This audio clip of that show is fascinating... The host is so eager to cut Paglia's comments into digestible nuggets that she can't get a word in edgewise. It's kind of a metaphor— America is so used to a pandering, spoon-fed, pat-on-the-head culture that anyone with a little garlic in their recipe is considered outlandish

Remember, this is NPR....

Thanks Crid, I had forgotten it was NPR.

Just gotta love Paglia! I enjoy listening to her too, I am familiar with the rapid speech execution. And Crid is right, they kept interrupting her, dammit!

The birther thing. I think the public outcries have to do more with their distrust in the media than racism. I think the media has caused the hysteria by not doing their jobs for so long. Didn't McCain have to endure (was it Senate) hearings to be sure his birthplace (Panama Canal) was not a disqualifier to be President?

I have resigned to the fact he was not born in Kenya, however, I do believe the media's refusal to cover this (and outright smearing of folks that ask questions) is a little suspicious. Like maybe something embarassing? Or a fudging of the birthdate (so as to meet the States incorporation into the Union date)? Complete speculation on my part - I think IF it's anything, it would probably be that.

I don't like the man, but I think he was born here. If he is covering up something else like his date of birth in the almost State of Hawaii, (which would have been a sleezy way to disqualify anyone), he's toast.

A bona fide loon has join the ranks of other bona fide loons.

What happened, Amy? Slow blog day?

I think it's entirely possible that the "birthers" are right.
That doesn't make them or me crazy.
I also think that there is zero chance that it will be proved and/or that Obama would somehow be deemed no longer the president.
So in that respect, I think the birthers should find something more productive to do with their time.

If Obama's mother was a US citizen, then he is, no matter where he was born.

End message.

There are plenty of other reasons not to like him.

Obama could end the controversy over the birth certificate by authorizing its release. The fact that he does not (1) tells a lot about him, and (2) keeps the controversy going. Regarding point (2), is there a reason he would want to keep the controversy going ?

We all see a presidents' tax returns and medical records. I do not understand why we cannot see the birth certificate. And for that matter, why can't we see his senior thesis from college ? Journalists have found the senior thesis of a Virginia conservative candidate for governor; you would think that Obama's could be found as well.

Nick -

He cannot authorize its release because Hawaii does not have any mechanism in place to do such a release. He released the document they provide. If that's not good enough for you, I can't help you.

What galls me about this whole thing is the entire "birther" movement was started by a Hillary supporter, and somehow it's become a tool of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

Although I'm with you on the transcripts, Nick. We knew everything about the educational achievements of Reagan, two Bushes, Clinton (both), Gore, Kerry, and pretty much all the rest. Not one thing from Obama.

That's the one that interests me. I think a lot of the luster would rub off if Obama was a straight-C student like Bush or Kerry.

Brian:

You may be right. Here is what I do not get. I can get a certified copy of my birth certificate on request to the proper state authorities. Once it is in my hands, I can give it to whomsoever I choose. Why can't Obama do the same ?

Meanwhile, what we and the press have seen is something called " certificate of live birth" which is not the same thing as a birth certificate.

I don't think all the birthers are hysterical or crazy. Really, why WOULD he spend so much to avoid disclosing ANY of his records? Come on, a plumber got his every life detail reported on, but our President gets a complete pass?

Look, I've been through this "Certificate of Live Birth" business, and it is nonsense.

The Patriot act required my youngest daughter to present a "Birth Certificate" when she applied for her drivers license. The "Certificate of Live Birth" issued by the hospital wouldn't do, even though it was the same one the Federal Government accepted when it issued her passport.

We had to go down to the County Courthouse, show her "Certificate of Live Birth" whereupon they issued a certified copy of her "Birth Certificate" which was accepted by the DMV.

That silly charade lasted for a few weeks, until the complaints became overwhelming. Once again, the competence of the Federal bureaucracy is on display.

This is a nonsensical distraction, and it only helps the president for it to continue. I don't want my name associated with the whack jobs, thank you. My disagreements are over policy, not inanity.

How easily some ignore the old adage about a leopard and his spots...

If you need a non-racist view, you can look here for one.

Still mad about "strategery"? I suppose you can pretend our new President is smarter. People do that a lot.

But read his own words. Check his own record.

Obama's refusal to release documents that other presidential candidates have released in the past (medical history, college transcripts, etc.) is adding fuel to this "birther" movement.

Kerry made the same mistake. He fed the hysteria about his military record by refusing to release a detailed military record...despite repeated promises to do so.

