About Me

Name: Doug
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Windows 7: What Flavor?

 

Well, Windows 7 is now on the streets, and new PCs are being sold with WIN7 Preloaded.  So, as you make your decisions about which nice new laptop or desktop to pick up, or as you contemplate an Operating System Upgrade – there is more to consider than one might think.

Windows 7 comes in 3 “flavors”:  Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate.

Unless you operate in a multi-lingual environment or will need to take advantage of “BitLocker” whole disk encryption which comes as part of WIN7 Ultimate, your real choice is between Home and Pro.  Home Premium will probably be adequate for most homes and small business environments of less than 5 networked computers operating as a workgroup.  If you need to be capable of joining a domain, or if you intend to network more than 5 machines sharing resources, you’ll need Professional.  (If you need to network more than 10 machines to shared resources, you will need a Windows Server, rather than any version of workstation Operating Systems, whether networked as a workgroup or a domain.)

There is yet another decision to be made, and most folks are completely unaware of this one!  Each of the Windows “flavors” comes in 2 types:  32 bit or 64 bit!

If you plan to put Windows 7 on an older PC where your CPU is more than a few years old, you may only be capable of running the 32 bit version of Windows 7.  If you get a new machine with a modern processor you may have to decide between 32 bit or 64 bit versions.


The 32 or 64 bit operating system determines the memory limit that can be addressed by the processor.  The maximum addressable RAM is 4GB in a 32 bit environment.  With 64 bit processing, this logical limitation jumps into the multiple EXABYTES theoretically allowing memory expansion way beyond the limitations of cost and space today!

But is 64 bit “Better”?

That’s not as straightforward a question as it might appear!  Having a 64 bit Operating System won’t necessarily speed up your applications… as most software available today was written to operate on 32 bit architecture.  (An exception might be some games which are written and optimized to take advantage of 64 bit processing.)

More importantly, though; you must consider whether moving to 64 bit will cause compatibility and driver problems that aren’t an issue with a 32 bit version.  If you have older peripherals like printers or scanners which do not have 64 bit drives available, you may not be able to get them running under a 64 bit OS.

In addition, unsigned kernel-mode drivers will no longer work – which will cause operability issues for some older hardware.

Old 16 bit programs will not run at all.  While most of these have gone by the wayside anyway, if you’re running any very old software (like from the floppy era) it’s not going to work under a 64 bit operating system.

So why WOULD you want a 64 bit system?

If you’re buying all new equipment: PC, Printer/Scanner, etc., and have 64 bit compatible drivers… and are not planning to use any older software but will only install the latest and greatest of everything, going 64 bit may make sense.  Gamers, CAD operators, Video Editors and the like, who will want to take advantage of the ability to exceed 4 GB of RAM will find the choice of a 64 bit OS to be rewarding.

Bear in mind that you cannot UPGRADE from a 32 bit OS to a 64 bit OS.  It requires a clean install of the OS, fresh installation of the programs, and restoring your data from backup.  Down the road, 64 bit will become the standard as more programs are written to take advantage of the capabilities.  IF you are not saddled with legacy hardware or software – it might be worth considering 64 bit now to ease future migration.

It’s perhaps a bit more to think about than price and color… but in the long run, making an informed choice of operating system will help prevent potential potholes on your information superhighway.

Copyright © 2009 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is usually a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and occasionally writes on tech issues.  He maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kevin Jackson: Exposing the "BIG Black Lie"

If you were told that you were about to meet a Conservative Firebrand… one who has been seen as a speaker and as a Master of Ceremonies at Tea Parties, who has appeared on the Hannity and Glen Beck shows on FOX, is a leader in the Tea Party Coalition, and has written a book critical of the Liberal Democrats; you would probably be a bit surprised when you were introduced to Kevin Jackson. You see, Kevin Jackson is a young and athletic, affable black man with an infectious smile and charming wit.
 
Notice that I didn’t say African-American. Jackson says he’s an AMERICAN. Not an “African-American”. At the 9-12 rally in Quincy, IL he stated that, while Africa is a beautiful place, with some of the most beautiful flora and fauna on the planet… he wouldn’t trade one acre of a free USA for all that is Africa!
 
Jackson’s new book, “The BIG Black Lie – How I Learned The Truth About The Democrat Party”, challenges the political stereotypes of race, and strongly makes the case that those why cry “Racism!” the most – the liberal left and the Democrat Party – are in fact the true home of racism in America today!
 
Controversial? You bet! But every revolutionary thought throughout history has been controversial! Flat earth? Steamboats? Manned Flight? Organ Transplants?
 
“The BIG Black Lie”was born out of an outcry of blog readers and radio show listeners, whose comments were often the same: "You say the things we can’t say." Jackson feels that the problem wasn't so much that others couldn't say these things… but rather that they simply lacked the knowledge to handle the issues of being labeled racists and elitistsHis premise is to turn that paradigm around and place that dreaded label back where he says it belongs… on the Democrat party!
 
When asked about the “inevitable” fallout of disapproval from the black community, Jackson shrugs it off.

 “I have found a multitude of ‘like-thinkers’ in the black community. They may be less vocal, however these people exist, and in larger numbers than most think. I believe books like mine will provide the impetus for them to reveal themselves more readily…
 
Most of the world readily accepts people like me, i.e. people who want nothing except what they deserve and earn. Most people judge people by their deeds, their character, and by their personal experience with the individual...not anecdotal references.

As for disapproval of black Democrats, I frankly couldn't care less. It's this simple. I am right and they are wrong. I would be happy to debate any of them on what squandering their votes for Democrats, for decades, has done to improve "the black condition." Further, my facts on the racist history of Democrats are irrefutable.  Those racist policies continue to this day, though they are more subtle
.”
 
“The BIG Black Lie” has sold well since its release this summer, however Jackson has designs on seeing it go to #1 on September 23. To provide impetus toward that effort, he’s offering a free MOB T-shirt and free downloads for ONE DAY ONLY with the purchase of his book next Wednesday, September 23rd.
 
The book is available on Amazon. For details of the special one day offers, visit Jackson’s website at www.theblacksphere.net.
 
Jackson is an up-and-coming bright star in the ranks of the revitalized and vocal conservative movement. He has a wealth of knowledge, and he conveys it with humor, wit and charm. Keep and eye on this man… he’s making waves and he’s going places!
 
Copyright © 2009 by Doug Edelman

 

Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ObamaCare: Changing the Narrative

In recent days, the Healthcare Debate has been headline news, as ordinary people (who are not usually seen at protests or at town hall meetings) are transitioning from merely shouting at their TV to getting out and directly expressing their displeasure and their concerns to their representatives.

Ironically, when ordinary individuals do what paid “community organizers” on the left have done for decades, they’re vilified as an “angry mob”, or shills for the GOP (who they’re generally JUST AS MAD AT!). Worse, they’re now being called UNAMERICAN, compared to Nazis and McVeigh, and some have been subjected to beating by SEIU union thugs! 

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/tea-party-protesters-attacked-1-man.html

It’s time to take a RATIONAL look at the ObamaCare “Health Care Reform” bill!

The rhetoric has been all about personal narratives, demonstrating the failures and shortcomings of the current system. A straw man argument is made that we have only 2 choices – between ObamaCare or maintainining the “unacceptable” Status Quo. There ARE alternative plans, but the Administration, the Democratic Congress and the Lapdog press will not discuss them.

