The American Spectator

DLB| 4.21.11 @ 6:49AM

Ryan is Obama's Goldstein.

ENOUGH ROPE| 4.22.11 @ 4:35AM

New borrowing is not needed to service the existing debt. Tax revenues can be used for weeks to pay interest and maturing principal without issuing new debt to pay off the maturing debt. There is more time than the conventional wisdom claims.

Obama’s puppet masters must be very happy with their SMILING SLEEPER AGENT, SMILING MAARXIST THUG, SMILING LIAR, and SMILING SABOTEUR who is destroying the U.S. Dollar and the U.S. economy.

DG in GA| 4.24.11 @ 11:09AM

Well, this is, after all, what George Soros does! He knows what economic policies will destroy a country, so he puts his considerable fortune behind electing like-minded politicians and then casting his investment plans around the things he has instructed those politicians to do. That man should be in PRISON!

That said, I remember reading where Warren Buffet said that a poor economy in America is a huge money-making opportunity for him. Must be why HE'S such a big Dem supporter, since electing Democrats is historically terrible for the American economy.

yippeekayay| 4.22.11 @ 2:25PM

Don't know about all that fame. Personally, I'm interested in Trump as POTUS for his remark that, "No one's going to turn over Iraq's oil fields to Iran on my watch."

bluecollarbytes| 4.21.11 @ 7:46AM

Trump's numbers are in line with
Charlie Sheen's, depending on the match-up.
Come to think of it, they both know how to milk the public for attention paid to their inflated personas. They both know they're the greatest, among the 'richest', and that their blow-hardisms will always suck in the vulnerable minds.

What Trump would do as pres is still as much a mystery as Obama's past.

BigBambu| 4.22.11 @ 11:38PM

How many times has Trumps corporation filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection? I wouldn't want a GUY WHO COULDN'T MAKE MONEY RUNNING A CASINO in charge of the US economy. Obongo could probably make a profit running a casino!

Hillel| 4.21.11 @ 7:53AM

Oh come on, we know what he'd do as President: He'd fire us! Then as a business man he"d move the country to Canton.

Mark W| 4.21.11 @ 7:54AM

Ryan has my vote!

idalily| 4.21.11 @ 7:18PM

Mine, too! I actually sent him a letter and begged him to reconsider running. I suggest others do the same. He is fiscally sane, knowledgeable, creates a favorable impression, and most of all, he's ELECTABLE.

Rev Trask| 4.23.11 @ 2:41PM

Anyone peddling the fantasy supply-side job-killng, middle-class killing economics is most certainly NOT electable among independent and swing voters. And his Dracula `do won`t win many over either.

idalily| 4.24.11 @ 5:57PM

You are dreaming. Ryan polls VERY well with Indies. Nice try.

Donna| 4.21.11 @ 8:30AM

Have you not read his opinions about?
Chinese are not our friends
The Quran
Muslim Brotherhood
Libya
Iraq oil
Rahm Emmanuel
Fund raising
The price of oil
Taxes
Just to name a few more than the Birth Certificate

txn4ever| 4.21.11 @ 12:26PM

Trump is a rank opportunist and staunch crony capitalist.

He's all for private property rights until he wants the right to your private property. He's kind of like John Kerry but with business acumen. He's for something until he's against. It all depends on how he can profit from his position.

Southern_Comment| 4.21.11 @ 8:31AM

Great article. I hope one day the great poobah finds his birth certificate. Until then though, maybe he should check a Bureau of Vitals Stats or a hospital. I've not known golf courses for being record keepers.

Bob From District 9| 4.21.11 @ 6:36PM

He found his birth certificate.

Both the former Republican governor and the present Democratic governor found it, and said so.

The law of the state of Hawaii forbid releasing that without permission, and Obama refuses to give permission. Since you never demanded every other candidate provide the original birth certificate, he is quite right to refuse.

Live with it.

Shirley| 4.22.11 @ 5:19AM

ANYONE can place a birth announcement in the paper, it DOES NOT mean that the infant was born there, only that someone in that area wanted others to know they had a child, grandchild, neice or nephew.

Publius| 4.22.11 @ 9:02AM

Sorry, Bob, but Neil Abercrombie could not find the birth certificate. Care to try again?

Michael Tomlinson| 4.21.11 @ 8:38AM

"Why is it that Donald Trump is a creditable candidate with a significant segment of Republican voters?" My guess is they're right-of-center populists, Tea Party folks, Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell voters, old Perot/Buchanan dupes . . . Most knowledgeable Republicans are underwhelmed by Donald Trump, but amused at his berating Barack Obama as a fraud with something to hide. This early in the election cycle a little fun at Obama’s expense is good sport.

Ryan should have gotten up and walked out during Obama's speech as should have all Republicans. Having to sit through such a boring speech was punishment enough, but being excoriated by such a boorish person must have been insufferable.

Considering his affinity for our Muslim enemies I think Obama should consider putting his Liars Library in Tehran or Damascus. Considering his adulation for China’s dictators Beijing would be good too.

Thomas Paine| 4.21.11 @ 12:58PM

Hear hear! Had Ryan walked out, THAT would have made news and, while I'm sure MSM would have spun and edited it, the fact is a well-timed walkout would have exposed the rudeness of BO in a much more far-reaching way....

PCC| 4.22.11 @ 10:44AM

So,then, why did President Obama invite Rep. Ryan (and other GOPers) to the speech?

1. In the absence of Rep. Ryan and other Republicans, it would have been just another meaningless speech from the Teleprompter-in-Chief. Rep. Ryan's attendance increased the media coverage, for sure.

2. Perhaps the president and his advisors hoped that Rep. Ryan (or one of the other GOP invitees) would indeed stage a walkout, which would have been cast as immature and disrespectful to any president and would have boosted the president politically. Thankfully, Rep. Ryan did not rise to the bait.

3. Perhaps the president's Chicago-style politics saw this as an opportunity to challenge publicly someone whom they perceive to be a naive upstart greenhorn reformer. If that was the case, it's a savvy hardball move politically, and will be a good test of Rep. Ryan's character and stomach for the upcoming and ongoing battle.

Unfortunately for the president, as RET makes clear, the speech elevated Ryan and made the president look cheap, except among the president's most adoring followers.

DG in GA| 4.24.11 @ 11:12AM

Instead, since he was in the front row, he should have called out, "YOU LIE!!!"

Personally, I wish the Republicans weren't so intent on maintaining "civility" at the expense of public policy.

Butch| 4.21.11 @ 1:30PM

Whose taking bets that Mr. Tomlinson can post a comment without a negative reference to "Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, and Tea Party/right wing populists?" Who is your enemy, sir?

Mudsoaked Moron| 4.21.11 @ 4:22PM

Butch, just checked the Vegas odds on Mr. Tomlinson tendencies and I am afraid that I will have to pass on betting against your suggested conclusion.
The odds were 8,750 to 1 that a negative reference would be made to the Tea Party et. al.

The Bishop| 4.21.11 @ 8:43AM

The Obama Presidential Library! Now there's a concept worth pondering. I wonder if the "Michelle Wing" would be a broad expanse at the rear of said library. And besides a Nobel Prize trophy case, what other artifacts of this Hope and Change administration might be exhibited? I don't think it's too early to start planning.

John Navratil| 4.21.11 @ 11:50AM

When I read "a broad expanse at the rear of said library", I spit coffee all over my computer. Does that make me bad?

Palrak| 4.21.11 @ 12:37PM

And my diet Pepsi came out my nose.

Jackie| 4.21.11 @ 1:00PM

No not really.

JF| 4.21.11 @ 3:12PM

I envision this presidential library being constructed with fake Greek columns made of styrofoam, a foundation as shaky and phony as that of Obama's alleged intellect and executive ability. But it will give Chris Matthews another spate of leg tingles.

guthriej| 4.21.11 @ 3:20PM

RE the 'Bam library: A tiny shelf with his 2 1/2 books?

The Knight| 4.21.11 @ 8:36PM

I wonder if this 'wing' would be the massive seating area.

David W| 4.21.11 @ 9:12AM

If Ryan is the candidate, then he had better be taking lessons on getting down and dirty.

We can't afford front-running candidate that is as ineffective and gutless as McCain was. Had he and others not been so afraid to attack Obama we wouldn't be in this situation (while I'm not fond of McCain, his left pinky is more qualified to be President than Obama).

The Republicans had better be prepared to get their hands dirty - because you know the dirty tricks from ACORN/Soros, opps, sorry, ACLU, oops, sorry again, SEIU, oh, my fauilt, the mainstream media, oops, the DNC are already being planned and perhaps implemented.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.21.11 @ 9:19AM

David W you've got a good point, but we wouldn't be here if self-described conservatives had written stupid things like "we can afford to throw away an election or too . . ." and from 2005 onward the so-called alternative media hadn't spent most of its time attacking President Bush and the GOP. Even worse distorting the real Reagan legacy to create a myth that even Reagan couldn't live up to.

In 2012 we're going to need a Presidential nominee who can be calm, cool and collective while subtly needling Obama and bringing out the nasty and churlish child that lives inside him.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.21.11 @ 9:21AM

Oops thinking about Obama I had a Freudian slip. Meant to say, "cool, calm and collected."

Butch| 4.21.11 @ 1:33PM

Freudian slip, Tomlinson.

Ned| 4.21.11 @ 11:21AM

No, I think you got it right the first time:

"collective" sums up Barry Bull$hit pretty succinctly.

Notforsale| 4.22.11 @ 12:55AM

Which reminded me . . . I just finished reading "Atlas Shrugged" and for all those of you who haven't read it, and are not up for 1100+ pages - Part 1, came out in movie theaters on April 15. Great book - I plan to see the movie tomorrow. The timing for the release was . . . EXACTLY when needed and it is amazing that it was written in 1957!

With American society in decay, railroad magnate Dagny Taggart begins to notice the mysterious disappearance of the world's leading artists, businessmen and thinkers. While struggling to keep her business afloat despite an economic crisis marked by COLLECTIVISM and groupthink, Dagny soon discovers the truth about an organized "strike" against those who use the force of law and moral guilt to confiscate the accomplishments of society's productive members. Starring: Taylor Schilling, Grant Bowler (II), Matthew Marsden, Edi Gathegi, Graham Beckel.

Copy and paste this link to your browser to see if it is showing in your town.

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1......s#Missouri

Margie| 4.21.11 @ 10:42PM

They're still saying it, Michael. And it's going to happen again. The fervor by the Liberalterriors has only gotten stronger against the Republicans.

Here's a bit more of their insanity~ if you vote Republican because that's what you are, you're a RINO.. that means you're a Republican in Name Only!
Gee whiz golly by gosh.
But if you write in your brother-in-law on the ballot, you're a "real" Republican?
Okeedokee.
Obama II here we come.

Clint| 4.22.11 @ 12:15AM

You're A RINO-CINO Israel Firster, Apocalyptic Cramk Lady Victor-Margie, Who Beat The Drum & Voted For The Serial Traitor to Conservatism, John McCain.

