Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 22, 2014, 04:39:03 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83380 Posts in 2260 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 33 Print
Author Topic: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness  (Read 197990 times)
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #700 on: November 26, 2010, 12:00:05 PM »

'When he finally used the term "enemy"'

Remarkable isn't it?  Who would have ever thought a radical like this could ever be President of our country?

I really fear that if the economy and unempolyment improves (of course all on monopoly money) that "duh"Bamster will be all over the place being given credit by mainstream media and he will have a shot at 2012.  Another four years to give our country away and destroy it from inside out. The Fed just keeps making more and more funny money.

We have got to have a great mouthpiece and debater to take bamster on and put him in his place.  So far I still only see Newt who can do that but he also can occasionally say the wrong thing.  And it is always an uphill battle with the MSM complex against anyone from the right.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #701 on: November 26, 2010, 12:26:09 PM »

This is why I want to see Bolton/West or West/Bolton in 2012.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #702 on: November 26, 2010, 03:43:07 PM »

 I wonder who gave him the elbow?  Must either be an independent or someone losing patience defending him:

Let's see.  Probably will receive "get well" cards from China, Iran, NKorea, Russia, Palestinians, Hamas, Hexballah, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, La Raza, Karzai (hehehe - keep the money flowing),

***12 stitches for Obama after errant elbow in hoops
           AP – President Barack Obama, with an ice pack over his mouth, looks out the second floor window of the White …
 WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama needed 12 stitches in his lip after taking an errant elbow during a pickup basketball game Friday with a group of family and friends visiting for the Thanksgiving holiday, the White House said.

First word about the injury came in a statement from press secretary Robert Gibbs nearly three hours after the incident saying that Obama was inadvertently struck by someone's elbow. The individual was not identified.

Obama received the stitches under local anesthesia in the doctor's office on the ground floor White House after he returned home. The medical unit that treated Obama used a smaller filament than typically used, which increases the number of stitches but makes a tighter stitch and results in a smaller scar.

The president had gone to nearby Fort McNair to indulge in one of his favorite athletic pursuits, a game of basketball. It was a five-on-five contest involving family and friends and including Reggie Love, Obama's personal assistant who played at Duke University.

Obama emerged from the building after about 90 minutes of play, wearing a short-sleeve T-shirt and gym pants, and was seen dabbing at his mouth with what appeared to be a wad of gauze. A few hours later, reporters who had gathered on the White House driveway for the arrival of the Christmas tree, saw the president in an upstairs window, pressing an ice pack against his mouth before he stood and walked away.

"After being inadvertently hit with an opposing player's elbow in the lip while playing basketball with friends and family, the president received 12 stitches today administered by the White House Medical Unit," Gibbs said.

Obama's motorcade obeyed all traffic stops, the custom for nonofficial trips, during the return to the White House.

In February, Obama, 49, was deemed to be in excellent health and fit for duty after his first medical checkup as president. Doctors reported then that Obama had yet to kick a smoking habit, takes anti-inflammatory medication to relieve chronic tendinitis in his left knee and should make dietary changes to reduce his cholesterol levels.

Obama was told to return for another physical exam in August 2011, after he turns 50. In addition to regular pickup basketball games, Obama is also an avid golfer.

Obama had no public events scheduled during the long holiday weekend.

His stitched lip, however, could make for some interesting small talk on Tuesday, when Obama is to meet with the congressional leadership. The session originally was announced for Nov. 18, but was delayed after Republicans, who will control the House and increase their numbers in the Senate come January, said they couldn't accommodate the president.

Medical help is always nearby for U.S. presidents. A doctor or nurse is stationed at the White House around the clock and accompanies the president in his motorcade and aboard Air Force One.

Recent presidents have had a number of medical scares.

George W. Bush choked on a pretzel and briefly lost consciousness, falling and hurting his head. Bill Clinton had surgery and used crutches for months for a torn tendon in his knee when he stumbled on steps at the Florida home of golf pro Greg Norman.

The elder Bush, George H.W. Bush, was hospitalized for an erratic heartbeat while jogging at Camp David, a problem later diagnosed as a thyroid ailment. The senior Bush also collapsed at a state dinner in Tokyo, which the White House blamed on an intestinal flu.

Jimmy Carter fainted briefly while jogging near Camp David. Ronald Reagan was shot in the chest in a 1981 assassination attempt.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, 69, has had five heart attacks since age 37. He had surgery this year to install a pump to help his heart work. Cheney said he has congestive heart failure.****


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #703 on: December 07, 2010, 08:31:18 AM »

Obama's 7 'Creator' Omissions (Part 2)
 
 
Chuck Norris
Obama's 7 'Creator' Omissions (Part 2)
Email Chuck Norris | Columnist's Archive  Share   Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up  Last week, I detailed seven occasions in the past few months at which President Barack Obama omitted the words "by their Creator" from direct quotes of the Declaration of Independence: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Though you can read the actual quotes in detail in Part 1, let me briefly remind readers where and when they occurred:

--On Oct. 21 at a rally for Sen. Patty Murray in Seattle.

--On Oct. 18 at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dinner in Rockville, Md.

--On Oct. 17 at a reception for Gov. Ted Strickland in Chagrin Fall, Ohio.

--On Sept. 22 at a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee/DSCC dinner in New York.

--On Sept. 15 at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 33rd Annual Awards Gala in Washington.

--On Sept. 11 at the Pentagon Memorial in Arlington, Va.

--On Sept. 10 at the president's news conference at the White House.

Those presidential omissions might seem justifiable to some, but it alarms me when omissions are exclusively divine and so easily exit and are excused by the United States' supreme leader.

Even at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, where both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were debated and drafted, divine omissions seem to be in vogue.

Recently, my pastor and the chaplain of my organizations, Todd DuBord, was on a tour of Independence Hall with David Barton, Jim Garlow and dozens of others. The National Park Service guide leading their group blurted out five unbelievable lies and distortions about our Founders' religious beliefs and history, with school-age children present, as well, in the room:

--"We have no record that George Washington ever attended church."

--While the NPS guide, physically hunched over, mimicked and mocked one carrying and swinging an oversize Bible in his hand, he said to the crowd: "Even if I said the Founders were Christians, how could we really know? Just because people carry a big ol' Bible in their hand, they can still be atheists!"

--"Most of these men owned slaves. How could good Christians do that?"

--"We know that Benjamin Franklin was a deist."

--"We don't really know for sure about their religion. It's open for interpretation. You'll have to do your own study on that."

To add insult to injury, this past week my chaplain received an unfortunate response letter about their grievous tour from Cynthia MacLeod, the superintendent of the Independence National Historical Park. She dodged culpability and refused to cast blame against the NPS guide, justifying that "each ranger leads a tour in his or her own way ... allowing visitors to draw their own conclusions." Really? Even if the ranger misleads and lies about our Founders? (You can read MacLeod's letter in its entirety at my chaplain's website, http://www.NationalTreasures.org.)

That's no way to teach more than 2 million annual guests who visit Independence Hall, including hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren being bused in from across the nation, ready and eager to learn about the accurate history of our republic and its Founders.

The truth is that if you want an accurate religious history of America, you no longer are going to get it from our president, our progressive society or secular schools, at least not without unbiased and trained teachers or the induction of a religious curriculum that hasn't tampered with and twisted history.

Remembering the role of religion in our republic is why I included an entire chapter on the subject (titled "From Here to Eternity") in my latest New York Times best-seller, "Black Belt Patriotism." It is also why my wife, Gena, and I are on the board of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, which has a Bible-based curriculum that has been used in public schools -- on campus, during school hours, for credit -- for the past 15 years. The NCBCPS curriculum has been implemented in 2,075 public high schools. More than 370,000 students nationwide have taken this elective course to date.

