The World According to Me

Once again the rabid right has taken on a talking-point buzzword without knowing what it means.  A couple of blogs ago I wrote definitions of the usual buzzwords; socialism, communism, fascism, dictatorship.  Now it appears I must once again enlighten my fellow Americans on the right to the true meaning of another of their buzzwords.  This one was coined by none other than the Fake Noise Crapper (FOX News), as a description of the protests that have broken out against President Obama’s policies.  The nature of the protests began, innocently enough, with angry constituents sending teabags to their representatives in Washington (and to the White House).  This is supposed to somehow recreate the famous Boston Tea Party where the colonists protested the improper taxes levied on them by King George III.  This protest is against…well, pretty much everything Obama does, from the stimulus to the budget to Michelle’s dress to probably his choice of the family dog.  As usual, they’re not for anything, they have no specific agenda, no ideas, just a rising chorus of NO to vent their anger at being in the minority opinion.  The culmination of these protests is a mass gathering in (according to the various disfunctional groups organizing the thing) over 400 cities across the country, complete with Republican guest speakers.  The act of participating in these protests, as coined by FOX News through the auspices of such liminaries as Glenn Beck, Sean Hanity, and the other voices in the rightie echo chamber, is know as teabagging.

Now I’ll give you a second to stop snickering.  Obviously these folks got their naming ideas from Dr. Evil from the Austin Powers movies.  Since the people participating in these teabaggings <more snickering> probably have no idea what the term really means, I suppose I should help them out to avoid further embarrassment.

From Wikipedia:

Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his testicles in the mouth^[1] or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice vaguely resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea.^[2][3]

Teabagging is also an erotic activity used within the context of BDSM and male dominance, with a dominant man teabagging his submissive partner, either a woman or a man, as one variation of facesitting and/or as a means of inflicting erotic humiliation.

jawillie-I tried to respnd to you on the same site, but I may have been timed out.

I will take you up on your challenge.  First, understand that the federal government uses the tax code to encourage activity it deems desirable, and to discourage activity inappropriate for the times.  For example, when the savings rate was considered too low, and inflation was a problem, the first $400 of interest earned was exempt from taxation.  When inflation was under controll, and the government wanted people to spend, it eliminated the exemption.

Economies grow because of economic activity fed by the multiplier effect.  In the
US, the multiplier across all sectors is 2-for every dollar spent, 2 are generated in the economy.  How?  Think about the grocery store.  Each item you buy goes to pay the checkers, stockers, bookkeepers, truck drivers who delivered them, manufacturers who made them-etc.

Construction has a multiplier of 12.  Therefore, the way to start to jumpstart the economy is through construction.  While housing sales were up last month, that was of existing stock, fed by bargain hunters, (I know, I was one).  New construction is what is needed, so what I would propose would be that, for two years, all closing costs be deductable as tax credits-across the board.  I would also make home interest 100% deductable for the same period of time, and then revisit the issue to see where we were at the end of that period.

By the way, government construction does not have the same multiplier, but a lower one of 4.  Why?  Well, the formula is complicated, but it takes into account the fact that taxation is also subject to the multiplier, or its reverse-for eery dollar taxed, two are removed from the economy.  It considers the losss ofproductivity from increased traffic on construction of existing roads, and also the cost of corruption.  yes, indeed, that is factored into every government contract.  You’d think if we knew enough to account for it,m we could stop it-but I’m not a lawyer.

This is where I would start to jumpstart the economy.  I’d do more, but I doubt that the moderators would give me the space I’d need to spell it all out.

 

My response.

 

Joe,

 

I’ve been trying to get this in all weekend.  I’m at a conference in Alexandria, VA (Communist County according to Joe McCain) so I barely have time to answer this.  What I’d like to say is that your post DID give me some food for though.  In principle I agree with you.  However, I differ on the timing of new construction. 

 

You have to keep in mind that corporations and business aren’t doing much expansion these days, and the housing market is still in the tank because people just aren’t buying.  A sudden glut of construction at this point runs the risk of another bubble, which is why we’re in the situation we’re in now.  The bottom line is that people need money to spend.  Money from a reliable, steady income.  Infrastructure spending creates jobs.  Roads will always need repair, powerlines will always need replacement, water mains break, piplines need maintenance.  Even if these jobs are temporary or contracted, they create income.  That spurs consumer spending, which spurs demand, which spurs manufacturing, all of which creates more jobs (permanent) and spurs the kind of construction you propose.  That will also allow for the tax-credits and deductables (I wouldn’t go so far as 100%).

