"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men
from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
(Thomas Jefferson)


Showing posts with label Barrack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barrack Obama. Show all posts

Monday, November 5, 2012

Vote for the Centrist in 2012: Vote for Barack Obama for President on November 6th


In this election the Democrats have the ground game and the small donors.  Many of the right like to say unions but they are only a small part of the total picture.  People from all walks of life, men, women, college students, young, middle age, senior, those from various ethinic backgrounds, minority groups, and religion are out pounding the pavement for Barack Obama because he represents all of us.  For a President who has been demonized so much by the right  being called names and lied about on conservative talk radio and Fox Tabloid News,  I cannot believe he has kept his positive attitude that no matter what he is not going to let it get to him.  I have sat here at my desk and listened to his speeches and so many times I have gone WOW -- his ideas for America are really good.

Thank God I took my GOP blinders off thanks to Romney, RNC, Rove, conservative talk radio, pundits, etc., because I now see a man who only wants what is best for all Americans.  When I saw the interaction between the Obama's and the Bush's at the unveiling of the Bush's official portraits for the White House, I knew for certain that I was on the right track.  I have gone from saying that I will vote for Obama because I cannot stand Romney and what the Republican Party is turning into in this election, to a proud supporter of Obama and a member of Republicans for Obama where I found a home with other disenfranchised Republicans.  First it was the moderates that felt pushed out of the Party but now it is a lot of us who are center right in our thinking they want out.  When I signed onto the site, these paragraph spoke for me:
The Republican party isn't what it used to be. Our leaders and our most vocal activists have written moderates out of the party and have refused to work with the other side, to the detriment of the nation. Center-right presidents such as Reagan, Bush Sr., Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower would have no chance being nominated today. 
Unfortunately, Mitt Romney has not proven to be able to stand up to our party's most extreme elements. Instead, he has fallen for the "one-size-fits-all" mentality that tax cuts for the already-wealthy will solve all of our problems, and has no workable plans to solve the challenges we face. 
President Obama has shown himself to be a common-sense centrist. He has cut taxes when necessary, has taken steps to protect the environment, and has aggressively pursued Islamic extremists who threaten America. Most notably, he has reformed our healthcare system by signing a Republican-inspired healthcare plan into law. In most other points in our party's history, Obama would fit in well as a Republican.
Reading those words made me realize how far hard right the Republican Party had gone.  Today I am not sure it will ever come back to center right as some hard right Republican Tea Party types like Senators DeMint and Rand Paul have vowed to double down on moving even more hard right in the GOP.  After the election,  it will be decision time for many of us including some leaders who are not hard right like Jon Huntsman, Colin Powell, and others from the years of Reagan/Bush.  Former FL Governor Charlie Christ has already made the move to Independent -- will his next step be running as a Democrat for FL Governor to throw out Republican Rick Scott?  Will center right Republicans start to help centrist Democrat candidates in the future?  No one knows, but I can guarantee on thing -- I will never lift one finger to help a hard right Republican win anything ever again.  

Last night was I was watching this football game, I saw someone remark on line about this story.  Was going to look it up this morning but when I logged on a good friend had sent me the story.  It is something that every last Republican should read and realize just how nasty and bigoted  the Republican Party has become.as it moved hard right and supported the 'severely conservative' Mitt Romney in 2012:
The Pulse: The smearing of a president: From start, unrelenting, unfairMichael Smerconish, Inquirer ColumnistPOSTED: Sunday, November 4, 2012, 4:01 AM 
This election has always been a referendum on Barack Obama. For some, not on matters of substance. They can't have it both ways. It's hypocritical to distribute a vicious, false narrative about him while fancying yourself a patriot and a great American. Vilify a sitting president of the United States with fiction and innuendo, and you are neither.
I objected when George W. Bush was the subject of undeserved hyperbolic criticism, but the baseless scorn heaped upon President Obama makes Bush's detractors look diplomatic. The president, the office, and our nation deserve better. 
It's been unrelenting. The day after Obama took office, Rush Limbaugh told Sean Hannity he wanted him to "fail." Later, Glenn Beck called the president a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Donald Trump's birtherism took hold while words like socialist were uttered with increased frequency. And a prairie fire of falsehoods spread through the Internet suggesting, among other things, that Obama is a Muslim or refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, paving the way for Dinesh D'Souza's fictionalized "documentary" 2016, which characterized Obama as fulfilling the anticolonial agenda of his father - a man he literally knew for just one weekend! 
Among the usual memes used to undermine the president is the threat of some apocalyptic cataclysm, usually in the form of an assertion of federal power, like the seizing of guns. These predictions demand unthinking acceptance of the notion that the president, like a bizarre Manchurian candidate, is saving his nefarious agenda for a second term that might never arrive. By my count, the website Snopes.com has evaluated and debunked 103 of 124 Internet assertions about Obama. 
Just before Hurricane Sandy hit, Ann Coulter called our sitting president a "retard," Sarah Palin mocked his "shuck and jive shtick," and John Sununu openly questioned Gen. Colin Powell's weighty endorsement as being motivated by race. At least earlier in the campaign there was some effort at camouflage. Such as when Mitt Romney aired an anti-Obama welfare commercial that falsely suggested Obama supported handouts ("They just send you your welfare check") when, in fact, Obama was accommodating requests of several governors, two of them conservative Republicans, to try new ways to put people back to work. A similar sentiment was expressed by Romney when he maligned the 47 percent who don't pay federal income taxes, overlooking that 83 percent of that group are either working and paying payroll taxes or they're elderly.
And, almost daily, there have been dire warnings about Obama, often with sirens, from the Drudge Report. Example: the Sept. 18 edition featuring a hideous picture of Obama (eyes closed) emblazoned with the all-capped quote: "I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN REDISTRIBUTION," a 14-year-old excerpt that conveniently excised the future president's explicit embrace of "competition" and "marketplace." No wonder I routinely field calls from radio listeners who, with no hint of embarrassment in their voices, say things such as "I call him 'comrade' " or "he's not my president." 
Their best evidence? Obamacare - crafted by the same people who wrote Romneycare. Critics ignore that the Affordable Care Act is premised upon personal responsibility and was born in a right-wing think tank. Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning website of the Tampa Bay Times, called the idea that Obamacare represents a "takeover" of the health-care system the 2010 Lie of the Year. And while some have also labeled the president a "socialist" for signing the $831 billion stimulus, no one ever used such language when Bush acted similarly with the $700 billion TARP.
In the final days, the critics have turned to Benghazi, drilling down on the shifting narrative regarding the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, but ignoring that, as the Wall Street Journal reported on Oct. 22, "The CIA was consistent from Sept. 13 to Sept. 21 that the attack evolved from a protest." There's another problem with the criticism. Romney now gets intelligence briefings, too. Perhaps that's why he took a pass on this kerfuffle when Libya was the first question at the final debate.
So why the attention on the recent 9/11? Perhaps to deflect attention from Obama avenging the first 9/11. Most disturbing, the president's critics have sought to diminish that achievement by treating his order as a no-brainer. As a candidate in 2008, Obama was roundly criticized when he said (to me and others) that he would act on intelligence regarding the al-Qaeda leader even if he were in Pakistan. To Bush that was "unsavory." To John McCain that was "naive." Hillary Clinton said this was "a mistake." Joe Biden said Obama "undermined his ability to be tough." And Romney regarded that pledge as "ill-timed" and "ill-considered." Imagine the criticism Obama would have faced if the mission had failed.  
The reality is that there is much to be admired in the president and his rise to power. Replace Kenya with Poland or Germany, and you'd have observers rightly saying that only in this country could such a career path be possible. He is a loving husband and father who, with the first lady, is ably raising two daughters in the glare of the White House. He is an intellectual heavyweight. And his personal ethics have been above reproach.
Real patriots vote for or against candidates based on substance, not smears.   
That last paragraph from Michael Smerconish says it all.  I have added the bold to the article to highlight various parts that jump at you.  Several topics get me the most:  
Libya which Fox Tabloid News is still pushing the lies on Libya for Romney to the stage that anyone who believes what Fox Tabloid News  has to say is not thinking. 
Capture of Bin Laden who now the GOP says it was routine when in the past he had been attacked for never losing site of the fact he wanted Bin Laden sleeping with the fishes which he is today.
Attacks on the President's character and background from Republicans with calling him names, saying he doesn't understand America, or is not American for starters.  Even Romney got in the act on the birth certificate.  Many of the comments you hear are bigoted and an insult to any person who thinks.  
These items speak more about the lack of class from today's hard right GOP then they do about Obama who has weathered all of these attacks with his sense of humor in tact that comes out from time to time:
Also in the Tonight Show interview, Obama made light of Donald Trump's much-hyped offer to donate $5 million to charity if the president released his passport application and college records. The real estate mogul also has championed the "birther" movement, contending that Obama cannot be president because he was born in Kenya. Actually, the president was born in Hawaii. 
On Leno, Obama joked that Trump's beef dates back to when he and Trump grew up together in Kenya. 
"We had constant run-ins on the soccer field," Obama said. "He wasn't very good and resented it. When we finally moved to America, I thought it would be over."
To me that last paragraph says it all about the type of person Obama is that he can take all these hits and come back with a sense of humor.  He not only has my vote and the votes of my family but I can now say:
I wholeheartedly support President Barrack Obama for reelection and will be casting my vote for him on November 6, 2012. 