We must move the narrative off the problems of the current system, and ask the question: Is ObamaCare a viable answer? What does the bill DO? Do we WANT what it does? Can we afford it?

Sadly, with the current occupants of the White House and the Hill, one cannot simply listen to the words they craft before the cameras. They are disingenuous at best and outright falsehoods at worst.

While focusing on the acknowledged PROBLEMS of the existing system - the age-old magician’s trick of misdirection is applied to this debate.  Never watch the hand with the wand!  What's the OTHER hand doing!?  In this case, what's IN the bill?  DOES IT fix the problem?  Does it CREATE NEW problems?  Is the "cure" worse than the "disease"? 

When they tell you “you can keep your current plan if you like it”… they don’t tell you that you CAN’T shop for a new private plan, or change your current one, or get a new one if you change jobs! Under the misleading heading of “Protecting the choice to keep current coverage”, the very first provisions of the ObamaCare bill (after the definitions), found on page 16, are nothing but LIMITATIONS on individual coverage!  It MUST be in force already when the law takes effect... Insurance companies can't write NEW policies.  If you change jobs, you lose it.  All private insurance policies must become a government-dictated cookie-cutter policy within 5 years.  They’re “grandfathering” (their word) existing policies, but your right to obtain a NEW PRIVATE policy is being ELIMINATED! Is this what you call REFORM?

Other dubious provisions include:

Pg 29: Healthcare WILL be rationed - despite what they SAY!

Pg 59: Gives Govt Realtime Access to YOUR BANK ACCOUNT – You want that?

Page 203:The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it really says that.

Pg 427: Government intrusion into END OF LIFE Treatment – Grandma gets pain pills instead of life saving surgery?

Does Government do ANYTHING well?  Would you choose the VA hospital over a private hospital?  Why would you trust the same government that has bankrupted Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid with YOUR healthcare?  They couldn't even get “Cash for Clunkers”, a one month program, to work for a week before bankrupting it!

Be more informed than Congress. Read the ObamaCare Bill! Find it at: http://api.ning.com/files/rlRf26JqH8yPmA8KEDsVtabBXoDeS8DcImqXQ7Okjd*uy-wtqp*fgygCwPpIGWZVxZ8L6brLHvb6EPGft1D*Bq8RG-f9raUl/HR3200HealthCareBill.pdf

Copyright © 2009 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sarah Palin: Does Resigning Make Her a QUITTER?

In these, the early days of the Obama Administration, trying to keep up with current events for the simple purpose of remaining informed has been dizzying. Trying to process all that information and analyze it for commentary is like trying to drink from a fire hose! The swirling vortex of info-speak out there babbles on incoherently; and any story of mass interest goes 24/7 wall-to-wall coverage. It is into that environment that I am reluctantly venturing with my thoughts on Sarah Palin’s surprising announcement that she will not seek re-election as Governor of Alaska – and more surprisingly, that she will not complete her term.

 

The talking heads are split into two camps. The majority presume this is a move toward a 2012 run at the presidency. Their commentaries focus on whether or not the strategy is a good one and helps or hurts such a run. Some call it a “brilliant” strategy. Others declare the action to be political suicide, and pronounce her political future dead or on life support.

The remaining pundits call her “erratic” and a “quitter”. They say she “couldn’t take it”. They accuse her of “taking her marbles and going home”.

It would be easy to get caught up in all this back and forth banter, but instead I will look at Sarah Palin as actually possessing the unconventional leadership that has carried her to national prominence; and try to analyze her actions in light of a broader set of possible motivations than simply a choice between 2012 presidential aspirations or the throwing up of her hands and running away!

Unlike most politicians, who seek office with a sense of self-importance and craft their positions and policies in a way to win votes and retain power… Sarah Palin has approached politics as public service. She has always put principles first and has sought to do what she believes is RIGHT, even if it’s not politically expedient. She stood up against the Old Boys Network in her own party in Alaska and cleaned up corruption. She held politicians and oil companies and others feet to the fire and held them accountable. She acted in the best interest of the people, and not of her political career.

Why would we not presume her to be consistent? Why do we not take her at her word that she is responding to a “higher calling”? Is it possible that she sees a role OUTSIDE of elected office where she believes she can better advance her principles and policies? Is her decision to leave office unreasonable, irrational, or emotionally charged?

A small child who’s losing a game might flip over the gameboard and go home in a huff. That’s immature and inappropriate behavior. But if an adult has had their quotas increased, their pay scale reduced, and feels his employer looks upon him as a greyhound to be run for profit and put down when no longer winning races… is it anything other than reasonable for him to consider quitting and seeking employment elsewhere?

Palin has been subjected to incessant harassment since being named as McCain’s VP running mate. She is not thin-skinned – and she brushed off the criticisms of her throughout the campaign. But since the election she has been targeted by every left leaning loon there is, as she is perceived as a viable threat from the right. The ethics investigations have been nonstop, despite there being no basis for them. The expenses of defending against them have exceeded half a million dollars for a family that is not comprised of old-money bluebloods. Todd and Sarah are people who WORK for their money and don’t have a fortune.

In addition to the COST of dealing with these accusations, they DISTRACT from her ability to advance her programs as Governor. She is hamstrung. Instead of devoting her considerable energies to moving the state forward, she is forced to address these frivolous charges, which consume her time, her energy her money, and state resources as well. This is not a good or effective use of her time in office. She sees it as silly to continue the status quo for another year and a half when she could be doing something else which would contribute to the agenda she believes is important!

Consider the OTHER possibilities! By leaving public office, she is free to pursue any of the following potential courses:

1) Hit the Lecture Circuit. Sarah Palin would be a high-demand speaker who could command significant speaker fees.  She could pay off her legal expenses and begin to amass a significant nest-egg.

2) Media: Is there any doubt that Roger Ailes would be THRILLED to sign her as a “Fox News Contributor”? How about Talk Radio? Imagine the freedom to espouse her views if she had 2-3 hours a day on-air!

3) Writing: Conservative books hit the best-seller list BEFORE they hit the shelves!! Pre-sales of Glenn Beck’s “Common Sense” had it the #1 seller the week BEFORE it was released! When a book comes out by Mark Levin, Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham etc… sales go thru the roof. Is there any doubt Sarah Palin has a story to tell?

4) UNCONVENTIONAL politics: The Republican Party is still trying to define itself. Conservatives are disillusioned with the GOP. Blue Dog Democrats are bewildered by the Progressive/Fabian Socialist/Marxist lurch to the left of their party. There are currently more people identifying themselves as INDEPENDENT rather than members of EITHER party. The time is right for a REAL alternative, and with someone like Sarah Palin as the catalyst and leader, a new conservative party might be viable. Her Gravitas might act as gravity to draw in all those conservatives and right of center moderates who find themselves feeling unattached or disenfranchised. Nader singlehandedly started the Green party. Teddy Roosevelt started the Bull-Moose party. Who’s to say Palin couldn’t kick off a viable national Conservative Party?

No, Sarah Palin isn’t erratic or crazy. She’s crazy like a fox. She’s not quitting. She’s shifting tactics.

Copyright © 2009 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

July 4 Tea Parties Shift Emphasis From Awareness to Action

 Back in February of this year, barely a month into the Obama presidency, the Tea Party Movement was born after a rant on the Chicago Board of Trade by CNBC correspondent Rick Santelli calling for a “second Tea Party” as a response to the Bailout Stimulus bill Obama had just signed.