 

So I’ll agree that new construction can improve construction, there has to be a need for it first.  I’d be happy to go into detail on this, but I’m pressed for time at the moment.  But I will say that I prefer this level of debate rather than the usual shouting matches that take place here.  It’s amazing how you can see just how much you have in common with people when you’re not screaming at each other.

 

Per
Washington Post:

 

Asked why he waited several days to publicly express his frustrations after finding out about the AIG bonuses, he coolly said: “It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.”

 

Interesting concept, this “knowing what I’m talking about before I speak” business.  It’s good to have a president that actually thinks on a subject before expressing expertise on it.  Sadly, it is a philosophy that far too many in the country he leads fail to follow.  Particularly his critics, who bandy about words like “socialism”, “communism”, “fascism”, “dictatorship”, and others, with absolutely no idea what they mean.  Case in point…

 

 

Kinda pathetic, isn’t it.  To be totally against something (and perhaps rightfully so), but have absolutely no idea what is means, or why you should be against it (or how to spell it).  However, that never seems to matter to the ignorant and gullible among us, who are so easily manipulated by the talking points of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.  They take a measure of pride in their lack of sophistication, often expressed in blog comments and called in rantings on talk radio.  To them, intelligence and critical, independent thought is actually more terrifying to them than the so-called “socialism” they claim to fear.  It is terrifying because it would require a level of personal responsibility, the need to know what they’re talking about before talking, then actually have to prove their point.  See, these are people who want everyone to hear them, but they really don’t have much to say so they say whatever they’re told by right-wing talking heads, Fox News, evangelical preachers, special interests, anyone who tells them anything remotely resembling what they want to hear.

 

Well, I’m about to take that comfort away from them.  Here are definitions of the words that they most use to describe President Obama’s policies.  I don’t expect that this will change their minds much (and may terrify them even more).  However, at the very least it will serve as a guide so that the next time they bring up the word “socialism” or any other of the rightie buzzwords, they won’t have to go to their blackberry to look it up.  Unfortunately, it will place one more burden upon their already overburdened intellectual capacity.  They’ll actually have to prove their point.

 

From Merriam-Webster Online:

 

Socialism

1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2.  
   1. A system of society or group living in which there is no private property
   2. A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Communism

1.  
   1. A theory advocating the elimination of private property
   2. A system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2.  
   1. A doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the USSR
   2. A totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
   3. A final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
   4. Communist systems collectively

 Dictatorship

1. the office of dictator
2. autocratic rule, control, or leadership
3.  
   1. a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique
   2. a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated
   3. a despotic state

 Fascism

1. a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2. a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

 
President Points to Progress on Economic Efforts
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032403207.html?hpid=topnews

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/

Those of you who have school-aged children (or were school-aged children yourselves) may understand what its like to be an outsider trying to fit in.  Actually, kids and adults at some place in their lives find themselves trying to be a part of the “in crowd”.  That clique of “cool kids” on the block (or the job) that always seemed to have it all.  Money, friends, popularity, and most of all, power.  Power is probably the most important attraction, as these were the “kids” who could seemingly get away with anything and catch all of the breaks.  So you, in your pathetic desperation to be a part of something big, would compromise everything you were about to be a part of this group.  When you were a kid, you slack off from your school work and let your grades slip.  You’d become a troublemaker, perhaps taking up nasty habits like cutting class or smoking.  As an adult you may find yourself adopting a devil-may-care attitude toward work, or taking positions that you don’t agree with.  Anything to be a part of the “in crowd” because, after all, that’s the whole point.  Everyone wants to be popular.  Everyone wants to be loved, even if it means selling yourself out.

 

Enter current Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele.  In the four weeks since he’s been RNC chair it would seem, if you can believe a tenth of what has come out of his mouth, that he’s compromised just about every position that he’s held.  It started with an interview with DL Hugely where he said this about Rush Limbaugh.

 

Rush is not the head of the Republican Party. He’s an “entertainer” whose show is “incendiary” and “ugly.”

 

He later offered his mea culpa to Limbaugh, claiming to “have enormous respect for Rush” and conceding that he “was maybe a bit inarticulate”.  While hardly the pinnacle of his ineptitude to that date, it certainly the most glaring.  Then there was the GQ interview where he indicated his belief in abortion as a “choice”, and that people are “born” homosexual.  These comments, particularly the one regarding abortion, also having to be quickly squashed via an RNC spokesperson as follows (from First Read).