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

The Legacy of George W. Bush

As I was looking for an article for today, an email from the George W Bush Presidential Center arrived in my inbox.  After reading. I decided today was a perfect to day to share the article about what President Bush has been doing about the healthcare crises in Africa in coordination with President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, members of Congress and many others.   The article is long but well worth the read to discover what has been happening in Africa after George W Bush made attacking AIDS in Africa a priority.

Secretary of State Condi Rice brought the plight of Africa healthcare to then Governor Bush years ago.  When you read what has been accomplished because of George W. Bush not being willing to turn his back on Africa, it gives you chills that he has made this a priority.  What a legacy he is leaving and is a road map for what can be accomplished when people work together no matter their ideology as we can all come together to help others less fortunate.

This article makes me realize that man running for Governor of Texas was destined to be our Governor, our President, and now a Humanitarian.  When he said he was a 'compassionate' conservative he meant it and now as a former President has shown what can be done.  You don't have to agree with President Bush on every issue but one thing that cannot be denied is his compassion for others which is not just words but he lives it giving to those less fortunate hope for a better future.  There is little media coverage about the former President which is what he wants.

Realizing that donations to the George W Bush Presidential Center are so far reaching makes me happy that I decided to donate there this year instead of to politicians.  What a legacy our former President and Commander in Chief is leaving.  Great job Mr. President!

Bringing Africa Back to Life: The Legacy of George W. Bush

The below article by Jim Landers was published in the Dallas Morning News on June 8, 2012. The article highlights the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which began under President George W. Bush and is the cornerstone of President Obama’s Global Health Initiative. PEPFAR is responsible for saving millions of lives in Africa and beyond. Today President Bush builds upon the success of PEPFAR through the Global Health Program at the George W. Bush Presidential Center. The program’s key initiative, featured in the below article, is Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon, an innovative partnership to leverage public and private investments in global health to combat cervical and breast cancer – two of the leading causes of cancer death in women – in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Led by the George W. Bush Institute, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon will expand the availability of vital cervical cancer screening and treatment—especially for high-risk HIV-positive women – and also promote breast cancer education. The partnership will further the mission of saving lives of women in developing nations.


The article can be found on the Dallas Morning News online here.


Image taken on a recent trip by President and Mrs. Bush to Tanzania, Zambia and Ethiopia to demonstrate a continued commitment to the people of Africa. For more information on the Bush Family’s 2011 trip to Africa click here.

Bringing Africa Back to Life: The Legacy of George W. Bush

LUSAKA, Zambia — On a beautiful Saturday morning, Delfi Nyankombe stood among her bracelets and necklaces at a churchyard bazaar and pondered a question: What do you think of George W. Bush?

“George Bush is a great man,” she answered. “He tried to help poor countries like Zambia when we were really hurting from AIDS. He empowered us, especially women, when the number of people dying was frightening. Now we are able to live.”

Nyankombe, 38, is a mother of three girls. She also admires the former president because of his current campaign to corral cervical cancer. Few are screened for the disease, and it now kills more Zambian women than any other cancer.

“By the time a woman knows, she may need radiation or chemotherapy that can have awful side effects, like fistula,” she said. “This is a big problem in Zambia, and he’s still helping us.”

The debate over a president’s legacy lasts many years longer than his term of office. At home, there’s still no consensus about the 2001-09 record of George W. Bush, with its wars and economic turmoil.

In Africa, he’s a hero.

“No American president has done more for Africa,” said Festus Mogae, who served as president of Botswana from 1998 to 2008. “It’s not only me saying that. All of my colleagues agree.”

AIDS was an inferno burning through sub-Saharan Africa. The American people, led by Bush, checked that fire and saved millions of lives.

People with immune systems badly weakened by HIV were given anti-retroviral drugs that stopped the progression of the disease. Mothers and newborns were given drugs that stopped the transmission of the virus from one generation to the next. Clinics were built. Doctors and nurses and lay workers were trained. A wrenching cultural conversation about sexual practices broadened, fueled by American money promoting abstinence, fidelity and the use of condoms.

“We kept this country from falling off the edge of a cliff,” said Mark Storella, the U.S. ambassador to Zambia. “We’ve saved hundreds of thousands of lives. We’ve assisted over a million orphans. We’ve created a partnership with Zambia that gives us the possibility of walking the path to an AIDS-free generation. This is an enormous achievement.”

Bush remains active in African health. Last September, he launched a new program — dubbed Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon — to tackle cervical and breast cancer among African women. The program has 14 co-sponsors, including the Obama administration.

Falling death rates


Nyankombe sells colorful batiks, purses and other crafts to benefit Mothers without Borders, a charity that looks after orphans. When AIDS tore unchecked through southern Africa, millions of children lost their parents. Nearly one in five children in countries like Malawi and Lesotho were orphaned. In Zambia, it was one in four.

A decade ago, AIDS was killing 630 of every 100,000 Zambians, according to the World Health Organization. That was 100 times the AIDS death rate in the United States.

In neighboring Botswana, the toll was 750 of every 100,000 people. That was four times the rate for the leading cause of death among Texans (heart disease).

In 2001, four in 10 adults in Botswana were infected with HIV. President Mogae went before the United Nations to plead for the life of his country.