We are proud to announce that the NCBCPS will have an electronic version of its curriculum available starting Dec. 15. It will include movies, videos and slides, in addition to its hardcover text, "The Bible in History and Literature," and also "The Teacher's Companion Guide."

The NCBCPS' curriculum is not the Bible curriculum in circulation that promotes UNESCO in its Bible textbook for students. Please make sure your district uses the Bible curriculum textbook titled "The Bible in History and Literature," by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. Don't accept counterfeits, if even under candy-coated biblical titles!

If you would like more information on the NCBCPS' curriculum or want help getting it into your local school district, go to http://www.BibleInSchools.net or call 336-272-8838. To date, 94 percent of the school boards approached with this Bible curriculum have voted to implement it.

Abraham Lincoln, our 16th president, was right: "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next."

That is why, for the sake of our posterity and the preservation of truth in each of our own communities, we all need to accept this challenge by Ronald Reagan: "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #704 on: December 07, 2010, 08:33:25 AM »

I have no idea about the particular's of what Chuck is pushing concerning the bible here, but post this because of its specificity with BO's deliberate deletion of our rights coming from our Creator.
===============

Obama's 7 'Creator' Omissions (Part 2)
 
 
Chuck Norris
Obama's 7 'Creator' Omissions (Part 2)

Last week, I detailed seven occasions in the past few months at which President Barack Obama omitted the words "by their Creator" from direct quotes of the Declaration of Independence: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Though you can read the actual quotes in detail in Part 1, let me briefly remind readers where and when they occurred:

--On Oct. 21 at a rally for Sen. Patty Murray in Seattle.

--On Oct. 18 at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dinner in Rockville, Md.

--On Oct. 17 at a reception for Gov. Ted Strickland in Chagrin Fall, Ohio.

--On Sept. 22 at a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee/DSCC dinner in New York.

--On Sept. 15 at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 33rd Annual Awards Gala in Washington.

--On Sept. 11 at the Pentagon Memorial in Arlington, Va.

--On Sept. 10 at the president's news conference at the White House.

Those presidential omissions might seem justifiable to some, but it alarms me when omissions are exclusively divine and so easily exit and are excused by the United States' supreme leader.

Even at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, where both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were debated and drafted, divine omissions seem to be in vogue.

Recently, my pastor and the chaplain of my organizations, Todd DuBord, was on a tour of Independence Hall with David Barton, Jim Garlow and dozens of others. The National Park Service guide leading their group blurted out five unbelievable lies and distortions about our Founders' religious beliefs and history, with school-age children present, as well, in the room:

--"We have no record that George Washington ever attended church."

--While the NPS guide, physically hunched over, mimicked and mocked one carrying and swinging an oversize Bible in his hand, he said to the crowd: "Even if I said the Founders were Christians, how could we really know? Just because people carry a big ol' Bible in their hand, they can still be atheists!"

--"Most of these men owned slaves. How could good Christians do that?"

--"We know that Benjamin Franklin was a deist."

--"We don't really know for sure about their religion. It's open for interpretation. You'll have to do your own study on that."

To add insult to injury, this past week my chaplain received an unfortunate response letter about their grievous tour from Cynthia MacLeod, the superintendent of the Independence National Historical Park. She dodged culpability and refused to cast blame against the NPS guide, justifying that "each ranger leads a tour in his or her own way ... allowing visitors to draw their own conclusions." Really? Even if the ranger misleads and lies about our Founders? (You can read MacLeod's letter in its entirety at my chaplain's website, http://www.NationalTreasures.org.)

That's no way to teach more than 2 million annual guests who visit Independence Hall, including hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren being bused in from across the nation, ready and eager to learn about the accurate history of our republic and its Founders.

The truth is that if you want an accurate religious history of America, you no longer are going to get it from our president, our progressive society or secular schools, at least not without unbiased and trained teachers or the induction of a religious curriculum that hasn't tampered with and twisted history.

Remembering the role of religion in our republic is why I included an entire chapter on the subject (titled "From Here to Eternity") in my latest New York Times best-seller, "Black Belt Patriotism." It is also why my wife, Gena, and I are on the board of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, which has a Bible-based curriculum that has been used in public schools -- on campus, during school hours, for credit -- for the past 15 years. The NCBCPS curriculum has been implemented in 2,075 public high schools. More than 370,000 students nationwide have taken this elective course to date.

We are proud to announce that the NCBCPS will have an electronic version of its curriculum available starting Dec. 15. It will include movies, videos and slides, in addition to its hardcover text, "The Bible in History and Literature," and also "The Teacher's Companion Guide."

The NCBCPS' curriculum is not the Bible curriculum in circulation that promotes UNESCO in its Bible textbook for students. Please make sure your district uses the Bible curriculum textbook titled "The Bible in History and Literature," by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. Don't accept counterfeits, if even under candy-coated biblical titles!

If you would like more information on the NCBCPS' curriculum or want help getting it into your local school district, go to http://www.BibleInSchools.net or call 336-272-8838. To date, 94 percent of the school boards approached with this Bible curriculum have voted to implement it.

Abraham Lincoln, our 16th president, was right: "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next."

That is why, for the sake of our posterity and the preservation of truth in each of our own communities, we all need to accept this challenge by Ronald Reagan: "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #705 on: December 09, 2010, 11:10:58 AM »

Adding a couple of names to the people thrown under the bus by Obama or whose careers got sidetracked.  One is Jon Huntsman, the next moderate to compete for the Republican nomination now serving quietly as Obama's Ambassador to China.  He will have to return soon to oppose his boss...

And then there is Hillary.  First must mention briefly why her misfortune is humorous.  She is a crook and politician of the worst kind.  Devised Whitewater and let all her friends go to jail protecting her.  The cattle futures lie.  The travel office firings destroying careers to install one of her own.  The bouncer doing FBI checks on political foes.  And the cling to power of with her sham marriage by blaming the Monica Lewinski affair on the vast right wing conspiracy.  What does the Democrat party call a crook like that? Frontrunner, but she lost to Obama and in all the excitement attached her future to his.  What she didn't notice was that Obama's winning formula was called 'anyone but Hillary'.

Now if she leave to challenge Obama and wins, she will be a back stabber, lose all black support and lose the general election.  If she had ignored her loss and moved on, she would still be a relevant, highly regarded Senator from New York, not serving a sham and failed political appointment where all the hot spots of the world were pulled out of her watch, and she still bungled it.

Ironically it was Rush L who called the Obama administration presciently: 'I hope he fails...[to transform America in his vision].

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/she_like_do_over_gBndkHKPPmC2WZRZNRlHsL

Hillary Bet on the Wrong Horse with Obama

She'd like a do-over

Last Updated: 4:16 AM, December 8, 2010

It's that magical time of the year, so let's play political pretend. Let's imagine Hillary turned down the secretary-of-state job two years ago.

Imagine where she would be now. A leader in the Senate, thinking seriously about challenging a damaged President Obama in 2012, that's where.

And she'd be getting tons of encouragement. She'd be free to join and even lead the chorus of outraged Dems and turned-off independents.

Instead, she's checkmated herself. By hitching her wagon to the shooting star Obama was in 2008, she effectively took herself out of the next presidential election.

It seemed like the smart thing to do at the time. Obama's smashing victory and huge popularity sparked talk of a generational realignment in favor of Democrats.

She'd come so close in the primaries that State was the only job that didn't seem like a demotion. Besides, signing on to his team wasn't viewed as giving up anything in 2012 because there was no hope of challenging him. And 2016 was too far off to game.

