#Obama: Alito’s “You Lie” Moment; FEC Campaign Contributions Update
Out of the many whoppers categorized by the Associated Press (via HotAir.com) from last night’s State of the Union speech (or was it, “State of Obama?”), the one that probably sticks out the most was a silent interjection of (likely) “not true” by Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito (also documented at The New York Times, Salon.com, and HuffPo, among many others).
Prof. Jacobson provides the brief transcript below the video:
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.
AmericanThinker provides the rebuttal:
As Professor Bradley A. Smith observes in the National Review Online:
Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, “open[ed] the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”
The president’s statement is false.
The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication… .”
This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.
I had covered the Citizens United v. FEC case here; the LegalTimes blog posted on the “almost unprecedented” nature of the remark:
President Barack Obama’s pointed criticism of the Supreme Court in tonight’s State of the Union address, which we reported on here and here was beyond unusual; it was almost unprecedented. The third branch rarely even merits a mention in the State of the Union speeches, according to a search we’ve made going back to Woodrow Wilson’s speech in 1913 in this University of California Santa Barbara database. (Thanks to editor David Brown for the research.)
Presidents have mentioned the Supreme Court by name only nine times since that Wilson speech nearly a century ago, according to the search, and it would be hard to categorize many of those nine as criticisms. Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had a lot of grievances with the Court, never mentioned it in any of his State of the Union messages. And Richard Nixon, who campaigned against the Warren Court, mentioned the Supreme Court in a State of the Union talk only once, in 1972, in a bland, welcoming way.
My response is quite simple:
Mr. President, if you’re upset at how the Supreme Court recently ruled, then encourage Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to change the 1st Amendment.
Advertise on this site
Eric Dondero at LibertarianRepublican posted on the following quotes:
From Tim Daniels, Left Coast Rebel:
Tonight’s scolding of the Supreme Court and clear usurpation of the integrity of separation of power in this country is just one of those things too. It’s bigger than the entire charade of a ‘State of (I want my socialist) Union’ by the Obamanation. It speaks to the highest order of malfeasance and monarchical evil.
Jim Lagnese, The Right Guy:
Obama chides the Supreme Court… The dilettante in chief continues his populist rehabilitation tour with his SOTU speech before congress. Does this guy understand anything? Can he and does he take responsibility for anything? Can he ever give a speech that isn’t about him at all? He a sorry excuse for a president and leader of a country.
Steve Nielson, The Liberty Republican:
the spending freeze, tax cuts, and budget cuts are being proposed by a man eager to win back the hearts and minds of the independents ahead of the 2010 election with hopes that in two more years he can ram through socialist ideal after socialist ideal.
From Reason H&R:
The Libertarian Guy -- [You Lie!]I would give a weeks’ pay to hear someone yell that again.
Or “Shut the f[---] up, you smooth-talking proto-socialist prick”. I’d give TWO weeks’ pay to hear that, verbatim. [censor mine]
Perhaps — as @freespeech619 pointed out today on Twitter — maybe the President was attempting to use — shall we say — verbal techniques meant to persuade…? Hint: question and be critical of what the government says.
On the Federal Election Commission front, there has been an update on an issue I originally reported back on January 15, 2009. commenter “lu” remarked that MUR6142 has had some new documentation added. The PUMAPac site had an original posting here, and a separate site also contains an update.
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com
Photo courtesy USAToday.com
Black Lion your reference to the Wong case is disingenuous at best but I bet that the real reason you don’t want a long form birth certificate nor a clear definition for BHO eligibility is because of the possibility that he is not eligible. Shame on you for putting all of America at risk. You should not have any reservations about the SCOTU adjudicating the issue unless it is a problem for BHO. If he’s not eligible what did you lose? A vote for a black man? If he’s eligible fantastic, we can move on to the policy that is being implemented.
Did Wong run for President? How about we try to pass a law that does not allow people to get a drivers license unless they are a ‘natural born citizen’? Doesn’t have to be a big state but I leave it up to you where we could start this. Would standing come into play as folks are denied a drivers license and sue for discrimination? You bet it would. Great opportunity for Sotomayor to show her superior logic at work like in the Ricci case. How about if I found someone who got the license but was not eligible to get one. Who could sue to revoke the license? But the complexity of how to remediate election fraud is somehow more onerous that what to do with driver license fraud.
And as for the SCOTUS interest in the issues it seems that Thomas is now interested in hearing a case that deals with the issue. Good luck fighting the tide for the next 3 years.
“If you ask me, Resolutions are huge waste of both time and taxpayer money.”
