Palin reimburses Alaska $8,000 for 9 family trips
Originally published Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 6:12 p.m.
Updated Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 12:01 p.m.
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Edit: Headline was corrected to reflect the correct number of family trips.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has reimbursed the state for more than $8,100 in costs associated with trips taken by her children.
Palin paid the state $8,143.62 on Friday for nine trips during two years, some involving more than one of her children, her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, said Tuesday. Van Flein and state administrative director Linda Perez sent The Associated Press copies of the check and other documents of the transaction.
The reimbursement, due Tuesday, stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint alleging Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her.
The personnel board found no wrongdoing, but Palin agreed to reimburse the state for costs associated with trips found to be of questionable state interest.
The board’s investigator, Timothy Petumenos, said in his report there is little guidance under state rules to determine ethical standards for travel by the governor’s immediate family. But he interpreted the law to require that the state pay only if the first family serves an important state interest.
Van Flein noted that Palin had followed historical practices on first family travel and that her travel requests were processed by the same administrators who processed requests for predecessors, Frank Murkowski and Tony Knowles.
“No one challenged Gov. Murkowski’s or Governor Knowles’ travel practices,” Van Flein stated in an e-mail. “The rules were, and are, being changed in midstream for Governor Palin. However, as noted in the agreement at the time ‘the Governor wants to exceed minimum legal standards.’”
Anchorage resident Frank Gwartney, a Democrat, filed the complaint in late October. The filing closely followed a report by the AP that Palin charged the state more than $21,000 for her three daughters’ commercial flights, including events where they weren’t invited, and later ordered their expense forms amended to specify official state business.
At the time the complaint was filed, Palin was the Republican vice presidential candidate and after the February settlement called the grievance “an obvious political weapon.”
As part of the settlement, the Alaska Department of Law was asked to develop specific rules clarifying when the state should pay for a governor’s family travel. That effort is under way, with the goal to have a final draft by the end of the year, according to Judy Bockmon, an assistant attorney general.
Also on Tuesday, the governor’s office announced the 15th dismissal of an ethics complaint against Palin or one of her staff.
The complaint, filed by outspoken Palin critic Andree McLeod, had alleged Kris Perry — director of the governor’s Anchorage office — worked on state time to benefit Palin’s interests during and after her quest as Republican John McCain’s running mate in the presidential election. It was dismissed June 5 by then acting Attorney General Richard Svobodny, who concluded an investigator found no evidence that Perry violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act as alleged by McLeod, who has filed four complaints against Palin or her staff. Three have been dismissed. The fourth is pending.
The governor’s office said the complaint was filed even after Perry obtained an opinion from Perez, her ethics supervisor.
“It is outrageous to file an ethics complaint against a state employee who sought and obtained ethics guidance in advance,” Mike Nizich, Palin’s chief of staff, said in a prepared statement. “This is not about ethics. This is not about holding the governor or state employees accountable. This is pure harassment.”
McLeod called the dismissal a “complete whitewash.”
“The state refuses to acknowledge all of the evidence that point to Kris Perry campaigning on the state’s dime and time,” she said.
Van Flein said he did not handle the Perry complaint, but was familiar with it. He said McLeod “fundamentally misunderstands” the ethics law.
“The investigator concluded that Ms. Perry in fact was conducting state business and often donated her time in so doing,” Van Flein said. “In other words, the state got free services from Ms. Perry. Further, Ms. Perry obtained advance ethics guidance giving her express permission from her ethics supervisor.”
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
shouldn't take the Palin haters long to jump on this article.
I think it is significant that the article says that the Personnel Board found no wrongdoing, and yet Ms. Palin and her family have paid over $8000.00 to place themselves above reproach; I think it is unfortunate that she has been put in a position where she felt she needed to do this, and like you said, NotPc, even despite this gesture, I'll bet she won't get cut any slack or given any props for it. Somehow her detractors will find a way to turn this against her as well. Talk about a no-win situation.
She stole money from the state to fly her family around on our dime. She got caught and was forced to repay the money. You don't get "props" for being forced to do something.
Remember too, that the Alaska Personnel Board is appointed by Sarah Palin and they can be fired at any time by Sarah Palin. It is in their best interest, if they wish to remain well paid employees of the state, to not piss off Sarah Palin. When they find no wrongdoing, it can't mean anything. That board needs to be specifically safeguarded from repercussions of their findings against the governor regardless of who that governor is.
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/5095/...
Wonder how much SarahPac paid Van Flein to make copies of the check and other documents.
19 trips for $8,000!!!! Who's her travel agent? It cost me a little over $2,000 for my family & I to just to leave this state, not to mention expenses.... Doesn't she have a family of eight!
pavel,
"and they can be fired at any time by Sarah Palin."
Not true. They are appointed for 6 year terms and can only be removed "for cause". None were appointed by Palin, one was reappointed by her. Keep telling your lies, you always fool some of the sheeple.
Look back through Palin's history of handling employees who cross her. I don't think coming up with "cause" would be all that difficult for her if that board actually found her in violation of state laws.
ahaaaa, Need a Little Ice with that *Cool Aid .....?
Funny...prior to this article the figure I continually saw noted was $10k not $8k. I wonder how she got it down from where it should be (which is actually about $21k). More, she gets to keep the interest she earned on that money. Kinda like an interest-free loan from the state from which she derives income and, in the end, only has to pay back the principal.
Golly, nothing wrong in that is there, Palin-lovers?
And, as Pavel points out, with her ability to "find cause" I'm sure the personnel board wants to keep on her good side. Certainly, they seem to have done so so far, exonerating her of any wrongdoing in instances where it is blatantly evident she screwed up. Must be that Palin magic...
Too bad she can't make like the guv of SC and go missing.
Oh. Wait.
I found a cool bumper sticker for the RPOD sufferers: http://images6.cafepress.com/product/303...
You win the prize, wayuphere!
RPOD (repulsive Palin obsessive disorder)
A new medically diagnosed illness. And, it's contagious too!
When is there ever going to be some actual news on Sarah Palin? I wish she would just go away, or start doing her job. I have idea why don,t we transport all the local drunks from down town to Wasilla with a thank you card from the Mayor and City Council.
Vent, you poor, sad, deranged hatemongers! Vent! Get the poison out of your system for another 24 hours.
Tomorrow, when you wake up, and after that first cup of coffee, when you are looking at the sad loser in the mirror, just remember: Sarah Palin will still be the governor of Alaska...and you'll still be you.
I wonder if she was not so hated by people like the Dems that this would had ever come to light? I bet we could scour the backgrounds of other politicians in state goverment and find all kinds of money being spent or misused!
What part of "The reimbursement, due Tuesday, stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint alleging Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her" do you Palinistas NOT understand???
Or maybe you don't like the wording of this: "The filing closely followed a report by the AP that Palin charged the state more than $21,000 for her three daughters’ commercial flights, including events where they weren’t invited, and later ordered their expense forms amended to specify official state business." I find the last phrase particularly distasteful: "and later ordered their expense forms amended to specify official state business". Let me repeat that: "AND LATER ORDERED THEIR EXPENSE FORMS AMENDED TO SPECIFY OFFICIAL STATE BUSINESS"... This is OK with you folks??? This is the transparency you want? Wow.
Andrew, again - nobody fears Palin. Nobody. LOL all by yourself.
Did you notice that there aren't many articles about anything, good bad or otherwise, that Obama or Biden or Pelosi or Franks or Dodd do in the local paper? If it is political slams, it is all about Palin.
That is because the FDNM is run by liberals.
Maybe the "liberal" thing, but I think that it is more the fact that the DNM is a "local" paper. They're supposed to report our "local" Alaska news, not national news.
I think that besides the National Enquirer style coverage of the governor and her family, that they do fair.
But that don't stop me. I'll keep bringing my complaints about BHO into the conversation until they pry the 1st Amendment away from my cold, dead fingers.
Perhaps there are more articles about our governor in our local paper because she is...our governor. Just perhaps, running equal and opposite articles about our president (which there are plenty of by the way) and vice president would be like comparing apples and oranges? It's a false dichotomy.
Is it my imagination? Are the same people who have been accusing ANYONE AND EVERYONE who voted for Obama of being blind Obama loyalists, the ones who are now blind Palin loyalists unable to look with a critical eye at anything she does? It really blows ones mind. All elected officials should be looked at with a critical eye aimed at making sure they aren't blowing too much smoke up our *&^**. To do otherwise is foolish. But so many on here have fallen victim to the victimization paradigm and now think that if they call everybody 'haters' that they somehow have actually said something intelligent. Really? Is that the best you have? Well, if we're going to play that game, then may whatever you say bounce of me and stick to you. Come on kids, is that the best we are?
BTW, Briseno you seriously do need some help for your conspiracy complex. You really do.
Why is it, Andrew and Big D, that any criticism of Palin always results in the two of you calling out Obama for something completely unrelated to the criticism of Palin? Their actions are not mutually exclusive - Palin's actions have nothing to do with Obama's, and I'm pretty sure that Obama couldn't care less about Palin. She is no threat to him whatsoever - to believe otherwise assigns her far more power than she has earned or deserves.
Once again, Andrew - this: "I am glad to hear it hobbes. Not that I believe you based on the Soetoro dirty sleaze machine's actions" doesn't make any sense at all. I was just wondering; do you write stuff at night when you're drunk and then read it in the morning and wonder who's using your name?
News Miner staff:
This story is incomplete. It would be helpful if you would actually research and compare the number of times Knowles and Murkowski traveled with family and charged the state. I seem to remember Knowles saying he'd never done so, that he'd always paid for all but his own travel. Don't know about Murkowski.
I think the comparison would be useful in determining whether Palin was following precedent or indeed bending the rules.
dobieman ~~ I thought it was $10,000 aalso ... strange how the amount suddenly changes to benefit her.
DNM .... could you please explain?
oops ! also not aalso
Nice work DNM! The boys in Colorado ar happy to see more Palin bashing articles!
Andrew.. WTF does Chicago Politics have to do with Palin paying off a debt ? & now maybe she can get on to paying off her lawyers ?!
Clyde, why do you feel it is a Palin bashing article? She is the one who tried to stiff the state. If anyone else did it, they would be arrested for embezzlement.
Ottawa... I'm with you. Want the name of the travel agent. No way cost of $8,000 for the family is sufficient. The smoke blowing is getting in everyone's eyes with that conclusion. Sad and sickening.
