Topics – Page 4 – Zombies Uncensored

Birthers: Political Motivations vs. Legal Questions

Roland Martin on AC360: Birther Backers are Stupid

COOPER: Roland, let me just play devil’s advocate — advocate here. What’s wrong with the state of Arizona saying, you know what? A presidential candidate should produce a birth certificate, and — and we have the right to demand that?

ROLAND MARTIN: Because they’re stupid. They’re stupid. OK?

Anderson Cooper started out playing the devil’s advocate, but did not pursue it very far, and I can see why. This is one of those polarizing issues that tends to be loaded with emotional responses, a “you are either with us, or against us” controversy.

Pointing out facts supporting either side’s arguments is asking simply asking for an unsavory label. Since I’ve yet to hear or read devil’s advocate points aimed at both sides in this debate, I’ll give it a shot.

COOPER: No person — no person, except a naturalized born citizen shall be eligible to the office of president. That’s from Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution. Now, flash forward — forward to today, only 58 percent of Americans — 58 percent of Americans in a recent poll said they believe President Obama was born in America.

It does not matter what anyone believes or disbelieves as to where Obama was born. The birth certificate that has been shown would be considered proof of citizenship in any court in the land. The legal fact is, Obama is a natural born citizen of the US.

COOPER: John, do you agree this is all about politics?

JOHN AVLON: Yes. It has become all about politics.

Issues surrounding ballot access are always about politics. It was politics when McCain’s birthplace was questioned, and it was politics when Obama had other Democrats kicked off the ballot. Neither party can claim the moral high ground when it comes to ballot access politics.

ROLAND MARTIN: Then he kept talking about, to demonstrate that he’s qualified. Well, what does that mean? As you so put it, did any of the 43 previous white guys have to demonstrate that they were qualified to be president? These are the games they’re playing. And, so, this simply feeds into this continuing notion that he’s not legitimate.

Chester A. Arthur -21st president of the United States- had to defend himself from the same type of accusations of being born in a foreign country. Barry Goldwater faced the issue when he ran for President, he was born in the Arizona territory three years before it became a state.

COOPER: It’s one thing for — for people to understandably be confused about it or have — formed some opinion. But it’s another thing for legislators to actually act on it and — and use taxpayer time and money to — to focus on this kind of stuff.

MARTIN: Right. And that’s why — I know, John, I know we want to be nice about it, but I’m sorry. If we keep putting out fact after fact after fact, and people don’t believe the facts, they’re stupid, John. That’s what we call them in the real world. Maybe it’s not nice or P.C. to call them that on television, but this is ridiculous.

AVLON: It is.

MARTIN: Think about it. This is a state — a house of representatives in a state saying, forget another state. Forget a Republican governor. Forget the — the head of the health department. Forget all of them. They’re all wrong. We want to see it ourselves. This is crazy.

It might save time and money to have this law on the books. With a dozen or so lawsuits, the courts have already spent plenty of taxpayer time and money on this issue. The polling mentioned only 58 percent of Americans believe President Obama was born in America, so the trend of court cases is likely to continue.

The motivations are political, but that doesn’t invalidate legal questions over checking eligibility prior to being put on the ballot. One of the birth lawsuits had some merit in that it did not challenge Obama specifically, and instead challenged all the candidates because none had their eligibility to hold the office checked.

One of the candidates on the same ballot with McCain and Obama, was Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero. Roger Calero has never hidden that he was born in Nicaragua.

The Arizona law won’t be a problem for President Obama, because the same birth certificate that was shown before will be shown again. What the law will prevent is someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger

or Paris Hilton getting on the ballot in 2012.

Peter Schiff: Congress, Wall Street, Goldman, AIG, SEC

Peter Schiff April 21st 2010 on the Financial Regulation Bill

Peter Schiff quickly sums up the tangled web between congress and Wall Street.

Congress is trying to tell us, that one of the reasons that we need this financial regulation is to make sure that taxpayers are never again forced to bailout these too big to fail firms.

