At this point, the GOP nomination process hasn't even vetted itself down from the eight or nine candidates still participating in the debates. That being said, I do think that the candidates have divided themselves into three categories: frontrunners, middle-of-the-pack, and also-rans.
Also-Rans
Huntsman: far to liberal to garner any foothold at this time in the GOP history.
Johnson: Ron Paul's Mini-Me.
Middle-of-the-Pack
Bachman: Had her chance to prove she knows more than she really does about the broader issues. Might be a good VP candidate (see later discussion)
Santorum: He is well rounded and knows the issues, but appears to be more like an attack dog, than a presidential contender. He, too, might make a good VP candidate.
Ron Paul: no one has more devoted followers. But no one also isolates himself from the mainstream GOP voters than he does. Might make a great Treasury Secretary, if he doesn't shoot himself in the foot and try to run independent.
Frontrunners
Gingrich: 21st Century Contract with America is going over well with voters. It is a long read, because of its detail, but as people take the time to read it you're seeing his numbers rise. His stance on Ryan's budget and Scozzafava in NY23 back 2009 make him a less appealing conservative. But no one can debate better than he can. He would sufficiently undercut Obama in a debate that Obama would have to call out the attack dogs to go after Newt personally...where he IS vulnerable.
Perry: once the frontrunner, but his poor performances in debates as others have attacked his record, whether accurately or not, has dulled him in the eyes of the voters. He has about six weeks, from now, to make or break his campaign. His energy independence plan, released today, will go a long ways towards deciding if the people want him or not.
Cain: the newest front-runner. He has appeal as a non-politician. He has handled pressure and attacks better than Perry and even though his 9-9-9 plan has received mixed views, and could be his Achilles Heel in any debate against Obama, he continues to do well. He is the only Frontrunner whom I think would consider joining another ticket as a VP candidate.
Romney: a noticeable flip-flopper and the least conservative of the frontrunners, Romney is s calm and cool debater and seasoned campaigner. He has the finances to compete with Obama as well. He is the hand-picked choice of the Establishment GOP, which is good for him, but doesn't go over well with the conservative segment of the GOP...which is very strong right now.
Road to the Nomination
Romney is clearly trying to manipulate the primary calendar to his favor. The earlier the primaries, the least likely Cain, Perry or Newt will be able to garner enough support to overtake him in NH, SC, and Nevada. He will likely win NH, no matter when that primary takes place. Romney is quietly working in Iowa, but at this point that Caucus likely goes to Cain, with Perry and Newt not far behind. South Carolina is a key primary. Cain, Perry and Newt are looking strong there, but Romney is likely to push hard there...and in Nevada. He feels that if he can come away with those three by the end of January he will have sufficiently drained the fight from most of the competition. If Cain or Newt or Perry (or someone else) comes in and "steal" SC or Nevada, then this thing will go much further into the Primary season than Romney would like.
If that's the case, Super Tuesday, March 6th, will be the next big test. However, leading up to Super Tuesday are a number of important primaries: NH* (23), Iowa* (28), SC (50), Nevada (28), Florida (99), Colorado* (36), Minnesota* (40), Maine (24), Arizona (58), Washington* (43) and Michigan (59). That represents approximately 488 delegates. I say "approximately" because of several factors. First, with several states moving their primaries up on the calendar there is a good chance the RNC will exercise their power to cut several states' delegate counts by 50% as per their rules. There is also the fact that several of the delegate counts are based upon bonus delegates from the RNC rules. So the numbers in parentheses are approximations. Also note that * represents states with caucuses which are NOT winner-take-all states.
Of those states listed above, Romney is strongly favored to win in Nevada*, NH, Colorado*, Maine*, Washington* and Michigan, totally, 189 delegates. Of those 189 delegates 131 come from states with a caucus. How many of those delegates Romney will win is anyone's guess. Some experts are suggesting that Ron Paul is focusing much of his efforts in the states holding caucuses because the results can be skewed by turnout. That, plus the fact that Romney is not holding huge leads in any of those states would imply that he might gain only 80-90 of those delegates. Of the remaining 51-61 delegates, they would probably be divided pretty equally based upon current polling numbers.
Cain, Perry and Newt are jockeying for wins in SC, Florida, Arizona, and Iowa* (235 delegates)...with Minnesota* potentially favoring Bachman, though Romney is a strong candidate there too. My rough projection is that Romney will walk into Super Tuesday with approximately 175 delegates. That leaves about 313 divided between Perry/Newt/Cain...and Ron Paul. These projection could dramatically change over the next 10-20 weeks, and probably will.
Super Tuesday is the official opening to the primary season and includes, at this point, these states: Alaska* (27), Georgia (76), Idaho* (32), Massachusetts (46), North Dakota* (28), Ohio (66), Oklahoma (43), Tennessee (58), Texas (155), Vermont (17), and Virginia (49). That's 566 delegates, or about 1/2 the number needed to land the nomination. This is why Romney is pushing for early primaries. He wants to walk into Super Tuesday with 300+ delegates in pocket. He'll win Massachusetts and Vermont, and will garner 20+ delegates from the three caucuses. By my projections, that would give him about 250-260 delegates. Perry will likely win Texas, which will push his count, depending on how he does in the pre-Super Tuesday primaries, to a near dead heat with Romney. The other eight states are the key. Romney could push himself into the 500+ delegate range or those delegates could split up any number of other ways, giving Perry a lead over Romney or pulling Newt or Cain into a three or four way race with Romney and Perry.
April could be the killer month for Cain/Perry/Newt. There are seven primaries that months, D.C. (19), Maryland (37), Wisconsin (42), Connecticut (28), Delaware (17), New York (95), Pennsylvania (72) and Rhode Island (19). Every one of these states could easily go to Romney. In order for either of the other three to stand a chance of beating Romney they have to do two things: A) the Cain/Perry/Newt group will have to win a large portion of the post-Super Tuesday delegates leading into April (Wyoming* (29), Kansas* (40), US Virgin Islands* (9), Alabama (50), Hawaii* (20), Mississippi (37), Missouri* (52), Illinois (69), and Louisiana (45)). That represents 306 delegates. Romney could be favored to pull in close to 100 of those delegates. That would give him about 450-500 delegates at this point. B) Someone in the Perry/Cain/Newt group is going to HAVE to win 2 or more of the seven states in April, representing 328 delegates. The two to focus on are Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
With California's June 5th primary counting for 172 winner-take-all delegates, the Cain/Perry/Newt group will have to keep Romney below, by my estimation, 800 delegates before that primary. If they can do that, then there is a good chance that the campaign continues into September without a clear winner. In that case, the convention becomes the key.
Of course, with the way things have been going these past couple of months, everything in this blog could and should be obsolete in about three weeks. I think one scenario that could play out would be if Newt or Cain pulls out and endorses the other. Cain/Newt could be dead even with Romney by Super Tuesday and could focus their joint attention of stealing Texas away from Perry. In doing so, they could become the front runner. That would push Perry out of the race and propel them to big wins in the remaining March primaries and even to two or three victories in April. They could legitimately be within a couple of hundred delegates of the nomination before California. In which case, California becomes Romney's last stand. If he wins it and the rest of June's primaries, he will likely win the nomination. If he loses California, then he likely loses and we see a Newt/Cain ticket emerge from the convention...or Cain/Daniels...or Newt/Bachmann....or Cain/Thune...or Newt/West.