"“No one challenged Gov. Murkowski’s or Governor Knowles’ travel practices"
They weren't flying around with a passle of kids who can't possibly serve any official state function.
Hobbes said:
Why is it, Andrew and Big D, that any criticism of Palin always results in the two of you calling out Obama for something completely unrelated to the criticism of Palin? Their actions are not mutually exclusive - Palin's actions have nothing to do with Obama's, and I'm pretty sure that Obama couldn't care less about Palin.
It's very simple. They don't want any criticism or unfavorable comment on Sarah, so they hijack the thread and come up with their ususal diatribe simply to switch the subject. If you check around, they do this with other articles as well. But it's good entertainment. LOL
Well, when the "personnel board" works directly for you, and is comprised of old high school friends, I don't think it very surprising that they find no wrong doing.
The governor receives pay for the work she's supposed to be doing. She was elected, not her family. When she goes...everywhere...her pay is there to cover her own conveniences, like hauling her kids around with her.
This isn't some aristocracy. This is a public servant, and, somewhere, she- like all the rest of them- have lost track of who they represent and what they're job is.
Pure arrogance.
I think I've been reading that the reimbursement was supposed to be $10k, too. And, as other's have pointed out, I'd like to know who she's getting her travel arrangements from, because she's getting a heck of a deal!
Agreed tuzlu - they do "hijack the thread" - I guess I was trying to make a connection when there really is no connection to be made - it's all just repetitive disassociation.
And Shokd, you're right on the money - Palin's actions are flagrant displays of pure arrogance. It seems to have started with her nomination last summer. She's kinda like the high school cheerleader who becomes valedictorian through some fluke in the system, and who goes on an ego trip throughout the rest of her senior year. Everybody knows she's not smart enough for the honor, but she somehow becomes the unlikely hero of the less-than-intelligent crowd, who think she speaks for all the underdogs. She surrounds herself with her airhead buddies, insulates herself with layers of mediocrity, forms alliances with the nerds and those who just can't see beyond the brilliant smile and the flurry of nonsense that comes out every time she opens her mouth, and she awaits graduation.
Daily News Miner, can you please verify? Is it "19 Family Trips" as the headline states, or "nine trips" as stated in the text of the story? I'm confused...
hobbes and tuzlo-
How so?
Would you point out where on this thread, in my 2 short comments, that I attempted to change the subject to criticism of BHO.
Again with the insults, hobbes. The "... hero of the less-than- intelligent crowd". You mistake intelligence for agreement with your slanted viewpoint. It's a common mistake, especially for passionate liberals.
Andrew, What is it with you? Do you hate Obama that much? Don't you have any court cases that are really pressing? Like maybe spend some time in court. The topic is about Sarah paying the travel expenses for her family. I didn't see one word about Obama in the article..
Everytime I read a post of yours, you remind fme of my x-wifw, by the way she was abogado tambien.
The bill was for 10,000. And people, these weren't just trips for political purposes, many of them were to the religious gatherings. Alaska cannot afford to have her in the gov house anymore...OUT WITH SARAH PALIN AND ALL OF EM'.!!!!!
I believe the $8,000 figure was thrown out there to pull the wool again. As long as she pays something, she thinks the public will let it go. The next election can't come too soon. I hope enough people have seen the light to make a better choice at the polls.
Didn't Palin sell Murkowski’s jet?
SHE GAVE IT AWAY!
Boy, the Palinistas are busy on this one!
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/3428/...
Big D - Here: "I'll keep bringing my complaints about BHO into the conversation until they pry the 1st Amendment away from my cold, dead fingers."
And I didn't say YOU were less-than-intelligent.
I did apologize the time I DID insult you, but you never responded...
I saw no reason to respond to your retracting insults directed at me. Enough for me, and I thought you, to just move on. But here and now I'll do it, I'm sorry for not writing that I accepted your apology for insulting me. There. Is that better?
Your excerpt of my comment is a little out of context. The comment was actually about why the DNM specializes in local news. Such as this alleged article. If you took out of that that I was trying to change the subject to Obama, well there's really nothing that I can do about that.
I must have misunderstood your "less-than-intelligent" comment. I thought that you meant that description for people who didn't agree with your opinion of the governor. Looking back, I see now that you were talking about people who idolize her, whoever that is. My mistake.
Everyone knows why Obama is brought up as the assumption is made that those who attack Palin are ardent Obama supporters and by being so, are practicing a severe double-standard.
You know the reason he's brought up, I know it and the next guy/gal knows it. So why pretend that it's something else? If you are going to be dishonest, at least don't advertise it.
Who made you the subject police?
Everyone knows why Obama is brought up as the assumption is made that those who attack Palin are ardent Obama supporters and by being so, are practicing a severe double-standard.
----------------------
You DO know what happens when you assume, don't you?
You guys just can't even conceive of an independent or Republican being unhappy with Palin, can you?
Hobbes et al. Reminds me of the story of the mother watching a division of troops march by and exclaiming "Look, there's Johnny. He's the only one in step." The self-righteousnous here is so extreme at times that any legitimate points they might have are completely negated and made laughable. Thus, they become only entertainment. All very sad indeed! And the story started out about Palin. One thread at a time.
tuzlo-
Doesn't it strike you as self-righteous to call others self-righteous? Kind of like yelling at someone that they're talking too loud.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well, I guess it's a duck. Seems pretty obvious to me. LOL
now, if we could only get her to send back the money she took for living in her own house.......
is she, by the way, still taking per diem to live in her own home????
For all left leaners: Google- Sarah Palin Internet Coalition Of Bloggers, click on- Sarah Palin Web Brigade. Once you get to the Sarah Palin Web Brigade, look under the archive of blogs. Click on the one that says "Following up on Soros, CREW, Palin, and Oboma." Read it. Next, read, "Surprise! George Soros Behind Ethics Complaint Aga..." Read it. This should give you a good background of what is coming our way. Do some digging, then come back to the blog. Running on emotion and what others tell you, without getting the facts is what causes RPOD. I was a news reporter. I know how things get spinning. I like cold hard facts. It is a matter of perseption to go on without real facts. Once the facts, the cold hard truth is in front of you, it is your choice to change your mind, or stubbornly stick to a lie that someone told you. If I told you that someone had speech problems and dropped out of school at the age of 16, what conclusions would you draw about this person? Be honest. Would you think that person was an 'Einstein'? Come on. Be honest. Logical conclusions aren't always logical, especially when you don't have all the facts. That person was Einstein! See how fast you changed your mind? You have just had a mind expanding experience. And it didn' even hurt. We experience, learn, and grow, or we do not. It is a choice. Now, go get some facts, so that you can have another mind expanding experience. Oh, and have a good time while you're doing it. That is important. (in case you missed this)
tuzlo-
Did you just quack?
BigD - Well, yes - acknowledgment is good. As a kid, if I had a fight with somebody, the adult in the room would "suggest" that we apologize, so the aggressor would say he was sorry, the aggrieved kid would mumble, "OK", we'd shake hands and then move on. So we move on.
You said that I took your comment out of context, but I don't see how. I said that you seemed to want to bring Obama into any discussion of Palin, and you kinda did... so, that's why I thought that.
I think that lots of folks idolize Palin, especially the out-of-staters, like the lady from Phoenix who went to meet her while she was in Wasilla (http://www.newsminer.com/photos/2009/jun...), all the folks who sent in their last $5 for her defense fund (http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/jun/2...), and friends relatives and of mine from the lower '48 who can't believe that I don't just love her like they do!
And tuzlu, I'm not sure that I'm as self-righteous as I am infuriated by the gall of the governor. Sorry if you're offended by that.
CLEEVN - You were a news reporter? Hope they had spell-check at your paper... "perseption"? And next time - just provide links... they're much easier than cutting and pasting all those sites. And here's a surprise - most of us do extensive reading, and not on blog sites. There are some very intelligent people on the left side of the aisle, believe it or not. Your Einstein story - sorry, it's only partially true. While he did drop out of one school, he enrolled in another, after applying to university and failing the entrance exam. So your "mind expanding" experience didn't work for me...
Oh_please - Hence the word 'assume', genius.
OMGosh!!!!!!!!!!!! who cares?? this kinda stuff should be kept personal!!! are we gunna start finding out when she uses the bathroom now too???? leave her ALONE!!!!!!!
"It’s a sad day over at the Huffington Post and left wing blogs like Mudflats and Celtic Diva’s Blue Oasis. You see, despite their best efforts to smear Alaska Governor Sarah Palin with more than a baker’s dozen of phony ethics complaints since the start of the year, all of their efforts have completely failed. The latest complaint to be dismissed was incredibly ridiculous. It revolved around the fact that Governor Palin, in sub zero weather, had the temerity to wear a jacket when
she attended the final day of the Tesoro Iron Dog Race! The Iron Dog is the world's longest and most difficult snow machine race. (snowmobile to us in the lower 48) The Governor was waiting at the finish line in both her official capacity as well as the wife of one of the competitors, her husband Todd, and his partner, Scott Davis. The Iron Dog is a grueling 1,971 mile race through some of the toughest conditions one can imagine. It is a true manly-man sport! Palin and Davis are two of the best, having 11 wins between them in the event.To tell you how tough this race is, last year Todd finished with a game fourth place effort after a crash slowed him down, and he rode the last 400 miles with a broken arm.So what was the issue?Well, you see Governor Palin was wearing an Arctic Cat jacket. Arctic Cat makes snow machines and yes, they sponsor Todd and Scott.Oh the humanity of it all!
And so, another baseless and comical ethics
complaint was born from the ankle biters on the left.This particular complaint was filed by a nasty woman named Linda Kellen Biegel. She is hostile to Governor Palin, and runs a website, Celtic
Diva’s Blue Oasis, that is dedicated to not only
spreading this woman’s hate for Governor Palin, but also coordinating attacks against her with
other bloggers and members of the press.
Biegel who, according to her own website, is an official blogger for the DNC, has helped publicize the numerous phony harassment complaints against the Governor. In fact, the woman is so notorious for doing this, and then crowing on her website about it, that she actually inspired...."
Written by Gary on June 7, 2009 in a blog on The Sarah Palin Web Birgade site titled, "Palin 14 Ankel Biters 0". See the rest there. (in case you missed this)
hobbes and tuzlo-
This is going around in circles. I quit. You win. I was trying to hijack the thread. If you say so...
