Saturday open thread
Traveling. Talk amongst yourselves!
~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~
Posted in: Uncategorized
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
First Day of 2012 Open Thread & Aspirin-Swapping Roundtable
January 1, 2012 11:45 AM by Doug Powers
235 Comments
Reports: Miners trapped in Mullan, Idaho; 6 hospitalized
December 15, 2011 01:34 AM by Michelle Malkin
23 Comments
Sports and the sexual abuse of children; Plus: Rick Santorum makes things worse
November 8, 2011 02:29 PM by Michelle Malkin
89 Comments10 years ago: My generation’s bloody wake-up call
September 10, 2011 10:07 PM by Michelle Malkin
44 Comments
Hurricane/Tropical Storm Irene Open Thread
August 28, 2011 12:25 PM by Doug Powers
104 CommentsQuake alert: Shake, rattle, and roll!
August 23, 2011 02:03 PM by Michelle Malkin
231 CommentsHappy Mother’s Day!
May 8, 2011 11:07 AM by Doug Powers
57 CommentsChrist the Lord is risen today
April 24, 2011 09:32 AM by Michelle Malkin
100 Comments
Categories: Uncategorized
Weekly Standard
» White House Economic Adviser: 'We Need a Global Minimum Tax'Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False ChoicesWeekly Standard
» Obamacare Could Require Private Insurers to Fund Abortion on Demand
The answer is YES. From previous exchanges with you (perhaps unmemorable) I fully comprehend the totality of sacrifice involved and yes I am willing to give all.
This is a slippery slope argument, and there can be NO weakening or allowing the gradual erosion or chipping away of our guaranteed Constitutional rights.
Impeach….
Not sure he’s done anything impeachable. Its not practical. Best case scenario is conservatives win back the Congress in 2010, turn Obama into a eunuch in doing so, remove him and those that think like him political from office in 2012 and NEVER elect them again.
Impeachment, the birther dudes removing him, would all cause so much unrest it would be so destructive it would be impractical.
Folks seem to be forgetting any legislation can be un-done and turned back.
Anything Obama does now is not as they say in the movie “Sandlot”, f o r e v e r…..
les wrote:
Seiously? How about 1986 – April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
More seriously – Do you know who the Werewolves were?
Hint: The surrender of Karl Dönitz didn’t pacify Germany by the time they were finished signing the documents.
babbledabble:
The power of the House of Representatives was modeled upon the like power of the British House of Commons. State legislatures can impeach state officials (including governors according to their respective state constitutions.
For Federal Impeachment, The U.S. Constituion, Article II, Section 4 states:
After many reviews of the Constituion I can not find any instance of term limits being unconstitutional. If that were the case, why would the 22nd Admendment be in force?
Unconstitutional?? We have a Constitution?? Not according to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who seem to think that Congress can mandate that all Americans must buy a particular product (health insurance). To this crowd, the Constitution is completely irrelevant.
Sorry but I’m pretty sure the term limits thing has made its run before and was shoot down. I for one am not in favor of them. The solution is not term limits.
On October 24th, 2009 at 4:21 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:
I agree that Impeachment is not warranted, nor does one be a “birther dude” to bring it up. Look at Jefferson from Louisiana who definitely met the requirements for impeachment. DOes anyone actually believe that a DEM controlled Senate and House will bring up this topic? No. And from what I have been following, Obama has actually done nothing that would trigger any honest impreachment topic.
Legistation can be un-done and turned back. Yes, but first we must regain control of the Legislative branch to alter the laws, perhaps challenge the policies in the courts (yeah, right). I remind you of the difficulties involved when attempting to overturn ANY legislative ENTITLEMENT.
Nothing is forever, and it requires time and the intellectual honesty and integrity to counter. Unfortnately both qualities severely lacking in the majority of the political landscape.
On October 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pm, TypicalWhite said:
Oh how I wish that you were being sarcastic, but through observation of the polticians I understand your honest comment. Do not forget Stenny Hoyer’s comment on his unlimited power given to congress through the “general Welfare” clause interpretaion.
“nor does one be a “birther dude” to bring it up.”
Didn’t say they were.