“We are threatened with extinction,” he said. “People are dying in chillingly high numbers. It is a crisis of the first magnitude.”

Bush, with bipartisan support from Congress and $15 billion, mobilized the U.S. government with the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. In 2008, Congress agreed to provide $38 billion more.
By the time Bush left office, the death rate from AIDS had fallen more than 60 percent in Botswana. There are now 330,000 taking anti-retroviral drugs.

The death rate fell by nearly half in Zambia. There are 418,000 Zambians taking the drugs.
One of them is 46-year-old Teddy Njapau. He makes a living as a Lusaka sidewalk peddler selling copper and brass jewelry with bits of malachite and other stones added for color. He’s been HIV-positive for at least five years.

“After my wife and I separated, I got sick,” he said.

Njapau takes anti-retroviral drugs supplied free at government clinics.

“They’re helping me very much,” he said. “Without them, I don’t know where I’d be now.”

“George Bush is a good man,” he added.

‘Moral responsibility’


AIDS is still an incurable disease. Anti-retroviral drugs keep people alive but must be taken daily. Erratic use can lead to drug resistance. Unless prevention slows the spread of the disease, more and more people will need to go on drug therapy — risking an expanding, open-ended commitment of U.S. tax money.

Bush’s achievement endures because of continuing support from President Barack Obama and Congress and also because of progress in slowing the rate of infection. The percentage of adults living with HIV has fallen in 22 African countries, according to the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS.

Drug treatments are themselves one of the most important prevention measures, since people taking anti-retroviral drugs are less infectious. Another success has been saving infants from being born with the disease when their mothers are HIV-positive. Before U.S. assistance became available, four in 10 HIV-positive mothers in Botswana transmitted the disease to their children. It’s now down to 4 percent.

Dr. Mark Dybul, who served in the Bush White House and as the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, remembers that many AIDS specialists doubted the program could succeed.

“When we started, people said, ‘Africans can’t possibly do this. They don’t have the education. They don’t have the infrastructure,’” Dybul said. “Bush refused to accept that. He had a visceral reaction against the idea that Africa cannot do it. He also felt we have a moral responsibility not to let 30 million people die, that it wasn’t morally acceptable.”

The former president has said he was urged by Condoleezza Rice, who became his national security adviser and then secretary of state, to help Africa beat back the plague of AIDS.

“When I first got going, Condi Rice and I had a discussion at the Governor’s Mansion about the importance of Africa,” Bush said in an interview with this newspaper in December.

“What got me interested was the AIDS pandemic. I didn’t want to look back at a presidency that did nothing about a pandemic that was destroying a generation. When I got into office, the devastation was becoming so real that to have done nothing about it as president of the wealthiest nation would have been immoral.”

Bushes’ commitment


As the death toll from AIDS has ebbed, other killers have emerged. Women who were living with U.S.-supplied drugs that checked the advance of AIDS were dying from another infectious disease.
“It’s not enough to save a woman from dying from AIDS and have her succumb to cervical cancer. It’s unacceptable,” Bush said in September, when he announced an $85 million campaign against women’s cancers led by his SMU-based presidential institute.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, attending the kickoff event, praised the former president and said the Obama administration would provide $30 million of the funding.

Clinton kiddingly thanked former first lady Laura Bush and daughter Barbara Bush “for getting him to do it,” then added, “What we see here is a continuation of the Bush family’s commitment to global health, especially to the health of women, and in particular to the women of Africa.”

As part of the Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon campaign, Bush said, he wants to cut the cervical cancer death rate by 25 percent. There are 15 partners, including the United Nations; the Dallas-based Susan G. Komen Foundation; the drug companies Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb and GlaxoSmithKline; and the Caris Foundation, a medical mission based in Irving.

The executive director of Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon is Doyin Oluwole, a Nigerian physician now living in Dallas who has spent decades working on Africa’s myriad health problems. She was in Lusaka recently to see how quickly the campaign could boost Zambia’s cervical cancer screening and treatment into a model of excellence for Africa.

Oluwole told Zambian officials she carried a charge from her boss to save lives, and to do it quickly.
“President Bush is on our backs to ask what we have done in Zambia. He wants to know we are not just talking, but what we are doing,” she declared in one meeting. “I want to know at the end of six months how many lives we have touched, because without this, I will not leave Zambia.”

Cancer of the cervix is typically caused by a sexually transmitted virus. It is picked up by more than 6 million Americans every year.

Ninety percent of those infections are fought off by the host’s immune system. Years later, however, the surviving virus can start causing cancerous lesions on a woman’s cervix. If unchecked, the lesions can become tumors, and cancer can spread to other parts of the body.

Before Pap smear exams became routine, cervical cancer killed more American women than any other form of the disease. Today about 12,000 American women come down with cervical cancer every year; about 4,000 die from it, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Cancer care crisis


Hardly any Zambian women get Pap smear tests.

There are 1,300 doctors in Zambia, a country with 14.3 million people. There are just 15 gynecologists.
One of those is Christine Kaseba, the wife of Zambian President Michael Sata. She is hosting a meeting of African first ladies in July to discuss women’s cancers.

Another of Zambia’s few gynecologists is Groesbeck Parham, a tall man with a gray Afro and an Alabama accent. In the United States, Parham earned degrees as an ob/gyn and oncologist at Alabama and California. He’s also studied in London, Kenya and Sudan. He was active in the U.S. civil rights movement and then promoted healthy diets among black Americans.

He came to Zambia in 2005 to direct the cervical cancer program for Zambia’s Ministry of Health.
The problem was acute. Between 2002 and 2007, some 4,500 Zambian women needed chemotherapy or radiation treatment for advanced cervical cancer.

“Three hundred and fifty were sent to South Africa for treatment,” Parham remembered. “The rest died.”
Because of their weakened immune systems, HIV-positive women are much more likely to develop cervical cancer — and at a younger age. Zambia needed a screening program in a hurry.

Pap smears take cell samples from a woman’s cervix that need to be examined by a pathologist — a process that, in many parts of Africa, can take months or even a year. If there’s a problem, the patient needs to come back for further treatment. But even finding her again can be a challenge.

Parham turned to a simple screening process using household vinegar.

When smeared on the cervix, vinegar turns lesions white. The screener takes a digital photo of the cervix that can be examined closely on a laptop computer screen. If the lesions are significant but still in an early stage, they can be burned off during the exam session with liquid nitrogen.

Empowering nurses


With so few gynecologists in the country, Parham trained nurses to do the work, and they, in turn, are training other nurses. They’ve now done more than 80,000 screenings.

More serious cases get referred to Lusaka’s University Teaching Hospital, where Parham and his colleagues perform surgeries. The hospital now has a cancer center that provides radiation and chemotherapy as well.
Bush came to Lusaka in December to see for himself how this was working. He visited the George Clinic (named for an old property owner) in a poor part of the city. Thousands of Zambians squashed together nearby, hoping to catch a glimpse of the former president.

“There were crowds of people jumping over each other to see and touch him,” said Storella, the U.S. ambassador.

When Oluwole came to Lusaka, Parham described how $4.5 million to $5 million could turn Zambia’s cervical cancer program into a center of excellence for all Africa. Nurses and doctors from across the continent would come to Lusaka for training, including surgical techniques. Clinics would be extended across Zambia and then elsewhere to provide screening for both cervical and breast cancer.

Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon is trying to help Parham realize his dream.

Zambia’s Ministry of Health, meanwhile, plans to start vaccinating schoolgirls later this year to make them immune to the strains of the human papillomavirus that cause cervical cancer. The work has started with an education campaign aimed at the girls’ parents

The current focus of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is on seeing host countries take over the effort as they are able, so that the work can be sustained into the future.

Oluwole says the most important accomplishment of the American anti-AIDS campaign was to help Africans turn from a plague of death to the struggles and joys of ordinary life.

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Three presidents gather for Bush portrait unveiling



Three presidents gather for Bush portrait unveiling 
Posted by CNN's Tom Cohen Washington (CNN) - 

There were smiles, laughter and tears - but little politics - when former Presidents George W. Bush and his father, George H. W. Bush, joined current President Barack Obama at the White House for the unveiling Thursday of the younger Bush's official portrait. An emotional ceremony in the East Room saw the new White House residents thanking their predecessors for their service to the nation and for helping them out during the move more than three years ago. 


NOTE:  This is not about politics today but about the grace and dignity of the current President when President and Mrs. Obama welcomed the Bush Family and others to the White House for the unveiling of the official portraits of President George W and Laura Bush.  This is what makes many of us proud of America that the current President reaches out to his predecessor for the unveiling.  At times like this, it is great to see politics set aside just as President and Mrs. Bush did when they welcomed the Obama's to the White House after he was elected so they could visit their new home.  

This makes me proud to be an American and see President's from two separate parties come together for an event like this and put politics aside.




Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Americans Long for Political Campaigns of the Past Without Super PACs!


This article by Gwen Ifill describes what I am feeling about this election to a tea along with 2008 for me:
It is all very dramatic. But when I set aside these books and turned to my day job in recent weeks, this is what I saw: 
• Senate aspirants who denounce bipartisanship.
• Campaign advertising that cast candidates in the worst, most sinister light.
• Endless debates about cultural hot buttons that most voters say don't matter to them.
• Fifty million dollars in super PAC spending that will pollute swing state airwaves for 26 more weeks. 
Perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps it is the veil of history that makes the challenges that confronted Herbert Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Richard Nixon seem so much more consequential than what we are seeing now. 
The four items that bother her are the same ones that bother a lot of us.  What happened to the days in the Senate when Senators fought like cats and dogs on the floor to get their way and then went out to dinner together.  I wasn't that long ago -- happened during the Reagan years all the time.  The Democrat leaders of the Senate under Reagan and then under Bush 41, I admired -- Sam Nunn of Armed Services and David Boren of Foreign Affairs were what leaders should be about.  It wasn't about scoring points for their side and trashing the other -- it was about doing what was right for the Country.

After seeing former Senator Boren now President of the University of Oklahoma in action here in Norman, I am reminded even more that his expertise on foreign policy was the best.  When he came to OU, he started teaching a class in political science which everyone I have ever heard that took his class has nothing but praise for the man and how he conducts the class.  He welcomes to campus Democrats, Republicans, Independents, leaders from foreign countries and people in the news.  What he has done at OU is nothing short of remarkable with all the money he has raised for the university and how he has truly changed OU into an academic and research university in addition to athletics in his tenure.  The amount of money he has raised is staggering -- hit $1 billion dollars several years ago and is on his way to $2 billion.  This is his dream job but when you see what he has done for OU, you wonder how we got someone like Bill Clinton with no credentials to speak of instead of a David Boren or Sam Nunn won the Presidency.

What happened to bi-partisanship and compromise to do what is best for America?  It seems they would rather trash each other on both sides, launch numerous investigations that go on for months on end, and make the other side look inept and out of touch even if it is not true.  You put both sides in a sack and shake it up and they come out together.  They don't deserve our support for the way they have been acting like spoiled children that didn't get their way.

The 1980 race was hard fought in the primary with Ronald Reagan winning the nomination and going on to win the general election with his positive ideas that America's best years were ahead.  He knew there would be road bumps, but he reached out his hand to work with the Democrat controlled Congress to do what was best for all of America not just a select few.  He ended the Cold War which was amazing as most of us had lived with it our whole lives.  He believed in negotiation and making sure that America came out of top.  The best thing was that he was likable by both sides even if the other side didn't agree with him.  A true statesman who came not from a wealthy background but from a small town in Illinois who became a sports broadcaster on the radio, an actor, Governor of California, and then President.  Reagan was the American Dream.

It says a lot when you discover that Mitt Romney NEVER liked Reagan and his agenda since he became an independent in 1976 and stayed that way except to be a Democrat to vote for Tsongas until 1994 when he took the opportunity to become a Republican when he and his wife knew no Republicans in MA in order to avoid a primary with Ted Kennedy and go straight to the general election.  Thought our choices in 2008 were not the best but at least I liked McCain as a cost cutter in the Senate.  This time it has gotten worse on the Republican side with a candidate out of touch with the Republican base.  The Republican Party has demonized Obama just like the Democrats demonized Bush to the stage not believing much of what Democrats or Republicans say.

I will take the Presidential races of the past any day over what we have this year!
History's Romance: Why Politics Past Beats Politics Present
Gwen Ifill
Updated: May 21, 2012 | 5:46 p.m.
May 21, 2012 | 5:45 p.m. 
Is it just my imagination, or have politics and politicians grown smaller?
I've been flirting with this conclusion after diving into two enjoyable presidential history books by night while covering 2012 politics by day. The books, Robert Caro's The Passage of Power and The President's Club by Michael Duffy and Nancy Gibbs, take us inside the West Wing in a way that screenwriter Aaron Sorkin’s fictional White House never could.
Caro, in the fourth of what is scheduled to be a five-volume retelling of the operatic life and times of Lyndon B. Johnson, guides us through assassinations, missile crises, and doomed wars--all while peeling back the layers on one of America's most complicated presidents.
Duffy and Gibbs spread their story over decades, providing us with a rare look into the tiny club of men who know what it's like to hold nuclear codes and wear the Air Force One flight jacket. 
Each book challenges our assumptions of what it takes to be president. These men are statesmen, but they are also--without a doubt--skilled and consummate political operators.
Johnson, as Caro tells it, was never more depressed than when he was a power-deprived vice president, never more insecure than when he was a powerful president on the brink of war. 
And Gibbs and Duffy describe how presidential membership has its unique privileges. Every president from Hoover to Obama recognized that it would be essential to rely on the only other men who had occupied the Oval Office, even if they distrusted the politics or personality of those predecessors. 
Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman’s bad blood faded only in the wake of the Kennedy assassination, when the men and their wives met for a drink at Washington’s Blair House after the somber funeral. 
In the end, the presidency is the loneliest and craziest job on earth, and once the oath is taken, it is sealed in quiet return visits, public photo-ops, and anguished phone calls. 
(snip)
I'm fairly sure that reporters of the time did not, for example, appreciate the full scope of the enmity between Johnson and Robert Kennedy.
“You hate to use words as a historian like hatred,” Caro told me on the PBS NewsHour. “But hatred isn't too strong a word to describe the relationship between Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. They hated each other.” 
And even the reporters who covered the rise of a charismatic California actor could not have known the full extent of the dance he and a fellow Californian executed as they both clawed toward the presidency. “Nixon clearly did not think Reagan was in his league,” former Nixon aide Patrick Buchanan told Gibbs and Duffy. 
(snip)
For history's sake, I await the books that tell me the real arguments under way now. I'm not sure I could bear it if it turns out this period of history really was about hockey moms, birther debates, and debt-ceiling standoffs. 
Over to you, historians.  Excerpt:  Read More at The National Journal