Now tell Us about McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman,The Gang Of 14, Opposing The Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 & 2003, Tarp.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

Margie| 4.22.11 @ 12:56AM

Aww there goes the Punk again.
I beat the drum for no one, liar.
But you beat the drum against God and His children.
Like when you said to me the other day:
If you were on fire, I wouldn't walk across the street to piss on you".

The one you serve, your master the Devil, awaits you on the other side.
Lotsa luck.

Sean| 4.21.11 @ 9:23AM

Maybe people are taking Trump seriously because Ryan in the past has been a joke. Ryan's budget is also a joke in that all the major cuts happen down the road. IF Republicans don't have the fortitude to demand cuts now while they hold the House how do you think they will do in an election year? How are they to hold the Democrats to the promises if they take the House?

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

Jackie| 4.21.11 @ 12:59PM

Sean, this is very interesting....sounds like two different people to me.

We need someone who has shown that he walks the talk not talks with winning of votes.

Jackie

Aquanomics| 4.21.11 @ 3:14PM

That person no longer exists in America.

Kathy from Kansas| 4.21.11 @ 10:11PM

I'm not going to hold all those things against him. Someone as conservative as we here would like could never get elected by the uninformed morons in the "mushy middle." Those "independents" are the ones who elect the president, whether we like it or not, and they are allergic to anything they perceive as "extreme."

PJ| 4.21.11 @ 10:18AM

I tend to think that Trump is taken seriously by the average American because he get's things done. There was much bureaucratic red tape he was able to cut to get projects started & completed on time, as a businessman. I also think he is not in any politician's pockets which is an added plus. There's no denying that Trump is a patriotic American, another reason to look at the man. Yet, Trump is also realist & a bit of an ego maniac, but not on the same level as George Soros. I think Trump thinks he has the power to shape public dialog but he also knows that he is not electable.

Paul Ryan is also not electable right now. He has no experience in running & being elected from a large diversified region like a governor or US Senator has. Ryan is another Jack Kemp. (Was there any US Rep that ran for president & won?)

If the posting by Sean is correct, I wouldn't vote for Ryan because of some of those Yea votes he casted. He did it once, he can do it again.

loulou| 4.21.11 @ 10:38AM

Terrell has lost his mojo.

loulou| 4.21.11 @ 10:38AM

Tyrrell, that is.

MacDaddy| 4.21.11 @ 10:57AM

Trump is not going to be the nominee. His most valuable service to the country and to the party right now is that he is drawing the media attention and thus the Liberal fire away from the truly serious candidates, giving them time to get some momentum and foundation beneath them before they face the inevitable media onslaught....and I for one would like to thank Mr. Trump for doing so.

John Navratil| 4.21.11 @ 11:53AM

MacDaddy,

I also think you are correct. In addition, he is raising doubts about Obama from outside the party and getting press doing it. Not a bad turn of events.

idalily| 4.21.11 @ 7:24PM

Trump is doing the Ross Perot. He's already said he'll run Indie if he doesn't get the nom. That means a split vote for the GOP in the election if we give him any attention now. It's a serious threat. Personally, I wish he'd sit down and shut up.

Margie| 4.21.11 @ 10:47PM

He isn't doing the Ross Perot, you're right. He's doing the Hokey-Pokey.
Left foot in, shake it all about.
Right foot out, shake it all about.
Then he'll turn himself around~ (and pull out)~
that's what it's all about~
Yeah!

Notforsale| 4.22.11 @ 1:41AM

MacDaddy - I agree with you. It appears that Trump is in HIGH DEMAND as a guest on the talk shows and media of the Left, so even though they think that they are going to make him look like a fool - I don't think that it's working out that way. As far as the birth certificate issue - I just wish that Trump's response would be: During the Democratic primaries, supporters of the Hillary Clinton campaign pointed out that there were issues with the validity of Barack Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate - Why did they have questions?

Other than that, I love the fact that Trump has the guts (and that's what we are looking for) to say what many of us are thinking . . . Iraq needs to pay us back with oil, China should pay high tariffs on imports, etc.

However it ends up, I'm good with all that Trump is doing to date. I've even noticed the "Old Guard" Republicans (I caught Rove on a show a couple of nights ago) are getting into the act of bashing him. Hummm . . . that's telling all on it's own. They will not only screw themselves, but screw America if they just put in the next guy in line. Americans are NOT in the mood for that!

USSAlabama| 4.21.11 @ 11:40AM

Emmett, don't worry. People will draft Ryan if he doesn't get in ... but he would have to get in later.

Please, Emmett, don't join in the Trump Panic Attack - we just want to hear him attack Obama as no politician will do - doesn't mean we would actually *elect* him.

Wayne | 4.21.11 @ 11:59AM

I agree. I root Trump on. Its up to the GOP to provide a candidate that doesn't run a shoddy campaign like Mc Cain.

Anthony| 4.21.11 @ 11:44AM

The majority American people will under no circumstances support any cuts to Medicare, won't happen, ever. Obama's tax the rich scheme is supported by over 70% of Americans. It might be nice to remain zealous in our thinking, but in a pseudo-democracy we have to get a majority of votes. I don't think Ryan's plan, as much as I like it, wins any elections.

Wayne | 4.21.11 @ 11:58AM

Ironically Obama's plan for 2012 is just that. Trim the cost of medicare by having a death panel make rules to minimize care based on age.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.21.11 @ 3:00PM

Wayne,

First off, what "death panels" are you referring to that will minimize care based on age? I believe the correct term for the system is the use of QALYs (Quality adjusted life years) which includes a measure of disease burden and overall health, not just age as you propose.

I'm curious what your thoughts are regarding health care "rationing". Do you think the elderly in this country should receive unlimited benefits for care? If so, how is it going to be paid for? If you believe there should be limits instead, then where do you draw the line on those limits? Who makes these decisions, if it is to be fair and equal for all patients (and all those patients have different medical needs)? Medical procedures are expensive, and if tax dollars are paying for them, then who gets what? Perhaps you believe that nobody should get rationed care, but there is a limited amount of taxes to fund that care, or there's a limited amount of income for these seniors, so the amount of care has to be rationed in some way. Even private insurance companies will charge you higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions and will limit which procedures they'll cover. So what do you propose exactly?

Peace and love to you Wayne,
-Lagius

Joe| 4.21.11 @ 3:43PM

You believe incorrectly. The "death panel" he refers to is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), created by Obamacare, with appointed members who do not have any requirement or responsibility to report to Congress. They will be making your health care access decisions for you in the future. Kiss your freedom and independence goodbye.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.22.11 @ 3:18PM

Again, where is your evidence for this "death panel"? Second, can you answer the questions I posted to Wayne? What would you propose to do concerning medical care if you had your way? Would you ration care or not? If so, how would you ration it? If you wouldn't ration it, then how would you pay for it, if there is a limited number of tax dollars going towards those medical bills in medicare? Everyone can't have unlimited care because everyone would just get every procedure they could and we have limits on the budget and thus on the amount of care. Give me a proposal, so we can chat more about your plan. Even private insurance companies have the power to deny medical procedures based on age, health, risk assessment, benefit assessment, etc., with their "panels" of decision makers (i.e. "death panels" as you like to call them)...so what do we do about the private insurance company "death panels"?

Peace and love to you Joe,
-Lagius

Wayne | 4.21.11 @ 11:56AM

Is this an article about Trump, or about Ryan. I am confused. Maybe its about Obama, I don't know. As far as Trump, he is getting traction because he does not have the baggage the other GOP candidates have, and that is supporting Bush, the wars and the Bush deficits. He can be more outspoken, and that resonates.
Ryan as somebody pointed out supported things that must now be undone. Ryan's budget proposal does not go nearly far enough. It does not reduce the overblown salaries and benefits of federal employees. It does not eliminate un-needed departments like the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. It does not even balance the budget. What matters right now is the 2012 budget, not projections 10 years down the road. I think Rand Paul is closer to the mark.

As far as Obama. He is a radical left wing president and he must be replaced by a staunch fiscal conservative in 2012 before we really get to undo the damage he has created.

Drunken Sailor| 4.21.11 @ 1:06PM

"As far as Trump, he is getting traction because he does not have the baggage the other GOP candidates have"

Are you kidding me? Trump has tons of baggage, a small sampling if which Mr. Tyrrell has shown. No Trump is gaining traction because he is being confrontational, making bold statements, and daring the Opposition to prove him wrong. Lessons that any Republican could succeed on if they are paying attention and followed likewise. I think Trump will not make it past the primary and hope he doesn't pull a Perot on us. That being said, I am cheering him on for the fact that he is pulling the fangs from the Democrat party line. Don't think so? Then tell me why no one had accused him of being racist like they have anyone else in the past that disagreed with Obama? He is taking away the race card if nothing else and without that what ammo do the Dems really have? Can't run on their record, Can't run on fulfilling their promises, Can't run on ending the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, not to mention starting a 3rd war. Can't run on the economy (to anyone paying attention anyway).

Trump is emptying the Democrat's quiver and making them defend simply accusations while the momentum builds against them. For that I might even start watching Trumps shows in gratitude

Diane| 4.21.11 @ 12:16PM

Regarding having a copy in-hand of Obama's birth anouncement from the Honolulu Advertiser - ANYONE can run an ad in the paper - doesn't make it legtt.

Richard H. Davis| 4.21.11 @ 12:42PM

Think about it, Diane. Suppose that anyone can run a birth announcement in the Honolulu papers (there were two). Ignore the fact that those announcements were submitted by the Health Department. Nevertheless, Obama's mother was an American, so wherever he was born, he was entitled to American citizenship - you certainly don't challenge the citizenship of McCain, who, as everyone knows, was born in Panama.

Drunken Sailor| 4.21.11 @ 1:08PM

Straw argument. Yes, McCain was born in Panama. On a US Military Installation which holds the same status as US SOIL! Not saying Obama is not a american but I do believe he is hiding something. My favorite theory is his daddy is Frank M. Davis.

InLineFour| 4.21.11 @ 4:31PM

Sailor, don't overlook Dick's other glaring lie: By federal statutes passed in 1940 and 1952, Obozo HAD to be born on US soil to be a citizen.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 says so. As under the previous 1940 statute a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent now had only to be physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child's birth for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14.

14 plus 5 equals 19. King Zero's mom gave birth to him when she was 18, therefore he does not qualify for automatic citizenship unless he is born on US soil. So, Richard don't know. . . himself.

CalMark| 4.21.11 @ 4:36PM

The Democrats running Congress held hearings on McCain's eligibility. McCain's life is among the best-documented of any living American, from admiral's son to POW to politician.

Obama disappears from the record repeatedly. All of his records--including as an Illinois Senator, for crying out loud!--are sealed. The media and leftist activists (but I repeat myself) say nothing. Yet when obscure Bush documents weren't t instantly unearthed from deep in some archive, Democrats screamed, "Conspiracy!"

Obama MUST be hiding something. Nobody spends more than $2 million, to say nothing of misusing the Justice Department, to keep people from seeing a harmless document. If it even exists.