Immediately conservatives took to their blogs, Facebook and Twitter, and email to hastily arrange the February 27 Tea Parties.
 
It was a cathartic event.  There was finally an outlet for the pent-up rage that many were feeling over the sudden leftward lurch our nation had taken.

In St Louis, organizers initially expected 50 to 100 “activists” to show up and were excited to have a couple hundred confirmed attendees on the event page on Facebook. They never imagined or dared to hope for numbers exceeding 1200, but at least that many people of like mind turned out on that cool day under the Arch.

Not much attention was paid to the tea parties. At least, there was little publicly acknowledged attention. President Obama later claimed to have been completely unaware of the Tea Parties, though few take that statement at face value.

Still, Tea Party Organizers knew they had done 2 momentous things. They had created a tremor in Washington, even if it was only a 3 on the Richter Scale; and they had awakened the “sleeping giant” of American Conservatism. The “Fools on the Hill” had generated so much angst and ire amongst the normally “Silent Majority” that folks who ordinarily would do little more than hurl expletives at their televisions now were motivated to take a page from the Left’s playbook… and take to the streets. The “Sleeping Giant” was awake and was becoming aware.

The 2nd major set of Tea Parties was held on Tax Day; April 15. This time, the numbers swelled thanks to the buzz created by the first Tea Parties. In St Louis, Keiner Plaza downtown was filled to overflowing – with a crowd exceeding 10,000 motivated patriots.

The April 15 Tea Parties showed the movement could no longer be ignored by the administration. So they set out to minimize, ridicule, belittle and do all they could to discredit, defang or emasculate the Tea Party movement. Awareness was spreading. Conservatives were becoming informed, yes… but also the Administration, the Congress, and their lapdogs in Media were also becoming aware – aware that there were a lot of angry and informed people out there who were going to hold their feet to the fire and demand accountability.

But while protesting with signs and speeches which preach to the choir is great for the above purposes, going forward it will serve little purpose to simply turn out crowds with signs (no matter how clever) if protest is not accompanied by action. This was the theme of the Independence Day Tea Parties. To answer that question, “What do we do NOW?”

In any popular movement, it is only effective as long as it remains a grassroots effort. Looking to “them” to do all the heavy lifting will inevitably lead to the collapse of the effort under its own weight. That burden must be “redistributed”!

Each person of like mind must become educated, not only in the facts - but in tactics and processes by which they PERSONALLY can respond. No army puts its generals on the front line leading a charge, while the troops remain in the barracks watching TV and cheering them on when they are on the news! While senior staff creates policy and establishes strategies, the real work is done by the enlisted soldier, directed by a non-comm.

For the movement to continue to have “legs”, each person must become an individual activist. This does not mean counting on the elected minority to move their agenda forward. We cannot on the voice of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham and the rest to be the lone voices in the wilderness, leading the way all the way to the promised land!  Not even leaving the work to the organizers of Tea Parties or other such protests.  Each individual must take the personal responsibility to make their OWN voice heard.

The message that came out of the July 4th Tea Parties – Become equipped and engage the battle!

The individual Activist must first become informed. There are numerous resources ranging from Fox News and Talk Radio to Blogs and Social Networking where reliable information can be obtained apart from the Mainstream Media.

An informed patriot must know how to effectively translate that information into action. Most importantly, they must communicate their ideas, their frustrations, their anger and their praises to their elected officials. They must do so clearly, frequently, and in such a manner as to put them on notice that they are being scrutinized and will be held accountable come election time.

They can gather with the likeminded – not just to enjoy the social enjoyment of gathering with birds of a feather – but to share with one another. To share informationl. To share resources like websites, books and publications, relevant TV and Radio programming etc. To share strategies and analysis of what has and hasn’t been effective. To share “war stories’ both for amusement and for “lessons learned”. To move initiative petitions along.

Making a difference and affecting “change” will take much commitment of Patriots who are willing to engage the process at the risk of “lives, fortunes and sacred honor”. But not to do so means allowing the ever-expanding and increasingly demanding hydra of government to direct our lives, confiscate our fortunes, and discredit our honor. We must never stand idly by and permit the rise of totalitarianism, socialism, or despotism or tyranny without at least standing up in opposition.

After the constitutional convention, Ben Franklin was approached and asked what type government they had given the people. His reply: A republic – IF YOU CAN KEEP IT. Are you ready, willing and able to commit yourself to this cause?

How can you get started?

1) VOTE!! Not just once every 4 years but EVERY TIME the polls are open, whether for the presidential election or for school board or zoning proposals!

2) Get informed. Avail yourself of the available resourses. New Media and Technology. Networking with others of like mind.

3) Get ACTIVE. Call, write, email, fax and visit your elected officials. Pester them till they know your name! Give them a piece of your mind. Make sure they know they’re being watched, and will be held accountable. Write letters to the editor. Post to blogs. Let people KNOW what is on your mind.

4) EVANGELIZE! Grow the movement by encouraging others to join it! That means being prepared to explain what is wrong, why it’s wrong, and what you are doing about it. If you can get someone to understand what’s happening and how it will affect them, you’re half way to changing their mind!

5) BECOME a resource! Share your knowledge. Share your experiences. Provide money and materials where you can.

Remember, only you can prevent the nation from going up in smoke!

Copyright © 2009 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tax Day "Tea Parties" - What was THAT?

Don't Tax Me Bro

April 15 is a date that has meaning to most everyone. “Tax Day”. Or more correctly, the deadline by which Income Tax filing is due each year.

But this year it also took on a new significance. April 15 was the day that ordinary, common Americans took to the streets to give voice to their displeasure with massive unrestrained spending, insane bailouts, trillion dollar deficits for a decade, confiscatory taxation, unprecedented growth in the size and scope of government, and the march of socialism and wealth transfer.

Over 550,000 people turned out at one of hundreds of “Tea Parties” staged in all 50 states. Approximately one out of every 500 human beings in the nation attended such a protest. This is hardly an insignificant event, notwithstanding the Mainstream Media’s reports to the contrary.

The Left-Loving media first sought to marginalize the Tea Party movement, calling the participants “Fringe Elements”. Then they sought to mischaracterize them as Partisan Tools of the GOP. Some went so far as to compare them to Nazis. And in the final days preceding the event – a report from Homeland Security was released, intended to instill fear that attending such a protest put one at risk of being “watched” as a potential “Domestic Terrorist”! (Particularly egregious in that DHS report was the implication that returning veterans represented a potential threat. I personally find it fascinating that while we Conservatives HONOR our returning vets, the powers that be FEAR them!) 

If any were deterred… there were over half a million UN-Deterred Americans who turned out to boldly proclaim their opposition to policies which they deem harmful to our republic.

As I wrote in my “Primer on the Tea Parties”, these protests were NOT partisan, despite the best efforts of Michael Steele and the RNC to potiticize them.  It was almost amusing how the GOP came back burned when they were publicly rebuffed by the ACTUAL organizers.

Michael Steele attempted to co-opt the movement in a fund-raising effort for the GOP. He received STINGING rebukes from organizers.

Numerous GOP elected officials sought a stage to speak at the Tea Parties. Organizers refused, explaining that the event was NOT partisan and they wished to prevent its being politicized.