These eligibility lawsuits are a huge waste of the court’s time and taxpayer money.
AnotherReader says:
February 3, 2010 at 9:53 am
Black Lion,
As for S. Res. 511:, I’m sure you know that it carries no weight of law. It’s meaningless. The real question is why Obama was one of the Senators who sponsored the Resolution. What possible motivation could he have had? Inquiring minds want to know.
…. I would imagine the most obvious reason would be as a courtesy to his opponent.
Black Lion,
As for S. Res. 511:, I’m sure you know that it carries no weight of law. It’s meaningless. The real question is why Obama was one of the Senators who sponsored the Resolution. What possible motivation could he have had? Inquiring minds want to know.
If you ask me, Resolutions are huge waste of both time and taxpayer money.
McConnell Fighting Effort To Block Political Spending By Foreign Corporations
Zachary Roth | February 2, 2010, 3:40PM
“You’d think that if there were one Democratic initiative that Republicans in Congress might be bashful about opposing — especially given the current anti-corporate climate in the country — it would be a bid to stop foreign corporations from pouring money into our elections.”
“You’d be wrong. In fact, they’re willing to stand up in support of those foreign corporations’ right to do so.”
“As we’ve reported, the Supreme Court’s decision last month in the Citizen’s United case means that U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies now can spend unlimited amounts on independent expenditure campaigns supporting or opposing candidates. It’s true that the court left untouched a separate law prohibiting foreign nationals, including corporations, from spending on elections — likely what Justice Alito had in mind during his Joe Wilson moment at the State of the Union speech last week. But there’s little doubt that that ban doesn’t cover the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, or to foreign-owned corporations that incorporate in the U.S.”
more here: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/mcconnell_fighting_effort_to_block_political_spend.php?ref=fpc
Nicknack says:
February 2, 2010 at 10:08 am
Sue(indenial) and Bystander
The issues really isnt McCain. I would be as adament in releasing his birth certificate and quite frankly am not pleased with his behavior as well. That he showed it and no one else saw it is not good enough for the electorate since he admitted to being born in the canal zone. The truth is that his lawyer and he did an end run around the consititution buy having S. Res. 511:A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen
passed in the senate while, and act having absolutly no legal value to the natural born citizen clause of the constitution. It was only a PR stunt and quite lame as he was.
My hope is that he pays for this by losing to J.D. Hayworth in the primary.
Not withstanding the issues of McCains adulteration of the constitution he is not considered the president and as such is not committing criminal acts which could have been considered if he had won the election. The issues of eleigbility was convered by even the most liberal of New York Time
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html but not a mention of the issue that BHO had with respect to his candidecy. The fact that BHO had a non US citizen father and you have blatent denial of what the issues are. My question again is why not have the SCOTUS define the issue and lets agree to disagree on what their determination is. Currently the situation is truly open ended to the point that illegals and childres of other heads of state who have children here can create Manchurian candidates. If you disagree that it can happen you are in denial.
Why wouldnt you want the clarity that a SCOTU ruling would bring?
_________________________________________________________________
Nicknack, your statement implies that the SCOTUS has not already ruled. The ruling by the court in Wong is suffcient. That is why you don’t see any real attorney’s or constitutional experts questioning this issue. Do you really think that with over 150,000 lawyers in the US that 99.9% of them would be quiet if there was really an issue? They would not be. What you fail to realize is that the Court has already decided that anyone born in the US, with the exceptions of the children of diplomats and invading armies, is a natural born citizen. It has been that way for over 100 years. All citizenship cases since then cite Wong in making their decision. It wasn’t until 2008 when all of a sudden people had a question of the so called definition of NBC. The judical branch has no question, that is why they have continually declined to take the issue up. They like most Americals realize that if you are born in the US, you are a natural born citizen. You want the Court to rule on something they have already ruled on and a ruling that all justices cite favorably….It won’t happen. That is not how the law works…
Sue(indenial) and Bystander
The issues really isnt McCain. I would be as adament in releasing his birth certificate and quite frankly am not pleased with his behavior as well. That he showed it and no one else saw it is not good enough for the electorate since he admitted to being born in the canal zone. The truth is that his lawyer and he did an end run around the consititution buy having S. Res. 511:A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen
passed in the senate while, and act having absolutly no legal value to the natural born citizen clause of the constitution. It was only a PR stunt and quite lame as he was.
My hope is that he pays for this by losing to J.D. Hayworth in the primary.