When historians write about this campaign, don't think it is going to make either side look good.  Believe Republicans will go down in history IMHO as having the nastiest primary for President ever where the sole purpose of the Romney campaign was to tear down the other Republican candidates in the 2012 race although he wasn't Mr. Nice in 2008 either -- he just got worse with the Super PAC money.  Now the supporters of other candidates are all supposed to come together to support the man.  That is not happening. Some of us are close to the word used to describe the relationship between LBJ and Robert Kennedy:

I'm fairly sure that reporters of the time did not, for example, appreciate the full scope of the enmity between Johnson and Robert Kennedy. 
“You hate to use words as a historian like hatred,” Caro told me on the PBS NewsHour. “But hatred isn't too strong a word to describe the relationship between Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. They hated each other.”
Never have disliked a Republican candidate to the stage when he comes on TV, I flip channels.  Have done that for years with Democrats but now I am doing it with Romney because he is pretending to be someone he is not with all the flip flops trying to get conservatives to like him.  Why did so many people endorse Romney early in the Republican Party?  Makes no sense when they knew what he was like from 2008.  Is he help funding their campaigns with Super PAC money from places Crossroads by by Karl Rove.  This is another Rove campaign for those who haven't figured out he is running the Super PACs for Romney with monthly meetings and for the establishment to take out conservative candidates.

When they say money talks, they must have had Romney and his Super PACs in mind who are using wealth to try and buy the Presidency worse than George Soros and his buddies did for Obama.  The nastiness and arrogance of Romney and his campaign and what they have done to the Republican Party in order to make him the nominee has left a bad taste in a lot of our mouths from the primary and it is not improving.

I am not forgetting that Romney endorsed Governor Perry's opponent in the 2010 Governor's race at the request of Karl Rove and Bush 41 so for the RNC and others to expect Perry supporters to line up after the way Perry was treated in the primary, forget about it.  There was no class from the Romney side in the primary against Republicans and President Obama can expect the same or worse -- millions spent on trashing him by Romney and his Super PACs who Karl Rove coordinates.  Do voters want Karl Rove near the White House again?  No more then they want George Soros and others is my guess.

The 2012 Presidential election IMHO will go down in history as the election where money talked and a minority of Republicans voted for a flawed candidate who was pretending to be conservative and whose background as a vulture capitalist is not supposed to be discussed.  When he said he loved to 'fire people' believe he meant it.  He seems to have zero empathy for the poor and middle class as he doesn't believe they deserve or need college degrees.

Romney is a man that I will never support because I think he is Obama lite and am not alone in that analysis.  Money and negative ads have an adverse affect on me in all races from the White House to the local Court House.  Shame on the Romney and his campaign for their outrageous attacks during the primary in 2012 and shame on Obama and his campaign to Hillary in 2008 to win an election by using underhanded tactics.  Romney and Obama for the way they handled their contest primaries deserve each other but the American people don't deserve either one.  Win at any cost has gotten out of hand on both sides with all the money entering the race which make candidates look bought and paid for which is probably closer to the truth as why we have little 'common sense' left in DC.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Does President Obama understand the Constitutional duties of the three branches of Government?

Beginning to doubt if Obama ever took a course in Government 101 the way he went after The Supreme Court on their possible ruling on ObamaCare.  Who would have thought he would be so blatant in his attack against SCOTUS:
Yesterday (4/2) Barack Obama launched an attack on the Supreme Court that bordered on the bizarre. Apparently unaware of the most basic principles of constitutional law, going back to Marbury v. Madison in 1803, he said:
I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. 
And I — I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint; that, uhhh, an uninelected, uhhh, group of — of people would somehow overturn, uhhh, a duly constituted and — and passed, uh, law. Uh, well, uh, uh, is a good example. Uhh, and I’m pretty confident that this, — this court will recognize that, uh, and not take that step.
The President is now starting to step back from his comments he made on Monday which caught almost everyone off guard including a Federal Judge:
THE PRESIDENT:  
Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal. 
And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this. 
Powerline:  This is, of course, entirely different from what Obama said yesterday, but it comes no nearer the truth. First of all, when did Obamacare become an “economic issue,” a matter of “commerce”? I thought it was all about women’s health care, like Roe v. Wade. Evidently that was a misunderstanding. 
But that’s a minor point. Is there any truth to Obama’s claim that the Supreme Court hasn’t invalidated any statutes that are “economic” and relate to “commerce” since Lochner v. New York, which was in 1905? Of course not. To name just a few examples a great deal more recent than 1905, the Court ruled unconstitutional provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that had permitted only “for cause” removal of members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in 2010; the 1990 Mushroom Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act in 2001 (this case was actually quite similar to Obamacare because the Court held unconstitutional provisions that required mushroom growers to contribute to mushroom promotion programs); provisions of the Patent and Plant Variety Remedy Clarification Act, the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act, and the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act in 1992; the Harbor Maintenance Tax Act in 1998; the Transfer Act which authorized the transfer of operating control of Washington National Airport and Dulles International Airport from the Department of Transportation to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority in 1991; and many, many more dating back to 1905. 
One could be charitable and say that Barack Obama is a bullshitter who makes stuff up whenever he is in a tough spot, or one could say that he is a habitual liar. Take your pick.   
Excerpt:  Read Moe at Powerlilne
Someone needs to brief the President on the Constitutional duties of the Supreme Court since he obviously still doesn't understand that the US Government is a three legged stool -- Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.  How can someone be in office for this long and not understand how Government works?  Anyone who is a thinking person knows just because Congress passes a bill/law does not make it constitutional.  We applaud the Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith for standing up to the Executive Branch.
April 3, 2012 
Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith Orders Department of Justice to Address President’s Controversial Comments 
by Special Report 
Yesterday (4/2) President Obama said in the Rose Garden of the White House, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority, a democratically elected Congress.” 
Now an appeals court is demanding Attorney General Eric Holder to clarify the president’s comments. Judge Jerry Smith of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requested today, “I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday, that’s about 48 hours from now, a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific.” 
Charles Krauthammer told Bret Baier on Special Report that, “ObamaCare passed by seven votes, it was a very narrow majority … so on every count he doesn’t have an argument. The liberals are in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral arguments and trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side.” 
Listen to the audio below from the courtroom and check out the panel debate on Special Report: 