The Constitution says: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

"We knew everything about the educational achievements of Reagan, two Bushes, Clinton (both), Gore, Kerry, and pretty much all the rest."

Kerry's school records were suppressed until after the election, to avoid showing that he wasn't the mental giant pictured by his supporters.

I dunno what it is about politics that keeps so many from speaking plainly. Maybe it's a disease.

-----

Maybe I have to put this in bold...

If Obama's mother was a US citizen, then he is, no matter where he was born.

Are we awake yet?

Obama's mother was a citizen. Obama is a citizen. He's over 35 years old. And he has resided in this country for at least 14 years.

He was elected in a legitimate election.

Don't know what the birth certificate is going to show to refute any of that.

He's a crappy president. But he's a legitimate one.

"is there a reason he would want to keep the controversy going ?"

Nick, I think it's a strategy intended to marginalize the opposition by making them look like crazy conspiracy theorists. Having said that... I get Camille's point, and I've seen some polls that show that doubts about Obama's citizenship are a lot more widespread than either the Democrats or the Republicans really want to admit.

But ehhh, I think that as far as practical politics goes, it's a dry hole. Even if it could be definitively proven that Obama does not meet the Constitutional eligibility requirements to be President, the only way he could be removed would be by impeachment, and that wouldn't have a chance in hell with the current Congress. The energies that people are putting into this would be better spent elsewhere.

Radwaste: "If Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, then he is, no matter where he was born"

U.S. Constitution, ArtII, Sec 1 (4) states, "No person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President..." This means that if both your mother and father were citizens and you were born in France, you would not be eligible to be president. I know this may sound unfair, and if so, the Constitution can be amended.

An exception to these rules exist for military and diplomatic families.

See sean at September 18, 2009 4:29 AM

I also think that there is zero chance that...Obama would somehow be deemed no longer the president.

If he is, keep in mind who the next two people in line are - Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi.

Incorrect, Nick. The law is very clear on the matter. Obama is an American citizen. He's not an American culturally, but he is one legally.

Look, here's why the issue stays alive - it was started by a Democrat who wanted his candidate to win the primary. Berg tried to use Obama's methods against him - to wit embarrass or disqualify him and force him to drop out. That failed. The media, ever loyal to Obama, immediately played the whole "birther" movement up as some right-wing fantasy cooked up by the GOP.

And the American people bought it.

Of course, if the Republicans and Libertarians hadn't been more interested in ideological purity, then Obama wouldn't have won the election and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Thanks, Amy!

There has been some controversey over the years over what is meant by "natural born citizen."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

1) Multiple sources have said that the "Certificate of Live Birth" is not valid even in the State of Hawaii to do so much as get a Driver's License.

2) IF (And I repeat, IF) Obama was not born in Hawaii, there was a stipulation in the law defining citizenship at the time (I understand it has changed since then) that, due to his mother's age, would have precluded him being a natural born citizen.

3) He may not be able to authorize the release of the actual document, but he can request a certified copy of the original, long form document. And, I would be willing to bet that someone else born the same year would volunteer to do the same for comparison.

It shouldn't be that big a deal. Chances are he is fueling the controversy because it helps make the people who demand that he provide the documentation he should have been required to do before he was even allowed to be a candidate look bad, and it helps keep some focus off his corruption, lack of leadership, bad policies, and ties to radicals.

I think the birthers would not be satisfied had they witnessed Obama's head crowning. He's presented a birth certificate, officials from Hawaii have certified that it is legitimate. Further questioning of this issue just means you're unpersuadable and therefore should be ignored. Side note: It's funny that one if the birthers' leaders is named ORLY?

The whole "natural born" business in the Constitution is a relic of 18th century court intrigue; as far as I can tell being born on US soil has next to nothing to do with allegiance to our country or Constitution. Some of the more patriotic Americans I know came from elsewhere.

Oppose Obama all you want for what he does. But this birther business is straight up nonsense and only serves to make it easier to disregard the non-crazies who oppose his agenda. As someone who hopes to see him succeed with health insurance reform and greenhouse gas regulation and re-regulation of banks, I personally think the birthers should keep it up.

Oh, and as far as him not being deemed President if it turns out that he ISN'T a natural born citizen? That would be another nail in the coffin for the Constitution, if we can just ignore parts of it that are inconvenient, rather than Amending it as is supposed to be the process.

To all "Birthers" (what an absurd word)...

GET A LIFE!

You really have nothing better to do with your time?