But the demigod turns out to have clay feet, and Clinton is now stuck to him. He's fallen and she can't get up.

The WikiLeaks fiasco puts an exclamation point on her predicament. The White House is hanging her out to dry -- Obama still has said nothing about the largest security breach in American history -- but she can hardly protest the leading role because the latest batch was mostly State Department cables. It happened on her watch.

Her appearance says it all. Plump and robotic, she looks miserable and thoroughly exhausted.

In a perverse way, Obama's myriad failures actually hurt her more than they hurt him. He could still find redemption through re-election, while she's left with two unappealing choices. Both smack of political dead ends.

She can stay in her job and hope he wins a second term. If he decided to keep her on, and she said yes again, it would mean four more years of flying around the world while the real policy decisions are made in the White House.

Or she can leave at the end of the term, whether he wins or not, and carve out a new role for herself. There would be a book, windfall speaking fees and international celebrity status, much like her husband, only without having achieved the presidency.

The one thing she can't do is probably the thing she would like most -- resign and challenge him for the nomination. One sign is that she keeps in close touch with a tight circle of political confidants who haven't stopped fantasizing about a comeback.

In theory, it's easy to see how she would run against him -- by picking up where she left off in the late 2008 primaries, when she finally found her voice in appealing to working-class Democrats. Many have abandoned Obama, as the midterms proved.

In the real world, it's too late for that. Resigning to challenge Obama would be seen as a monumental act of betrayal. It would repolarize the party and she'd forfeit the black vote, which could kill her in a general election.

As for 2016, it's still too distant to be an active option. While it's always dangerous to count out a Clinton, there is no obvious move that gets her to the White House.

Checkmate.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #706 on: December 09, 2010, 11:25:40 AM »

Many dems are abandoning Obama. She certainly could, and may well challenge him in 2012.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #707 on: December 09, 2010, 01:43:01 PM »

"Obama still has said nothing about the largest security breach in American history"

The silence from him is deafening.

Absolutely remarkable.  He should be declaring war on these people; instead silence.

I am at a loss to explain why other than that he ideologically agrees with these enemies of our country.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #708 on: December 10, 2010, 12:43:06 PM »

This can mean only one thing.  While it may be good for the country in the short run it could mean four more years of the Bamster.  I'll never forget how Limbaugh would explain his shock how Clinton's approval rateings would go from 40 to 60 "overnight" with "one speech" just by out of no where suddenly sounding like a conservative and after years of being a big lib.  The swing voters are obviously not about ideology.  The time for "big government is over" so said SWift Willie with a perfectly straight face as though he had been that way all along.   I hope we don't see a redux of this:

****White House mum on Obama, Clinton agenda on Friday
             FOX News – 1 hr 25 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The White House is saying little about the agenda of the meeting Friday between President Barack Obama and one of the few people alive to have held his job, former President Bill Clinton.

The two leaders will meet Friday afternoon in the Oval Office. No media access will be provided.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs says Obama is reluctant to discuss details of his talks with Clinton, even with Obama's own White House advisers. Gibbs says Obama wants to keep such presidential conversations "appropriately private."

The spokesman said only that the two men would discuss a range of domestic and foreign matters.

Obama is having to adjust his tactics to deal with an ascendant Republican Party, just as Clinton had to do in the middle of his own first term.****


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #709 on: December 10, 2010, 10:21:29 PM »

We knew O-Barry was detached, but seriously, this is beyond just phoning it in.....

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/10/great-news-bill-clinton-apparently-now-president-again/comment-page-1/#comments
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #710 on: December 10, 2010, 10:36:25 PM »

My guess is that he figured out that --surprise! Bill had settled in and there was no getting the microphone away from him;  and rather that standing there like a potted plant, he left.  Not the most manly of excuses, but well, no surprise there , , , rolleyes
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #711 on: December 10, 2010, 11:44:26 PM »

**Iowahawk proven to have seen this coming!

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/11/obama-names-bill-clinton-to-president-post.html

Obama Names Bill Clinton to Presidential Post

WASHINGTON DC - Ending weeks of speculation and rumors, President-Elect Barack Obama today named Bill Clinton to join his incoming administration as President of the United States, where he will head the federal government's executive branch.

"I am pleased that Bill Clinton has agreed to come out of retirement to head up this crucial post in my administration," said Obama. "He brings a lifetime of previous executive experience as Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States, and has worked closely with most of the members of my Cabinet."

Clinton said he was "excited and honored" by the appointment, and would work "day and night" to defeat all the key policy objectives proposed by Mr. Obama during the campaign.

"I am gratified that the President-Elect has entrusted me with this important responsibility," said Clinton. "I'm looking forward to getting back behind, and under, the Oval Office desk again. As I have told the President-Elect, I pledge to do whatever I can to serve his historic administration by making sure that none of that bullshit he talked about during the campaign will ever see the light of day. Americans can rest assured that he will be safely confined to the East Wing, as far away as possible from any potentially dangerous office equipment or nuclear buttons."

The long anticipated naming of Clinton to head Obama's Oval Office team comes after a week that saw Obama appoint dozens of Clinton associates to his transition team including John Podesta, Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, Larry Summers, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hundreds of other Clinton Administration holdovers are rumored to be in line for remaining appointments, including Bill Richardson, Janet Reno, Webb Hubbell, Chelsea Clinton, zombie Vince Foster, and zombie Socks the cat.

"Let's face it, it's obvious I'm in way over my head here," explained Obama. "Anyone paying attention knows I am a disaster waiting to happen, and who can blame them? I mean, just look at the stock market. That's why I think it's in the best interest of the country that I hand over the reins to people who, whatever their ethical shortcomings, at least have a faint clue about what they're doing. Come on, man. I've got a 401-k, too."

While the naming of Clinton appears to have momentarily calmed jittery financial markets, it sparked ripples of disapproval at liberal websites like Huffington Post and DailyKos. The progressive blogosphere was an early key source of support for Mr. Obama's candidacy, but a steady stream of Clinton-era appointees since the election has left some charging that he had betrayed his campaign promises to bring them to Washington as part of a sweeping culture of change -- a charge that Mr. Obama vehemently accepted.

"Oh, for crissakes. Are you kidding me? Are you friggin' kidding me?" asked Obama. "Of course I betrayed those goddamned idiots. Have any of you actually spent five minutes with them? I have, unfortunately. Nothing personal, but I wouldn't trust these internet windowlickers with a plastic spork from Taco Bell, let alone a freaking $3 trillion dollar budget global superpower. Look, I may be naive, but I'm not stupid. And if Kose or Koz or whatever the fuck his name is thinks for one second I give a rat's ass about who he wants in charge of the Treasury Department, he's even stupider than he looks."

"Look, I'm sorry I kinda snapped there, and pardon my French," added Obama. "But I just spent the last two years surrounded by these starstruck moonbat retards, and I'll be goddamned if I'm gonna spend the next four with them parked in the next cubicle over."

Obama also announced that he had accepted his own appointment of himself as an Assistant Undersecretary in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

"It's a fairly low-stress job that I'm reasonably qualified for," said Obama. "I really can't do much damage there, and it will give me plenty of free time for Oprah specials. Plus work on my next autobiography and re-election campaign."
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #712 on: December 22, 2010, 10:38:49 AM »

Does anyone remember the scramble of news as the Clintons were exiting the White House.  Besides stealing things from the walls and desks of the White House, we had the flurry of pardons. Pardons plotted for four years were all sprung at once. Everyone and their brother wanted one, literally, with Hugh Rodham selling them like magazine subscriptions.  The administration and the media were oblivious to the tanking economy and the rising terror threat beneath the headlines that would soon explode on us as they all rushed to get their last pet project pushed through with unaccountable, shameless, lame duck power.