On October 24th, 2009 at 4:34 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:
Amendments to the Constitution originate in either of the Houses of the Legislative branch. With that being said, both Houses are interested in the control of others and not themselves. Asking either the House or Senate to submit an amendmant limiting their own power is like asking someone to slit their own throat. For that simple reason, I do not foresee a term limitation amendment for the branches of Government besides the Executive.
The solution is not term limits regardless. It is voters paying attention and holding elected officals accountable.
That is what our system was founded on and precisely why IF the voters didn’t like the way the government was working, those same voters can constitutionally have a ‘do over”.
Term limits is yet one more way voters can avoid their responsibility. Its yet one more way that someone out there, someone in office, is responsible.
We are in the mess due to us, not “them”.
king…
In the same mind set we will not see the IRS really reformed.
“or on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,”. From Article V.
Term limits should be enacted. We all say “vote the rascals out” but for most of us, we’re talking about the other rascals. We’re quite happy with our rascals as long as they continue to bring home the pork. Should be no need to cite examples here. The Founders didn’t intend congress to be a lifetime job.
jsmiddleton4:
We are in agreement in the responsibilites of the citizenry in regards to government. Ultimately the problems facing us are the legal “living” populace as the root cause.
We wish reform, we want change. We want real change and not platitudes. In a country whose educational system is de-emphasizing civics, the same country whose make up is non-voting and politically unaware… It behooves the active to embrace and march for the legal constitutional change.
Relying on the governmental authorities to ploice themselves is not working. When will the gerrymandering of districts cease? When will the people who do not vote become aware and not serve merely as tools of a party? When will actual real enforcement of laws commence with respect to voting fraud. And above all, when will people wake up to find that their precious rights, liberties and responsibilities have vanished?
“The Founders didn’t intend congress to be a lifetime job.”
Sorry but how did you reach this conclusion? Many of our founders perceived themselves as life time statesmen.
Term limits as already noted is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The mindset that says is its the fault of those guys “out there” and the way will solve that is to control those guys “out there” is a flawed mindset and won’t fix anything.
When we finally get some good folks in office who are trustworthy you want to kick them out? Why? How does that make sense.
“when will people wake up to find that their precious rights, liberties and
responsibilities have vanished?”
Most folks don’t care one way or the other as long as they have some kind of life.
One of the big mistakes conservatives have made is assuming people share similiar values as in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So when we say Obama is eroding your liberty they don’t care. And we dont’ get it.
It is hard for us to imagine but there were folks who preferred and still do life underneath a king. There are folks in our country who really and honestly think life under a dictator would be acceptable as long as the dictator is somewhat benovelent.
MarcoPolo,
I just quoted your comments about Newt (including the link to the video) in a comment I just made in this prior MM post:
Yes, and it is these same people who go to another country, get in trouble (in one way or another) and then cry about their rights and how the foreign system is stupid and mean…
If you want to criticize speeches for being too conclusive, then simply criticize speeches for being too conclusive. There was no sign to “fix.” It was for the Lincoln crew, attached squadrons, and the battle group.
That battle group had a mission to accomplish during their deployment, and they accomplished their mission superbly. That sign belonged there.
It’s disgraceful for you to imply otherwise.
Unrelatedly, the US and our allies did prevail in the Battle of Iraq. The entire government toppled. An entire new government was established. You’re only confusing the Insurgency Battle because you WANT to confuse the Insurgency Battle.
jsm are you suggesting that in the whole USA there are only 535 trustworthy individuals and therefore they must be kept in government for life?
My state finally instituted term limits for our legislature and although the political and punditry classes assured us that the sun would cease to rise in our state after it took effect even the naysayers admitted it was a remarkable improvement. Oh, the sun still comes up.
You would need the liberal House to impeach him, and the liberal Senate to try him. That’s almost an impossibilty. If it got that far, you would end up with Biden as president, with Pelosi right behind him. Either way, we conservatives lose.
The contract with America required a vote on term limits. It didn’t require a YES vote on it.
The 2010 Contract with America II should include a YES vote on term limits and promise a SINGLE TERM.
In other words, all signers of Contract with America II should promise to cut, cut, cut, cut spending and only serve a single term. Two years is plenty of time to cut spending!!!!!!
