Cheney Smacks Biden
Dec 21, 2008 Political
This is cross posted from my friend Ms. Underestimated’s site.
On today’s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Chris had an exclusive interview with V.P. Dick Cheney. This particular portion deals with what Biden has said in the past about Cheney being the most “dangerous” vice president in history. Heh. You know what’s coming next.
Transcript from Fox News:
WALLACE: During the vice presidential debate in October, Joe Biden was asked about your interpretation of the powers of your office as vice president, and here’s what he said.
BIDEN: Vice President Cheney’s been the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history.
WALLACE: Transition officials say that Biden plans to shrink his office, that he is not going to meet with Senate Democrats the way you did every week with Senate Republicans, that he is not going to have his own, quote, “shadow government” in the White House.
Biden has said that he believes you have dangerously expansive views of executive power.
CHENEY: Well, I just fundamentally disagree with him. He also said that the — all the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch are laid out in Article 1 of the Constitution. Well, they’re not. Article 1 of the Constitution is the one on the legislative branch.
Joe’s been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a member of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, for 36 years, teaches constitutional law back in Delaware, and can’t keep straight which article of the Constitution provides for the legislature and which provides for the executive.
So I think — I write that off as campaign rhetoric. I don’t take it seriously. And if he wants to diminish the office of vice president, that’s obviously his call.
I think that President-elect Obama will decide what he wants in a vice president. And apparently, from the way they’re talking about it, he does not expect him to have as consequential a role as I’ve had during my time.
OUCH! That’s GOTTA leave a mark! I honestly think that if Cheney would have run for President, he would have had a really good shot. In fact, a long-held “political fantasy” of mine would have been a “Lynn Cheney for President” ticket! I DEFINITELY would have been behind that one.
Big Dog’s Comment: VP Dick Cheney has been made out to be a villain but he has done a decent job as VP. As an individual he has given millions of dollars to charity, far more than his successor has given in his entire life.
Biden is a moron who will say about anything and often speaks before his brain is engaged. I do believe though that Obama will keep him out of the loop so he does not get in the way of “change.”
Many thanks to Ms. Underestimated for sharing.
Also see Democrat Equals Socialist
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: biden, cheney, constitution, vice president
Obama Illegitimate Until He Proves Otherwise
Dec 7, 2008 Political
There has been an issue with Barack Obama since well before the general election and that is, is he qualified to serve as president? This issue does not deal with his skill to hold the job (in that case he is definitely unqualified), no in this instance it deals with his qualification under the Constitution. Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen as required by our Constitution or has the biggest con game in America been perpetrated by the man who wants to move us to Socialism and his henchmen in the DNC?
Before we go any further let’s dispense with the fraud that his supporters will undoubtedly bring to light. No you morons, Obama did not provide a copy of his birth certificate and his BIRTH CERTIFICATE was not verified by anyone. A Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was released. It was verified as real, big deal. A COLB is just proof that a birth is registered in Hawaii, not that the bearer was actually born there. Hawaii allowed foreign births to be registered up until the mid 1970s and it is possible that the reason Obama has not released the vault copy of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE is because he was not born in the US. For you moonbats who insist that this is a closed issue because The One has demonstrated his US birth, you are delusional and your argument lacks credibility. The COLB is not, nor will it be, a valid proof of citizenship.
At issue here is whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the US. There are many indicators that he is not and thus not qualified to serve as president. Two years ago, Sarah Herlihy, who has ties to Obama, wrote this:
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution, “undecidedly un-American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.” Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:
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.
Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency. Source
Does anyone on this planet think she actually had any concern for Arnold Schwarzenegger? Does anyone really think her concern was for poor Arnie or was she laying the groundwork for the future of the Lightworker? Admittedly, this piece does not mean Obama is not natural born, it is just one piece of an interesting puzzle.
Obama’s grandmother in Kenya says that she was at the bedside when he was born. She has stated this a number of times and she has not changed her story. The media pay little attention to this but she has said it more than once. The people in Kenya have stated they are having celebrations in Obama’s birthplace (and it is not in Hawaii).
Obama’s travels as a youth and young man tend to indicate that he was not an American citizen because he went to places Americans were not allowed to go. If he had an American passport he would not have been allowed to enter. If he had any other passport he is not natural born because he would have given up his American citizenship because the US did not recognize dual citizenship with these countries because they would not recognize them.
