An Obama child with her drawing from Nevada/photo from the e-book.In the national conversation there are many levels of insight and knowledge, and groups whose views are based on myths and ideologies, and varying degrees of intelligence. It makes for interesting times and infuriating reading.
Many of this groups try to prove their points by sheer volume, but quantity is not quality. That said, I believe in open conversations, from all points of viewpoint. But as I said in a recent interview: “I'll chide you if I think I have better evidence; I'll point out what's missing or overlooked in your assertions. I also listen.”
Having listened, here are some of my final answers to issues that “repeat and repeat,” and got under my skin.
"A Mile in my shoes" / Election night photo, Chicago. From the e-book.
Many conservatives are actively promoting a “liberal dictatorship,” something that was once an oxymoron. The broad outline is this: liberals, lead by Barack, empowered by Pelosi, guided by Reid, and proceeding with corporate and media money will tell us what to think, how much we can make, will give all of our jobs to illegal immigrants or the 45 million Africans Barack will bring in. Or they will be to busy celebrating, crowning Barack and dividing the pie among themselves to govern, and well falter at the first “boo” from an outside threat, however pipsqueak. I read all of this, last weekend. More: all criticism or dissent will be foiled. Recycled Clintonites will corrupt the government, hug trees, embrace global warming, hide scandals, exercise disastrous judgment, and, because they are lazy and worthless and have not wit of guilt, they will steal monies by fiat and entitlement.
Liberals, on the other hand, are disappointed that the agenda they want to pursue isn't in effect before Barack enters office. Loudly bewailing competent appointments with experience, they seek victory without experience—a sure formula for losing, as Clinton did on health care.
They see symbolism as “governing,” offer no olive branch or forgiveness, and are amped over Rick Warren's anti-gay views.
Still another group seem to have no political agenda except to refuse to believe he's our “president too.” Active and lively on the web, they bring guilt by association, and, right now, the Illinois governor is their poster child. They still weigh “experience,” off any type, of any quality, as more important than judgment. They tend to believe Palin is the hope of the future. They complete ignore Barack's brilliant security picks. They completely ignore all of his picks, except Hillary. Nobel prize winners running one of the nation's largest labs, governors, NATO chiefs, school chiefs, even a Senator who was mentored by John McCain, even the unconditional signal of approval by Chaney and McCain isn't enough to for them to accept “so good so far,” much less embrace Barack as our national leader. In fact, one member of this group told me Barack's family helping out in Chicago at Thanksgiving was “just to look good.” But did you see any of the hopefuls or also-rans, on either side, making the same effort, for whatever reason?
The core group of noise makers are the constitutional specialists, the show-me-your-birth-certificate-you-illegal-alien-unfit-not-my-president-elect. This group is online, in the workplace, among our friends, and taking full page ads in leading newspapers.
For a man who would bring hope, many are unusually disturbed. Disenchanted. Angry and haughty. Pointing fingers, refusing to listen.
I have heard their voices. I humbly suggest there is no intent of a dictatorship during Barack's term—or the loss of rights guaranteed by the constitution, from gun ownership to freedom of speech. I suggest their will be no fleecing of their pocketbooks,The irony is, these advocates fail to see that their own speech is an example of why there is no impending revolution—they rail and rant and take flimsy threads and weave political whole cloth that is clearly outside of possibility or the current agenda, they proclaim conclusions for which there is not reason or fact and yet they persist—a living contradiction to their predictions. And predictions is the key. The dictatorship is in the future, something to be wary of, to be prepared for, to organize against as the plan unfolds. The future holds the danger, so we can overlook the present. We can forget the past. This is not common sense; this is fantasy.
Loud liberals seem to forget that governing these United States requires relationships, trust, and understanding of process, team-building, key players, policy outcomes, states involvement—sacrifice--and experience. Mississippi Republican governor (former GOP party head) Haley Barbour lead the applause when Barack met with the governors—now that's the United States, not left policies or right policies. Experience is a critical, crucial element in success: even new coaches count on returning seniors. Change is a new play book, a new direction. But first the problems have to be fixed. Jobs, the war, the budget, the policy assessments for green energy, foreign affairs, education, immigration, global capital markets, all have to be carefully examined and carefully redirected. Sometimes change is slow.