 

“I am pro-life, always have been, always will be,” Steele said. ”I tried to present why I am pro life while recognizing that my mother had a ‘choice’ before deciding to put me up for adoption. I thank her every day for supporting life. The strength of the pro-life movement lies in choosing life and sharing the wisdom of that choice with those who face difficult circumstances. They did that for my mother and I am here today because they did. In my view Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. I realize that there are good people in our party who disagree with me on this issue. But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life. I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment. It is important that we stand up for the defenseless and that we continue to work to change the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen so that we can welcome all children and protect them under the law.”

 

BTW, the Human Life Amendment that Steele mentions amount to essentially a Constitutional amendment to ban abortions.  So that’s yet another flip-flop for the chairman.

 

So one would think at this point in the game that our hero Michael would give up on his quest to be part of the “in crowd”.  However, as resilient as ever, he gives what would amount to perhaps his most bizarre interview yet.  Guest hosting William Bennett’s national conservative radio program, he went on a pure tirade.  He lambasted Republicans for inserting their own earmarks into the omnibus spending bill, compared Obama to Nixon, described the current political climate as “Armageddon”, blamed the media for all of the charges against him and the calls for him to step aside, and in the most mind-boggling example of relaying something as fact that you know is fiction, he gives his view of Global Warming.

 

“We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I am using my finger quotation marks here, is part of the cooling process. Greenland, which is now covered in ice, it was once called Greenland for a reason, right?
Iceland, which is now green. Oh I love this. Like we know what this planet is all about. How long have we been here? How long? No very long.”

 

Now let’s get a couple of facts all around.  Greenland has been covered in ice for, like, FOREVER.  Most of it lies north of the Artic Circle (that would be the NORTH POLE).  Furthermore, scientists have noted that the average ocean temperature off of Greenland’s west coast has risen from 38.3 degrees Fahrenheit to 48.6 F, and glaciers have begun to retreat (see AP story http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9255431/ ).  As for Iceland, it’s always had a somewhat more temperate climate than Greenland, and it is volcanically active.

 

And finally, let’s not forget the “hip-hop” image makeover he plans to give the GOP, wanting to apply the party’s principles to “urban-suburban hip-hop settings” and employing everyone including “one-armed midgets” to do it.

 

So you have Mr. Steele desperately trying to be one of the cool-kids, compromising everything about himself, and telling his audience what he thinks they want to hear.  The problem is that he’s failing miserably.  Several members of the RNC, including NC Republican Dr. Ada Hill, have called for him to resign.  He’s been criticized by no less than Mike Huckabee, Tony Perkins, and Ken Blackwell, who gave the following according to the Washington Post.

 

“Chairman Steele needs to reread the Bible, the U.S. Constitution and the 2008 GOP Platform,” Blackwell said. “He then needs to get to work or get out of the way.”

 

So it’s obvious that Steele isn’t making many friends among the “cool kids” in the GOP.  And much like most people who desperately crave popularity at any cost, he’s pretty much sold out everything he’s believed in, leaving himself a shell and sham of his former self.  One can only feel sorry for Michael Steele, and wonder if it may indeed be a good idea for him to resign as RNC chair.  He’s not doing the party any real service, and he’d clearly be much better off in a position where he can speak his mind freely, without the constraints of the conservative party platform.  His only alternative is to continue to make a fool of himself trying to make Republicans like him, much as we used to do in High School when we wanted to hang with the “cool kids”.  The thing of it is, though, as anyone who’s attended their High School reunion will attest to, the “cool kids” didn’t turn out so cool once they grew up.

 

Michael Steele GQ Interview

http://men.style.com/gq/blogs/gqeditors/2009/03/the-reconstruct.html

 

First Read Trackback

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/12/1833769.aspx?p=0

 

Michael Steele on William Bennett

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/16/steeles-tour-de-force-com_n_175317.html

 

Washington Post Story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031203315.html?hpid=topnews

 

 

For 8 years the Republican party has used fear and intimidation on the American public to push through their agenda.  They used it to garner support for invading
Iraq.  They used it to give George W. Bush a second term in office.  The GOP, perhaps more than any other political party, know how fear can be used as a powerful motivator.  In the right (or wrong) hands, fear can be used to gain capitulation, obedience, subservience, and even silence.  So perhaps one can understand their own fear of one Rush Limbaugh.

 

Over the past month, no less than three prominent Republicans, GA Congressman Phil Gingrey, SC Governor Mark Sanford, and RNC Chairman Michael Steele, have all had to apologize to Limbaugh after criticizing him and/or his show. 

 

Steele before:

Rush is not the head of the Republican Party. He’s an “entertainer” whose show is “incendiary” and “ugly.”