Here we go again.  This congress exiting is the group Obama rode in with and he along with his compadres of the last 4 years, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, are still setting the bold, leftist, activist agenda as the least popular congress in history prepares to leave town, hopefully forever.

The focus is to pass things now that can't be undone by the next congress; that is the opposite of a founding principle we used to refer to as consent of the governed.

We can discuss the issues separately and we have, but I just want to make sure this wider Alinsky strategy is pointed out right now, as it is happening.

First the tax dilemma and the tax deal was everything. They left it all to the end against the advice of ALL economists.  Republicans weren't going to discuss anything else until a tax package was set so that became the fight of our time, even though everyone presumably knew Obama wasn't going to raise tax rates on everyone coming into his last 2 years and an uphill reelection fight.

Crafty wrote about RINOs on START who cannot hold a line - shame on them, but shame should go mainly to the exiting leaders and their followers who ram all this BS right in the face of an electorate who just gave them a 3-part answer to their agenda: no, NO and Hell No!

Tax rates only got a temporary settlement continuing the exact same uncertainty problem we faced the last two years.  Then it was amnesty for illegals, barely a win for sanity and sovereignty making centrist R's look bad to a growing constituency.  With their guard down and thinking they owed Obama a favor, in comes the surrender treaty to the Russians.   Simultaneous as a diversion, we have the FCC, as if that was not an operating arm of the Obama administration, sliding through a new fatwa proclaiming federal regulatory of the internet with rules that are not made public.  The news that the DEBT went up 2 TRILLION in one year goes nearly unnoticed.

The people mostly want to wind up some business of their own, put this rotten year behind us, listen to sleigh bells, go see Christmas lights, dream of sugar plum fairies, relax spiritually or whatever others do over a winter solstice break, and pray for better (meaning less) governance in the new year.  This leftist flurry makes sure that the next two years will be all about arguing and undoing the damage of the last two years, not moving the country forward, advancing freedom, innovation or enterprise.

God Bless America.  We could use a little help here right now.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 10:42:39 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #713 on: December 22, 2010, 11:34:25 AM »

Doug writes:

"Does anyone remember the scramble of news as the Clintons were exiting the White House."

Yes, and I remember how Clinton gave departing speeches at every single stop along the way of his departure.
At the White House, at the departing airport, at the arriving airport.  It was as though this guy would just not step off the stage (and shut up).
And the MSM loved every second of it.  They still adore him. 

While Bamster folded (as I predicted) he would once he couldn't get his way what has happened is every crat around him is adivising him, pleading with him to "move to the middle" and play the same BS game Clinton did to capture the short memoried swing voters.  It worked for one of the world's great con artists Clinton and therefore Obama must do it.

This was on display when one day Bama is reeking with anger calling tax cuts the holy grail for repubs and the next day he reluctuntly steps off the stage to let Clinton (do what he can't) and discuss the tax cut "compromise" bill.   And then, of course we get some in the MSM attempting to make the case that Obama has been a moderate *all along*.  Did anyone hear Walter Shapiro trying to explain how Obama is misjudged and he is really a moderate centrist Democrat and always has been?  If Obama seemed far left, it was of course, only to play to his far left base.  Not that he is one of them.  Obama is really just left of the middle.

Crat revisionism has no bounds.  No truth.  No honesty.  No reality.  Just whatever suites the promotion of their agenda. Unfortunately swing voters seem to have short memories and wil go the way of the prevailing winds.  I am unconvinced there is some conservative wave overtaking this country.  It is all dollars and cents and whose pockets it goes to or from.   As it always is.  IMHO.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #714 on: December 24, 2010, 12:08:15 PM »

"Once upon a time, Barack Obama seemed to understand the kind of opposition a personal mandate would generate. That’s why when he ran for president, he was against it — and criticized Hillary Clinton for proposing such a thing."

That line came from a post I just made over on 'constitutional issues', by Tom McClanahan of McClatchy newspapers.

Sad and amazing that I care more about where Obama stood then than he does. I will dig out the quote because I remember watching the debate with interest, and fear.  People like that take a stand on either side of a crucial constitutional issue based on pollsters and personal political advantage.  Then change sides without acknowledging or explaining what changed.  And we reward them by trusting them with not just our healthcare, but nuclear disarmament treaties too!

Here is an example of Obama's position stated in an early Democratic debate:

"I do provide universal health care. The only difference between Clinton’s plan and mine is that she thinks the problem for people without health care is that nobody has mandated, forced them to get health care. What I see are people who would love to have health care & can’t afford it. My plan that makes sure that it is affordable to get health care as good as the health care that I have as a member of Congress. That’s what the American people are looking for & what I intend to provide as president."
Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada Nov 15, 2007
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2007_Dems_Las_Vegas_Health_Care.htm

My question today, does anybody think he actually changed his mind, that this Harvard educated Alinsky liberal did not know then that if he ever got the shot at it, the mandate would be necessary to expect healthy people buy a government-crafted policy that they don't want, or was he (obviously) lying then for tactical, political advantage, to differentiate himself from her, and Edwards and Dodd and Richardson and Kucinich?

In other words, he burst on the national stage as a new kind of politician, looked America in the eye and lied to our face on all the major issues, healthcare, war, tax cuts, you name it.

When he appointed Hillary he said Americans should not take too seriously some of the things said during “the heat of a campaign.”

They say they want people to engage, learn the issues, watch the debates, etc.  But if and when we do engage, we keep getting snowed over with bullshit like this.  People who disengage and say all politicians are alike have it just about as right as those of us who try to tune in and pay attention.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #715 on: December 24, 2010, 02:38:22 PM »

"if and when we do engage, we keep getting snowed over with bullshit like this"

Yes.  And if not for Fox and talk radio we would never had even known, heard or had any hint of who Bamster associated with including Rev. Wright.

Not one peep, not one ioda, no questioning, no vetting of this from the MSM who gladly, willingly were accomplices in covering up this guy's past.  And of course cover for him now.

Yet the swing voters don't seem to care.  I don't get them at all.  Some must be THAT stupid.  Others I guess want "compromise", others go with the the "flow".
I can't figure them out.  Obviously they are not monolithic and are a heterogenous group.   (Am I allowed to use that word, "hetero" or did I just commit a poltically incorrect crime against humanity) rolleyes
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #716 on: January 15, 2011, 08:59:55 PM »

Following up here on Crafty's post on Energy about solar manufacturing closing here and moving to China.  It should go to Fascism and Constitutional Issues as well.  

Who do we think we are as a federal government tryiing to pick winners and losers in any industry much less energy?  We are so invested now in failed subsidies and wishful industrial planning that we think it is a bad thing to find out we can get solar made somewhere else for less.  If solar is our energy future, then we are a consumer of solar energy, not necessarily the hardware manufacturer. The price dropping is a good thing if we are wanting to widely use solar to produce energy and conserve the planet.  We are not a low cost manufacturer; that is not our niche, why would we think otherwise?  And we can't have low cost energy without low cost manufacturing.  Why are we pretending we know enough to accurately pick winners and losers in a business supply chain?  In which Article did we derive that power?

This is the thinking of a leader whose total personal private business experience is zero and a cabinet whose total experience is less than 9% private sector; with roughly 0% in the private energy industry.  They honestly have no idea how an industry or a market or a free economy works.  That void is what gives them the confidence to keep picking winners and losers after being wrong so many times.  Paraphrasing Rumsfeld, they don't know that they don't know. They don't know that markets have mechanisms for optimizing the allocation of resources, or that bureaucrats can't and don't have to.  The central power should set  ground rules and get out of the way.  