Once Barack was labeled naive, unschooled in politics. Now thanks to the Illinois governor, he is mired, in the same minds they thought him naive, in the school of corruption and slime that seems to engulf Chicago. There is no foundation for suggesting or believing the President-elect, who raised 800 million dollars to run for office is involved in a back room deal to put his term at risk for a measly $500,000. But like so many of the negatives that surrounded Barack, I guess, he can be smart and dumb; at least according to some. They say: “I knew it!” But it “signifies nothing,” a sad but inconsequential coincidence. Note: Barack does not scurry to appease sentiment out of fear or weakness. That is also why he will be tough on defense.
Finally, my last word on the bc (birth certificate). A favorite cited, oft repeated mantra of proof begins with: “his grandmother said . . .” “his grandmother said . . .” “his grandmother said . . .” No. Not at all. Somebody said his grandmother said. In fact, somebody said that somebody said a translator said, in a dropped cell phone connection that his grandmother said . . .
I offer three challenges on this mantra of proof—first, let the opposition show proof of their statement, “grandma said.” His grandmother is still alive. Why spend $125,000 on a full page ad. For $5.000 round trip, go fly to Kenya: ask grandma the same question three times, using a relative to translate, and put the video on youtube, accompanied by video that shows the grand mother video being taped and uploaded!
Do you really think if she said it, we would not see the smoking gun by now? If she uttered these words, that the big and small screens of America and the world would not be filled with her declaration day and night? Why do all who cite or quote those who “said,” ignore grandmother and never ask her direct? Why is not that claim never back upped and validated and proved by those who claim it is valid, whose views stand on its behalf of its claim of what someone “said”?
Well, if you have no offense, attack the other side. An old lawyer's axiom, successfully used to keep the issue alive. Check with gran'ma; let's see what she has to say, once and for all.
Two, Africans often use a different syntax than Euro-Americans. If grandma said, “In Kenya, we were all happy when he was born,” that is easily translated as “we were happy when in was born in Kenya.” Finally (three) where are the records of travel, plane tickets, reservations, hospital stays, doctor or midwife who did the delivery, eye witnesses to support the charge? Is there more than flimsy collaboration? The priest whose brother (unnamed) who supposed blessed the birth may simply have done what an American priest did for me when my father died--prayed for and blessed him, while the body was elsewhere. The whole thing is a flimsy house of cards that stands by the sleight that misdirects our attention to the wrong issues, as yet another distraction.
CHARLESTON, SC, Aug. 7, 2006—Govs. Janet Napolitano, AZ; Haley Barbour, MS; and Tim Pawlenty, MN at the NGA conference
Let's restore common sense. Sure there'll be disagreements. My Republican governor in SC opposes infra-structuring spending for the states, and thinks it's unwise to add to the federal deficit in an expanding recession. He got criticized when his inaugural invocation was given by Democratic minister who was vice-president of the state's NAACP, which had led a boycott of business and travel to the state due to its statehouse display of the Confederate flag. As But Barack says, “now is the time to govern.” Stop shouting and take a look: when Barack said he wanted to listen to the states' governors, the Republican governor of Mississippi applauded. Why? Because Barack is his president, too.
Yes, I am shamelessly promoting my new, free e-book! “From the Front Porches of Charleston:" The Election of Barack Obama, 100 photo pages, from Barack's photostream. Download: http:www.lulu.com/content/5282127 Free! Share the link! Give it as gifts!
Many of this groups try to prove their points by sheer volume, but quantity is not quality. That said, I believe in open conversations, from all points of viewpoint. But as I said in a recent interview: “I'll chide you if I think I have better evidence; I'll point out what's missing or overlooked in your assertions. I also listen.”