Beating Obama in 2012
Beating Obama in 2012 is not going to be as simple as it might seem. Yes, his presidency is a shambles. But with the GOP nomination process potentially coming down to a convention fight, that does not bode well for the GOP. While our top candidates are spending their money fighting each other, Obama is gathering half a billion dollars in preparation for what will amount to a two month dog fight next fall.
Once the conventions are over, the battleground states will be the same as they are today: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (20), Virginia (13), and Wisconsin (10). That represents 161 electoral votes. At this point, Obama is locked in with 186 electoral votes and the GOP nominee is locked in with 191 electoral votes. Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico will tilt to Obama under normal circumstances. That brings Obama to 226, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire and Virginia are tilting GOP. That brings the GOP nominee to 243. That leaves Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as the key toss-ups. If Ohio AND Pennsylvania BOTH go to one party or the other, it's over. But the GOP could lock it up with EITHER of those two states AND either North Carolina or Wisconsin.
I don't think there is any reason to think we cannot bring a victory to any of the four primary GOP hopefuls in a battle against Obama. As has often been suggested, the goal of the GOP must always be to nominate the most electable conservative. In previous elections it was probably true that we would have needed to nominate a Romney to run against Obama. But not this election. I think any of the four primary GOP hopefuls can beat Obama if we can pull ourselves together by the time the convention takes place.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Senate 2012 - First Look
Not all the candidates are in yet. And we're a very long way from November 2012. But I think it is a good time to make a first run at projecting what could happen in 15 months in the US Senate.
There are 23 Democrat/Independent and 10 GOP seats up for grabs. The current makeup of the Senate is 51-D/47-R/2-I. Let's do the easy part first. Let's look at the very safe seats on either side first.
SAFE SEATS:
GOP: Wicker (MS), Corker (TN), TEXAS (Hutchison is Retiring), UTAH (either Hatch or some other GOP), Barrasso (WY).
DEM: Feinstein (CA), Carper (DE), Cardin (MD), Gillibrand (NY), Whitehouse (RI), Sanders-I (VT), Cantwell (WA - ONLY BECAUSE NO GOOD GOP CANDIDATE HAS COME OUT)
The count after these seats is now: 36-D/42-R/1-I
At this point we have some potential change overs. I will list the seats likely to go to one party or another with the change overs in bold.
LIKELY
GOP: ARIZONA (Kyl is retiring but likely to go GOP anyway), Lugar (IN), Snowe (ME), NORTH DAKOTA (Conrad is retiring).
DEM: CONNECTICUT (with Leiberman retiring, this is likely going DEM, but this could change dramatically after both the Dem and GOP primaries), Stabenow (MI - this seat is vulnerable if a good GOP candidate comes out of the primary), Klobuchar (MN), Casey (PA - this could change very quickly depending on the GOP primary and the strength of the Red Tide).
Again, being very early in the races, several of these could change dramatically, including Connecticut, which has a few very strong GOP candidates in the primaries, and Maine, which is a very blue state and may not like what Snowe is doing.
The count now stands at: 40-D/46-R/1-I.
The following are the battleground Senate races. As you can see by the current count, if things projected above hold out, the GOP would need 5 of the following seats to take the Senate.
Florida - Nelson (D) - presently leans democrat but there are two or three very good GOP candidates in the primary.
Hawaii - Akaka (D) is retiring - Hawaii is a very blue state, but with former GOP governor Dingle running for this seat, it leans Democrat, but could easily go GOP.
Massachusetts - Brown (R) - Massachusetts being the blue state that it is, this could easily go Dem. If Heller stays GOP, that's a wash on the part of the predictions. But don't count Brown out. Despite angering many Tea Partiers for voting against TP wishes, he's still very popular in Massachusetts.
Missouri - McCaskill (D) - She is entrenched and can't be counted out. But she is extremely vulnerable, especially against Steelman or Akin.
Montana - Tester (D) - Denny Rehnberg will give Tester a serious problem, especially in an otherwise Red state.
Nebraska - Nelson (D) - the Cornhusker Kickback and conservative Nebraska could very easily throw Nelson out on his ear. The only reason this is still a toss-up and not already in the GOP column is the fact that there are so many GOP candidates vying to face Nelson.
New Jersey - Menendez (D) - a very blue state that gave us GOP Rep, John Runyan in 2010, could hop on Christie's back and send Menendez packing.
New Mexico - Bingaman (D) is retiring - if Bingaman had stayed in the race, this one could still have gone GOP. With Bingaman out, the chances are even greater the GOP could take this seat.
Nevada - Heller (R) - only his predecessor's sex scandal can possibly keep Heller from keeping his newly acquired seat.
Ohio - Brown (D) - Ohio is always a toss-up state and this year is no different. Though the Red Tide is pushing through Ohio too. Mandel could raise lots of money and unseat the vulnerable Brown.
Virginia - Webb (D) is retiring - this will be an interesting race. Former DNC Chair, Tim Kaine, will be running against Ex-Sen. George Allen. The deciding factor may be the heavy GOP tide from 2010.
Wisconsin - Kohl (D) is retiring - This, too, is a very interesting race. Ron Kind, former Dem. Rep, will be facing a GOP challenge which could be former Gov. Tommy Thompson (if he decides to run). That could be a good race.
West Virginia - Manchin (D) - West Virginia is still a blue state. But Obama's actions against the coal industry could cause problems for Manchin, especially if John Raese enters the race for the GOP.
Of the two GOP seats in this list, Heller is the safest. Of the eleven Democrat every one of them is in play...for reasons listed next them.
Pre-Season Prediction for the Final Senate Totals: GOP - 54 / DEM - 45 / Ind - 1
I honestly think that the numbers, depending up what happens in the next 15 months could move in either direction. We could be looking at something like 59 - 40 - 1, or we could be looking at 51 - 48 - 1. It will depend upon the state of the economy by then and the degree to which one party or the other can get their message across.
There are 23 Democrat/Independent and 10 GOP seats up for grabs. The current makeup of the Senate is 51-D/47-R/2-I. Let's do the easy part first. Let's look at the very safe seats on either side first.
SAFE SEATS:
GOP: Wicker (MS), Corker (TN), TEXAS (Hutchison is Retiring), UTAH (either Hatch or some other GOP), Barrasso (WY).
DEM: Feinstein (CA), Carper (DE), Cardin (MD), Gillibrand (NY), Whitehouse (RI), Sanders-I (VT), Cantwell (WA - ONLY BECAUSE NO GOOD GOP CANDIDATE HAS COME OUT)
The count after these seats is now: 36-D/42-R/1-I
At this point we have some potential change overs. I will list the seats likely to go to one party or another with the change overs in bold.
LIKELY
GOP: ARIZONA (Kyl is retiring but likely to go GOP anyway), Lugar (IN), Snowe (ME), NORTH DAKOTA (Conrad is retiring).