Obama has refused to release his college records. Those records could very easily demonstrate that he was registered as a citizen of another country. Of course they could show that he was registered as an American though one would think that he would release anything that helps prove his claim. Perhaps he was registered as a Muslim and he does not want people to know that because he said he was never a Muslim (and the media gave him a pass on that lie).
No hospital on Oahu claims to have had Obama or his mother as patients. I realize that calling hospitals for information is a shot in the dark and what you get might not be accurate because of confidentiality but Obama and his sister said he was born there and they named different hospitals. Both of those facilities claim that Obama and Obama-momma were not there. Once again, this is the least reliable because people are asking about events from nearly 50 years ago. Do we expect the hospitals to be able to find old paper records now? That is what birth certificates are for.
And therein lies the issue. The easiest thing that Obama could do to clear the issue up is to release his vault copy birth certificate. It would cost about $10 to get it and I am willing to bet that Hawaii would wave the fee for Obama. Instead, Obama has spent untold amounts of money to keep his birth certificate under lock and key. His records in Kenya, where one reporter alleges to have seen a Kenyan birth certificate, have been locked up tight. In Hawaii, whatever documents the state has on the Messiah are locked away as well.
I am not convinced that Obama is qualified under our Constitution to be president. I realize that there are those who will claim that this is sour grapes because he won but this is not accurate. This issue has been out there since he was still slugging it out with Hillary. It has been ignored by the media and the public. I readily admit that I did not want Obama as the president but he won. If he is qualified then good for him and bad for America. However, he has failed to demonstrate his qualification. I don’t care how many of his buddies think the Constitutional requirements are stupid, the fact is they are the law and they apply to Obama just like they do everyone else.
I realize that Democrats believe that our Constitution is one of convenience. If they want something they will jump all over the issue of the Constitution but if they do not agree with something they will say it is living and that it is subject to interpretation. The fact is, it is not a living document and it says what it does for a reason and it is our duty as citizens to ensure it is followed by the lawmakers who work for us.
This is my entire issue. I don’t care if it is Obama or Ronald Reagan, if they fail to demonstrate they are Constitutionally qualified then they should not hold the office. Unfortunately, there are many who think we have bigger fish to fry. This, to them, is not a big deal. None of the news networks are interested in covering this. Where are Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and all the other voices of conservatism? Have they begun practicing for the imposition of the fairness doctrine? Of course, I imagine if Obama’s birth certificate is revealed and it shows him unqualified these entities will be all over the airwaves telling us how they were on top of it. Bill O’Reilly, who is silent on the issue, would tell us he caused it to happen and that he is looking out for us….
As it stands right now, the issue will be up to the courts ruling on any number of the lawsuits filed challenging Obama’s status.
I predict the Supreme Court will take a pass on the issue. The Court lacks the testicular fortitude to do the right thing no matter how hard it is. Some of them will worry about riots if they rule The One unqualified and others will worry that they looked partisan and had agendas. They will worry that they will be viewed in a bad light when in reality they will only be doing their job under the very Constitution that they have sworn to uphold.
If this issue is not important enough to pursue then we lose standing. In the future, how can we expect the courts to take us seriously when we have an issue with them in regard to the Constitution? What happens to our standing in the future when they make some rule denying free speech or taking guns away or if they require people to perform so many hours of (non punitive) community service without recompense? All these would violate the Constitution but if we allow them to dictate the terms on which items are challenged then we will certainly lose standing and in the not too distant future our founding documents will be little more than words on paper.
Those who fear riots are cowards. The people who wrote our Constitution knew they would be at war when they signed it and they did so anyway. Those who allow fear to decide their protection of our Constitution dishonor the men and women who have spilled blood protecting it and those it governs since our country was formed.
If Obama fails to actually be transparent like he swore he would when he was pandering for votes then his legitimacy will remain in question. If he cannot obey the law then why should the rest of us obey anything he and his Congress comes up with? Screw them. They have no regard for the law so why should the rest of us worry about anything they put forward. Until Obama proves he is qualified to be president, anything he signs is not legitimate.
It is amazing that in 2000 when George Bush won the lawsuit that Al Gore filed, the left went bonkers and called Bush the Illegitimate President. Now, eight years later, they have their own guy who might actually be illegitimate and they are ignoring it.
I said before that if he won he would be my president but he will not be my president until he proves that he is qualified under the rules contained in the document he will swear to uphold. Until Obama proves he meets the criteria then he is illegitimate.
Barry, spend the $10 and put this issue to rest.
Big Dog Salute:
Canada Free Press | World Net Daily
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: birth certificate, constitution, crime, fraud, Obama, socialism
Why Won’t Obama Produce His Birth Certificate?