Having listened, here are some of my final answers to issues that “repeat and repeat,” and got under my skin.
"A Mile in my shoes" / Election night photo, Chicago. From the e-book.
Many conservatives are actively promoting a “liberal dictatorship,” something that was once an oxymoron. The broad outline is this: liberals, lead by Barack, empowered by Pelosi, guided by Reid, and proceeding with corporate and media money will tell us what to think, how much we can make, will give all of our jobs to illegal immigrants or the 45 million Africans Barack will bring in. Or they will be to busy celebrating, crowning Barack and dividing the pie among themselves to govern, and well falter at the first “boo” from an outside threat, however pipsqueak. I read all of this, last weekend. More: all criticism or dissent will be foiled. Recycled Clintonites will corrupt the government, hug trees, embrace global warming, hide scandals, exercise disastrous judgment, and, because they are lazy and worthless and have not wit of guilt, they will steal monies by fiat and entitlement.
Liberals, on the other hand, are disappointed that the agenda they want to pursue isn't in effect before Barack enters office. Loudly bewailing competent appointments with experience, they seek victory without experience—a sure formula for losing, as Clinton did on health care.
They see symbolism as “governing,” offer no olive branch or forgiveness, and are amped over Rick Warren's anti-gay views.
Still another group seem to have no political agenda except to refuse to believe he's our “president too.” Active and lively on the web, they bring guilt by association, and, right now, the Illinois governor is their poster child. They still weigh “experience,” off any type, of any quality, as more important than judgment. They tend to believe Palin is the hope of the future. They complete ignore Barack's brilliant security picks. They completely ignore all of his picks, except Hillary. Nobel prize winners running one of the nation's largest labs, governors, NATO chiefs, school chiefs, even a Senator who was mentored by John McCain, even the unconditional signal of approval by Chaney and McCain isn't enough to for them to accept “so good so far,” much less embrace Barack as our national leader. In fact, one member of this group told me Barack's family helping out in Chicago at Thanksgiving was “just to look good.” But did you see any of the hopefuls or also-rans, on either side, making the same effort, for whatever reason?
The core group of noise makers are the constitutional specialists, the show-me-your-birth-certificate-you-illegal-alien-unfit-not-my-president-elect. This group is online, in the workplace, among our friends, and taking full page ads in leading newspapers.
For a man who would bring hope, many are unusually disturbed. Disenchanted. Angry and haughty. Pointing fingers, refusing to listen.
I have heard their voices. I humbly suggest there is no intent of a dictatorship during Barack's term—or the loss of rights guaranteed by the constitution, from gun ownership to freedom of speech. I suggest their will be no fleecing of their pocketbooks,The irony is, these advocates fail to see that their own speech is an example of why there is no impending revolution—they rail and rant and take flimsy threads and weave political whole cloth that is clearly outside of possibility or the current agenda, they proclaim conclusions for which there is not reason or fact and yet they persist—a living contradiction to their predictions. And predictions is the key. The dictatorship is in the future, something to be wary of, to be prepared for, to organize against as the plan unfolds. The future holds the danger, so we can overlook the present. We can forget the past. This is not common sense; this is fantasy.
Loud liberals seem to forget that governing these United States requires relationships, trust, and understanding of process, team-building, key players, policy outcomes, states involvement—sacrifice--and experience. Mississippi Republican governor (former GOP party head) Haley Barbour lead the applause when Barack met with the governors—now that's the United States, not left policies or right policies. Experience is a critical, crucial element in success: even new coaches count on returning seniors. Change is a new play book, a new direction. But first the problems have to be fixed. Jobs, the war, the budget, the policy assessments for green energy, foreign affairs, education, immigration, global capital markets, all have to be carefully examined and carefully redirected. Sometimes change is slow.
