Spintested: 04/27/11

Birth of a Controversy: Why Didn't Obama Disclose Info Sooner?

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Obama was completely against mandates. He criticized Hillary's support of them -- Here is Candidate Obama on mandates.

Before the healthcare debate even began, Obama made sure that there would be no public option, no single payer universal healthcare, no means for Americans to choose a public healthcare system, no means for containing costs through public healthcare programs. He took single payer off the table and blocked all efforts to get a public option in the final legislation due to the secret deal he made (and then lied about, and then had to own up to when the memo was leaked).

A caller on CSpan just a few months ago asked Richard Wolffe, who was out plugging his latest book written from his special access to the Obama White House, if we're ever going to get a public option to keep costs down.

Wolffe makes it clear that Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats never had any intention of going with a public option or expanding public healthcare in any way (although Wolffe is mistaken when he says that Obama never ran on supporting a public option).

If only Obama had kept his campaign promises.

Obama campaigned on reregulating businesses and banks. He campaigned on ending tax breaks and subsidies to companies moving their factories and jobs overseas.

Now? Not so much.

You get the regulations first and THEN you give them the money. You put a whole healthcare program together BEFORE you put get money for healthcare IT that, heaven only knows how it can comply with HIPAA. You keep your entire shopping list of needs & wants ON THE TABLE (single payer universal health care) BEFORE you concede it away. Anyone who has ever written a contract, negotiated a deal of any kind knows this.

Obama has done everything @$-backwards. What he does only makes sense if he's NOT a populist, NOT a liberal (we knew he wasn't, but Obama's most ardent supporters implored people to believe that "once he gets into the Oval Office, you'll see!"), and IS a continuation of the same failed policies of the transnational corporations that have destroyed the middle class.

What Obama is doing ONLY makes sense if what he wants is NOT what Obama's most ardent followers claims that they want. The only way to get Obama to do the people's bidding, get him to champion We The People and not the Corporations is for Obama's 'most ardent supporters' to stop defending him; they work against their own best interests when they do that.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Birth of a Controversy: Why Didn't Obama Disclose Info Sooner?

Candidate Obama was all over the place, depending on who was talking to at any given time and what day it was in the campaign, which primaries were done with and who he didn't need to woo anymore.

Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton. He convinced centrists that he was a centrist. He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist. But guess what?

"Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat"

Blue Dog = (might as well be registered as a) Republican

During the campaign, Obama supported "healthcare reform". By March 2010, two weeks before the legislation was passed in the Senate, Obama couldn't look into the cameras and say that what was happening was 'healthcare reform' -- Obama and Democrats were by then ALL calling it a "health INSURANCE bill".

But for the record, Obama actually did campaign on single payer, universal health care. In addition to the now infamous video clip from 2003 -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE - there's a campaign ad featuring Obama himself - http://www.factcheck.org/video/obama_motherwmv.wmv .

See the part where he says he has a plan to "cover everyone'? That's called "universal coverage". Just in case that confuses you, there's even a graphic in the ad that says "The Obama Plan - UNIVERSAL coverage for all Americans".

Here's another reference where Obama campaigned on public option - http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/10/yes-obama-campaigned-on-a-public-option/

Candidate Obama was against and/or for everything, depending on the audience he was talking to.

Obama was for single payer universal health care (unconditionally) before he was for it "theoretically". Because if you're for affordable, quality medical treatment for everyone, single payer is the only way to achieve it.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Birth of a Controversy: Why Didn't Obama Disclose Info Sooner?

Lincoln? Lincoln was absolutely an insider. Not only did his marriage to the very wealthy Mary Todd give him entry, but he was in national politics for about 20 years before he got into the White House and in state politics for a decade before that.

Lincoln had a huge reputation as a lawyer, corporate and criminal, for winning cases, represented a railroad against its shareholder, and was known far and wide because for about two decades he traveled from county to county throughout Illinois arguing cases for months on end. Lincoln argued close to 200 cases before the Illinois State Supreme Court. That's as inside politics as it gets, then and now.

As far as McCain goes, I agree he's a Constitutional question, although I would argue that being born on a military base in another country satisfies the Constitution's requirement for "natural born". I don't think that that was the founders' intent.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

House Republicans Lining Up Sweeping Cuts For Debt Limit Vote

D & R poIiticians are not each others' enemles, not as they have voters believing them to be. Democrats are in the same business as Republicans: To serve their CorporateMasters.

