may indeed be more inclined to stand up for and defend freedom's principles than we are.
While their arguments are based on the requirement's impediment to globalization, something I'm vehemently against, I do tend to agree that the requirement should be expanded to include naturalized citizens. Emotional arguments against it using the spectre of stealth candidates with anti-American ulterior motives fail to consider that those with un-American ideals can just as easily be born here as abroad. Especially since the America we have today isn't so much the land of freedom that once stood in stark contrast to a world of tyranny, a land by its respect for liberty and its equitable system of laws once inspired the sacrifice of life, limb and fortune to preserve, the very rationale behind the Constitution's 14 year residency requirement. The inherent motivation of our natural born citizens to preserve our precious freedoms has been eroded right along with those freedoms themselves through decades of big government liberalism followed by such heinous legislation as the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, numerous executive orders and the behemoth that has become our federal government over the last few decades.
I believe that people from abroad who are lured to this country for its historical promise of freedom and prosperity, and who go through the pains of learning about the foundation of those promises, are much more inclined to protect them than the natural born citizens who seem to know little about our founding principles, take for granted what freedoms we still have, and allow the rest to slip into obscurity out of fear. I won't go so far as to call us a nation of wimps, because we face down death every single day as people crowd themselves onto highways, malls, subways, office buildings with a potential bevy of armed or drunken loose cannons in our midst. Not to mention our propensity to establish residence in the belly of earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, mudslides... the risks to life and limb are enormous and we taunt and tease them every single day by virtue of our lifestyles, yet we clamor in fear for 100% protection from a handful of evildoers half a world away, so much so that we throw our freedoms out the window for the mere illusion of gift-wrapped protection. Those who venture here seeking relief from the oppressive regimes of their homelands may indeed be more inclined to stand up for and defend freedom's principles than we are.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Debunking the Debunkers
Finally a Google news alert keyed to "obama birth certificate" arrived in my inbox tonight pointing to a mainstream news outlet's mention of this issue. And as I expected it's another attempt to smear those who are pursuing the issue as conspiracy theorists. Let's take a look:
Not so fast. There are several reasons it won't go away. First, Obama continues to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting lawsuits being brought for the sole purpose of forcing him to reveal the actual birth certificate on file. Which is more cost effective at putting these rumors to rest: spending $10 +/- to obtain a copy of the original birth certificate to end these rumors, or spending close to a million dollars to prevent it from ever seeing the light of day?
Second, three of these lawsuits have made their way onto the Supreme Court docket. For a mere rumor that's already been vetted and debunked, you'd expect SCOTUS to spend their time on more pressing things. While the rumor and all the supporting evidence behind it may not be considered newsworthy to mainstream media, Supreme Court cases should merit some attention at least.
I'd like very much for the actual quote from these officials be published in the mainstream media, because all I've seen are quotes stating that they have seen the birth certificate with their own eyes, vouching for its existence in Hawaii's records of vital statistics. I have also read that of those officials interviewed, none would vouch for the information contained therein.
Citing the media reports on snopes.com, "Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino says she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate." So, let's see a quote from these named officials that actually vouches for the authenticity of the publicly-displayed birth record on Obama's website.
Evidence has been presented that Obama was born in Kenya, via statements made by both his relatives and Kenyan officials. Now, is it true that Hawaii allowed the parents of children born outside the US to register their births in Hawaii in 1961, under certain conditions? I've read assertions that it is. This is a simple question that the mainstream media should have no trouble asking, and getting a legitimate answer to. While the birth certificate may have been in the vault all these 47 years, nobody in the mainstream media has any idea what information is contained in that original document, other than what Mr. Obama himself has chosen to reveal, and continues to fight strenuously to limit to that information. See my previous post for more very simple questions the mainstream media seem to have problems with.
--
It's the rumor that won't go away. I continue to get e-mails about why mainstream media are not pursuing the challenge to the authenticity of President-elect Barack Obama's citizenship. The answer is that this allegation has been vetted and debunked.
