I only caught the last few questions of Obama's press conference last night, and am looking for a video clip or two online that would compliment my thoughts. In the meantime, here's what I saw.
A question was asked about the progress of Obama's overall agenda, and he responded that all his time has been focused on the financial crisis. Where's that all-powerful multitasking Obama we saw during the campaign?
Another question was asked about moral considerations regarding stem cell research. Obama fell back on scientific consensus concerning the need to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, but he confessed to serious contemplation on almost a daily basis over this issue (There's our multitasker!). When the reporter asked if the scientific community was capable of exercising its own moral judgement, Obama immediately answered NO!
Well he didn't call them atheistic heathens, but made it perfectly clear he believes the government is and shall be the moral arbiter on all things related to the "life sciences" field. Oh brother, here we go with legislating morality again.
In response to another question, he said homelessness was bad, was especially bad for children and families, and more especially bad for veterans (most of whom are without child or family).
Someone needs to ask him, being a constitutional scholar, how he feels about the possibility of being profiled as a potential domestic terrorist now that "knowledge of the constitution" has been deemed bad for the safety of our country.
--
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
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.
--
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Comparison of Campaign Contributions among top tier candidates
Redpillguy has charts comparing the source of bundled corporate contributions among the media-annointed front runners and Ron Paul. Take a look.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
We Told You So
This is how we win.
Print your own (PDFs), or order 10,000 of these handouts ($0.04 each) and distribute them all over town. Use them as newspaper inserts with your local paper, hand them out at churches, football games and upcoming fall festivals. Use the front page as a newspaper/newsletter advertisement.
This is what the Ron Paul Revolution is all about.
Update: flyer modified 8-27-07.
Download the original PDF file here
Mirror file here (my modifications as pictured at left):
edited_founders15.pdf
Friday, August 10, 2007
GOP Candidates YouTube Stats - 08/10/07 - Dem Comparison
Here are the results after YouTube's final spotlight week highlighted Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. Some surprises down below so brace yourself. Check out last week's charts to see exactly where Paul stood before his week in the spotlight began. A reader requested that I include stats for Democratic candidates, so for this edition only the top three Dems have been added to the general graphs (I have no historical data on the Dems to add them meaningfully to the progress charts).
Paul still tops them all, even the Dems, in all areas except channel views. For some reason Obama has racked up over 11,000,000 channel views in the 11 months he's had a youtube profile. Given Paul's 5-month Youtube age and lack of nightly news mentions during that time, Paul's going stronger than anybody.
And here are the charts. Look to the previous posts for data explanations.
Cumulatives:
Averages:
Here are the progress graphs showing actual growth in various user activities for each GOP candidate since May 22.
So what happened to Paul's comments and ratings momentum going into the Spotlight week? I believe his format of posting a different video everyday during the spotlight, instead of leaving just one video up for the duration, has something to do with it. And I have to say that I wasn't too impressed with those 2-3 minute issue-specific clips. He does much better when he can discuss in detail the nuances of his policies, in an interview or speech format. What do you think?
Previous entries:
Aug 2, 2007: GOP Candidates YouTube Stats - 07/29/07 - Launch Pad Edition
July 15, 2007: GOP Candidates YouTube Stats - 07/15/07
July 1, 2007: GOP Candidates YouTube Stats - 07/01/07
June 21, 2007: GOP Candidates YouTube Stats - 06/21/07
June 11, 2007: GOP Candidate YouTube Stats - 06/11/07
June 2, 2007: GOP Candidate YouTube Stats, Charts (Followup)
May 22, 2007: About those Youtube Stats...
Paul still tops them all, even the Dems, in all areas except channel views. For some reason Obama has racked up over 11,000,000 channel views in the 11 months he's had a youtube profile. Given Paul's 5-month Youtube age and lack of nightly news mentions during that time, Paul's going stronger than anybody.
And here are the charts. Look to the previous posts for data explanations.
Cumulatives:
Averages:
Here are the progress graphs showing actual growth in various user activities for each GOP candidate since May 22.
 Channel Views |  Cumulative Ratings |  Cumulative Comments |
 Cumulative Views |  Subscribers |  Ratings Averages |
 Comments Averages |  Views Averages |
So what happened to Paul's comments and ratings momentum going into the Spotlight week? I believe his format of posting a different video everyday during the spotlight, instead of leaving just one video up for the duration, has something to do with it. And I have to say that I wasn't too impressed with those 2-3 minute issue-specific clips. He does much better when he can discuss in detail the nuances of his policies, in an interview or speech format. What do you think?
Previous entries:
Aug 2, 2007: GOP Candidates YouTube Stats - 07/29/07 - Launch Pad Edition
July 15, 2007: GOP Candidates YouTube Stats - 07/15/07
July 1, 2007: GOP Candidates YouTube Stats - 07/01/07
June 21, 2007: GOP Candidates YouTube Stats - 06/21/07
June 11, 2007: GOP Candidate YouTube Stats - 06/11/07
June 2, 2007: GOP Candidate YouTube Stats, Charts (Followup)
May 22, 2007: About those Youtube Stats...
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Big Bush Donors shifting to Dem frontrunners
It's no wonder the liberal blogosphere has such disdain for Hillary as the media-appointed Democratic frontrunner. She's a neocon trying to pass herself off as progressive (something I figured out a long time ago). For more proof of that, look at which candidates the big Bush donors are throwing their money behind. It would appear Obama and Edwards are nearly as corruptible as their queen.
The bold new claims from these Bush donors that the GOP has lost its way is one of the most perversely sickening aspects of this thoroughly corrupted political process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