“jsm are you suggesting that in the
whole USA there are only 535 trustworthy individuals and therefore they must be kept in government for life?”
How does the answer to that question then mean that if a person is in office is a trustworthy and acceptable congressman or woman that we must then insist they get removed?
Having more than one trustworthy person in our country does not then mean we must kick out ones who are NOR does it make doing so a good idea.
It is absurd to think we must kick folks out of office because we the people aren’t doing our jobs.
The problem is not with “them”, the problem is with “us”. Limiting “them” does not fix “us”.
Its flawed thinking although it feels good cause it means we’re doing something.
On October 24th, 2009 at 5:37 pm, corkie said:
After all, look how much has been done to preserve the constitution in a whopping 10 months!
Michelle on Mediaite.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/5qq-michelle-malkin/
Aye-painted the house “egg” years ago
So its a good thing then when professional sports teams field players who suck and are not “motivated” by bazillion dollar contracts that when that team goes in the tank, they fire the coach? And when they continue to have the same sucky season and performance they fire the offensive co-ordinator, then the cheerleaders, then the guy that sells the beer?
The problem is not “them”. We are not going to fix the mess we are in with our government by passing laws that control “them”. A bad congressman is a bad congressman regardless of the time he or she will be in office.
Term limits feel good, fix nothing, an will quite possibly make matters worse.
Except that foreign affairs is the responsibility of the executive branch, i.e. the president, who is already term-limited. There are/would be no term limits on cabinet members, senior staff or career personnel, and it is routine for at least some of them to either be held over or serve multiple administrations. Same thing applies to Congress. Just because the elected rep is a rookie doesn’t mean that his staff has to be. Since the Congress is perfectly happy to have term limits on the President, they really have no grounds to argue against them for the legislature – except, of course, that they consider themselves far too important to be governed by the same laws they inflict on everybody else.
I’m with jsmiddleton on term limits. They sound good until you see them in action. They actually result in less accountability because there is no reason to worry about anything but the interests of those who have bought your vote. They therefore result in breeding even more corruption.
The best term limit law already exists: vote them out. Don’t be afraid to vote against every single incumbent on the ballot next year. We may vote a few good ones out but because it would shock the system, the sobering effect would be worth it.
“Just because the elected rep is a rookie doesn’t mean that his staff has to be.”
That’s not a “pro” argument. That is a “con” argument. The government ends up due to the simple practicality of administering an office being run by civil servants.
The pro term limit folks try to minimize that by saying it does not have to be that way. Only problem is for any of us who have been involved in government its ALREADY run in very many big and important ways by unelected civil servants. Folks in the “office” that stick around.
Nope, not a pro argument at all.
Term limits are not going to happen regardless.
And if I remember the reasons for term limits on the President using term limits on the Office of the President to say its okay in Congress is an apples to oranges argument.
Term limits on the Office of the President are due to the nature of the office, not the person in it. The Office of the President is conducted in a very different context than the office of a Senator or Representatives.
Term limits for the President can be very ok and not ok for Congress. Its apples and oranges. Not having it one while it is in the other is not inconsistent in anyway.
“The best term limit law already exists: vote them out.”
Amen Phil!
I agree, Pasadena. If I’m an elected congressman, why should I care about what my voters want? I’ll do what I darn well please, and if it means more “profit” to me, as far as my business interests or influence later, if I was a little moral value, I would be happy. Originally, the FFs discussed a “president for life”, and long terms for the congress. The voters must decide. But, I may be agreeable to a 2 or 3 term limit. However, trying to get someone to run, every couple of years, with money and influence might be hard to find, after a while.
“However, trying to get someone to run, every couple of years, with money and influence might be hard to find, after a while.”
So the void that would exist, as you have noted, how do you think it would be filled? By folks who are looking for an edge, driving some self serving agenda? So we end up with a political machine like Chicago, etc.
Of course.
Term limits are not the panacea some folks want them to be.
Forgot to add that I’ve always been against the 17th amendment. Let the states decide senators and take away power from the national government. It was nothing more than a power grab by D.C., against the states.
The timing of the announcement of this “emergency” should raise all sorts of “red flags”.
We don’t need term limits. We need a ban on seniority. That is the source of power in congress today.