P.S. As a scrawny 6-year-old I had to produce a birth certificate to play T-Ball in a 9-and-under league. But I guess being The One exempts you from having to prove anything.

Janice Bennett| 4.21.11 @ 12:33PM

"I have in hand a copy of a notice of our president's birth printed on August 13, 1961 from the Honolulu Advertiser. That has to count for something, no?" NO, IT DOES NOT. Anybody can have a notice placed in a newspaper. You haven't kept up.
Trump is not running on one issue. If you dig a little deeper you will find a lot more issues that he has expressed concern about.
"If other Republican candidates do not come forward Ryan will be the candidate by default."
Where did you buy your crystal ball? The dollar store?

Jackie| 4.21.11 @ 12:57PM

Hi: On Trump the Washington DC Politicians do not want Trump messing up the water. Yet, he is saying what the people are interested in. I do not know how his record of votes is, but, he is always talking about issues that he and I are both interested in, including Obama's citizenship. When Obama's mentor is George Sorros who learned about Economics under Hitler, I have to say I have a problem with that and so does Trump....but not Washington DC.
I did like Michelle but now she says that the birth certificate isn't important.....maybe Washington DC doesn't care about that stuff, but we the people do? there is a reason why it is mandatory that a Presidential Candidate show their birth certificate. there is a reason why George Sorros is financing the election of his-approved Attorney Generals, so that he can control the elections and the AG in every state is the one who is to verify the birth certificates which did not happen in this election. Very serious issue.

Jackie

MichSeag| 4.21.11 @ 1:41PM

Yes, George Soros the Jewish nazi-sympathizing holocaust survivor who wants to create a global Islamic Caliphate.....

Did you notice that Beck was cancelled?

Joe| 4.21.11 @ 3:45PM

did you?

MichSeag| 4.21.11 @ 6:04PM

Yes. Can you recognize sarcasm?

Miss Lola| 4.21.11 @ 12:35PM

I'm just a good old gal who is unsophisticated in the machinations of politics. What I want to know is where are the men in this nation? There was a lot more testosterone in the 40's and 50's and the likes of Obama would not have EVER been elected or tolerated. And I'm not talking about his skin color but about his actions and his policies. When anyone calls him on anything, his reaction is "so what". He has shown that he has contempt of congress, the American people, our military, our borders and our collective intelligence. Is political correctness the reason no-one will stand up to Obama and call him out except Donald Trump? Look at the pathetic field of potential candidates. Who among them has the cahones to win a presidential election? No-one! I don't know if it is the flouride in the water that is emasculating the American men or political correctness but I'm thinking that if no-one will stop this fiend, Obama, from completing his communist agenda, we will have another 4 years of the same. I didn't even mention the inevitable collapse of our currency and the crisis that will entail. I can see the Cloward/Piven fans salivating from way down here in Oklahoma.

Jackie| 4.21.11 @ 12:52PM

you are so correct, our men have not stood up. A friend of mine told me the only reason they went to war against hitler is because the women took a broom and chased the men down the street to sign up. Then the women took the men's jobs so that they had guns, ships, planes, etc. to win the war.

I headed a Task Force Against Gangs, and even the men believed in the Task Force it was the women who went to war and the women won and chased the gangs out of town.

Jackie

BackToBasics| 4.22.11 @ 1:17AM

And the only semblance of a spine that most male American politicians get occurs after the women get hehind a cause first.

I do not agree with the causes that many of thewomen take but it is still true that they act or demand first and the male politicians follow.

BackToBasics| 4.22.11 @ 1:18AM

And it's true for Republicans as well as Democrats.

Bevie B| 4.21.11 @ 4:48PM

Yes, Miss Lola! I notice no men have responded to your comment. I also notice that no men who left other comments had any solutions to the Barack Obama problem. Are we really so stupid as to think we can get rid of Obama by voting him out? With the illegal and corrupt Chicago machine behind him, the unions behind him, the illegals behind him and the general apathy of the general public behind him, he is a shoo-in for another 4 years. Imagine what he can do with 4 more years! You are right Lola--WHERE ARE THE RED BLOODED AMERICAN MEN? Where are the impeachment hearings? Where is the true conservative voice?

CalMark| 4.21.11 @ 5:02PM

OK, ladies, listen up. Enough man-bashing here.

There are conservative men who stand up. When they do, they are smeared and destroyed. Nobody stands behind us or defends us. Laws, rules, and facts are tossed out, unless they can be twisted to the detriment of the white male who had the temerity to speak up.

Try volunteering for some cause. I have. The RINO old guard has marginalized me every time. The RINOs don't want real men, either. It damages the "comfortable loser" status that sissies like Boehner have spent so many years installing.

It's very difficult for strong-willed white men to make our mark in the world, because affirmative action and feminism keep us down: H.R. prefers "diversity" candidates, including foreigners. White men under 50 who do make headway in corporate America or as entrepreneurs are under constant withering fire by the P.C. crowd--and it's back to the "no one defends us." It's impossible to become a big-time player that people will listen to when you aren't even allowed to succeed at the lower levels.

Where are you ladies when white men stand and fight? I haven't seen you. I've led lots of charges that nobody would follow, but afterwards--when I'd been publicly humiliated and ruined--people would quietly walk up and tell me, "right on." If you're "in it, to win it" like I was, that's meaningless. All pain, no gain, with the worthless consolation prize of praise from johnny-come-lately lily-livered collaborators.

After awhile, guys like me stop. We have to. It looks really ridiculous, leading charges that nobody will follow. And it wastes a lot of energy and induces a lot of personal harm to no good end.

Leaders emerge onto bigger stages from everyday life. My generation's white men are paying the price for a half-century of racial and gender "payback." We are even absurdly blamed for women's unhappiness (women of my generation are reaching 40 never having gotten married, and it's men's fault--we weren't worth marrying).

So get off your high horses.

Oh, and next time you see a white guy making a worthwhile stand in your everyday life, back him up. Otherwise, I don't want to hear it.

idalily| 4.21.11 @ 7:46PM

I appreciate your point. As a woman, let me say that I personally appreciate the stand-up men in my life every day. However, let's never forget that there are men who historically did not stand up for women, and therefore: women could not vote, could not own property, could not run for office, could not press rape charges, or make the mistake of having a baby out of wedlock without being permanently shamed. There are reasons the whole crazy militant feminist movement began in the first place, and while I believe it has gone WAY too far, there's a reason it was begun. Let's not forget that, ok? And never stop doing the right thing, sir, regardless of whether or not women (or men) applaud you for it. Do the right thing because it's the right thing.

Notforsale| 4.22.11 @ 12:33PM

Just wanted to add my two cents to this thread, as a woman. For SEVERAL years, I have observed how Hollywood, TV and advertising has portrayed the two sexes. According to THEM: American men are fat, slobbish, drunk, stupid, unemployed, jock only mentality, and their role in life is to pretty much be a couch potatoe. Women have been protrayed as intellegent, attractive, professional career (bring-home-the-bacon for the family) and the real head of the household.

Maybe it's just me - but, I have complained and refused to go to movies or really watch anything on tv for quite some time. I feel that this portrayal has been purposeful and an attempt to emasculate the men of our American society - more European maybe? And now, dodge ball is to be outlawed in NY???

Anyway, when I observe this . . . I complain by writing to the company about it's advertising, the producer of the show or whoever.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.25.11 @ 11:01AM

As a feminist myself, I completely agree that its important to understand the reasons behind feminism and how the suppression of womens' rights are still on-going to this day. We have yet to have a female vice president or president for that matter. Women on average make 25% less than men, often for the same job title / responsibilities. In many American families, this suppression still exists -- where dominant husbands feel they have the right to tell their wives what they can and can't do. Rather than a true partnership, we have some husbands telling their wives that they can't work, they should just stay home, cook, clean, and take care of the children and husband rather than sharing those roles as partners. This cultural problem has been going on for years and years and feminism has brought this suppression to the attention of the public domain (in many cases, some are still ignorant of this suppression and deny that it exists). Certain religions and other cultural "contributors" have only further reinforced this suppression of womens' rights adding to the problem. Those that take the defensive, say that feminism is only an extreme view -- forgetting that feminism in its most general sense is just a movement fighting for EQUALITY. Some people that are uncomfortable with this equality, prefer women to be subservient to men -- and want to avoid change and progressive views such as equality -- so they continue to demonize the movement or discredit it somehow. I think its imperative that we focus on this equality, so we can one day hope to have a true "partnership society" focused around a balance between protection and love/growth, rather than the patriarchal society we've become so accustomed to (which is dominated by protection and security rather than growth or love). We need this balance, and thus this equality between the sexes, races, everyone is essential.

Peace and love to you all,
-Lagius

Marc Jeric| 4.21.11 @ 12:38PM

Nonsense: Obama's grandfather placed the newspaper add so that his daughter could draw welfare upon her return from Kenya. And I can now place an ad in the Miami Herald stating that my non-existant daughter gave birth to quintuplets - for about $20.

Roger Waren| 4.21.11 @ 12:45PM

Mr. Tyrrell,
I do believe the courts in California decided that notice is a fake. Maybe you have something I don't know about. This case is on the US Supreme Court Docket. Don't you think if that notice were legitamate, they would remove the case from the Docket? PS I am not a Birther per sa
but I am tried of the attacks on Trump by Republicans. The Stupid A__ Democrat (SAD) Nitwits do not know any better, as they just react to any attack on Obammy with Ad Hominin attacks on the author

MichSeag| 4.21.11 @ 1:45PM

Yeah!! Theyre a bunch of ad hominem attack dogs!!

Not like Roger here who would never denigrate another person's character to make a point!

Right, Roger?

RCV| 4.21.11 @ 2:28PM

Where do you get this nonsense, Roger. No court in California ever "decided that notice is a fake". Please enlighten us by citing that decision. And the Supreme Court dockets anything that is filed.

Jackie| 4.21.11 @ 12:48PM

Hi: I kind of understand why people do not want to pay attention to the Birth Certificate issue, as it is one of many items that Obama has not been transparent on. But I feel that if we have a person who does not cherish his American heritage, (it appears he doesn't by the agenda that he is pushing thru) then we have elected an illegal who is more honorable to another country. This is why that was in the Constitution. He has no respect for the USA or it's citizens. He certainly doesn't sound like a citizen of the USA to me. I am middle america and the people who say; i.e., Michelle Bachman and others, that the birth certificate isn't important, I believe them to be very wrong.
This man won office promising transparency, and yet there is nothing transparent about him. No one knows anything about him, except maybe George Sorros who's education about economics started with Hitler. To me that is very scarey and very serious and very important.

MichSeag| 4.21.11 @ 1:47PM

You are truly insane!!!

CalMark| 4.21.11 @ 5:05PM

Wow. Great argument. Lots of facts you disagree with, some opinion backed up by facts, and you call her crazy.

You go, brother! The Dark Side is strong in you!

MichSeag| 4.21.11 @ 6:07PM

I would refute all the facts she presented....if she presented any.