In St Louis, it was mentioned by one of the organizers that some elected officials ARGUED that they should be given a platform. But once denied, they didn’t make an appearance! In fact the only elected official that showed up was Congressman Todd Akin, who never asked to take the stage. He was there simply to lend his PERSONAL support to the effort! 

No, the Tax Day Tea Party movement is NOT organized by the GOP, by Dick Armey & Freedomworks, by Don Wildmon and the American Family Association, by the Constitution Party, by the National Socialists, or any other group. Taking inspiration from Santelli’s Chicago Board of Trade rant, several bloggers started the movement via Facebook and Twitter!

In St Louis, local blogger, Bill Hennessy contacted blogger, vlogger and local radio personality Dana Loesch following the Santelli Rant about throwing together an ad-hoc “Tea Party” protest. Out went postings on Twitter and Facebook. A Facebook event page was posted. The event was planned for the St Louis Riverfront 5 days later on February 27.

Hennessy and Loesch initially anticipated a turnout of 50 or so committed individuals. They were THRILLED when the Facebook Event Page listed over 250 confirmed attendees the day before the event. But even they were ASTOUNDED when the turnout for the day topped 1200 under the Arch in St Louis! It was the biggest “Tea Party” protest in the nation on that day.

They new they had a movement started, that couldn’t stop there. Dana Loesch  of danaradio.com became one of the National Organizers for the April 15 “Tax Day Tea Party”. Along with Michael Patrick Leahy of tcotreport.com, Eric Odom of dontgomovement.com, along with a few other blogger types, the planning began for the April 15 Nationwide Event.

They established an event page on Facebook, and along with their own Twitter and Facebook pages, their personal emails, and finally a website, www.taxdayteaparty.com.

Hundreds of motivated grassroots people around the country organized their own local events, coordinating thru the Facebook, Twitter and taxdayteaparty.com websites. It was a TRUE GRASSROOTS effort.

The issues cut across party lines. There were Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Constitution Party members, Democrats and more all participating with a common purpose: To express to Washington that they have HAD IT with the unbridled tax and spend policies, growth of government’s size and intrusion, and the threat to our rights and liberties that such a bloated government represents.

St Louisan Scott Ransom commented after the party: We were "there," and wow, what an awesome crowd, right down to a person. There were some pierced-up Lefties standing right with me, and when I thanked them for being there, I swear one of them started to cry. She was SHOCKED. Fabulous gathering...wanna do it again like now.”

 

Media coverage of the Tea Parties was largely dismissive. The media and those in Washington dismiss this movement at their peril. It is strong. It is committed. It cuts across the political spectrum. It is not going away. In fact, it will probably grow larger and more powerful by the time the next Tea Parties come around. Yes, there will be more! Get ready for the LIBERTY Tea Parties on July 4!

Copyright © 2009 by Doug Edelman

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Primer on the Tax Day Tea Parties

 

Perhaps you have seen or heard about CNBC's Rick Santelli and his report from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, where he called for a "Taxpayer Tea Party" in the wake of efforts to enact a new, multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded housing bailout.

Across America, millions stood up and cheered. Rick was expressing what so many have been feeling now for a long time, when it comes to out-of-control spending on the backs of hardworking U.S. taxpayers to reward the irresponsible and the corrupt: "Enough is enough!"

In St Louis, Bill Hennessy was inspired after Santelli’s rant. He contacted local Blogger/Vlogger/Radio Host Dana Loesch, and the two of them decided to organize a Tea Party at the Riverfront in St Louis.

There were phone calls, emails and some social networking activity... and 5 days later we had us a party!

Organizers originally expected maybe a turnout of 50... were THRILLED when facebook group grew to a couple of hundred confirmed attendees the day before, and were ASTOUNDED when actual attendance ultimately well exceeded 1000!

Linking up with Michael Patrick Leahy of TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) and Eric Odom of the Don't Go Movement... Hennessy and Loesch then began planning the St Louis effort for the Nationwide April 15 Tax Day Tea Parties. Utilizing Twitter, Facebook, email and the occasional phone call, the movement has grown to over 300,000 participants in over 300 cities!  It has a national website, www.taxdayteaparty.com.

The media has portrayed the Tea Party movement in a number of erroneous and defamatory ways. Some say they're run by the Republicans. Others say it's run by this political organization or that talk show host. In St Louis, the Tea Parties were even equated with NAZIs in the Riverfront Times! So, why don't we take a moment to clarify: What exactly IS the Tea Party Movement and what ISN'T it?

The Tea Party Movement is a non-partisan, grassroots assemblage of INDIVIDUAL Citizen Patriot Voters, who are fed up with (and who are standing up in opposition to) unrestrained runaway spending, confiscatory taxation, irresponsible bailouts and unconstitutional actions of any kind by anyone, regardless of their political affiliations. This is not a partisan effort, and EVERYONE – regardless of the letter after their name – will feel their opposition if they go along with the bailouts, the stimulus, increased tax-and-spend policies, and the unrestrained growth of government.

Contrary to some reports in the media, the Tea Parties are a grass-roots effort, planned and coordinated locally by concerned individuals and loosely associated thru social networking and other technologies. This movement is NOT a part of the Republican Party. It is NOT associated with any nationally known political or media figures.

While a number of national names and organizations have recently taken note of the Tea Party movement and have lent their support, their encouragement, or their endorsement of the Tea Party Movement… they are NOT the leaders, organizers, strategizers or planners of ANY of the Tea Parties. Some national names are even trying to capitalize on the broad appeal of the Tea Party movement by seeming riding the coattails of the movement for their own agrandizement!

So, why Tea Parties? What is hoped to accomplish? What good will they do?

In a recent posting to the Tea Party participants, Eric Odom of www.dontgomovement.com summarized:

"We are under no delusion that we’re going to suddenly change the world on April 15th. We do, however, understand that the original Boston Tea Party Protest only had a few hundred participants and set the movement on a path to ultimate victory against the King of England.

Back then, it wasn’t nationally known celebrities or officials calling for change. It was everyday business owners and taxpayers meeting in pubs, networking and putting together a collaborative strategy.

On April 15th, hundreds of thousands of Americans will gather in more than 360 cities across all 50 states to proclaim their lack of confidence in our Government.

Besides gathering together to show our numbers and proclaim our message, “We the People” will shake hands, network, share ideas, discuss our frustrations, let out some steam, and begin to develop new coalitions and citizen groups.

April 15th will be Historic, NOT because we instantly changed the world, but because we set in motion a machine that will offer some counterbalance to our out of control Government and eventually put it back in the hands of the people.

If you’re one of those who likes to sit around and ask “what good does it do to go to a silly Tax Day Tea Party?” Let me follow that question with a question…

What good are you doing by staying home?"

Copyright © 2009 by Doug Edelman

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberals Provide More Proof They Abhor the Constitution

 Liberals Provide More Proof They Abhor the Constitution!

 

 There it is, in black and white, in Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution:
 
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
 
Therefore any legislative attempt to confiscate AIG Bonuses violates the constitution!!
 
Those bonuses were written into contractual obligation to AIG long before the bailout. To NOT honor those contractual obligations would have placed AIG in legal jeopardy.
 