Term limits don’t mean one term, so the whole complaint of inexperienced leadership is baseless. If they were enacted at all, they would be something on the order of two terms for a senator and four for a Congressman, split in such a way that only a fraction of the Congress would be term-limited in any particular election. Of course there would be nothing to prevent voters from voting somebody out in any given election.
As far as the “apples to oranges” argument, while the President is the most powerful individual, term limits make no more sense for that office than for Congress as far as I can see. Certainly you can’t argue that they don’t accumulate more power or become more corrupt the longer they are there, and it seems obvious to me that the longer they’re there the less interest they have in actually representing their constituents.
Just to clarify my own point of view, I’m very ambivalent about it. I can see good arguments on both sides. Certainly we’d be better off if Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, McCain, et al had been gotten rid of years ago, no matter who replaced them. On the other hand, Lamar Smith, my current congressman, has served pretty much with distinction through a long career, which is why this very conservative district keeps sending him back – even if I do complain about him grabbing his share of the pork.
Obama permits UN into the US to investigate “human rights abuses:” lack of affordable housing. Blame Bush! More Porkulus!
I was just curious about impeachment & how it works. Not necessarily suggesting….just wondering.
But I have heard that some things that are going on called “unconstitutional”. Whether this is true or not I don’t know. And if were true, what could anyone do about it.
The short answer is, not much. The primary recourse for unconstitutional actions by either branch would be to challenge them in court, with an eye to an eventual Supreme Court ruling – which is one reason why people are concerned about Obama getting to pack the court with fellow radicals. As I read it, impeachment wasn’t established to deal with such matters, but only for the most serious of crimes – which is, as I recall, one reason why Clinton wasn’t convicted. There were serious doubts whether perjury reached the level of high crimes. Of course, the Democrats would have voted for acquittal if he had been caught raping a 5-year-old boy.
Why anyone would question Dick Cheney’s wisdom regarding national security is beyond me. I should dig up a summation of his career and compare it to Odumbo’s. What a joke.
Stick with Cheney and the John Birch Society and everything will be just fine.
Anyone listen to Hannity this past Friday? A certain caller made a few arguments that sounded suspiciously like something (in fact exactly) I would have said!
Here’s a link to an interesting new Obama book. It covers his life from birth through the first 100 days of his presidency. The information is as reliable as it gets because it didn’t come from Obama.
You can read some excerpts from the book here:
http://colony14.net/id41.html
zero! How’s it hangin’?
You listen to Hannity?
Did you see that Kingfish made quite a splash here earlier? In a scholarly sort of way.
Okay, go ahead and tell us what the argument(s) were.
I wonder if the Grove Parc Plaza “apartments” will be on the UN’s itinerary (see “Culture of Corruption”, pages 48-52).
Valerie Jarrett had best prepare for a bus trip.
The main reason we have term limits here in CA for state assemblymen is because both parties agreed to a gerrymandering pact that guaranteed incumbents need not ever fear losing an election. The GOP (led by the ultimate self-serving phony David Drier) willingly agreed to accept permanent minority party status.
CA voters reacted by enacting term limits as the only hope of ever getting any of these entrenched criminals out which only made things worse. In their first term, they do go along to get along which makes them docile. Once termed out, they no longer have anything to fear from voters and are thus free to do what their monied sponsors tell them to do. Otherwise, they won’t find a job waiting for them at the end of their term.
So term limits is just a feel-good knee-jerk reaction to frustration over problems that can be better solved by cleaning up how elections are conducted in the first place. Make them competitive with at least two viable political parties contesting as many elections as possible. As we have come to learn, one-party democracies don’t work. Get rid of this “post-partisan” cabal of corrupt weasels.
Masking corruption with “civility” is only confusing the simple-minded among us who like fluffy bunnies and baby duckies. We voters have an obligation to be angry and make our anger heard in the public square. If we fail to act while we can, our only recourse later will be to shoot our back to freedom.
For now, let’s not be afraid to vote out the incumbents.
Hate to mention it, but today is the official United Nations Day.
Not kidding.
pure:
Hey pure! What did Kingfish say earlier? I just started reading this thread now, I didn’t go through the whole thing.