> The whole "natural born" business
> in the Constitution is a relic of
> 18th century court intrigue

Same with that whole "peaceably assemble" thing... Just a relic of yesterday's context, knowutimean?

WayneB, The so called "long form birth certificate" you want no longer exists in Hawaii.

No, you can't obtain a "certificate of live birth" anymore.

The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.

And, it's only available in electronic form.Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.

"At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she said.

Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.

"The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests," Okubo said.

Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate."

"The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models," she said.

Okubo also emphasized the certification form "contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate."

What has been provided is all there is and "contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate. If you don't like it, tough, but what the birthers keep asking for doesn't exist anymore.

But as I said, keep it up, birthers! It sure makes it easier to discredit other parts of the Obama opposition!

That would be another nail in the coffin for the Constitution, if we can just ignore parts of it that are inconvenient, rather than Amending it as is supposed to be the process.

My comment regarding the natural born citizen requirement was more for historical context than to suggest it can simply be ignored now.

http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

Whatever:

As someone who hopes to see him succeed with health insurance reform and greenhouse gas regulation and re-regulation of banks

Man, you really hate this country, don't you? You want to see the availability of healthcare destroyed, you want industry crippled (for a fraud, no less), and even more meddling in the financial system by the same clowns that crashed it the first time?

What the fuck did we do to you to deserve this?

WayneB:You need to pay more attention. The Supreme Court rejected 3 or 4 cases about the birth certificate for lack of standing already. Since nobody has standing, that clause of the Constitution is essentially void anyhow. And if you think the courts respect the Constitution, you really haven't been paying attention. Three cases in the past 6 years alone should be enough to convince you that they don't give a flying fuck - Raich, Kelo, McConnell.

Same with that whole "peaceably assemble" thing... Just a relic of yesterday's context, knowutimean

Yes, it's exactly the same! YOu're so clever

The idea is simple - pick a political enemy, and attack everything you can. Every move, every statement, any potential inconsistency. Even if every single one of them turn out to be true, the disproval won't get nearly as much coverage as the charge. And the average person (read, "idiot") will look at all the accusations and think, "Well, if he's accused of this many things, surely SOME of them have to be true. A sufficient number of "maybes" will eventually equal one "yes".

And it's been done for decades, nay, centuries, and has never had anything to do with anything other than the target is not a member of your party. Heck, sometimes they ARE, you just want their job.

> YOu're so clever

You don't have to flatter me, little fella. People know.

Meanwhile, your fellow voters and citizens await your further instruction on which other parts of the Constitution can be casually dismissed.

Vinnie - see also: Gingrich, Newt.

Meh, Sorry. I misspoke (miswrote). Crid, if you were clever, you could distinguish between an observation about historical context and a proclamation about the Constitution.

Brian, I, and a majority of others, voted for Obama. I hope he implement the policies he ran on. Your team lost. I had to deal with 8 years of Bush, you gotta deal with at least 4 of Obama.

Brian, I, and a majority of others, voted for Obama. I hope he implement the policies he ran on. Your team lost. I had to deal with 8 years of Bush, you gotta deal with at least 4 of Obama.

And your side bithced, moaned, and demanded his impeachment for all eight of them.

I will not simply sit down and shut up while my country is destroyed to satisfy the socialists who think life isn't fair and that they get to ram it up my ass in retribution for their "losing life's lottery".

The bulk of the people who voted for Obama did NOT vote for his policies.

What he's doing now is NOT how he ran. He ran as a centrist/moderate. Tried to paint Hillary as the extremist. Only those of us who bothered to look into his past found the true socialist underneath.

I don't have to deal with shit. Obama can either do what is in the best interest of the nation, or he can step aside to let someone better than him do the job.

My grandfathers and grand-uncles fought in wars to destroy socialism and fascism, and I'll be damned if I let their efforts, and the blood of the patriots who died at their sides go to waste because you're a greedy little thumb-sucker who wants government to care for his every need.

And your side bithced, moaned, and demanded his impeachment for all eight of them.

As apparently yours will, now. It's all so very tiresome.

What he's doing now is NOT how he ran.

He didn't run on health care reform with a public option? He didn't run on cap & trade? Really?

you're a greedy little thumb-sucker who wants government to care for his every need.

Me, I'm a hard-working entrepreneur who wants a public healthcare option because private health insurance is extremely expensive for us (young, healthy silicon valley yuppies) because we're too small.