This is nothing new.  One might recall that cash for clunkers took mostly Fords off the road and put mostly new Hondas and Toyotas in their place.  We were subsidizing Toyota while we were suing them over brakes (probably wrong about that too).  No lesson was learned because in the federal mindset we were only experimenting with play money, not the scarce resource that a capitalist would have to invest.  Over at General Motors we bought the company to make them profitable (which article authorized that?) then passed regulations to tear into the profits.  The regulator and the regulated became one and the same.  The conflicts and complications could confound even the best of the all-knowing.

Makes you wonder who in central planning knew to subsidize Microsoft, Cisco, Qualcomm, Google or Facebook, or J.K Rowling - at just the right time.  That's right, no one did.

Random people coming off of spinning fair rides blindfolded could pin tails on donkeys with the same accuracy and consistency as our glib central planners.  
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #717 on: January 16, 2011, 01:24:17 AM »

Amen.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #718 on: January 18, 2011, 10:42:28 AM »

Like the con of Clinton I am beside myself watching the triangulation strategy unfold again.  How the public could let the most radical leftist President we have ever had get away with this I don't know.  But his friends in the media are already talking of a "learning curve", and his "growing into the job", and "maturing".  Now that he can't ram it all down our throats he is suddenly this.  And the swing voters will eat it all up and his poll numbers will go us and likely the Republicans who have no equivalent mouthpiece will not be albe to get past this and indeed are already showing signs they will cave in with compromise.  All the while the msm push for friendly debate on the issues and deligetimize any angry vocal opposition.  If Republicans cannot learn from history we are doomed.  I will try not keep posting about this. 

***Obama orders review of government regulations
            WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama on Tuesday ordered a government-wide review of regulations with the goal of eliminating those that hurt job creation and make the economy less competitive.

Obama took action after unveiling his plan in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal in which he said some rules have placed "unreasonable burdens on business -- burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs."

The executive order marked Obama's latest move to repair relations with U.S. business, which were frayed amid bitter debate over his overhauls of Wall Street regulations and healthcare that some business leaders said would stymie corporate America.

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]


Obama has struck a more business-friendly tone since his Democrats lost the U.S. House of Representatives and saw their Senate majority reduced in November congressional elections widely seen as a verdict on his handling of the stumbling economy and persistently high unemployment.

It was not immediately clear, however, how far-reaching Obama's new regulatory strategy would be in changing the way the federal government operates.

Despite Obama's promise, the administration's legislative victories are producing dozens of new regulations, on everything from credit card fees to health insurance premium increases, to the annoyance of the business community.

Obama said he would require that in the future, government agencies "ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth."

He also issued a memorandum to all executive agencies calling for "more transparency and accountability in regulatory compliance" and a second one on the need to "reduce burdens on small businesses whenever possible," the White House said.

Business leaders say government regulations, including those being written for the healthcare and financial reform, have hurt job creation at a time of nearly double-digit unemployment.

"It's a review that will help bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both parties and the influence of special interests in Washington over decades," Obama wrote.

The president, noting that small businesses create most new jobs in the economy, also said he would direct the government to make a greater effort to reduce the burden regulations place on them.

While vowing to eliminate rules that are "not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb," the president said his administration would not shy away from writing new rules to address "obvious gaps" in government oversight.

(Writing by Eric Beech and Matt Spetalnick; editing by Mohammad Zargham)***

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #719 on: January 18, 2011, 12:40:33 PM »

Obama suddenly worried about excessive regulation, unbleepingbelievable, CCP, I feel your pain.  It is a head fake and I hope I am wrong.  One very insightful criticism of Bush was that he gave supply side a bad name without ever implementing it.  Producers don't respond to tax rates alone.  Regulations at this point are probably more harmful to job creation than taxation. 

If Obama got to only talk about both sides difficult issues for the next two years, he could win in '12, no contest.  In between talks to the nation he will be forced to make hard choices.  I can't imagine those choices will include cleaning up the regulatory burden that keeps manufacturers from manufacturing and health providers from innovating. 

A perfect example blew up in everybody's face.  He was (all talk) going to favor responsible offshore drilling, framing his opponents to favor irresponsible drilling.  But it was one of his approval sites that blew up and now we have no drilling.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #720 on: January 18, 2011, 01:25:51 PM »

Doug,

This is absolutely infuriating to me.  Clinton did this in the 90's as we all know and got away with it.  He would stand there with a straight face and say things as though that were the case all along - and he got away with it.  His polls went right up.  The fact he was a gigantic liberal for two years prior made no difference though I do have to say he never did get over 50% of the vote.  If the cans had a stronger candidate than Dole the outcome could have been different I suppose.

Yet here is Bamster trying to pull off the same scam.  So many said he is too much of an ideologue to do this.  Yet the Democrat team behind him are gettinghim to do it.
The jornolist media will drool over this con,  support him in every way possible - not call him on any of it.  And let him get away with it tooth and nail.

NO I am not happy this guy is supposedly compromising, he is supposidly learining, he is supposidly reaching out to the other side for the benefit of governance and doing the work of the "people".  He is full of shit, he is a liar, he is scamming us, and he should get away with this.  If team Republilcans cannot come up with a media strategy that calls this guy out, that does not let the left play the sob story game, that stands for America and explain to AMerica why they are right and this guy wrong than I will just drop out of the political process altogether. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #721 on: January 18, 2011, 01:42:19 PM »

"he should get away with this"

he should *not* get away with this

Pardon
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #722 on: January 19, 2011, 09:06:37 AM »

As Ben Franklin told us, we have a Republic gentlemen, if we can keep it.  The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. (I forget who said that).  We must do our part!
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #723 on: January 19, 2011, 10:38:23 AM »

Wow.  Let's see the MSM deal with this now.  Remember Crafty you asked why on this board why doesn't Bamster simply produce his birth certificate and put to rest the questions of his birth place.  Now we have the answer.  His "long" version of his birth certificate cannot be found.  Just a written in notation. 

So what was the evidence he was born here.  Some newspaper articles?  Whether he was born here or not matters not with regards to citizenship since his mother was a citizen.  But it certainly does matter with regards to his eligibility for President.  I do not underestimate the possibility there is some sort of coverup.

Just stating that because the Hill couldn't find anything therefore nothing exists does not explain this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BORN IN THE USA?

Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate
Suggests controversy could hurt president's re-election chances

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 18, 2011
8:05 pm Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WorldNetDaily



Neil Abercrombie
 
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president's chances of re-election in 2012.

Donalyn Dela Cruz, Abercrombie's spokeswoman in Honolulu, ignored again today another in a series of repeated requests made by WND for an interview with the governor.

Toward the end of the interview, the newspaper asked Abercrombie: "You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama's birth certificate. How is that coming?"

In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue will have "political implications" for the next presidential election "that we simply cannot have."

Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency

Suggesting he was still intent on producing more birth records on Obama from the Hawaii Department of Health vital records vault, Abercrombie told the newspaper there was a recording of the Obama birth in the state archives that he wants to make public.

(Story continues below)

     


Abercrombie did not report to the newspaper that he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigations to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives.

"It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down," Abercrombie said.

For seemingly the first time, Abercrombie frankly acknowledged that presidential politics motivated his search for Obama birth records, implying that failure to resolve the questions that remain unanswered about the president's birth and early life may damage his chance for re-election.


"If there is a political agenda (regarding Obama's birth certificate), then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president," he said.