Well, who was it that forced us to bail them out in the first place? The same guys that say we need this bill, it was congress, congress bailed them out, and they did it despite the fact that they had no legal authority to do so, in fact bailing them out was unconstitutional.

We don’t need new laws, we just need to force congress to obey the laws that already exist. What congress is saying is that we need rules to prevent us from doing again, what we never should have done in the first place.

Schiff also explains the Goldman Sachs, AIG, SEC relationship.

These securities that Goldman Sachs is being accused of fraudulently marketing, these are the very securities that brought down AIG. AIG went bankrupt because they insured securities like this.

In fact they insured some of the very securities that the SEC in now charging Goldman Sachs with fraudulently creating and marketing. And as a matter of fact, when AIG went bankrupt, twenty billion dollars of the money passed through AIG hands right to Goldman Sachs hands.

So they can collect the money that they made wagering against their own securities, that the SEC is now accusing them of fraudulently creating. I mean come on, the right hand is bailing them out and left hand is slapping them on the wrist.

This whole thing is a complete fiasco. If congress had simply allowed AIG to fail, Goldman probably would’ve been bankrupt. That would have been a much bigger punishment if they’d been involved in fraud than simply making them pay a small fine…

I keep hearing the free market regulating itself is a fantasy. In this climate, it really is a fantasy because congress bails out companies that should have failed. Maybe someday we’ll live in the fantasy world where unwise and fraudulent companies just go out of business.

Peter Schiff: Congress, Wall Street, Goldman, AIG, SEC

Peter Schiff April 21st 2010 on the Financial Regulation Bill

Peter Schiff quickly sums up the tangled web between congress and Wall Street.

Congress is trying to tell us, that one of the reasons that we need this financial regulation is to make sure that taxpayers are never again forced to bailout these too big to fail firms.

Well, who was it that forced us to bail them out in the first place? The same guys that say we need this bill, it was congress, congress bailed them out, and they did it despite the fact that they had no legal authority to do so, in fact bailing them out was unconstitutional.

We don’t need new laws, we just need to force congress to obey the laws that already exist. What congress is saying is that we need rules to prevent us from doing again, what we never should have done in the first place.

Schiff also explains the Goldman Sachs, AIG, SEC relationship.

These securities that Goldman Sachs is being accused of fraudulently marketing, these are the very securities that brought down AIG. AIG went bankrupt because they insured securities like this.

In fact they insured some of the very securities that the SEC in now charging Goldman Sachs with fraudulently creating and marketing. And as a matter of fact, when AIG went bankrupt, twenty billion dollars of the money passed through AIG hands right to Goldman Sachs hands.

So they can collect the money that they made wagering against their own securities, that the SEC is now accusing them of fraudulently creating. I mean come on, the right hand is bailing them out and left hand is slapping them on the wrist.

This whole thing is a complete fiasco. If congress had simply allowed AIG to fail, Goldman probably would’ve been bankrupt. That would have been a much bigger punishment if they’d been involved in fraud than simply making them pay a small fine…

Nominee for Worst Government PR Campaign: EPA

EPA Contest Seeks Videos Promoting Government Regulations (CNSNews.com)

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is encouraging the public to create video advertisements that explain why federal regulations are “important to everyone.”

The contest, which ends May 17, will award $2,500 to the makers of the video that best explains why federal regulations are good and how ordinary citizens can become more involved in making regulations. The videos must be posted on YouTube and can be no more than 60-90 seconds in length.

In the current contest, each video must include the slogan “Let your voice be heard,” and it must direct viewers to the government’s regulatory website www.Regulations.gov. The winning video will then be used by the entire federal government to promote the regulatory process and enhance the public’s participation in it.

The regulations.gov site not only highlights the video contest, but has lots of other useful information. You’ll find a searchable database of all documents on their site. It’s possible to find out how many regulations there are about any subject.

I’ve always thought there was a plethora of federal regulations, but I had no way to quantify these regulations, until now. Here are some random keyword searches from the regulations site, and the resulting number of rule matches.