Think of them as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. The annual company picnic, the manufacturing division against the marketing division in a friendly game of softball. One side (Republicans) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.

Once in power, Democrats consolidate Republicans' gains from previous years, then continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertising campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what we thought they were.

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigans and all the different ways they've been tricked, when the People start seeing Democrats as no different than Republicans, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tailored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisan cooperation' demeanor. It's smirk-worthy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude, like that's somehow "a good thing".
About GOP
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

House Republicans Lining Up Sweeping Cuts For Debt Limit Vote

I am an old OLD liberal Democrat, and it's been a long LONG time since Democratic politicians actually walked the walk of "Let's help our fellow man" - Like since the DLC took control over the Democratic Party.

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReagan, LeeAtwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism , and how liberals were responsible for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgvnned by election dirty tricks & fraud.

When informed of the issues, most Americans (70 percent) agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characterize themselves as far-anything or extreme, but mainstream.

For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicament of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to k!ll babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritarian intimidation are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.

Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to the American people, as evidenced by what's going on in Republican politicians' Townhalls these days.
About GOP
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Donald Trump Should Receive The Same Scrutiny He Sought For Barack Obama

Absolutely spouses.

Bill Clinton amassed $100 million in the eight years after he left the White House, along with an unknown mega-fortune he made with Ron Burkell in hedge funds (see his secret dealings with Ron Burkle/Yucaipa), much of it the direct result of his ending Glass-Steagall. Hedge fund managers are making BILLIONS per year without paying any capital gains taxes. Here's another Clinton 'conflict of interest'.

It's not like I'm asking to see their children's (or children's spouses') financial records (like Chelsea's right-out-of-the-gate-of-college salary, said to be in the neighborhood of $300,000/year or her hedge fund trader husband, Mark Mezvinsky).

Ending welfare and all of the safety nets necessary for when a greedy aristocracy loses all control is what Clinton lost his soul over, if someone who co-founded the DLC can be said to have ever had a soul.
About Donald Trump
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

House Republicans Lining Up Sweeping Cuts For Debt Limit Vote

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats want what they want. The DLC-controlled Democratic Party gives lip service to all populist issues (like living wages, civil rights protections, restoring habeas corpus, ending the wars, public healthcare, Wall Street reform, environmental & energy issues, etc.).

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything and ANYONE to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and R0ve were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush & R0ve were just more ruthless in doing what politicians and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks, don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.

Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish the Clinton machine (to get the nomination) and the oldest, most experienced politicians in US history (including the R0ve machine) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politicians (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep impeaching Bush and Cheney off the table, have us still reelecting them and not marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks?

Obama and Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it.

The trick for them has been to keep the many different populist groups believing that they really do support our issues, but they're merely inept. And to get us to keep voting for them despite their failure to achieve our alleged shared objectives.

Getting Democratic voters (and Obama's 'most ardent supporters') to understand that Democratic politicians have been taking us all for suckers and patsies is the most immediate problem and the challenge.
About GOP
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

House Republicans Lining Up Sweeping Cuts For Debt Limit Vote

Why is everyone ignoring the Progressive Caucus proposal?

===========================================

Perhaps they don't know there is one? You can read it here.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Donald Trump Should Receive The Same Scrutiny He Sought For Barack Obama

The media abdicated responsibility long ago; they believe it's the job of opponents and that their job, the media's job, is to be Howard Cosell and report as if it's a sporting event between two teams. If an opponent doesn't uncover something about a candidate, "too bad for the public" is the attitude of the media
About Donald Trump
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Donald Trump Should Receive The Same Scrutiny He Sought For Barack Obama

I mean everything. From birth certificates and school transcripts to business and banking records and tax returns. And that goes for spouses, too.
About Donald Trump
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Donald Trump Should Receive The Same Scrutiny He Sought For Barack Obama

undefined
About Donald Trump
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Donald Trump Should Receive The Same Scrutiny He Sought For Barack Obama

I think you've got a convenient memory. Everyone that you mentioned has had calls for documentation released.
About Donald Trump
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Donald Trump Should Receive The Same Scrutiny He Sought For Barack Obama

ALL presidential candidates should get the same scrutiny sought for Obama.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House (PHOTO)

The blue highlighted text in the comment of mine that you responded to.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Birth of a Controversy: Why Didn't Obama Disclose Info Sooner?