Not so fast. There are several reasons it won't go away. First, Obama continues to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting lawsuits being brought for the sole purpose of forcing him to reveal the actual birth certificate on file. Which is more cost effective at putting these rumors to rest: spending $10 +/- to obtain a copy of the original birth certificate to end these rumors, or spending close to a million dollars to prevent it from ever seeing the light of day?
Second, three of these lawsuits have made their way onto the Supreme Court docket. For a mere rumor that's already been vetted and debunked, you'd expect SCOTUS to spend their time on more pressing things. While the rumor and all the supporting evidence behind it may not be considered newsworthy to mainstream media, Supreme Court cases should merit some attention at least.
While it is true that Hawaiian officials have not made the document public because of privacy laws, the state's health director said she and the registrar of vital statistics have personally inspected his birth certificate and can vouch for its authenticity.
I'd like very much for the actual quote from these officials be published in the mainstream media, because all I've seen are quotes stating that they have seen the birth certificate with their own eyes, vouching for its existence in Hawaii's records of vital statistics. I have also read that of those officials interviewed, none would vouch for the information contained therein.
Citing the media reports on snopes.com, "Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino says she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate." So, let's see a quote from these named officials that actually vouches for the authenticity of the publicly-displayed birth record on Obama's website.
That pretty much amounts to "case closed" for anyone but the conspiracy theorists who are convinced that Obama was born in Kenya and his mother fraudulently applied for a Hawaii birth certificate. Even if this were true - it seems rather silly to engage this argument, but here goes - I can't imagine anyone being able to put together sufficient evidence to invalidate a birth certificate that has been in the official vault for 47 years.
Evidence has been presented that Obama was born in Kenya, via statements made by both his relatives and Kenyan officials. Now, is it true that Hawaii allowed the parents of children born outside the US to register their births in Hawaii in 1961, under certain conditions? I've read assertions that it is. This is a simple question that the mainstream media should have no trouble asking, and getting a legitimate answer to. While the birth certificate may have been in the vault all these 47 years, nobody in the mainstream media has any idea what information is contained in that original document, other than what Mr. Obama himself has chosen to reveal, and continues to fight strenuously to limit to that information. See my previous post for more very simple questions the mainstream media seem to have problems with.
--
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Another Obama Birth Certificate post 11-26-08
One question today.... well, two actually, regarding the Obama birth certificate issue.
1. Which hospital was he born in? Over the last decade, his sister has given the name of two hospitals in Honolulu that he could have been born in. Which of those two is the correct one?
2. Who is the doctor that delivered him?
The "birth certificate" he released doesn't provide this information. Does yours?
--
I posted these two questions in one comment, and another asking who might have standing to sue over candidate qualifications, on this post at the blog Voenix Rising. Rather than attempting to intelligently answer the questions, both of my comments were promptly deleted. And believe it or not, with a straight face Obama loyalists continue to deny a coverup of this issue.
--
Some links to columnists and bloggers recently discussing this issue:
1. Which hospital was he born in? Over the last decade, his sister has given the name of two hospitals in Honolulu that he could have been born in. Which of those two is the correct one?
2. Who is the doctor that delivered him?
The "birth certificate" he released doesn't provide this information. Does yours?
--
I posted these two questions in one comment, and another asking who might have standing to sue over candidate qualifications, on this post at the blog Voenix Rising. Rather than attempting to intelligently answer the questions, both of my comments were promptly deleted. And believe it or not, with a straight face Obama loyalists continue to deny a coverup of this issue.
--
Some links to columnists and bloggers recently discussing this issue:
- Is the President-Elect blackmail-able over his birth certificate?