Not withstanding the issues of McCains adulteration of the constitution he is not considered the president and as such is not committing criminal acts which could have been considered if he had won the election. The issues of eleigbility was convered by even the most liberal of New York Time
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html but not a mention of the issue that BHO had with respect to his candidecy. The fact that BHO had a non US citizen father and you have blatent denial of what the issues are. My question again is why not have the SCOTUS define the issue and lets agree to disagree on what their determination is. Currently the situation is truly open ended to the point that illegals and childres of other heads of state who have children here can create Manchurian candidates. If you disagree that it can happen you are in denial.
Why wouldnt you want the clarity that a SCOTU ruling would bring?
Linda says:
February 1, 2010 at 8:11 pm
BL,
Agreed so then don’t contradict yourself just to spite me in a reply.
Agreed?
____________________________________________________________________
Agreed, if that was the case. The bottom line is that in the heat of the argument and debate something was missed which lead to the back and forth…No one was right and no one was wrong…And no one is trying to spite you. People are just trying to show you that are not correct in your assumptions…
BL,
Agreed so then don’t contradict yourself just to spite me in a reply.
Agreed?
Napolitano confident in Super Bowl security measures
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.2a37221ffccb795a3cc70afc20cc6cb3.bc1&show_article=1
US Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano gave an unprecedented seal of approval to Super Bowl safety measures on Monday after a stadium tour and a detailed look at preparations for Sunday’s game.
“I didn’t have any (advice) to give [to the jihadists],” Napolitano said. “They looked well prepared for the game. It all looked fine to me.”
Why Would Obama CAIR to Bow To Tampa Mayor?
Answer: Tampa Mayor bowed to CAIR in 2008, 2007, 2006
Tampa Mayor Proclamation 11/15/2008
Council On American – Islamic Relations CAIR Day
http://www.tampagov.net/dept_Mayor/proclamations_and_special_recognitions/index.asp?m=11&y=2008
Tampa Mayor Proclamation 10/20/2007
Council On American – Islamic Relations CAIR Day
http://www.tampagov.net/dept_Mayor/proclamations_and_special_recognitions/index.asp?m=10&y=2007
Tampa Mayor Proclamation 09/16/2006
Council On American – Islamic Relations CAIR Day
http://www.tampagov.net/dept_Mayor/proclamations_and_special_recognitions/index.asp?m=9&y=2006
Linda says:
February 1, 2010 at 3:11 pm
And do not take ‘I stand corrected” as any kind of apology of my calling BL out.
I stand corrected in the sense that BL completely contradicted himself and used a lie to somehow make his point in a reply to one of my posts.
_________________________________________________________________
Come on Linda. You missed the post. So you called me out without seeing that I had corrected myself long before you said anything. So if you don’t feel like apologizing, that is OK. I can really care less. A big person owns up to a mistake. So when the post went though without my correcting, I quickly wrote the next post to explain and correct myself. If you choose not to do the same, instead try and still claim I was wrong when I wasn’t when both posts are read, then that is OK. Anyone who read everything can see what happened.
____________________________________________________________________
BL, I enjoy the debate. We will never agree on many issues, but the least we should do is debate honestly with facts.
You know where my goals come from & I know what the goals of your side is.
So, there is, let’s go forward and debate the facts and try not let personal feelings muddy the waters.
____________________________________________________________________
Agreed. I am not here to make anything personal unless I am attacked. I enjoy a clean debate. But part of debating is admitting you might be incorrect or something. Either way we will never agree. If you want to take a position that is in the extreme minority, then that is your choice. We are all entitled to believe what we want. Which is a wonderful thing about our country. I am OK with disagreeing.
Truckers Unite!
Conservatives & capitalists win another one and although locally, SD has a stance of setting precedent in other states. WOO HOO!
Just breaking:
SD Senate Panel Ditches Plan To Boost Road Taxes
A South Dakota Senate panel has rejected a proposed increase in the state gas tax and other highway taxes.
BL, I enjoy the debate. We will never agree on many issues, but the least we should do is debate honestly with facts.
You know where my goals come from & I know what the goals of your side is.
So, there is, let’s go forward and debate the facts and try not let personal feelings muddy the waters.
And do not take ‘I stand corrected” as any kind of apology of my calling BL out.
I stand corrected in the sense that BL completely contradicted himself and used a lie to somehow make his point in a reply to one of my posts.
Linda says:
February 1, 2010 at 2:56 pm
BL: Because they saw the follow up post where I clarified what I said. You didn’t acknowledge that until now. So that was why it seemed like you were incorrect and they were calling you on that point.
The post wherein you were correct was prior to your rant to me, not afterwards.