And I want to control carbon emissions so that we don't fuck up our global climate too badly and end up with more starving people in future generations.

And I'd like regulations that decrease the amount of leverage publicly traded banks can use so that we diminish the likelihood of the failure of the massive institutions our economy depends upon.

Yep, greedy little thumb sucker. That's me.

Re: The birther movement. People who don't understand politics but hate Obama anyway need a hobby, too.

Agree. They voted for him, many of them, because he was not a Republican, and charismatic, and black, and young and cool-seeming.

Too many people vote for dumb reasons. It's like the people who voted for Bush because he "seem like a guy I could have a beer with".

Me, I'm a hard-working entrepreneur who wants a public healthcare option because private health insurance is extremely expensive for us (young, healthy silicon valley yuppies) because we're too small.

You're an idiot. I'm a sole proprietor. The "individual mandate" will put me out of business in 2013, and I'll be forcibly uninsured until then. If you think that government will reduce the cost of insurance, you're either naive or smoking something.

And I want to control carbon emissions so that we don't fuck up our global climate too badly and end up with more starving people in future generations.

Never mind that global warming is a hoax. A warmer planet means extended growing seasons, which means more food. This unseasonably cold summer we've had in the Northeast means we're getting lower yields for everything local.

And I'd like regulations that decrease the amount of leverage publicly traded banks can use so that we diminish the likelihood of the failure of the massive institutions our economy depends upon.

It was over-regulation that caused the problem in the first place. Since lawyers write the laws, and they have to write everything so damned complex, they create all sorts of loopholes that everyone tries to leverage.

Yep, greedy little thumb sucker. That's me.

Yup. Just waiting for mommy government to give you a clean blanket and a fresh binky.

Never mind that global warming is a hoax. A warmer planet means extended growing seasons, which means more food.

A hoax that pretty much every climatologist believes in? That's amazing! How'd they do that?

A warmer planet does more than extend growing seasons; predictions are for droughts of increased severity and duration, and famines in many places, especially within the developing world.

It was over-regulation that caused the problem in the first place.

Yeah, over-regulation. These bits of deregulation had no role in the crisis:

I'm sure that the relaxed leverage rules for investment banks that let them go to 30 or 40x their actual capital didn't increase systemic risk at all...

Letting AIG write billions of credit default swap policies they lacked the capital to make good on didn't hurt anyone...

Repealing Glass-Steagall didn't have anything to do with the crisis either...

A hoax that pretty much every climatologist believes in? That's amazing! How'd they do that?

Actually, more don't than do. The bulk of the "scientists" in the IPCC are not scientists at all. The leader of the IPCC is an economist.

The data from Michael Mann's famous "Hockey Stick" was fraudulent. James Hansen's been caught cooking the books. His GISS data is what IPCC uses in their models, which don't even predict the past correctly.

Finally, temperatures have been steady or dropping for the past ten years, while CO2 concentrations have been increasing. In the math world, they call that independent.

When your theories do not reflect observed reality, it's time for new theories.

In closing, I don't put much stock in the predictions of a politically motivated group whose solution to everything is world government.

Letting AIG write billions of credit default swap policies they lacked the capital to make good on didn't hurt anyone...

Which would never have happened if the whole collateralized debt obligation had never been created to free up capital for lending to meet the FDICs enhanced CDA standards for minority and underprivileged lending.

You're not going to win this one. The Democrats and their continued pandering (aided and abetted by the liberal Bush) are the proximate cause of the financial meltdown.

"He didn't run on health care reform with a public option?"

The current plan is, pretty transparently, a plan that will put us on the road to single payer. Intellectuals in the Democratic Party openly acknowledge this. You'd have to go find a campaign statement where Obama ever advocated for single payer; I can't think of one.

"He didn't run on cap & trade? "

Granted, he made statements about cap and trade, but harldly anyone outside the energy industry understood what that meant, and Obama didn't exactly go out of his way to explain it. The goal of Kyoto is to roll back total energy usage across the Western Hemisphere to 1990 levels.
Rolling back energy usage means rolling back economic activity. Once it's explained to people in these terms, cap and trade gets near-zero public support, as the Senate so famously informed Clinton back when he signed Kyoto.