But she did not.

CalMark| 4.21.11 @ 6:57PM

You didn't answer my question about insulting someone you disagree with. I thought liberals were all about civility. I guess not.

As for no facts? YOU LOSE!

FACTS:
1. "He has no respect for the USA or it's [sic] citizens."
No nations leader in history has ever gone around the world apologizing for said country--which hands out BILLIONS in foreign aid. Even if you agree with his actions, apology means public shame for actions--thus, no respect.
2. "He certainly doesn't sound like a citizen of the USA to me."
He's the first president ever to say there's nothing special about America--we're just like Greece is for Greeks, for example.
3. "This man won office promising transparency, and yet there is nothing transparent about him."
He locks Republicans out of meetings, refuses to provide documents. So much for THAT promise.
4. " No one knows anything about him[.]"
No one can you argue with this. What grades did he get in school? What did he do as a young man? He lied about writing those books "himself."
5. "...George Sorros who's [sic] education about economics started with Hitler."
Soros helped Nazi officials loot the estates of Jews sent to concentration camps. That's a fact of history. No one brings it up because Soros bankrolls the Democrats.

idalily| 4.21.11 @ 7:50PM

And MichSeag is OWNED. Well done.

MichSeag| 4.21.11 @ 8:57PM

It appears you don't know fact from opinion either.

The Soros claim has been refuted so many times it's ridiculous.

http://mediamatters.org/iphone.....1009200038

CalMark| 4.21.11 @ 9:06PM

Soros funds--practically OWNS--media matters. Totally believable--no conflict of interest there!

Still waiting for an explanation about what entitles you to insult people you disagree with.

MichSeag| 4.21.11 @ 9:03PM

Fact = A thing that is indisputable

Opinion = A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

You both put out opinions.... Not facts.

CalMark| 4.21.11 @ 9:07PM

Ah, yes.

Deny reality, and tell the opposition that facts aren't facts.

What color is the sky in your world, buddy?

MichSeag| 4.21.11 @ 9:09PM

So can you refute the claim, or do you simply reject the source and say that's good enough.

Seems you are the one who is disingenuous - or perhaps incapable.....

MichSeag| 4.21.11 @ 9:12PM

The source is not Media Matters - but the Toronto Sun. Does Soros own them too?

MichSeag| 4.21.11 @ 9:07PM

By the way, you never asked a question.... Hence the no answer.

MichSeag| 4.21.11 @ 9:19PM

I was reading previous posts, Cal, and I figured out why you came to Jackie's defense. She questioned your manhood earlier....

I guess chivalry isn't dead afterall!

MichSeag| 4.21.11 @ 9:20PM

Mean your "white male" manhood.....

CalMark| 4.21.11 @ 9:39PM

Charming, just charming. That's monumentally ugly even by liberal standards.

Clearly, I've won the argument. Libs only get that vicious when they lose.

I'm a white male conservative and proud of it. Your charming post just proves my point, shibboleth-boy.

P.S. Soros, on collaborating with Nazi looting, 60 Minutes, December 20, 1998: "...no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was–well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets–that if I weren't there–of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would." He compares it to capitalism. Nice. Too bad your whitewash isn't working.

Publius| 4.22.11 @ 9:13AM

CalMark, when you get done owning MichSeag, throw him back so the rest of us can have fun, will you?

I take issue with one thing you said: "Libs only get that vicious when they lose." In my experience, libs go for vicious whenever their world view is threatened.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.25.11 @ 6:12PM

CalMark,

Unfortunately, these are just opinions, that is Jackie's comments that precede your analysis. Your analysis on the comments are also opinion not fact. Let's start with the first point you mentioned:

1 - "He has no respect for the USA or it's [sic] citizens."
No nations leader in history has ever gone around the world apologizing for said country--which hands out BILLIONS in foreign aid. Even if you agree with his actions, apology means public shame for actions--thus, no respect.
-------------------------------------------------
Your analysis of Obama's actions are opinion only. Some would say that apologizing for regretful actions is actually more respectful to our nation. Rather than hiding behind a facade of "no wrongdoing" we apologize for what wrong has been done. Being honest or even sympathetic is not disrespectful in many eyes. I have no problems on this in general, and again, your analysis of it was opinion only. As for "BILLIONs of dollars worth of foreign aid", how many TRILLIONs of dollars worth of resources have we TAKEN from the countries around the world? It's clear that we take far more than we give, or we wouldn't have to expend 30% of the world's resources, create 30% of the world's waste, with only 6% of the world population. So tell me another one. Your international "good guy" view of the U.S. if far from true and the world as we know it is living proof of that. This doesn't mean that we need to be ashamed of our entire past, but recognizing our country's role in some of that ugly past is integral to our growth as a nation and more importantly, our growth as a human race.
Now let's look at your point # 2:

2. "He certainly doesn't sound like a citizen of the USA to me."
He's the first president ever to say there's nothing special about America--we're just like Greece is for Greeks, for example.
----------------------------------------
What exactly does saying "there's nothing special about America" have to do with "sounding like a citizen of the USA"?
Let's look at the 3rd point:

3. "This man won office promising transparency, and yet there is nothing transparent about him."
He locks Republicans out of meetings, refuses to provide documents. So much for THAT promise.
------------------------------------------
When was transparency touted as the key campaign promise of Obama? I don't think there are many politicians in general, let alone the president (past or present) that has a real good history of transparency anyways....so? He locks Republicans out of meetings? He refuses to provide documents? What documents are you talking about specifically?
Republicans (the past couple years) have filibustered and obstructed more legislature per year than any other time in history. So we have a trade of obstruction in exchange for lack of transparency...is that fair? Or should neither party have acted this way? I tend to think the latter.
Lets look at point #4:

4. " No one knows anything about him[.]"
No one can you argue with this. What grades did he get in school? What did he do as a young man? He lied about writing those books "himself."
-------------------------------------------
Who the hell really knows any of these schmucks we vote in? We can dig up skeletons when there's some political benefit, we can look up work history, criminal background, etc., etc. Does everything that the government possesses as a "record of you" describe who you really are? Can you or your present character/identity truly be known by looking at your "records"? I doubt you believe that. You may have an impeccable background if I looked it up, or maybe not. Either way, I wouldn't want mistakes you've made in the past to be the only basis for my evaluation of you or "who you really are". I'd need to get to know you personally before I can make said judgment. Bottom line, politicians, whom we think we know based on what we see on TV, read in the paper, etc., doesn't mean S#!+. To me, since a well trained lawyer can dig up dirt on anyone, then what we think we know of a person is really nothing more than what others want us to see. I think the bias in the media and within the political parties has demonstrated this time and time again. Just look at all the campaign ads that bash the opponent's reputation, etc., by omitting information or presenting irrelevant information to somehow "discredit" them. It's all relative and many of it is far from believable.
Let's look at point #5:

5. "...George Sorros who's [sic] education about economics started with Hitler."
Soros helped Nazi officials loot the estates of Jews sent to concentration camps. That's a fact of history. No one brings it up because Soros bankrolls the Democrats.
-------------------------------------------
Yes, I believe Soros (a Jew) was 13 or 14 years old when he was involved with the Nazis. The details behind this are speculative at best. There were many Jews that "collaborated" with Nazis by punishment or fear of death and for many other reasons. Many did this to survive the holocaust. The details of this particular accusation are not completely known and most accusations surrounding this claim are taken out of context from a 60 minutes interview, or from hearsay commentary on Fox News. Unless you participated in the holocaust (as a survivor), I wouldn't even try to imagine what it would have been like as a 13 or 14 year old boy living in that time frame -- not knowing what you'd have to do to survive. By the way, where did you get this "fact from history" that:
"Soros helped Nazi officials loot the estates of Jews sent to concentration camps"? What are your sources for this claim? More importantly, your arguments centers around the supposed actions of a 13 or 14 year old kid. Even if some of this is true, what relevance does it have, if you do not know the details behind it (i.e. the motivation behind Nazi involvement -- if for survival, etc.) -- let alone substantial evidence to prove the claim in the first place.

Peace and love to you CalMark,
-Lagius

Impeach Don't Wait| 4.21.11 @ 8:18PM

When a guy with his "credentials" (Alinsky et al) seeks to "transform" the nation, and that transformation looks and smells like a socialist state--which is at best an "unAmerican" concept--then I think questioning his "birthright" (i.e., the right to head this nation) is legitimate--and all the more so when he evades the issue when it's brought up. Don't blame us for askin'.

"The enemy within" is not an obscure concept.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.27.11 @ 12:57PM

Impeach Don't Wait,

Out of curiosity, why do you consider "socialism" to be "at best an unAmerican concept"?
What is your rationale for calling it "unAmerican"? Who decides what is and isn't an "..American concept"? After all this nation was founded upon many different beliefs, principles, and freedoms -- and any economic system including capitalism or socialism just trade certain rights or freedoms for others. With a capitalist economy, people are "free" to participate in the market -- buying and selling goods, etc. (if they have money or capital), which is definitely a certain freedom -- but on the other hand there is no equal opportunity in this market. Socialism is a system whereby the distribution of income is mainly based on individual merit and individual contribution (this sounds pretty fair...the more you contribute, the more you receive), however there may be no million or billion dollar incentives with a socialist system which opponents say we "need" to have.
Capitalism presses for private responsibility in terms of paying for everything yourself -- regardless of if you can afford it or not. Socialism promotes things like public education for our children, and public health care for everyone so that those that can't afford private education (like our children) or private healthcare (like the poor, the elderly, or the disabled), still have access and a right to education and quality medical care regardless of income. After all, aren't all human beings "created equal"? Capitalism concentrates wealth and power into the hands of a few (hmm...kind of like a plutocracy or a corporatocracy...NOT a democracy), where socialism has a more narrow distribution of wealth and resources -- where the majority of people have the majority of the wealth and resources and can vote on how it's used for that majority (more like a democracy). Capitalism focuses on market-based wants as opposed to socialism focusing more on common human needs and collective ownership to obtain those needs. Socialism forms of organization try to reduce the hierarchy and ideally maintains minimal hierarchy based on technical expertise rather than job title, as opposed to capitalism where hierarchy and bureaucracy are plentiful and serve those bureaucrats. Some may prefer hierarchy and bureaucracy, so, to each their own. Remember that socialism does not need to implement "equality of outcome", but rather "equality of opportunity". With as many people as we have in this nation praising "equal opportunity", which doesn't really exist due to the different classes that people are born into-- I know that many people would appreciate true "equality of opportunity". The fact is, there are many different types of socialist economies, and the term has been stigmatized while meeting some common generalized and truncated definition. Aside from these comparisons, the truth is, many Americans, conservative and liberal alike willingly participate in socialist programs already, where the goods and services, paid for by taxes are collectively owned and distributed according to need (like Medicare, social security, education, veterans benefits, public transportation, farming subsidies, etc. -- some may even say that the military, police and firemen fall into this category). I'm in no way suggesting that these programs are flawless -- far from it -- but nevertheless many people obtain humanitarian benefits from them that improve their quality of life in an otherwise unpredictable society. Resources like medical care, police, fire department, etc., are paid for by every taxpayer, even if some people directly benefit from those services more than others. Likewise, these programs can continue to be improved to minimize or eliminate dependence and other downsides. It takes time, careful trials, and effort to see if something is working or needs to be changed. Greed and corruption have further prevented us from seeing how well these systems can work ideally (both Capitalism and Socialism).
Are all of these people (conservative and liberal) that participate in any one of these social programs to be labeled as, at best, "unAmerican"?