DEM: CONNECTICUT (with Leiberman retiring, this is likely going DEM, but this could change dramatically after both the Dem and GOP primaries), Stabenow (MI - this seat is vulnerable if a good GOP candidate comes out of the primary), Klobuchar (MN), Casey (PA - this could change very quickly depending on the GOP primary and the strength of the Red Tide).
Again, being very early in the races, several of these could change dramatically, including Connecticut, which has a few very strong GOP candidates in the primaries, and Maine, which is a very blue state and may not like what Snowe is doing.
The count now stands at: 40-D/46-R/1-I.
The following are the battleground Senate races. As you can see by the current count, if things projected above hold out, the GOP would need 5 of the following seats to take the Senate.
Florida - Nelson (D) - presently leans democrat but there are two or three very good GOP candidates in the primary.
Hawaii - Akaka (D) is retiring - Hawaii is a very blue state, but with former GOP governor Dingle running for this seat, it leans Democrat, but could easily go GOP.
Massachusetts - Brown (R) - Massachusetts being the blue state that it is, this could easily go Dem. If Heller stays GOP, that's a wash on the part of the predictions. But don't count Brown out. Despite angering many Tea Partiers for voting against TP wishes, he's still very popular in Massachusetts.
Missouri - McCaskill (D) - She is entrenched and can't be counted out. But she is extremely vulnerable, especially against Steelman or Akin.
Montana - Tester (D) - Denny Rehnberg will give Tester a serious problem, especially in an otherwise Red state.
Nebraska - Nelson (D) - the Cornhusker Kickback and conservative Nebraska could very easily throw Nelson out on his ear. The only reason this is still a toss-up and not already in the GOP column is the fact that there are so many GOP candidates vying to face Nelson.
New Jersey - Menendez (D) - a very blue state that gave us GOP Rep, John Runyan in 2010, could hop on Christie's back and send Menendez packing.
New Mexico - Bingaman (D) is retiring - if Bingaman had stayed in the race, this one could still have gone GOP. With Bingaman out, the chances are even greater the GOP could take this seat.
Nevada - Heller (R) - only his predecessor's sex scandal can possibly keep Heller from keeping his newly acquired seat.
Ohio - Brown (D) - Ohio is always a toss-up state and this year is no different. Though the Red Tide is pushing through Ohio too. Mandel could raise lots of money and unseat the vulnerable Brown.
Virginia - Webb (D) is retiring - this will be an interesting race. Former DNC Chair, Tim Kaine, will be running against Ex-Sen. George Allen. The deciding factor may be the heavy GOP tide from 2010.
Wisconsin - Kohl (D) is retiring - This, too, is a very interesting race. Ron Kind, former Dem. Rep, will be facing a GOP challenge which could be former Gov. Tommy Thompson (if he decides to run). That could be a good race.
West Virginia - Manchin (D) - West Virginia is still a blue state. But Obama's actions against the coal industry could cause problems for Manchin, especially if John Raese enters the race for the GOP.
Of the two GOP seats in this list, Heller is the safest. Of the eleven Democrat every one of them is in play...for reasons listed next them.
Pre-Season Prediction for the Final Senate Totals: GOP - 54 / DEM - 45 / Ind - 1
I honestly think that the numbers, depending up what happens in the next 15 months could move in either direction. We could be looking at something like 59 - 40 - 1, or we could be looking at 51 - 48 - 1. It will depend upon the state of the economy by then and the degree to which one party or the other can get their message across.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Libya War Crimes
I'd like to share a letter I wrote to the editor of our local paper regarding the crimes of Obama surrounding the Libya War. In doing so, please also consider reading the speech made by Tom McClintock on March 31 (http://www.tommcclintock.com/blog/house-floor-speech-on-libya) and watching a video of another speech he gave in July (http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/video-finally-a-congressman-tells-the-country-why-obama-is-so-dangerous/)
Now that forces supported by the US military are closing in on Qaddafi, I think it is again time to revisit the manner in which we became involved in this war. Yes, it IS a war, no matter how you try to paint it. Over the six months of this war, our representative, Tom McClintock has made several speeches regarding the unconstitutional nature in which this president brought our nation into the conflict. On March 31st, Congressman McClintock said:
"When the President ordered the attack on Libya without Congressional authorization, he crossed a very bright Constitutional line that he himself recognized in 2007 when he told the Boston Globe 'The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.'”
Later in that same speech her reminded us that even under the War Powers Act, the president is authorized to conduct war for sixty days (not six months) and only for the following reasons: “(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
I contend, along with Mr. McClintock, that our president did, indeed, engage in an overt and aggressive act of war against Libya. These very acts are nothing short of war crimes and clear violations of the president's executive authority. They are nothing short of impeachable offensives, no matter who the president is.
Some may suggest that the president was within his right to do these things because of our country's long standing treaties with NATO and the UN. But, as Mr. McClintock, again, pointed out, "The United Nations Participation Act requires specific congressional authorization before American forces are ordered into hostilities in United Nations actions. The North Atlantic Treaty clearly requires troops under NATO command to be deployed in accordance with their country’s constitutional provisions. The War Powers Act specifically forbids inferring from any treaty the power to order American forces into hostilities without specific congressional authorization."
The president suggested that he didn't have time to consult with Congress before Libya faced a humanitarian crisis. Yet he had time to consult with the UN and NATO. Therein lay the foundation for the war in Libya. The United Nation's Doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect. The UN has declared their right to intervene in any country where they believe there is a threat to civilians of any significant nature. This is the most dangerous of all doctrines ever enacted by the United Nations. For by this doctrine the UN might feel compelled to send troops, or compel its member nations to send troops, to virtually anywhere in the world. By this doctrine, a sitting president of the United States was compelled to violate the very fabric of our Constitution and every law pertaining to such acts. Is this how we wish to have our country governed now? I certainly hope not. And I certainly hope Congress will have the courage to bring charges against our president for these egregious acts.
Now that forces supported by the US military are closing in on Qaddafi, I think it is again time to revisit the manner in which we became involved in this war. Yes, it IS a war, no matter how you try to paint it. Over the six months of this war, our representative, Tom McClintock has made several speeches regarding the unconstitutional nature in which this president brought our nation into the conflict. On March 31st, Congressman McClintock said:
"When the President ordered the attack on Libya without Congressional authorization, he crossed a very bright Constitutional line that he himself recognized in 2007 when he told the Boston Globe 'The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.'”
Later in that same speech her reminded us that even under the War Powers Act, the president is authorized to conduct war for sixty days (not six months) and only for the following reasons: “(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
I contend, along with Mr. McClintock, that our president did, indeed, engage in an overt and aggressive act of war against Libya. These very acts are nothing short of war crimes and clear violations of the president's executive authority. They are nothing short of impeachable offensives, no matter who the president is.
Some may suggest that the president was within his right to do these things because of our country's long standing treaties with NATO and the UN. But, as Mr. McClintock, again, pointed out, "The United Nations Participation Act requires specific congressional authorization before American forces are ordered into hostilities in United Nations actions. The North Atlantic Treaty clearly requires troops under NATO command to be deployed in accordance with their country’s constitutional provisions. The War Powers Act specifically forbids inferring from any treaty the power to order American forces into hostilities without specific congressional authorization."