Many of the other policies that have been implemented by Obama either were not in his platform, or were things that he actually opposed in the campaign:

* Quadrupling the national debt and watering down the currency.
* Nationalization of the finance and automotive sectors, and soon, the health care and energy sectors.
* Unilateral disarmament.
* Abandonment of eastern Europe, empowering Russia in western Europe and worsening America's isolation in the world.
* Turning over Honduras to Chavez.
* Threatening to throw Israel to the wolves.
* Forthcoming middle-class tax increases. Obama has been climbing down from his campaign promise on that for months.
* Re-unionization of American labor.
* Large increases in federal government employment, while the private sector shrinks.
* Increasing government involvement in peoples' everyday lives.

I gotta get back to work. So my last post for a while.

Brian AIG, an insurance company wrote policies they could not pay on because no law made sure they were properly capitalized. This was a business decision on their part and a bad one. No Democrat told them to write these credit default swaps - it was gambling, pure and simple.

Brian, upwards of 95% of climatologists believe man is causing global warming: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Cousin Dave:

The health care bill being proposed right now is quite similar to the one Obama ran on.

If people failed to take the time to understand what cap and trade was, that's THEIR problem.

The goal of Kyoto is to roll back emissions, not energy usage. Clever little switcheroo, though. We can roll back emissions easily, simply by getting rid of coal and adding nuclear.

Nationalizing the banks - I'd say Paulson and Bernanke had pretty much taken care of that before he took office.

Unilateral disarmament - other than ending the missile defense boondoggle, I've seen nothing to indicate this is true. Data, please!

Abandoning Eastern Europe: How are we doing this? His policies there are more similar to Bush's than I'd like. It's insanity to try to bring Eastern European countries into NATO. This is needless provocation of the Russians.

Turning over Honduras to Chavez - The coup there was unanticipated. Plus, who gives a fuck about Honduras? That's their job. You care about Honduras? Why? Is it important to the US in any way?

Increasing the debt had to happen thanks to the massive economic crisis he inherited. We'll see how he does in a few years on that.

Watering down the currency - so far there's no sign of that. If anything, we've experienced a little deflation, not inflation. Plus, it was Bernanke, not Obama who turned that spigot on.

"These bits of deregulation had no role in the crisis:

I'm sure that the relaxed leverage rules for investment banks that let them go to 30 or 40x their actual capital didn't increase systemic risk at all..."

And you're letting Congress - hmm, which produced both candidates for President, let us go check their voting record - off the hook for this.

"Relaxed leverage rules"? Huh? Don't you mean the instructions that unless American banks lent more money to people who were going to be unable to pay it back that the Fed was going to cite them for discriminating?

Witness the outright madness of the American voter, with no basis in fact for their trust in the man they voted for other than the same type of baseless assertions the faithful hear in church.

I can't get the religious faithful to explain how impact craters are all over the Earth if it's less than 10K years old, as they say, and I can't get the Obama faithful to look at the President's history and voting record. They're both mesmerized by the man in the pulpit.

Most are completely at sea about the Constitutional duties of Congress, but that doesn't dampen their enthusiasm for blaming others for their own abject ignorance.

President Barack Obama is going to personally guarantee your comfort and safety for the rest of your life. No expense will be spared to prolong your existence in idle comfort. A home, a "green" vehicle, a proper diet and personal trainers will all be yours if only you have the Audacity of Hope! The fine people of the IRS, TSA, the DOE and HUD have all of this covered, as you have been accustomed to their fine service; they have only been held back from producing the American Utopia™ by a lack of vision on the part of the Executive Branch.

Hackk! Pthoo!

"Letting AIG write billions of credit default swap policies they lacked the capital to make good on didn't hurt anyone..."

One, that was not done in the US. Those credit default swaps was out of their London office - headed up by a criminal by the name of Cassano (who worked under one of the big fish who got pulled in on the junk bond scandle in the 80's).

They were using AIG's US balance sheet to write these CDS's and weren't collecting reserve money with the premiums. They were investing and pocketing all the money. When the home loan industry went teets-up, they had nothing to pay. This was an offshore operation, not that AIG wasn't responsible for it...but how is that a regulation problem? They should have GONE THE FUCK UNDER for not managing their units and dealing offshore - piss poor management = no more company.

So let me make sure I am hearing what you are saying, you believe that a government run insurance and health care provider will be more efficient and and provide you better service than individual free market-type outfits?

Put the tube of glue down and step away from your computer.

Brian, upwards of 95% of climatologists believe man is causing global warming: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Then explain why global temperatures have been dropping since 2000. In direct contravention of every single model and prediction of the warmists. Global Warming is like Jesus - it's not coming back.

