It is not that I am “anti-Right” or anything like that, though I have matured enough politically to see the gross republican failings. Hell, that would make me a Liberal… or even worse – an Independent! “A far Right Conservative,” a very good friend more recently called me. It was to say that I tend to be a bit unbending in my political perspectives; rigid and unforgiving – extreme even (which is what “far Right” means anymore). Consider it a “slight of compliment” that was both fitting and at times appropriate.
It was a comment that made me think
Place the emphasis of “far Right Conservative” on Conservative; i.e. not Republican is what was being stated. (I like the sound of that – “Not Republican!” It would make a good blog or website theme these days). I like Republicanism and the associated political ideologies, but before that, the political values of fiscal responsibility, individual freedom, constitutional rights, personal accountability, personal responsibility and limited government must be upheld. Looking at my little checklist: Where do Republicans really fit in to my political value system? In my opinion, Republican officials represent these values in terms of rhetoric only, not in practice. They DO exist in Republican philosophy and mantra, but both current and more recent Republican leadership refuse to practice them. Moreover, I see the Party for how it practices the art of American politicking, not how they wish to be perceived as practicing them. And this is where I simply veer course from the “establishment Republican” – they either do not find such values as important as myself, or they simply refuse to see and accept the truth about what their Republican political leadership is actually doing. It is not that they are bad people; it is just that I see things differently and am accordingly not blinded by party affiliations over personal values and common sense. (Ahem, Not that all Republicans are).
I just don’t get it
Practically, everyone on the Right is fuming over Obama’s Executive Order essentially granting amnesty to illegal immigrants – and rightfully so. What I don’t get is why the actively elected Right has called upon an out of office, professional President wannabe (with no active political decision making authority what-so-ever) to take the lead on the immigration issue. Rather than effect active legislation, those HIRED TO SERVE IN OFFICE BY THE RIGHT have taken a roll of passivity while further relying on a moot political figure, solely because he is running for office. Simply put, Romney is not in a position to right the unilateral wrong committed by Obama, nor is Romney in a position to dictate immigration policy. Elected politicians, inept in their own individual political ability, have hid from the issue behind a Romney shield instead of taking action as they were hired by the people to do. Yet, no one really seems to notice.
For purposes of personal amusement, let’s take a quick glimpse on Romney and the Latino vote.
Romney’s presidential bid needs no less than 31% of the Latino vote AFTER Obama just rolled over, smiled and swallowed and secured the Latino vote in a monumental way. When pressed on whether he [Romney] would strike down the EO if elected President, he ducked, dodged and avoided answering. [Should probably insert a note here that Romney’s avoidance means he will do nothing if elected]. Romney however, is not dumb, but he may be making a very stupid move to resolve the “immigration” conundrum he faces.
More of the same old thing
Have you noticed how the media consistently covered how “Obama deported more illegal Mexicans than Bush;” all while AZ was attacked for enforcing the same standard Obama was being given credit for? Perhaps you may have noticed when Obama deportation numbers were being dropped in public view; ICE was granting amnesty. This Democrat hypocrisy exists because MOST DEMOCRATS SUPPORT IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, NOT AMNESTY. Obama pandered to both sides of Liberal immigration temperament and then sealed the deal favoring the Latino vote over national sovereignty. Suckers.
Here’s another little immigration conflict for ya! Asians now stand to overtake Mexicans in immigration to the US. If they (both Republicans and Democrats) have sold national sovereignty for the Latino vote to this extent; can you possibly imagine what they will be willing to do for the Asian vote once politicians decide to make Asians the next American race issue? That is how they get the votes you know. They make it look like anyone not of a specified race is wrong and racist for not being of that race and then promise they will make things different and better. The whole time making it worse to have something to actually fix, then walking away - after the given ethic group has given them their blind loyalty that is. If you are Black like me, that should sound all too familiar. If you are Mexican, I hope you have been watching closely; you’re next.
Republican vetting against constitutionalism
Rubio is currently being vetted for the coveted VP slot. Not a bad choice in terms of political perspectives, but one cannot help but wonder if this is merely a “Hey! I like Latino’s too!” move to counter traditionally low Latino support for Republican politicians in a time where the Latino vote could well be the deciding factor in the 2012 Presidential race. Though obvious, this is not what makes it a potentially disastrous and stupid move.
Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, has something in common with the good old Prez. Rubio’s parents “held off” on become US citizens until such a time Marco had already earned dual citizenship. (In case you have not noticed, the commonality is not the Cuban parent part….) Please allow me to digress even further.
The Right hosed the “Birther” issue by attacking it the laziest way possible. Challenged was “where Obama was born” because the Right felt that if it proved Obama was born in Kenya, it would be an open and shut case; WRONG! They almost completely ignored the true issue in that Obama’s father gave him dual citizenship because he [Obama] was born of a father that claimed citizenship to a nation that extended its citizenship to those children of their citizens born abroad. You see, it never matter “where” Obama was born per se, because the dual citizenship is where the constitutional argument lies; an argument more difficult in constitutional terms than that of Obama being born in a foreign nation. Had Republicans taken the higher ground, the “birther” conspiracy would have held the merit it truly deserved. The average American of course, does not know this and the majority of those whom do possess the apathy of those worthy of following only. Be that as it may, constitutional eligibility has been brought back to the forefront by Republicans; incorrectly, but nonetheless by Republicans – and constitutionally minded Republicans at that.
So, that leaves me pondering why a Republican presidential wannabe would venture so recklessly in the deep and murky waters of constitutional eligibility – after making such a big deal about it and all.
What matters is winning the Latino vote, not the constitution. Sound familiar? The system was wrong for allowing Obama to be vetted and consequently seated in terms of constitutional eligibility. Now stay with me here. Yet, because American politicians have failed in the three years since Obama’s election to correct (or even attempted to correct) the failed system that allowed Obama to win the Presidential seat in the name of the Democrats – it is now only appropriate that the constitutional eligibility blind eye now be turned in REPUBLICAN favor. A little quid quo pro if you will. Since when was the constitution relevant anyway? When will we, as Americans, become smart enough to realize that Left versus Right yields no true winner when both are wrong?
When both are wrong; all lose
And that is the underlying theme of all of this anyway isn’t it? Both sides are wrong and they are wrong on all of the issues. When it comes to the political elite; they are of the same agenda, just with different means to their ends. Obamacare was so wrong, yet we nominate its architect for President? Never mind Nixonian Republicans and their attempt, ignore Clinton’s attempts and Gingrich who pushed it while Speaker of the House. Illegal immigration is wrong, but Reagan passed Amnesty; now Obama pens an EO for the exact same reasons Reagan pushed it through. I mean really, with such hypocrisy; who should take the establishment Republican or modern Liberal seriously? When is the last time an administration, albeit Republican or Democrat, effectively reduced government, regulation and spending? Chirp, chirp. (Hint: WWII for those not taking the question with its posed rhetorical intent. BTW, it was the sharpest recession recovery in US economic history – yet today both Republicans and Democrats see it only fit to increase spending in order to provide entitlements in barter for votes). The big difference is that Democrats have arguably done a better job of exposing Republican failures than Republicans have exposed the egregious failings of Democrats. What’s funny is that Americans are ever so bitterly divided – all while their given elected officials pursue a common agenda against the good and freedoms of the people. Well, that’s not really funny is it? Please interject sad, pathetic, pitiful or any other adjective you deem most appropriate lieu of funny.
The problem is that, to an establishment Republican, I maintain an “extremely conservative” political perspective. (The word they are looking for is DIVIANT, not so much extreme – while fully admitting extreme can fit in several places). ;)
It is this deviance that separates Conservatives from establishment Republicans. It is almost as if establishment Republicans have not yet awakened to the fact their political elite do not share their agendas, or at least I hope they don’t (given all the unconstitutional laws passed and what not).
It goes to reason why so many people refuse to follow politics. It is truly a culture of deceit, corruption, hypocrisy and destruction. In not following, you are spared the frustration and don’t have to look like a hypocrite for supporting one side over the other; you win by not playing. What’s better than that?
I hope at this point you realize our problem is not so much what the Left is doing versus what the Right is doing. They are doing the same things and we only find political wrongs “un-American” and unconstitutional when it is the other side penning the legislation. It is as shameful as it is true. Perhaps what is most shameful is supporting this Two Party system solely designed for internal destruction and expecting someone to take you seriously.