Dodd knew about the bonuses when he WROTE the bailout legislation which REQUIRED AIG to honor its contracts.  Maybe he WANTED it to become an issue later?  He received more campaign contributions from AIG than anyone else!!  He benefited when AIG benefitted - and now he hopes to benefit politically from bashing them!  Obama and Geithner knew about the bonuses weeks ago.  They let the story leak so they could feign outrage.
 

The bonuses are a drop in the bucket compared to the $3.2 trillion budget, or even compared to the billions given to AIG!

It seems we need to educate people about "Big Numbers".
 

It takes 1000 Million to make ONE BILLION.  GM is losing One Billion Dollars a Day.  (AIG paid out a couple million in bonuses).

The Iraq War cost $87 Billion for a year in 2004.
 
It takes 1000 BILLION to make a TRILLION.  A Trillion is ONE MILLION MILLION!
 
The Libs have blown thru over 3 TRILLION DOLLARS in less than 3 months.
 
But a few million in AIG Bonuses are front page news!
 
Where is the outrage over the millions in bonuses paid to Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson and the others who BROUGHT THE FINANCIAL HOUSE OF CARDS DOWN?
 
Obama accepted $101,000 bonus from AIG for his campaign last year.
 
But now, by fomenting populist anger at AIG bonuses, he's pulling conservatives over to the "tax them to death" Socialist team.  DON'T FALL FOR IT!.  It's fascism, plain and simple.
 
If they can tax bonuses at 90 percent, they can tax YOU at 90 percent.
 

Thomas Jefferson once said, “The government that’s big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have.”

Failure IS an option in a free, capitalist republic.  (Too bad we're not one anymore!)  We should never have passed the bailout in the first place, and must repeal it.  Once Government has it's hand in private enterprise... it will try to RUN it.  (And we all know how well government runs ANYTHING!)
 

from:   http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm 


Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature."  U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted.  A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.  Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment."  William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils.  They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community."  James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nation's Largest "Tea Party Protest Held Under St Louis Arch

Dick Armey recently sent out a modest newsletter:
 
“Last week you may have seen or perhaps heard about CNBC's Rick Santelli and his report from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, ground zero for American capitalism and free market commerce, where he called for a "Taxpayer Tea Party" in the wake of efforts to enact a new, multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded housing bailout.
 
If you are like me, you stood up and cheered.
 
Rick was channeling what so many limited government advocates have been feeling now for a long time when it comes to out-of-control spending on the backs of hardworking U.S. taxpayers to reward the irresponsible and the corrupt: enough is enough!”
 
And with that, Freedomworks (http://freedomworks.org) called for grass roots protests against the massive spending stimuli across the nation.

Bill Hennessy of the St. Louis area was similarly inspired by Santelli. He contacted local blogger and radio personality, Dana Loesch (www.danaradio.com) and the two of them set off to organize the St Louis Tea Party at the Riverfront.

Utilizing the latest in technology – Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, as well as emails, word spread amongst the St Louis conservative community. Ms Loesch was even approached by a local TV station for an interview the night before the event. All this began on Monday, February 23, for an event which took place Friday February 28.
 
Organizers were hopeful for a turnout of 50 to 100 people, and were extremely encouraged when they had over 200 confirmed attendees on their Facebook event page Thursday night. But even they were flabbergasted when the crowd grew to over 1000 people; excited, energized, and motivated!

The majority of those attending took time off work – long lunches or days off – to attend. Many commented that they’d never participated in a protest demonstration before.

Said one participant, “Usually, it’s the Liberals protest when the government doesn’t do what they want. Conservatives go to work, take care of their families, and if they’re REALLY motivated, they email their Congressman. This time the stakes are so high we must resort to protests in the streets!”

Notable signs included one held by a college student stating she works 2 jobs to pay her own way thru college, and another held by a youngster asking “Does this mean I can overspend my allowance?”

Drivers passing by honked their horns in support of the demonstrators.

After short remarks by several dignitaries, the crowd descended the levee to the Mississippi River, where they symbolically dumped tea into the river. A Coast Guard Patrol Boat stood watch a short way off shore, in all likelihood a safety precaution against anyone falling in the water.  A few announcements were made to the effect that only LOOSE tea should be thrown into the river, lest the Coast Guard cite the protesters for an environmental violation for throwing paper tea bags into the water!

The event galvanized the conservative population of St Louis, whether they were able to attend the event or not. Similar protests are planned in the future, with Tax Day, April 15, being floated as a possible protest date.

Whether this “Tea Party” movement has legs, or is simply a vent of frustration by a decimated and impotent conservative constituency remains to be seen… but at this juncture, this is a force that the powers that be will have to reckon with.

Copyright © 2009 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice. His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business. He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/
 
.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hail & Farewell to the Chief - Final Thoughts on the Bush Presidency

While there are many things about George W. Bush that I disagree with, they all relate to his FAILURE to BE a CONSERVATIVE!!

From Immigration to Harriet Meiers to Dubai Ports to the bailout and profligate spending, Bush has abandoned Conservative principles on numerous occasions, and THIS is responsible for his approval ratings falling below 38%. There are not more liberal thinkers out there; there are large numbers of conservatives who were disenchanted with Bush's swerves to the left that brought his numbers down.

With that said, George W. Bush has accomplished a couple of positive things. The tax cuts DID what they always do... They stimulated the economy and increased revenues. Bush inherited a recession, and the events of 9/11 could have tanked the economy - and the tax cuts averted that.

Unfortunately he was not so successful averting the economic effects of the sub-prime housing market when the red flag of Fannie and Freddie was waved in 2004 by REPUBLICANS and efforts to get a handle on the problem were resisted by Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, etc. These DEMOCRATS who CAUSED the problem are the same ones who claim to be in charge of FIXING it!  The problem began with the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter, and was magnified under Clinton as there was more pressure brought to bear to make more loans to less qualified people!  But BUSH is catching the blame again!

Bush has had his share of faults and foibles. No doubt. But the Bush Derangement Syndrome of the left is unfounded. Bush was the object of hate from the left ever since the 2000 election, and they never got over it. He was blamed for everything that ever went wrong in this country for 8 years.

Look at Katrina! The problem in New Orleans was the result of Nagin's failure to implement his own disaster plan, and the RESISTANCE by Gov Blanco to PERMIT feds INTO the state to help (ever hear of Posse Commitatus?) It was only after Bush threatened her with implementation of the INSURRECTION ACT to allow federal troops to cross into LA did she relent and PERMIT Federal assistance!

After the storm passed, FEMA took a lot of heat... But remember that FEMA was not set up as a First-Responder agency! The first responders in New Orleans were PARTICIPATING in the looting!!

FEMA is the "Federal Emergency Management Agency". They are supposed to come into a disaster area AFTER the fact, and help by organizing and financing the cleanup. They are a coordinating agency set up to work with local officials. The breakdown in New Orleans was the local officials. Funding for levy upgrades etc had been misappropriated by New Orleans politicians for generations! Nagin, Blanco, Landreau were the problem - but Bush caught the heat.

But what about Iraq?

Let's see. In 1991 we established a CEASE-FIRE - with provisions that Iraq failed to keep. After 17 UN resolutions against Iraq which they also failed to keep, resumption of hostilities was justified on that very basis alone.

There has been much made of the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue, but the entire world had the same intelligence and Saddam himself DESIRED to foster the notion that he possessed them as it made his neighbors fearful to mess with him. He never believed we would invade because he had the French and Russians and a lot of Germans in his pocket due to corruption in the Oil for Food program. He thought they could restrain the US.