The goal of Kyoto is to roll back emissions, not energy usage. Clever little switcheroo, though. We can roll back emissions easily, simply by getting rid of coal and adding nuclear.

A lie. There are no nuclear projects planned in the US, and there are no permits being considered. The same people who want to pass Kyoto are blocking the creation of nuclear, wind, and solar power plants. Their goal is to reduce consumption and return to a pre-colonial standard of living.

You really are a gullible one, aren't you?

We can roll back emissions easily, simply by getting rid of coal and adding nuclear.

We CAN do it this, it's a choice. One we aren't making, but a choice. Personally, I think cap and trade, which is on the table, will be a huge boondoggle that will not make as big a difference as we'd like. A carbon tax makes much more sense and creates better economic incentives.

""Relaxed leverage rules"? Huh? Don't you mean the instructions that unless American banks lent more money to people who were going to be unable to pay it back that the Fed was going to cite them for discriminating?

Yes, I mean relaxed leverage standards FOR INVESTMENT BANKS. The rules that said banks like Goldman could, instead of having debt 12x capital, were permitted to have debt of 40x capital. You DO understand the concept of leverage and the roles it plays in markets, right? And also that investment banks like Goldman are not subject to any sort of "you must make loans" business, nor must they buy those bad loans, etc. As much as you hate things like the CRA, they have nothing to do with the implosion the investment banks. That was those guys' gambling that did them in.

And the investment banks are not the cause of the financial crunch. It is personal credit and default.

Again, if there had not been so much pressure to lend money to individuals, there would never have been any such thing as a CDO or MBS, and certainly never any CDSes.

And your "choice" regarding nuclear is a false one. The same people pushing Kyoto are against any nuclear power plants being built.

Please reconcile that and give me a valid plan for how to overcome that resistance before you spout off on the subject again.

>>If Obama's mother was a US citizen, then he is, no matter where he was born.

Actually, it is not that simple. Here in Mexico we are told if we have a child, we must register it with the Embassy within a certain time. Then, if he stays here, he must as an adult within a certain time file that he has chosen to be a US citizen, as opposed to a Mexican citizen.

The paperwork has to be right, just as you can't bring in a foreign car by putting all the right parts on it and calling it certified.

However, you who mock us 'birthers' forget one highly relevant issue that you hope we forget. HIS OWN GRANDMOTHER SAID SHE SAW HIM BORN IN KENYA.

Maybe she is crazy, I don't know. But that certainly is grounds for any reasonable person to want to have a court hearing on the topic.

Also, conveniently forgetting that records showed at one point he became a citizen of another, third nation which certainly clouds his citizenship status.

You are the same wonderful folks who accused Republicans of making up Monica and the other mistress, for political purposes, until he got on national TV and admitted it was all true. Then, suddenly you didn't want to talk about it any more.

Let me tell you why the Constitution is important, and not just a Republican maneuver to keep us from the Promised Land.

In the large international corporation where I worked, sort of, (I pretended to work and they pretended to pay me), we were run by "Quality documents". The corporate CEO signed a corporate document which mandated each division create a system of quality documents for everything we did.

Each division CEO also signed a division document which mandated that each department have a system of quality documents, which complied with certain standards, and this division also referenced the corporate document as its authorization.

Each department had to establish a system of department quality documents, which also referenced the division authorization.

Everything we did to our product had to be accurately described in a procedure document, as authorized by the department Quality documents.

When ISO came in for certification, all these documents had to be error free and consistent, from the top to the bottom.

So it is in the US. The laws of the State of Alabama only exist because the US Constitution authorizes the existence of states, and gives them all powers not granted explicitly to the Federal Government.

When the courts ignore the Constitution itself, they are negating their own power as courts, because only the US constitution creates their existence in the first place.

Anarchy is a terrible thing. History is full of terrible tragedies when people were involved in anarchy. Mass deaths; starvations; and more.

The courts in ignoring the Constitution are committing anarchy. Anarchy is contagious. And, guess who takes it in the teeth first if we do have mass anarchy? Those same wonderful judges who took over the government.

Right now there is no moral basis for anyone to obey any law in this nation. There is a practical basis, because the police will come and kill you if you don't. But, that's it.

I am not going to say there will be mass anarchy in the US. Much depends upon the Democrats continuing to ignore the Constitution during the next 4 or more years. Also, there are other things which could happen first, such as a major attack against the US by China or Iran, for example.

It is, however, obvious that if we continue as we are, and nothing worse happens first, there will be some sort of anarchy, such as Civil War II.