So far, the only birth document available on Obama is a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth that first appeared on the Internet during the 2008 presidential campaign. It was posted by two purportedly independent websites that have displayed a strong partisan bias for Obama – Snopes.com released the COLB in June 2008, and FactCheck.org published photographs of the document in August 2008.

WND previously reported the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to authenticate the COLB posted on the Internet by Snopes.com and FactCheck.org.

WND has reported that in 1961, Obama's grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, could have made an in-person report of a Hawaii birth even if the infant Barack Obama Jr. had been foreign-born.

Similarly, the newspaper announcements of Obama's birth do not prove he was born in Hawaii, since they could have been triggered by the grandparents registering the birth as Hawaiian, even if the baby was born elsewhere.

Moreover, WND has documented that the address reported in the newspaper birth announcements was the home of the grandparents.

WND also has reported that Barack Obama Sr. maintained his own separate apartment in Honolulu, even after he was supposedly married to Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother, and that Dunham left Hawaii within three weeks of the baby's birth to attend the University of Washington in Seattle.

Dunham did not return to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii in June 1962 to attend graduate school at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

Conceivably, the yet undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Abercrombie has discovered may have come from the grandparents registering Obama's birth, an event that would have triggered both the newspaper birth announcements and availability of a Certification of Live Birth, even if no long-form birth certificate existed.

WND has also reported that Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008, has maintained that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither Honolulu hospital – Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center – has any record that Obama was born there.


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #724 on: January 19, 2011, 10:48:30 AM »

To have a US passport, one must provide the US State Dept. proof of US citizenship, either by birth or by naturalization. Obama had a US passport long before he was a political figure.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #725 on: January 19, 2011, 10:56:14 AM »

http://www.travel.state.gov/passport/get/minors/minors_834.html

http://www.travel.state.gov/passport/get/secondary_evidence/secondary_evidence_4315.html
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #726 on: January 19, 2011, 10:58:34 AM »

GM,

Well I don't know what he presented for his passport.  It doesn't appear it was any kind of copy of a long birth certificate.  Here in NJ one can get certified copies if one loses the original.

His mother was a citizen so isn't that alone mean he is automatically a citizen?
Again the issue is not citizenship.  It is constittutional eligibility for being President.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #727 on: January 19, 2011, 11:06:50 AM »

John McCain was born outside the US, but was deemed to be eligible to be president. Obama's citizenship can be presumed to be US, and I doubt he was naturalized, therefore I think it can be reasonably assumed that he is eligible to be president.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #728 on: January 19, 2011, 11:19:48 AM »

But there was something about McCain's being born on a military base that was figured to be the inclusionary argument I think.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #729 on: January 19, 2011, 11:34:24 AM »

It's unclear what the founders meant by "natural born".

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/12/bizarre-birther-intellectual-dance.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #730 on: January 19, 2011, 11:50:42 AM »

GM, If going down this path was worthwhile I would want to see his first passport application with attachments. The intent of that rule (I assume) was to make sure a President didn't have international rather than American loyalties.  Whoops.

His current address is his evidence of eligibility for office; the challenge should have been when he first put his name on a ballot for President. The burden of proof goes to the other side(IMO) since he was accepted on the ballot in 50 states and administered the oath of office.  Looks to me like no one plans to provide any more documents.

Opponents can focus on these questions or focus on opposing and defeating leftist governing - hard to do both effectively. Personally I want him challenged and defeated over governing philosophy and anything/everything else IMO detracts from that message. 

If a document saying otherwise existed, this was the largest blunder ever by the Clintons for all their Nixonian research into people who threaten their power.  Bill Clinton is campaigning for an uncontested mayor race in Chicago when he thought he would be head of the UN by now, or hanging out with the first spouses of Spain and France. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1173949/The-day-Carla-met-match-Mrs-Sarkozy-upstaged-Spains-real-princess-glamour-showdown.html
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #731 on: January 19, 2011, 11:53:01 AM »

George Romney and Barry Goldwater also had questions about their eligibilty arise during their quests to become president. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #732 on: January 19, 2011, 11:56:00 AM »

"But I also have pointed out that Obama's strategy of concealing the records and dismissing the "Birthers" as cranks is not working in the longer term."

Well this is the point of my original post above.  Obama is *not playing any strategy in 'not' producing* the best evidence.  He is not producing best evidence because he can't.  For whatever reason his birth certificate is no where to be found.  Therefore he takes the next strategy which is as it always is with him (like past associations with radicals) is to cover up, deny, attack those who question this as crazy, misguided, politcally motivated, racist, and the rest.

As for W's military guard duty I will have to admit the evidence I have read is that he certainly did have a Senator's son's *no show* ghost-like service.
I don't recall seeing any credible evidence he ever showed up like everyone else was supposed to do.  Certainly sounds like someone doing a favor for a powerful father.

It reminds me of another Senator's son's service during Vietnam - Algore.  He ran around the rear lines as some sort of "reporter"?  That said, he was there at all deserves him credit.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #733 on: January 20, 2011, 02:00:54 PM »

Oh really? So Fukino and Onaka have personally have claimed to have visually verified Bamster's birth certificate.  Sounds like a coverup to me.

Remember this:   

****Obama's Birth Certificate Verified By State
Health Department Receives Multiple Requests For Copies
POSTED: 12:12 pm HST October 31, 2008
UPDATED: 1:26 pm HST November 1, 2008
 Email  Print
HONOLULU -- The state's Department of Health director on Friday released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama birth certificate.

The state has received multiple requests for a copy of Obama's birth certificate. State law does not allow officials to release the birth certificate of a person to someone outside of the family.

There were rumors that Obama was born in Kenya, where his father is from. The Constitution requires that the president be a natural born citizen of the U.S.

While many sites and news organizations have released copies provided by the Obama campaign, the rumors have persisted.

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record," DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.

Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said.

Fukino said that no state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently from any other.

Some Obama critics claim he was not born in the United States.

Multiple lawsuits were filed to try and force Obama to provide proof of citizenship. Earlier Friday, a southwest Ohio magistrate rejected a challenge to Obama's U.S. citizenship. Judges in Seattle and Philadelphia recently dismissed similar suits.
Copyright 2008 by KITV.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.****
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #734 on: January 20, 2011, 02:10:41 PM »

Ultimately, the way to resolve this is for states to pass laws requiring that candidates provide proof of citizenship to be on a ballot.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #735 on: January 20, 2011, 04:35:46 PM »

"for states to pass laws requiring that candidates provide proof of citizenship to be on a ballot"

proof of *natural born* citizenship

Pretty good idea to pass a law setting a process, since there doesn't seem to be any guideline on how to stop an ineligible candidate if all challenges were dismissed without a hearing.  The successful challenge would have to happen in a blue or contested state to make any electoral difference.

If he was born offshore to an American mother from Kansas, and McCain was born overseas but both parents were American - maybe the ground he was born on was an American base - it sounds to me like splitting hairs finer than what is explicit in the constitution.  If the mom had renounced her citizenship or even written something to change her address (and the newborn to be) to no longer reside in America, then maybe they have something, but that is not what is alleged as I hear it.  Just as on the flip side, I don't see how a birth from a foreigner in the US on vacation splits up the citizenship of a family.

Challenge Obama on his record and his governing agenda.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #736 on: January 21, 2011, 09:40:30 AM »

"Challenge Obama on his record and his governing agenda"

Surely.

There is another issue about 2 state empolyees stating they verify a document that later cannot be found.

Sounds like the US Copyright Office.

It should bother when government officials entrusted with keeping documents secure are/may be lying.

I know for a fact that a person(s) at the Copyright Office tmapers with documents in coordination with people taking things out of our house.

Since it only affects us no one else can give a shit.