Once Barack was labeled naive, unschooled in politics. Now thanks to the Illinois governor, he is mired, in the same minds they thought him naive, in the school of corruption and slime that seems to engulf Chicago. There is no foundation for suggesting or believing the President-elect, who raised 800 million dollars to run for office is involved in a back room deal to put his term at risk for a measly $500,000. But like so many of the negatives that surrounded Barack, I guess, he can be smart and dumb; at least according to some. They say: “I knew it!” But it “signifies nothing,” a sad but inconsequential coincidence. Note: Barack does not scurry to appease sentiment out of fear or weakness. That is also why he will be tough on defense.
Finally, my last word on the bc (birth certificate). A favorite cited, oft repeated mantra of proof begins with: “his grandmother said . . .” “his grandmother said . . .” “his grandmother said . . .” No. Not at all. Somebody said his grandmother said. In fact, somebody said that somebody said a translator said, in a dropped cell phone connection that his grandmother said . . .
I offer three challenges on this mantra of proof—first, let the opposition show proof of their statement, “grandma said.” His grandmother is still alive. Why spend $125,000 on a full page ad. For $5.000 round trip, go fly to Kenya: ask grandma the same question three times, using a relative to translate, and put the video on youtube, accompanied by video that shows the grand mother video being taped and uploaded!
Do you really think if she said it, we would not see the smoking gun by now? If she uttered these words, that the big and small screens of America and the world would not be filled with her declaration day and night? Why do all who cite or quote those who “said,” ignore grandmother and never ask her direct? Why is not that claim never back upped and validated and proved by those who claim it is valid, whose views stand on its behalf of its claim of what someone “said”?
Well, if you have no offense, attack the other side. An old lawyer's axiom, successfully used to keep the issue alive. Check with gran'ma; let's see what she has to say, once and for all.
Two, Africans often use a different syntax than Euro-Americans. If grandma said, “In Kenya, we were all happy when he was born,” that is easily translated as “we were happy when in was born in Kenya.” Finally (three) where are the records of travel, plane tickets, reservations, hospital stays, doctor or midwife who did the delivery, eye witnesses to support the charge? Is there more than flimsy collaboration? The priest whose brother (unnamed) who supposed blessed the birth may simply have done what an American priest did for me when my father died--prayed for and blessed him, while the body was elsewhere. The whole thing is a flimsy house of cards that stands by the sleight that misdirects our attention to the wrong issues, as yet another distraction.
CHARLESTON, SC, Aug. 7, 2006—Govs. Janet Napolitano, AZ; Haley Barbour, MS; and Tim Pawlenty, MN at the NGA conference
Let's restore common sense. Sure there'll be disagreements. My Republican governor in SC opposes infra-structuring spending for the states, and thinks it's unwise to add to the federal deficit in an expanding recession. He got criticized when his inaugural invocation was given by Democratic minister who was vice-president of the state's NAACP, which had led a boycott of business and travel to the state due to its statehouse display of the Confederate flag. As But Barack says, “now is the time to govern.” Stop shouting and take a look: when Barack said he wanted to listen to the states' governors, the Republican governor of Mississippi applauded. Why? Because Barack is his president, too.
Yes, I am shamelessly promoting my new, free e-book! “From the Front Porches of Charleston:" The Election of Barack Obama, 100 photo pages, from Barack's photostream. Download: http:www.lulu.com/content/5282127 Free! Share the link! Give it as gifts!
2 comments:
EASY WAY TO MAKE SURE OBAMA NEVER GETS INAUGURATED (READ CAREFULLY):–
Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.
Ted, an interesting line of thought, well stated. Uhhhmm . . . it does seem the Courts refusal to rule leaves things as is, the election stands, and, given no rulings to the contrary, the area is not "gray," but "closed." What they "believe in good faith" still must confirm to existing law (e.g. non-payment of federal income taxes, etc.) and practice. I would not think they can "create" law of their own to follow by "belief." Once Obama takes the oath, he is President. I don't think the law allows for conscientious objectors--or many would have done so during the crimes and high misdemeanors of the current admin.
Thanks for reading and sharing; I appreciate your point of view.
Post a Comment