I stand corrected.
____________________________________________________________________
No problem. A appreciate your comments in this post.
BL: Because they saw the follow up post where I clarified what I said. You didn’t acknowledge that until now. So that was why it seemed like you were incorrect and they were calling you on that point.
The post wherein you were correct was prior to your rant to me, not afterwards.
I stand corrected.
BL: In regards to legislation, it is because the Democratic party is not full of liberals, just like the GOP is not full of conservatives. So a party may be in power but that doesn’t mean that they can do what they want.
Thank you, this can not be stated loud enough & often enough.
As far as the GOP using birthers, I disagree as past history shows, every GOP has thus far claimed birth on soil only is sufficient. Constitutional birthers will not stand for this and we will continue to fight until our constitutional day in court is realized and this is addressed as a legitimate issue regarding fair & legitimate elections.
Furthermore, there is the facts of S.Res. 511 which states both parents were US citizens and the fact that they were serving in the military is what gave McCaint the pass as to his illegitimacy in reaching the constitutional requirement & where is that located? None other than the ‘law of nations’.
Linda says:
February 1, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Let’s also make note that BL never came replied directly to me about that bit of calling him out as to his accusations about Smith & foreign corporations. It was byst, Sue & others who came to defend BL’s misquoting Smith & his lie claiming Obama never mentioned foreign corporations.
To BL’s credit, BL did indirectly correct the error in other posts & I saw that & I left it at that. What would have been the purpose of calling BL out at that point? Self graatification? I got over that in jr high & took the path of adulthood by debating with facts not accusations.
___________________________________________________________________
Linda, I think where the issue was when you called me out on that and didn’t note the follow up post it came of the way that Sue and Bystander saw it. Because they saw the follow up post where I clarified what I said. You didn’t acknowledge that until now. So that was why it seemed like you were incorrect and they were calling you on that point.
AnotherReader says:
February 1, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Black Lion,
You seem to be suggesting that liberals are the only ones who hold an educated view of the world. That liberals are never paranoid or myopic in there viewpoints. I would disagree with that wholeheartedly. In fact they are every bit is likely to be all of these things as anyone else.
Attempting to paint those who disagree with your world view as ignorant, paranoid, stupid, etc. etc. is really not very productive. Yes, if you choose to look, you can find examples of this behavior on both ends of the political spectrum. But trying to broaden that to include everyone who see it a certain way are the same is just plain laziness and or arrogance. Besides, when it comes to education, an old computer phrase comes to mind. Garbage in equals Garbage out.
And to not put to fine a point on it, but if liberals were so smart, educated and informed, why can’t they pass any legislation? They have failed to pass any of their signature bills all while holding the largest majority in generations. And of course, now that they do not have 60 votes in the Senate they will blame everything on the Republicans going forward. It’s pathetic.
____________________________________________________________________
AR, I respect you so please don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t think that any party or site has an exclusive on what is right for this country or who are educated. There are stupid, ignorant, and uneducated of every group and party affiliation in this country.
In regards to legislation, it is because the Democratic party is not full of liberals, just like the GOP is not full of conservatives. So a party may be in power but that doesn’t mean that they can do what they want. When Bush and the GOP controled Congress, they still were unable to do what they wanted. And if the situation was reversed, the GOP would be unable to do anything either. The main reason is that every politican is out to protect his or her job. So they will vote the way that makes the most sense for them. Also they are beholden to their corporate interests. So that is the real world. That is why the GOP is stringing along the birthers, for votes. No resolution regarding NBC will ever pass Congress. Just like it will be next to impossible for any state law regarding a definition of NBC will pass the state legislature. This is all election year posturing…
Let’s also make note that BL never came replied directly to me about that bit of calling him out as to his accusations about Smith & foreign corporations. It was byst, Sue & others who came to defend BL’s misquoting Smith & his lie claiming Obama never mentioned foreign corporations.
To BL’s credit, BL did indirectly correct the error in other posts & I saw that & I left it at that. What would have been the purpose of calling BL out at that point? Self graatification? I got over that in jr high & took the path of adulthood by debating with facts not accusations.
Linda says:
February 1, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Retract? Ummm…no, I did not lie.
Black Lion
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/01/28/obama-alitos-you-lie-moment-fec-campaign-contributions-update/comment-page-1/#comment-33333
By the way tell Bradley Smith to get his facts straight. The President never mentioned foreign corporations.
BL is telling me to go tell the former HEAD of the FEC to get his facts straight. Now that’s a priceless piece of ignorant commenting if I ever saw one and that’s why I called BL out on it.