Dec 3, 2008 Political
The question of Obama’s citizenship will not end, and rightly so. I know the left and the Obama-bots say that he has proven he is eligible to be president but he has not really satisfied the requirement because he has not shown a vault copy of his birth certificate demonstrating he is “natural born.” The statement from the Hawaii official was nuanced (perhaps to avoid charges of lying) record on file. Hawaii allowed foreign births to be registered and the COLB (Obama’s “proof”) was is issued for that.
Here are the facts:
The only thing Americans want is for Obama to prove he is eleigible to hold the office of the presidency. If he produces the proof then all is said and done and we can move on. By not producing a vault copy of his birth certificate (and spending a lot of money to fight releasing it) he is giving the appearance of guilt and demonstrating (once more) contempt for the Constitution.
The left said that George Bush was illigitimate from day one because they could not accept his victory which they believed the court handed him. Obama is illigitimate until there is proof that he is qualified to hold the office.
Our Constitution still matters.
Big Dog Salute to Wild Thing.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: birth certificate, constitution, cover up, illigitimate, Obama
Out Of Touch RINO; It is Not Your Money
Nov 20, 2008 Political
The problem with the Republican party is not that it has too many low brow Christians as claimed by Kathleen Parker . The problem is that the Republican party has too many people in it who are Republicans In Name Only (RINO). These are the people who are registered as Republicans and say they are conservative but then support issues that are not in any way, shape, or form, conservative. This is true especially true for elected Republicans.
The left and its propaganda wing in the media would have us believe that the last election shows that conservatism is dying but this is a mistaken belief based on a false assumption. They say conservatism is dying because McCain lost but McCain is no conservative. If the party had run a true conservative Obama would be in the Senate trying to bail out the auto makers instead of killing business in Chicago.
The problem with RINOs is that they have most of the beliefs of liberals but they are registered and elected as Republicans. Case in point is Republican Representative Joe Knollenberg of Michigan. He has this misguided belief that the money the government has actually belongs to the government. While discussing the bailout of the auto industry with Neil Cavuto this RINO said that the money belongs to Congress and they will do with it what they want.
I have stated this before but it is worth mentioning again. Government does not earn money, it does not have its “own” money and the only way it gets any money is to forcefully take it from the people who actually earn it. The money in question (in fact, all the money) belongs to the US taxpayer and not to the Congress or any other government entity. The people who earn that money expect the people they elect to be good stewards of that money and to spend it wisely and in accordance with the Constitution. Knollenberg is the type of Republican that needs to be removed from office. We need to get rid of all of them who think like liberals. We might suffer in the short term with larger Democratic majorities but in the long run it will be best for the party and the country.
Knollenberg naturally wants to help the auto industry because he is from Michigan and he is entitled to have the opinion that we need to help them. However, he needs to remember that the money he is talking about also belongs to people from the other 49 states and they have a right to say how it is spent.
I believe that the auto makers should file for bankruptcy and let the chips fall where they might. The companies have been poorly run and hijacked by union thugs. They put out inferior products that people do not want and now they want the people to foot the bill for their ineptitude.
If the federal government spends OUR money bailing out the auto industry then it will set a precedent that allows other industries that make bad decisions to run to DC with their hands out. Government does not belong in the private sector.
If the government spends our money on the people who flew corporate jets to DC to beg for cash then I will NEVER buy another product made by any of the recipients of the extortion scheme. I urge all readers to consider this as well. If they get our money then you should consider one of their competitors when it comes time to replace your vehicle. Why reward their incompetence. If they get the money then we can use the power of our purse to put them out of business.
It might seem harsh and it will suck for the employees but the time for playing games is over. Let the market handle things and if they cannot compete then they will be forced to change or they will disappear.
NEW TAX FORM
Line 1: Amount you earned last year ______________
Line 2: Send the amount on line 1 to the government.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: auto makers, bailout, Congress, constitution, money, RINO
Obama Can’t Convince Those Clinging To Guns
Sep 7, 2008 Political, Second Amendment
Barack Obama has the same problem most liberals do when it comes to the Second Amendment and that problem is, they don’t support it. When they are in office and not running for election or reelection they all talk tough on gun control. They want to remove guns from the streets because that will end violence, blah, blah. They continue with this even though cities with the toughest gun control laws still have huge numbers of people killed by guns and in places where LAW ABIDING citizens are allowed to carry guns, crimes are lower. Of course, when they are running for office they act like proud supporters of the Second Amendment and that it is a right and they would not take guns. Some of them dress up like Elmer Fudd and pretend they actually support gun ownership ala John Kerry. Barry Obama finds himself in a similar spot because he has always supported strict gun control measures. He supports Chicago’s gun ban and he supported the unconstitutional gun ban in DC (both are unconstitutional but only the DC ban has been ruled on). Barry is having trouble convincing the people that he is one of them and that he believes in gun ownership:
A woman in the crowd told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”
“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.