Windows (1303)
Dirt (145)
Hair (132)
Schools (2437)

But wait, there’s more! The site claims on its front page, “On average, federal agencies and departments issue nearly 8,000 regulations per year.'” The site also has newly posted regulations, and the numbers in there don’t match up with the front page.

For today–April 19th, 2010, 74 regulations were posted, and in the last year there were 23,867 regulations posted. Can you now see why the federal government needs your help? With roughly twenty-four thousand regulations in the last year, they need all the help they can get to thoroughly promote them!

The site also allows you to comment on rules, but only rules that are open to comments. In the 145 rules on dirt, only two are open for comment. I’d post a comment, but I’m fairly sure a comment thanking them for exposing just how bloated and overbearing such regulations are would not be appreciated.

Soon there will be other contests concerning government regulations, but they won’t be coming from the EPA. This video promotion is an easy setup for limited government people to hold contests of their own. How about a find things the government does not regulate contest? I tried searching for something not regulated, but even flatulence was mentioned in a proposed rule.

How about an award for worst government PR campaign? The EPA should at least be a nominee for that award.

National Day of Shut the Hell Up

Federal judge rules National Day of Prayer unconstitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0omBnUcdnm4

This video is about the controversy surrounding the National Day of Prayer. As pointed out in the video, a National Day of Prayer is nothing new, and has a long history in the US. The Continental Congress even issued a day of prayer in 1775 as “a time for prayer in forming a new nation.”

From judge Barbara Crabb’s ruling:

“It goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgment’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context,” she wrote. “In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”

Acknowledgment of religion by anyone in the government is fine; the first amendment to the US Constitution should not be turned into a denial of religion. Judge Crabb’s ruling is correct on the part about the government is taking sides in a matter of individual conscience.

The real problem is not over religion–it is any time the government takes sides in areas of individual conscience. The government should not be used to call for days of service, or prayer, or to honor Confederate soldiers. The role of government is not to direct the conscience of the country.

The Constitution should go further in limiting the role of government’s interference in areas individual conscience. It’s a shame the constitution doesn’t have an amendment telling the government to “shut the Hell up” in areas of individual conscience in general.

These non-binding proclamations waste and time and money. They often lead to lawsuits because for every pro position, there is an anti position. Someone will speak up and say, “This doesn’t represent my views and the government should not be taking sides.”

Stop wasting tax dollars and the resources of our courts on these non-binding proclamations over what the people should think about or honor. The time of our government officials could be put to much better use if they were instead focused on their job and not proselytizing to the people.

National Day of Shut the Hell Up

Federal judge rules National Day of Prayer unconstitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0omBnUcdnm4

From judge Barbara Crabb’s ruling:

“It goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgment’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context,” she wrote. “In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”

Federally Funded PBS: Why are Voters Upset how Taxes are Spent?

PBS Town Hall: role of government and how tax dollars are being spent

JUDY WOODRUFF: We came to Tampa, Florida, to throw a spotlight on what Americans think the role of government should be and how their tax dollars are being spent. To that end, we asked our local PBS affiliate, WEDU, to help us round up the people you see behind me, all residents of this area.

There is just so much wrong here, I’m not sure where to start. The painful irony of seeing tax dollars spent to air why the public is frustrated with how tax dollars are spent.

It should come as no surprise that in discussing how tax dollars are spent, PBS fails to mention the 430 million PBS takes from tax payers each year. There was no mention of conflict of interest from the federally funded broadcast network. Any other media organization would be chastised for failing to mention their connection to the organization they are covering.

What you won’t hear in this video: No mention of the original role of the federal government. Nothing about the amount of money spent on two wars. Nothing about federal spending in regards to subsidies, corporatism, or the war on drugs. Watching this PBS spotlight on voter frustrations on how tax dollars are spent is like watching the drunk looking for keys under the streetlight–because the light is better.

Federally Funded PBS: Why are Voters Upset how Taxes are Spent?