Peace and love to you Impeach Don't Wait,
-Lagius

Lagiusmeatius| 4.25.11 @ 4:17PM

Jackie,

Can we drop the birth certificate issue? The department of Health in Honolulu already cleared this rumor and yet people continue to use the "birther" card.

As for the "American heritage" comment, what is "American heritage" to you? How do you cherish it? Is there anything you do not like about your heritage or this country's history -- past and present (i.e. slavery, no voting rights for women, exploitation of land and resources)? I didn't vote for Obama, but I still want to ask you, What agenda is he pushing through that demonstrates that he doesn't "cherish his American heritage"? I'd like some specifics here. There are many people conservative and liberal, who dislike some elements of this country's founding and policies that have existed over the years, slavery, various wars, etc. Are people somehow "unpatriotic" when they disagree with some of these things--some of these skeletons in America's closet? What about current policies toward other nations? What about our corporation's use of 2nd and 3rd world labor for sweatshops to produce American purchased goods that are just gobbled up by so many "proud Americans"? If people want to change bad policy or eliminate policies that aren't beneficial to most people, does that make them not cherish the good things that make up some of this country's past? I do not think that people should blindly ignore the ugly past, and assume that America is somehow better than another country, or has a perfect, glorious history with no controversy or poor choices made -- as we know this simply is not the case? This country was "discovered" by the Spaniards and later settled by the Spaniards, French, and British...all of these people were immigrants who came here, just as your ancestors were, and started a new life. Those that came earliest unfortunately, exploited the land that rightfully belonged to the Native Americans, purged them out or enslaved them with their European culture and exploitation. Our immediate ancestors (be they Irish, or Norwegian, or German, etc.) may not have participated in this brutality directly, but regardless the country wouldn't have existed without that brutality. The idea of "American heritage" or even "American-ism" if you want to call it that is so subjective as this country was founded by immigrants or their offspring. The mixture of cultures eliminate any objective "American-ism" because it is a mixture of cultures. As for American heritage, there are many things to be proud of or embrace, as well as things that reflect the darker, uglier side of America that most people feel more comfortable ignoring. It's all about perspective. What does a "citizen" sound like? Are you a citizen? What makes you sound any different than a non-citizen. Your ancestors at some point were immigrants and not citizens (at some point), so did they "sound" different? I'm not disagreeing with you on the lack of transparency (for most politicians not just Obama) that exists -- but some of these comments of yours are so subjective, it should be pointed out that its all dependent on ideology, perspective, etc.

Peace and love to you Jackie,
-Lagius

Jeff| 4.21.11 @ 1:09PM

I find it very hard to believe, but I reckon it is time to put the question out there. Is it possible that the senior Republicans in the House and the Senate, who are seen,heard and written about every day, ARE in truth, conspirtors along with the real supporting members (Those in the FED, CFR, IMF to name a few) whose grand scheme is to bring America to it's knees?

crooked wren| 4.21.11 @ 1:21PM

Is there a legitimate conservative ANYWHERE IN PUBLIC OFFICE??????? ONE WHO MIGHT RUN???

And I wish someone would clue me in on the Romney allure. Can't really understand that one.

As for Ryan, one thing I'll say for him -- he's got facts and figures and is well-spoken. Repubs. need to get the TRUTH out to the public, especially since college profs (like Obama) are out soiling our young people's minds. They feed them mush (just listen to Obama in his more relaxed moments -- when he's trying to adlib a little -- That's him -- and many others -- in the classroom). The teachers in high school are busy creating little radicals who will be "useful idiots." I know. I teach. We've got a wretched Marxist system that's in the last stages of being hatched. (It's taken more than forty years, but the monster is about finished incubating.)

The lamestream media is there to parrot the Marxist academes and their cohort.

TRUTH is the missing link to sanity and common sense, but our kids can't HEAR it, folks. With all the brainwashing and dumbing down that's been going on -- for GENERATIONS -- they find anyone suspect who disagrees with the Obama's mushrooms. That has alienated them from the Truth, and THAT, my friends, will kill this country eventually. Kruschev knew that it had already begun. And that it would continue.

Read Whittaker Chambers' "Witness." Read M. S. Evans on McCarthy.

Good Heavens, it's been going on for nearly a century.

So, yes, Ryan has a blemished record. But the numbers he's quoting might help persuade some youthful mind who is grappling with reality. Someone might actually HEAR THE TRUTH in those numbers -- and the idea that this amount of debt will destroy us.

That message is vital.

Still, I'd like to see a true conservative -- one who can be trusted -- run.

WayneFarmer| 4.21.11 @ 3:32PM

His name is HERMAN CAIN!

Joe| 4.21.11 @ 3:50PM

I wish at least the conservative media pay more attention to Cain. The man is electable, and is worthy!

Anne Crickenberger| 4.21.11 @ 1:33PM

I disagree with you, a "legal birth certificate"is a requirement of our Constitution. If Obama had a legitimate birth certificate he would have shown it instead of paying 2 millions dollars to hide his birth and background. This man is a "con" and not one will listen to the truth!

Lagiusmeatius| 4.26.11 @ 11:05PM

Anne Crickenberger,

It was demonstrated by the Hawaii Department of Health and the state health director that Obama's birth certificate indeed exists. We've heard accounts from various officials that validate this. Please drop the issue OR present some evidence that it doesn't really exist.

Peace and love to you Anne Crickenberger,
-Lagius

Bonnie| 4.21.11 @ 1:40PM

I agree with this article. Obama is a joke. He needs to go back community organizing or something. If I ran my finances/household the way he does the gov't, I'd be on about my 10th bankruptcy! If he stays in office, we'll all be bankrupt or homeless!

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 9:48AM

Bonnie,

I'm curious how you think Obama's actions will make you bankrupt or homeless?

Peace and love to you Bonnie,
-Lagius

Paul| 4.21.11 @ 2:03PM

I would like to see taxes raised on the super rich, and I would like to see loop holes on corporate income taxes closed, and the capital gains tax raised. And here is the simple reason: Right now it is cheap for companies to take added profits and sock them away. No raises to workers, no investment in new jobs. This money is being held by big business for the owners of big business, which are increasingly the super rich.

If to avoid taxes, business needed to invest in their own operations, they would do so. This is what we need them to do, and we need to figure out how to make them do it. This "jobless recovery" is evidence that what we are doing now isn't working.

We tried trickle down. Exactly what is so wrong about trying trickle up?

Paul Rand is on the right track in cutting spending. He is on the wrong track in cutting taxes where taxes are needed to push money into the one place that our economy needs money: The pockets of the consumers. It is self defeating to continue polices that encourage the continued increasing concentration of wealth in just the few hands of the super rich.

Joe| 4.21.11 @ 3:52PM

Your missing one important truth, Paul...

it is their money, to do with as they please. Your socialist designs have no merit.

I have never been hired to to a job by a poor person, have you? Where do you think jobs come from, the Easter Bunny?

Lagiusmeatius| 4.26.11 @ 11:52AM

Joe,

That's why the system should be changed. You claim that "it is their money". Yeah? Says who?
Them? You? Personally, I am a small business capitalist, but am anti-corporatocracy. I believe that Ma and Pa businesses that have goods and services that consumers want should be able to make a living doing so. They should have a couple of incentives to do so, as well -- like maybe $250K per year if they put in enough effort, as well as the incentive to do something they enjoy (hopefully they enjoy running their own business). What I have a problem with is when small businesses consolidate, into a major corporation where they no longer have the consumer in their field of view. Consumers are treated like numbers, not like people. When I go into a local family owned store, any Ma and Pa stores, I feel welcomed. I feel on the same level as those that are running the store. I do not feel like commercialism is being shoved down my throat. Likewise, employees of these small businesses can be appreciable shareholders if the owners set up the business as such. They can have less fear of their owners stabbing them in the back, like many corporate CEOs have done with their rank-and-file workers down the hierarchy. The amount of money and power is blinding and takes away the view of what should be most important to people -- not money, but humanity, family, friends, health, some interests in the world and the people in it. Money has blinded people and after seeing the "benefits" of Bush and Obama's bailout (or lack thereof), this further illustrates where lack of regulation on these corporations have doomed the middle and lower class in this country. I do like small business capitalism because these problems don't start to precipitate until those companies grow beyond a certain size. What is this size? It's definitely subjective to set some limit, but in my opinion, the "elite" in this country shouldn't WANT to make more than $250K per year (this is just a ballpark value to demonstrate the range I speak of). Yes, we have ideological differences of course. You believe people should be able to make however much they can, rather than stopping to question the consequences of this relative infinity and its impact on the rest of the citizens in this country. Over 70% of the wealth is held by 10% of the population. The top 1% of the population own over 1/3 of the total wealth in this country, where the lower 40% of the population own less than 1% of the wealth. This is the kind of wealth distribution, which is worsening, that further exacerbates the problem. It's not even limitations on income that I strive for, but rather the DESIRE to make more than a certain amount. I think our children should be taught the importance of family, passion, friends, the human race and most importantly love. Teach them that materialism is not what is most important. As long as the basic needs are met such as food, water, clothing, shelter--the rest of life is a bonus. Those that want to work hard in school or at their job to excel at it -- great! But trying to dream of being a millionaire, no matter how you get there, or the people you tread on along the way is selfish and misguided. So I truly believe that achieving what I see as most beneficial starts with the next generation -- our children. They need to learn the teachings of love for oneself, love for one's neighbor, and love is the best guide to the golden rule we have today. The golden rule itself is what Americans and the rest of the world should strive for. Not in achieving wealth and power like the current limitless capitalism system thrives on. Small business capitalism on the other hand, still provides that freedom in the market, but minimizes or eliminates the monopolies that exist with corporations as well as the concentrated power and wealth by only a few people. Corporations own the media, they own the politicians, they own campaigns for those politicians, they own almost everything on the left and the right. Small business capitalism shows much more promise for maintaining more of our freedoms and establishing a true democracy. As opposed to our current Corporatocracy fueled by limitless capitalism. You say, "it is their money"? Again, I say, says who? The system that existed in order for them to obtain that money is broken. When there are CEOs that exploit their workers, lay them off, don't hire them back even after a bailout (a social welfare handout to capitalists, how ironic)--is this really just? Is it really fair to you? You are entitled to your opinion, but do you not see the problem here?