Steele after:

“My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh…”
“I was maybe a little bit inarticulate… There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”
“I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking…”

 

Gingrey before:

“I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. “

Gingrey after:

“I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments and I just wanted to tell you, Rush, [...] that I regret those stupid comments.”

 

Sanford before:

“Anybody who wants [President Obama] to fail is an idiot, because it means we’re all in trouble…”

Sanford’s Communications Director after:

“the governor was not referring to anyone” in particular…”

 

And it’s not just these guys.  Republicans up and down the party are tripping over themselves to keep from stepping on Limbaugh’s toes.  During separate interviews on separate networks, both AZ Senator (and former presidential candidate) John McCain, and MN Governor Tim Pawlenty appeared to turn sheet white at the mere mention of his name.  LA Governor Bobby Jindal was all but ejaculating praise upon Limbaugh.  And still others in the GOP are either falling in lock-step with his call to “hope Obama fails”, or doing everything they can just to keep from pissing him off.

 

Now let’s all put on our Freudian psychoanalysis hats and dig deeper into this GOP cowardice.  To wit, what exactly is it about Rush Limbaugh that makes them so afraid to challenge him.   Why don’t these guys, who are responsible for running this country, simply tell him to simply STFU.  I think the answer is probably simpler than most of us realize.  The truth is that the GOP really isn’t afraid of Rush Limbaugh in particular.  They’re afraid of the audience he controls.  The red-meat, extreme right wingnut, conservative base that are his avid followers (“dittoheads” as he calls them).  These people hang on his every word.  Unfortunately for the Republican party, they’re also what’s left of their pool of reliable voters, less than ¼ of the country.  At Rush’s command, they will either vote with the GOP, or vote against them.  For a party that needs all of the votes it can get, it’s a very uncomfortable fence to be sitting on.  They’re stuck between disavowing his angry rhetoric and alienating the only base of reliable voters they have, or going along with him and alienating everyone else. 

 

Needless to say, the Democrats are enjoying every second of this.  Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs makes a point to bring up Rush’s name at every conference.  Rham Emanuel is very comfortable in his role as instigator in the Rush vs. GOP smackdown.  Even Obama has made reference to the GOP joining at the hip to Rush.  However, the Democrats need to be careful about overplaying this.  The thing about fear is that it eventually goes away.  Sooner or later the GOP will wake up from their self-imposed nightmarish devotion to the loudest voice in their party.  At some point, Republicans will realize that marginalizing themselves to the most extreme wing of their party can’t possibly serve them in the long term.  2010 isn’t far away, and sooner or later they’re going to leave their comfort zone and start going after the “real” meat of their party, moderates.  At that point the Democrats had better be ready, or be crushed.

 

In the meantime, we’re all just content to sit back and watch the show.  After all, Rush is an entertainer.  (Sorry, Rush.)

 

I paid a visit to my little bro for dinner Sunday.  Both of us being kind of amateur politi-junkies, we checked out a couple of documentaries (one actually a movie) that, in retrospect, we probably shouldn’t have watched back to back.

 

First we checked out the HBO Documentary “Right America: Feeling Wronged – Some Voices from the Campaign Trail.”  In this doc, Alexandra Pelosi (
Nancy’s daughter) takes us on a tour of so-called “Real America” and its fears about an Obama presidency.  Now, I knew from reading various blogs that folks on the right are still in massive denial about the new president, but this doc was a real eye-opener to the absolute stupidity and ignorance that exists in the small pockets of what the GOP considers “Real America”.  These are people who not only cling to their guns and their religion, they cling to their ignorance, their bigotry, their general lack of sophistication, and their resistance to change.  One person in the doc was wearing a homemade t-shirt that was supposed to say “No to Socialism”, except “socialism” was misspelled.  When asked by Pelosi to define socialism, he started to pull a Palin and told her he’d look it up.  When pressed, he stumbled through an explanation that made it clear he had no idea what he was talking about, and was merely repeating a McCain campaign talking point (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h3cJQJkc_o).  In another segment, a grown man was literally in tears lamenting against political correctness, “You can’t fly the confederate flag no more, you can’t say nothing no more…It used to be, one time, we’re top dog. Now we’re nothing. All the immigrants coming here, they got all the rights, we got nothing.”

 

As amazed as I was at this shameless display of extreme right-wingism, I found it impossible to be angry at these people, or even mildly annoyed.  In fact the only emotion I could muster for these people was pity.  My anger is at the GOP itself, as they are targeting these people because of their ignorance and their fear, and manipulating them in order to keep them in line.  This is what is left for the GOP, people who put no more thought into their political views than they would into shooting a moose.