PBS Town Hall: role of government and how tax dollars are being spent

JUDY WOODRUFF: We came to Tampa, Florida, to throw a spotlight on what Americans think the role of government should be and how their tax dollars are being spent. To that end, we asked our local PBS affiliate, WEDU, to help us round up the people you see behind me, all residents of this area.

There is just so much wrong here, I’m not sure where to start. The painful irony of seeing tax dollars spent to air why the public is frustrated with how tax dollars are spent.

Libertarian Values: Not Mainstream Just Yet

From Chris Stirewalt’s piece titled “Hating the government finally goes mainstream” at the Washington Examiner. Emphasis added to illustrate libertarian values aren’t described as mainstream in the mainstream media.

Three years ago, the Republican establishment piled scorn on the presidential candidacy of Ron Paul.

Today, he is in a statistical tie with President Obama in 2012 polling. His son, an ophthalmologist who has never run for elective office, is well ahead of not only the GOP’s handpicked candidate for Senate in Kentucky but also both Democratic contenders — all statewide officeholders.

What happened? Did America sudden develop an insatiable appetite for 74-year-old, cranky congressmen from Texas? Is the gold standard catching on?

Paul will not likely be the next president. And his son still faces the most arduous part of his journey as Democrats spend millions to paint him as soft on defense, lax on drug enforcement and too radical on welfare programs.

But there’s no doubt that hating the government and the powerful interests that pull Washington’s strings has gone from the radical precincts of the Right and Left to the mainstream.

…Libertarian sentiment has finally gone mainstream.

Libertarian values haven’t gone mainstream just yet. You’ll know when those values have hit mainstream when they aren’t described with negative connotations. Once a political perspective goes mainstream, it’s described with positive adjectives.

With abortion, the sides are generally described as pro-choice and pro-life. If the sides in abortion were described as baby-haters or choice-haters, it would sound as if they are against something rather than for something. Part of the reason for using the pro-adjectives is both positions are mainstream, in that both groups represent a large number of people.

It’s polite to refer to these groups in a positive sense of what they favor rather than pointing to what they oppose. Referring to others in the positive terms they prefer shows your respect, even when it’s a view you don’t share.

Libertarian values are often not shown the same respect as other views, because they are described as haters, radical or cranky. If others valued or respected those views, they would be framed in a more positive light.

For those who are not trying to alienate others, here are a few suggestions for how to refer to those with libertarian views in a more respectful and polite manner.

Liberty-minded
Pro-freedom
Libertarian
Limited government advocates
Individualist
Fiscally Conservative – Socially Liberal

To other liberty minded individuals out there, if there are other terms you prefer, just leave it in the comments and I’ll update the list; thanks.

Happy Hour for the Pauls, and for Freedom

Congressman Ron Paul on Happy Hour April 14

Happy hour sums up how I feel about Ron Paul today. First there was Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.

Also today, Ron Paul introduced the “End the Mandate Act,” to take out the mandatory portion of the new health care law.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the End the Mandate Act. This legislation repeals the sections of the recently-passed health reform bill that forces all Americans to purchase federally-approved health insurance plans.

Forcing every American to obtain health insurance is a blatant violation of the Constitution. Defenders of this provision claim the Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate “interstate commerce” gives Congress the power to mandate every American obtain a federally-approved health insurance plan.

However, as Judge Andrew Napolitano and other distinguished legal scholars and commentators have pointed out, even the broadest definition of “regulating interstate commerce” cannot reasonably encompass forcing Americans to engage in commerce by purchasing health insurance.

And wait-there is more: Retiring Senator Jim Bunning named Rand Paul (Ron Paul’s son) as his chosen successor today.

“Dr. Paul will be his own man in Washington, not beholden to the special interests and beltway insiders who come looking for handouts on a daily basis,” Bunning said. “Instead, Dr. Paul will be a strong voice and advocate for the people and values of Kentucky.

Normally I would complain about media bias for the “I think I love him” comment at the end of the clip. I can tolerate my own bias pretty easily, so I’ll let it go, and just say its happy hour for the Pauls and happy hour for freedom.