Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Dems Having Orgasms about Palin's Hand

A Republican turned Democrat friend of mine sent me a video of the Daily Show ( for which his son is a producer). The clip shows the host Jon Stewart ridiculing the Tea Party convention and Palin's hand crib notes.

I sent him this reply:

"Check this out! The brilliant Ivy Leaguer, Obama, can't pronounce corpsman correctly - even with a teleprompter. Maybe he should borrow Palin's hand - ROFL.

(For you intellectually superior liberal Democrats out there, the 'p' in corpsman is silent. Barack the Brilliant pronounced the 'p' three times during his speech with the teleprompter).

Speaking of serving in uniform, Obama was never a member of any uniform service (unless you count ACORN). Yet, he sends people off to war. Don't liberal Democrats have a name for people like that? Oh yeah, Chickenhawk. That's what they called Republicans who were like Obama.

So let's review:

Obama is lauded by liberal Democrats as brilliant. Yet he cannot pronounce the word corpsman correctly ( not to mention his 57 states remark and some other gaffes). But nothing was said by Stewart.

Obama sends people to war and never served in the military; liberal Democrats call that being a "chickenhawk." Still nothing said by Stewart.

Mmmm could Stewart be a hypocrite? Nah liberal Democrats are never hypocrites LOL. If you believe that I have some beachfront property in Nebraska to sell you.

No wonder Democrats are getting their clocked cleaned. ( I say this as a registered Democrat)."

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

"Birthers" Like "Truthers" are Looney

I have always believed that the idea that Barack Obama was not eligible to be president because he is not a citizen is lunacy. After spending a couple of hours yesterday arguing the merits of this with some birthers I'm now thoroughly convinced I am correct. The people who subscribe to this theory are misguided, woefully misinformed have too much leisure time and/or have some mental or emotional obsession.

The arguments they offered were:

1- Obama was really born in Hawaii in 1958. Therefore he was not a citizen because Hawaii was not a state yet.

This is patently false. Even if Obama were born in 1958 - which he clearly was not - anyone born in a US territory is a US citizen.

2- Obama has never released his birth certificate.

This is a lie. A copy of the birth certificate was posted to the internet and an official of the Hawaiian state government has verified the authenticity.

3- Numerous Birthers told me that a Supreme Court case, US v Wong Kim Ark, established the definiton of "natural born" citizen. This is important to one of the birther arguments. "Natural born" - is a term used in the Constitution of the United States as a qualification for presidential eligibility.

The birtheers assertion that US v. Wong Kim Ark is hilarious and illustrates just how misinformed and/or fanatical birthers are. Not only did this case NOT define natural born citizen, Justice Gray who wrote the majority opinion specifically stated that the Constitution doesn't define "natural born."

Birthers believe that Obama is not a natural born citizen - that he was born in Kenya. Now, even if true, from what I understand, since his mother was a US citizen and she met certain residential requirements he would still be a citizen. This is according to the US code.

However, birthers want people to believe that the US code defining citizenship is unconstitutional. The term "natural born" is the only thing that matters.

None of this is true. Obama was born in the US and Wong didn't define 'natural born.'

4- Birthers said both Obama's parents had to be US citizens for him to be a citizen.

Again this illustrates just how misinformed birthers are. It is only necessary that one parent be a citizen.

So to sum it up - "birthers" believe in a lie (Obama wasn't born in Hawaii) and can't prove what the definition of "natural born" means.

They are simply chasing moonbeams.

Now since the real issue becomes credibility let's examine who is leading the Obama is not a citizen movement and who believes he is a citizen.

You tell me who you trust.


1- The "Obama is not a citizen" was started by a Clinton campaign operative.

2- One of the first lawsuits filed was by a lawyer who is not only a "birther" he is a "truther" too.

So a Clinton campaign operative and a lawyer who is both "birther" and "truther" lead the birther movement.


Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, stated in July 2009 that she saw the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

This was also the opinion of, an organization of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. They claim also to have seen the certificate.