As far as Hannity, yes I listen. Sometimes I agree with him, and sometimes I don’t. I’ll send Kingfish the recording of the caller I was talking about that I just happen to have, he can send it to you.
What’s to celebrate here? What achievements? If someone can show me, I would be open to that.
zero, you want me to summarize what he said?
*squirming*
pure:
LOL. In that case nvm. Ref the recording, sorry it turns out its too large.
I’ll have to post it somewhere. Are either you or KF on facebook?
Ask him to email me and maybe we can link up there.
Having spent a lot of time checking out all the information I could find on Obama’s past I am now officially a “birther dude”. In my opinion there is no way on God’s green earth Obama is a “natural born citizen” and unlikely he was born is Hawaii.
Am I “crazy”? Maybe, but I challenge everyone to take a close look at the information available, weight it against the locked-up records and long form birth certificate, and make up their own minds.
I won’t talk about the evidence here because there seems to be a news blackout on this subject and few are willing to talk about it.
If the Keyes vs. Obama case is allowed to go to the discovery stage it’s over for Obama.
I am on Facebook, reluctantly.
Look, if you are hyper-enthused about this audio, just write me at:
prairiegrass@mindspring.com
Pure:
email sent
The larger issues are his citizenship status relative to his natural father and to his move from Indonesia back to Hawaii relative to his step-father.
(puts on sour school teacher face)
Perhaps you’d like to share that with everybody?
Just sent you a reply.
BUT, it is not a fairy dust reply.
Only Kingfish gets fairy dust.
MarcoPolo
Are you addressing zeroangel or purealchemy?
MP:
LOL. I am working on adding my own comments with Windows Movie Maker and I’ll post that on youtube at some point (and I’ll let you guys know in another open thread). Sorry, but the raw cut goes to only Monster Thread alums for now.
Pure:
I’ll get back to you in a min. Junior just woke up.
Good plan. Daddy duty comes first.
Anyway, zero, I am like so totally proud of you for making it onto the live Hannity show!
OMG! Who does that include?
That is a WAY exclusive club.
Facebook can go to Mickey Mouse hell.
*spit*
Pure:
I said the caller said things that sounded like something I would have said. I will neither confirm nor deny that I have any knowledge of the caller’s identity. Come on pure, you know better.
For those who have it, ALN is airing a documentary on radical Islam in the US right now.
Actually, I did not know that immediately but I know you are a game-player and a trickster.
And if you say now that you neither confirm or deny, then you are admitting EXPOSURE!
pure – God would never let zero speak in St. Sean’s Cathedral. He would be struck by lightning or something.
Either that or I liked what the caller had to say and am purposely being vague in order to confuse.
Thanks, guys.
I feel your attention but I am scared and hoping for the presence of Kingfish.
Sick of politics.
Some good news:
GATORS ARE WINNING!!!
Good to be sick of politics.
Let’s assume that you “birthers” are right and I’m not saying you aren’t, without it we have more than just Obama over the barrel. We have the entire one-party system fighting for its survival. Why do you want us to abandon that battlefield only to get bogged down in a pointless fight over a technicality? It’s like calling for a cease fire just before the Allied forces storm the beaches of Normandy only to clarify whether Hitler was a Jew in hopes that the embarrassment will force him to quit. I wish you guys would hold off and fight that minor battle later.
Even if it is proven to be true without a shadow of a doubt tomorrow morning, it is a harmful distraction to those of us who are in a better place to stop bigger problems sooner. We are entering an election year that might find the GOP replaced with a conservative party that is larger than the Democratic Party. Isn’t that more important? We may finally have a true second party instead of a corrupt 3rd-party posing as the opposition party while acting like “Assistant Democrats”. Where does the “birther” thing fit in? Your issue is like a log cabin next to the Vanderbilt mansion “the Breakers” in Newport RI.
Obama being technically unqualified is interesting but irrelevant. His being elected in technical violation of the “natural born” requirement does not violate the spirit and intent of our Constitution. a clause was added to prevent a foreign sovereign from compromising our sovereignty due to the conflicting rights of succession of kings versus those our Constitution provides via elections. It was a sovereignty issue. Do you guys not get that? Obama poses no threat to our sovereignty as a result of his birth status.
