He's Not My President?

Thoreau: "Government is Best Which Governs Least"

Archive for July 2009

Is Bill O’Reilly Really A Stand Up Guy on the Birth Certificate Issue?

bill oreillyOn Monday night Bill O’Reilly began covering the Obama birth certificate controversy in the vane of analyzing Lou Dobbs’ coverage of the issue.  Bill O’Reilly made it clear that he does not agree with those who believe that President Obama was not born in Hawaii.  O’Reilly also pointed out that Lou Dobbs does not agree with the “Birthers.”  Bill O’Reilly defended Lou Dobbs’ right to cover the issue on Lou’s television program.  As a result, Lou Dobbs stated that he does  “appreciate Bill O’Reilly being a stand up guy” found in this video at the 1:42 mark.  But is Bill O’Reilly really a stand up guy on the birth certificate issue?

In the same program where Bill O’Reilly defended Lou Dobbs, he disengenuously used the issue to tout his own program and investigation regarding the birth certificate issue.  During the “Impact Segment” on his program that night he made the following comments which are all distortions of the issue which further fuel the “Birthers” and their birth certificate issue movement:

The Factor investigated it [the birth certificate issue], found out it’s bogus.  (:15 seconds into the video)

Alright again, we found that uh President Obama was born in Hawaii.  We uh were sent the documents and what are you going to do?  I don’t know why it’s still around?  That was more than a year ago.  (:40)

So if he’s [Lou Dobbs is] going to go out there and push a story that is patently absurd.  It is.  It’s an absurd story.  (1:58)

What exactly did the factor do to investigate the birth certificate?  Later in the same program Bill O’Reilly stated something to the effect that the factor had contacted Hawaii and Hawaii had sent The Factor the birth certificate.  I can’t link to the video of this statement because it was in the “Reality Check” segment of the program and has not yet been posted online for review.  I have contacted Fox News to attempt to get a transcript of this portion of the program so that I can cite the words he used verbatim, but again they were something along the lines of Hawaii sent us a copy of the birth certificate.  Talk about absurd.  Mr. O’Reilly is flat out lying to his audience.  If The Factor had contacted Hawaii for a copy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate, they would have received the exact same answer from Hawaii that everyone else has received when attempting to get a copy of the birth certificate that under Hawaii privacy laws, the State of Hawaii is not at liberty to release it.

So why does Bill O’Reilly portray himself and his program as some investigative authority on the birth certificate issue?  Bill O’Reilly claims to be in the business of “looking out for the folks.”  Yet, on Monday night, Bill O’Reilly obfuscated the birth certificate issue, spun a narrative on this issue of investigative journalism in “the no spin zone” and at the end of his program outright lied to his audience.  It is this type of media coverage that Bill O’Reilly participated in on his Monday night program that continues to add fuel to the controversy of the birth certificate issue.  So much for Bill O’Reilly being a stand up guy.

Advertisements

Rambling Man

Obama Health CareIf you watched President Obama’s press conference tonight (focusing on health care), then you may have noticed that rather than layout specifics for the American people or actually specifically answering the softball questions posed at him, he rambled on and on and on and on about generalities, nothing new that we didn’t already know and basically gave us no indication of what his health care plan truly is.  In other words, the President (the rambling man) wasted an hour of your precious time tonight.

I think Bill O’Reilly immediately following the press conference laid out what you had heard and seen quite well in his talking points memo.  If you missed President Rambler’s press conference, simply go to www.FoxNews.com and find Bill O’Reilly’s talking points memo from tonight and you’ll have all of the information you need from this yawner.

Once again, the Washington Press Corp is a huge disappointment offering no difficult questions for our President on this most important issue.  Quite frankly, I’m so tired of the press not doing its job.  I simply wonder in amazement how much longer they can even remain somewhat relevant.  I fear their time is about up, and they will be tuned out just like our rambling President.  Oh well, so much for the 4th Estate of our Government providing checks and balances on the Executive Branch.

Obama Lies About Recollections of Apollo Moon Landing

obama liarOn this 40th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing, President Obama was hosting former astronauts to commemorate the occasion.  As documented by an Associated Press article President Obama stated the following:

The president said he recalled watching Apollo astronauts return to Hawaii after splashing down in the Pacific Ocean. He said he’d sit on his grandfather’s shoulders and “we’d pretend like they could see us as if we were waving at folks coming home.”

Our narcissistic President always seems to find a way to make events about his personal experiences, but once again we catch our President in a lie regarding his recollections.

President Obama lived in Jakarta Indonesia for five years during his childhood from ages 6 to 10.  In July of 1969 when the Apollo moon landing occurred President Obama was 7 years old and would turn 8 years of age the next month.  He couldn’t possibly of been looking out at the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Hawaii from his Grandfather’s shoulders in the summer of 1969 as he wasn’t living with his Grandfather in Hawaii in 1969.  He was living with his mother and step father Lolo Soetero in Jakarta Indonesia in 1969.  This is much like the made up stories he stated during the campaign about the Selma Alabama bombings.  Ask yourself, why does our President consistently lie about his American childhood experiences?  The answer you might come to is maybe because President Obama didn’t have any American childhood experiences.  Why do any of you trust a President whom consistently lies about his past?

Judge Sotomayor — The Best Conservatives Can Hope For

sotomayor redWhen President Obama announced Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, I wrote a blog post arguing that President Obama saw her as his judicial female equivalent.  At the end of the post, I asked the question of whether or not President Obama was correct in his assumption.  Having watched much of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing (but not all), I believe that President Obama was probably wrong in his assumption.