The president suggested that he didn't have time to consult with Congress before Libya faced a humanitarian crisis. Yet he had time to consult with the UN and NATO. Therein lay the foundation for the war in Libya. The United Nation's Doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect. The UN has declared their right to intervene in any country where they believe there is a threat to civilians of any significant nature. This is the most dangerous of all doctrines ever enacted by the United Nations. For by this doctrine the UN might feel compelled to send troops, or compel its member nations to send troops, to virtually anywhere in the world. By this doctrine, a sitting president of the United States was compelled to violate the very fabric of our Constitution and every law pertaining to such acts. Is this how we wish to have our country governed now? I certainly hope not. And I certainly hope Congress will have the courage to bring charges against our president for these egregious acts.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Why the Birth Certificate Issue Is Only of Secondary Importance
Our Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic "The Law of Nations," a treatise written by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel as a manual for how government should function. Written in 1758, this work was read not only by the Founding Fathers, but was also well-known throughout the colonies among the populace.
...in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood. And since Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen, Obama is therefore not a natural born citizen and is thus ineligible to be President." (Basically, forget the birth certificate!!! This is ALL you need to follow the law and to understand the term from “those days”.)
Here's the link: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
Further, Obama agreed to this definition spelled out in S.R. 511, and he himself does not meet the criteria. The most obvious reason is that his father was from the country now known as Kenya..thus making him a British National.
Part II of the British Nationality Act of 1948 reads: 5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
Being the son of a man who was a British National by means of his being born in the colony later known as Kenya made Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. a British National. ASSUMING BHO Jr was born in Hawaii (whether or not the BC we see online is real or not), he would also be considered an US Citizen by virtue of his mother's citizenship. There is no disputing this under the above assumption. The only questions that remain, under this scenario, are:
1) does the Natural Born Citizen clause of the constitution allow for a person born under dual citizenship to be president of the United States;
2) Did Kenya's subsequent independence from the British Empire remove both Obamas British citizenship?;
3) As of 1963, when Kenya became independent, Obama Sr. and Obama Jr. became citizens of Kenya. However, according to Kenyan law, as of age 23, the younger Obama could not maintain both an US and a Kenyan citizenship. SO question is...did the 23 year old BHO Jr. make such a choice? Did he choose to renounce his Kenyan Citizenship?
4) Was BHO Jr. legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro, Ann Dunham's next husband? If so, did that make him an Indonesian citizen as the adopted son of Lolo Soetoro? Evidence of Obama's school records in Indonesia would suggest that is a possibility. In which case, all this takes a wild turn since Indonesia did not permit dual citizenship at that time in their history. So question
5) If Obama did take on Indonesian citizenship under his step father, Lolo Soetoro, did he ever take back either his Kenyan Citizenship or US Citizenship?
6) And, does ANY of that adversely affect his eligibility to be president of the United States? What do the courts say about Dual Citizenship as pertaining to Natural Born status? What happens to his US Citizenship if he was made an Indonesian citizen and never made a conscious adult decision to restore his US citizenship?
Ironically, as I've said all along, the birth certificate issue is relatively moot and at best secondary in importance. It matters whether he was born in Hawaii, don't get me wrong. If he is born in Kenya or anywhere else int he world, his mother's age and his father's lack of US citizenship would make BHO not a US citizen of ANY kind. BUT, even if he's born in Hawaii...if BHO Sr. is his father, he, without question, became a British National and later a Kenyan Citizenship THROUGH his father. At best, making BHO Jr. a dual citizen.
The Lolo Soetoro situation only complicates matters...and may, ultimately, depending upon how the courts rule about dual citizens being considered natural born, make the Indonesia situation moot.
The real answers are most likely to be found in Obama's school records at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard. Unfortunately, these are records Obama has made sure we will not see.
For reference, one of the best sites for delineating the facts on how the Supreme Court has ruled with regard to Natural Born Citizens vs. other citizens is by Leo Donofrio at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/. Donofrio does a completely thorough analysis of both the Minor and Wong Kim Ark cases. These cases would help to determine whether Obama is or is not a Natural Born Citizen.
Notice the wording of the Minor case regarding the court's decision that Minor was a Natural Born Citizen and compare that wording to SR 511, co-sponsored by Obama in 2008 to affirm that his future opponent, John McCain was, indeed, qualified as a natural born citizen to be president of the United States.
Minor case: "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
SR 511 states: "Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;..Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."
Further understand that the "natural born" Clause's origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our National Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born "Citizen." The hint clearly made sense to General Washington. While there was no debate, this presidential qualification was soon introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without any discussion by the Constitutional Convention. They clearly understood its meaning and the most common understanding of its meaning at that time was from Vattel's Law of Nations.
Later in 1790, the Naturalization Law of 1790 provided: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens. Once again clearly connecting to Vattel's definition as written in Law of Nations.
...in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood. And since Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen, Obama is therefore not a natural born citizen and is thus ineligible to be President." (Basically, forget the birth certificate!!! This is ALL you need to follow the law and to understand the term from “those days”.)
Here's the link: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
Further, Obama agreed to this definition spelled out in S.R. 511, and he himself does not meet the criteria. The most obvious reason is that his father was from the country now known as Kenya..thus making him a British National.
Part II of the British Nationality Act of 1948 reads: 5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
Being the son of a man who was a British National by means of his being born in the colony later known as Kenya made Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. a British National. ASSUMING BHO Jr was born in Hawaii (whether or not the BC we see online is real or not), he would also be considered an US Citizen by virtue of his mother's citizenship. There is no disputing this under the above assumption. The only questions that remain, under this scenario, are:
1) does the Natural Born Citizen clause of the constitution allow for a person born under dual citizenship to be president of the United States;
2) Did Kenya's subsequent independence from the British Empire remove both Obamas British citizenship?;
3) As of 1963, when Kenya became independent, Obama Sr. and Obama Jr. became citizens of Kenya. However, according to Kenyan law, as of age 23, the younger Obama could not maintain both an US and a Kenyan citizenship. SO question is...did the 23 year old BHO Jr. make such a choice? Did he choose to renounce his Kenyan Citizenship?
4) Was BHO Jr. legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro, Ann Dunham's next husband? If so, did that make him an Indonesian citizen as the adopted son of Lolo Soetoro? Evidence of Obama's school records in Indonesia would suggest that is a possibility. In which case, all this takes a wild turn since Indonesia did not permit dual citizenship at that time in their history. So question
5) If Obama did take on Indonesian citizenship under his step father, Lolo Soetoro, did he ever take back either his Kenyan Citizenship or US Citizenship?
6) And, does ANY of that adversely affect his eligibility to be president of the United States? What do the courts say about Dual Citizenship as pertaining to Natural Born status? What happens to his US Citizenship if he was made an Indonesian citizen and never made a conscious adult decision to restore his US citizenship?
Ironically, as I've said all along, the birth certificate issue is relatively moot and at best secondary in importance. It matters whether he was born in Hawaii, don't get me wrong. If he is born in Kenya or anywhere else int he world, his mother's age and his father's lack of US citizenship would make BHO not a US citizen of ANY kind. BUT, even if he's born in Hawaii...if BHO Sr. is his father, he, without question, became a British National and later a Kenyan Citizenship THROUGH his father. At best, making BHO Jr. a dual citizen.