Not only wasn't Mitt Romney ever a US president, he never was the Republican Party's nominee.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Birth of a Controversy: Why Didn't Obama Disclose Info Sooner?

Mitt Romney was president?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Birth of a Controversy: Why Didn't Obama Disclose Info Sooner?

You're presuming a heII of a lot from agencies that regularly presume "the other guy did it".
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Birth of a Controversy: Why Didn't Obama Come Clean Sooner?

This has always been about how we vet candidates for the presidency and other elected offices -- Not through primaries, with the People choosing, but before then, the pre-selection vetting by the powers-that-be working through the political parties.

Until Obama, the last president not to have parents born in the US was about two hundred years ago. Presidents were multi-generational American and came through the ranks of 'aristocracy', screened and anointed by the aristocracy. They or their families were famous or well known politically, financially, etc. Interestingly enough, the only side of Obama's family that was politically connected was paternal.

This is a valuable opportunity for Americans to discuss an issue which should inform and empower citizens, but instead it's being met with hostility and outrage, which prevents reasoned discussion and resolution.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Birth of a Controversy: Why Didn't Obama Come Clean Sooner?

Do you think that there's some official birth certificate checker in the government that vets candidates?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Birth of a Controversy: Why Didn't Obama Come Clean Sooner?

As an old liberal Democrat I say that on its face, if the document is legitimate, the only reason I can see for Obama fighting to prevent the compelling of this document would be for purely political reasons, not for legal purposes.

Of those political reasons, I could see several possibilities for Obama's refusal to cooperate, and only one of the reasons is semi-'innocent'; the others fit with Obama's MO of manipulation (media, opponents, the American people) for political gain.

The semi-'innocent' explanation is that both documents reveal something that doesn't square with Obama's narrative of his personal history: The address given on the Certificate of Birth for Obama's mother at the time of Obama's birth is her parents' home and not Obama's father's residence.

When it was just the Certificate of Live Birth, the accuracy of that line on the certificate could be held in abeyance (and it still can be as far as I and probably most others are concerned). I can see how Obama might have preferred to stonewall the public release of the long form so as not to have to deal with the new personal history.

The point is, though, that I don't know, but once the question was raised it was a legitimate inquiry and Obama's response of stonewalling for two years shows an arrogant and dismissive attitude towards the real bosses in a democracy, i.e., the People.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Birth of a Controversy: Why Didn't Obama Come Clean Sooner?

President Obama could not have run for President without a valid birth certificate. He'd already been vetted.

=========================================================

By who?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Birth of a Controversy: Why Didn't Obama Come Clean Sooner?

I thought that was true, too, until over the past several months I've seen people's long form birth certificates from Hawaii, both online (strangers to me, so I wouldn't have known if they were legitimate -- See here) and in person (two friends of mine who I knew were born in Hawaii, who I asked if they'd send away for their long form to see if they could get it and if it looked like what was posted online). They got them without needing any waiver.

You'll notice that they look like what was released today. Only Obama, it seems, required a waiver to get the long form.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Birth of a Controversy: Why Didn't Obama Come Clean Sooner?

Thank you, Linda Monk; I couldn't agree with you more.

In my experience, when someone acts as if he has something to hide, people become suspicious. Particularly in this contentious political atmosphere. Being a public servant in a democratic republic in such a climate requires transparency, and that was what Obama seemed to understand when he was a candidate for the office of the presidency. He ran on transparency on the heels of an administration that operated in secrecy, as a dictatorship, had brought this nation to destruction. No sooner did Obama get into office than he's adopted all of the previous administration's secrecy tactics and policies, even going them one better.

We make a covenant with our government. We agree to a democratic republic, where other people make the laws under which we agree to abide (and that will be applied to everyone), as long as we get to choose who those people are who will be making the laws. It's on the basis of trust, and when you act sneakily, as if you have something to hide, people tend to question and doubt you.

When we no longer trust in the process, when we no longer trust that the selection process by which our elected representatives is fair and accurate, or that the laws don't apply equally to all, or that our elected representatives have deceived us, then all bets are off. And no government can stand once that happens.

Even if what's being attributed to raclsm is accurate (it may be true for some, but not for all or even most), so what? Producing documentation is no skin off Obama's nose. It's how you build trust. You meet each and every demand, especially when it's so astoundingly elementary (and Constitutionally required), and so obviously easy to comply with.

When people on both sides of the aisle cite good reasons for distrusting Obama, I have to wonder about the cognitive abilities of his 'most ardent admirers' who opposed the same behavior when it done by Bush-Cheney.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House (PHOTO)

Yes, he did.

Blue high-lighted text is a hyperlink. Click on it and you'll find the answer to your question.
About Birthers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House (PHOTO)

Your rude and abusive comment is against the policy here.

I read the entire article. What is it you believe I missed?
About Birthers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House (PHOTO)

I read every word.

What in it do you think I missed?
About Birthers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House (PHOTO)

I'm an old liberal Democrat, and I can tell you that when someone acts as if he has something to hide, people become suspicious. Particularly in this contentious political atmosphere.

On its face, if the document is legitimate, the only reason I can see for Obama fighting to prevent the compelling of this document would be for purely political reasons, not for legal purposes. Of those, political reasons, I could see several possibilities for Obama's refusal to cooperate, and only one of the reasons is semi-'innocent'; the others fit with Obama's MO of manipulation (media, opponents, the American people) for political gain.

The semi-innocent explanation is that both documents reveal something that doesn't square with Obama's narrative of his biography (the address given for Obama's mother at the time of Obama's birth is her parents' home and not his father's address). When it was just the certificate of live birth, the accuracy of that line on the certificate could be held in abeyance. And it still can be as far as I and probably most others are concerned. But there are many who still have problems with what that biography for a US president implies, and it has much more to do with class and not r@ce (although for some, it's indeed interchangeable). In Washington, however, in the particular circles in which Obama has to operate, it does influence relationships and business.
About Birthers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House (PHOTO)

Marcospinelli

It begs the question, "Why did Obama have lawyers fight lawsuits to compel the production of the birth certificate?"

mycotropic

Because he knew that if he did release YET ANOTHER copy of an already accepted birth certificate, that it would be a waste of time since the people requesting it don't like the idea of a black man in office and would continue to make stupid sound bite idiocy requests into fake news.

==========================================

It wasn't a COPY, or ANOTHER COPY; it's the original document.

That's what being a public servant in a democratic republic requires.

We make a covenant with our government. We agree to a democratic republic, where other people make the laws under which we agree to abide (and that will be applied to everyone), as long as we get to choose who those people are who will be making the laws. It's on the basis of trust, and when you act sneakily, as if you have something to hide, people tend to question and doubt you.

When we no longer trust in the process, when we no longer trust that the selection process by which our elected representatives is fair and accurate, or that the laws don't apply equally to all, or that our elected representatives have deceived us, then all bets are off. And no government can stand once that happens.

Even if what you're attributing to raclsm is accurate (it may be true for some, but not all or even most), so what? Producing documentation is no skin off Obama's nose. It's how you build trust. You meet each and every demand, especially when it's so astoundingly elementary (Constitutionally required) and so obviously easy to comply with.

Obama was a candidate who ran on transparency after an administration that operated in secrecy, as a dictatorship, had brought this nation to destruction. No sooner did he get into office than he's adopted all of the previous administration's secrecy tactics and policies, even going them one better. When both sides of the aisle cite good reasons for distrusting him, you have to wonder about the cognitive abilities of his 'most ardent admirers'.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House (PHOTO)

I'm an old liberal Democrat.
About Birthers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House (PHOTO)

It wasn't a COPY, or ANOTHER COPY; it's the original document.

That's what being a public servant in a democratic republic requires. We make a covenant with our government. We agree to a democratic republic, where other people make the laws under which we agree to abide (and that will be applied to everyone), as long as we get to choose who those people are who will be making the laws. It's on the basis of trust, and when you act sneakily, as if you have something to hide, people tend to question and doubt you. When we no longer trust in the process, when we no longer trust that the selection process by which our elected representatives is fair and accurate, or that the laws don't apply equally to all, or that our elected representatives have deceived us, then all bets are off. And no government can stand once that happens.

Even if what you're attributing to raclsm is accurate (it may be true for some, but not all or even most), so what? Producing documentation is no skin off Obama's nose. It's how you build trust. You meet each and every demand, especially when it's so astoundingly elementary (Constitutionally required) and so obviously easy to comply with.

Unless there's something to hide.

Obama was a candidate who ran on transparency after an administration that operated in secrecy, as a dictatorship, had brought this nation to destruction. No sooner did he get into office than he's adopted all of the previous administration's tactics, and even gone them one better.
About Birthers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House (PHOTO)

BTW the document presented the long form is not legal in court proceedings anywhere only the one presented THREE YEARS AGO is.

==========================================

No, not true.

It's as legal in a court proceeding as the Certificate of Live Birth, but even that is beside the point and an irrelevant distraction. Your comment does reveal that you realized after initially denying it and insulting me that Obama has, in fact, had lawyers fighting to prevent the compelling of the long form.

An admission that you were wrong and apology would seem to be in order.
About Birthers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House (PHOTO)

Show that link please...

==========================

Politifact.com

Don't get stuck on the amount of money that was claimed Obama spent on lawyers for these lawsuits -- Just the fact that he had lawyers fighting the compelling of the birth certificate.
About Birthers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House (PHOTO)

That would be funny if Obama was actually for a right to privacy in our records. He's not. He's only about a president and the government having a right to privacy from citizens' intrusive watch.

Whether it's electronic medical records or the government spying on citizens without warrants or taking DNA upon arrest, Obama's record on Americans' rights of privacy is abysmal.

Don't you follow what he's been up to these past 2 1/2 years?
About Birthers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House (PHOTO)

Yes, he did:

It's certainly true that the Obama campaign has spent some amount of money opposing an array of lawsuits brought by people who claim that Obama has failed to produce a legitimate birth certificate and is therefore ineligible to serve as president.

[...]

In the interview with Roll Call, Sevugan confirmed that some of the legal fees were needed to defend the campaign against what he called "unmeritorious" lawsuits, including one that challenged Obama’s citizenship. And WND reported that Perkins Coie attorney Robert Bauer wrote at least one letter to challenge a plaintiff, retired military officer Gregory S. Hollister, who had filed a suit raising questions about the legitimacy of Obama's right to hold the office of president.

Politifact.com

Don't get stuck on the amount of money that was claimed Obama spent on lawyers for these lawsuits -- Just the fact that he had lawyers fighting the compelling of the birth certificate.
About Birthers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House (PHOTO)

It begs the question, "Why did Obama have lawyers fight lawsuits to compel the production of the birth certificate?"
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House (PHOTO)

Obama shows for this "silliness" as he calls it, but flees from the press room when it comes to answering questions on the "big problems we have to solve".

And again, Obama's 'most ardent supporters' are rabid with an ecstasy that drowns all reason.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

CNN's Ed Henry Asks Jay Carney Birther Questions 1 Day After CNN Broadcasts 'Definitive Investigation'

How interesting that the story changes yet again. Up until 4/11/2011 when that story was published, EVERY official including the ones listed in the story stated that the only person who could get the document was Obama. Now, the story changes that even he can't get it (but he would be allowed to view it in person).
About Anderson Cooper
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

CNN's Ed Henry Asks Jay Carney Birther Questions 1 Day After CNN Broadcasts 'Definitive Investigation'

It's the kindest assumption given the choices.
About Anderson Cooper
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

CNN's Ed Henry Asks Jay Carney Birther Questions 1 Day After CNN Broadcasts 'Definitive Investigation'

No, it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired US citizenship by birth abroad to US citizens is a natural-born citizen. In Rogers vs Bellei the Supreme Court only ruled that "children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, and didn't elaborate on the natural-born status. [SCOTUS 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1971)]

Similarly, legal scholar Lawrence Solum concluded in an article on the natural born citizen clause that the question of McCain's eligibility could not be answered with certainty, and that it would depend on the particular approach of "constitutional construction".
About Anderson Cooper
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

CNN's Ed Henry Asks Jay Carney Birther Questions 1 Day After CNN Broadcasts 'Definitive Investigation'

What do you think?