- The Great Birth Certificate Scandal-Cover-Up of the 2008 Election
- A last electoral hurdle for *Obama*
- Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate Issue For Dummies OR Leo Donofrio’s Suit (includes links to audio interviews w/Donofrio)
- Why the Barack *Obama Birth Certificate* Issue Is Legitimate
- SITREP Obama Citizenship Nov 26 08 -- Truth or Consequences
- Rathergate II: Certification of Live Birth a clear forgery
Saturday, November 22, 2008
The issue of Obama's citizenship is bigger than a birth certificate
I stumbled onto this post explaining that once again the Supreme Court will decide the presidential election. Written by obsessive Obama supporters, it mocks in standard liberal fashion the current court battle regarding the issue of President-elect Obama's actual country of birth. Apparently an attorney filed suit a few weeks ago to delay the election until Obama produces his birth certificate to prove his constitutionally-required qualifications to become president. The case was initially rejected by Justice Souter, but a re-filed petition was accepted for review by the radical right's darling Justice Clarence Thomas.
Several weeks ago I remember a news article reporting that the appropriate authorities in Hawaii had verified the existence of Obama's original birth certificate, and for me the matter, scant that it was to begin with, was settled. After reading the comical indignant retorts in the comments on the above mentioned liberal blog, I tended to side with their assertion that the "wingnuts" will lose this one, mainly because it seems like such a trivial, inconsequential matter. But there's the rub. If it's so trivial, why would a Supreme Court justice agree to review it? Souter already rejected it once. So why would Thomas take it?
Then it occurred to me, on the issue of the citizenship requirement, "wingnuts" have been joking about electing Schwarzenegger as president ever since he got into politics, and liberals have been advocating for the elimination of the citizenship requirement for some time because of the multicultural diversity of our nation. So I thought it would be really funny if this whole Obama birth certificate suit backfires on the "wingnut" with Thomas ultimately doing a little legislating from the bench and deciding to rescind the natural-born requirement altogether*. This country's leadership has been pushing the globalization envelope so fervently over the last few decades that this would be the perfect opportunity to take down that tiny, insignificant, inconsequential little technicality. And who would argue? It's a silly requirement because naturalized citizens can be just as devoted to our constitution and founding principles as natural born citizens, and probably even moreso given that they're required to actually know the constitution in order to become a citizen.
So I decided to visit the wingnut's website to see what kind of evidence he has that would compel Supreme Court Justice Thomas to take this ridiculous case, and started watching the "wingnut's" press briefing video made about a week before the election. This "wingnut" claims to be a lifelong Democrat, and makes a rather compelling case that his motivation to bring this challenge rests entirely on constitutional grounds. And he's right, the constitution is very clear on the qualifications for our president: he must be 35 years old, lived in this country for the last 14 years, and must be a natural born citizen. Cherishing the constitution as much as I do, I can't simply wave this natural born citizenship thing off as a minor triviality no matter how silly I think the requirement is. Nor can I condone the blatant alteration of the constitution via one single judge's ruling. I did however find myself wishing someone had this guy's fortitude to bring all kinds of other lawsuits to the Supreme Court to challenge the rest of the things our government does that violates the constitution... but I digress.
Berg also presents some compelling evidence that Obama may infact not be a natural born citizen, from remarks by his Kenyan relatives to his early travel history and legal requirements for such by all countries involved. But I'm most convinced something's awry by the simple fact that Obama absolutely refuses to provide a copy of his birth certificate, an act each of us regular citizens has had to do several times in our lives. And he also refuses to release his medical and postsecondary education records, reasons for which Berg believes are to protect Obama's citizenship status.
That's when the red flags started going off. The documents obviously exist otherwise Obama wouldn't have had an early passport and Hawaiian officials wouldn't have certified it. And being the Constitutional Scholar that he is, he wouldn't have dared run for president if he didn't qualify under the Constitution. So Obama's refusal to produce them must be based on principles alone. What principles though? It's looking more and more like Obstinence and Defiance rather than the privacy of the 4th Amendment. It's a birth certificate for Christ's sake, the only means available to prove compliance with 2 of the 3 Constitutional requirements for holding the office of the Presidency.