The Lolo Soetoro situation only complicates matters...and may, ultimately, depending upon how the courts rule about dual citizens being considered natural born, make the Indonesia situation moot.
The real answers are most likely to be found in Obama's school records at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard. Unfortunately, these are records Obama has made sure we will not see.
For reference, one of the best sites for delineating the facts on how the Supreme Court has ruled with regard to Natural Born Citizens vs. other citizens is by Leo Donofrio at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/. Donofrio does a completely thorough analysis of both the Minor and Wong Kim Ark cases. These cases would help to determine whether Obama is or is not a Natural Born Citizen.
Notice the wording of the Minor case regarding the court's decision that Minor was a Natural Born Citizen and compare that wording to SR 511, co-sponsored by Obama in 2008 to affirm that his future opponent, John McCain was, indeed, qualified as a natural born citizen to be president of the United States.
Minor case: "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
SR 511 states: "Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;..Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."
Further understand that the "natural born" Clause's origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our National Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born "Citizen." The hint clearly made sense to General Washington. While there was no debate, this presidential qualification was soon introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without any discussion by the Constitutional Convention. They clearly understood its meaning and the most common understanding of its meaning at that time was from Vattel's Law of Nations.
Later in 1790, the Naturalization Law of 1790 provided: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens. Once again clearly connecting to Vattel's definition as written in Law of Nations.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Are We Being Scammed By All of Them?
That question has entered my mind a hundred times since Obama produced what is supposed to be his long form birth certificate a few days ago. There are two, and ONLY two, possible answers to this. We either ARE being bamboozled by both Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Progressive, the Left AND the Right over this birth certificate issue, or the people in power on the Right are just so stinking scared of being lumped in with what the MSM and the far left have labeled as "fringe extremists" that they don't dare jump in on this issue.
Trump's recent attacks on Obama regarding the birth certificate did catch the MSM and the far left off guard a bit. He put so much pressure on them about the president's unwillingness to provide ANY documentation regarding his past that the MSM couldn't spin it into the far-right fringe extremism they would have liked to have done. Trump forced the hand of the president and he had to deal with the issue.
But instead of resolving the issue, all Obama accomplished was two things. First, he successfully salved the fears of enough people who, although they were coming to doubt the president's birth place, were not willing to really jump in with both feet to challenge him on the issue. Look at Michelle Backman and Sarah Palin and so many others on the right. When things first started looking like Trump was getting to Obama on this issue, most of those on the right, at least, we willing step up and tell the president to, at least, produce the certificate and get this issue behind us. But not ONE of them were willing to say, "You know, Mr. President, enough is enough. There are way too many questions rising about this issue. Either put up or we WILL demand a full scale investigation."
Instead, they sounded like a bunch of wimps imploring the president to do something to give them an out so they don't have to join ranks with the kooks of the far right.
So the president DOES produce a long form birth certificate. And before the mics at his press conference are even turned off, it seemed like a collective sigh of relief escaped the mouths of not just the far left nuts...but even those people many of conservatives have looked to as leaders in our fight to restore our country.
Not more than an hour or two after the certificate was released, Glenn Beck and his pals on his radio show were lampooning the "birthers" whom they just knew would question the validity of the document. Well, Mr. Beck, haven't you been telling us for years now to QUESTION WITH BOLDNESS and to DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH? Yes, I think I remember you saying those things once or twice or a thousand times. How can you possibly think we will ever take you seriously with regards to those principles when you can't even take one second to question the validity of the document before you're ready to declare it legitimate.
I now question YOUR legitimacy. And I am one person I never thought would ever say that about you. I have been one of your biggest proponents. You see, Mr. Beck, I actually took you seriously and I DID question with boldness whether there is anything that can be done to substantiate the validity of that document. I DID do my research. And although, I cannot, unwaveringly state that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii and that there is NO legitimate birth certificate (you remember how hard it is to prove a negative), I CAN, without doubt, say that this document does leave me with far too many unanswered questions. There is no way I can look at the evidence before me and believe that this document is anything but a fake.
1. Despite some attempts from some to explain the multiple layers in the document when opened in Adobe Illustrator, there are sufficient numbers of other "experts" who claim that it is not possible for that to happen. There is more than enough discrepancy in 'expert' analysis to suggest that, there is something questionable about this document. Nothing is explained away or proven from this point alone.
2. However, explain to me how there is no chromatic distortions on this supposed scan of the original document? A chromatic distortion is those blue and red tints you see on opposite sides of the letterings when you zoom in on the image. Unless Hawaii has one of the most sophisticated scanners in existence, those distortions will ALWAYS show up in a scan. Some have suggested this is because it is a black and white image. Well, no it is not. The greenish watermark proves that to be false.
3. How do you explain the crisp watermark surrounding the text portion of the document, while the same watermark is clearly more diffused under the writings?
4. How do you explain the white glow around most of the lettering?
5. How do you explain how some letters in the mom's signature are clearly written from a pen (like a real signature would be) and others are crisp and without distortion, as a digital font would produce?
6. How do you explain the fact that this certificate has a registration number HIGHER than that of the Nordyke twins born a day AFTER Obama in the same hospital? When I first saw this one come up, I was honest enough to think it possible that the Recorder just simply had a pile of birth certificates to stamp and didn't take time to put them in chronological order...a reasonable explanation. Except for one thing. At the same time that the certificate is given a certificate number, it is also date stamped. The Nordyke twins' certificates were stamped three days AFTER Obama's.
7. How do you explain the curiosity that, although Americans were moving in the direction of becoming more respectful of black people, we still called them "negros" on birth certificates back then, not "blacks" as Obama's certificate shows? I have to continue my research on this. I would like to find the birth certificate of another black person born in Hawaii around that same time to clarify whether this is a legitimate question or not. But, that being said, has Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity or Mark Levin researched this at all? They have far greater access to research than I do on these matters.
8. Does is not also make you wonder how his certificate shows the hospital name as something other than what it was called in 1961? The hospital had a different name in 1961, it was not named Kapiolani Maternity and Gynocological Hospital, it was called Kaokiolani Children's Hospital. It did not get the Kapiolani name until the mid-1970s when they merged.
9. Additionally, how is possible for his father to be from "Kenya", as the certificate states, when the country was not known as Kenya until 1964 (and even then it was known officially as the Republic of Kenya)? At the time of Obama's birth Kenya was a British Crown Colony and would have used "The Royal Crown Colony of Kenya" or similar wording on all official documents. Documents with the Term "Republic of Kenya" would NOT have been used prior to December 12, 1964
10. Why do the courts continue to refuse to hear any case questioning the legitimacy of Obama's constitutional qualifications for being president? Why is no one with a microphone asking that question for all the world to hear? Is it not the courts' job to determine issues of constitutionality?
11. With all the questions about the certificate still no one with a platform to speak is asking the questions about Obama's time in Indonesia. Was he really adopted? If so, did Lolo Soetoro really make him an Indonesian citizen? If so, didn't Indonesia require a person RESCIND all other citizenships prior to becoming an Indonesian citizen? Wouldn't that mean that Obama's mom would have had to reinstate his AMercian citizenship when he returned to AMerica? Where's that documentation....because if it doesn't exist then it doesn't matter WHERE he was born.