As bad a president Obama may be, it does not justify wasting our time seeking a cheap victory over a minor technicality that is irrelevant and can be fixed later. We are already winning an epic fight over a broader landscape over more serious and complicated opponents than Obama. Don’t blow it for us.
GATOR VICTORY!
I just got off the phone with Barack, Nancy and Harry. Nan and Hank have agreed to begin articles of impeachment against Barry just as soon as they can find a copy of Barry’s birth certificate and the constitution. The only problem is NOBODY IN WASHINGTON HAS EVER SEEN A COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Barry said he was working on getting a “certified copy” of his birth certificate from http://www.fightthesmears.com and will release that right after he released his college transcripts…
Oh, geez, the Tigers won tonight too but it was the wrong Tigers! Auburn slips to 5 and 3 which is 5 games better than I expected at the start of the season. LSU seriously man-handled my Auburn Tigers in the first half of the game. I wasn’t able to watch the second half but the score indicates it got worse in the second half.
I am still thinking Gene Chizik is a “One and Done” coach for Auburn…
I read Newt’s blog where he stated in the run-up to ’94, the GOP made a sweep of the 93 elections. 3 of the 4 winners were moderates and George Allen was the sole conservative.
The take away lesson for Newt was the need to compromise with RINOs to ensure a GOP majority. Lo and behold, the GOP won majorities in ‘94.
Well Newtie, in retrospect, going tactical was short-sighted and ultimately detrimental to the GOP. Yes you won a majority in ‘94, but that majority cost us the presidency in ‘96. How? The party gave us the RINO Bob Dole, who never had a chance against Slick Willy. You were so blinded by your tactical genius, that instead of offering a Reagan Conservative, you gave us a Dem-lite. In contrast, the only difference between those two candidates was that one was a womanizing draft dodger and the other a feeble war hero.
RINOs like Newt don’t get it. They talked a good game, like ‘Contract w/ America’ but didn’t walk it. Conservatives in 92 & 96 sat on their hands or voted 3rd party. Almost enough of them did so again in 2000, except the specter or Gore convince enough to hold their nose for son of Bush (voo-doo economics).
Well, Newtie, Scozzafava IS your Waterloo, and it all started with those 3 moderates in ‘93 giving you the wrong message.
What if instead of 3 Dem-lites, the GOP had fielded Conservatives? And again in ‘94 and every election there after? We most likely would have seen the Clintonista machine totally discredited, CRA would never have come into being as would everything else that ails us now.
And most certainly, Obamanation would have been just a frustrated glimmer in The Won’s eye. Would the Daly machine even still be around today? Whither Acorn and the sleaze bags that support it? Dodd, Rangel, Frank and the other corruptocrats would be cooling their heels in the slammer.
If the GOP won’t change, then it’s time for a new party. Pity that it had a great start with Abe Lincoln, only to end up eager to enslave free Americans under the tyranny of taxation w/o representation, mandates and over-regulations for a bit of power.
Just a minor point, Abe Lincoln didn’t establish the Republican Party. It already existed while he was a Whig. He elevated it to the status of a national party by reshaping it to his purposes. Does that sound like something that could be happening in NY-23?
I hope NY-23 is the start of something good for the Conservative movement in America. Other than the fact that the enemies of freedom have clearly exposed themselves we can’t count many positive developments.
BTW, does anyone still think Obama is NOT a socialist? Just checking…
I wonder if Hillary will eventually dump Bill and run off with DeDe Scozzafava? Of course, I bet Bill wonders the same thing but with eager anticipation…
Surely you are kidding.
I couldn’t disagree more. Are you actually saying that Obama and others can pull of the biggest scam in the history of America by knowingly allowing a Constitutionally unqualified candidate to become president…and it’s no big deal…WOW, that’s hard to believe.
Depending on what happened with his adoption and his becoming “Barry Soetoro” when he his returned to the USA, he may not be a US citizen AT ALL. Would that matter?
I don’t see how anything concerning Obama and/or America can be more important that uncovering this charade as soon as possible.
Now the environmental nutroots are after the dogs and cats!
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/135978/How-dogs-damage-the-planet-like-a-4×4
I wounder if ALF will stop running animal rescues? And will PETA now start extermination camps for pets? Oh, wait, they already do that!