Gov.Palin.....Please buy a nice new G5 Jet so you can fly the family with you at state expense,and give the dems something more to talk about.Maybe a few extra trips to Juneau,visit some of the outlying areas,like Eagle.Fly to the slope and talk to some of the villages.I'm sure dobie and some of the other haters will find fault,but hey they don't like your red shoes.It doesn't matter what you do they'll find fault,and please take that pay increase...........you deserve it.
See how you are? Just have to resort to below the belt. Hobbes, at least you did some checking. That is all I hoped for.
hobbes - Is that like your 'mind expanding' argument about Palin not answering Laurer's question?
You know , first time he asked the question by interrupting Palin and not the second time when he didn't , which she answered? You know, the one you neglected to mention in your 'critique' of her.
OK! I'm ancient, half blind, hands can barely stroke the keys, had a hard bound dic at the paper, and don't know much about all this new tech stuff. Point is to hear the message, not kill me!
Knife fight , South Cushman at 8:00 . I choose the old-shcool ancient half-blind guys and gals( yes, school is misspelled because those are cool).
Be there or be progressive!
CLEEVN, good one!! All the ankel biter liberals would never accuse Knowls of any kind of wrong doing. These brain dead simpletons just make Alaskan's look bad to all who read these strings. Most of them are just unhappy creatures that their goal is to make everyone feel the same.
PV - So, if Palin evades the question, is Lauer supposed to just take the hint and give up, cuz she's the queen? Nope - he's supposed to ask the questions and direct the interview, whether she likes it or not. It's his show.
And I'll have to say no thanks to the knife fight. I gave up physical violence in the third grade. I like spirited discussions so much better.
And another AKReport persona makes the scene! Welcome AlaskaO!
Pavel says "She stole money from the state to fly her family around on our dime. She got caught and was forced to repay the money. You don't get "props" for being forced to do something."
Maybe you should read the article again or some of the other articles on Palin because she was investigated and found NOT to have violated any ethics laws. So, tell me again how she STOLE money from the state? Also, she wasn't forced into paying anything back, she gave it back because she felt that it was something that needed to be done. Tell me....if this state paid for a trip for you and your family and you knew deep down that the tax payers shouldn't have to pay for it would you give it back? Even if the state came back and said really it is okay....we will pay for the trip? Hmmm.....I bet you would just let it slide.
hobbes - Palin didn't evade the question. Watch the video of the interview again. She continued what she was saying before Laurer interrupted her, then she answered it when he didn't interrupt her with "he doesn't have to apologise to me"."I'd like to see him apologise to young women across America..." . There's no big crime in an interviewer interrupting as there's time constraints, but get it right if you are going to argue about something. In this case ,you no argument.Accept it and moveon.org.
What's wrong with a knife fight? It's a most sincere expression and blood-letting is cleansing ,don't you know.
lagirl, the article says, "The reimbursement, due Tuesday, stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint alleging Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her." She settled - believe me, she didn't pay it back because "she felt it was something that needed to be done." Please don't be naive.
1st: Bullwinkle - the headline clearly states it is 9 trips, there is also an editor's note underneath the headline that says the number has been corrected to reflect the true number of trips.
2nd: Nowhere in the article, or in fact, was it stated that every family member traveled on every trip - though some on this thread automatically assume that to be the case.
3rd: The AP does not necessarily know for sure what the cost was, and they never said how it was they arrived at $21,000. More than likely, and no I don't know for sure, it was an estimate, but backed by what facts we'll never know.
4th: Unfortunately, once someone is elected to "higher" office, they and their family become reflective of the office, whether on official business or not. That is due to the fact that the media, (and in many cases the public feeds this), does not seem to care what is private and what is official; and there is some warped sense of entitlement about every detail of their lives. There is an overwhelming lack of respect for people. Remember when Bush's daughters got caught drinking, it was immediately plastered everywhere in the news, though in fact it had less than nothing to do with the White House. The girls weren't even living there.
5th: The whole jacket thing was just "poking" to keep the aggravation level at a peak. Ms. Palin was at the race primarily as a wife, and as governor second, the bottom line was she would have been there, and has been in the past, as a wife whether she is governor or not. Again though, that small distinction will rarely be allowed to those who like to do the "poking".
Yes, public officials need to be held accountable, and yes they should be scrutinized, but use common sense people. We have officials that are truly "crooked" and think they are above reproach - Pelosi and some of her machinations come to mind - that should be answering some pointed questions. Bottom line, politicians on both side of the fence, and many that ride the fence, are playing games with our tax dollars, our freedoms, and our livelihoods and as long as they can keep us busy focusing on complaints that eventually don't hold water, we aren't paying attention to what they themselves are doing.
Sadly, common sense and common decency are diminishing even as I type this.
Just a bit of perspective... how much did Obama and Michelle's night on the town in NY cost us? $23,000 or something like that wasn't it? Where were all you Palin haters on that one?
Whynot, why don't you try reading again. Not giving me your interpretation of what happened.
Article above "The reimbursement, due Tuesday, stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint alleging Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her.
The personnel board found no wrongdoing, but Palin agreed to reimburse the state for costs associated with trips found to be of questionable state interest."
Man, I wish I could highlight but above says that the personnel board found NO wrong doing!
I'm done. Have to sleep soon. Many chores before that. Take care, all. Thx
you can depend on the news miner to tell the liberal slant to everything. a denver owned newspaper what can you expect. but that is all right palen is still the governor and might be again. if you want real news go to the net if you want chuckles come here.
I see the RPOD fanatics are still going at it. LMAO!
Meanwhile, yet another family values touting Republican elected official has been caught cheating on his wife.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/24/s...
What is it about being a pro-family values Republican that virtually assures that you will engage in this sort of behavior? And as a staunchly nonpartisan observer, I must say that there's a whole lot more Republicans getting caught in these scandals then there are Democrats.
She should of kept Murkowski's JET ...
starmc, thank you for pointing out the change in the headline - a change that was made sometime during the day today. It clearly said "19 Trips" this morning at 8:45 AM. And "as the Editor's Note states" it has been changed to reflect the correct number. It was unnecessary for you to point that out to me in such a condescending way - I read it myself.
Furthermore, it certainly is the public's right to know when the governor, or any other public official, bends or breaks the law. In the case of travel, Alaska law allows for payment of expenses for employees of the state conducting official state business. When challenged on these expenditures, rather then offer to pay the difference then and there, Palin added insult to injury by amending the forms to state that the girls had been invited to attend or participate in events on the governor's schedule. But organizers of these events said they were surprised when the Palin children showed up uninvited, or said they agreed to a request by the governor to allow the children to attend. AND when Palin released her family's tax records as part of her vice presidential campaign, tax experts questioned why she did not report the children's state travel reimbursements as income. Again, she justified the unreported income by stating the the girls were attending official functions as invited guests. But this was not the case, according to organizers.
What makes her actions so egregious is that THIS governor ran on a platform of transparency and touted her honesty throughout the failed run at the White House last fall. That's why people are rightfully outraged. You may not have read previous articles here or elsewhere about this, but others commenting here have.
TAC - Although I believe more repubs are being caught because they are targeted more ( would bet dems ,independents, repubs all probably have close infidelity scores in reality - if we are talking about politicians that is). Those who are spouting off about family values and fooling around sure aren't the sharpest tools ( no pud intended) in the shed.The family-values sales pitch caters more to repubs ,so that might also explain things. A politician saying 'values-shmalues' to a republican crowd would be like Flava Flav promoting rap at a clan rally.
lagirl - I'm sorry but Palin did, in fact, settle the case. http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactiv...
The official settlement agreement, for which I've provided you a link, states in typical legal language that in exchange for the payment (or settlement), there will be "no inference of wrongdoing". This is quite standard in a settlement of this kind, and while to the lay person, it means that she did nothing wrong, it simply means that for the purpose of the agreement, provided the payment is made in a timely manner, there would be no inference of wrongdoing. It's a very common legal maneuver, often misunderstood.
My theory is that janitors are least likely too commit adultery because any wife looks better than a mop and smells better than pine-sol.
The most common perception of a settlement:
Chief Joseph - "I will fight no more forever."
upon hearing this, one reporter whispers to another , "I knew that injun was up to no good."
LOL, the Palin fanatics are still going at it...........
i've noticed recently that the palinites have stopped even trying to justify her anymore. all they ever say is, "well she is still governess and will still be so tomorrow! so THERE!" pretty weak, guys. just admit it, you're not impressed with her either.
Palin is not going to run for the United States. Why? Because there's not going to be United States anymore. It'll die and get bankrupt from too much spending before 2012.
Oh, I see. People deserve what they get if others are not impressed with them. 'Interesting' logic there.
Evidently,we all are Palin fanatics or Anti-Palin fanatics, or; with a BengalTiger/majast2211 fusion, oxymoronically luke-warm Palin fanatics.
Hu she payed use back $8000, what i guess she will get that back after they tax my next paycheck.
why can't she just stay in ak and do the job she has been hired to do?
coldarmyguy-
If you're paying state payroll taxes, someone's pulling a fast one on you.
Curmudgeon-
Were you trying to hijack this thread?
BigD: Just saying, "Here we go again."
It was the morality police who put me off the Republican Party. I always said they were a bunch of hypocrites, that they were pointing their fingers at everyone else because they couldn't control themselves. In the last couple of years the crows have been flocking home to roost. We're seeing exactly what those folks are made of.
I'm not saying the Democrats are innocent (Spitzer takes the national prize for the most spectacular meltdown), but the Republicans made morality a political issue, and they consistently fail their own test. The Clinton impeachment was overseen by Henry Hyde, an adulterer (oh, excuse me, he cheated on his wife when he was only in his forties, so it was a "youthful indiscretion" [Hyde's words]), and conducted under House Speaker Newt Gingrich, an adulterer.
As my wife said this morning, "They'll do it with men, they'll do it with women, they'll do it in public bathrooms...they just don't care as long they're doing it"
I told her, "If you ever hear me spouting the Republican family values line, you'll know I'm cheating on you."
Did you see where Bristol said her dad never discussed sex with her? Heck of an example our moral guardians keep setting.
Back before she was a national figure, Palin used to talk about how the Republicans needed to clean up their own house. That was one of the reasons I used to like her. Don't hear much from her about that these days.