Regime change in Iraq had long been the policy of the US - including the administration of liberal hero, Bill Clinton.

What is rarely discussed in the Iraq issue is the strategic importance of Iraq - and we're not talking about a war for oil. Iraq is a buffer between Iran and more moderate states. Iraq borders Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. A functioning secular democracy in that region would stabilize the middle east. A laudable goal. Afghanistan, Pakistan and other potential hotspots are a short hop from Iraq, and again, a de-radicalized Iraq would stabilize the region.

The initial handling of the post-combat insurgency was poorly administered. Granted. But there are errors in ANY military action. Over 1000 men were lost in a single failed training exercise in WWII!! Considering the loss of over 50,000 soldiers, mostly draftees, in Vietnam - Iraq has been a very low casualty action and every one a volunteer. Not that the loss of any soldier can be minimized or is any less a tragedy, however the casualties in the pursuit of a mission which ultimately IS in the best interests of the United States cannot be called a waste.

Since the Surge and the installation of Petraeus as commander, our tactics changed and the general Iraqi populace became more secure, and came to trust our forces. Their popular support turned toward us and away from the radicals. They began providing more actionable intelligence. Their police and security forces began to become trained and efficient forces capable to assuming more responsibility for their own security. Free elections were held. The fledgeling Iraqi government is becoming more self sufficient. A Jeffersonian Democracy? No, but a constitutional republic has been established and is functioning.

While a couple years ago, Harry Reid was declaring the war LOST and demanding a CUT AND RUN... Bush held on, adjusted tactics, and has overseen a subsequent success to the point the a realistic withdrawal of troops can be contemplated due to the successful completion of the mission!

Unfortunately, Americans have become impatient, spoiled children - expecting instant gratification with little effort or cost, and they are shortsighted accepting short term satisfaction over long term gains. Wars are not supposed to have casualties, setbacks or last more than 100 hours! If there is resistance and goals cannot be accomplished within a year, the cause is lost and not worth pursuing!

Thankfully, George W Bush did not concede to these thoughts. And now we stand on the verge of true victory in Iraq.

Bush lied? BULL! He REPORTED the same intelligence the rest of the world believed. He was willing to act on it in defense of our nation's interests.

Bush was waging a war for oil? Bull! If that was so we'd be CONFISCATING it now! We're not!

Bush was just in it for his cronies? (ie Halliburton)? BULL! The Dubai Ports deal came about because there are only a couple entities CAPABLE of handling the ports concession. Halliburton was one of them. Bush was trying NOT to give it to them!!

History will sort it all out. Bush will be judged neither as a success nor a failure. He did good. He made mistakes. He had failings. But I can still name a number of stronger contenders for "worst President ever" than Bush. Carter, Hoover, Andrew Johnson, and Chester Arthur, come to mind right off the top of my head. Carter facilitated the radical Islamic resurgence. He presided over double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and double digit unemployment. And Liberals say Bush is worse?

And so, the Bush era ends in a few weeks. Barack Obama ascends to the Presidency swept in on a wave of discontent with the current administration and  ethnic identity pride. Good luck to him. He'll need it. Meantime, Hail and Farewell to the Chief, George W. Bush. For all his successes and failures; for all his controversies and stubbornness; he was our 43rd President. 

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Open Letter to the Electors of the Electoral College

Despite the failure of several lawsuits to get a hearing of the facts in the courts, there remain questions about Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States under Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution.  Only a "Natural Born" Citizen may serve in that office.

 

On his website Obama finally acknowledged that at one time he held dual citizenship between the US and Kenya.  This in and of itself could be argued to be a disqualifier; as the point of the "natural born" clause in the Constitution was to avoid divided allegiances.  But if Obama was not born in the United States, he is indisputably ineligible to inherit "Natural Born" US Citizenship from his mother. His father was not a US Citizen, and his mother had not fulfilled the requirement to have lived 5 years in the US past the age of 14.  She was only 18 at the time of Obama's birth.  Therefore if he was born in Kenya, he is NOT a "Natural Born" US Citizen and is ineligible to serve.

 

Obama put forth only a "Certification of live birth" as evidence of eligibility; which is NOT A Birth Certificate! 

 

After months and months of unrequited requests, the Obama campaign did finally present a document which they claimed validated your eligibility (per the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section I) as a "Natural born citizen" to have Obama's name on the ballot in contention for the office of the President of the United States of America. 

 

Some have claimed the document is a forgery; however it is unlikely that the document is not a genuinely issued form from the State of HI…

 

However, what the Obama campaign supplied was not, in fact, a "birth certificate".  What they supplied was actually a "Certification of Live Birth."  There is a major difference between a "birth certificate" and a "Certification of Live Birth." 

 

Aside from the level of detail differentiating the documents (hospital of record, doctor, height, weight, etc) - in the state of Hawaii, one authenticates natural born citizenship, and the other doesn't. This part is important; - and it has nothing to do with tin foil hats.

 

According to the State of Hawaii's Department of Health, "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country."  (For citation purposes, please feel free to visit their site: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html ). 

 

The "Certificate of Live Birth" as provided by Mr. Obama, is in fact, a derivative of the "Amended certificates of birth" they site.  Why is that important?  Because of that second clause in the above citation.  While you may show citizenship via such a document, you do not necessarily prove "natural born" citizenship.  "Natural born citizenship" is what is required to be eligible to be considered for the Presidency, per the United States Constitution. 

 

The form that you posted wouldn't even be acceptable to make an application in Hawaii's Home Lands Program!  The STATE OF HAWAII that ISSUED the form won't accept it as proof of "natural born" Hawaiian eligibility for the program!

 

From:  http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

 

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

 

 

THIS is a "Vault Copy" HI Birth Certificate:

 

 

And this is the Certification of Live Birth posted on Obama's website:

 

Notice any differences?

 

Hospital of birth?  Residence address of mother?  Birthplace of parents?  SIGNATURE OF ATTENDANT AT BIRTH?

 

What Obama posted IS NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE! 

 

There is a further complication, however.  EVEN IF Obama was born in Hawaii, his subsequent adoption by Lolo Soetoro and resultant INDONESIAN citizenship represents a bigger fly in his ointment.

Indonesia, at the time Obama lived there and was deemed an Indonesian citizen, did not recognize dual citizenship; and neither did the US recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia.  Thus, whether Obama held dual citizenship with the US and Kenya, and whether he was born in the US or Kenya; all is irrelevant as the ONLY legitimate citizenship he would have held once his adopted father moved him to Indonesia was Indonesian!  Obama's US Citizenship would be forfeit!

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian/

 

 

Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would have had to be thru NATURALIZATION; and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II.  (Could this be why he opted to use the politically risky name Barack Hussein Obama instead of the more innocuous "Barry Soetoro"?  Perhaps Barry Soetoro is STILL an Indonesian citizen?  Perhaps there are naturalization papers in the name of Barry Soetoro?  I'm just asking...)

If there is any doubt in your mind as to the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve in the office of President of the United States under Title II, then you have a constitutional duty to withhold your electoral vote.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Post-Election Thoughts

It is indeed a great day when an African American can ascend to the highest office in this land. I offer congratulations to President-Elect Obama for his well run campaign and his election victory.
 