 

Part two of the evening’s entertainment was the Michael Moore Documentary “Sicko,” where he takes a look at America’s health care system and compares it to government run systems in Canada, France, England, and Cuba.  Now, before I go further, I should disclose that this is the first time I’ve seen the film.  Furthermore, I’m going by what I got from the film itself and not from any empirical research of my own, so take this part with the grain of salt that it’s worth (which is how you’re supposed to view all blogs anyway, right?).  That being said, watching this film and seeing how other countries treat their citizens regarding health care as compared with the hoops we’re forced to jump through here, I was amazed at just how bass-ackwards we are here.  In the film, a couple in France pulling in about $8,000.00 a month net, pays the same in health care as someone who makes practically nothing.  That would be ZERO.  It’s the same in London, and in Cuba, and Canada.  And yet the people live longer, are healthier, and are living better than most of us making the same amount of money and paying into private insurance.  This is what the people in the first documentary would call SOCIALISIM.  Meanwhile, people in this country who are underinsured or uninsured are DYING from our system of profit run health care.  A system where the goal is not to keep individuals healthy, but to keep money in the pockets of private insurance executives, and the politicians (Democrat and Republican) who support them. 

 

Again, because I’m writing this based merely on my impression of the film, I’m providing links to views, pro and con, of both France’s and Canada’s socialized health system to allow you to draw your own conclusions.

 

My point in all of this is to ask a simple question.  How did we get to this place?  When did we become so self-preoccupied, so self-centered, so selfish that we can’t see beyond our own petty needs and fears?  When did we become so divided into Left-America and Right-America that we’ve been blinded to the duty we all have to care of ALL of America?  It would be easy to blame 8 years of the Bush “with us or against us” agenda, but it would also be wrong.  However, this leaves an even more disturbing alternative.  Perhaps we’ve always been this way.

 

Canadian Single-Payer Health Care System: Is It Better Than US Health Care?

http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1503

 

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

 

The Health Care System Under French National Health Insurance: Lessons for Health Reform in the United States

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447687

 

Health Care BS – French Health Care for the US

http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/08/13/french-health-care-for-the-us-merci-non/

 

Back in October, I blogged here about Barack Obama’s citizenship, and established that he is indeed a United States citizen based on his Hawaiian birth certificate, which has been authenticated by just about anyone who’s seen it, and Kenyan law which does not allow duel citizenship ( http://jawillie.blog.com/4051479/ ).  Of course, for the rage infected right this was wholly unacceptable.  As seen by the recent tirade by conservative Alan Keyes, and comments by
AL senator Richard Shelby, this dinosaur of right-wing talking points refuses to find its way to the nearest tar pit and die off.  So I’ve decided to go about killing this dream of disqualifying Barack Obama’s presidency once and for all. How does one kill a dream?  One does it by exposing it to reality.  I’m going to totally debunk the most persistent myth of the right-wing, and thus murder their dream that Obama is ineligible to be president.  For those of you who are preparing to trek to Kenya in search of the mythical birth certificate of Barack Obama, you may want to unpack.  To wit, you could go to Kenya and find a giant billboard saying, “Here is the spot where Barack Hussein Obama was born” and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.  Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States of America and thus legitimately President of The United States, regardless of where he was physically born.

 

Ok, now that the snarling from the right has died down, we’ll get on to the explanation.  Let’s start with some previously established facts.  First, Barack Obama’s mother was born in Kansas, and thus a US Citizen.  His father was born in Kenya.  And unless someone can find proof to the contrary, we must accept as fact that Barack Obama himself was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.  Now here’s the passage from the United States Constitution regarding eligibility to be president.

 

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.

 

Now, we must pay particular attention to the phrase natural born here.  It’s important.

 

Next, the following from the U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Form Services website www.uscitizenship.info.  This is from their FAQ page regarding citizenship and birth.

 

Generally, people are born U.S. citizens if they are born in the United States or if they are born to U.S. citizens:

(1) By being born in the United States
If you were born in the United States (including, in most cases, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), you are an American citizen at birth (unless you were born to a foreign diplomat). Your birth certificate is proof of your citizenship.

(2) Through birth abroad to TWO United States citizens
In most cases, you are a U.S. citizen if ALL of the following are true:

·        Both your parents were U.S. citizens when you were born; and

·        At least one of your parents lived in the United States at some point in their life.