Bullwinkle, I am sorry that you felt my comment was condescending, did not intend it to sound that way at all. Please accept my apology.
I felt the last line in your thread was insulting. Please don't assume I am ignorant simply because I don't necessarily agree with you. Many of the comments on here are based more on emotion and supposition than on personal knowledge, and journalism is not unbiased or fact based much of the time. I have read a lot of the stuff, but I have not seen direct quotes from these organizers or copies of paperwork, (I will admit that I could have missed them) so I try to take it all with a grain of salt and consider the source of the info I am getting. The article also said that the "states rules" are being looked at because they are unclear, so I tried to take that into account.
I have noticed that the bulk of ethics complaints against Ms. Palin are being found groundless, in spite of so called proof that is often stated on here, (I would like to think by people that have certain personal knowledge of the situation) so I have to wonder sometimes what is fact and what is fiction. Just because someone puts it in writing doesn't make it true. Most of it is opinion, as was 95% of my comment. Thank heaven we still have that right left.
I, like you, believe strongly in transpancy and accountability, as I stated. Just seems to me the selectivity is getting more and more blatant, on both sides, and would be comical if it weren't so sad.
Again, please accept my apology. I am sorry you were offended.
I LUV the math here. I wish I could get this kind of airfare deal. $8,000 for a "few" trips, coach or 1st class(?), includes mileage(?) for family members. A r/t ticket FAI/IAD Alaska air is about $800 14day advance economy fare. So, average 6 family members X $800 = $4800.
Yes, I think $8,000 is close to rediculous.
Published June 23rd, 2009. Meanwhile, the Palin fanatics are still going at it strong.
We'll update this in a few days. Should be a couple hundred more Palin bashing comments by then.
starmc, apology accepted, friend, and thank you. It's not often that people offer regrets over their written words here, and its refreshing when it happens.
For my part, I'm sorry if I offended you by my suggestion that perhaps you haven't read previous articles - I should know that not everyone follows these stories with the interest that I have. My interest stems from first believing that the governor was a true maverick as she claimed she was, intent on cleaning up Alaskan politics, and then being horrified at how quickly she, too, has fallen. Power does indeed corrupt.
I don't think that when one is under the microscope, as she is, that constantly playing the victim is an adequate defense. She stands on her own and should take responsibility for her actions without complaint or by comparing her decisions to those of others. She hasn't accepted responsibility for her choices, and instead retreats into victim mode when challenged. That's not leadership, in my opinion - its martyrdom, and I have little respect for her at this point.
Mr. Briseno, please explain your inscrutable comment: "The wisdom of The Governor's action is even more clear because the whiners about the settlement, at least in this forum generally, tend to be the thralls of Barry Soetoro."
bullwinkle: Andy's a lawyer. He's professionally obligated to speak nothing but nonsense.
TAC - An excellent summation of American politics in your 6:49 post.
My thoughts almost exactly.
Boy would I hate to need a lawyer,. and the only one available was Andrew! Now folks that is scary.
He has no respect for the President of the U.S.
probably gets his rocks off calling him Barry Soetoro?
Maybe he and the Governor, that spends his time in Argentina are buddies, if not, they are republicans, which makes them brothers...
Oh_please: Don't go thinking I'm your side either.
Bullwinkle - thank you and apology accepted.
I have tried to watch closely, but alas there is probably a lot I have missed. I completely agree that power does indeed corrupt. I remember a statement, several years ago, by the speaker of the house in which he said that while most elected officials go into office with noble intentions, within a few months they too are playing the game. He went on to say that this is the case from the school board, to the city, county and state levels, and was most prevalent and even more speedy at the national level. While there are surely a few elected officials that retain integrity (Lord, I hope so), I am sure this is indeed the case. Current events sure seem to support his statement.
I agree that Ms. Palin seems to play the victim a lot lately, and I too am disappointed by that. I believe that in many aspects she was not equipped to be thrust into the spotlight last fall, though at first I thought so, and she seemed to be excessively targeted at that time. I say that because so much of it was nit-picky, and superficial and would have never been directed at a man (but that is a whole different discussion). Anyway, my point is that I think she may have fallen into the habit of hollering "poor me, ....." They say that "fame" can change people, and I wonder if that is not the case here.
I know that prior to that she had a very high popularity rating and that many thought she had integrity, and I liked her very much. I am still holding out hope though, and would like to see her return to her "roots". Of course most of those we have put into power need a good dose of reality, and prolonged exposure to real life in the real world. They seem to have no concept any more.
TAC - LOL, common knowledge that a village with one lawyer, the lawyer would go broke. Two or more lawyers in a town and both will get rich.
starmc: There was an old Dire Straits song that included the line, "And then came the lawyers / And then came the laws."
Always did like that line.
Andrew makes a good point. Would you find it within bounds if John Kerry joked that it was too bad that one of your family members came up missing?
If he said that about one of mine, I would make it clear to him with a personal visit that he would find himself 'coming up missing' without a public apology and repentance if you get my drift.
I agree somewhat with TAC about Palin and think because of her inexperience and willingness to place politics above all else for upward mobility, she had found herself being used as the GOP poster puppet. I also have to wonder if the McCain camp didn't sabotage her intentionally.
Regardless, she,like anyone else ,deserves only what is coming to her and only what is true. That is not what has happened here. The media has distorted the truth and has actually outright lied about her.
When you accept the free press to engage in these acts, you have no right to complain at all when you or whose you care about are next.
It's that simple. When you engage in and accept this same dishonest or ignorant activity, keep in mind that it becomes open season on all of us.
Many of you are showing an acceptance to the dereliction of responsibility by the free press and that makes you much more dangerous to your fellow Americans than you could ever portray Palin as being.
Mr. Briseno, I beg to differ with you, sir. There is no connection, known or implied, between the President of the United States and the plight of the Governor of Alaska, except that which you (and "many others") imagine. President Obama is far too busy trying to restore order to our financial institutions, rescue our economy from a disasterous fall into the abyss caused by poor decisions by the previous administration, and dealing with two wars and threats from other nations to pay any mind to the machinations of a political party in turmoil and the characters within that party.
You assign too much credit to our governor, who was thrust prematurely and without merit onto the national political scene by a presidential candidate hoping to capitalize on her sex in the wild hope that he could capture the feminine vote by those disappointed that Hillary Clinton was not the "chosen one" nominated by the opposing party. He gambled, and lost that bet. Palin has, and will continue to divide the GOP, as the latest poll reveals, to the detriment of the party. Your comments reveal a deep lack of understanding and a profound indifference to reality.
bullwinklejmoose - Here's a reality and honesty check for you :
Are you willing to state that there has never been a connection,known or implied, between the POTUS and the plight of Palin?
plainview, I suppose that by answering such an absurd question, I open myself up to receiving in return a blizzard of blog site addresses wherein you or Mr. Briseno will attempt to "prove" that such a connection DOES exist. I will respond by saying that the premise of such a connection defies logic, and that those who would propose such a thing are operating in a universe where fear and wild imaginings trump rationality. With the exception of the wardrobe issue, a charge filed with the Federal Election Commission by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a non-partisan Washington Watchdog group, all of the charges of ethics violations leveled against the governor came from within the state.
bullwinklejmoose - Humor me. Answer it with a simple yes or no.
plainview, well, all right, I'll play along. Yes, there is an implied connection between POTUS and the plight of Palin.
Oh_please: Don't go thinking I'm your side either.
------------------
lol. Never did.
I just wonder when it will occur to some of the harder-core Republicans that criticism of the sorry state of the Republican party does not mean that one is an Evil Lib.
It's like TAC said, people are sick of the 'do as I say and not as I do' hypocrisy and it's why the Republican party continues to hemorrhage members. Those of you who are unwilling to demand accountability from your Republican (or Democratic, for that matter) representation will continue to get the party(ies) you deserve.
There are LOTS of Republicans and independents, like myself, who are fed up with the current iteration of the Republican party and hope and pray for the formation of a true conservative party.
Although the media has proven over and again, not just an implied , but known connection over and again as Chris Matthews aptly put it , Yes, it's my job to make this presidency work." ( with a furrowing up his leg, no doubt), I rest my case.
You are unreliable in this matter.
"Hu she payed use back $8000, what i guess she will get that back after they tax my next paycheck." - Coldarmyguy
****
If you pay $8000 in tax per pay check you have nothing to be complaining about. ;-)
BTW... are you not aware that you don't pay any tax to the State of Alaska from your paychecks?
plainview -You asked me: "Are you willing to state that there has never been a connection,known or implied, between the POTUS and the plight of Palin".
I responded: "Yes, there is an implied connection between POTUS and the plight of Palin." The only "implied connection" I know of is in the minds of conspiracy theorists, but it's an implied connection nonetheless.
And this is how you respond? "Although the media has proven over and again, not just an implied , but known connection over and again as Chris Matthews aptly put it , Yes, it's my job to make this presidency work." ( with a furrowing up his leg, no doubt), I rest my case. You are unreliable in this matter."
Do you sense a disengagement here, a certain something missing between the question and your final response? I expected you to cite a source of some kind, to provide some kind of prove in support of your argument, but there is nothing there. What what has been "proven"? What "known connection"?
And you say that I'm unreliable?
bullwinklemoose - 10:30 am: 'There is no connection known or implied...'.
12:39 pm : 'Yes,there is an implied connection...'.
Reliable?
If you click on my user name , you will finds months of me addressing this and many related issues to it with all kinds of sources,goodies and such. Please excuse me for not having to regurgitate it for the umpteenth time. Check it out. Like Ragu, it's in there.
Here's a small tidbit : go to youtube and watch the John Ziegler interviews with the likes of Shuster, O'Donnell, Brewer,etc. If one cannot see medis bias in action, one is either a damn fool or dishonest. Hell, Couric won the Cronkite Excellence in Journalism Award for 'her impact on the election via the Palin interview' ( the same one Ziegler was arrested at, also on youtube). It's right there in black and white. Like I said before-just small tidbits.
plainview, I said "The only "implied connection" I know of is in the minds of conspiracy theorists..." You play word games to try to make your point, and it's difficult to argue intelligently with you. To avoid falling into such a trap in the future, I'll avoid engaging with you, sir.
bullwinklejmoose -
Oh, your answers were consistent enough.