You say "I have never been hired to to a job by a poor person, have you?"
I say, that a small business CAN and HAS hired people, and many of those owners are not the "super rich" people that Paul is referring to. He is obviously referring to the wealthy class, namely the upper wealthy class. Despite what you may think, there are businesses out there that hire people--with owners that are not super rich by any means. There is a huge difference here between some store owner making $250K per year, and a CEO making MILLIONs per year. Its funny that you also mention the "Easter Bunny" -- another corporate ploy for consumerism of garbage we don't need, just like Christmas. Another ploy where the true meanings behind those cherished holidays have been replaced by corporate commercialism...it just further illustrates my point behind corporations. How much profit have corporations made for holidays such as Christmas and Easter? How much have small businesses made? I won't even get into the amount of money spent on advertising during these holidays. Their money huh? Get back to me on this one...

Peace and love to you Joe,
-Lagius

CalMark| 4.21.11 @ 5:07PM

You know what Paul? You're one of the super-rich. I don't care if you disagree. I say so.

I think you should have a 95% tax rate. Because I say you're super-rich and because you need to give back. Facts don't matter, friend. I've just defined you, and there's no appeal. Now hand it over to Uncle Sam. It's your patriotic duty, as your man Joe Biden would say.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.26.11 @ 12:07PM

CalMark,

Again, obviously you didn't read what Paul wrote. What sense should we make of your commentary here? Paul is obviously referring to the corporate CEOs and so forth in this country. He is not referring to some completely arbitrarily labeled "super rich" people -- he is referring to corporation owners, hence his mention of corporate-tax loop holes.
"Facts don't matter, friend"
What facts have you presented to counter Paul's commentary. I agree with Paul in that major corporations, due to their size and power, have found ways out of the taxation system we currently employ -- they do not pay their fair share based on the relative amounts that other people pay in taxes compared with their income and wealth. Its simply not significant by comparison. Small business capitalism is my bread and butter, but this corporatocracy that currently have does not provide a truly free market for the majority to benefit from, nor a free society. Corporations own the politicians, the left, the right, EVERYTHING. Restoring or perhaps I should say creating a true democracy will depend on how we treat these corporate actions, what power WE the people let them continue to acquire, etc. We have power as consumers to patronize certain companies over others, refrain from buying certain products, and refraining from voting for the popular corporate-owned candidates (like McCain or Obama in the last election). It's up to us to change it, and more importantly to teach our children the importance of love, family, friends, the human race -- rather than materialism, greed, exploitation, etc. Hopefully our children won't WANT to make a billion dollars, but rather they will want everyone to make enough to have their needs met, and everything else as a bonus. They can still believe that hard work, education, etc., will pay off, but without the expectation of MILLIONs or BILLIONs of dollars to do so. How much incentive to people really need? How much do people really need before they are happy? It goes back to the teachings of Buddha, Jesus, and others. Materialism robs us of our humanity. Love for oneself and one's neighbor is more important. The golden rule should be the "gold" that people strive for (not to sound too cheesy there).

Peace and love to you CalMark,
-Lagius

skip| 4.21.11 @ 6:43PM

Paul

I would find it hard to believe you have ever taken the college introductory course 'Principles of Basic Economics 101'.

In 2007, when the evil George W. Bush was evilly providing evil 'tax cuts for the rich' so evilly, the top 1% of income earners paid more income tax than did the bottom 95% combined.

The top 1% are already taxed too highly and you want to tax them even higher. The result will be that they will hide even more of their wealth from taxation and overall tax revenue will decrease even more, which you would know had you ever taken Basic Econ 101.

If you want to try something different, how about an income tax amnesty for only the top 1% income earners? This will allow them to freely invest in the economy, opening the floodgates on new job creation, virtually eliminating unemployment, and increasing overall tax revenue.

The justification for this tax exception on the top 1% income earners could be our gratitude for their societal contribution of employing so many of their fellow citizens thereby improving overall quality of life.

And it would be true trickle up economics just like you suggested, only this would actually succeed.

skip| 4.21.11 @ 8:56PM

Paul

It could be worse, you haven't posted the wholly lacking in intelligence and wholly lacking in honesty drivel of Bob from district 9.

Impeach Don't Wait| 4.21.11 @ 9:31PM

"If you want to try something different, how about an income tax amnesty for only the top 1% income earners? This will allow them to freely invest in the economy, opening the floodgates on new job creation, virtually eliminating unemployment, and increasing overall tax revenue."

This'll never fly in the opinion of a liberal. We all KNOW those greedy rich people will just sock away all that extra money or spend it on bigger toys and homes for themselves. That's why tax breaks for the rich is "evil." It's not their money because they don't deserve to have so much more than the rest of us, so take it from them and use it where it's needed. They'll just have to expand their businesses using all that other cash they're sittin' on. --Until Uncle Sam needs it, and then their tax rates can be raised again!

(I'm being sarcastic.)

skip| 4.22.11 @ 6:29PM

I've read many of your posts. When I saw your moniker I knew the post would be good.

Liberals will not allow the half that does not pay any taxes to bear the burden of the other half who aren't paying their fair share.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.26.11 @ 12:44PM

Skip,

You've missed some important facts here. For starters, the 1% that you claim paid more income tax also made many times more income than the average middle class worker. You are ignoring the wealth differences between the upper and lower classes. Income is the main parameter we base taxes on, but wealthy people have far more WEALTH than income -- so taxing a millionaire 40% or 50% on their income will make a much smaller dent in their standard of living and their wealth than a 10% income tax will for a poor person making $15K per year income-- let alone who has no wealth-- but rather lives paycheck to paycheck.
Over 70% of the wealth is held by 10% of the population. The top 1% of the population own over 1/3 of the total wealth in this country, where the lower 40% of the population own less than 1% of the wealth. Unfortunately its not as simple as your "Principles of Basic Economics 101".
Economists DO NOT currently agree on your strategy taxing the rich less. Some do. But others disagree. There is no general consensus on this at all. What happened at the end of "evil" Bush's term? We had a financial collapse.
Let's not look to Bush policies for economic peace of mind, as its not very credible. Currently the U.S. taxes far less than most other "developed" nations around the globe. Relative to GDP, we tax about 25% -- where the only developed countries that tax less than we do are Mexico, Turkey, Korea, and Japan.
It's clear that the lower class can't afford further taxation, therefore it is up to either the wealthy class and/or the wealthy and middle class (where the wealthy are still taxed progressively higher than the middle class). There are only so many possibilities. We've seen that no matter what types of taxation is employed, corporations find ways around paying there fair share -- and people shelter money overseas, etc. Small businesses on the other hand, do not have nearly as much capital overseas, nor are trying to shelter as much as the larger corporations. The wealthy should be taxed more in my opinion as they have demonstrated no ability to self-regulate, hire more workers when profits precipitate. Rather they just further please the shareholders or pocket the profits.
As for amnesty to show our gratitude for "their societal contribution"? Are you referring to the positives or both the positives and negatives? If both, than gratitude is hardly the word to express it as a whole. The "contributions" include a huge loss of jobs, ownership of the politicians and thus our legislature, ownership of our "democracy" thus they've created a plutocracy and/or a corporatocracy. Their negative effects on the environment as well as 2nd and 3rd world nations have far outweighed any benefit they've provided. Yeah...thanks for the contribution!

Peace and love to you Skip,
-Lagius

idalily| 4.21.11 @ 7:59PM

1. Please explain why it is justifiable to punish successful people for being successful by taxing them at a greater rate than those who have not been as successful.
2. Please explain how higher corporate tax rates would NOT be passed on to the consumer in the cost of products.
3. Do you REALLY think the CEO's of major corporations are sitting on these huge profits because they are greedy? Maybe they don't trust the marketplace in which people like you are now forcing them to operate?
4. How does one "make" businesses invest in any operations in a free society? Do you wish to force them to do so? If so, then you are a socialist.
5. As to the super-rich concentrating their wealth, well, it is THEIR wealth, isn't it? Or do you believe in just forcing all rich people to hand over all they make for you to redistribute to who you think deserves it more?

Lagiusmeatius| 4.26.11 @ 2:51PM

Idalily,

Oh boy...where to begin...