The response from Attorney General Eric Holder is weak IMHO and not something I would expect out of an Attorney General.  Sounds like Holder is once again being a mouthpiece for Obama.  The jury is out whether Holder will allow the DOJ to provide the Federal Judge the information he is asking:
1:20 pm ET April 4, 2012
New Video: Eric Holder Responds to Request for DOJ’s Stance on Whether SCOTUS Can Overturn Law Passed By Congress
by Happening Now
In remarks earlier today, Attorney General Eric Holder responded to the request of an appeals court that demanded the DOJ provide a written explanation as to whether or not it believes it’s constitutional for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by Congress. Holder, in part, said the following: 
“What the president said a couple of days ago was appropriate. He indicated that we obviously respect the decisions that courts make … [and] the courts have the final say as to the constitutionality of statutes,” he said. “The courts are also fairly deferential when it comes to overturning statutes that the newly elected representatives of the people, Congress, pass. We think that the Affordable Care Act is a statute that has constitutional muster. … We are confident that upon examination [...] that the court will find the Affordable Care Act constitutional."
The biggest question of all is whether or not a member of SCOTUS leaked the vote to the President from SCOTUS.  From Obama's original remarks, it wouldn't surprise many of us if Justice Kagen decided to go against the protocol of the SCOTUS.  She was a bad choice from the beginning and should have recused herself from the ObamaCare case.  Was Kagen put on the SCOTUS to leak to Obama or his people what was happening with the discussions behind the scenes of SCOTUS  and to make sure the Administration had someone on the side?  Obamacare barely passed the House by 8 measly votes yet Obama and his people are treating it like it passed in huge numbers.  Obama is just another politician in a long line of politicians that have trouble with the truth.
From Red State:  The storm that erupted yesterday when Barack Obama woke up and discovered the Supreme Court of the United States was not only not elected but it could overturn “duly passed” laws, even those passed in the dead of the night by the barest of purchased majorities, has been more than adequately covered on these pages and others by actual lawyers and those who think they are. 
(snip)
According to Supreme Court protocol 
When oral arguments are concluded, the Justices have to decide the case. They do so at what is known as the Justices’ Conference. Two Conferences are held per week when Court is in session, on Wednesday and Friday afternoons. The Justices vote on cases heard on Mondays and Tuesdays of a given week at their Wednesday afternoon Conference. The Justices vote on cases heard on Wednesday at their Friday afternoon Conference. When Court is not in session, usually only a Friday Conference is held.

According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc. The Chief Justice calls the session to order and, as a sign of the collegial nature of the institution, all the Justices shake hands. The first order of business, typically, is to discuss the week’s petitions for certiorari, i.e., deciding which cases to accept or reject. 
After the petitions for certiorari are dealt with, the Justices begin to discuss the cases that were heard since their last Conference. According to Supreme Court protocol, all Justices have an opportunity to state their views on the case and raise any questions or concerns they may have. Each Justice speaks without interruptions from the others. The Chief Justice makes the first statement, then each Justice speaks in descending order of seniority, ending with the most junior justice—the one who has served on the court for the fewest years. 
When each Justice is finished speaking, the Chief Justice casts the first vote, and then each Justice in descending order of seniority does likewise until the most junior justice casts the last vote. After the votes have been tallied, the Chief Justice, or the most senior Justice in the majority if the Chief Justice is in the dissent, assigns a Justice in the majority to write the opinion of the Court. The most senior justice in the dissent can assign a dissenting Justice to write the dissenting opinion. 
If a Justice agrees with the outcome of the case, but not the majority’s rationale for it, that Justice may write a concurring opinion. Any Justice may write a separate dissenting opinion. When there is a tie vote, the decision of the lower Court stands. This can happen if, for some reason, any of the nine Justices is not participating in a case (e.g., a seat is vacant or a Justice has had to recuse).
Will the decision on Obamacare wait until June from the SCOTUS since the President is in a full court press against a possible SCOTUS ruling that Obamacare is Unconstitutional?  It is obvious that Obama did not read the Constitution before making his remarks.  Three branches of Government with equal powers are granted to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial by the Constitution:
Article. I.
Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Monday, July 18, 2011

700+ Days without a Democrat Budget and Counting

If the democrates are so fiscally responsible why has it been 700+ days without a budget and none in sight -- only promises there will be one?   Without a debt limit, how far in the red would the Democrats take the Government with spending on their favorite programs and throwing money around overseas?  With the debt ceiling in place, they are still overspending as Obama keeps promising money to foreign governments and every pet project he can come up with to buy votes.  Those are our tax dollars he is giving away to try and win friendships which is NOT working with foreign governments.   They respect leaders with a backbone not someone who plays up to them and is a wimp. 

With his big birthday bash on August 4th in Chicago looming the night after the United States is set to default, will he really veto the House Cut, Cap And Balance Plan as he threatened a short time ago?  The bill could lead to a debt ceiling compromise which may be the last thing Obama wants as he seeks to blame it all on Republicans.  The big question is if he is serious about a veto or is he posturing.  With the threat, it must mean that some Democrat Senators have agreed to support the plan.  Has Obama even bothered to read the bill before he says he will veto it? My guess is no as he continues to posture that only he has the right answers when that could not be farther from the truth not to mention that he believes everyone has to compromise with him. 

Who is correct about the debt ceiling and the dire consequences that could happen?  Economists are all over the place along with politicians looking for face time.  How does anyone really know with everything being written what is the truth.  It would be easier to throw a dart and come up with the answer.  Reminded of the dire predictions for Y2K and this 'sky is falling' mentality is getting old.  If Obama would get off the dime and truly negotiate instead of walking out when something doesn't go his way, we might have an agreement before midnight on August 3rd and not have to find out if the dire predictions are true.

Both sides have two weeks to come up with an agreement -- time for Obama to get serious instead of trying to score daily political points in the media.  Maybe this would already be solved if he hadn't spent so much time out fundraising over the last few months and actually concentrated on doing his job.  Has Obama ever stopped campaigning to run the Country?

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

GAO accuses Obama WH of politics in Yucca Mountain closure

It gets worse because it is going to take years to get a permit to dispose of nuclear waste even if a place is found. Obama obviously put politics ahead of what is best for the Country in his effort to help Harry Reid get reelected. Has Obama ever put the good of the American people first?

Now we discover that closing the Yucca Mountains according to GAO was all political with no scientific reason for the closure -- typical Obama as he is always about politics at any cost. What harm can he do in the name of politics between now and January 2013? Frightening thoughts.

GAO accuses Obama WH of politics in Yucca Mountain closure

posted at 11:36 am on May 11, 2011 by Ed Morrissey



Quick — which presidential candidate pledged to restore science to its “rightful place” in government policy? If you’ve forgotten, well, so has Barack Obama and his administration, according to the GAO. The watchdog agency reports that the White House rushed to shut down the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal facility for political rather than scientific considerations, and that Obama’s manipulation will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and set back the nuclear industry by decades:
The Obama administration’s rushed efforts to shut down Yucca Mountain were strictly political and could set back the opening of a nuclear waste repository by more than 20 years, according to a new report by a federal watchdog.
The administration killed the repository program last year without citing technical or safety issues, and restarting the costly and time-consuming process of finding a permanent repository or an alternative solution could take decades and cost billions of additional dollars, the Government Accountability Office reported yesterday. 
The Energy Department began pursuing a license for the Nevada site in 2008 but pulled support a year later when the Obama administration said it was not an attractive solution for storing nuclear waste in the United States. The administration then closed out funding for the site, eliminated jobs and contractor activities and disposed of Las Vegas properties associated with the project. 
“Several DOE officials told us that they had never seen such a large program with so much pressure to close down so quickly,” the report said in reference to the repository located about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
What technical or scientific rationales did the White House use in this effort? Well … none, according to the GAO. The administration not only didn’t bother to explain why the site had to be closed so quickly, they never checked on the safety issues involved in the hasty shutdown of the facility. Instead, Energy Secretary Stephen Chu just declared that Yucca Mountain was not a “workable option” and demanded its closure.

