Posted on 07/18/2015 12:53:28 PM PDT by spacejunkie2001
...and inverted the '08 portion to read '80, then stamped the bottom of a fake selective service form as if he really filled it out. Sheriff Joe's Posse proved that all forms had the entire year in the stamp....but not odumbo's.
When, pray tell, will ANY of the media do their job and search out obamas's fake documents and confront him with it????
Agree completely. What makes SAD’s HI disappearing act significant is that a false address was used on both the birth announcements and the cut and paste BC.
I guess some have never heard of grade inflation. When I lived in Cambridge the papers had a story about it every other day. Harvard’s grade inflation—especially for minorities—was legendary.
That is my recollection as well. There was a time I was looking up all the addresses listed in the various Dunham/Marshall-Davis papers that were available, but I have since forgotten quite a lot.
Give his subsequent performance, I consider it pretty well established that he was the beneficiary of Liberal Professors passing him because he made them feel good about themselves, and not because they held him to an objective standard.
The man is a complete fool who has never successfully managed anything in his history. Not even his book writing project.
Nobody is expecting them not to push. What isn't expected is that people would let them get away with it. I now consider the Liberal Monopoly of the Media/Entertainment industries to be Public Enemy Number one.
I would rather see us destroying them than ISIS. They are in positions of influence, and they are abusing those positions to spread their left-wing propaganda.
They gave us Barack Obama, wholly a creation of their influence and talents, and he may well give us millions of deaths before all this is over. Ultimately the responsibility for allowing this fool to wreck the world is the Liberal Democrat Union Members in New York and Los Angeles that control what the public is permitted to hear.
The bloody shirt needs to be tied around their necks.
I agree with you that the liberal mainstream media is a huge obstacle but Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes managed to overcome that obstacle in the modern era.
Every liberal media conglomerate is a publicly traded corporation. The way to defeat them is to out-compete them in the marketplace. Rupert Murdock and Roger Ailes have clearly demonstrated that can be done. Fox News Channel has been number one in cable news for 162 months in a row. What is needed is other competitors to broadcast news on ABC, CBS, and NBC.
I wsh the Donald Trumps, the Koch Brothers and the Sheldon Adelsons of the conservative movement were putting some of their billions into building competitors to Disney-ABC, NBC/Universal and the CBS Corporation.
We are living through a magnitude level of worse behavior on the part of the media than even Reagan ever dealt with. Also Reagan was an accomplished Actor and Speaker, and he had a rare talent that few could match.
Every liberal media conglomerate is a publicly traded corporation. The way to defeat them is to out-compete them in the marketplace.
Are you familiar with the nature of this Industry? It is currently a monopoly of Liberal thought, and you can't get in from an existing media structure. To build a new one from the ground up would be many billions of dollars and millions of man-hours worth of work, all to just dilute the existing system a little bit.
It is no petty task to out compete an organization with so much of it's infrastructure already built out.
Rupert Murdock and Roger Ailes have clearly demonstrated that can be done.
With sufficient Talent and Money. Even so, Murdock is actually a Liberal that simply recognized a good business opportunity when he saw it. He still reigns Fox News in from time to time. He did so in the 2008 elections.
What is needed is other competitors to broadcast news on ABC, CBS, and NBC.
And all the Movie/Television production companies in Los Angeles and New York, too.
On the other hand, litigation couldn't hurt if only the Judiciary wasn't insane. They deliberately discriminate in their hiring/promotion practices regarding creed. I think they coordinate stories to serve political interests, making them a possible target for a RICO prosecution. Their licenses could be challenged for Bias and Propagandizing, and dirt could be dug up on their employees so as to produce as much legal trouble for them as possible.
But none of this is easy or even necessarily plausible in today's political environment, and it's certainly not a good substitute for Journalists to adhere to some form of ethics as the public has been led to believe they do.
We wouldn't need to think of ways to address the problem if those bastards would simply do the right thing. The Objective thing.
Since they won't, we should be figuring out ways to destroy their ability to influence the public.
Conservatives have always opposed “The Fairness Doctrine.”
From Wikipedia:
The Fairness Doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominent conservatives and libertarians who view it as an attack on First Amendment rights and property rights. Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times in 2005 and 2008 said that Democratic attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine have been made largely in response to conservative talk radio.