__________________________________________________________________
And you didn’t read the following post where I said that the comment somehow posted before I was able to complete the entire post, which I did right after. And you did not also read any of the previous posts on the subject. That is why your comment was easy to refute. Just like when you posted one article by Smith to refute what I said about him without reading the link I posted which showed that he had said at the time what I had attribited to him.
Retract? Ummm…no, I did not lie.
Black Lion
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/01/28/obama-alitos-you-lie-moment-fec-campaign-contributions-update/comment-page-1/#comment-33333
By the way tell Bradley Smith to get his facts straight. The President never mentioned foreign corporations.
BL is telling me to go tell the former HEAD of the FEC to get his facts straight. Now that’s a priceless piece of ignorant commenting if I ever saw one and that’s why I called BL out on it.
LInda – of course it is you lying, because you still haven’t worked out that you have confused corporations with contributions. Read the original exchange below and you will see that you misquoted Black Lion. Black Lion even said that he mentioned corporations. This is really bad, even for you. Can’t you get any of your research right?
bystander says:
January 30, 2010 at 2:28 am
Linda:
BL,
You stated that:
The President never mentioned foreign corporations
YOU LIE!
http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2010/01/obama-slams-supreme-court-in-state-of.html article 2
………………..
No Linda, you lie. GL said Obama never mentioned foreign CONTRIBUTIONS not corporations. Here is what he said:
Black Lion says:
January 29, 2010 at 12:20 pm
sharon2 says:
January 29, 2010 at 11:53 am
Obama said that now the floodgates are open. They are not. There is a law in place about foreign contributions. Some research shows that a “someone” may have violated. If so, that someone is a hypocrite and face consequences.
____________________________________________________________________
Sharon, actually Obama never specifically referenced foreign contributions. Obama never claimed that the Supreme court decision allowed “foreign nationals” to contribute to American campaigns. He knows that the law prevents that. Obama specifically stated “foreign corporations,”and his later reference to “foreign entities” can in context be presumed to refer to “foreign corporations.”
…..
So Linda, going to retract your accusation to BL?
Black Lion,
You seem to be suggesting that liberals are the only ones who hold an educated view of the world. That liberals are never paranoid or myopic in there viewpoints. I would disagree with that wholeheartedly. In fact they are every bit is likely to be all of these things as anyone else.
Attempting to paint those who disagree with your world view as ignorant, paranoid, stupid, etc. etc. is really not very productive. Yes, if you choose to look, you can find examples of this behavior on both ends of the political spectrum. But trying to broaden that to include everyone who see it a certain way are the same is just plain laziness and or arrogance. Besides, when it comes to education, an old computer phrase comes to mind. Garbage in equals Garbage out.
And to not put to fine a point on it, but if liberals were so smart, educated and informed, why can’t they pass any legislation? They have failed to pass any of their signature bills all while holding the largest majority in generations. And of course, now that they do not have 60 votes in the Senate they will blame everything on the Republicans going forward. It’s pathetic.
Obama SOTU excerpt from his lies about the SCOTUS’s decision:
http://www.c-span.org/pdf/SOTU-Full012710.pdf
But we can’t stop there. It’s time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress. And it’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.
So who is the liar bystander?
Interesting article…
“For all its apparent freshness, the Tea Party movement is firmly rooted, in its ideology, rhetoric and — there’s no polite word for it — its paranoia, in the post-World War II American right.
Even reasonable Tea Party activists take it as given that Obama is a socialist. It hardly seems to matter that a significant chunk of the stimulus was a tax cut, or that his chief economist is centrist Larry Summers, or that the bailouts of the auto and banking industries began under President George W. Bush, or that Reagan favored the bailout of Chrysler in 1980, or that Reagan raised taxes to save Social Security.
Kathy Olmsted, a University of California, Davis historian of the period, notes that they accused the one-time Supreme Allied Commander of being a communist agent, an allegation made repeatedly by candy tycoon Robert Welch.
The use of the clinical term “paranoid” to describe the president’s opponents is surely condescending.
“It’s condescending, but it also happens to be true,” says Michael Munger, a Duke University political scientist who is a libertarian and has been a keynote speaker at a number of Tea Party rallies.
He says we’ve reached a tipping point of paranoia and conspiracy mongering, fed by two trends: loss of credibility of official sources culminating, as far as conservatives are concerned, with this administration; and the profusion of media outlets that feed on conspiracy and paranoia.