That said, I can think of OTHER black candidates I would have preferred, on policy and experience criteria. In fact, prior to the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate, I had lobbied the McCain campaign to select the former Lt Governor of Maryland, Michael Steele - also an African-American!
 
However:
 
Unlike the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" treatment which the left gave President Bush thru both terms - opposing every word out of his mouth and undermining him at every turn - I will give Barack my full allegiance and encouragement. For the sake of the country, I wish him a successful presidency. However, as I believe a number of stated policies and proposals will be harmful to the country, I will speak in opposition to those initiatives.
 

I will applaud President-Elect Obama when he does what I believe to be the right thing. I will remain the loyal opposition where he moves in a direction to do what I believe is not. Some ask, "Will McCain supporters unite with Democrats and lead this country in a new direction?" The short answer is "That depends on WHAT the new direction IS!!"

I will offer Obama the respect due to the office of the presidency. I will not compromise my conservative principles for the sake of Kumbaya "unity". People with opposing viewpoints can respectfully disagree on policy and programs. I believe strongly that this is appropriate, and is why the founders wisely established a system of checks and balances.
 

I certainly understand the elation and pride the African American community is presently experiencing. It remains to be seen whether Obama can govern effectively, and whether he will "change" the nation for the better or the worse.

Sadly, "change" is not a policy, a program or a plan. Change for its own sake is also not automatically positive. Whenever one speaks of change, it is wise to ask, "From what, to what?"
 
If the change Obama wishes to implement is to circumvent or weaken the founders' intentional constitutional restrictions on Government, as Obama wished the Warren court would have gone further in doing (check out his own words from 2001: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck ) or if his agenda and initiatives are shaped by his socialistic background ( evidenced in my prior article: http://starboard.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/31/obamas_socialist_roots_run_deep.thtml), this would NOT be what I would consider to be "change" in a positive direction!
 
The ball is now exclusively in the Democrats and Obama's court. How they play it will determine the future of the country for better or worse for years to come. 
 
And we of the loyal opposition, conservatives in exile, will be watching, recording, remembering, and reporting.
 

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Open Letter to America's African-American Community

First off, let me say that is truly is a great day in America when a person of color can stand at the very threshold of the presidency of the United States!  This is testimony indeed of the great strides made by our population as a whole towards a color-blind society.  We are moving past the ignorant bigotry and intolerance of previous generations.
 
With that said, however, we must now question whether the African-American community is themselves falling short of Martin Luther King's dream that one day his children would "be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
 
Barack Obama enjoys almost monolithic support (around 90%) within the black community.  Is this based on anything more than ethnic identity?  Is it any less repugnant for the black community to embrace a candidate BECAUSE he's black than it would be for the white community to OPPOSE a black candidate for the same reason?  Isn't it more appropriate to support one candidate or another based on the criteria of character, experience, policies and past performance?
 
Now, I am NOT telling you not to support Barack Obama.  I'm asking you, WHY do you support Barack Obama?  If it's nothing more than ethnic kinship, I would ask that you honestly examine both candidates on the other criteria before deciding soley on the color of a man's skin!  You KNOW what it's like to be judged on that basis!  It is no less rediculous to assign VIRTUE based on skin color than it is to presume dishonor or unworthiness soley on skin color.
 
And if you are determined to vote for a "black man" just because he IS a "black man... Have you ever realized that Obama is only 1/16 Black African, and has no "slave blood" at all?  He is 50% white.  His father was 7/8 North African Arab (think Khadaffi) and 1/8 Black African (think Mandella or Tutu).  So you are not even voting on the basis of RACE!  You're voting on the basis of high melanin pigmentation!  Would you vote for ME if I sat long enough under a sunlamp?
 
Let me appeal to your intellect.  WHY do you support Barack Obama?  For that matter, why do you support DEMOCRATS?
 
The Democrats have talked for 50 years about "the poor" and have been presumed to be the champions of the minority community.  What have they done to enable and facilitate the success of the black community?  Don't you find it DEMEANING when liberals talk about the black community as though they are incapable and must be "helped" by the "parenting" of government?  Don't you resent if people wonder whether you EARNED your degree or your position at work, or whether some Affirmative Action program elevated you above your qualifications?  Doesn't it bother you that the "soft bigotry of low expectations" permeates Democratic thought and policy when it comes to the black community?  Don't you feel taken for granted when the Democrats PRESUME upon your vote because you are expected to vote nearly unanimously to keep them in power?
 
Liberals define "compassion" by the number of dependent people they dole out meager government "help" to.  Conservatives define "compassion" by the number of people enabled to be no longer dependent and who don't need governmental help!
 
Do you realize that the most vocal OPPONENTS of the Civil Rights Act were Democrats?  Do you realize most Civil Rights Legislation would not have passed if it were not for the strong support of Republicans?  Did you know that LINCOLN, who freed the slaves, was a REPUBLICAN?  George Wallace, the segregationist, was a Democrat!
 
What has Obama done?  Can you name an accomplishment?
 
Did you know that John McCain has a long list of legislative credits, with a history of coalition building and working across the aisle?  Did you know Obama has never introduced a single piece of legislation in the Senate?
 
Does "community organizing" qualify one to be president?  What is a community organizer? - Think ACORN.  Are you concerned about ACORN's activities?  Do voter-fraud and racketeering investigations give you pause to consider that maybe there's something fishy going on there?
 
Does Rev. Wright represent your thinking?
 
Do you support abortion up to (and beyond) the moment of birth?  Would you deny medical care for an infant born alive in a failed abortion?
 
Why is it ok to pursue the American Dream... but as soon as you achieve it, it's ok for the Government to take it away from you?
 
Robbing Peter to pay Paul may sound like a great idea, if you're Paul... but isn't the one doing it nothing more than a benevolent THIEF?
 
Do you know what Socialism or Marxism is?  Do you believe it to be a BAD thing for America?  Would you recognize a Socialist when you see one?  If not, check out:  http://starboard.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/31/obamas_socialist_roots_run_deep.thtml
 
Did you know Obama views our Constitution as an OBSTACLE to his policies?  I thought the President is sworn to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.  Obama views the RESTRICTIONS on Government placed in the Constitution by our founders to be a TRAGEDY!  Don't believe it?  Check it out:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck 
 
If the so-called "Trickle Down" theory of economics isn't valid, then why are you worried about the Wall Street Collapse, the Sub-Prime Mortgage crisis, or failures of insurance companies, banks and brokers?  Maybe it's true that when Business does poorly, EVERYONE does poorly and when business does well, EVERYONE does well.
 
Barack says his tax plans won't raise taxes on 95% of "small businesses".  What he doesn't tell you is that the 5% of small businesses that he WOULD be raising taxes on are the source of nearly EVERY new job created in the last decade!!  Sure, there are a large number of smaller businesses that make under $250K a year, but these businesses also do not employ more than a few people.  The 5% of "small businesses" (defined as those that are privately held and employ under 500 people) that WOULD experience increased tax burdens are the ones that employ 100, 200, 500 workers.  THEY have been hiring over the last decade while the big fortune 500 corporations have been simply maintaining, outsourcing or downsizing.  Do you work for an employer who is NOT on the Fortune 500 list?  HE will probably get hit in the wallet.  What happens when a small businessman sees his cost of doing business go up?  He must do one of two things.  Either he will raise the prices of his goods and services to cover the increased expenses, or he will cut his costs where he can.
 