In 2007, Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) proposed an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that forbade the FCC from “using any funds to adopt a fairness rule.” It was blocked, in part on grounds that “the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction”.
In the same year, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 was proposed in the Senate by Senators Coleman with 35 co-sponsors (S.1748) and John Thune (R-SD) with 8 co-sponsors (S.1742) and in the House by Republican Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) with 208 co-sponsors (H.R. 2905). It provided that:
“ The Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine’, as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).”
Neither of these measures came to the floor of either house.
On August 12, 2008, FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell stated that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the debate over network neutrality (a proposal to classify network operators as common carriers required to admit all Internet services, applications and devices on equal terms), presenting a potential danger that net neutrality and Fairness Doctrine advocates could try to expand content controls to the Internet. It could also include “government dictating content policy”. The conservative Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute argued that the three main points supporting the Fairness Doctrine — media scarcity, liberal viewpoints being censored at a corporate level, and public interest — are all myths.
“Also Reagan was an accomplished Actor and Speaker, and he had a rare talent that few could match.”
Now explain George W. Bush! :-)
Algore
And John Kerry! There are more variables at play than just the liberal media and algore and Kerry were perfect examples.
This topic is more complex than can be explained easily, but among the many factors involved is the positive feedback nature of having a left-wing monopoly of our information distribution system.
I have long said the first duty of any governance is to protect it's ability to exist, and any thing which threatens it's continued existence must be dealt with or a government which will take the necessary steps to deal with a threat will replace it.
In other words, there are objective standards that any system of governance has to meet to survive. If it does not meet these necessary standards it will be replaced by one that will, usually a dictatorship of some sort.
The current monopoly on the existing means of communications and information distribution constitutes an existential threat to our form of governance, and indeed has done great damage to it. My guess is that it is probably too far gone to salvage and we shall all have to simply weather the structural collapse as best we can, and vie for whatever position and security we are able.
If that is to be forestalled, it necessitates the destruction of the existing media structures, not some form of accommodation with them. Not some "fairness doctrine."
What we need is some form of "unfairness doctrine" where they don't get to talk and we do. They've had decades to manipulate the public, and it will take decades of bias in the opposite direction to correct it.
But I don't seen that happening, and so we wait for the public to be made ever more foolish till the existing system is simply no longer sustainable, in the manner that Venezuelan socialists are now discovering.
Al Gore.
In 1990, the year before that bio blurb was created, Obama told the NYT, WashPo, Chicago Tribune, and L.A. Times that he was born in Hawaii. This was when he was interviewed upon becoming President of the HLR. So in 1990 it was reported nationally (these were top circulation papers then) that Obama was "born in Hawaii."
Do you seriously think it credible that Obama the next year sought to get some advantage out of stating a Kenya birth? Anyone doing a Lexis/Nexis search would find the immediate problem.
No, rather this bio was one of about 80 which the literary agent put in a pamphlet (it wasn't on the book cover or in Obama's book, contrary to frequent Birther claims) which was then circulated only to an handful of potential publishers.
Nationwide media versus a pamphlet sent to some publishers. Can you grasp the difference in import? Yet you seriously think Obama wrote that bio and thought it somehow advantageous when the prior year he had told those major newspapers he was born in Hawaii? Duh. Understood in context, the explanation that the lit. agent cobbled this together and didn't check it carefully makes sense. And it existed in obscurity until the internet age came in full and the agency uploaded things onto a webpage.
Though on second thought, this is much like your reliance on Samuel Roberts, another obscure source that no one cited until Google Books made him discoverable.
Yet get a point for foolish consistency.
Considering the fact that I regard Obama as a special class of stupid, one should not waste one's time speculating as to what his reasons for doing anything are.
"Stupid" pretty much explains him.
Why would it not match if Granny Dunham put down that information on an at home birth affidavit?
An at-home birth affidavit that lists a hospital as a place of birth? That doesn't make sense. How about more of an Occam's Razor view: the b/c lists a hospital as place of birth because he was born in a hospital.
And your children? The most obvious answer appears to be conspicuously absent from your response.
Well, gosh. Since my parents were both citizens at my birth, that makes me a citizen. And I figured that the guy who's been running around this forum for years trying to look smart with his "partus sequitur patrem" line would then be able to figure out that status of my children.