Perlstein notes that establishment media of the early 1960s acted as a filter against extremism. Walter Cronkite, for instance, would never countenance the likes of Orly Taitz, a leader of the movement to prove Obama was born in Kenya. And, yet, there she is on the cable networks.
As Olmsted notes, “With cable, there’s an endless appetite for feeding the monster. And with Fox, it’s made to order.”
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/50969
This is pretty funny; however, an example of what I was referring to in my previous comment.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/finally-something-we-can-agree-with/
Finally something we can agree with January 31, 2010
Nicknack, (Dustcatcher)
Dustcatcher was not meant as an insult. Your name made me remember what my Grandmother called nicknacks. I should have explained myself. My apologies. I thought I had in my previous comment.
“I may have to wait for the SCOTUS to define what a natural born citizen is but when they do I will be able to rest easy that illegal aliens that have children here will not be able to rise to the level of the highest echolons of power thru crimminal acts.”
The above has nothing to do with presidential eligibility of Obama. However, you are correct, children of illegal aliens are birthright or natural born citizens and eligible to be president. Obama’s mother is/was a natural born citizen and his father was not an illegal alien. Children born in U.S. to illegal alien parents is an economic issue in my opinion.
Congress rather than SCOTUS will probably be the branch of government that will address this issue.
Interesting article regarding this issue.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/14/citizen.children/index.html
Study: 4 million ‘illegal’ immigrant children are native-born citizens
Nick nack
As you can see from this link, the McCain birth certificate that you linked to first emerged in a lawsuit from Donald Lamb, a con artist who was trying to prove his claim to property in Panama (he failed). His affadavit is attached in the link. You will note that some details contradict those in the birth certificate shown by McCain to the Washington Post. The only conclusions to be drawn are that one or both of the certificates are forgeries, or the journalist is lying. McCain has never contradicted the account from the WP journalist.
So to go back to your original claim, no McCain has never released his birth certificate.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/McCain-SurreplyEx-7-21-08.pdf
Nicknack if you need any further evidence that McCain’s birth certificate is not all it seems, here is a very lengthy and detailed exploration of the issues.
http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=14500
Nicknack here’s the fact checker article confirmimg McCain has refused to release his birth certificate:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html
Nicknack
John McCain has refused to allow his birth certificate to be released, and merely showed it to one journalist who was not allowed to copy it. The image you have supplied comes from a court case, and it’s origin is unknown. McCAin has never associated himself with this document. However there is some fairly compelling evidence that it is in fact a forgery (oh the irony) -see at this link:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/the-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/
I have never visited Orly’s site, but I would agree that it seems to be a bit of a reach. I have seen a number of Pic’s of other President’s doing the same thing. While I understand how some might find it disrespectful, there are more important things to take issue with.
Sue (indenial)
John McCains Long Form Birth Cert
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11110505/JohnMcCain-Birth-Certificate-long-and-short-form-Colon-Panama-1936
58 percent of GOP not sure/doubt Obama born in US
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush
/0709/58_of_GOP_not_suredont_beleive_Obama_born_in_US.html
38% of Americans not sure/doubt Obama born in US
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/deeper-look-at-birthers.html
I may have to wait for the SCOTUS to define what a natural born citizen is but when they do I will be able to rest easy that illegal aliens that have children here will not be able to rise to the level of the highest echolons of power thru crimminal acts. The lack of a clear understanding of the implications will have to be defined for you by the SCOTUS since you neither respect logic nor use it effectivly in your comments. Maybe if a wise woman defines it for you it will be more palatable.
AnotherReader says:
January 31, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Please cite the example of another President calling out a SCOTUS opinion in a State of Union address in such a negative way.
After some digging I found a few instances of negative remarks. So I withdraw the last statement.
___________________________________________________________________
AR, I respect your honesty. That was my only point. Whether we agree or disagree with the President, his policies, or his politics he has the right to disagree with the SCOTUS and this is not the first time this happened nor will it be the last time. It just seems like whatever this President does, there are some out there attempting to shape it in a negative way…For instance on Orly’s site she was having a fit about the picture of the President with his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office, but there have been pictures of President’s since Kennedy that have had pictures taken in the same pose with the feet up on the desk…
After some digging I found a few instances of negative remarks. So I withdraw the last statement.
BlackLion,
Agreed.
Please cite the example of another President calling out a SCOTUS opinion in a State of Union address in such a negative way. This is a new standard that he has set for himself.