Senator Feingold, probably the most libertarian democrat in the Senate, has just professed his faith that Obama will be joyfully forthcoming with all the required information legislators need to do their oversight jobs, in stark contrast to the belligerent Bush administration. Feingold's remarks on the matter had instilled a little hope in this libertarian constitutionalist that Obama would regard our constitution a bit more respectfully than Bush, even if just a little. But after learning of the possibility Obama very well may become our first unconstitutional president, and his obstinate refusal to do something every other citizen of this country has been required to do multiple times in our lives, that hope is obliterated.
I'm now fully convinced Obama will conduct affairs in his administration with the same disregard for the constitution and outright stubbornness he exhibits in refusing to produce records we the citizens demand in the course of vetting our public servants. But worse than that, he will do so following in the same footsteps of the most horrendous president this country's ever had.
Now the issue is very unsettling, and much bigger than simply resolving Obama's citizenship.
* - The case before Thomas is solely to decide whether Berg has standing to sue, and has no bearing on the facts/evidence regarding Obama's citizenship.
--
Several weeks ago I remember a news article reporting that the appropriate authorities in Hawaii had verified the existence of Obama's original birth certificate, and for me the matter, scant that it was to begin with, was settled. After reading the comical indignant retorts in the comments on the above mentioned liberal blog, I tended to side with their assertion that the "wingnuts" will lose this one, mainly because it seems like such a trivial, inconsequential matter. But there's the rub. If it's so trivial, why would a Supreme Court justice agree to review it? Souter already rejected it once. So why would Thomas take it?
Then it occurred to me, on the issue of the citizenship requirement, "wingnuts" have been joking about electing Schwarzenegger as president ever since he got into politics, and liberals have been advocating for the elimination of the citizenship requirement for some time because of the multicultural diversity of our nation. So I thought it would be really funny if this whole Obama birth certificate suit backfires on the "wingnut" with Thomas ultimately doing a little legislating from the bench and deciding to rescind the natural-born requirement altogether*. This country's leadership has been pushing the globalization envelope so fervently over the last few decades that this would be the perfect opportunity to take down that tiny, insignificant, inconsequential little technicality. And who would argue? It's a silly requirement because naturalized citizens can be just as devoted to our constitution and founding principles as natural born citizens, and probably even moreso given that they're required to actually know the constitution in order to become a citizen.
So I decided to visit the wingnut's website to see what kind of evidence he has that would compel Supreme Court Justice Thomas to take this ridiculous case, and started watching the "wingnut's" press briefing video made about a week before the election. This "wingnut" claims to be a lifelong Democrat, and makes a rather compelling case that his motivation to bring this challenge rests entirely on constitutional grounds. And he's right, the constitution is very clear on the qualifications for our president: he must be 35 years old, lived in this country for the last 14 years, and must be a natural born citizen. Cherishing the constitution as much as I do, I can't simply wave this natural born citizenship thing off as a minor triviality no matter how silly I think the requirement is. Nor can I condone the blatant alteration of the constitution via one single judge's ruling. I did however find myself wishing someone had this guy's fortitude to bring all kinds of other lawsuits to the Supreme Court to challenge the rest of the things our government does that violates the constitution... but I digress.
Berg also presents some compelling evidence that Obama may infact not be a natural born citizen, from remarks by his Kenyan relatives to his early travel history and legal requirements for such by all countries involved. But I'm most convinced something's awry by the simple fact that Obama absolutely refuses to provide a copy of his birth certificate, an act each of us regular citizens has had to do several times in our lives. And he also refuses to release his medical and postsecondary education records, reasons for which Berg believes are to protect Obama's citizenship status.