So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’ Wall Street Journal
Conservatives don’t have to prove they will uphold the Second Amendment because their record is clear on the issue. The problem is that Liberals can’t seem to understand that the Second is as important as any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights and without it, the others would likely be in peril. Obama has opposed gun ownership and he did so in his own handwriting on a candidate survey. He now says he believes the Second is an individual right (which it is and always has been) and that we can uphold the Second by allowing cities to put restrictions in place for public safety.
Have we ever heard a politician discuss restrictions on any other right enumerated in the Constitution? Suppose Senator Obama or any other Liberal wanted to allow free expression of religion except that cities could put limits in place for public safety? How about no Islamic Mosques in city limits because the call to prayer disturbs non Muslims? How about no Mosques or Synagogues in city limits because Muslims hate Jews? Maybe we could have the city shut down certain websites from reaching the city limits or certain newspapers because the comments contain hate filled speech. Imagine if a really Conservative city banned any liberal media from being sold there, in the interest of safety. Words can incite hatred and violence, better be careful.
Suppose people like Obama felt that that the Fourth Amendment is an individual right against unlawful search and seizure but that cities with high crime rates and other social problems had a right to regulate that for public safety. Maybe they could say that all cars in a certain high violence area would be stopped and searched for weapons and that homes in the area would be randomly searched for meth labs, guns and other illegal items, all in the name of public safety. Why is it that the Second Amendment is treated differently than the others?
Obama does not support the Second Amendment. His position is now more to the center because he is in the general election and he needed to tact to the middle in order to gain voters. One other telling item is that Obama selected Biden as his running mate. Biden is known as Mr. Gun Control. Biden claims to have written the assault weapons ban (which bans only law abiding citizens from having them) and has given a rating of F by the NRA. Joe Biden thinks that if you own a weapon and you consider it your “baby” you need your head examined. He believes in strict gun control and has voted against the Second Amendment so how does this square for Obama as a believer in gun rights?
Obama saw in the hand picked audience that he had skeptics with regard to his position on gun control. Saracuda hit him hard on how he spoke to people in San Francisco compared to how he spoke to those who cling to guns and religion in Pennsylvania and the rest of Middle America. It seems she was very accurate on this issue and Obama is finding it out. It is not reassuring that he said even if he wanted to he did not have the votes in Congress. Keep in mind that the Democrats are expecting to pick up enough seats to rubber stamp anything Obama wants so he WILL have enough votes, if all goes according to their plan. I also think it is funny to see the whine which basically said; C’mon, this is not really a reason to not vote for me, is it?
Your damn right it is! If we cannot trust a politician to uphold all of our rights then it is reason not to vote for him. If you had held the beliefs in my examples above there would be plenty of people who would think it was good reason not to vote for you. As a matter of fact, Obama and his running mate have both stated that they would pursue criminal charges against George Bush if they get elected (Biden said that was a lie and wanted to know where people got the idea. It was the video of him saying it, I think). These alleged crimes include violations of the Constitution. Ignoring the Second Amendment is a violation of the Constitution. People are not convinced that Obama believes in the rights of gun owners and they have good reason to be concerned. Obama has lied about his positions, here they are.
Barack Obama is having trouble with Middle America and part of the reason is his stance on Second Amendment rights. The left expects gun control and one of the things they view as negative about Palin is her lifetime membership in the NRA. Obama is beholden to the left and he will try to limit gun ownership.
The left is out of touch and Obama demonstrated that with the position that we could have a right and regulate it with control for some but not for others (which is what he really means). Criminals will not follow any kind of ban. They drank during prohibition, they use drugs that are illegal and criminals use guns everyday. They will not obey the law.
Why should anyone believe what Obama says anyway? When he won election to the US Senate he said he was not qualified to be President. Nothing has changed since then but now he is??
Believing that gun control will stop criminals from using guns is like believing that ethics reform will keep members of Congress from being unethical.
Tags: constitution, gun control, nra, Obama, Second Amendment