But I will spoon-feed it to you: they were born and remain U.S. citizens.
It explains history far better than your theory ever did.
It's hardly my theory: it's the same theory clearly espoused by Swift, Tucker, Kent, Story, Sandford, the 39th Congress, and the SCOTUS. One looks only with great difficulty for anyone holding to your view.
The common law had already recognized exceptions to the jus soli. It's hardly a critique against my position (which says that we adopted the common law theory) to point out that it has exceptions.
One doesn't have to avoid your inane posts; but it does take time rebutting all the dumb points you make.
While it made me laugh pretty hard, I don't think it reaches the level of "killed". It's not the funniest thing you ever said, but it is in the top ten. Citizenship only exists because there are other nations. Were there no other nations, there would be no need for this thing called "citizenship" because all would be members of the same nation anyway.
It's clear you've never engaged in any type of formal argument (school debate, etc.) Because with argument and debate one actually has to back up one's assertions. Without that, it's mere opinion. What you give here is pure opinion.
So, yeah, when I assert that citizenship is a mater of municipal (domestic) law, I back up that assertion with a succinct, clear citation to the SCOTUS, and you in turn offer nothing but your opinion -- then, yeah, I've killed you on that point. Spin it and bluster away. It's true.
But you want more? OK: "Each state’s municipal law dictates on whom nationality shall be conferred." Oxford Biblographies
"Despite disagreements among student of jurisprudence regarding the precise relationship between international and municipal law, the established basic distinction is quite clear: municipal law is concerned with individuals; international law is concerned with states . . . Thus, it would seem to follow, municipal law provides state citizenship[.} Souice
Adding more is just further kicking the corpse of your argument.
You are arguing that our citizenship law is jus soli and has always been jus soli, so we have to pass a jus soli law because we don't need one. >
I said that the rule as to white persons has always been jus soli. See, e.g., the Virginia citizenship statute originally drafted by Jefferson -- the one Tucker gave as an example of U.S. law being accordant with Blackstone. All "white persons" born in the state were declared citizens. See also the "great case of Lynch v. Clarke" (cited in the House of the 39th Congress).
The 39th Congress made clear the CRA and the 14th Amendment citizenship provisions were declaratory of existing law, but with equal protection to black and others. You still haven't explained how -- if "existing law" required a citizen father -- those Acts could be said to be declaratory, since neither act requires a citizen father.
If you've given any from a contemporary delegate, I haven't noticed, and I put no credibility into the commentary of people long afterward and who were not there.
And given that there is no record of there being discussion or debate at the Convention about the meaning of NBC, which is such testimony necessary or even relevant? My point again is that I've make the assertion that the "G.C." was added for the benefit of the foreign born patriots like Hamilton. To support that, I offered a half dozen or more historical sources all affirming that point.
You deny that point, but you can't cite to ANYONE, contemporary or not, who states the reason the G.C. was added was because otherwise Washington, et al., would not be eligible. Again, in a rational world of argument and evidence, my point prevails over your opinion.
But, in fact, I did give a contemporary source -- James Madison -- who explains how those born on the continent "retained their birthright" as members of the local political community even as the secondary allegiance to the Crown was dissolved. At least twice I've cited his words; every time you've simply ignored it.
I very much doubt that most of them had any intentions of creating "anchor babies" when they wrote it.
In 1870 there was no restrictive border policy or a notion of "illegal aliens." The notion of an "anchor baby" didn't then exist, so of course they couldn't have intended that. Nor could they have intended NOT to allow it. Your argument is anachronistic.
Again, another stupid argument on your part.
No one cares what a fool thinks.
That would explain why -- when these debates have occurred on more active threads -- no one attempts to defend the arguments you make.
But you cared enough to assert cowardice that I hadn't replied. See, I know deep down inside you've developed that psychological need to be b*tch-slapped with regularity.
Too long. Not interested.
Here's another example of you just making stuff up with no substantiation.
Most everything you've offered I've shown to be without merit. James Madison explaining the underlying theory which supports my view that the founding generation of Washington, etc., "retained their birthright" even after the dissolution with England (thus, they were not naturalized) is a strong contemporary source. And you know that -- that's why you keep ducking that evidence.
My later point was that arguing 18th and 19th century history is not "pro-Obama" (by definition). Your reply is strawman stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.