My reference to your reliability is it is obvious that you either haven't done your homework or not making an honest assessment, to state more than once, that there's only an implication from conspiracy theorists.
Go by what comes from the mouths of most members of the mainstream media. There is no doubt there's a pro- Obama , con-Palin bias at play. It's as plain as the words from their mouths and the intentionally incomplete pictures they conjure out of context. The " In what respect ,Charlie?" and "...task from God" and "Obama is a terrorist" are three prime examples of media butchery at it's 'finest'.
bullwinkle, what you have to understand about plainview and Andrew is that they are far superior to us. They, like Palin, play the role of the beset upon, the victims of an unfair world in which the wrong person was unfairly elected president and that person is hard at work destroying the reputation of the person who WILL be elected next time, as long as they are vigilant. They, and only they, understand what has happened because they are privy to information that we cannot or will not access. If we did somehow stumble upon it, we could never comprehend it, because we are vastly inferior to them. As long as you understand that and stay in your place as an inferior being, they will accept you. Also, please don't express your opinion - it irritates them.
hobbes - Wow! You sound like one of those conspiracy theorists implying a connection.
Ugh! Me not smart like plainview and Andrew! Me no figger out the youtubes and use de keywords and titles too oganeezashuns pertaaneeing to certeenfikashuns , meedia transkripps and compleet intervoos.
Me no waste time wid such nonsunse, me will just arguoo it doo'nt eggsist.
I not knoe, there4 it don't bee real.
Since I moved here, and started reading these posts and trying to educate myself about local politics, one thing has confused me. If I understand rightly, a lot of people were really optimistic about Sarah Palin at first because she seemed like "a breath of fresh air" and an underdog who would "take on the good old boy network" and get some reform into a system gone bad. Is that right? And now, it seems from what I am reading that she didn't follow through and do what she said she was going to do (??)..can anyone give me a short synopsis of what happened between her election and now that has everyone so polarized on the subject of her performance as Governor and just on her as a person as well? Are there any links you can direct me to that will help me understand a little better? Thanks in advance for any insight you can give me on this. I have spoken up a couple times and said maybe she was getting a raw deal here and there, and from the vociferous responses pro and con I can tell this is no simple issue. I can see I need education on all this before the next election. Thanks again.
Andrew, here you are again. That doesn't say much for your law practice. Non stop commenting!
Then there is the way you keep referring to YOUR PRESIDENT? I suspect you received your law degree from a correspondence school.
Now don't come back and tell me it was Yale or Harvard, because these schools would have taught you THAT HE IS EVERY ONES president who are U.s. citizens.
"Obama lemmings are afraid of Governor Sarah Palin". Really?? That is WAY too funny, Andrew. Why on EARTH would anyone be afraid of Palin? Hmm, lemme see. She'll NEVER be President of The United States, so no worries there. Personally, I doubt if she'll even STAY in Alaska, so no worries there, either. I guess I would only be afraid of Palin, if I were under her employ. Because we all know what happens if you "miff" the dear lady! The thing is, Andrew, she's supposed to be under OUR employ. That's working out real great! (Total sarcasm, in case you missed it....)
I am sorry; I still don't get it. Those who say that Sarah has been a lousy Governor and can't wait to vote her out, etc, don't give specific reasons as to why they feel that way. So far, all I have heard are remarks along the line of "everything good she does is not for the benefit of Alaskans, but "brownie points" toward the next Presidential election." I don't mean to sound snarky, but isn't that true of many, many politicians? But I don't mean to sound like I am defending, or attacking; I am just trying to get at the root of all the controversy: what happened? Are there any articles, or links, or can someone just tell me what happened between her election and now to turn off so many people?
ktsue, You're right about many people being optimistic about Palin when she was first elected. The previous administration was widely reviled; former governor Frank Murkowski, who stepped down from his US Senate seat to become governor and then appointed his daughter to fill his seat, was an arrogant man, thought to be involved in the Alaska political corruption scandal that included so many Alaskan Republicans during his administration.
Enter Sarah Palin, who beat out the incumbent and the most likely candidate to win election, former state senator John Binkley. She ran on a platform of reform and transparency in state government. She was a small time mayor, who had been appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee by Frank Murkowski, but resigned as chairman after a year, citing lack of ethics by fellow Republicans on the committee. She then filed ethics complaints against the chairman of the state Republican party and the State Attorney General, both of whom subsequently resigned. These actions created enemies within the state's Republican party, but endeared her to voters, and she beat out the former governor, Democrat Tony Knowles, by a narrow margin (8%).
Things went well for the next two years - this is a Republican state, and when things go well financially, folks are happy. Then along came John McCain with an invitation for our governor to run as his vice-presidential running mate.
As the campaign unfolded and Palin was invited to speak, it became clear to many that she was dismally underqualified for national office, let alone the second highest office in the land. Her vague answers on the issues of national and international importance, her inability to speak articulately when interviewed, and her "pitbull" attacks began to wear away her veneer of competence.
Scrutiny of her governorship naturally followed, and ethics complaints were filed, which you've read about here. Suffice it to say, the governor made many enemies on her way to the "top", and some say that the roosters have come home to roost.
I won't direct you to any websites - there are literally thousands out there - and I'm sure that by searching through them, you can arrive at your own conclusions. But I'd caution you to read the "About Us" feature on most political websites to see who maintains the information listed there - choose to read things from independent, non-partisan sources. Verify information you read through one of the "fact check" websites - factcheck.org, snopes.com, and truthorfiction.com should give you a fairly well-rounded view of things you might question.
Hobbes, thanks so much for taking the time to enlighten me. It clears a lot of things up for me. Am I right in saying, in short, that if she had not accepted John McCain's invitation to run alongside him, she would be more popular in Alaska than she is now, and that a lot of the ethics complaints against her stem from the bad feeling she engendered when she agreed to run for VP? Is that a good way of summing it up?
ktsue - I agree with hobbes' synopsis, but I wonder if it addresses your questions. He's correct in saying that Palin ran for governor on a reform and transparency platform, and I think that what disturbs people now that they're coming to believe that she herself has abused her office for her own gain.
The "troopergate" scandal seemed cut and dried to many - she disliked her former brother-in-law, sought to have him fired, and when the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner did not fire him, she fired HIM. To many people, myself included, the fact that she was found "innocent" because the Commissioner was an "at-will" employee doesn't excuse her behavior. She and her husband hounded the Commissioner for the brother-in-law's dismissal, and it seems obvious that she fired him out of spite. That started people wondering about her behavior in other areas, too, and trust in her diminished rapidly - for me, that was the turning point. I began to question her motives and actions from that point on.
And Palin did present a nasty side while she was campaigning for the vice-presidency. Some of the things she said about Obama were unfair - questioning his patriotism by linking him to the 60's radical in Chicago, for example. Whatever William Ayers did in the 60's had absolutely nothing to do with Obama, but she continually harped on that. Had she taken the high road and campaigned on the issues, not on rumors and innuendoes, she may have had more support.
She's a divisive character, and while many seem to like that in her, it is a turn-off for me. I will not vote for her again.
Sarah is very pretty.
Actually, bullwinkle, in regard to the "troopergate scandal", the legislative investigation found that Sarah Palin DID abuse her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act. Here's a link to the investigator's report to the legislative council.
Stephen Branchflower, who investigated the charges on behalf of the legislature said, "The evidence supports the conclusion that Gov. Palin, at the least, engaged in 'official action' by her inaction, if not her active participation or assistance to her husband, in attempting to get Trooper Wooten fired [and there is evidence of her active participation]," Branchflower concluded.
"[Palin] knowingly ... permitted [husband] Todd Palin to use the governor's office and the resources of the governor's office ... in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."
But the fact that the Commissioner was an at-will employee did shield her from further action by the Republican-led legislature.
And even though the investigation into Palin's ethical violations in the matter began in July 2008, Palin and her staff later said that the legislature had no right to investigate her, and accused them of supporting Obama in the presidential campaign... So began the "conspiracy theories" that continue today that the President is behind all her problems.
And Andrew, scary thought that you have anything to do with molding young minds... Parents of Boy Scouts in California, please make sure that you know who's working with your sons!
Oh, and ktsue - hmmm... It's possible that Palin could be more popular than she is now in Alaska, had she not chosen to run for an office for which she was so grossly unqualified. But the ethics charges began, as I said above, in July with the so-called "Troopergate" affair - well before she was nominated to run with McCain, and one can only wonder how that case would have been resolved had she not been the Republican nominee for vice-president. Perhaps an entirely different resolution would have been reached.
Sorry bullwinkle - here's that promised link:
http://download2.legis.state.ak.us/DOWNL...
Going fishing!
Yesterday a sex scandal involving a Republican, today a bribery scandal involving a Democrat.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/26/moni...
The political ping-pong ball continues to bat back and forth. Since Monica Conyers is the wife of Rep. John Conyers, this could have interesting repercussions.
Anyone read Kathleen Parker's column in the hard copy of the NM today? She had a great comparative observation: Democrats love to raise taxes but disappear when its time to pay them, while Republicans tout family values then drop their shorts at the first opportunity.
I've said it many times before, and I'll say it 'til the day I die: the only way you can be a partisan for either party is if your head is permanently planted so deep up your own hind end that it's nearly popping back out your neck.
Ah Andrew, the absurdity continues... But Andrew, you're becoming so predictable that one need not read your posts anymore - they're that formulaic. First, insult the subject by ridiculing his or her patriotism/bravery/intelligence/party affiliation. Then hijack the thread by spouting off some totally unrelated rant involving the president - it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to contain one or more of the following words or phrases: obambot, illegitimate poser, usurper, "thralls of Barry Soetoro", lemmings, Chicago dirty politics, fear, or the President's full given name: Barack Hussein Obama. Finish off with childish internet slang meant to further demean the target, such as lol. Have I got that right?
Oh TAC, please don't be discouraged. It's true - there have been scandals with politicians on both sides of the aisle, and down the middle, too. But the ones we hear about are the truly bad ones, the ones who have fallen off track and disgraced their families, their party, and their country. But just like NYC police officers - it's the few bad ones that give the whole force a bad name.
I've been a Democrat since I was old enough to go to the voting place with my parents and cast my "kid's vote". I don't think that my head's planted in my rear... let me check... nope! Still looking at the world with the same rose-colored glasses as yesterday.