But in the case of Obama the whole country should be giving a shit.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #737 on: January 21, 2011, 10:06:10 AM »

Meanwhile BO's poll numbers are up  to 50-53% favorable , , ,
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #738 on: January 21, 2011, 10:10:06 AM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/21/obama-at-49-in-cbs-poll/

Obama at 49% in CBS poll
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #739 on: January 21, 2011, 12:52:46 PM »

CCP, I hear what you are saying regarding the birth records.  I read through all the links and documents at WND last night.  More about his early childhood than I ever wanted to know.  They do a pretty responsible job of covering it and I googled around elsewhere.  Apparently the story has changed regarding which of two hospitals he was born in.  But also missing is any indication she left the island at age 18 and pregnant or was even still seeing the Kenyan.  Barack Obama Sr. at least as a family man was quite a jerk.  Barack Jr. says his father left when he was 2, a story likely passed on by his mom but really there is no indication the dad ever met the kid or acknowledged him in the first ten years.  He headed to Harvard, she to Seattle.  He makes no mention in interviews or letters acknowledging the marriage or the child.  He refers in one letter to his wife but is clearly referring to the one back home.  He is very focused on his educational opportunity but not whatsoever as to how that will benefit this family. Then there is the mom, Stanley Ann.  She falls for the African student at 17, almost 18.  Names her child after him, (changes his name at least 2 more times as life goes on), doubtfully married Obama Sr. but likely wanted to or pretended they did - for 'legitimacy' - this is 1961.  Falls for another foreigner, 2 different dates with different locations for that 'second' marriage, probably falsified back to facilitate adoption of young Barry before age 5.  She understood the danger of moving herself and her son to then communist (and Muslim) Indonesia, then did it.  Sutoro tries to get out of going back, but they all go.  She likely renounced his US citizenship (Barry Jr.) at that time to lessen the dangers he would face, giving him the Sutoro surname and calling him Muslim and Indonesian.  Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. Later dumps the kid on her parents, ('typical white folks').  Interrupt here to say: none of this is the young child's fault, but it was his childhood. 

The bureaucracy in one place says old passports records shall be destroyed after so many years and in another place says they are retained since 1925.

My take.  a) This bizarre story is nothing like saying 911 was an inside job.  The constitution requires natural born citizenship, plenty of good Americans have been excluded from consideration for the Presidency for that, and this young fellow had a mixed up early childhood involving two other nationalities withmany relevant documents are missing, altered or fraudulent.  b) Stanley Ann was pregnant roughly 30 days after starting at U of Hawaii. Stanley Ann and Obama Sr. were in the same Russian language class.  c) Other than conception, assuming he was the father, there didn't ever seem to be a relationship to speak of between Stanley Ann and Barack Sr. much less a marriage, nor did he ever see himself as a father in any sense we would recognize beyond sperm donor status, except for a visit 11 years later in Hawaii after the Sutoro Indonesia fiasco. Very unlikely that he brought her back to Kenya (where he already had at least one wife) from Hawaii while he was finishing 5 years of degrees in 3, even in the summer.  d) Assuming Stanley Ann did renounce Barry Jr's citizenship for her next radical, flighty move, that renunciation was likely fraudulent and not young Barry's fault at kindergarden age. e) the missing documents aren't going to prove he was born out of the U.S.  Even then, he was born to an American mother in between her semesters at Honolulu and Seattle, with no father.  It would be a twist of constitutional intent to say he is anything other than a natural born citizen IMO.

Somewhere in the gossip were the stories that Kenyan relatives said she gave birth there and that the white Grandmother said something like that.  No corroboration of any of that.  More likely she did get a first passport around the time of the early preganancy in hopes of traveling the world, marrying, moving, visiting etc.

Is there a photo anywhere of a proud father Barack Sr. seen anywhere with a 7, 8, or 9 month visibly pregnant Stanley Ann? I don't think so. Or with newborn Barry or the 3 of them? I don't think they were traveling together anywhere much less Kenya.  Then she moved from Hawaii to Seattle to start school 15 days later, without Obama Sr.  That is a difficult move if you are hurrying back from Kenya (not close to Hawaii)!

(http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/another_look_at_obamas_origins.html)
Obama knows little about the wedding (of Stanley Ann and Barack Sr.).  He writes in Dreams, "In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I've never quite had the courage to explore. There's no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride."

In his fair-minded biography, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage, Christopher Andersen concedes, "There were certainly no witnesses -- no family members were present; and none of their friends at the university had the slightest inkling they were even engaged."

In July 2008, speaking at a university roundtable, Michelle Obama said of Barack's mother that she was "very young and very single when she had him."
----
The mainstream media, meanwhile, paid more attention to the origins of Trig Palin than to those of the president
---
I continue to oppose him based on his public policy agenda.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #740 on: January 21, 2011, 02:06:41 PM »

Doug,

Excellent post.

What is your take on "dreams *from* my father"?

I haven't read this book or D'Suza's book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage" but it is certainly curious Obama seems to take up the philosophy of his father who he may have never known and appears to have not cared one iota for the boy other than just sleeping with the white woman.

Yet Obamas grandparents who appear to have been good to him he throws under the bus as just a bunch of white people.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #741 on: January 21, 2011, 02:39:42 PM »

Doug:

Thank you for that post.   I confess I do not care for WND as a site, even though many of its biases are similar to some of mine because I think it often careless with inconvenient truths so I greatly appreciate your thorough and fair minded summary and analysis.

Marc
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #742 on: January 22, 2011, 11:10:20 AM »

Hawaii governor silenced and cover- up is now complete:

***Associated Press Mark Niesse, Associated Press – Sat Jan 22, 4:56 am ET
HONOLULU – A privacy law that shields birth certificates has prompted Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie to abandon efforts to dispel claims that President Barack Obama was born outside Hawaii, his office says.

State Attorney General David Louie told the governor that privacy laws bar him from disclosing an individual's birth documentation without the person's consent, Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz said Friday.

"There is nothing more that Gov. Abercrombie can do within the law to produce a document," said Dela Cruz. "Unfortunately, there are conspirators who will continue to question the citizenship of our president."

Abercrombie, who was a friend of Obama's parents and knew him as a child, launched an investigation last month into whether he can release more information about the president's Aug. 4, 1961 birth. The governor said at the time he was bothered by people who questioned Obama's birthplace for political reasons.

But Abercrombie's attempt reached a dead end when Louie told him the law restricted his options.

Hawaii's privacy laws have long barred the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who doesn't have a tangible interest.

So-called "birthers" claim Obama is ineligible to be president because they say there's no proof he was born in the United States, with many of the skeptics questioning whether he was actually born in Kenya, his father's home country.

Hawaii's health director said in 2008 and 2009 that she had seen and verified Obama's original vital records, and birth notices in two Honolulu newspapers were published within days of Obama's birth at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu.

Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo again confirmed Friday that Obama's name is found in its alphabetical list of names of people born in Hawaii, maintained in bound copies available for public view.

That information, called index data, shows a listing for "Obama II, Barack Hussein, Male," according to the department's website.

"The index is just to say who has their records within the department. That's an indication," Okubo said. "I can't talk about anyone's records."

The Obama campaign issued a certificate of live birth in 2008, an official document from the state showing the president's birth date, city and name, along with his parents' names and races.***

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #743 on: January 24, 2011, 10:33:04 AM »

Obama has just placed a check on the Republican team if you will.  If he is able to keep up the moderation and bipartisan facade then it is check MATE.  Barring of course something unforeseen (to sound like David Gordon when speaking of the markets).