It is always interesting reading liberal blogs, those that have not died off anyway. They are not all the right wing blasting, progressive, anti American, BS that they are stereotypically made out to be. Similar concerns are found, Libya, the debt, Japan… what will be the next stupid thing North Korea does. And then there are the anti-Right blogs that are so determined to be anti-Right that they that they prove themselves wrong. What’s that old game show? “Things only a progressive would say!” he shouts out and wins a dining room set.
Arizona is largely hated. How dare Arizona seek to uphold the law and claim that illegal immigration is actually illegal. Granted, that’s a stretch and all, but you would be shocked at how bloggers ridicule Arizona on this issue, yet will not argue that it is illegal. I know that is shocking, but it is true. That is not the only thing they are angry about with Arizona. Another shocker right? They are angry because Arizona introduced a bill (again) requiring Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to prove their constitutional eligibility. Never mind the twelve other states that are pushing similar legislation. The reason they are angry with Arizona is because the bill contains the following specific “anti-Obama” language.
Yes, the long form and bither issue… again! It is as if it will never go away. Did you know that more Americans are aware of the eligibility issue and question Obama’s eligibility than there are Americans who can identify who Biden or Pelosie are? It will not die! Either way, as the AZ bashing goes on, the bill is demonized as it attacks Obama specifically because it is so well known that he has yet to produce a long form birth certificate. As if that is not enough, these blogs piece together, through their complaining, a compelling argument that all states should have birther bills… even though they denounce it.
This particular tale of anti-birther woe starts with the Democratic National Committee’s Certificate of Nomination… or should I say Certificate(S)!
Let’s play a game! Which one of these pictures is not like the other?
The second lacks the statement of eligibility. Rut Rho Shaggy!
I had no idea this was even an issue (the whole Certificate of Nomination thing) and here liberal bloggers against constitutional eligibility measures in AZ are giving up the goose! Not the brightest bunch, but enlightening old chaps, we can at least give them credit for that. The stories get a little twisted, but the DNC defended the two DIFFERENT certificates by saying… well, nothing.
Where the stories go wayward is which forms were sent to which states. Some claim Hawaii needed the additional statement, while others claim “some states” needed the additional adage of being constitutionally eligible to hold the office.
Do you mean to say that not all states ensure this is verified? Admit it! That just went through your mind!
Apparently not! Though the DNC are and RNC are vetted with the verification of constitutional eligibility, little is in place beyond that of taking their word for it - and so it would seem the these two committees take the word of the candidates. Craziness I tell you! On occasion, constitutional eligibility is made issue of. More recently, McCain was targeted to which he provided a copy of his long form birth certificate.
McCain’s view was if you have nothing to hide, why hide it. But this is where it gets interesting. Hawaii has gone on record stating that no one has been provided with verification of Obama’s birth eligibility as it pertains to him being born in Hawaii. NO ONE!
All of this coming to light as bloggers criticize AZ for sponsoring a bill specifically requesting the long form birth certificate. Truth be told, we could have had multiple presidents serving that were not constitutionally eligible… not just this one. That was a joke, but there is truth in jest.
Out of prudence, it was important to look at the RNC’s Certificate of nomination. Yes, it contains the caveat of constitutional eligibility. No, there were not different versions for different states. And no, it does not have the DNC’s typo in it either. Did you catch that? “Though” is used for through. This typo dates back to at least 2000. Gore’s contained it, Kerry’s contained it and obviously Obama’s contains it… both of them.
So why has this not drawn more attention? Well it has found its way into the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit. (Paragraph 89 -91 and Endnote 16).
Dismissed of course and the appeal was called frivolous. Interestingly enough the call for discovery was denied. It boils down to this, “I am sorry you demand to ensure the constitution has been upheld, but we are not going to go through the process of discovery in order to verify your claims against the President and the federal government.” Nice right? ThRough (note the r) the court there is simply no recourse.
Remember that all of this was in liberal blogs. I had no idea about any of this. The blogger would write disparaging things about Arizona and go forward in presenting an excellent case as to why constitutional eligibility verification is actually needed. Even if Obama is not a usurper, would it not be nice to definitively know that each and every president is actually eligible to be President of the United States; especially after seeing the gaping holes in constitutional eligibility verification that have been waiting to be exploited by a person who studied the constitution? It has been the perfect storm brewing while it awaited the right opportunist.