12. What's with the stinking social security numbers? Why is he using a Social Security number NOT assigned to him? Why is NO ONE asking about this...NO ONE is researching it?
13. And let's not forget about the numerous other questions arising about this man: why did he voluntarily give up his law license? Who does such a thing? Why was he NEVER the lone attorney on ANY case in which he worked WHEN he was an attorney? How did he get into Columbia in the first place...with his grades? What did he ever do to earn the position of Editor of the Harvard Law Review?
But my biggest question is this: with all this information...with all these questions going unanswered or challenged by virtually ANYONE with a serious microphone in their hands, whom do we now trust? Nobody, who legitimately wants to challenge what this president is doing to this country, can look at the information above (and so much more not mentioned) without feeling the honest need to get to the bottom of all this. And until such time as someone DOES take this seriously, we can no longer take them seriously. Is this country being systematically destroyed, as Glenn Beck surmised? Is Glenn Beck not contributing to that destruction by cavalierly belittling people who have legitimate questions about this president's qualifications for being president?
If I were a jurist in a trial determining the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, on constitutional grounds, there would be no reasonable doubt in my mind as to the fact that this document he produced is a flat out fake...that he is guilty of perpetrating the crime surrounding this forgery...that he has never once produced sufficient evidence to prove he has a legitimate claim to the presidency of the United States...and that we now face a constitutional crisis of our own as we now have to rescind everything he has done, or anyone ever appointed or hired by him has done.
Trump's recent attacks on Obama regarding the birth certificate did catch the MSM and the far left off guard a bit. He put so much pressure on them about the president's unwillingness to provide ANY documentation regarding his past that the MSM couldn't spin it into the far-right fringe extremism they would have liked to have done. Trump forced the hand of the president and he had to deal with the issue.
But instead of resolving the issue, all Obama accomplished was two things. First, he successfully salved the fears of enough people who, although they were coming to doubt the president's birth place, were not willing to really jump in with both feet to challenge him on the issue. Look at Michelle Backman and Sarah Palin and so many others on the right. When things first started looking like Trump was getting to Obama on this issue, most of those on the right, at least, we willing step up and tell the president to, at least, produce the certificate and get this issue behind us. But not ONE of them were willing to say, "You know, Mr. President, enough is enough. There are way too many questions rising about this issue. Either put up or we WILL demand a full scale investigation."
Instead, they sounded like a bunch of wimps imploring the president to do something to give them an out so they don't have to join ranks with the kooks of the far right.
So the president DOES produce a long form birth certificate. And before the mics at his press conference are even turned off, it seemed like a collective sigh of relief escaped the mouths of not just the far left nuts...but even those people many of conservatives have looked to as leaders in our fight to restore our country.
Not more than an hour or two after the certificate was released, Glenn Beck and his pals on his radio show were lampooning the "birthers" whom they just knew would question the validity of the document. Well, Mr. Beck, haven't you been telling us for years now to QUESTION WITH BOLDNESS and to DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH? Yes, I think I remember you saying those things once or twice or a thousand times. How can you possibly think we will ever take you seriously with regards to those principles when you can't even take one second to question the validity of the document before you're ready to declare it legitimate.
I now question YOUR legitimacy. And I am one person I never thought would ever say that about you. I have been one of your biggest proponents. You see, Mr. Beck, I actually took you seriously and I DID question with boldness whether there is anything that can be done to substantiate the validity of that document. I DID do my research. And although, I cannot, unwaveringly state that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii and that there is NO legitimate birth certificate (you remember how hard it is to prove a negative), I CAN, without doubt, say that this document does leave me with far too many unanswered questions. There is no way I can look at the evidence before me and believe that this document is anything but a fake.
1. Despite some attempts from some to explain the multiple layers in the document when opened in Adobe Illustrator, there are sufficient numbers of other "experts" who claim that it is not possible for that to happen. There is more than enough discrepancy in 'expert' analysis to suggest that, there is something questionable about this document. Nothing is explained away or proven from this point alone.
2. However, explain to me how there is no chromatic distortions on this supposed scan of the original document? A chromatic distortion is those blue and red tints you see on opposite sides of the letterings when you zoom in on the image. Unless Hawaii has one of the most sophisticated scanners in existence, those distortions will ALWAYS show up in a scan. Some have suggested this is because it is a black and white image. Well, no it is not. The greenish watermark proves that to be false.
3. How do you explain the crisp watermark surrounding the text portion of the document, while the same watermark is clearly more diffused under the writings?
4. How do you explain the white glow around most of the lettering?
5. How do you explain how some letters in the mom's signature are clearly written from a pen (like a real signature would be) and others are crisp and without distortion, as a digital font would produce?
6. How do you explain the fact that this certificate has a registration number HIGHER than that of the Nordyke twins born a day AFTER Obama in the same hospital? When I first saw this one come up, I was honest enough to think it possible that the Recorder just simply had a pile of birth certificates to stamp and didn't take time to put them in chronological order...a reasonable explanation. Except for one thing. At the same time that the certificate is given a certificate number, it is also date stamped. The Nordyke twins' certificates were stamped three days AFTER Obama's.
7. How do you explain the curiosity that, although Americans were moving in the direction of becoming more respectful of black people, we still called them "negros" on birth certificates back then, not "blacks" as Obama's certificate shows? I have to continue my research on this. I would like to find the birth certificate of another black person born in Hawaii around that same time to clarify whether this is a legitimate question or not. But, that being said, has Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity or Mark Levin researched this at all? They have far greater access to research than I do on these matters.
8. Does is not also make you wonder how his certificate shows the hospital name as something other than what it was called in 1961? The hospital had a different name in 1961, it was not named Kapiolani Maternity and Gynocological Hospital, it was called Kaokiolani Children's Hospital. It did not get the Kapiolani name until the mid-1970s when they merged.
9. Additionally, how is possible for his father to be from "Kenya", as the certificate states, when the country was not known as Kenya until 1964 (and even then it was known officially as the Republic of Kenya)? At the time of Obama's birth Kenya was a British Crown Colony and would have used "The Royal Crown Colony of Kenya" or similar wording on all official documents. Documents with the Term "Republic of Kenya" would NOT have been used prior to December 12, 1964
10. Why do the courts continue to refuse to hear any case questioning the legitimacy of Obama's constitutional qualifications for being president? Why is no one with a microphone asking that question for all the world to hear? Is it not the courts' job to determine issues of constitutionality?
11. With all the questions about the certificate still no one with a platform to speak is asking the questions about Obama's time in Indonesia. Was he really adopted? If so, did Lolo Soetoro really make him an Indonesian citizen? If so, didn't Indonesia require a person RESCIND all other citizenships prior to becoming an Indonesian citizen? Wouldn't that mean that Obama's mom would have had to reinstate his AMercian citizenship when he returned to AMerica? Where's that documentation....because if it doesn't exist then it doesn't matter WHERE he was born.
12. What's with the stinking social security numbers? Why is he using a Social Security number NOT assigned to him? Why is NO ONE asking about this...NO ONE is researching it?