Nicknack,(Dustcatcher)
“Sue can you tell me what the size of the television audience was when all of this was done? If they even got 10% of the audience the clown got for the SOTU at least we couldnt say that the public wasnt aware of all the lawsuits by prominant lawyers (Philip Berg) questioning the legitimacy of this clown. And by your own admission how is a birther given as much veritas as Ovamit? Wow have you elevated the movement.”
Orly has been on radio, tv, YouTubes, newspapers both U.S. and overseas, etc., etc. to yell and the top of her lungs how the justices and judges are part of the conspiracy and should be tried for treason/impeached. She has snail mailed, e-mailed and faxed mountains of POP.
“Consequently there is a growing discontent with the current state of affairs and it seems that the general public does understand Article II.”
Actually, the growing discontent has nothing to do with Article II but rather the economy and the fact that Congress is dysfunctional because of partisan politics.
“I just wait for the SCOTUS to define for me what a Natural Born Citizen is so that this issue can once and for all be put to rest. While your at it can you tell me how much the clown weighed at birth?”
You will be waiting a long time because they already have. What does Obama’s birth weight have to with being eligible for POTUS? Do you know what any other President’s birth weight was? I can’t tell you my birth weight.
Have a nice day.
The ‘chickens’ are coming home to roost, just not on the side of the fence that Obama was counting on:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7009686.ece
January 31, 2010
Chicago cools to Barack Obama, its hometown boy
“WE’RE what you might call an opinion-based barbershop,” proclaims Clemon Clay, the owner of Gordy’s barbers on the South Side of Chicago. “Equal parts politics and haircutting.”
With its chess set, slot machine, gobstopper dispenser and constant banter, Gordy’s is the gathering place in this rundown, mainly black district. The chief topic of conversation is President Barack Obama, who started his political career as a community organiser in the area and whose wife, Michelle, grew up nearby.
Over the past year, Clay, known as Cee Cee, has watched his clients go from soaring enthusiasm to deep disillusion. Republicans, scenting blood after their stunning victory in liberal Massachusetts, have set their sights on Obama’s former Senate seat.
“Our customers talk politics all the time because they’re frightened — frightened of losing their homes and jobs,” said Cee Cee, wielding his razor on a heavily built butcher sporting a diamond earring. “I think Obama makes promises like all the other presidents but don’t really follow through. Maybe he has good intentions but he’s in the pigsty realm of Washington so his boots have got a little muddy.”
His colleague Sam is less understanding. “I don’t think he done nothing, the situation’s got worse and worse for me,” he complained. “His slogan was change but now he’s saying change is not just up to me. Well, that wasn’t what he said in the elections.”
No wonder he didn’t spend christmas back in his old home town at his lovely mansion.
Interesting articles…
“But around May, something unexpected happened: Locally-based Republican party strategists started coming to the group’s meetings. That alarmed Knapp and many of his fellow activists, who were motivated in large part by a deep suspicion of both major parties. “I said, ‘what the fuck are you doing here?’” the blunt-spoken Knapp told TPMmuckraker.
The Republicans, said Knapp, wanted to turn the Tea Partiers into a source of grassroots muscle for the GOP, and sought to stymie any effort by the activists to create a third party — an idea Knapp supported.
According to Knapp, one female Republican media specialist at the meeting flatly declared: “Our biggest fear is that the Tea Party will evolve into a third party.” Such an occurrence would be a “death knell” to the already shrinking state GOP, the woman said, according to Knapp. “It was very clear that they didn’t want this movement to get out of their control,” he said.”
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/tea_party_dilemma_to_gop_or_not_to_gop.php
Former vice presidential candidate and current Fox News contributor Sarah Palin said last night that the Republican Party should merge with tea partiers.
Fox’s Greta Van Susteren asked if tea party candidates would end up siphoning votes from GOP nominees, or if the movement will “merge with the Republican Party.”
“They need to merge,” Palin said. “Definitely, they need to merge. I think those who are wanting the divisions and the divisiveness and the controversy — those are the ones who don’t believe in the message. And they’re the ones, I think, stirring it up.”
As we’ve reported at TPMmuckraker, the tea party movement has been increasingly divided. Much of the friction has been over the national tea party convention to be held in Nashville. Critics say the convention, with its expensive tickets and for-profit organizer, doesn’t jive with true tea party values. Yesterday, we reported that Reps. Michele Bachmann and Martha Blackburn have dropped out.
Palin, whose speaking fees are rumored to be around $100,000, told Van Susteren she is still on for the convention. “You betcha,” she said.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/palin-lets-merge-the-tea-party-and-gop.php?ref=fpb
AnotherReader says:
January 30, 2010 at 9:42 am
This is comical. When SCOTUS agrees with your position, IE eligibility you can’t tout it enough. But when it disagrees. And 4 Justices agreed! And couching the the statement with “I believe” is a total cop out. The SOTU was not the time or the place to air this out.