Excerpt:  Read more from Ed Morrisey at Hot Air
How long until another site is ready?
GAO estimates that even if a decision on a new site was made today, the permit process for its use would keep it off line until 2045. It will take 34 years to get full approval on the next waste-disposal site, and that’s if the site avoids “cost delays” and “garners public acceptance.”
What do nuclear power plants do with their waste in the meantime?

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Vindication for President Bush and Vice President Cheney

Thank you President Bush for not attending Obama's Dog and Pony show at Ground Zero. Class and substance of President Bush shines through once again.  As for Obama, once again he has shown in all of this except for a few instances of sanity it is all about him.  The Obama adoring media has turned this into another 'walk on water' moment with Obama's 'gutsy' call.  Doesn't make any difference to them that Obama has known for months were Bin Laden was and was dithering. 

The Liberals led by the current occupant of the White House, Obama, and his liberal media attack dogs never stopped attacking President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the CIA for GITMO and the interrogation techniques used on terrorist prisoners. They were loud and kept pounding day after day and convinced enough of the American voters they were right and after all the votes were counted, including the voter fraud,  Obama the non-natural born citizen became President.  Has Obama ever won an election fair and square -- he is known for having people take out his opponents so he can win and this time starting in the primary the fraud was rampant and carried over into the general election.

Obama didn't hesitate to release photos of prisoners being treated poorly by some of our military even though the military members who were responsible paid a price.  Obama released those photos and started a firestorm in the Arab World.  He was warned not to release them, but he didn't listen.  He also decided the military flag drapped coffins returning from overseas should be fair game for the photojournalist to take pictures.  Now after Panetta announced that the Bin Laden's pictures would be released, he says NO!  Guess there is no Republican to blame this time.  If that is being cynical then count me a cynic.  Obama does nothing unless it is going to benefit him politically because to him everything is about politics.

Now that Bid Laden is dead in a CIA/SEAL raid, Obama is doing Victory laps like he is responsible. If he had his way, Osama Bin Laden would still be breathing fresh air. The dithering President we don't believe ever made up his mind.  After Obama and Jarrett canceled the mission on Saturday night, he never figured that anyone would go ahead so he went golfing on Sunday afternoon.  Obama's non-order would have given Bin Laden a chance to leave for the mountains once again so CIA Director Leon Panetta, Department of Defense Secretary Bill Gates, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said no more waiting and Gates/Clinton gave their support to Panetta to commence the mission which he did.

Then they pull Obama off the golf course and back to the White House to brief him the mission has commenced.  Wonder who got the job of telling him that?  Biden had been briefed and the Chief of Staff Dailey was already in the loop.  The anointed one had to have his picture taken showing him intentently watching the raid like it was his idea all along but that was a photo op as they were watching a blank screen -- Panetta said there were 25 minutes that no one saw anything. OOPS! Then we learn the picture of his live speech is not so live. Was his speech really live or was it a Take 3 like in Hollywood?

Obama cannot bring himself to admit that the interrogation techniques started under President Bush led to Bin Laden because then he would have to admit they work. That doesn't fit his scenario or Holder's who still wants to investigate CIA interrogators to see if they broke a law he can find.   They still want to close GITMO as well and try terrorists in civilian court after giving them their Miranda rights.  No wonder the brave people on the ground shot Bin Laden dead rather than bring him back for Obama/Holder to put him on trial.  Despicable group of people in this Administration.

What was 'gutsy' about Obama and his non-decision -- zero, zip, nada.  The White House couldn't get their stories straight as has been documented on various sites.  You wouldn't know that from the mainstream media who are covering for Obama and Jarrett as many of them know the truth that they don't want the rest of America to know.  How bad is Obama as President and who is really running the White House?  Lately word has been leaking out that Jarrett and Chief of Staff Bill Daley are in a huge fight.  Wonder who is going to win that one?  Do we have another 'Deep Throat'  who is putting Country ahead of politics just like before?

Now this Administration cares so little about secrecy that they are saying what was in the documents they found. What is Obama trying to do alert the terrorists to what they have? Excuse me but any President that orders a Muslim burial for a man who killed so many American citizens, I have to question. 

The American people for the most part understand there is one person who has stood tall in all of this since 9/11 and that is President George W. Bush.  He declined to take part in the political event at Ground Zero which was the right thing to do. 
Vindication
May 7, 2011
Posted by Scott at 6:59 AM
In a biting column he titles "The first-person presidency," Victor Davis Hanson conveniently summarizes the national security positions asserted by then Senator Obama, with relevant quotations, and contrasts them with the positions he has taken as president. He then provides this convenient summary:
Senator Obama opposed tribunals, renditions, Guantanamo, preventive detention, Predator-drone attacks, the Iraq War, wiretaps, and intercepts -- before President Obama either continued or expanded nearly all of them, in addition to embracing targeted assassinations, new body scanning and patdowns at airports, and a third preemptive war against an oil-exporting Arab Muslim nation -- this one including NATO efforts to kill the Qaddafi family. The only thing more surreal than Barack Obama's radical transformation is the sudden approval of it by the once hysterical Left. In Animal Farm and 1984 fashion, the world we knew in 2006 has simply been airbrushed away.
Coincidentally, Jim Geraghty has received this "motivational poster" from a reader. It applies the teaching of Hanson's column to the successful operation against bin Laden.

vindication.jpg
The words at the bottom read: "VINDICATION: When the loudest critic of your policies achieves his greatest success because of them." Geraghty supports the point with another handy summary:
The interrogations of KSM (which included waterboarding) and the interrogation of Hassan Ghul (held in "black site" prisons) were key to identifying the courier; the president then authorized military action in a foreign country without going to the United Nations or informing the host government; the military action was unilateral, and we did not consult with our allies; Congress was not informed of the military action; and it increasingly appears that no serious effort was made to treat Osama bin Laden as a criminal (reading him his rights, etc.). The monitoring of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti's phone call was a result of an extensive global wiretapping system. Furthermore, as Charles Krauthammer notes, the helicopters used in the raid came from Bagram and Jalalabad; if we had withdrawn from Afghanistan on the antiwar Left's timetable, we would have had no bases from which to launch this operation.
I would supplement Geraghty's summary with two related points. It was President Bush who set the goal of taking bin Laden dead or alive in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. It was President Obama who gave the order to kill (not capture) bin Laden. It was President Obama who ordered the action without the knowledge or consent of the United Nations, the Pakistanis, or any other nation.   
Vindication, indeed. And thank you, President Bush.
Source:  Powerline
We are part of the growing number of people who do not believe that Obama ordered the action as he couldn't make up his mind but after it was a success he took full responsibility.  The truth will come out eventually and once again the media will have egg all over their face.  Many of them have been briefed about what is happening but they choose to keep on protecting Obama. 

Obama can take all the victory laps he wants, but a lot of people know the truth and more will in the days ahead.  The Obama media can only protect him for so long before more and more people are made aware that the person who is behind this mission was Leon Panetta not Obama. Without Panetta none of it would have gone down. Is this why Obama wants him out at the CIA and moved over to DoD?