(3) Through birth abroad to ONE United States citizen
In most cases, you are a U.S. citizen if ALL of the following are true:

·        One of your parents was a U.S. citizen when you were born;

·        Your citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before you were born; and

·        At least 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after your citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

 

What all of this means is that physical birth location is irrelevant.  One is a natural born citizen by virtue of parentage, not location.  The gist if this is by virtue of his parentage, specifically his mother being a US citizen at the time of his birth, Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the US regardless of where he was physically born.  (Technically, he held dual citizenship with Kenya until he was 21 when his Kenyan citizenship expired in accordance with their constitution).  So even if you were to find a Kenyan birth certificate stating that Obama was actually born there, it would mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

Of course you righties will argue the semantics of “natural born”, whether or not it means “physically born on American soil.”  However the constitution makes no such distinction.  Specifically, it states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  Nothing more.  In fact, the constitution does not even define “natural born”, just who qualifies as a citizen.  And any lawyer can take the above information and argue that Obama is a natural born United States citizen despite where he was physically born, which probably explains why the US Supreme Court refused without comment to even hear the case that was brought last year regarding his eligibility.  It’s the argument John McCain (who was born in Panama) used regarding his citizenship and eligibility to be the Republican nominee for POTUS (both of his parents were US citizens).  The bottom line is that Barack Hussein Obama is the President of the United States, and once again, righties, you got nothing.  ENDOSTORY!

 

Now, because I’ve effectively killed your hopes and dreams, I’m going to give you a gift.  Not because I feel sorry for you, or because I’m just a nice guy, but because I don’t think that you have the brains to figure this out for yourselves, and frankly I enjoy watching you chase your collective tail here.  If you still insist in pursuing your quest for the Mythical Obama Birth Certificate, here’s some advice.  You should probably expand your search to include his mother’s birth certificate as well.  Failing that, you should probably direct your attention to finding proof that Obama denounced his American citizenship.  You’re not likely to find either, but like I said, I enjoy seeing you chase your tail on this.

 

Shelby story:

http://www.cullmantimes.com/local/local_story_052203445.html

 

The United States Constitution:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

 

U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Form Services – FAQ:

http://www.uscitizenship.info/citizenship-library.htm

 

The running theme in the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” is every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings.  The running theme for the Obama political climate may be somewhat similar.  Every time Obama has a success, a conservative loses his/her mind.  The signing of the Stimulus bill by President Obama this week provided three indicators that the rubber band currently holding together GOP sanity may have finally snapped.

 

We start with MN congresswoman Michele Bachmann.  This is the congress woman who went on national TV and called for an investigation of members of congress to see who is “anti-American” during the campaign (and spent the remainder if it since denying she ever said it).  In a recent radio interview she goes on a tirade of every right-wing talking point bashing the stimulus, bashing Obama, and bashing Democrats and liberals in general.  Steve Benen from the Washington Monthly extracted these bullet points from the radio interview.

 

* ACORN is “under federal indictment for voter fraud,” but the stimulus bill nevertheless gives ACORN “$5 billion.”

 

 * many members of Congress have “a real aversion to capitalism.”

 

* the stimulus bill includes a measure to create a “rationing board” for health care, and after the bill becomes law, “your doctor will no longer be able to make your healthcare decisions with you.”

 

* the recovery package is part of a Democratic conspiracy to “direct” funding away from Republican districts, so Democratic districts can “suck up” all federal funds. Bachmann doesn’t think this will work because, as she put it, “We’re running out of rich people in this country.”

 

* the “Community-Organizer-in-Chief” is also orchestrating a conspiracy involving the Census Bureau, which the president will use to redraw congressional lines to keep Democrats in power for up to “40 years.” When the host said he was confused, noting that congressional district lines are drawn at the state level, Bachmann said Obama’s non-existent plan is an “anti-constitutional move.”

 

As you can see, all of these talking points have been debunked ad-nauseum by any rational thinking person (or your average 12 year old) willing to do about 20 minutes of research.  Of course, that doesn’t stop the rage infected right from continuing to spread and believe these falsehoods, much as they would probably believe the e-mails coming from the foreign exchange student from
Zimbabwe promising them $3,000,000.00.

 

But whereas Bachmann’s shrill was merely indicative of early stage dimentia, the rantings coming from conservative Alan Keyes (who got his ass spanked by Obama for the 2004 IL senate seat) varies from mere screed to borderline incitement to violence.  Still in Stage One of conservative grief over Obama’s election, denial (see my blog entry http://jawillie.blog.com/4572815/), he continues his quest for the mythical Kenyan Birth Certificate.  In commenting on it, he goes into a rant that stops just short of a call for sedition.  In fact, had this been about Bush, and had it come from, say, Louis Farrakhan or Jeremiah Wright, doubtless folks on the right (and probably the left as well) would be calling it treason.  In an interview in Hastings, NE he says:

 

“Obama is a radical communist, and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it’s true…He is going to destroy this country, and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”

 

“Is he president of the United States?   According to the Constitution, in order to be eligible for president you have to be a natural born citizen. He has refused to provide proof.”