Personally, I am betting on the invasion, because historically that is what happens to civilizations gone bad.

>>Brian, upwards of 95% of climatologists believe man is causing global warming: ==Whatever

100% of slave owners believed that African men and women were animals suited only to be bought and sold like cattle. 95% of Nazis believed Jews were vermin to be killed as efficiently as possible.

We have had cooling for ten years, and are in a period of low sunspot activity which has been linked to a cool period in the future.

In the early 20th Century, experiments were done which showed that CO2 did not increase absorption of heat. This is all fiction by those who want a world government with, of course, themselves in charge.

Earlier they showed their computer models which 'proved' that R-12 destroyed ozone. They failed to show how a molecule so heavy it seeks the lowest point could get up there to do it. It can't. But, we spent trillions of dollars retrofitting all our a/c, for something that takes much more energy, and now I am told R-134 must also go.

R-12 and R-22 were going off-patent, DuPont had developed R-134a, which required massive work to retrofit existing equipment (it's corrosive to traditional rubber gaskets, which all needed to be replaced with neoprene).

R-134a IS more efficient as a working fluid, but it's more dangerous and more expensive. And most important, still under patent and not producible without paying DuPont.

In the decades since the CFC ban, the ozone hole hasn't changed. Again, when reality and theory do not agree, it is not reality that is wrong.

And the investment banks are not the cause of the financial crunch. It is personal credit and default.

Hmmm... I seem to remember that the panic last fall was precipitated by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, which triggered a bunch of default swap policies underwritten by AIG which led to the freezing of the commercial paper markets which led to...

I can continue.

The bankers who should have known better, the ones with all the inside info drove us off a cliff.

And the ozone hole this year is smaller than last.

Its not my fault that most people who worry about global warming have an irrational fear of nuclear power. I have some fun arguments with my friends explaining to them that if they like their computers and plug-in hybrids and the like, theyd better learn to like nuclear.

Also, there are other things which could happen first, such as a major attack against the US by China or Iran, for example.

What would either of these places gain by attacking us? China is far weaker than we are militarily, is utterly dependent upon us for feedin the economic growth that keeps their population docile, and has shown little desire to use force against Taiwan. And Iran knows we'd love to have the excuse to destroy the mullah regime.

Not to diss, but that comment seems utterly disconnected from any grasp of geopolitics.

"There are no nuclear projects planned in the US, and there are no permits being considered."

Incorrect. Here's a blog article about Plant Vogtle. You can use Google.

One of the things people consistently forget is that aging equipment has to be replaced - including roads, bridges, power plants. The new plant expansion will be nice, too, except for one thing: we haven't a consensus about what to do with expended fuel. We are processing as fast as we can at SRS, and we don't handle commercial fuel (yet).

In the power industry, the public is only looking at "now". Figure out what to do with your hybrid battery yet?

The size of the ozone hole is cyclic. And may be related to cosmic rays. Waiting on research that has been made possible by the lull in solar activity during this extended minimum.

Might be a few years before we have concrete answers on that one.

And again, none of the paper that existed would have been created were it not for the artificial demand in mortgage products created by government.

If the internal combustion engine had never been created, the buggy whip market would still be thriving. It didn't go away because of a failure to regulate the buggy-whip industry.

Rad, I don't know. People can do all the demo projects they want, but the fact remains that there hasn't been a baseline nuclear power plant authorized in the U.S. since I was in elementary school. The Left did an incredibly thorough job of poisoning public opinion on nuclear power. I haven't seen anything to indicate that another large nuke plant will be permitted in my lifetime.

"People can do all the demo projects they want,..."

Oh, now it's a "baseline" - nice try at moving the goalposts. Plant Vogtle is in operation today, and employers have been hiring. It remains that "no permits are being considered" is wrong.

One plant does not national policy make, but if the alternative is to turn switches off or jack up prices, the plants will be built - starting with existing sites.

When Obama first was assailed by this nonsense, he disproved the allegations with a Certificate of Live Birth. The birthers immediately pounced on this as a crude forgery and cited numerous reasons for doing so, such as the supposed lack of an embossed seal. So, Factcheck.org actually viewed and handled the COLB and found each and every specious detail alleged by the birthers was 100% false. (There was an embossed seal, there is a signature and the COLB is completely consistent with the others issued.)

After wiping the egg off their collective face, the birthers suddenly switched gears. "Uh...uh...uh...that's not the...uh...right form of birth certificate...yeah, that's it...uh...those things they give out to anyone...uh...we...uh...need the long form...yeah, that's it..."