Hope you're just having a bad day, because hold on - tomorrow will be better! I look to you for humor, for reassurance that no matter how bad things look, there's somebody out there who can put things in perspective and make us laugh.
ktsue - Yeah, go to factcheck.org if you want to be misinformed and have red-herrings thrown your way. What a joke.
Here's another myth being spread once again: That Obama had little to do with Ayers and Dohrn. They were closely involved with each other for years.
Michelle and Bernadine worked together at the Sidley and Austin law firm ( look into this law firm's connection the Judge Surrick , you know ,the one who dismissed Berg's writ of certiorari ( Barack was introduced to Ayers and Dohrn by his wife). Barack had a 'meet the senatorial candidate' party at Ayers' house, and on and on . Here's some keywords that many Obama fans seem to be alergic to: The Woods Fund, Sahara Coal Co., Commonwealth Edison, DCP school reform, ABC's group, Chicago Annengerg Challenge, Sidley and Austin, Judson Miner to name a few.
Obama is outright lying to say that "Ayers is just some guy that lived down the street".
By the way ,Ayers and Dohrn did target families and it was only through incidence of incompetence that children weren't killed. Find out what John Murtagh experienced at age nine because of these unrepentant terrorists ( also see Connie Chung interview of Ayers and Dohrn , where they say they would have done more and would have been more militant if they could do it again - this was in 1998 ,their buddy Obama was no kid then).
When Palin charged that Obama palled around with terrorists , she was absolutely correct.
It doesn't stop there: MSNBC's Nora O'Donnell state more than once that Palin called Obama a terrorist during a campaign speech. This was found to be false, and when John Ziegler called her on it ( and rightfully stating that she should have been fired), she did not deny it.
As far as Palin being 'Qualified', don't you find it interesting that the critics don't use proper words of assessment such as , 'not experienced', 'not knowledgeable enough', etc.?
No, they use what they have mimicked off the media , that she is 'unqualified', which is not true. She met the qualifications to be a vice-presidential candidate. There is no mistake in this obfuscation. So go ahead and listen to hobbes.
What bullwinklemoose forgot to inform you of is that fact that there was much more than Palin's 'dislike' for her brother -in-law. Most would have done more involving that sorry excuse for a trooper.
Make no mistake about it, Palin going against Obama has much to do with this perception of her.
Are Obama supporters afraid of her? I don't know.
Are they sore winners? Maybe. I really don't know what their deal is except that they as a whole have little interest in distinguishing between reality and fabrication.
Find what the legal difference is between a 'Certification of Live Birth' and a 'Certificate of Live Birth' for some interesting info relating to Obama's 'qualification' for presidency.
No wonder Palin is so popular! LOL!!!
No ktsue, factcheck.org is a nonpartisan fact checking website - it's legitimate. It just doesn't reinforce the falsehoods that the right wingers would like you to believe.
And I hope that you do read the investigative report on troopergate. It's quite revealing. You will find that Palin and "the first gentleman" were very aggressive in trying to get their former brother-in-law fired, and when they were met with resistance from the Public Safety Commissioner (that she had appointed), Palin unceremoniously had him fired - she didn't have the decency to do it herself. It's all there, the whole sordid tale.
"Find what the legal difference is between a 'Certification of Live Birth' and a 'Certificate of Live Birth' for some interesting info relating to Obama's 'qualification' for presidency."
Nice try, there, PV - trying to hijack the thread yet again. You're even more predictable than your friend, Andrew.
I'm out for the night - but I'll look for your brilliant reply in the morning. I'm sure it'll be waiting for me.
whynot -Just keeping it real with this 'qualification' issue.
Yeah, the extra 'ion' on Obama's certificate ( er, certification ) is because vital statistics, DHHL, Commission of health, ACP&G, etc. make that allowance for 'swell guys'. That must be it! Or maybe Obama is involved in some ink company conspiracy, you know, for explaining away the extra lettering. You should really inform all those legal entities dealing with these documents that their legal descriptions of them are false because plainview says they're not.
Factcheck.org is non-partisan? And I though holocaust deniers were daft.
Can you say Annenberg? Would you like to take a stab at who one very significant member of the group is? It starts with 'O' and ends with 'bama'. But hey, don't feel bad. If it's good enough for Cheney's Haliburton defense, it's good enough for Obama's fake document.
If you are going to be dishonest, at least don't be lazy about it.
Boy if hijacking threads was a crime, WOW! I feel (sadly) if she gave the money back now, why didn't she pay for the kids and husband in the first place. Again, I am sad.
Ooooh, I'm gonna booglarize you with my hijacking of this thread!
I'm sure glad this cloak of a user name protects me from the thread police.
Can't you do better than that? How about thread rapist? Post pirate? Comment cleanser Milosevic style! Subject Somalian. Memo molester.Statement sadist.
But is you sadness partisan? That's what inquiring minds want to know.
Oh yeah, Rock_Ridge, that's not directed to you in particular.
Been drinking, pv? You're sounding particularly demented tonight.
Regarding FactCheck.org and the Annenberg Challenge - can you say "two separate entities"? Both were largely funded by Walter Annenberg, a Republican philanthropist, but FactCheck comes out of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The Annenberg Challenge "operated in 35 states, funding 2,400 public schools that served more than 1.5 million students and 80,000 teachers", according to its website. Again, two separate entities. Calling FactCheck partisan because of this extremely weak connection is evidence of a very paranoid mind. But then, the whole Obama birth "certification" thing that you and Andrew rave on about ad nauseum is more than ample evidence of your insanity. But not to worry - you're not alone. You have plenty of gun-hoarding, conspiracy-theorizing, liberal-hating pals out there. You should all get together and build a little shelter to live in until it all passes... or at least blog to each other to your hearts' content. There's safety in numbers...
"If you are going to be dishonest, at least don't be lazy about it." I could say the same to you, but I won't, because I'm not an embittered and angry person.
What? No snappy reply, pv? Hangover?
Whoever said the people in the states like her...NO WAY!!! I have friends in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, California, Georgia, New York, Michigan, N&S Dakota, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona,Colorado and Ohio and none of them like her. In fact when there is a Palin bleep on the tv, i get e mails from them asking what the F is going on in Alaska. I'm tired of explaining this idiot to them and there is no excuse for her, anytime or anywhere. Half wit, go back to the little bleep of a town you are from and get off the tv, you're an embarrassment to our state! Can't wait till the next election! Bye Bye Sarah!!
whynot - Sorry to disappoint you, but my daily allowance of six hours sleep doesn't include booze, although it probably would help toward considering what you write as being sensible.
The belief that factcheck is non-partisan is a product of either low comprehension,ignorance, insanity or dishonesty.
Here's an example just from their addressing the 'document' they circulated ( type in keywords ' factcheck.org certificate' and it will get you there:
1) When it addresses the the 'Certification' vs 'certificate' question, it in essence intentionally doesn't by throwing a red-herring with a 'long form, short form' argument. The original is a long form and the 'certification is a short form. what is intentionally neglected is that a 'certificate' is also a short form. The comparison between a long form and short form is to make to the 'certification' vs 'certificate' comparison disappear. - intentional dishonesty
2) It uses the newspaper birth announcements to impress upon the reader
a fringe conspiracy theory of presidential predetermination at birth. The only places or persons I've ever heard this from is factcheck and fightthesmears. There is a reason for that - red-herring and poisoning the well. It knows damn well me and my ilk's argument is that Obama's mother and others merely pulled strings for obtaining citizenship for her son and there is no conspiracy there. The argument is a conspiracy recently involving factcheck itself. It dishonestly deflects the true argument with it's 'non-partisan' 'tinfoil hats' and 'pro-Hillary' charges.
3) It obfuscates the truth by implying that a long form copy cannot be obtained because that request doesn't exist on an application, yet others have proven that indeed one can receive a long form ( original) copy as they have shown them on the net. I had obtained one. - outright lie through obfuscation.
4) The 'father's race : African' question: factcheck's answer to that is that those at vital statistics/dep. of health are merely drones who will copy down whatever the applicant writes - without question. While that possibility could exist, it's very unlikely as it would be to say that someone there put 'African' on the document because it sounded good to one's ears when read out loud. Factcheck neither has an explaination or argument for this 'African' problem, yet supplies an answer with an authority that cannot exist. How could it? Was it there to witness that scenario unfold? No, yet that is the answer it gave.
5) The matching stamp,seal and borders that are changed yearly on cetificates : It gives some convoluted mumbo-jumbo for this mismatching problem on Obama's, yet the challenge remains for someone else to produce this 'mistake' on theirs.
The simple fact is this: factcheck has intentionally skirted the issue of the 'certification vs certificate' and is outright fabricating scenarios to explain away the unexplainable.
Many entities like DHHL,U.S. Immigration and Citizen Services, American Gynecology and Pediatrics, etc. have not only described these two different documents legally, but discuss differences in their details and the reasons for someone to obtain one over the other.
So, would you, in the name of consistent argument, like to state right here that no difference between these two different documents exist?
Go ahead ,you can do it! Show us , like factcheck has, what your true colors are.
As far as the idiotic 'separate entities' argument goes, I won't labor you with Ayers and his father's connection are, Obama's , Woods fund, Dcp, etc.ties with both factcheck and Annenberg and the ties with each other.
If you are having all this 'trouble' understanding simple differences between two simple documents, surely there will be mountains of it concerning the 'separate entities' joke presented.
The fact remains that Obama hasn't produced proof of natural birth to this country and the brainiacs at factcheck,fightthesmears, Huffington Post, etc. have through their advertising and defense of a questionable document, have placed even Obama's citizenship in question.
So, what say you whynot? Do you acknowledge that a distinction between a 'certification of live birth' and a 'certificate of live birth'? Do you acknowledge that these two types of documents exist?
correction: Do you acknowledge a distintion...
What is the sound of one hand clapping in the woods?
The same as two if there is no ear to transfer it into vibrations.
In you ear, that is. And that is directed to you.
It seems a few have gone to the Ahmadinejad School of Denial.
Andrew -
1) Me: First, insult the subject by ridiculing his or her patriotism/bravery/intelligence/party affiliation.
You: "truly laughable indeed whynot"
2) Me: Then hijack the thread by spouting off some totally unrelated rant involving the president - it doesn't have to make sense...