 

“I’m not sure he’s even president of the United States, neither are many of our military people now who are now going to court to ask the question, ‘Do we have to obey a man who is not qualified under the constitution?’ We are in the midst of the greatest crisis this nation has ever seen, and if we don’t stop laughing about it and deal with it, we’re going to find ourselves in the midst of chaos, confusion and civil war.”

 

He goes on to call Obama “somebody who is kind of an alleged usurper, who is alleged to be someone who is occupying that office without constitutional warrant to do so,” and even refuses to refer to him as President Obama.  Putting aside that no less an authority than the Supreme Court has rejected these challenges to Obama’s presidency, and that the birth certificate provided by President Obama has been authenticated by anyone who cared to look at it, Mr. Keyes assertions and rantings make him seem less like a former senate candidate and more like someone who should be dressed in a Pee-Wee Herman suit and selling bean pies on the street corner.

 

The final ode to Republican insanity comes from the RNC chair himself, Michael Steele.  His latest wacky scheme to win the hearts and minds of the American people: Hip-Hop.  According to a Washington Times article, Steele plans an “off the hook” public relations offensive to attract younger voters, especially blacks and Hispanics, by applying the party’s principles to “urban-suburban hip-hop settings”.

 

From the article:

 

“We need messengers to really capture that region - young, Hispanic, black, a cross section … We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-surburban hip-hop settings.”

But, he elaborated with a laugh, “we need to uptick our image with everyone, including one-armed midgets.”

 

While it is at least laudable that Steele seeks to include young people in the political process, one needs to look at what he has to work with.  He’s in a party of old White men, most of whom are evangelical Christians.  In addition, he has to contend with people like Rush Limbaugh, Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, and David Duke.  This doesn’t exactly scream “SOURCE Awards.”  The best he can hope for is to not come off looking like someone’s middle-aged parents trying to be hip.  Good luck with that.  Meanwhile, I hear Joaquin Phoenix is looking for a rap gig.

 

In the end, if the GOP ever hopes to regain the hearts and minds of the American people, it would probably be a good idea for it to locate its own mind first.

 

Michele Bachmann story:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016922.php

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/02/20/bachmann-on-the-attack-again-were-running-out-of-rich-people/

 

Alan Keyes story:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-birth-cer.html

 

Michael Steele story:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/19/steele-gop-needs-hip-hop-makeover/

 

In his best selling book Race Matters, Dr. Cornel West gives probably the most apt depiction of both the liberal and conservative views on race in
America.  In his introduction he writes:

The liberal notion that more government programs can solve racial problems is simplistic – precisely because it focuses solely on the economic dimension.  And the conservative idea that what is needed is a change in the moral behavior of poor black urban dwellers…highlights immoral actions while ignoring public responsibility for the immoral circumstances that haunt our fellow citizens.

The common denominator of these views of race is that each still sees black people as a “problem people”…rather than as fellow American citizens with problems.

 

He goes on to write:

…we confine discussions about race in America to the “problems” black people pose for whites, rather than consider what this way of viewing black people reveals about us as a nation.

            This paralyzing framework encourages liberals to relieve their guilty consciences by supporting public funds directed at “the problems”; but at the same time, reluctant to exercise principled criticism of black people, liberals deny them the freedom to err.  Similarly, conservatives blame the “problems” on black people themselves – and thereby render black social misery invisible or unworthy of public attention.

            Hence, for liberals, black people are to be “included” and “integrated” into “our” society and culture, while for conservatives they are to be “well behaved” and “worthy of acceptance” by “our” way of life.  Both fail to see that the presence and predicaments of black people are neither additions to nor defections from American life, but rather constitutive elements of that life.

 

The above is probably the best way to analyze reactions to this week’s glaring examples of our aversion to racial issues in America.  At a Department of Justice program Wednesday, the nation’s first African-American Attorney General Eric Holder told the audience that this country is a “nation of cowards” when it comes to discussions of race.  Of course, this had the very predictable effect of pissing off some Whites who often walk around with the attitude of “I’m not prejudiced, some of my best friends are black”.  However, as someone who works in a predominately White working environment, I can tell you first hand that Mr. Holder not only got it right, but described the situation better than anyone, Black or White, ever has.