13. And let's not forget about the numerous other questions arising about this man: why did he voluntarily give up his law license? Who does such a thing? Why was he NEVER the lone attorney on ANY case in which he worked WHEN he was an attorney? How did he get into Columbia in the first place...with his grades? What did he ever do to earn the position of Editor of the Harvard Law Review?
But my biggest question is this: with all this information...with all these questions going unanswered or challenged by virtually ANYONE with a serious microphone in their hands, whom do we now trust? Nobody, who legitimately wants to challenge what this president is doing to this country, can look at the information above (and so much more not mentioned) without feeling the honest need to get to the bottom of all this. And until such time as someone DOES take this seriously, we can no longer take them seriously. Is this country being systematically destroyed, as Glenn Beck surmised? Is Glenn Beck not contributing to that destruction by cavalierly belittling people who have legitimate questions about this president's qualifications for being president?
If I were a jurist in a trial determining the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, on constitutional grounds, there would be no reasonable doubt in my mind as to the fact that this document he produced is a flat out fake...that he is guilty of perpetrating the crime surrounding this forgery...that he has never once produced sufficient evidence to prove he has a legitimate claim to the presidency of the United States...and that we now face a constitutional crisis of our own as we now have to rescind everything he has done, or anyone ever appointed or hired by him has done.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Two Questions, Same Answer
While driving three hours yesterday to pick my son up from college for Easter break I was listening to various conservative personalities on the radio. One of the more common topics of conversation was, of course, Donald Trump and his plethora of controversial comments concerning Obama's birth certificate, eligibility to be president, authorship of his first book, associations with Tony Rezco, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Both callers and hosts were asking the questions why was Trump's willingness to discuss these issues both controversial AND stirring the conservative pot? The answer to both questions is the same.
For decades now, Democrats have, through their conscious effort to take control of the mainstream media, controlled the dialog in this country. They have used their cohorts in the media to isolate and ostracize politically dangerous opponents and topics. Ever since the topic of Obama's birth certificate came to light nearly three years ago by the Clinton campaign, the Obama team has worked diligently with organizations like Media Matters, MSNBC and others to demonized and isolate those who suggest that Obama is not qualified to be president. And, until a few weeks ago, they were very successful in that effort.
Even staunchly conservative commentators like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity had shied away from suggesting that Obama might not be qualified to be president. They both, along Centrist, Bill O'Reilly, have called the 'birthers' various disparaging names such as "kook", "whackos" and "extremists".
All that began to change when Trump stepped forward and opened all those cans of worms. He is the first big-name personality to stand up and question Obama's legitimacy as president. And although the Obama-media has tried to paint Trump into a lunatic corner, they have failed to realize that by opening those cans Trump has done one other thing as well. He's pulled the curtain back on the Obama-media. The far left media continues flailing away, telling anyone who will listen to ignore the man behind the curtain, but its too late.
More and more Americans are questioning Obama's legitimate claim to the Oval Office that not even the Obama-media can stop it. Don't get me wrong, Republicans are still checking over their shoulders and trembling at what the media can do, and has done in the past, to people who cross that boundary. Michelle Bachman, for example, comes out one day and suggests Obama should show the birth certificate and then the next day tells the media to stop asking questions about it. Governor Brewer of Arizona has a chance to sign a bill that would require presidential candidates to provide evidence of their natural born status, but vetoes it instead.
After decades of intimidation and ruining careers, the MSM still can instill fear in public figures. What GOP presidential hopefuls fear most, is actually coming to pass. Large numbers of GOP voters are questioning Obama's legitimacy as president and we want THEM to stop shying away from it. Just last week, a poll came out of Iowa suggesting that only 26% of GOP voters believe Obama was born in the United States. That leaves 74% of the voters these GOP Presidential hopefuls are courting questioning whether Obama has a right to even be president. The questions will HAVE to be answered or many GOP voters will feel the candidates are capitulating once again to the far left. But, what most GOP voters fail to realize is that this is a very complex issue.
Just once I would love to hear someone...anyone...express concern over the ramifications and consequences our country would face if, indeed, Obama ends up NOT being qualified to be president. Everything he ever did as president would be questioned and challenged...overturned and repealed. Every appointment made would be invalidated and every act performed by anyone appointed by him invalidated. Every court case heard by a judge, at any level, would have to be reheard. Every case prosecuted by an US Attorney appointed by him or by Holder, would have to be re-tried. Every bill he's signed, repealed...every executive order rescinded. Anyone damaged in any way by a law or order he's signed or by someone he's appointed would have grounds for suit.
The far left, no matter how much evidence is produced to show him ineligible, would not simply roll over. They would fight. We could face deeply rooted race riots. The unions would not accept such a turn over of their newly found powers. They, too, would fight. Our military could be put in the middle of a serious civil war.
Factions would vie for control of the Oval Office. Imagine the arguments: Obama and his closest people would not give up the office without a fight; Biden would think himself to be the legitimate successor, since he is VP; Boehner would claim Biden is out because he is part of the "ticket"; while Pelosi could claim she was the third in line when he first took office illegitimately and would have take over if it had been pursued right away; McCain could argue all of Obama's votes should be his; Hillary could claim she should have been the rightful DNC candidate and would have won.
Our economy could collapse in a heartbeat as the world would immediately consider our country unstable both politically and economically. Our currency could collapse overnight. The ramifications and consequences would be staggering. It definitely forces one to pause and consider whether or not we really even want to pursue this course...except we all know, as our parents tried to teach us, that right is right. When in doubt, do the right thing and face the consequences of your choices.
For decades now, Democrats have, through their conscious effort to take control of the mainstream media, controlled the dialog in this country. They have used their cohorts in the media to isolate and ostracize politically dangerous opponents and topics. Ever since the topic of Obama's birth certificate came to light nearly three years ago by the Clinton campaign, the Obama team has worked diligently with organizations like Media Matters, MSNBC and others to demonized and isolate those who suggest that Obama is not qualified to be president. And, until a few weeks ago, they were very successful in that effort.
Even staunchly conservative commentators like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity had shied away from suggesting that Obama might not be qualified to be president. They both, along Centrist, Bill O'Reilly, have called the 'birthers' various disparaging names such as "kook", "whackos" and "extremists".
All that began to change when Trump stepped forward and opened all those cans of worms. He is the first big-name personality to stand up and question Obama's legitimacy as president. And although the Obama-media has tried to paint Trump into a lunatic corner, they have failed to realize that by opening those cans Trump has done one other thing as well. He's pulled the curtain back on the Obama-media. The far left media continues flailing away, telling anyone who will listen to ignore the man behind the curtain, but its too late.
More and more Americans are questioning Obama's legitimate claim to the Oval Office that not even the Obama-media can stop it. Don't get me wrong, Republicans are still checking over their shoulders and trembling at what the media can do, and has done in the past, to people who cross that boundary. Michelle Bachman, for example, comes out one day and suggests Obama should show the birth certificate and then the next day tells the media to stop asking questions about it. Governor Brewer of Arizona has a chance to sign a bill that would require presidential candidates to provide evidence of their natural born status, but vetoes it instead.