The Republicans are on the defensive already.  They come off as too wimpy they lose.  If they come off as the p0arty of no they probably lose as well.  (remember shutting down government backfired on Newt).  Calling Obama as a socialist who wants to redistribute wealth while obviously true is not going to win swing voters.  Remember 50% pay no Federal income tax so they don't care about this.  Remember most union empolyees are very happy to have the rich pay into their pensions.  That is thus NOT a winning strategy.  The winner gets the swing voters.  The Republicans in my view must go beat the media trails everyday convincing why Obama has been bad for the US.  Unfortunately even that has risks too.  Remember how adept the Clintonites were in neutering the Repubs in the 90's?  Even when the Repubs would come out with good ideas that ring true Clinton would steal the idea and make it his own  - case in point - welfare reform.  He took and was gloriusly given all the credit for it by the MSM.  Even the Blacks were kissing his hand on the issue when indeed we all know it never would have happened without Republicans.  So Obama has checked the Repub party.  He could easily make it check mate.  He is not a genius.  The formula is already proven an written out for him.  All he has to do is follow the script.  There are many progressives around him who will keep him to it.

****WILL “CENTRIST” OBAMA WIN?
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann01.21.2011Share this article
 
On this, the second anniversary of his inauguration, President Obama is clearly showing a determination to change his image, replacing his hard left dogmatism with a seeming flexibility and openness to the views of the center. Will it work? Will it lead to his re-election? Are we only one-quarter of the way through a two term Obama presidency?

If the Republican Party wimp out and embraces a moderate agenda, trying to meet him in the middle, Obama will succeed and will be with us for six more years. But if the GOP defines itself in stark contrasts and pushes conservative policies, we will beat him. The key is to test Obama’s centrism by confronting him with bold demands to rollback health reform, undo his massive spending, deregulate community banks, enable state bankruptcies, and block pending executive orders to impose carbon taxes, card check unionization, and FCC regulation of talk radio and the Internet.


We have got to make the gentile and lulling waves of Obama’s new-found moderation crash up against the rocks of Republican demands. Then the leftist rib tide that lurks underneath the seemingly calm waters will be exposed and, in the ensuing surf, he will flounder.

Obama’s moderation is only tone deep. Its hallmarks have been the Daily appointment, his Tucson speech, his sham efforts at deregulation, and his forced acceptance of the Bush tax cuts. Now let’s see what he does with health care repeal, spending cuts, and the rest of the Republican agenda.

The Republican Study Committee proposal calling for $2.5 trillion in spending cuts over ten years is a great place to start. The GOP should take the key elements of it and tack them on to the debt limit increase bill and demand that Obama either sign the bill with the cuts or get no rise in the debt limit. As Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa) suggested in a recent op-ed, the government can function without borrowing more for a few months. And during that time, let all of America debate whether or not to cut the budget. Let Obama be on display – day after day – pleading for more spending and borrowing. What will become of his centrism then?

The Study Committee proposal is especially brilliant in its avoidance of any cuts in Social Security and Medicare. Republicans squandered their momentum from Bush’s re-election in 2005 by pushing Social Security reform and won in 2010 by fighting Medicare cuts. To cut or “reform” either program right now would be a disaster. But when it comes to EPA, the Department of Education, Amtrak, the federal workforce, highway construction, public works, stimulus spending, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other non-defense discretionary spending – cut away!

The key to winning the election of 2012 is to force Obama to defend his agenda of 2009-2010 by demanding its repeal and rollback. Republicans need to make him spend 2011 and 2012 defending the programs that brought him down in 2010. And we must also enact budget riders blocking his attempts to jam through by executive orders (even as he postures about cutting federal regulation) carbon taxation, FCC regulation of talk radio, and card check unionization. These issues are all winners.

Obama hopes we forget his past liberalism. After all, in 1996, who remembered Hillarycare? Who voted against Clinton because of his 1993 tax hikes? Nobody. So we need to force these issues to the fore again in 2011 and 2012. We must make Obama run on his record of 2009-2010 by demanding its repeal and forcing him to fight again the same battles that cost him the House in 2010. That is the path to victory.****

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #744 on: January 24, 2011, 10:43:30 AM »

Year 3 of his Presidency, this is an actual headline: Obama looking for ideas to grow jobs.  Googling to find where I saw that, I found the same headline coming into State of the Union last year as well:
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2010/01/06/news/mj2113672.txt
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/magazine/23Economy-t.html?pagewanted=all

Here's to hoping the next one isn't in his own Utopian fog as he takes the Presidency.  Clue: Government is financed as an economic parasite that feeds off of the host.  Since many functions of government  are necessary and need to be preserved, we should make every effort to stop killing off the host private sector entrepreneurial economy.
----

CCP: "Obama seems to take up the philosophy of his father"

Yes maybe by accident, really it is the radical leftism of his mother.  That is likely what drew her to the African student as much as race.  Obama's other mentors and colleagues had far more direct influence than his father: Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright etc.

The story behind the book 'Dreams of his father' as I recall was a hodgepodge of notes Obama put down until he stalled out with writer's block.  Someone else picked it up and drew a story line through it and also probably named it.  Pundits/analysts think that was Bill Ayers IIRC.  Everyone has a ghost writer or editor so that isn't a big deal, but neither is the book.  Obama never visited Kenya until after his father died.  I don't blame Obama for searching Africa for the economic success secrets that America lacked, I blame his voters.

People who lie or talk mostly out of both sides of their mouth sometimes anger me, but mostly bore me.  I don't  learn even what they are thinking by listening to them.  I just waste my own time trying to figure them out.  It is the chess game of how to catch him in a bad move, defeat him and change the direction that interests me.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #745 on: January 24, 2011, 10:52:09 AM »

The Dick Morris piece is the sort of thing he does best:

"The key to winning the election of 2012 is to force Obama to defend his agenda of 2009-2010 by demanding its repeal and rollback."

Exactly so.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #746 on: January 24, 2011, 10:53:51 AM »

Yup.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4197


« Reply #747 on: January 24, 2011, 11:26:51 AM »

Crafty, Doug and GM,
I agree with all of you the Republicans need to keep up the pressure and to do their best to control the airwaves.  Obama, as do all Presidents have the big advantage of the bully pulpit.
I agree with Dick 100%  and particularly so since he is one of if not the architects of the Clinton resurrection it certainly behooves the right to listen to him on the best strategy to deal with Clinton 2. 

Yet just sticking it back at the gangster bamster has it risks as I pointed out with Newt's failed policy of a government shut down that led to HIS not Clinton's down fall.

I don't know exactly how to avoid this and look strong and not just become a compromiser which will result in the gangster getting a second term (again of course barring some unforeseen events like a secoind dip in the economy.)  I am not confident about Boehner at this point but perhaps I am prejudging.   Certainly Morris felt he made a huge mistake on the tax compromise BEFORE the lame duck session was over.  Not a good start.  Krauthammer certainly thouth Boehner gave away the farm.

Getting the progressive front man out is without a doubt the only way to save our country from decline IMHO.

So far I don't see anyone on the right who has the charisma to do it.  Forget Romney - no charisma (my nephew worked for him for his first run) .  Forget Palin no crossover appeal.  Forget Huckabee - too wishy washy.  Newt my choice probably does not have swing voter appeal.  Jindal who my nephew works for now as press secretary does not appear to be prime time national material.

Hopefully someone with the right stuff will bubble up before 2012.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #748 on: January 24, 2011, 11:47:06 AM »

The economy is tanking. Check out food and gas prices and unemployment.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #749 on: January 24, 2011, 11:53:16 AM »

Brian Wesbury and Scott Grannis would disagree with you on that.  If we want to discuss this particular point further, lets take it over to the Political Economy thread.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 33 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!