The Certificate of Live Birth is issued by the state of Hawaii by those who request a birth certificate. In other words, there would be no COLB if there weren't a birth certificate behind it. That COLB is sufficient proof in any and all courts in this country as proof of birth in this country.

And even if Obama did actually produce the birth certificate, complete with mother's thumbprint, etc., do you imagine for one second, given the idiotic obstinacy and vascillating nature of the entire birther movement, that they wouldn't insist it was a forgery, change the prerequisites for proof (AGAIN!)?

Yes, being a birther does indeed make you stupid (or at least grossly ignorant).

One plant does not national policy make, but if the alternative is to turn switches off or jack up prices, the plants will be built - starting with existing sites.

You know that's bullshit. As long as the Democrats hold the reins of power at the federal, state, and local levels, they will ALWAYS capitulate to the greens, which means no new power generation of any kind.

Their hero Ehrlich summed it up thus: "Giving humanity an endless source of clean, cheap energy is the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."

The left doesn't hate pollution as much as they hate progress. The left, especially the greens, hate humanity and view it as a cancer to be excised to save the Earth.

There's no bargaining with that kind of crazy.

>>The left, especially the greens, hate humanity and view it as a cancer to be excised to save the Earth.

Brian,
I thought it was Clinton who originally wanted more reasonable emission targets in the Kyoto agreement? On the grounds that pie-in-the-sky numbers were worse than no agreement at all?
Am I totally wrong?

I thought it was Clinton who originally wanted more reasonable emission targets in the Kyoto agreement? On the grounds that pie-in-the-sky numbers were worse than no agreement at all? Am I totally wrong?

Yep. The Senate voted 99-0 in a motion to send a message to Clinton that no matter what he agreed to, they would not ratify Kyoto. Clinton signed on to it anyhow. Since the Senate would never ratify it, however, it would never be binding.

Clinton was the champion of Style over Substance.

There are no "reasonable" emission targets as far as carbon dioxide is concerned because it is not a pollutant.

The fact that the same people who demand such targets also demand that they be achieved by physically and politically impossible means ought to tell you everything you need to know about them and their agenda.

as far as carbon dioxide is concerned because it is not a pollutant.

Isn't carbon dioxide what plants "breathe" in? Then they exhale oxygen.

Isn't carbon dioxide what animals (including humans) breathe out?

If we eliminate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, won't the plants die? Then the animals (for lack of oxygen)?

If we have too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, wouldn't the solution be to plant more plants?

If we have too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, wouldn't the solution be to plant more plants?

That's a very helpful part of it. A portion of the carbon offsets our company buys each year goes to reforestation projects. None of this is anywhere near enough to offset the deforestation that is going on in places like Brazil and Indonesia, but it helps.

You want to stop the deforestation of Brazil?

Stop being paranoid about GMOs.

Carbon offsets have nothing to do with offsetting CO2 output, and everything to do with making Algore and Goldman-Sachs wealthy.

Has anyone ever seriously questioned why a divinity school washout is the global authority on climate science?

I think the best thing we could do for the environment and the global economy is take all the greens and burn them in trash to energy plants. Then we don't have to listen to them bitch any more, and they'll stop filing lawsuits to prevent true clean energy projects from getting off the ground.

"You know that's bullshit. As long as the Democrats hold the reins of power at the federal, state, and local levels, they will ALWAYS capitulate to the greens, which means no new power generation of any kind."

Sigh. Obviously - this is why Plant Vogtle is getting permits. (/sarcasm)

Dropped the goalposts, changed the game. Nice going.

Wait - you use a plant that's been online for nearly 20 years as evidence of new construction? Even if they're adding capacity, it's still one plant (already existing) being expanded. Which is a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed.

Compare your one plant example with the hundreds of new generation facilities of all kinds presently in holding patterns pending the outcome of lawsuits filed by various green organizations. They're fighting solar in Arizona and California. They're fighting wind all over the country. And you've found one twenty year old plant that's potentially expanding, and you hold that out as an example?

Straws. You're grasping at them. Because while your precious Vogle is expanding, we've shut down all but one of our nuke plants in Connecticut, and I'm relatively certain that only one in Mass remains in operation. And there are no plans to add capacity in any meaningful sense to the Northeast.

Which means another NYC blackout is all but inevitable.

I'd call your example the exception, not the rule. Although you're free to say that it proves me completely wrong since there's one permit out there.