You’re right, I should have been clearer, point bing he brought it to the national stage when the Whigs were in decline. Very much like today — not much contrast between the Dems and the RINOs, other than how to get along and maintain the status quo in their favor
I think we should outlaw the “status quo” and make everybody just be happy with the way things have always been!
Bob, reread what I said. You completely miss my point. Even if you win your silly little battle, it will not only be too late to win the war, it may even be the reason we lose the was.
We are winning the war by force of numbers (hearts and minds) while you are trying to win by some technical argument that can only prevail if those who judge are pedantic purists obsessed with the technicalities of language.
The US Constitution was a work of genius in expressing meaning without getting ensnared in the traps of language. You are trying to impose language over meaning. The Founding Fathers would not be concerned over the perceived threat you are supposedly protecting us from. You are trying to cherry-pick the words of the US Constitution to win an argument with word tricks.
I believe in the spirit in which it was written. The “natural born” clause was included as a firewall in anticipation of a Congress that might be tempted to do a end-around of the US Constitution and its many checks and balances in a stand-off by inviting a prince from a foreign sovereign family (like Mexico’s Maximilian, Poland, etc..) to become president as a compromise. After all, we started as a republic with designs to earn our way into being a true democracy. We are still a republic and the corrupt elected weasels who hold the power of our republic are trying to sell sacrifice our constitutional inheritance for their own selfish goals.
We are winning on a much bigger stage with bigger and more important arguments and with the support of the majority of Americans. You are trying to introduce a lesser issue with pedantic arguments in a provincial argument.
You guys just don’t get it. You are lost in minutiae while the rest of us are can see a big victory with the big arguments.
Don’t try to drag me into whether or not Obama is a “natural born” president as your pretext to winning this argument. I am saying it doesn’t matter. Your task is to argue that your pedestrian issue DOES matter.
Gee, PP, I do believe you are taking more than a few liberties with the language of the constitution there.
I guess you believe it is one of those “living, breathing documents…”
I can’t tell you how many times I read and re-read my last post and still… TYPOS!!!
I give up.
PP, it is not the typos that are the problem. Somehow you claim that even though the constitution explicitly says something they didn’t really mean it or care about it when they took time to put a clause in a relatively brief document.
No, in this case, your problem is reasoning and not syntax, or as you put it “meaning and not language…”
You will have to be more specific. The meaning of the Constitution can only be discerned by studying our history, particularly the Federalist Papers and the many inspiring influences our Founding Fathers drew upon. They understood that no document could capture their vision and so the wording of our Constitution was intentionally designed to be broad enough to force worried “believers” of each generation to make the effort to re-articulate the original intent in ever-evolving modern terms. They designed the Constitution hoping that we would earn our way from republic to democracy by re-inventing the Revolution every generation.
After 235 years, we are a corrupt republic and further away from being a worthy democracy than ever. How far from the ideals our Founding Fathers fought for are we? An eternity if we can’t grasp the opportunity lying at our feet next year. It right there if we can wake up and see it.
Again, specifics. Those are ephemeral arguments. I made very specific arguments about. How about being specific with your rebuttals? Staring at me in disbelief is not an argument.
War Eagle: explain to me the logic of why the constitutional amendments were added to the constitution in their specific order. Were they listed in alphabetical order? No. Did our Founding Fathers ever explain that? Maybe they expected us to figure it out for ourselves? After all, most of them were in love with symbolism. They embodied the apex of liberal ideals and incorporated the many facets of what that meant in the body of documents and provenance that form the foundation of our Constitution. The simplicity of a 2-page document does not suffice.
At some point in every culture, a small band of “those who know” steals power by setting themselves up as the “keepers of the sacred truths”. Our Constitution was intentionally written as a short document at a time when everyone knew exactly what it meant. We have drifted from the original understanding only because we are not “modern” in the 1776 sense as it was understood by those who approved this document. But the relevancy of the original intent has not changed because human nature and what humans aspire to is eternal. It is only through the continuity of intellectual integrity among the ruling classes that there was ever any hope that we could earn our way to a true democracy.