You: "the indefensible immoral scumbag who would rather kill his grandchild in utero than punish his daughter with a baby. The absurdity of the Teleprompter-In-Chief knows no bounds; Thus the defenders of such an ill trained marionette are similarly afflicted..." (FYI - the news story above is about Palin paying off her settlement).
3) Me: Finish off with childish internet slang meant to further demean the target, such as lol...
You: ooops - you forget the lol... or maybe you just lol-ed to yourself...
But you did rave on in typical incoherent fashion, and I won't address any of your drivel because it's senseless and not worthy of my time. You might as well be talking about how aliens abducted you in the desert - it makes that much sense.
Question: Since you attended college in California (UCLA and McGeorge) and you live there - why do you feel compelled to haunt our newspaper?
pv - No offense, brother, but you are waaaay out there!
In answer to this: "So, what say you whynot? Do you acknowledge that a distinction between a 'certification of live birth' and a 'certificate of live birth'? Do you acknowledge that these two types of documents exist?" Not going to play - repeat, I am NOT going to play with you today - I have a lawn to mow and kids to play with - in other words, I have a life to attend to that does NOT include you.
But let me just ask you something. If there was a chance in hell that Obama was born somewhere other than the United States, where would that place be? And why would "you and your ilk" be the only ones who know about it? Couldn't it be that you are so disappointed by the results of the election (either because you love McCain/Palin so very much, or because deep down, you are a racist) that you just can't give it up???
But please, continue to investigate. And don't confine your opinion to the pages of the DNM. If you feel that strongly about it, go national. Go to Washington. Stand out by the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue until you get an audience with President Barack Hussein Obama, and confront him with your suspicions.
Or take it to the Supreme Court, quickly, because they're about to seat someone else of questionable heritage - maybe SHE wasn't really born here either...
OR sit down, take a deep breath, and ask to yourself, "Could it be that I'm losing my ever-loving mind? Could it be that I'm wrong?" Because YOU ARE.
There you have it ,folks!
The burden of proof is not on Obama to prove qualification to the presidency, but the burden of proof for someone to show he isn't . Therefore ,no proper documentation is needed for the job position. The position of presidency is now a 'catch me if you can' application , Barack Obama being the first to set precedence. Many have proven that they set him above the constitution. Congratulations in your complicity in a possible usurpation like this country has never seen.
By this dereliction of citizenry, you have made any one's case to hold the position of presidency without proof of qualification.
I think the next time you go across borders, to be true to your belief, tell the customs agents " I don't need to show you anything","Prove to me that I'm not an American citizen"," Now ,get out of my way!"
See how that works for you.
whynot accuses me as being 'way out there','racist', a 'Palin/McCain lover',and that 'I'm wrong' for the simple fact he/she cannot fathom the importance of adhering to constitutional fitness and the danger of abandoning a basic requirement. It's o.k. whynot, I understand you are desperate and frightened by the prospect you fear to face.
My argument isn't, and never has been, that Obama is not qualified or not natural-born. It is that Obama hasn't legally proven he is, which is his responsibility and his alone.
A questionable 'Certification of Live Birth' , which has nothing at all to do with a reflection of natural-birth illustrates that failure in a most extreme way. More importantly, those who are unwilling to answer my simple question that is used to measure an honest assessment of this issue illustrate in a more extreme way that 'if reality is unsuitable to fit my desires, I will remove it.'
Believe me, I find Barack Obama much less offensive than I do many of his followers and comrades. They have abandoned one of, if not the most important, standard completely and that makes them dangerous .
If you are honest with me, next time a simple yes or no will suffice.
Plainview, I will not respond to you should you choose to answer this post with further proof of your disordered mind, but I will say this. It seems to me that the reason that people (including me) will not engage with you is that you are a bully and a fraud. You attack people who question your illogical conspiracism, calling them dishonest and accusing them of being less than patriotic, as you do here: "Congratulations in your complicity in a possible usurpation like this country has never seen." You seem to feel that by baiting people this way, they will feel compelled to respond. And you berate them for not answering your questions, although you rarely answer theirs.
The simple fact is this: The President produced documentation of his birth that met the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, and he was duly elected and inaugurated. He need not do anything more to please conspiracy theorists or anyone else. He owes you nothing. The balderdash coming from such sources as Mr. Limbaugh on this topic does nothing to promote patriotism. It is sheer nonsense, and displays, yet again, the desperation of the right.
H.L. Mencken had this to say about conspiracy theorists: "The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy."
Plainview - No! Er, yes! Er... what was the question? Was it this: "Do you acknowledge that a distinction between a 'certification of live birth' and a 'certificate of live birth'?" or "Do you acknowledge that these two types of documents exist?" or this: "Do you acknowledge a distintion..."
Gotta give me something to work with, buddy...
Nice post, bullwinkle. Doubt it'll help, but it's great - love the Mencken quote.
true or false : A certificate of live birth and a certification of live birth are different existing types of documents.
That better?
Would one like to tell us what the U.S. Supreme Court said about Obama's certification? This ought to rich.
So Mencken is saying what?
Conspiracies don't exist?
Conspiracies do exist,but are never exposed by morons ( theorists)?
Conspiracies exist, but are only sometimes exposed by morons?
Conspiracies exist and are always exposed by morons?
He sure uses purty words to say nothing!
Andy Worhol said Walt Disney was his favorite artist because Mickey Mouse was his favorite character. So what's your point?
Plainview is working hard to take Andrew B's place.
True.
"The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy." H.L.Mencken
What Mencken was saying is that the person who clings to rumors or beliefs in support of a conspiracy, with no firm basis in fact, believes that they are in some way a victim. Conspiracy theorists perceive that they have lost something they felt they deserved, whether it be a political race, racial or religious standing, or outcome of certain events, whatever may be standing in their way of achieving that which they desire or which they believe, in their narrow view, is "right". They can't accept the generally accepted outcome, so they focus their blame on someone or something else, even if that thing flies in the face of reason.
In your case, Plainview, you are among those who believe that your party unfairly lost the presidential election, so you've found a perceived impropriety in a piece of paper to challenge the winning candidate's victory. It doesn't matter to you that the State of Hawaii has verified Obama's birth records. It matters not a whit to you that the Supreme Court refused to even take up the case, dismissing the challenge without comment. So focused are you in your quest that some six months after his inauguration you are demanding still more "proof" of the President's citizenship, yet one senses that even if such "proof" was submitted, you would find it suspect.
There have always been conspiracy theories, but I think that in the age of the internet, they have become more mainstream, as people with similar beliefs seek each other out online, reinforcing one another's fears and paranoias, and creating a sub-culture based on misinformation, rumor and innuendo. I can sympathize with you, but I can't for the life of me, support your opinion. The premise of a man achieving the presidency when literally his entire life was built on a lie defies all logic.
What Mencken was saying is that the person who clings to rumors or beliefs in support of a conspiracy, with no firm basis in fact, believes that they are in some way a victim.
--------------------
You've just discovered the Republican Culture of Victimhood, whynot! Congrats!
Ah Andrew - is this how you run your practice, by misinterpreting the law and misleading your clients, and dare I say it, by lying? You know, or should know, better than most that the Presidential Records Act, enacted in 1978, simply mandates the preservation of all presidential records, providing public access to records under the Freedom of Information Act. George W. Bush ammended the act in 2001 (by Executive Order 13233) to limit access to former president's records (let's not even guess why...) Barack Obama, on his first day in office, struck down Bush's revocation, and restored the PRA to its original language and intent. How you can twist that act into a devious action by the president is, well, insane. Shame on you!
The rest of your post is negated by your lack of credibility based on the absurdity of the first three paragraphs.
And thanks, oh_please, but I didn't just now discover the RCV - it's been obvious all along. By the way, did you catch Lyndsey Graham and Mitt Romney on MTP this morning, excusing away Sanford's behavior by saying it was just a midlife crisis... .
They just don't know when to quit, do they?
Sanford is done. It's amazing to see the Republican leadership waffle on the 'values' issues. Those of you who personally believe in 'family values' (whatever the frick THAT means) should take note at how quickly those who profess to champion them abandon them in the name of political expediency.
The Party of Personal Responsibility and High Moral Values, indeed!
I never said I BELIEVED the Republican party actually HAD high moral values to display, Briseno. I'm simply pointing out that they positioned themselves as such and in doing so duped a good number of gullible voters. Hopefully those who were stupid enough to think that Republicans actually gave a crap about such issues have learned a little something lately.
And now the chickens have come home to roost.
At least it wasn't a gay sex scandal or a pederast sex scandal, for once. So the Republicans have got that going for them. Which is nice.
And am I the only one who recalls some of these very same people who are now explaining away Sanford's infidelities condemning Clinton's infidelities?
Remember that, Briseno? How Clinton didn't have the moral fiber to lead as he was so morally flawed?
I'm just looking for some consistency from these people, that's all.
Well.whynot is right about one thing. The SCOTUS isn't touching this with a ten-foot pole. They have not taken up the issue of whether the COLB ( certification of live birth) would qualify a Presidential candidate as eligible under the 'natural-born citizen' clause, when the COLB is the issue in and of itself. Evidently, what it's saying is that it is bored and needs all those suits to keep it busy.
This is a tragic comedy as the DHHL website states that this COLB is not even an acceptable form of identification to even qualify under most programs. The DHHL spokesperson has confirmed this. In 2001 ,Hawaii started issuing these COLBs when the health department went paperless and this 'same day' COLB is only available in electronic form.
This appears to be a document without a paper trail.
This is akin to applying for a passport by dragging up an image of one's document on a laptop.
The likes of whynot are expressing their 'cluelessness' about my beliefs even when I've already expressed them over and over. They just substitute it with whatever sounds nice and damning. Racist? - you know my skin color,eh?, republican?- you know my party affiliation,eh?, bitter and feel like a victim? - You know my emotional state, eh? I will find future info suspicious? - so you are a soothsayer,eh? ...And yet the simple question remains unanswered.... is your fear of the real argument preventing you? Come on, be brave and humor me.
Mencken was a cheap-shot artist who shot fish in a barrel in a most eloquent way. It's surprising he didn't wax poetic about the repulsive appearance of skin on a leper. He says jack.
My argument was and is simple and clear: Barack Obama has in fact not proven natural-born status in compliance to holding the office of presidency.
But hey, I understand the problem many have with that, as bullwinklemoose put it concerning this public servant named Obama:
'He owes you nothing.'