Not only has there not been a long form birth certificated provided to put this to rest, one has NEVER been requested. It makes more and more sense why Obama has spent 1.5 million taxpayer dollars keeping his secrets so secretive.
My guess is that if states would pass these so called "birther bills," Obama would come up with an excuse to run in 2012.
If you are tired of this whole birther issue repeatedly resurfacing, you are in good company. Never the less, the issue will continue to rear its ugly head until such a time it Is put to rest once and for all. And putting it to a final rest is what Governor Neil Abercrombie wishes to do.
"It's an emotional insult. It is disrespectful to the president; it is disrespectful to the office," he told the New York Times. "There's no reason on earth to have the memory of his parents insulted by people whose motivation is solely political. ... Let's put this particular canard to rest."
The fact of the matter is that he is correct. However, he faces two challenges; the Hawaii Department of Health and President Obama himself. According to the Hawaii Department of Health, only President Obama and his immediate family have the “interest” to request the long form birth certificate; which has not been done despite the controversy. In short, standing in Governor Abercrombie’s way is the organization he now represents and the very president he seeks to protect.
Though the “certificate of live birth” has long since been made public, it did little to thwart the movement calling President Obama’s birth place into question. The long form is being sought to be revealed to the public. On the long form the physician’s name and signature are provided, the name of the hospital is listed, the birth weight of the child and the national origin of the parents are detailed. The long form is in demand even though the short form holds the same legal merit.
Chris Matthews joined melee reasoning that if the long form would put an end to the debate, it makes sense to provide it. Representatives of the president claim that he has more pressing and more important issues to tend to rather than requesting the long form birth certificate from Hawaii. Perhaps thanking the Eagles’ coach for giving Vick a second chance was more important as well.
Here is the problem, 23% of Americans are unsure whether the president is truly a natural born citizen and eligible to serve as the president. THIS IS A HUGE PERCENTAGE! The overwhelming majority of people do not question the president’s eligibility, but more people are “uncertain” than believe the president is not eligible (20%). When close to a quarter of the nation in uncertain about their own president, something is very seriously wrong. To directly see the president not take the extra step to provide the needed “security in understanding” by disclosing his long form only serves to fuel the doubt. Furthermore, it sends a message that the president has no desire to swing the perception of so many Americans; he could care less about them is what he is demonstrating.
It is felt (by the Obama administration) that the 20% that is confident Obama lacks the constitutional eligibility to serve as the American president will not be swayed with the release of the long form birth certificate. This if course is not true in that most people are reasonable when presented with physical evidence. There are those who will insist upon themselves over any such evidence, but it is by no means 100% of those who believe Obama is a constitutional fraud. Given Obama’s decline in popularity, one would think he would take the extra step to at least attempt to end some of the doubt.
The birther issue is a byproduct of Obama’s actions to seal so much of his past from the American people he serves. This alone was reason enough to not vote for him because a person had no way of truly knowing who and what they were voting for.
To many, the birther issue is silly and grossly unsubstantiated. A claim that makes sense when the birthe has absolutely zero tangible evidence to the contrary of Obama’s claims. A circumstantial case of this nature has to eventually be taken a step further. As common a feeling as this is, a glance at what some states are doing will make you wonder.
Some states are now seeking legislation that will require all presidential candidates to fully disclose constitutional eligibility to the state before the state will allow them on the election ballot. Why would states move in this direction based on so little factual evidence?
Me? I fall into the 23% of the uncertain due to the ambiguous nature of certificate of live birth which we all know is very easily forged. I am not about big doubter of where he was born despite the audio tapes of his family and Kenyan officials claims that he was born in Kenya. On the long form birth certificate, nationality of the parents is documented. If there is an issue, it will be that his father was a legal citizen of England. Like America, England grants birth right to the offspring of the male citizens, regardless of what nation they were born in. This of course would make him ineligible for the office. This of course cannot be determined without the long form which Obama seeks to protect along with several other aspects of his past.
Being in the 23%, I cannot come to the point of believing the president is a legal president without him providing the access to such a document in order for an accurate determination to be made. I cannot say that I know very many people who go through such extent to prevent access to information without something to hide.
If Obama wishes for me to believe he is eligible, he should first prove his eligibility with the long form birth certificate due to the fact the certificate of live birth in this case is inadequate to make honest determinations on despite the otherwise legal merits of the document. Is that really asking too much?