That's when the red flags started going off. The documents obviously exist otherwise Obama wouldn't have had an early passport and Hawaiian officials wouldn't have certified it. And being the Constitutional Scholar that he is, he wouldn't have dared run for president if he didn't qualify under the Constitution. So Obama's refusal to produce them must be based on principles alone. What principles though? It's looking more and more like Obstinence and Defiance rather than the privacy of the 4th Amendment. It's a birth certificate for Christ's sake, the only means available to prove compliance with 2 of the 3 Constitutional requirements for holding the office of the Presidency.
Senator Feingold, probably the most libertarian democrat in the Senate, has just professed his faith that Obama will be joyfully forthcoming with all the required information legislators need to do their oversight jobs, in stark contrast to the belligerent Bush administration. Feingold's remarks on the matter had instilled a little hope in this libertarian constitutionalist that Obama would regard our constitution a bit more respectfully than Bush, even if just a little. But after learning of the possibility Obama very well may become our first unconstitutional president, and his obstinate refusal to do something every other citizen of this country has been required to do multiple times in our lives, that hope is obliterated.
I'm now fully convinced Obama will conduct affairs in his administration with the same disregard for the constitution and outright stubbornness he exhibits in refusing to produce records we the citizens demand in the course of vetting our public servants. But worse than that, he will do so following in the same footsteps of the most horrendous president this country's ever had.
Now the issue is very unsettling, and much bigger than simply resolving Obama's citizenship.
* - The case before Thomas is solely to decide whether Berg has standing to sue, and has no bearing on the facts/evidence regarding Obama's citizenship.
--
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
To Vote, or Not to Vote.
Growing increasingly disgusted with the seedy game of politics, both local and national, I feel drawn to follow the respected advice of others and just stop participating in such an illegitimate charade. Lew makes an excellent point about the sham of our democracy and how it's manipulated to further the state's agenda. But I've always voted because I feel it legitimizes the complaints I have, and it allows me to exert a microscopically small amount of power over the government-inflicted conditions impacting my life.
But in his bidding to drop out of the elections process to instill fear by eliminating government's mandate, Lew focuses exclusively on the presidential race. I wholeheartedly agree that "neither of the candidates for president wants to do anything about" the problems that are rapidly eroding our freedoms. And I agree that among the two major candidates it's a choice between socialism and fascism. I would argue however that voting for a third party, or a write-in candidate of your choosing, has the same effect on reducing the mandate afforded to the victor of that particular office.
The damages inflicted on liberty over the last hundred years have not transpired solely at the hands of the president; none of his actions would be successful without the full complicity of the criminal gang of legislators up on the hill. When Lew talks about the need to instill fear into the government, I can think of no better method than holding each legislator personally responsible for his complicity and firing his ass at the earliest opportunity.
Which brings me to the crux of my dilemma: the need to hold these criminals responsible for, among other things, their one single vote that officially enslaved every citizen of this nation in service to mammon far outweighs the urge to just ignore them all by not voting.
Not voting is essentially ignoring these parasites, passively condoning their insidious behavior while also "voluntarily" funding it with our taxes. Evil prevails when good people do nothing, and I have a difficult time convincing myself that doing nothing will diminish the evil that has already entrenched itself in our lives.
And I cannot just sit here while Congress contemplates sacrificing our firstborn to Wall Street. The senators and congressmen who voted for this bailout bill have to be punished, and I'm eager to pile it on with vote after vote for this year's incumbent challengers. It's as close to a public flogging as we'll get in this country.
But in his bidding to drop out of the elections process to instill fear by eliminating government's mandate, Lew focuses exclusively on the presidential race. I wholeheartedly agree that "neither of the candidates for president wants to do anything about" the problems that are rapidly eroding our freedoms. And I agree that among the two major candidates it's a choice between socialism and fascism. I would argue however that voting for a third party, or a write-in candidate of your choosing, has the same effect on reducing the mandate afforded to the victor of that particular office.
The damages inflicted on liberty over the last hundred years have not transpired solely at the hands of the president; none of his actions would be successful without the full complicity of the criminal gang of legislators up on the hill. When Lew talks about the need to instill fear into the government, I can think of no better method than holding each legislator personally responsible for his complicity and firing his ass at the earliest opportunity.
