5 posts tagged “citizenship”
Have you ever used Wikipedia? I have to admit that I do. My college student daughter tells me college Professors refuse to allow Wikipedia to be used as reference and notation material because of the nature the online encyclopedia is set up. That set-up being that that anyone who registers (academically credentialed or NOT academically credentialed) and follows a few simple rules can write a Wikipedia article.
Now that actually does not bother me. When wade into Wikipedia information I am fully aware an article will be skewed Left-Center-Right with annotations to back up their article conclusions.
I ran into a WorldNetDaily article dated March 8, 2009 that writes about Wikipedia utilizing censorship beyond their usual scope.
Apparently Wikipedia is NOT allowing any anti-Obama articles to be published citing their rule of not allowing fringe information on the online encyclopedia. Well we all know that is poppycock because Wikipedia usually allows information if it is backed up by a slew of citations. Wikipedia will only remove such fringe articles if a large amount of complaints OR a big dog organization OR a big dog member of an organization write to complain about an article.
Specifically articles pointing to the controversy President Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to the Office of President are being removed instantly from Wikipedia. Also according to WorldNetDaily, articles relating information about connections to BHO’s friends and mentors are being deleted if they question the veracity of BHO.
Well I guess the President of the United States of America qualifies as a big dog working for a big dog organization. The question is does this kind of censorship rattle the American Way or does this kind of censorship smack of Leftist revisionism?
JRH 3/12/09
I just finished reading a day old email with a Frontpagemag.com letterhead by David Horowitz. The subject on the email: “A Message to Disgruntled Conservatives: Get Over It!” Horowitz’s blog has a different title yet apparently the same content: Birth certificate, Hussein name, Hillary garbage.
Horowitz actually writes a very supportive article for Barack Hussein Obama. Horowitz basically writes the Conservatives that are going after the Birth Certificate issue of BHO’s citizenship (Some are calling Obamagate) is “right-wing trash talk.”
Now check this out: David Horowitz is one of the true heroes working to educate Americans about the nature of Islam/Mohammedanism. This makes Horowitz a hero in my book; however this article is laced with self-righteous anger.
Horowitz claims the significant of amount voters that elected Obama renders irrelevant the veracity or the lack of veracity of Obama’s citizenship. Horowitz even goes so far as to NOT bring up the U.S. Constitution because the will of the voters overrides the letter of law in the Constitution.
Horowitz goes on to rail Conservatives about the attitude given toward Hillary as Secretary of State and the accusation that BHO is a closet Islamist Muslim. I have to say on the last two points I am in complete agreement with Horowitz.
Although Hillary is a domestic societal change Leftist, her record in the Senate has demonstrated a good grasp of foreign policy and the need to fight the Islamic terrorists. This is in contradistinction from BHO’s thoughts of not setting any pre-conditions for negotiations with America’s enemies.
As for being a Muslim, I don’t believe it one bit. I do believe BHO has been ensconced in Islamic culture and the typical pro-Arab and anti-Israel Leftist stand pertaining to how things should work out politically in the Middle East.
I am still convinced BHO is a closet Marxist because of past associations with avowed Marxists that have influenced everything to an entrance into Harvard to working on Slanted Left community solutions with an unrepentant oxymoron anti-war yet violent American terrorist who sought the destruction of the American government to establish a Marxist utopia. (Ayers claimed he did not kill anyone in his bombing days however booklets and eyewitness infiltrators demonstrate a willingness to kill Americans who did not conform to the envisioned Marxist utopia.)
Whether or not the BHO’s birth certificate of original birth exists or demonstrates a birth in Hawaii or Kenya is important because the cloud of darkness illustrates a propensity to lie.
The influence of Black Liberation Theology (BLT) Marxist Jeremiah Wright (ergo racist) is downplayed by BHO. Only a gullible sucker could believe that – it’s a BHO lie. This BLT influence extends to Wrights good Chicago community buddy Black Muslim racist Louis Farrakhan no matter the verbal BHO denials.
I do have to admit though that BHO’s Cabinet choices are way more centrist than the obvious ideology that BHO gravitates toward. Maybe BHO is an American first and a Leftist Marxist second. Time will tell with that.
The thing I disagree with Horowitz the most is his concept that votes override the U.S. Constitution. This very same attitude is how a Slanted Left judiciary in America has disdained Constitutional interpretation for Constitutional transforming to fit the Bench’s view of how a Constitution should evolve without the involvement of people and Congress.
Personally I would be flabbergasted if SCOTUS even looks at the BHO’s birth certificate issue on the merit that the Governor of Hawaii (a Democrat) has certified BHO was born in Hawaii. Once a SCOTUS decides to not even look at the various civil suits concerning place of birth and citizenship, the issue will become moot and something to be scrutinized by curious historians in the future.
So far I have come across only one avowed Conservative (via the old GOOGLE) who believes David Horowitz has shown his true colors. Patrick Krey posting on the blog Political Class Dismissed takes the paleocon opportunity to call David Horowitz a neocon ergo a closet Leftist.
Now it is true those that are pegged as neocons (which is a group of people that hardly have monolithic agreement) have Leftist and even Marxist roots. Paleocons miss the fact these multifaceted EX-Leftists are “EX.” An epiphany occurred that Leftist/Marxist ideology is a failed pattern to govern for the greater good. Hence the ex-Leftist and/or ex-Marxist became Conservatives yet with a different twist: the promotion of global Democracy as a means toward peace rather than conquest and forced re-education camps or executions. Basically the loose difference between Paleocons and Neocons is the former emphasizes less government involvement with individuals and a domestic non-international perspective while the later emphasizes the use of military strength to rid the world of despots and terrorists strengthening global interdependence via democratic institutions.