 

The controversial New Your Post cartoon that some say depicted Barack Obama as the chimpanzee that was killed by police after attacking a woman, featuring the caption “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill”, provided the most glaring example that racial issues did not go away simply because the nation elected it’s first African American president.  If anything, the election of Barack Obama brought the issue even more to the forefront, complete with all of the resentment and bitterness that accompanies this issue.  The HBO documentary, Right America: Feeling Wronged shows a glimpse of some of this bitterness among the right wing (though the documentary shows this as part of a much larger issue).  And while our first inclination is to view the issue through the usual (and liberal) prism of White on Black prejudice, Blacks are not at all innocent.  During the campaign, some Blacks were resentful of Obama because they felt that he did not speak enough about “their” issues, and sometimes criticized Black men for not stepping up to their responsibilities as fathers.  Much of this came to light when the Reverend Jesse Jackson was caught in an off-mike moment accusing Obama of “speaking down” to African-Americans, and wanting to “cut his nuts off”.  On the flip-side, many Blacks have very strong reactions to any criticism of President Obama, legitimate or otherwise, feeling that such criticism is born of White racism.

 

The point of all of this is that as much as we’d like to burry this in a post-electoral feel-good moment, the issue of race didn’t disappear on November 4^th 2008, nor is it going away anytime soon.  What we also need to realize is that it isn’t something that should go away.  Race and ethnic diversity are as much a part of the American body politic as straw hats, whistle stop tours, conventions, and political cartoons.  It is something that need not, and should not, divide but be celebrated.  However, if we are to ever get to that point, we need to acknowledge the problems that are inherent in our cultural diversity, and our individual responsibilities for, and to, those problems.  Furthermore, we all have to do the heavy lifting here.  We all, Black and White, liberal and conservative,  have to be willing to put the cards on the table and open ourselves up to the level of scrutiny necessary for a meaningful discussion on race.  As it relates to the issue of White to Black, Dr. West has this to say.

 

To engage in a serious discussion of race in America, we must begin not with the problems of black people but with the flaws of American society – flaws rooted in historic inequalities and longstanding cultural stereotypes.  How we set up the terms for discussing racial issues shapes our perception and response to these issues. 

In reading the political blogs from the left and the right, I’m noticing something rather interesting in the postings from the rage-infected right-wing.  Their reaction to Obama’s presidency is not unlike the 5 stages of grief.  It is clear that many on the right are going through a process that is not unlike grieving.  Reading the postings in some of these blogs, it’s easy to categorize them into one of the five stages

 

• Denial – People at this stage are still looking for the mythical Kenyan birth certificate of Barack Obama, thus proving that he was not born in this country, and is ineligible to be president.  Failing that, there was the flubbed oath of office on January 20^th, which some felt didn’t count and he therefore wasn’t president.  Never mind that the constitution states that he became president at 12:00pm on January 20, 2009 whether was taking the oath at the time, or taking a piss.  Still, out of what they call “an abundance of caution”, President Obama and Justice Roberts did the oath again in private.  That’ll shut the right-wingers up, NOT.
• Anger – Folks at this stage are the real whack jobs.  They don’t present any real arguments for their positions.  They just bash Obama, the Democrats, and anyone who supports them.  They’re the most vitriolic, and frankly, bigoted of rage-infected right.  Sadly, they also represent what is left of the GOP base.  They’re the ones who dutifully showed up at the McCain/Palin rallies accusing Obama of being a terrorist, and shouting “Kill Him”.  When Obama talked about people who cling to their guns and their Bibles, these are the ones he was talking about.
• Bargaining – These are the Limbaugh Zombies who are following the directives of Rush Limbaugh in hoping that Obama fails.  They’re hoping that enough scandal (like some of his tax challenged cabinet appointments), coupled with failure of his policies would be enough to make the public want to oust him from office.  At least enough to make him a one term president. 
• Depression – This is the doom and gloom stage.  Folks at this stage are convinced that the country is facing economic, social, and military doomsday.  Dick Cheney is pretty much at this stage, stating his belief last week that America is going to be attacked if Obama dismantles the procedures that the Bush administration put in place to “protect us from terrorist,” otherwise known as TORTURE.
• Acceptance – Yeah, like that’s gonna happen.  Not with these people.  At this point, they’re never going to accept Obama as president.  Whether it’s his party, or his race, or their own affection for Bush and having their patriotism spoon-fed to them, to these folks Obama is the anti-Christ (some actually call him that, no lie).  For them, it’s going to be a very long 4 to 8 years.

 

I’d give these people one recommendation if I thought for a second that they would take it to heart.  That would be, GET OVER IT!