I'm not going to answer FOR Paul, but I'll delve into this with you, as I have some questions and comments for you. Lets start with your first question:
1. Please explain why it is justifiable to punish successful people for being successful by taxing them at a greater rate than those who have not been as successful.
-------------------------------
This is quite a loaded question so lets break this up into a few different parts. You mention "justifiable to punish". First off, since when is taxation flat out punishment? The same taxes go towards civil engineering, paying for our legislature, and the rest of our federal budget. It goes into paying for wars and legislature that support those companies best interests. The least they could do is pay their fair share of taxes in exchange for their effective ownership of our government and politicians. Corporations utilize far more resources and have larger infrastructure than small businesses and other tax payers. They have a much higher negative impact on the environment which is currently far under taxed as it is. By lumping these CEOs into the category "successful people" is subjective in itself. What determines success? The amount of money that you make? Tax increases on the wealthy affect their standard of living far less than taxation on the poor. Taxes in this country are based on income NOT on wealth-- so taxing a millionaire 40-50% is much less detrimental to that standard of living than taxing a poor person (making $15K income lets say) even taxes as low as 15%. That's a fact. Ask any poor person that lives check to check and it becomes evident. They do not have wealth stored like the wealthy, so taxing on income alone, even the progressive tax that we have is not enough considering the disparity between the wealth of the rich and poor in comparison. Back to the "successful" assertion you made, people are products of their environments. We do not have access to equal opportunity as some may claim, as there is only evidence supporting the contrary. Wealthy people raise children who are much more likely to go to college and/or become "successful". No doubt that some of those people worked hard to get where they are, but there's no doubt in my mind that my mother didn't work just as hard-- working 3 jobs to support her 4 children including myself -- yet she wasn't compensated nearly as much for her effort. This is a question of classes, as we live in a "class" society.
There are many more reasons for this ideological disparity we have.
Let's tackle your next question...
2. Please explain how higher corporate tax rates would NOT be passed on to the consumer in the cost of products.
--------------------------------------
This is complicated to say the least, but for one thing, if prices are too high, consumers will purchase less. It's a matter of supply vs. demand. Needs such as food, clothing, and shelter are the only things that people need to buy, and there is quite a large market for these goods to avoid prices going through the roof. Businesses know that they can only charge so much for a product, or people will simply refrain from buying it. It would help in this case to have regulations on food commodities' prices, as well as regulations against corporations or banks from betting on food prices. There is no guarantee that corporations wouldn't raise prices up to a certain point, but there would be a limit to that price increase. This demonstrates another flaw with unlimited capitalism -- that is, companies making up for taxation by raising prices. Thank you for pointing that one out. This has its pros and cons, for sure.
Lets look at number 3:
3. Do you REALLY think the CEO's of major corporations are sitting on these huge profits because they are greedy? Maybe they don't trust the marketplace in which people like you are now forcing them to operate?
------------------------------------
Yes, I do. If you take a look at the income of many CEOs, as well as their lavish lifestyle this becomes evident. In 1970, CEO salary and bonus packages were typically about $700,000 -- 25 times the average production worker salary; and by 2000, CEO salaries had jumped to almost $2.2 million on average, 90 times the average salary of a worker. Did there jobs suddenly become more difficult? Did their work weeks increase from 40-60 hours all the way up to 160-240 (only 168 hours per week)? Nope. They sat on these raises. They've been getting worse and worse, with the help of the Reagan administration, as well as Bush I, Bush II, and now Obama. The number of people in this country making between 75 and 125% of the median income has only decreased in the past few decades, as the middle class has been re-classed into a newer set of classes -- lower middle class, and the poor class becoming even poorer. The number of billionaires in the U.S. "coincidentally" went up during this time frame from about 13 (back in 1982) up to over 100 billionaires in 2005. Notice the number of billionaires increased almost ten-fold while the middle class and below have only suffered. So tell me another one, please...
Lets look at your number 4:
4. How does one "make" businesses invest in any operations in a free society? Do you wish to force them to do so? If so, then you are a socialist.
-----------------------------------------------
Answer: you don't make businesses invest in anything. If the incentives are there, businesses will invest. Hopefully one day the incentives include progress for the human race, restoring our environment, and leaving something beautiful for our children. If businesses don't think that they stand to make enough money for their CEOs lavish lifestyle, then their incentives will hopefully change. If there is not enough incentive for businesses, then the government can invest in what the people want (take a look at the military now to see the current capability of government investment). As for your "force" assertion, aren't the majority classes in this country already being forced to benefit corporations? We are continually forced by corporations in terms of our options for purchasing goods and services, many times where a monopoly exists. Corporations force taxpayers to foot the bill and the mayhem for legislature that benefits the corporations. Corporations are a source of force in the world when they exploit other nations for their resources for pennies on the dollar, and then sell them here for dollars on the penny -- most times against the will of the average citizen in that 2nd or 3rd world nation). Force is seen when corporations and wealthy individuals donate to political campaigns so the wealthiest or most well funded candidate has the best chance of winning (whether McCain or Obama) -- forcing us to vote for one or the other through some illusion of choice. So if by reversing this force that we currently see from the corporations TO the consumer, where instead we have the consumers FORCE the corporations to do what we the majority want -- if you want to call that socialism? Sounds good to me. I'd rather have consumers force the corporations than the other way around (i.e. the way we currently have it).
Lets look at your number 5:
5. As to the super-rich concentrating their wealth, well, it is THEIR wealth, isn't it? Or do you believe in just forcing all rich people to hand over all they make for you to redistribute to who you think deserves it more?
-------------------------------------------
Who says its THEIR wealth? You? Them? The country has a whole, if we voted on it? (imagine that)
If we consider that the wealth used to belong to the less wealthy (i.e. poor and middle class -- majority in this country), then one might say that its origins are from the people, so it belongs to the people, not the wealthy. The manner in which that wealth was obtained is far from "mutually agreeable" between that wealthy person and the average citizen. The question of who is entitled to what is dependent on your perception of the current system, both economic, political and otherwise with regard to where the money came from and how much effort went into "earning" it. The truth of the matter is that wealthy people do not see the world through the eyes of the common man, because the common man is not wealthy. We pay less taxes per GDP than almost any other developed nation. The only countries, who's citizens pay less per GDP is Mexico, Turkey, Korea, and Japan. This disparity needs to be addressed, and not from the poor or middle class paying more taxes, but rather from the wealthy class (where the money has currently been funneled into). The middle class and below will only take so much of a pinch before a revolution happens -- this I see in the near future, if limitless capitalism continues on its course. Fixing this distribution of wealth issue should start with our children where we teach them the importance of family, life, love, and the golden rule. Where we teach them that striving to be a millionaire or billionaire negatively affects many people around them -- people that they will never see or meet. Materialism has blinded many to the point where we see CEOs going to jail for insider trading and embezzlement and other infractions to make even MORE money. Where does it end? How rich do you need to be to be happy? We should start with our children, teaching them that materialism has some benefits, but its not what life is all about. Then the incentive to make so much money will decrease and people will focus on doing what they want to do and helping the world become a better place for EVERYONE, not just THEMSELVES.

Peace and love to you Idalily,
-Lagius

John Malcolm| 4.21.11 @ 2:41PM

"But on the other hand I have in hand a copy of a notice of our president's birth printed on August 13, 1961 from the Honolulu Advertiser. That has to count for something, no?"

No. It doesn't mean squat. A birth announcement in a local paper is not germane to the eligibility requirements for president which are laid out in the Constitution.

At the time of Obama's birth, irrespective of where he was born, his father (Barack Sr.) was not a U.S. citizen. On this fact alone, Obama is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president.

Both of Obama's parents must have been U.S. citizens at the time of birth in order for him to be a natural born citizen.

The birth certificate issue is moot.

guthriej| 4.21.11 @ 3:35PM

Can you cite either statute or case law on both parents being US citizens as necessary for "natural born"? Everything I've read says one + rules about residency.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.26.11 @ 10:49PM

Actually Guthriej is correct. The constitution (14th amendment in combination with Article I, section 8, clause 4) and and the U.S. code (title 8, section 1401) clarify this:
"Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year"

So you only need one parent to be a legal resident in order to qualify as a natural born citizen. So Obama was indeed eligible and the birth certificate issue is still moot (since it was demonstrated by the Hawaii Department of Health and the state health director that Obama's birth certificate indeed exists).

Peace and love to you John Malcolm,
-Lagius

Rich| 4.21.11 @ 2:52PM

Hate to nitpik but shouldn't "creditable" be "credible"?

PattyMor| 4.21.11 @ 3:50PM

Well the benefits will be cut one way or another. Either we do it rationally or in slash in a panic. Eventually the markets will demand higher and higher interest rates AND the Int'l community will dump the bonds. Or we can pass a plan that reasonably takes care of people, as promised.

While Ryan's plan is really very modest reform. I like to think of it as the opening bid. At least the Rats produced a plan AND have started the discussion. Anything more radical would be picked apart as cold, cruel, and heartless.

I like The Donald for lobbing a few bombs at the 'Bamster and refuses to back down. He even tantalizes George Stephanolopous that he can't believe the things Trump is finding, but refuses to state what they are. Too delicious! Let Obama and his minions stew in their juices and wonder what the heck Donald has found (if anything).

Bob From District 9| 4.21.11 @ 6:26PM

"Let Obama and his minions stew in their juices and wonder what the heck Donald has found (if anything)."

Trump has nothing.

G. J Baretincic| 4.21.11 @ 4:10PM

If I get you right you think that placing a notice in the news paper gives you the right to say you have a birth certificate. I can put an notice in the paper saying that my granddaughter was born on such and such a date to notify relatives in another state of the birth. However, that does not mean that my granddaughter has a birth certificate. Get real.

CalMark| 4.21.11 @ 5:09PM

I'll put an ad in the paper saying I'm an M.D. with a Ph.D., and insisting that everyone henceforth address me as such.

It doesn't matter that I'm neither--it says so in the paper, which is good enough. Isn't it? Emmett?

Bob From District 9| 4.21.11 @ 6:34PM

If you had posted it 50 years ago I would be inclined to believe it.

Or were you even alive 50 years ago?

Bob From District 9| 4.21.11 @ 6:31PM

A notice that appears in a Honolulu newspaper 50 years ago is damn good *SUPPORTING* evidence.

Get over it.

dwdw49| 4.21.11 @ 10:59PM

see my comment on source document.

Marc Jeric| 4.21.11 @ 4:33PM

Well - but of course Abu Hussein al-Nairobi does not have a valid birth certificate; but then beyond that truth - how about his
1) primary school records;
2) secondary school records;
3) Occidental College recotds;
4) Columbia University records;
5) Harvard University records;
6) his passport data - travels, visas, sojourns;
7) his legal firm job records in Chicago.

cuban pete| 4.21.11 @ 5:11PM

8) Law Review articles

Bob From District 9| 4.21.11 @ 6:27PM

"Abu Hussein al-Nairobi"

Was that a digression to some other person, or an appeal to bigotry?

Bob From District 9| 4.21.11 @ 6:32PM

"how about his"

The day every other candidate is required to provide all that is the day you have the right to ask Obama for any of that.

SpiralArchitect| 4.21.11 @ 7:14PM

Roughly on the same level of surprise comes from you saying I do not have the right to request evidence of eligibility for office as surprise from how many people think the Marxist in Chief is heading in the right direction.

Bob, you are a nut.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.27.11 @ 11:00AM

SpiralArchitect,

This is completely un-related to this article, but were you inspired to pick your name from the Norwegian progressive metal band, "Spiral Architect"?

It could be a coincidence...perhaps you are just an architect with a spiral staircase going up to the loft. I was just curious. It's the first time I've seen that pseudonym used.

Peace and love to you SpiralArchitect,
-Lagius

CalMark| 4.21.11 @ 7:23PM

GWB did. John Kerry did NOT.

Bush signed a blanket Privacy Act release for ALL records before he was governor. Kerry released next to nothing.

When a media request for some 40 year old Bush record, moldering away deep in some archive, took more than a few hours to produce, you lefties screamed, "Cover up! Conspiracy!"

Facts hurt. Regardless of what robo-troll-by-committee district you come from.

Bill H| 4.21.11 @ 4:44PM

I still have a problem with the certificate from Hawaii. In 1961 Obama's father would have been considered "Negro" instead of "African." Looks fishy to me.

Bob From District 9| 4.21.11 @ 6:30PM

The certificate is almost certainly a computer printout of the official records. They show his Father was born in Africa and was African.

Eric| 4.21.11 @ 6:01PM

Ahhh, the Honolulu adviser....now a last resort to replace the state records, if they exist at all. Bottom line, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen as per constitutional requirement. To be a NBC it requires you present documentation that proves where you were born and what citizenship both your parents were. Why? Because if your daddy was Putin our constitution prevents Putins friends, who profit from his rule, from tricking the American people into granting powers, by election,which could easily harm the nation. If the people really want to elect Putin's son they can AMEND the constitution. No amendment, no legitimate president, no threat.

Bob From District 9| 4.21.11 @ 6:29PM

If his mother was American he is American. If he was born in Honolulu he is American.

Enough of your BS.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.27.11 @ 9:45AM

Eric,

The constitution (14th amendment in combination with Article I, section 8, clause 4) and and the U.S. code (title 8, section 1401) clarify this:
"Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year"

So you only need one parent to be a legal resident in order to qualify as a natural born citizen. So Obama was indeed eligible and the birth certificate issue is still moot (since it was demonstrated by the Hawaii Department of Health and the state health director that Obama's birth certificate indeed exists and is now being stored in Chicago -- at least in 2008).

Peace and love to you Eric,
-Lagius

Bob From District 9| 4.21.11 @ 6:25PM

Well, you had to end it with a right wing smear.

Now, look at Ryan's plan. It takes 20 years to balance the budget. As Slate has pointed out, if Congress does nothing at all the budget, under current laws, balances in 8 years. Ryan's plan is political, not economic.