Which brings me to the crux of my dilemma: the need to hold these criminals responsible for, among other things, their one single vote that officially enslaved every citizen of this nation in service to mammon far outweighs the urge to just ignore them all by not voting.
Not voting is essentially ignoring these parasites, passively condoning their insidious behavior while also "voluntarily" funding it with our taxes. Evil prevails when good people do nothing, and I have a difficult time convincing myself that doing nothing will diminish the evil that has already entrenched itself in our lives.
And I cannot just sit here while Congress contemplates sacrificing our firstborn to Wall Street. The senators and congressmen who voted for this bailout bill have to be punished, and I'm eager to pile it on with vote after vote for this year's incumbent challengers. It's as close to a public flogging as we'll get in this country.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Rising acclaim on The Revolution: A Manifesto
Everywhere I turn, people are praising Rep. Paul's new book The Revolution: A Manifesto. I guess it's about time I read it, huh? (Get the audiobook here).
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Patriot Games
The topic of being an American citizen came up in recent discussions about the 2008 presidential race with friends, and I discovered that most people have trouble coming up with a solid response. The most substantial reply was something along the lines of "I'm proud to be an American citizen and can't stand the thought of having been born to another country, but we're going to hell in a handbasket because [insert elaborate list of complaints about people, culture, society in general]."
Here's the question: what does it mean to you to be an American citizen?
What kind of response can you come up with? Take as much time as you need and post your responses below.
Here's the question: what does it mean to you to be an American citizen?
What kind of response can you come up with? Take as much time as you need and post your responses below.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
I'm sorry but this kid's a liar
Following Saturday's MTV presidential forum, various audience members were interviewed for their reactions to the candidates which were reported in this article published at the mtv website.
Check out the remarks by one 20-year old NYU student and self-described avid GOPer David Laska, regarding Ron Paul:
I have to ask just how closely he claims to be following the race, because if he has taken the time to watch just one of the numerous GOP debates, he would have learned of at least some of Ron Paul's conservative positions. Being an avid GOP supporter, he would have identified and researched all 11 candidates (or however many there were still in the race when he decided to start following the race "closely"). At the very least, an avid GOP supporter who follows the race closely would have noticed Paul's name among the other remaining candidates on the primary/caucus returns to date no matter in which media they were reported, and would have availed himself to at least an introduction of each of these candidates.
I know this quote will be used with great fanfare across the Paulosphere to further solidify proof of a media blackout against Paul (which I agree is occurring, to an astonishing degree). But for anyone to claim to be an ardent GOP supporter, and to be "following the race closely," he would have achieved enough exposure to Paul to have witnessed the fundamentals of his conservative policies.
Check out the remarks by one 20-year old NYU student and self-described avid GOPer David Laska, regarding Ron Paul:
Although Laska is siding with McCain, he said as an ardent GOP supporter, he was surprised that he wasn't aware of Paul's views until now. "I didn't know there was anyone in the race that thought the way he did, and I follow the race closely," Laska said. "But it may be too little, too late for him."
I have to ask just how closely he claims to be following the race, because if he has taken the time to watch just one of the numerous GOP debates, he would have learned of at least some of Ron Paul's conservative positions. Being an avid GOP supporter, he would have identified and researched all 11 candidates (or however many there were still in the race when he decided to start following the race "closely"). At the very least, an avid GOP supporter who follows the race closely would have noticed Paul's name among the other remaining candidates on the primary/caucus returns to date no matter in which media they were reported, and would have availed himself to at least an introduction of each of these candidates.
I know this quote will be used with great fanfare across the Paulosphere to further solidify proof of a media blackout against Paul (which I agree is occurring, to an astonishing degree). But for anyone to claim to be an ardent GOP supporter, and to be "following the race closely," he would have achieved enough exposure to Paul to have witnessed the fundamentals of his conservative policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
