Tag Archives: republicans

President Obama Is A Natural Born Citizen

Leave a reply

There sure is a lot of ado lately about whether or not President Obama is a natural born citizen which is one of the qualifications to be president of the United States. The pundits who obviously favor Obama believe that this issue hurts republicans, continually ask possible republican presidential candidates their thoughts on the issue. These pundits feel that any republican who questions Obama’s citizenship will be seen as extreme, which will hurt their candidacy and by extension republicans in general. There are some republicans who think this also, but, thinking it doesn’t make it so. Obama now has a record on which he must run. He is no longer that blank canvas as he portrayed himself that could be used to make him into anything you wanted. The next election will be a referendum his policies, not whether or not some republicans believe he is not a natural born citizen. This issue will not hurt republican electoral chances any more than all of the left wing lunacy during the Bush years hurt democrats. Voters don’t vote on these issues. They are irritated by it, but in the end aren’t swayed by these issues, because they occur on both sides all of the time and everywhere—it very simply becomes a wash.

Now, for the question of whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen. The very simple answer to this question is….yes he is. The Constitution states that the president must be a natural born citizen, but it does not define what exactly that is. I don’t know what a natural born citizen was back in the 1700’s, but the following is my rationale for this situation. There are two ways to become a citizen of the United States. One is to be a citizen from birth, i.e.; a natural born citizen, and the other is to be a naturalized citizen. My assertion that Obama is a natural born citizen has nothing to do with where his was born, and everything to do with who gave him birth. His mother was a citizen of the United States which through practice and history makes him a natural born citizen, even if she birthed him in the heart of the Soviet Union. I bet it would be impossible to find a case of where a child of a United States citizen had to go through the naturalization process regardless of place of birth.

Will Obama Move To The Right?

Leave a reply

The question of whether or not Obama will make a move to the right if republicans take one or both houses of congress I think has an obvious answer, and that would be an emphatic…..No! He has shown no propensity to compromise or any willingness to work with the opposition in any measure. He is an ideologue who sees his role as president to fundamentally change America. In other words, to change the basics of America.

He will try to sound as though he is moving toward the center and is willing to be more cooperative with republicans, but this will only be for show. Sort of like when the stimulus bill was being debated and most everybody was up in arms, he would come out and talk about how we must cut spending. It’s as though he thinks we are still in the 19th century when a politician could go to one town and say one thing and then go to a town twenty miles away and say the polar opposite. Somebody should tell him that we are in the 21st century, and every word he says is broadcast around the United States as he speaks. He can’t say and act in one way in even a state and go to another state and present himself in the opposite without everyone in the country knowing about.

I get the sense that this being president stuff for Obama is getting old real fast. I really don’t think he is as concerned about being re-elected as he is about changing the country to his liking. He is a worshiper of big government, and he will do all he can to force his religion upon us. We have the First Amendment that prevents congress from forcing religious views upon us, but unfortunately we have no such protections from government worshipers…..wouldn’t it be nice if we did. Republicans should put their names on their office doors with velcro, because they won’t be there long if they forget why they were given back some power if they do in fact get back some power.

What Do Republicans Need To Do?

Leave a reply

There has been a lot of discussion lately about what the Republicans need to do to start winning again. Some say that they need to become more inclusive and others says they need to moderate their tone on social issues or even drop them completely. It has also been said that Republicans can’t be successful only as the party of old white men. First—the source of most of these suggestions are liberals, and a few spineless Republicans, which begs the question – do you really think those liberals have the best interests of the Republican Party in mind?—I think not. They, however, would love it if Republicans became more like them as some suggest. I have a few suggestions of my own

First:  The Republicans don’t need to panic as some are doing. Republicans have been out of power before, and it was only  a few years ago that everyone was talking about a permanent Republican majority. Even though there has been a huge swing in control of Congress the last couple of years, the losses the Republicans suffered on a race by race basis in the 06 mid-terms and 08 were close losses, not blowouts. Just a few thousands votes gave the Democrats control of the Senate in 06, and the 08 elections were decided by war weariness and the economy.

Second: The Republicans need to stop letting the Liberals establish the rules of engagement. For example, during the campaign Barack Obama decided that lobbyists were the scourge of the Earth, and that he would have nothing to do with them, and any who did were equally contemptuous, and when Obama hit this ball into the Republican court, the Republicans fumbled it, and kicked it around instead of hitting it right back into his court. It could have been hit right back into his court very simply by pointing out that most lobbyists are Americans – they are known as citizens, constituents, businesses, organizations, bureaucrats, governors, etc, etc, and none of them can pass legislation – all they can do is suggest. If politicians pass bad legislation regardless of the nature of the influence or those who exert it, it is the fault of the politicians not the so-called lobbyists, and if Barack Obama wants to ignore and vilify these people, he is ignoring and vilifying Americans—Americans who have every right to petition their government for redress.

Third:  The Republicans must stop being cowards—I do mean COWARDS, and come to the realization that the Liberals are at war with them, which means that they must go to war with the Liberals. If you are going to defeat your enemy, you must go to where your enemy is. You can’t bomb them from 30,000 feet, and you can’t be nicey nice, or appease them – if they are in the gutter, you must go into the gutter after them. There is a saying in basketball that the teams who apply the full court press don’t like having it applied to them, which means the Republicans must start applying the press to the Liberals in the same way that they have been applying it to Republicans.

Fourth: Republicans must go on the attack. For instance, they should never apologize when called racist—they should instead attack by pointing out how the Democrat Party is and has been the party of racism, and that the Democrat Party has done more than any other in keeping down minorities, and in particular, blacks. When called uncaring by the Liberals, the Republicans should attack by pointing out the fact that Liberal policies have done more to impoverish, and to keep impoverished, a huge segment of the citizens of this country, most of whom are black. The Republicans should attack attack attack – they should never, I repeat, never go on the defensive – for if you are on the defensive in politics—you are losing.

Fifth:  Ignore the party pacifists. Yes there actually are Republicans when it comes to politics who believe in the policy of appeasement and pacifism. This policy weakens the party in the very same way that Democrat policy of appeasement and pacifism weakens America on the world stage. These spineless Republicans can be heard everywhere – they include but are certainly not limited to—Jeb Bush, Michael Medved, Joe Scarborough, Tom Ridge, etc, etc, etc. Republicans such as these are embarrassed by conservatives who are willing to take the fight to the Liberals, and they discourage such efforts.  They do not possess what it takes, if you know what I mean, to attack liberalism, and they will end up taking us to the same place that liberals want to take us, only slower. Republicans must not see Liberal policies as the reason for their success and emulate that, but should instead emulate the fervor and intensify in which Liberals promote their ideas.

Sixth: Republicans must stigmatize Liberals as bad for the country. Liberals, primarily since the 30′s have done a very good job of stigmatizing Republicans as heartless, uncaring, racists, bigots, homophobes, and right now are trying to label Republicans as the party of “no”, and they have actually convinced Americans that they are better on the economy—only incompetent boobs could allow this to happen, because Liberal policies are terrible for the economy. The Liberals accomplished this very simply by repeating the same lies over and over and over, all the while, Republicans made no meaningful or concerted efforts to counteract such propaganda, and the result in the end was that it stuck.

Seventh: Republicans need to make people understand that life on the government dole or under government tyranny is no life whatsoever. Being a Liberal is very simple minded approach to politics—just promise everything and then say “don’t forget me when you vote.” It is, however, a much more difficult proposition to convince people that their first duty is to take care of themselves, to not leach on others, and certainly to not rely on others through the federal government—this is where far too many Republicans fall short. Liberals go into politics planning to give away the farm to get votes, and Republicans go along with it because they don’t want to lose votes.

Is Colin Powell Confused or Just Obtuse?

Leave a reply

Let’s start with his statement on Meet the Press where he laid out his rationale for supporting Obama for president over the independent moderate maverick John McCain.  He praised Obama for his inclusiveness, his reaching out, his intellectual curiosity, and let us not forget – his rhetorical skills – we mustn’t forget those rhetorical skills. Powell said that in making his decision that he wanted to know if Obama had the experience to be president, but oddly enough he pointed to no experience that made his decision to support Obama, logical. He then went on to complain about how McCain and the Republican party got nasty in the campaign, and how the Republican party in general was moving further to the right. Powell also expressed how he would “have a problem” with two more conservative supreme court nominees, which is what McCain would probably get. I can’t really accept this Republican nastiness notion, because it could be very thoughtfully argued that Obama and the Democrats were nastier in their campaign tactics, and that the democrats have moved sharply to the left, and the idea that a self-described republican would have a problem with conservative Supreme Court justices is oxymoronic.

It seems to me that Powell has been taken in by Obama’s rhetorical skills in the same way that many in the country have been. I think this shows that even those who we think are the brightest among us, in the end are just as human and possess no more depth of thought and analysis than many others do. Powell also seems to believe that if Obama speaks and acts confidently that that translates into competence and experience. What’s really amazing is that he came to that conclusion over the course of seven weeks as he stated on Meet the Press – wow. I think the most important term to remember about Powell’s endorsement is “sellout”. There was no way on God’s green earth that Colin Powell, Mr First-Black All-Everything was not going to support the first black nominee for president. The pressure on blacks in general to conform is much greater than most of us will ever know, and Powell knew that he would have to pay the piper if he didn’t support Obama.

Now as the Republican messiah, Powell is proselytizing on what the Republicans need to do in order to become worldly and inclusive and how if we do these things we will be delivered salvation. Powell has done a very good job of hiding his positions on most issues which is the reason he has high approval numbers, but he has made his opinions known on a few issues. He says the Republican party needs to reach out. Ok, but what exactly does that mean. Could it mean, as he stated on Face the Nation,  that the Republican party needs to be more willing to spread America’s wealth. In other words, steal the private property of productive citizens and give it to unproductive ones. Or still yet in other words, purchase votes through bribery – I guess that’s reaching out.  One point should be made on the idea of America’s wealth. America the country, has no wealth, because most all of the wealth in America is the property of individual citizens and other private entities. He says Republicans need to be more inclusive. I guess that means we should give those who enter our country illegally a bit sloppy kiss and a bottle of water. He supports affirmative action which means he supports racism – now this is a Democrat tenet but it is not a Republican one. He has said that Americans want to pay taxes. Does he mean they want to pay more taxes, or just that they are willing to pay taxes for reasonable constitutional government functions – I suspect he means the former. I think Americans are certainly willing to pay taxes, they just don’t feel like they should have to ask for a rape kit after doing so.

Now, is Colin Powell confused or obtuse. He says he is a Republican, which he is free to call himself a Republican, but he is certainly a very liberal Republican from what is known about him. I think it is safe to say that he thinks Republicans need to become more like him, which means more to the left, which means that his Republican party would take the country to the same place as the Democrat party, only slower. He will have a difficult time convincing most Republicans that this is the way to go.

That Pesky Pendulum

Leave a reply

It swings back and forth, back and forth. A few years ago pundits were talking about a permanent Republican majority at which point the Republicans promptly stuck their collective heads into the dark side and became more concerned about staying in power by becoming Democrat-lite. Right after the last elections the pundits wondered if the Republicans could ever re-gain power.

Now, the Democrats have taken the elections as a referendum for their policies instead of a referendum against the Republicans. They now have stuck their collective heads into the dark side in trying to force through their far left policies in a center-right country. Liberals actually believe that they are in the mainstream of American thinking, and the result will be the pendulum swinging back toward the Republicans. It seems that re-gaining power has less to do with what the party out of power is doing, and more to do with what the party in power is doing.

The “Fairness Doctrine” aka; The “Shut Your Mouth Doctrine”

Leave a reply

With all of the power in D.C. now controlled by Democrats, they are talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine in one form or another. Liberals say they want to bring it back in the spirit of fairness, but they really want use it to silence conservative talk radio. Liberals have controlled the main stream media for decades, and also control colleges and universities nation wide, and it irks them to no end that conservatives control talk radio. Liberals are tyrants by nature, and they, like past and current tyrants want to control all forms of media.

The Fairness Doctrine was originally introduced in 1949, and was discontinued in 1987. It required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the FCC’s view, honest, equitable and balanced. Now, keep in mind that this was put in place in 1949, which was a time when about 96% of homes had radios, and only about 2% had televisions. This made radio, along with newspapers, a primary source of information for the general public. I can see, for general welfare considerations, that it was in the best interest of all, to ensure that radio stations not only served their own interests, but also served the interests of the public.

We, however, are in a different time, because virtually every home has at least one television, and radio is no longer the necessity it once was and has primarily become a source of entertainment. Newspaper readership is dropping off the the face of the earth, while Internet usage is soaring into the stratosphere. America has advanced leaps and bounds since 1949, and as a result there is absolutely no shortage of opposing views, or sources of those views.

The liberals primary argument for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, is fairness—at least fairness as they see it. They say, “ooh, we just want fairness, don’t you?” After all, how can anybody be against fairness? This is just another example of “focusing on the wart”, where liberals want you to focus only on how conservatives control talk radio. They don’t want you to focus on the larger picture of how liberals control the main stream media and educational institutions. A quick look at this larger picture will show that there is a diverse range of opinion available, and a just as diverse range of sources.

Another argument being used by liberals is that the airways belong to the public, and are a limited resource. But, the airways don’t belong to the public any more than the highways belong to the public. When we apply the term “public” to something, such as roads, highways, libraries, parks or even airways, it doesn’t mean that the public owns it, and can dictate how it is to be used, and by whom. It means very simply that the general public has access to it as long as they follow the rules regarding its usage. The relationship the federal government has with radio broadcasting is no different than the relationship your local governments have with the highway and road system—they are both there to keep people from crashing into each other.

Liberals are dead set on shutting up conservatives, and will use any means that they can get away with to achieve it. They will try to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in that name, or in a different name designed to do the same thing. Liberals are not about fairness or free speech. Liberals are all about throwing pies at conservatives, or standing up and turning their backs on, or shouting down conservative speakers. Liberals are as bigoted and as intolerant as any person can be. This new attempt by them to shut up conservatives, bears that out.