You say Obama continues to spend at 24% of GDP, but you forget to mention he inherited that from George W. Bush. Where were you then?

You say our modern day spending average is 20% of GDP. You forget to mention it was Ronald Reagan, the "...vigorous, attractive, speaks well, and has a pleasant demeanor" former Republican president you seem to be comparing Ryan to, who put us on that road to 24% of GDP govt spending. You also forget to mention that it was Bill Clinton who interrupted the Reagan/Bush I govt takeover of the economy to bring that spending down to a modern day low in the 18% of GDP range. It was GW Bush alone who was responsible for that 24% of GDP.

You say Obama "...heads us off to Greece", forgetting to mention that Greece's problem is not excessive spending, but tax avoidance. That's the road you, and Ryan, are taking us down.

As to his birth certificate, you have seen it. What President Barrack Obama released was the official Hawaiian birth certificate you would get if you were born in Hawaii and applied for a copy. It's legal, live with it.

I haven't seen the fiscal policy speech, but I will look it up and let you know just how screwed up you are about that too.

Also, remember, 100% of the post WWII growth in National Debt as percent of GDP was under 3 anti-tax Republican presidents, Reagan/Bush I /Bush II.

Publius| 4.22.11 @ 9:22AM

If Slate says the budget will be balanced in 8 years, that's good enough for me. The fact that it's not correct will not deter me in any way. I'm a believer.

Also, if you say I have to live with the unsigned, unembossed COLB then I guess I have to live with it. Except that no one can find the actual birth certificate, including the Gov Abercrombie who promised to end the controversy once and for all.

I have to laugh at the final assertion though, 100% of the post WWII growth in debt is absolutely not accurate.

Do you have fun making this stuff up, Bob? It only makes sense that the left would bring up the "big lie" gambit. It worked for the left in Nazi Germany so it's worth a shot.

Bob From District 9| 4.21.11 @ 6:38PM

I wonder, if a white man born back in the hills, at home, with no hospital birth certificate, were to run for president, how many of your readers would be birthers in his case?

You site appears to be Birther Homeland. Pitiful.

dwdw49| 4.21.11 @ 11:04PM

see my comment on the source document

Publius| 4.22.11 @ 9:23AM

Depends. If he was as liberal as Obama, you bet we'd be birthers. If he was conservative, you'd be the birther. It's entirely predictable.

George| 4.21.11 @ 7:02PM

So you too think that publishing something in the Star Bulletin or Honolulu Advertiser make these words a fact. I have lived in Hawaii for 42 years. When someone, anyone, anywhere has a baby, grandchild, niece, nephew they simply call the Star Bulletin and give them this info and it is published as a fact. Mama Barack called her mother in Honolulu, Mother, a bank VP, called the paper and thus Barack, born in Kenya, became a US Citizen via AT&T. I know how it works, my first son's birth was published in this very same paper without me or my wife saying a thing to anyone due to my notoriety at the time. My secretary had call the birth in and misstated some of the information. However all of the cards received restated this published "fact", A hui hou.

CalMark| 4.21.11 @ 7:09PM

Looks like Obama, Inc., doesn't like the hard facts and thoughtful concerns in this discussion.

Another Obama "fake people by committee" robo-troll is flooding the zone.

Factual statement? Thoughtful concern? The fake person will attack you with smears, insults, and irrational "facts" that are true--because he SAYS so, darn it.

Dick B| 4.21.11 @ 8:00PM

Actually, a birth announcement published by a newspaper means nothing. Anyone can write anything and they'll print it. Not proof of anything except someone had a pen and paper and the five bucks it cost to have it printed.

Not that it matters, the Management have anointed this snake in a suit, and that's the way it'll be. I wish everyone would just stop the pretense that this is a free country, with legitimate political
opposition.

We're a one party state with two logos. Hegelian dialectic, non? Mummery and dumbshow.

Say, what time does 'Idol' come on?

Bob Grant| 4.21.11 @ 8:10PM

Predictably, instead of discussing Paul Ryan as a future republican candidate, it's devolved into a pissing contest with some left-leaning troll who drags birther bait, and predictably, it was devoured.

Pathetic.

JOHN HEMMER| 4.21.11 @ 9:47PM

Paul Ryan for president. He is smart and principled. Both seriously lacking in Obama.

dwdw49| 4.21.11 @ 10:48PM

Investigative journalists, hang your head in shame. In journalism 101, in the very first hour of journalism 101, you learn to go to the source document. The document that Isakoff and Stephanopolous tout is not the source. It did, indeed, come from a source document. They admit that. Now, don't you think a real reporter would want to find out everything that a source document had on it? Why are these supposed very smart (and I believe they are) investigative journalists/ historians not interested in the source document? Any journalist/historian worth his salt would want to know what the source document has that the secondary document does not? Hang your head in shame any so called reporters who don't want the source produced.

Justie| 4.21.11 @ 10:50PM

In the beginning, Obama waived his COLB in all our faces as proof of his citizenship. Now that everyone knows that this paper is NOT a hospital generated, long-form birth certificate, he is waiving a birth notice from a newspaper. If any American tried to replace his birth certificate with a newspaper notice of birth he would never get away with it. In fact it's laughable. Yet we allow Obama to do this and then argue that all Americans should accept it and stop asking questions. What's wrong with this country?

I have read that the notices in the newspaper, that have now become Obama's proof of citizenship, were issued by the Hawaii Department of Health and not checked by the newspaper. Anyone that applied and received a COLB from the Dept. of Health was automatically listed in the newspaper. You will notice that the newspaper listing does not list a hospital of birth for Obama. I don't know about the newspaper where you live, but where I live the hospital of birth is always given.

And another small fact that is always overlooked is Obama's father was African. To be a natural born citizen both parents have to born on American soil.

It's time we stop making excuses for Obama and demand to see REAL proof that he is eligible to be POTUS. A birth notice in a newspaper just doesn't do it.

Rev Trask| 4.22.11 @ 1:03PM

The man who REALLY made Paul Ryan famous is Art Laffer, he of the laughable fantasy known as supply-side (trickle-down) economics. Because that is the underpinning of Ryan`s budget, a job-killing, middle-class killing piece of work. Laffer should charge Ryan a royalty.

yippeekayay| 4.22.11 @ 2:33PM

Trump is a substantial candidate for many reasons and it's probably already only a matter of time before Romney and the rest of the field fade.

We all know the routine. Various "serious" issue candidates win unexpectedly in the Bible Belt and the cantankerous Northeast. Then the candidates with real staying power take the lead and clinch on Super Tuesday.

Trump has the feel of the latter. His foreign and domestic policy positions are clear and right on target to activating and winning over the winning Reagan coalition of GOP voters.

What is of real interest now is the question: who, of the current slate of GOP hopefuls will throw their weight behind the Donald first? And then: if they do, will he reward them with a seat in the POTUS' boardroom next to Don or Ivanka? Because who really doubts that Obama's goin down? (Barack, you're fired.)

Oldefarte| 4.22.11 @ 3:20PM

Lookit, Ryan is an intelligent conservative, and I'm certainly glad that he's doing his accounting thing in superior fashion; but let's don't go jumping off the political cliff wanting to make his the Republican nominee because of same just yet. Has he ever run a business, a city, a state? To my knowledge, NO; and that is what is NOW needed in spades. Senators/representatives make good political talking points, but not PRESIDENTS OF THE US,okay? Remember JFK and his protege currently El Chosen One [who hasn't nor couldn't successfully/profitably run/operate a snowball stand in the middle of NYC]? Let's put Ryan in the hopper of possibles and start adding some successful governors, business executives-owners, etc who know what a budget looks like, how to fire employees, who is not the second coming of JFK etc!!!!!!!!!!

Margie| 4.22.11 @ 9:06PM

You crack me up.

Rev Trask| 4.23.11 @ 2:28PM

Sorry, we don`t need a supply-side fantasy peddler. And when we DID have a "businessman" in the WH (GWB), how did THAT turn out? Whatever happened to that 200+ Billion surplus he inherited?

dw| 4.24.11 @ 12:41PM

you are an idiot, pure and simple

Volare| 4.25.11 @ 8:23PM

Well, I remember duing the 2000 campaign, how giddy Rush and Sean were at the prospect having someone with an MBA who would run the country like a "business" and his administration like a "CEO". Well, so much for that, eh? Will Rush and Sean get behind Trump, and start that drivel about business and a CEO in the WH again?

darrell mclemore| 4.25.11 @ 3:28AM

If this does anything it shows what is right and what is wrong. who is right and who is wrong Rryan is right and Obama is wrong. Obama, with his speech against Ryan has just errased the grey area for which he has been living in. This so called speech he gave gives the people the power to pick a side to clearly see who is right and who is wrong.

Rev Trask| 4.25.11 @ 8:29PM

Yep, and most independent and swing voters aren`t going to go for another round of trickle-down economics. And even Donald Trump said Ryan made a mistake by shredding Medicare in his budget. Good luck getting the middle-class behind this.

Lagiusmeatius| 4.28.11 @ 12:04PM

Rev Trask,

I agree. As we've seen over last few decades, the number of U.S. households making between 75 and 125% of the median income (middle class) have decreased since about 1967, and the number of billionaires in the U.S. have increased at the same time (where the first burst of billionaire-increase came during the Reagan Administration, from 13 in 1982 to about 82 at the end of his second term). It's also been demonstrated that the corporations have basically taken ownership of our "democracy", where now we have a corporatocracy that own everything. We have legislature being passed in favor of corporations (and their "right" to 2nd and 3rd world natural resources), and we see those corporations donating to campaigns that serve them. This is why we need serious campaign reform--to give every candidate an equally alloted amount, audited, public-funded campaign budget. Then the candidates will not win just because they are the most wealthy or in the corporate pockets--provide more advertisement, etc.--rather they will be chosen by the people with nothing but issues and political positions to vote for. Then people will not be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils with an "illusion of choice". We've gotta' take this country back by force, and a working class revolution is probably the likely route. Slashing Medicare from the budget, cutting more and more from health care, education, etc., while leaving defense off the table ("defense" our largest expense of $1.2 TRILLION per year, despite the DOD budget "request" of $558 billion dollars per year is what is bankrupting this nation in terms of expenses, on top of under-taxing the wealthy which reduces our tax revenue). Likewise, I do not see the middle class getting behind this, at least not if all the facts are presented openly. They may be able to fool enough voters once again, depending on what political games are played.

Peace and love to you Rev Trask,
-Lagius

Marthab38| 5.2.11 @ 8:23AM

I am a Republican - am alarmed to not see Ryan's budget cuts addressing the continuing $29,5B in farm subsidies, or any attempt to lower spending at the Pentagon. Barron's addressed this in their front-page article this week, and I expect you will soon hear Mitch Daniels address it , as well. Would be interested in hearing other reader's thoughts.

gs425| 6.2.11 @ 8:12AM

Paul Ryan made Paul Ryan famous when he eviscerated Obama during the Healthcare talks and exposed him for the stammering idiot he is.

Creative Recreation| 8.10.11 @ 9:58PM

is good