We think that General Petreaus is a bad fit for the CIA. Received word yesterday to check his background and found out he was an infantry officer who got the position of leading one of the Airborne units AFTER he was the aide to the Commander of Fort Campbell. He came up through the ranks as an infrantry officer but then was put in charge of the Airborne? He received a Bronze Star with a V and the rest of the medals are pretty much what you get when you leave a position or serve in a war zone. It sure explains some of the comments that some of us have heard over the years from military we know.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the CIA interrogators have been VINDICATED and now is the time for Obama to put a halt to the investigattion of the CIA interrogators. Obama showed his true colors when he had the people screen the 50 families invited to participate in HIS 9/11 ceremony. Except for the head of the 9/11 families who Obama turned his back on, the rest were pretty much part of the Anti-Bush crowd of 9/11 famlies that were on the broadcast networks with their venom day after day.

The absolute class of the day was shown by former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, by not attending the Obama political event where he had his campaign media people recording it all. 

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Natural Born Citizen versus Native Born Citizen

It is not about the birther movement but that every American citizen has a right to know if ANY candidate for President meets the eligibility requirements to run as a 'natural' born citizen which means having two American citizens as parents. If one parent is not an American citizen, then the person is ineligible to run for President. How hard is that to understand?

Most of us learned in civics that to be 'natural' born, you had to be born to two American parents on American soil or your parents had to be in the military or Government employees. In doing the research it looks like that has evolved to two American citizens would be able to convey natural born citizenship to their baby even if the child was born overseas. In the case of Obama that part doesn't matter as his Dad was a British subject at the time of his birth.

We find the fact that Donald Trump is not afraid to ask the tough questions and is shining the light on this issue of 'natural' born refreshing. Trump is getting crucified in the media and by some Republican/conservative pundits/candidates for daring to question Obama. Why? What is being hidden? Sarah Palin immediately backed Trump in his quest to find the truth, but where are the other candidates and some Governor's? Cowering in a corner somewhere or coming out saying Obama was born in Hawaii? They miss the boat as where he was born is irrelevant if one parent is not an American citizen. His mother was only 17 and not old enough at that time to convey citizenship, but putting that aside, Barack Obama was a British subject at the time of Obama's birth which makes Obama ineligible to ever run for President or Vice President.

Today we see once again that CNN is carrying the water for Obama saying he was born in Hawaii. Hate to break the news to CNN but if Barrack Obama was Obama's father then he is does NOT meet the eligibility requirements to run for President or Vice President.

This is not only about Obama but any potential candidate where his parents came to this Country and were not Naturalized American citizens when the baby was born. Very simple to understand but it is going over the heads of so many people that we decided to dedicate a blog post to Natural Born versus Native Born.

There are only two positions, President and Vice President, in the United States Constitution where natural born is required which rules out dual citizenship at anytime in the life of the candidate. That would affect any candidate born in this Country whose parents were not naturalized or native born citizens at the time of the candidate's birth.

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Decided to look further into what is a natural born citizen and found a website dealing with the subject of a natural born citizen:

Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black

According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. Obama does not fit that description since, at the time of his birth, his father was a British subject.

Obama’s own web site, throughout the entire 2008 Presidential campaign, stated that his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH BLACK
According to a July 18, 1859 official proclamation by former Attorney General Black (as reported in the New York Times on July 20, 1859), only those who never owed fealty to another nation may be President:

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. “

Here again we see a person in high office stating that to be President one must never have owed fealty to another nation. We see the true legal requirement that the President never owed allegiance to any foreign sovereign. This clean natural citizenship is one which can only be present at birth. Since the naturalized citizen can’t be President because he once owed allegiance to a foreign nation, the same goes for any other citizen who owed allegiance to a foreign nation.

Obama admits to having owed fealty, aka allegiance, to the United Kingdom at the time of his birth. Therefore, upon the authority of Representative Bingham, Justice Black and Attorney General Black, Obama is not eligible to the office of President.
If "Dreams from my Father" is correct and the birth certificate says that Barrack Obama is the father then as stated before Obama regardless of place of birth was not eligible to run for President as his father was a British subject. If the parents were naturalized citizens and gave birth, the baby would be a natural born citizen as his parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth.

Too many people mix up American citizen with what the requirements are to run for President. If a child is born to Mexican citizens in the United States that child is an American citizen but cannot run for President as both parents were not American at the time of the birth. If the Mexican parents become naturalized citizens before the birth of their child, then the child is a natural born citizen.

More from the American Thinkeron the subject:

Native born” means someone born on U.S soil. “Natural born” means born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. If the Founding Fathers had meant “native born” they would have written “native born” in the U.S. Constitution, but they didn't. They wrote: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." They specifically stated “natural born Citizen,” a term which all educated persons at the time knew meant, per the nomenclature of the time, born on U.S. soil to citizen parents.

The United States Constitution was written in clear and concise terms by extremely intelligent and articulate men. To claim or act as if natural born means nothing more than born on U.S. soil assaults both the U.S. Constitution and the great intelligence of the Founding Fathers. That most Americans are poorly educated these days is no justification whatsoever for violating, or advocating violating, the United States Constitution. As for Hussein Obama, if somebody gets away with murder that does not mean that all murders should henceforth get a pass. Again, why is American Thinker posting articles that advocate making war on the United States Constitution?
The American Thinker is about as clear and concise as you can get and leaves us with the question of "Why are the pundits and some Republican candidates who want to 'move on to other subjects' ignoring that part of the equation?" The words racist, birther, etc. has been used to describe anyone who dares to question Obama on his qualifications to be President. Why? If his Dad was Barrack Obama as alleged in the book, then he had no right to run for President no matter where he was born. If his Dad was not Barrack Obama, then we have a right to know who was the father and was he an American citizen.  If that is the case then we know Obama perpetrated a fraud on the citizens of the United States pretending to be a son of Kenya.

There has also been discussion about being born on foreign soil to two United States citizens if the child would be considered a natural born citizen. We know for a fact that children of military or US Government employees stationed overseas would give their child natural born status. But what about others?

The various sites have a lot of discussion that has been in the courts including the Supreme Court about what it takes to give a citizenship status versus a natural born citizen.

The 14th Amendment requires “exclusive allegiance” to the United States either at birth or at the time of naturalization.

This rules out dual citizenship which a child is given if one parent is from another Country and requires that child to renounce one of the citizenship's at 18 during the time period we are discussing with Obama. Know for a fact that is the case as I have two cousins born to an English Mom and American Dad who at 18 had to decide with Country to declare their allegiance.

It also would seem to state that if two American citizens have a child overseas, they can convey 'natural' born status to their child. That part may be up for debate but the part that both parents have to be American citizens is not.

Why was John McCain required to provide proof he was eligible to run when his parents were in the military and he was born out of the Country while his Dad was on deployment to the Canal Zone? Best guess we have is that they wanted to make sure that both parents were American citizens and that would give John McCain natural born status. Why didn't the same Senate require Obama to provide the same detailed information?

Will someone explain why it is so wrong for American citizens to want to know the background of a Presidential candidate including birth certificate, school, passport, and health records, where a candidate has spent their life and who were his friend and mentors? Seems pretty clear cut if you are going to run for President, that you are going to be an open book, but guess we were wrong. According to some pundits, we have no right to know anything about Obama except what he tells us in his books especially "Dreams from my Father" which is now widely considered to be written by Bill Ayers with some of the material about Ayers not Obama. Why do we not have a right to know about the man who was elected President with almost 'zero' background available and what was available is up for debate?

We hope this has cleared up the distinction between native born and natural born because there is a definite difference.