In a down economy, raising prices may be impossible, as the market may not be able to sustain a price increase and his customers will stop buying.  If he does raise prices, that is an added cost to everyone who buys his product or service.  But if he doesn't raise prices, his options to cut costs are limited, and usually fall to workforce reduction.  YOUR JOB maybe!
 
So, if Barack wants to "soak the rich" by taxing those making over $250K - he may be costing YOU your JOB!
 
Remember, too, that the government doesn't tax "wealth" it taxes "income".  The wealthy HAVE money.  Tax policy doesn't take that away (until you die).  The wealthy make still more money by investing.  Sometimes they invest in municipal bonds, which fund local government projects like roads (that helps YOU).  Those investments are tax free.  Sometimes they invest in the Stock Market.  Those earnings are Capital Gains, which are taxed differently than ordinary income.  And those investments are the engine which enables companies to expand an create jobs.  And finally they invest OFFSHORE where the tax man doesn't get his hands on it.  Who bears the biggest burden of "Soak the Rich" policies?  The small businesses that employ the vast majority of US!
 
Are you willing to consider that while America may finally be ready to elect a black President, perhaps Barack Hussein Obama shouldn't be that one?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Socialist Roots Run Deep

As a candidate, Barack Obama presents more questions than answers:  questionable associations, rhetorical gymnastics, style over substance, questions over experience, even questions over eligibility and citizenship.  But when it comes right down to it in the home stretch, it's all about meat & potato economic issues.  As Clinton made his mantra "It's the economy, stupid", so this election is turning on the perception of the candidates' views and plans regarding the current economic woes.
 
Recently, Obama was leading comfortably in the polls.  But then "Joe the Plumber" dropped out of the sky and breathed new life into the McCain Campaign.  So what happened?  Joe just asked a question.  It was Obama's answer that woke people up and changed the dynamic of the campaign.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDVM7ODUBn8 
 
Obama revealed a socialist agenda.  "Spreading the Wealth" is his tax policy.  (Conservatives view tax policy as a means to raise necessary revenue for necessary services.  Liberals view tax policy as a means to raise necessary revenue, and to direct behavior.  Socialists and Marxists view tax policy as a means to redistribute wealth and restructure society!)  A large portion of Americans still find socialism distasteful.
 
Robbing from Peter to pay Paul may seem like a great idea to Paul.  (And frighteningly, we have an increasing population of "baby birds" sitting in their nest waiting with their mouths wide open.)  But Peter may not think so highly of the concept.  One might dismiss his objections as he has a vested interest, but the objective observer who is neither Peter nor Paul would have to acknowledge that Robin Hood is, in reality, no more than a thief.
 
So, was the "Joe the Plumber" just an isolated statement that too much is being made of?  Hardly.  It was a crack in the armor that revealed the true core beliefs of Barack Obama, which had been well cloaked before they came to light with his answer to Joe.
 
Back in 2001, Obama lamented that the Constitution RESTRICTS Government and stands in the way of the REDISTRIBUTIVE change he'd like to make!  The audio is SHOCKING and should be heard by every voter before heading to the polls.  So here it is!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck 
 
This is not surprising, given the Socialist, Marxist, and radical bent of so many of the cloud of questionable associates swirling around Barack Obama.  While Ayers and Wright got the press, they are just the tip of the iceberg.  http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1445/pub_detail.asp
 
Is it coincidental that Obama is surrounded by such a motley crew of associates?  Hardly.  In his own words from his book "Dreams of My Father":
 
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.
 
You can hear the audio here:  http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/barack-obama-admits-i-chose-my-friends.html
 
So, since COLLEGE he's sought out Marxists and Structural Feminists?  And he chose his friends carefully?  (I refer you back to WHO are his friends!)
 
And just what IS a "Structural Feminist"?  Well, there are many different varieties and branches of feminism.  Obama was specifically drawn to the "Structural Feminists".  As explained at http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev108.htm:
 
Structural feminist theory focuses on social structures, notably patriarchy and capitalism that oppress women. Theorists in this tradition emphasize the dominating influence of these social structures, but by doing so they also tend to construe women as passive. Despite their somewhat deterministic view of women's circumstances, structural feminists nevertheless call for resistance toward the mechanisms in families, schools, and workplaces that serve to reproduce oppressive relations of power.
 
So, of all the varieties of Feminism, he sought out the branch that is AntiCapitalist and Anti-Establishment.
 
Obama is and always has been a radical socialist if not Marxist.  It is who he is.  It is his foundational core. 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Berg v Obama - Headed for SCOTUS!

The lawsuit against Barack Obama challenging his citizenship eligibility to serve as President of the United States has been dismissed with the ruling that Philip Berg, the plaintiff, had no standing as a US voting citizen to bring the suit. Dismissal on these grounds means the judge has decided that the MERITS of the suit don't have to be weighed or decided (so he won't be on the hook for such a decision either way!) The FACTS of the case never get presented in open court, and the documents don't have to be produced. A very clean getaway for Obama.

The judge's ruling was based on precedents where voters were not found to have standing because they could not demonstrate direct harm to them or made vague generalities about wrong done to the general population. Lower courts have tended to avoid granting standing, seemingly preventing David from causing Goliath any great annoyance.

The Berg case is different, however. If Obama is elected President, and is later found to be ineligible to hold that office, the entire nation will suffer through a constitutional crisis. Berg simply sought to have an examination of the facts to determine the validity of Obama's candidacy. Those facts have not yet been vetted by a court! If a voting citizen of the United States does not have standing to prevent a national crisis of such a magnitude by raising the question of eligibility, to be decided on the evidence in open court, WHO DOES?

Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court."

There are even questions on whether the judge was "influenced" or had the decision written for him by some tied to Obama: http://james4america.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/judge-surrick-received-the-decision-he-issued/

It remains to be seen whether SCOTUS will hear the case, and even if so, it would appear the election will take place before the matter is legally settled.

Berg's suit sought to present evidence that Obama may have been born in Kenya, where under the law at the time, his mother (a US citizen) would have had to have been 19 years old to have conferred her citizenship to him. (Obama ACKNOWLEDGES dual citizenship with Kenya on his website). Berg also sought to produce evidence that Obama later held Indonesian citizenship when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and moved with him to Indonesia. Indonesia and the US did not recognize dual citizenship at the time, so the only valid citizenship he would have held in that case is Indonesian. He would have expatriated any US or other citizenship held.

Even if he subsequently regained US citizenship, it would be thru naturalization, which is expressly ineligible to serve as POTUS under Article II of the Constitution.

These facts have not been decided or ruled invalid. They have not been heard in court. The case was dismissed on the basis of WHO was bringing it, and not on its merits. The question of Obama's eligibility to serve REMAINS an open question.

There are other lawsuits pending on the issue. Marquis v Reed in the state of WA names the Secretary of State in Washington as the defendant rather than Obama – so it's possible a citizen of the state may be found to have "standing". This suit seeks to present the same facts as evidence that the Secretary of State has failed to verify Obama's eligibility before placing his name on the ballot. Marquis says similar suits are in progress in 10 other states.

In the end, this question will, in all likelihood, remain unanswered until after the election. Voters should be aware that it is still an open question as they head to the polls.

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »