The Patriot Room (h/t Larwyn) asks why the New York Times and LA times have not covered pressure put on Rahm Emanuel to resign:
>"Have we seen anything in the MSM about pressure on Rahm Emanuel to resign? Nothing from the L.A. Times. Or the New York Times.
"But the U.K. and Australian papers often print stories their liberal American cousins will not. And they think something is afoot."
Patriot Room quotes the Australian Herald Sun and UK Times, which are willing to print news, even if it doesn't fit.
Patriot Room concludes:
"Obama’s team was dredged from the same swamp from which Blagojevich was pulled. Is it any surprise that Emanuel was on the phone wheeling and dealing with Blago to fill the Senate seat?"
Back on September 25 I posted this comment about Obama's corruption from one of my correspondents in Chicago, Contrairimairi:
"What is it going to take to prove that Obama does not now, did not then, and NEVER will have America or Americans best interests at heart? This apparent liar and 'rip-off artist extraordinaire' has ALWAYS put himself first in EVERYTHING he has undertaken. It appears he was lining his pockets within MOMENTS of landing in Washington as the junior Senator from Illinois from the very companies he now 'pretends' to be so 'outraged' about. Not too surprising considering his contacts with Tony Rezko...
"One HAS to wonder WHERE all the money from the millions 'earmarked' to improve public housing in Chicago ended up...where the millions 'earmarked' to improve education in Chicago's poorest schools ended up...WHY, despite his continuing 'efforts' as a 'community organizer' on Chicago's south side, NOTHING in those neighborhoods seems to have significantly improved. Probably, it would be safer to say that things have probably grown WORSE! More young people die in those neighborhoods than have been lost in similar time frames in the war. Housing in those areas remains sub-standard and dangerous. The peoples' quality of life in those areas NEVER seems to improve. I think we can tell from the trail we ARE able to pick up on, despite Obama's efforts to 'hide everything from his past', that he never does ANYTHING without major benefit to himself."
Back in August I called President-elect Obama a sociopath (also see here) and back on September 2 quoted Andy Martin's characterizations of Obama's dirty operation as being "more sophisticated than that of President Richard M. Nixon's."
Perhaps we should argue, as the esteemed David Horowitz recently has, that we are better off with a corrupt Obama than an ideologically-driven one.
But the deeper problem to which Patriot Room alludes is the absence of a competent press or media. This is the Langbert Modus Ponens:
If a nation lacks a fair and competent press and media, it cannot function as a republic.
America lacks a fair and competent press and media.
Therefore, America is no longer a republic.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Fred on the Certificate
I just received this e-mail from Fred:
>I was reading your blog, "Why Was Sarah Herilihy Worrying About Article II?" and I would like to add a dot that you might find interesting.
I think it might shed some light on what we see going on with the court cases that have reached the SC.
Justice Scalia made a talk followed by a Q&A session to The Federalist Society on November 20, 2008 so it is very current.
Here is the link:
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp
The talk is available at that site in video or audio only. I have a fast server, but the video kept stopping to catch up so I recommend listening to the audio as it is continuous.
I think that Justice Scalia defines himself as an "originalist".
During the Q&A time, Justice Scalia commented on what to do about laws that were on the books at the time the Constitution was written but would not be acceptable today. He referenced "notching the ears" of felons as a means to identify them (I never knew we did that). He spent time discussing that "good" Judges would uphold laws that were constitutional even though they did not agree with them.
He specifically stated that "good Judges" should have a rubber stamp to handle those cases.
The stamp would read, "STUPID, BUT CONSTITUTIONAL".
When he made that statement, I believe he was thinking of Article II, Section I, Clause 5. Perhaps he doesn't agree with it , but it is not open to interpretation. Justice Alito had a conversation with Schumer during his confirmation hearing and said that an Amendment was required, but would not discuss whether a child born on U.S. soil of parents that were illegals was entitled to citizenship.
Of the cases that have reached the SC, Berg's was denied based on "Standing", Donofrio's on Jurisdiction, and Cort's was denied without comment.
Is it possible that the SCOTUS is dodging the issue?
I believe that they all, if they are "good" Justices would, since the wording is not ambiguous and the nature and reason for the clause is clearly defined by Justice John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, have to rule that the only thing that could alter the "natural born" statement in the Constitution is an Amendment to the Constitution.
The significant problem with Obama's eligibility is that most Senators and Representatives, the voters on January 8 to certify him to be President of the United States, believe that being born on U.S. soil entitles Obama to be proclaimed "Natural Born". It does not! And Obama does not qualify since his father was a British subject "at birth" of Obama (it is on his website) and the very thing that John Jay worried about that motivated him to suggest the wording in Article II, Section I has come upon us! And for good reason!
Fred
>I was reading your blog, "Why Was Sarah Herilihy Worrying About Article II?" and I would like to add a dot that you might find interesting.
I think it might shed some light on what we see going on with the court cases that have reached the SC.
Justice Scalia made a talk followed by a Q&A session to The Federalist Society on November 20, 2008 so it is very current.
Here is the link:
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp
The talk is available at that site in video or audio only. I have a fast server, but the video kept stopping to catch up so I recommend listening to the audio as it is continuous.
I think that Justice Scalia defines himself as an "originalist".
During the Q&A time, Justice Scalia commented on what to do about laws that were on the books at the time the Constitution was written but would not be acceptable today. He referenced "notching the ears" of felons as a means to identify them (I never knew we did that). He spent time discussing that "good" Judges would uphold laws that were constitutional even though they did not agree with them.
He specifically stated that "good Judges" should have a rubber stamp to handle those cases.
The stamp would read, "STUPID, BUT CONSTITUTIONAL".
When he made that statement, I believe he was thinking of Article II, Section I, Clause 5. Perhaps he doesn't agree with it , but it is not open to interpretation. Justice Alito had a conversation with Schumer during his confirmation hearing and said that an Amendment was required, but would not discuss whether a child born on U.S. soil of parents that were illegals was entitled to citizenship.
Of the cases that have reached the SC, Berg's was denied based on "Standing", Donofrio's on Jurisdiction, and Cort's was denied without comment.
Is it possible that the SCOTUS is dodging the issue?
I believe that they all, if they are "good" Justices would, since the wording is not ambiguous and the nature and reason for the clause is clearly defined by Justice John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, have to rule that the only thing that could alter the "natural born" statement in the Constitution is an Amendment to the Constitution.
The significant problem with Obama's eligibility is that most Senators and Representatives, the voters on January 8 to certify him to be President of the United States, believe that being born on U.S. soil entitles Obama to be proclaimed "Natural Born". It does not! And Obama does not qualify since his father was a British subject "at birth" of Obama (it is on his website) and the very thing that John Jay worried about that motivated him to suggest the wording in Article II, Section I has come upon us! And for good reason!
Fred
Barack Obama's Socialist Safe House
Jim Robbins forwarded a link to this Texas Darlin which raises some curious questions. For instance, why does the Party for Socialism and Liberation list the phone number associated with Obama’s mansion in Chicago as its phone number? TD asks: "Why on Earth is the phone number for the Party for Socialism and Liberation linked to the Obamas’ private residence in Chicago? Theories?"
Read the whole baffling conundrum here. (Actually it's not so baffling. Obama is a leftwing extremist, a possibility his fellow travelers at the networks never wished to explore.)
Read the whole baffling conundrum here. (Actually it's not so baffling. Obama is a leftwing extremist, a possibility his fellow travelers at the networks never wished to explore.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