Calling out a Supreme Court Opinion as he did was arrogant and unprecedented. It’s simply a lack of respect for the institution. Bottom line, the court held that it is unconstitutional.
And that last line, that was the best. Because none of you would have said the same of Bush and his opinions when he was President.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Really? You are missing the point. The issue had to do with the President not agreeing with the SCOTUS and using his position as President to voice his disagreement. That is his right as the President. You might think it is a cop out. That is your opinion. Just like I have an opinion and more importantly the President has a opinion.
Every President has disagreed with a SCOTUS ruling. Does that make them arrogant and unprecedented? It is hilarious how it seems that for some there are different standards for President Obama. The Court has the right to rule anyway they want. But everyone has the right not to agree. For instance Roe has been law since 1973 but many including politicans publically disagree with that ruling. Are they arrogant?
Whatever I would have said about Bush the fact remained he was the President as had the right to say it. Just like Obama is the President now and has the right to say what he wants…And whether he was right or wrong on what he said as we have seen is debatable…There are strong opinions on both sides…
Sue says:
January 30, 2010 at 9:14 pm
This is truly amazing. The birther lawyers and their followers have e-mailed, faxed, called SCOTUS, Judge Land, Judge Carter, Judge Brown, Judge Robertson, Judge Lamberth and every other judge who has dared to disagree with them. They have accused these justices and judges of treason and called for their impeachment and indictments. They have called these justices and judges every name in the book and even made threats towards them.
President Obama only disagreed with SCOTUS’ decision.
Hypocrisy, thy name is “birther.”
Sue can you tell me what the size of the television audience was when all of this was done? If they even got 10% of the audience the clown got for the SOTU at least we couldnt say that the public wasnt aware of all the lawsuits by prominant lawyers (Philip Berg) questioning the legitimacy of this clown. And by your own admission how is a birther given as much veritas as Ovamit? Wow have you elevated the movement.
Consequently there is a growing discontent with the current state of affairs and it seems that the general public does understand Article II. I just wait for the SCOTUS to define for me what a Natural Born Citizen is so that this issue can once and for all be put to rest. While your at it can you tell me how much the clown weighed at birth?
This is truly amazing. The birther lawyers and their followers have e-mailed, faxed, called SCOTUS, Judge Land, Judge Carter, Judge Brown, Judge Robertson, Judge Lamberth and every other judge who has dared to disagree with them. They have accused these justices and judges of treason and called for their impeachment and indictments. They have called these justices and judges every name in the book and even made threats towards them.
President Obama only disagreed with SCOTUS’ decision.
Hypocrisy, thy name is “birther.”
bystander says:
January 30, 2010 at 2:28 am
Linda:
BL,
You stated that:
The President never mentioned foreign corporations
YOU LIE!
http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2010/01/obama-slams-supreme-court-in-state-of.html article 2
………………..
No Linda, you lie. GL said Obama never mentioned foreign CONTRIBUTIONS not corporations. Here is what he said:
Black Lion says:
January 29, 2010 at 12:20 pm
sharon2 says:
January 29, 2010 at 11:53 am
Obama said that now the floodgates are open. They are not. There is a law in place about foreign contributions. Some research shows that a “someone” may have violated. If so, that someone is a hypocrite and face consequences.
____________________________________________________________________
Sharon, actually Obama never specifically referenced foreign contributions. Obama never claimed that the Supreme court decision allowed “foreign nationals” to contribute to American campaigns. He knows that the law prevents that. Obama specifically stated “foreign corporations,”and his later reference to “foreign entities” can in context be presumed to refer to “foreign corporations.”
…..
So Linda, going to retract your accusation to BL?
__________________________________________________________________
Bystander, thanks. But we both know that Linda won’t admit she was wrong. You have shown her to be incorrect before and she either ignored it or kept arguing her losing point. So I don’t expect anything. But I do appreciate that you saw what I wrote.
DEAR PHIL –
‘I LIE’ BECAUSE I CAN DO SO.
DO NOT BOTHER ME, WHILST I FOOL THE PEOPLE.
MR. DICE IS ALREADY HELPING ME DISMANTLE THE WHITE MAN’S DOCUMENT:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MarkDice#p/a/u/0/tznR4wPeS4M
IN ANGER, AND CONTEMPT, AND IGNORANCE,
MM