I may be naive, but I think it is important to remember that Judge Sotomayor has been under oath during her entire confirmation hearing.  She is a sitting judge on the 2nd District Court of Appeals.  I think it is incredibly ignorant to think that she wouldn’t take that oath extremely seriously and as a civil society, which I hope we still are, we ought to give her deference and believe her testimony.  I find her thoughtful, measured, intelligent (but not brilliant), down to earth and forthcoming.

I’m not sure what my fellow conservatives expect from an Obama nominated candidate.  President Obama possesses radical judicial views, so conservatives certainly are not going to get a pick that will please them.  However, can you really hope for a better pick from this President than Judge Sotomayor?  I think not, and I think we should be grateful that our President is so arrogant and narcissistic that he thought Sotomayor is his equivalent in judicial thought and practice.  Her record indicates that she comes no where close to holding his radical views, and I believe Judge Sotomayor is the absolute best conservatives could have hoped for as a Supreme Court nominee from our radical President.

I know that many of you might argue that without the constraints of a higher court and with a lifetime appointment to the final arbitrator of Constitutional matters that Judge Sotomayor will no longer be constrained and will now practice judicial activism on the Supreme Court.  I think you are wrong for this reason.  I have found that in her testimony and based on her record that she seems to exhibit character and integrity two critical traits of which our President possesses neither.  I do not believe Judge Sotomayor is the judicial equivalent of President Obama.  As much as conservatives were disappointed with the results of George Herbert Walker Bush’s appointment of Justice Souter, liberals and in particular their supreme leader President Obama will be very disappointed with the results of Justice Sotomayor.  One year from now, I will follow up with a post on how Justice Sotomayor has ruled, and I think my fellow conservatives will be surprised with the results for Judge Sotomayor is truly the best we could have hoped for in a nomination to the Supreme Court by our current radical leftist President, Barack Obama.

Obama Can’t Get Pitch to Home Plate

obama bounces pitch

In the never ending world of Obama propaganda, FOX takes a camera angle of the pitch so that we do not get to see that President Obama’s first pitch ends up in front of home plate, comes in like a slow-pitch pitch one would find at their weekly softball game, and Albert Pujols has to squat in front of home plate just to catch it.  But of course, you don’t get to see this because we have to protect Obama at all costs and make him seem more athletic than he really is.  If they go to this much trouble at the MLB All Star game to hide Obama’s inadequacies, how much do you think the mainstream media is hiding from you about this President on a daily basis? 

By the way, the media can manipulate the images you see, but much like during the campaign, they can’t manipulate the words you hear.  When President Obama was introduced, you could clearly hear many boos amongst the cheers.  At least in Missouri, it would appear the many booing the President don’t find him quite as magical and popular as the mainstream media would like you to believe.  It’s all smoke and mirrors folks, and you Obama voters were had.

Communism, Fascism and Socialism Defined

social obamaI read numerous blogs and blog posts every day, and I find the terms communism, fascism and socialism are thrown around  repeatedly often misused and sometimes not used effectively for the truly terrifying effects such isms have had on the people in our world’s history.  So instead of continuing to throw around these words, let’s define them (as provided by dictionary.com) right now and then determine their appropriate use in today’s modern America.  After doing so, we should be able to come to better conclusions about  what is happening in our country and more importantly a better understanding of the importance of protecting our Constitutional Republic and the difference in it from the isms we have defined.

com⋅mu⋅nism

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

fas⋅cism

–noun

1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

so⋅cial⋅ism

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
The one thing that we should first notice about all of these definitions is that America and American Capitalism have yet to be so circumvented or bastardized to reach full commonality with any of these definitions.  The other thing that is critical to note is that all of these definitions reside in a loss of personal property with the possible exception of fascism (please note that personal property also includes money not just property like homes, cars and other things).
The one thing that the founders of our nation made clear was that freedom and freedom from tyranny were rooted in personal property rights.  In fact, even when scholars have attempted to look at what Jefferson meant by the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence it is widely believed that property rights were a core consideration of what was meant.  As John Adams wrote:
All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.    (The Political Writings of John Adams)
Americans should be ever vigilant and quite concerned any time their property rights are being subverted.  And since property rights include money, Americans must also be extremely concerned when their money is being taken by their government regardless of government’s intended purpose. 
Often times the isms defined herein are referred to as left or right where communism is the extreme left, fascism is the extreme right and socialism, I guess, is somewhere in between.  What should be noted is that the founders of our country did not deal with isms but rather with governmental powers.  They viewed excessive government (the founders today would see all of the isms this way) on the extreme left, anarchy on the extreme right and our Constitutional Republic was an attempt to find the balance in between.
As America drifts toward any one of the isms above that drift is a complete afront to our founders.  We must be diligent in reigning it back in and returning our government to its founding principles which are limited government in all aspects of our lives and the freedom of the individual to live his life, protect his liberties and protect his property.  Make careful arguments for why limited government and a return to our founding principles is the best course for our country.  Avoid throwing around isms as they may not necessarily apply even when there is a creep toward them.

Does the All Star Game Also Have to Be Ruined

all star game 3It’s bad enough that we have several news channels that are now all Obama all of the time, but seriously does America’s favorite pastime also have to be ruined by Obama propaganda.  I love baseball, and the last thing I want to do is look at Obama’s face and listen to him in the announcers’ booth while I’m trying to enjoy the 2009 MLB All Star Game.  I realize it is tradition for Presidents to occasionally throw out the first pitch at baseball games, but at least I could have chosen to turn the  channel during that brief time while Obama bounces the ball to the plate ala Greta Van Susteren, but now I find out he’s also going to be in the booth.  I will be forced to mute the sound for the 1/2 inning or full inning of his appearance.  Is nothing left in America that is sacred where I don’t have to have the Obama propaganda machine shoved down my throat 24/7?  Just asking.