This is what makes Neocons great educators on the nature of Islam trying to overcome the Politically Correct subculture which both the Left and many on the Right bow toward.
PC culture is like a domestic family in a row boat. The leader tells the family not to rock the boat so that no one gets hurt. All the while hooligans are hiding around the bend to do more than rock the family leader’s boat, they plan to capsize it and take their possessions. Kill the males and abuse the females.
Maybe the leader sees the trouble coming around the bend. The leader still tells the family not to rock the boat. The leader will speak with the hooligans and surely have the moral imperative to not hurt humans for the purpose of self-aggrandizement.
The hooligan leader says sure, turning to smile at his fellow hooligans. Hooligan leader says, “Come to shore and we will respect your humanity as the hooligans in the background sharpen their knives in preparation for the acquisition of easy booty.
So I have to say I do not agree with Horowitz concerning constitutional issues yet he still is a hero for being one of many educating America and the West that there are Islamic hooligans that cannot be trusted.
JRH 12-2-08
The Law Suit brought by Philip Berg to challenge Barack Hussein Obama’s citizenship status to be constitutionally eligible to be elected President has not been a part of the Mainstream Media (MSM). Actually I can understand the MSM dismissal as newsworthy as to the particulars of the Law Suit.
So let’s presume all the above is true. Would that make Barack Hussein ineligible to be President of the USA? I mean I am no constitutional expert but I thought the qualifications was to be at least age 35 and American citizen born from at least one American parent. If I am wrong in that understanding someone point me to the constitutional law that is specific.
I am guessing Berg believes that a person has to be born on USA soil to qualify to be elected President.
So here’s the deal: Berg’s law suit was dismissed in Federal Court. Judge Surrick ruled Berg lacked standing to bring such a law suit because he was just a mere citizen of the USA. The implication a special citizen in government such as a Congressman or Executive Department are the only ones eligible to bring such a suit.
Now I think Berg’s law suit is frivolous thinking the Courts would rule anything against BHO; however Judge Surrick’s ruling restricts the typical U.S. citizen from questioning the legitimacy of a candidate for President questioning his citizenship.
THAT IS POORLY WORDED JUDICIAL HOGWASH!
If the Judge just would have did his job to rule on the law suits merits and decide to continue or not continue it is quite likely BHO would have been certified that his mommy was an American citizen. So what if it was discovered BHO was born in Kenya rather than in Hawaii. Mommy was an American citizen.
Now the dipstick Judge may have placed the election into a Constitutional Crisis if the Supreme Court rules there are indeed a “standing” for an American citizen to ask for proof of documented citizenship.
JRH 10/31/08
Could Barack Hussein Obama not be eligible to run for U.S. President? Apparently some forensic analysis has been done on BHO’s Birth Certificate that was posted on the Moonbat blog Daily Kos. The conclusion by the analysts was the Birth Certificate was a forgery.
Now before the Right hails an “AHA!” moment, there are a couple things to consider.
1. The analysis was performed under the auspices of the Israel Insider which is not exactly a pro-Obama group (bless there hearts).
2. BHO is entrenched into the American Leftists as the second coming of the Leftist Messiah, I doubt any traction will be allowed to prove or disprove BHO’s path to American citizenship.
Nonetheless, this simply adds to the continuously build up of scandalous associations and history that should make an American with any sense to wonder why there is such a cloak and dagger darkness relating to information on a potential President of the United States of America.
VOTE MCCAIN!
JRH 8/8/08
What do you think about utilizing tests to qualify a citizen the ability to vote?
The Stiletto blog came across an article written by Jonah Goldberg suggesting this very same thing.
I understand the rationalization: a huge segment of eligible voters are horribly uninformed and thus indifferent to voting or vote an ideological propagandized line associated with life time familial Party association or the journalism of their favorite media.
The former is irresponsible and the later is dangerous because media and educational institutions (teachers and professors) are highly dominated by Left leaning or secular humanistic thinking. Those that are mentors in education often teach a leftist slant or dumb down civics to disinterested students.
Here is a shocker for you though: I disagree with conservative The Stiletto and Jonah Goldberg. This is my simple reasoning: My childhood was the late ‘50’s and the 60’s. I remember the “Jim Crow” tests that African-Americans were forced to take when they were of age to vote to qualify to vote. In the South Caucasians were given a simple test, African-American were given a test that Caucasians would even fail. The result: Whites voted and Blacks were prohibited from voting.
It is interesting to note that the Founding Fathers had the same concern about qualified voters as opposed to potential ignorant voters. Thus the Founding Fathers tagged voter eligibility to age and property ownership. If you were not a tax paying property owner, you were not able to vote. The rational was if you had the smarts to manage your property, you probably had the smarts to make informed voting decisions.
Jim Crow were racially prejudiced and property rights voting were a concern about informed privilege. The evolution of voting enfranchisement in America has done away with both.
So how does America further evolve voting so that uninformed morons (not a reference to IQ but rather to laziness) become informed responsible voters? Presenting laws to a retroactive past will cause more problems than solve them.
My thought is to provide various levels of neutral civics lessons in primary and secondary education as the best way to enable a responsible voting consciousness. Thus when a person becomes enfranchised at eighteen if the person chooses to vote (indifference factor), a person can vote responsibly according to the personal political choices. Voting enfranchisement can never return to race exclusion, wealth certification (i.e. property) or intellectual testing. These factors simply disenfranchise too many citizens.
Non-American residents (legal or illegal) are the only group of people that should be non-enfranchised in the USA. That is right: ONLY citizens should have the right to vote.