American Spectator founder and editor-in-chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. has written that his reporters found evidence verifying Obama's citizenship. a website that debunks internet rumors has also confirmed the birth certificate.

I have personally spoken to citizenship and immigration law experts from the Federalist Society who have told me there is no question Obama is a citizen.

Scholars from the Heritage Foundation have told me the same.

Finally, these lawsuits have been thrown out of every court in the land including the Supreme Court.

Who would you believe?

The scholars, legal experts, publishers, news organizations, independent groups, government officials and judges who think Obama is a citizen and can prove it?

The campaign operatives or lawyers (including one who filed suit against Bush because he claims he caused 9-11) who say Obama is not a citizen and cannot prove it?

Monday, February 1, 2010

Bonfire of the Elites


'NOT ALL populism is bad," writes Kimberly A. Strassel in the Jan. 29 Wall Street Journal.
Presumably, the hoi polloi should be grateful for Ms. Strassel's qualified approval.

Apparently, graduating from Princeton in 1994 with a B.A. in public policy and international affairs, as Ms. Strassel did, gives you the intellectual authority to decide which political beliefs of the man on the street are legitimate.

The pronouncement by Lady Strassel is risible. Why an Ivy League education imbues you with a greater degree of righteousness than those who lack such education is not immediately apparent to anyone who doesn't have one.

The four classic Roman virtues of pietas, fides, collegio and gravitas didn't include any mention of an Ivy League degree or being a Rhodes scholar. After all, the most admired ancient Roman, Cincinnatus, was a farmer.

The habit of the intelligentsia, of both left and right, of using the word "populist" as a synonym for an angry lynch mob is wearisome. They do not so much say the word as spit it out. Or do not so much write it as scrawl it angrily.

The idea that the common man is merely a selfish, ignorant, lazy being - and therefore merely politically petulant - is the worst kind of elitism.

When did that average person become so terribly evil? Did it occur when they started acting together to demand honesty, accountability and competence - and possibly even a little empathy - from those who have economic and political power?

WHY DO THE intelligentsia react so negatively to the actions of regular folks when they demand a standard of political behavior that shouldn't have to be demanded at all?

Perhaps the intelligentsia - both left and right - need to be reminded that in this democratic-capitalist system of ours, those with economic and political power have been granted such by the hoi polloi, which Woodrow Wilson characterized as "submitting to authority."

If they don't believe this, all they need to do is go to the next G8 meeting without the security, which protects the elite from the anarchist mobs who, it sometimes seems from their rhetoric, would just as soon kill the wealthy bankers and powerful politicians as they would break a store window.

No, the courts, the police, the very books on which the law is written, are underwritten by the unstated consent provided by the common man. Without their cooperation, there is no private property, no market, no socialization and no education. There is only whatever you can take and keep by force.

Somehow, you can't imagine Wall Street bankers or journalists like Ms. Strassel obtaining or keeping much by force. No, in the absence of the cooperation of the common man, there are only Pol Pots, Stalins, Hitlers, Maos.

In most political systems, it's the strongest and best organized, not necessarily the most talented, most compassionate or most altruistic, who seize power. They are the leaders of the robber tribes.

This is not to say even democracy U.S.-style is a pure meritocracy, rewarding the most deserving. After all, entertainers and professional athletes are among the best-paid in our society.

The current idea that unless you're excessively educated, or wealthy in a certain way, you're probably too stupid to act in your own best interests, is a disgrace. The conservative and liberal elite need to remember that they govern only by consent of the people.

We defer to the elites on certain issues - repeat, certain issues - because of their specific technical qualifications and talents. But education - even a prestigious one - does not make them omniscient, or automatically endow them with common sense. We grant the elite certain powers - and we can take them back at any time.

Unfortunately, the elite keep forgetting this. Once again, Lady Strassel's column illustrates that there's very little difference between the conservative Republican elite and the liberal Democratic one.

Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of the novel "A Sense of Duty," available at and Atlantic Bookstores. He is working on a new book about political correctness in law enforcement