You are trying to make the oblique argument that I am arguing that the Constitution means something other than what it says. Wrong. I am saying that it means exactly what it says but clever people can dissemble the words to mean something other than the original meaning.
Nice try bud. Try making the argument that the bible tells us to not defend ourselves because it says “Thou shalt not kill”. The bible not only doesn’t mean that, it tells us that the good have an obligation to survive in the face of evil.
Y’know, ZA, so ya don’t have to go emailing audio files to folks, you could upload them to a free file host instead – like Mediafire. (Just choose “I want to upload without an account” after you click “upload files to Mediafire” – if you use Mediafire).
And stop calling me “Shirley”….
There are several good books on the Constitutional Convention that are worthwhile reads. One I read last year, is by Carol Berkin. “The Summer of 1787″ by David Stewart is another one, that I just recently finished. Both give insights into the thinking, at the time, and the problems they had to overcome in order to put together a new and very different type of government.
There are also some free podcasts on iTunes titled “History of the Constitutional Convention” that are pretty interesting.
I don’t the Commandment is “Thou shalt not kill”.
I believe it is “Thou shalt not murder.”
A big difference, it seems to me.
I also cannot dismiss this as no big deal.
This looks like an instance where the favorite expression of socialist-lawyer-etc.-politicians, “slippery slope”, may actually apply.
If the socialists-statists-collectivist-Soros anti-American organizations are actually hiding something about their minion Obama; it would be foolish to assume that their next step would not be worse, and even more threatening and destructive to our nation.
As I’ve said more than once before, the ferocious effort of our domestic enemies to hide Obama’s records does not pass the smell test nor the laugh test.
Although we do not yet have “courtroom evidence”, one knows in one’s gut; and one would likely bet one’s house, one’s car, and one’s first-born; that they (Soros et al.) have something to hide that is very damning, very damaging to their anti-American agenda.
PP, when you re-read your post are you impressed with your ability to write paragraphs of meaningless stuff. Do you program Obama’s teleprompters? Remember, fewer words equal less typos.
If I am right on the NBC citizen issue, or even citizen period for that matter, (and I am), it means a long list of crimes have been committed against me. That pisses me off big-time. Do I want the perpetrators of the crime to get away with it? I don’t think so.
Nothing could help us back off the ravages of 3 more years of socialist/marxist/communist rule more than the truth about Obama’s eligibility. To say this is a minor issue is breathtaking in its wrong-headedness.
Not to mention upholding the law and the Constitution.
The “silly” battle is the one that knowingly allows the charade to continue.
I’m sure you know this, but the courtroom evidence exists in reams. More than enough evidence to demand that Obama release his records and long-form birth certificate is still available on the net, in spite of the “scrubbing” that is being done. Every case that has been dismissed so far was done so for “lack of standing”. In one case a military member who refused to be deployed to Afghanistan had his orders changed rather than force Obama’s lawyers to prove he is a legal CIC.
The biggest mystery is how the media, including Fox and their conservative talking heads, and talk radio, refuse to say a single word about this.
Any other president with the massive uncertainty in his past of Obama, and the eligibility issue, would be discussed 24/7 on every news outlet.
Something is badly wrong, and fear and/or intimidation are the only possibilities I can see.
Yesterday we went to a family gathering-grandniece’s birthday. All that big family and not one case of flu-swine or other. Either we are quite fortunate as a family or the flues HAVE NOT reached Arizona yet-which would be fortunate too I guess. But I do wonder just how big an “Emergency” we have.
We seem to have a flu that hits large numbers in some areas but how many healthy people is it killing? Seems Ole’ Hussein is reaching for something-could it be more illegitimate power?
1000 people have died from swine flu. National emergency. 30,000 die, each year, from regular flu. No emergency. Media hype and a grab for power?
Can anyone give me the inside track on the Florida Governor race with liberal RINO Crist vs. Republican Marco Rubio? Could this be another GOP debacle NY race of Doug Hoffman vs Dede Scozzafava? I’ll consider donating to Rubio if he is a bona fide Conservative.
I’m not sure that dismissal for “lack of standing” is the same as the existence of courtroom evidence; but, these “dismissals” (thank you for reminding me of them) only make the whole sitruation stink even worse.
Believe me, we are on the same side!