If someone was born in the Panama Canal zone, do you think they meet the Constitutional requirements for the presidency?
About Anderson Cooper
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

CNN's Ed Henry Asks Jay Carney Birther Questions 1 Day After CNN Broadcasts 'Definitive Investigation'

Is John McCain 'natural born'?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

CNN's Ed Henry Asks Jay Carney Birther Questions 1 Day After CNN Broadcasts 'Definitive Investigation'

I'm a liberal; Obama's 'most ardent supporters' are not.
About Anderson Cooper
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

CNN's Ed Henry Asks Jay Carney Birther Questions 1 Day After CNN Broadcasts 'Definitive Investigation'

I just addressed that somewhere else. We're a republic, not a democracy.

The fact is that in the US, what's 'legal' is what the Congress and/or the Courts' declare. Once it's pronounced it's pretty much a done deal, if the people stand for it. Even if the people didn't stand for it, members of Congress know how to manage the People. If the political establishment wanted Obama retained, the Congress would drag out proceedings until his natural term of office were over. Shame on those who hadn't learned that lesson from the 2000 election and the dragging out of the recount until Katherine Harris certified the votes.

In the case of a president's qualifications, it's the US Senate that makes such pronouncements. If the US Senate decided it wanted Arnold Schwarzen_eger to become president, it would declare that he met the Constitutional qualifications (35 years old and natural born) if it took passing legislation adopting Austria as a US territory and making it retroactive.

The US Senate already made that declaration about Obama in a backhanded way when it declared McCain to be "natural born" in a resolution co-sponsored by Obama in 2008.
About Anderson Cooper
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

CNN's Ed Henry Asks Jay Carney Birther Questions 1 Day After CNN Broadcasts 'Definitive Investigation'

Just to play deviI's advocate in order to move this conversation forward, let's hypothetically say that Obama had been born outside of the US, just like McCain (and I have no doubt that had McCain won, Obama's 'most ardent supporters' would be bullied and called 'birthers').

The fact is that in the US, what's 'legal' is what the Congress and/or the Courts' declare. Once it's pronounced, it's a done deal. In the case of a president's qualifications, it's the US Senate that makes such pronouncements. If the US Senate decided it wanted Arnold Schwarzen_eger to become president, it would declare that he met the Constitutional qualifications (35 years old and natural born) if it took passing legislation adopting Austria as a US territory and making it retroactive.

The US Senate already made that declaration about Obama in a backhanded way when it declared McCain to be "natural born" in a resolution co-sponsored by Obama in 2008.

With the 'New World Order', a one world economy which is beyond borders and installing corporate governance, we're moving in the direction of foreign-born presidents. There already is a move afoot within the establishment elites to change the legal definition for 'natural born' (it shall be interchangeable with 'a corporation chartered in the US'), so that, for example, a CEO of a transnational corporation headquartered or doing business in the US would be qualified for the presidency. Not that it matters anymore; with unlimited contributions, corporations are having no problems controlling the White House and US Congress.

This is a valuable opportunity for Americans to discuss an issue which should inform and empower citizens, but instead it's being met with exactly the kind of reaction that we on the left used to get from Bushies when we questioned everything from his TANG records to his law-breaking and devastating policies.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

CNN's Ed Henry Asks Jay Carney Birther Questions 1 Day After CNN Broadcasts 'Definitive Investigation'

I know this is rocking your world, but try to focus.

Clipped from Factcheck.org:

"Trump claims that no hospital in Hawaii has a record of Obama’s birth. Hospital records are confidential under federal law, but Honolulu’s Kapi’olani Medical Center has published a letter from Obama calling it "the place of my birth," thus publicly confirming it as his birthplace."

Factcheck is not confirming that Obama was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center.

What Factcheck asserts is that the Medical Center published a letter from Obama who says it's his birthplace.

Do you understand the difference?

This is classic political operative-speak. This is what Frank Luntz and George Lakoff and Celinda Lake and Geoffrey Nunberg get paid the big political money for: To distract and confuse naive, trusting little persons like you.

It's time to wake up, princess; all Obama has to do is grant permission to the state of Hawaii to release the actual long form and this is over.
About Anderson Cooper
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Linkbar

Book Recommendations

Search This Blog

Spintested Twitter Feed

What I Read

Think Tanks

Blog Archive

Labels

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

About This Blog