After decades of intimidation and ruining careers, the MSM still can instill fear in public figures. What GOP presidential hopefuls fear most, is actually coming to pass. Large numbers of GOP voters are questioning Obama's legitimacy as president and we want THEM to stop shying away from it. Just last week, a poll came out of Iowa suggesting that only 26% of GOP voters believe Obama was born in the United States. That leaves 74% of the voters these GOP Presidential hopefuls are courting questioning whether Obama has a right to even be president. The questions will HAVE to be answered or many GOP voters will feel the candidates are capitulating once again to the far left. But, what most GOP voters fail to realize is that this is a very complex issue.
Just once I would love to hear someone...anyone...express concern over the ramifications and consequences our country would face if, indeed, Obama ends up NOT being qualified to be president. Everything he ever did as president would be questioned and challenged...overturned and repealed. Every appointment made would be invalidated and every act performed by anyone appointed by him invalidated. Every court case heard by a judge, at any level, would have to be reheard. Every case prosecuted by an US Attorney appointed by him or by Holder, would have to be re-tried. Every bill he's signed, repealed...every executive order rescinded. Anyone damaged in any way by a law or order he's signed or by someone he's appointed would have grounds for suit.
The far left, no matter how much evidence is produced to show him ineligible, would not simply roll over. They would fight. We could face deeply rooted race riots. The unions would not accept such a turn over of their newly found powers. They, too, would fight. Our military could be put in the middle of a serious civil war.
Factions would vie for control of the Oval Office. Imagine the arguments: Obama and his closest people would not give up the office without a fight; Biden would think himself to be the legitimate successor, since he is VP; Boehner would claim Biden is out because he is part of the "ticket"; while Pelosi could claim she was the third in line when he first took office illegitimately and would have take over if it had been pursued right away; McCain could argue all of Obama's votes should be his; Hillary could claim she should have been the rightful DNC candidate and would have won.
Our economy could collapse in a heartbeat as the world would immediately consider our country unstable both politically and economically. Our currency could collapse overnight. The ramifications and consequences would be staggering. It definitely forces one to pause and consider whether or not we really even want to pursue this course...except we all know, as our parents tried to teach us, that right is right. When in doubt, do the right thing and face the consequences of your choices.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Liberals and the Abortion Debate
Liberals should really recuse themselves from the abortion debate in this country. They serious have no leg to stand on the debate. On one leg they rely upon the argument that a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body. Even if you stipulate, for the sake of argument, that the being living inside of her body is not another human being, there is really nothing to support the conjecture that women, or anyone for that matter, have an inherent right to do whatever they want with their bodies.
In taking such a stance, liberals fail to recognize that we do not have the right to do anything we want with our bodies. We do not have the right to sell our bodies sexually. We do not have the right to put any drug we want into our bodies. For that matter, we don't, technically, have the right to even kill ourselves (though good luck in trying to punish that crime).
And in case the liberals hadn't noticed, even the First Lady advocates restrictions on what we can do to our bodies. She would like to penalize restaurants for serving fatty foods, or restrict what our schools serve our children.
Some other examples of what some on the left would like to do to control what we can and cannot do with our bodies:
--forbidding children from bringing their own school lunches
--forbidding smoking in public or in public buildings
--requiring motorcycle riders wear helmets
--outlawing trans-fats in restaurants
So, with the left wanting to control our freedom to make our choices in THOSE areas, why do they feel they can argue that society has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body in THIS instance?
The other leg that liberals try to stand on in their fight for abortion centers around the argument that what is inside the woman is NOT a human being with inherent rights. Again, this argument is loaded with hypocrisies.
If it is NOT a human being living inside the woman, what is it?
If government has the power to declare one segment of humanity to be "non-human", do they also have the potential power to declare other segments of humanity to be equally non-human? Don't think that's possible? How do you think the Nazis convinced the vast majority of Germans in the 1930s to agree to the extermination of the Jews...by indoctrinating the public to the idea that Jews were less than human. How do you suppose that certain segments of the Islamic world justify the extermination of the Jews or, for that matter, any infidel...by convincing the Islamic population that Jews and infidels are less than human. Is there any difference between that and what the world, in general, has done in convincing a vast majority of us that unborn children are less than human and therefore, without fundamental rights?
What's to stop government from declaring that anyone over 75 is non-human, or people who are out of work for more than a year, or pedophiles, or rapists? China, in their attempts to grapple with population issues have outlawed more than one child to a family. Look up sometime what China does to enforce that law. You'll be shocked at what you discover.
Additionally, how can liberals, on one hand, declare an unborn human to be unfit for fundamental rights while advocating animals have rights, or, as in the case with the pending UN resolution, that acts that endanger Mother Earth are a crime?
As I said when I first began this blog, I feel the key to conservatism is to be sensible. And that part of being sensible is to accept the fact that none of us have all the answers. And that even liberals have important elements to add to the debate over issues. But when anyone, liberal or otherwise, cannot provide even the most basic elements of common sense to their side of the debates, it makes it very difficult to give any credence to what they say.
In taking such a stance, liberals fail to recognize that we do not have the right to do anything we want with our bodies. We do not have the right to sell our bodies sexually. We do not have the right to put any drug we want into our bodies. For that matter, we don't, technically, have the right to even kill ourselves (though good luck in trying to punish that crime).
And in case the liberals hadn't noticed, even the First Lady advocates restrictions on what we can do to our bodies. She would like to penalize restaurants for serving fatty foods, or restrict what our schools serve our children.
Some other examples of what some on the left would like to do to control what we can and cannot do with our bodies:
--forbidding children from bringing their own school lunches
--forbidding smoking in public or in public buildings
--requiring motorcycle riders wear helmets
--outlawing trans-fats in restaurants
So, with the left wanting to control our freedom to make our choices in THOSE areas, why do they feel they can argue that society has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body in THIS instance?
The other leg that liberals try to stand on in their fight for abortion centers around the argument that what is inside the woman is NOT a human being with inherent rights. Again, this argument is loaded with hypocrisies.
If it is NOT a human being living inside the woman, what is it?
If government has the power to declare one segment of humanity to be "non-human", do they also have the potential power to declare other segments of humanity to be equally non-human? Don't think that's possible? How do you think the Nazis convinced the vast majority of Germans in the 1930s to agree to the extermination of the Jews...by indoctrinating the public to the idea that Jews were less than human. How do you suppose that certain segments of the Islamic world justify the extermination of the Jews or, for that matter, any infidel...by convincing the Islamic population that Jews and infidels are less than human. Is there any difference between that and what the world, in general, has done in convincing a vast majority of us that unborn children are less than human and therefore, without fundamental rights?
What's to stop government from declaring that anyone over 75 is non-human, or people who are out of work for more than a year, or pedophiles, or rapists? China, in their attempts to grapple with population issues have outlawed more than one child to a family. Look up sometime what China does to enforce that law. You'll be shocked at what you discover.
Additionally, how can liberals, on one hand, declare an unborn human to be unfit for fundamental rights while advocating animals have rights, or, as in the case with the pending UN resolution, that acts that endanger Mother Earth are a crime?
As I said when I first began this blog, I feel the key to conservatism is to be sensible. And that part of being sensible is to accept the fact that none of us have all the answers. And that even liberals have important elements to add to the debate over issues. But when anyone, liberal or otherwise, cannot provide even the most basic elements of common sense to their side of the debates, it makes it very difficult to give any credence to what they say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