Oh, how far we have strayed from from basic concepts!
Andrew, I'm confused. You failed to address my calling you out on the phony-baloney charges you made about Obama having "sealed his personal records from disclosure" by virture of his revoking Bush's changes to the PRA. Have you no defense, counselor?
You also failed to answer my question as to why you grace the comment section of my hometown paper, when according to the CA State Bar Association, you went to school and practice law in California. It's odd. But not surprising.
Instead, now you launch an entirely new attack, apparently on what you believe to be Obama's stand on abortion. Interesting... strange, but interesting.
But this, this is telling: "it is not a conspiracy... it is a simple alignment of a common purpose". First of all, it sounds like something Hitler might have said in Mein Kampf... And secondly, it's not quite the right way to describe the cabal of neocon broadcasters, online bloggers and right wingnuts that makes up the "birthers" group, of which you and plainview are apparently affiliated. In business, alignment-based organizations value diverse voices and opinions. In agreement-based organizations, creativity is stifled and fear of presenting a diverse point of view is the guiding force. So, you should say, "It is not a conspiracy... it is an AGREEMENT of purpose." Just a little housekeeping issue.
As for the rest of today's blithering drivel - blah, blah, blah. The more you write, the crazier you seem.
And pv, why must you keep tossing around the acronyms as if using them makes you some kind of expert on something??? SCOTUS, POTUS, COLB... blah, blah, blah...
The Supreme Court didn't take up the ridiculous issue of the birther's conspiracy theory because THERE WAS NOTHING THERE, not one iota of evidence to look at, no case to be made. It was, and is, absurd.
And as for this: "Oh, how far we have strayed from from basic concepts!"... Ya got that right, pal. Zoom up to the top of the page and read the original article. It has NOTHING to do with Obama. I'm not the clueless one here.
OK, now I am confused all over again; this is getting to be a semi-permanent state of being for me. If I am tracking all of this properly, it seems like someone is trying to say that President Obama is not a legal US citizen, has submitted a phony birth certificate, and under some huge conspiracy/insidious plot, has contrived to seize the Presidency? Am I getting that right, or has all of this made me crazy?
Sanford and Clinton are both scum who should not be trusted to lead.
---------------------------
Pretty harsh! You're just not one for that whole 'Christian forgiveness' thing, huh, Briseno?
Andrew, I suppose, according to your posts about Sanford and Clinton, they are scum.
Well if that is the case, how do you rate your idols Bush and Darth Cheney?
Gees, GET OFF YOUR RIGHT WING SOAP BOX!
I'm not sure about the rest of the folks in Alaska, but I for one am getting really tired of your prattle.
Doesn't the L.A. times have comment section?
No ktsue, you're not crazy or confused. There is such a conspiracy theory out there, and it seems our friends, Andrew and plainview are buying into it, hook, line and sinker. There is no credible evidence to support this theory, except what other "birthers" (those who believe in the theory) say, so naturally, websites in support of the theory abound. I think some of those websites were listed above, but here are a couple that dispute it:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/020... ; http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bir...
But doesn't it seem strange to you (as it does to me) that if there was a shred of evidence of this "plot" to deceive the world, the Supreme Court would have agreed to hear the case brought before them by the birthers? But the court didn't even care to hear the case - it was that preposterous.
And don't you think that if he was not a citizen of the US, Obama, who seems like a pretty bright guy, might have decided against running for the highest office in the land, since after all, being a citizen is one of the qualifications of being president?
Or do you believe that many, many people conspired to phony up the President's birth certificate, or "certification of live birth", create false newspaper articles announcing his birth in Hawaii, get his mother and grandmother to lie about where and when he was born, get the governor of Hawaii to lie about the validity of the "certification of live birth" Obama presented to prove his citizenship... it goes on and on.
There's also no real narrative to go along with the accusation. It's unclear what the birthers think Obama has up his sleeve if he's really not an American. They allude to his being a Muslim - not true. They call him a poser - although what he REALLY is in their mind remains unclear.
All in all, it's a lame theory with no basis in fact - as I said, you're not the crazy one here.
Wait, Andrew, don't go away mad - just go away... after you answer my other question: Why didn't you address my calling you out on the phony-baloney charges you made about Obama having "sealed his personal records from disclosure" by virture of his revoking Bush's changes to the PRA? You studiously ignore that issue. Why?
Hey, this was classic: "...illegit5imate poser, usurper, Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama. Such an ill trained marionette..." You got in 7 denigrations in 14 words. I think that's a record for you there, buddy!
You're cute when you're all blustery and frustrated. Guess debate wasn't your forte, huh? Is that why you're not a litigator?
Aw... more blah, blah, blah, but still not answering the question, Andrew. I'm guessing that's because there is no defensible answer. Kinda sad, huh?
I don't actually live in a cave. I have a pretty nice two-story with big picture windows overlooking the river on one side, the mountains on the other, set on 3 lovely acres in the hills. It's nice up here; you can almost see Russia...
If you hate the L.A. and N.Y. how on earth did you come across the Fairbanks Daily News Miner?
Do you believe the News Miner has a more down to earth news?
Or perhaps you figures, because you are a attorney, that maybe you could talk down to every one in this comment section.
In my opinion, you are nothing more than a load mouth attorney, Just like all the others I know....
whynot - I 'throw around' acronyms so as not to waste time typing.
Now you know what the SCOTUS hasn't even looked at. How omniscient you must be. You are under the false immpression this is an open and shut case. You couldn't be more wrong.
Actually , this has everything to do with Palin. It demonstrates how many of you out there are willing to cherry-pick reality in accordance to who you approve of.
So when are you going to answer the simple question that is the crux of this issue? ....still waiting.
Don't be frightened. "Yes you can."
Descartes must be rolling in his grave with your SCOTUS rationale :
"He is, therefore it's true."
PV - I answered your question. Unless you have YET ANOTHER ONE that was couched within your last rant, because frankly, I couldn't get through the craziness... Refresh my memory, and try to stop insulting me - you're not as clever as you think you are.
Still waiting, PV. I waded through your previous posts, but the only question I THINK you asked me was this one: "true or false : A certificate of live birth and a certification of live birth are different existing types of documents."
Since you stated: "If you are honest with me, next time a simple yes or no will suffice," I responded, "True," this morning at 7:37. Maybe you wanted a "yes" response, but that doesn't really address the question, does it?
Soooo... looks like you're up to bat.
Whynot - Well done. Now tell us how a Certification of Live Birth is proof of natural birth.
I must warn you that it can't, but don't let that stop you.
You could also tell us the difference between the two types of certificates I've already mentioned if you would like to.
Oh, my goodness. For those of you who have lived here all your lives, let me tell you that I commend you, on many levels. You are very politically aware and keep yourself up-to-date on local and national events, you are articulate, and far from afraid to speak your mind. You even tolerate the "lunatic fringe" on the very far right and left, as wacky as they seem to come across here. But, as I am learning quickly, it is hard for someone like me, who has never been interested in politics and local issues, to move here and try to assimilate and get a handle on what's what and who's who. Take Sarah Palin for instance. Mention her name and feel the ground start to tremble (or maybe it's an earthquake; my bad)...when people talk about Sarah Palin, it seems like IMMEDIATELY everyone polarizes to the right and left, like the childhood game of "red rover". And then, even in their polarity, people have different views, opinions, and even different stories of what has actually gone on. Different ideas of her character, motivations, ethics, performance, and so on. It's like reading 20 different people's version of a movie, and not only getting 20 different slants on it, but getting 20 completely different plots and dialogue! Try to figure out the real story from that...and even the websites you folks were so kind as to refer me to say different things, some completely different; it almost seems like reality in this case is in the eye of the beholder, and that scares me, because I do not want to blindly believe something just because of what I represent; I do not want to blindly love her because I am Republican and evangelical Christian, and I don't want to blindly hate her either.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you're a seekrit Muslin, Briseno...
I had to do this in 2 parts because, as I am sure you have all found out, I tend to be long-winded. Sorry, and thanks for enduring to the end. What I want to, finally, understand, so I know how to vote in the next elections intelligently, is this: why did Sarah Palin REALLY want her ex-brother-in-law fired ? Did she REALLY fire the man who refused to do so? Why did she REALLY run for VP? Whose idea was it, and what SHOULD she have done? Is she REALLY as crooked and self-serving as the "good old boys" she ousted, or is she being painted that way wrongly? I have seen at least 3 separate and different opinions on each of these questions. The best-case scenario, and the one I, perhaps naively, believed, just after she agreed to run for VP, was this: her ex-brother-in-law wasn't doing a good job. She knew if she fired him it would seem that she was doing it for another reason (the divorce). So, she asked someone else to handle the matter for her, and that person failed to do so, so she fired him. And then, a little while later, she was approached to run for VP, something she had not previously sought, and after thinking about it and talking to her family, and the members of the GOP, and John McCain, and recognizing it as an opportunity that she might never have again in her lifetime, decided to go for it; then, the ethics violation thing came up, and her daughter's pregnancy, and a bunch of Alaskans angry that she was not looking after their interests properly, and a whole firestorm of media frenzy hit; she tried to put bandaids on things, like starting the ethics investigation herself to get it over with quickly and show she was not trying to hide anything, and coming out publicly about her daughter's pregnancy and her special needs child and all that. That, in my usual verbose fashion, is what I had assumed when I first started reading about all this and watching the news, back in September and October of last year. So, can ANYONE tell me, without anger or heat, if I understand correctly or if I am dead wrong? Thank you in advance. And, if my remarks have hurt anyone, I am sorry; I seem to make people mad pretty easily lately.
6-28-2009
The Palin fanatics are still going at it strong. You have to give credit where credit is due though. If this were the Tour de France, we'd have some stiff competition!
Bengal Tiger, that is not fair. I thought I went out of my way to say that I am NOT a Palin fanatic, that I don't know WHAT to think of her after reading all the comments on her since last October, and that I am trying to gather facts so that I can even HAVE a formed opinion. Never mind.
Well done? Done hours ago... But all right.
I have in front of me a yellow piece of paper with the heading, "State of New York, Department of Health, Certification of Birth". My wife was orphaned as a baby, and her original birth certificate was subsequently lost. She needed something to prove that she was who she claimed to be for purposes of obtaining a passport. Upon her request, the New York State Dept. of Health issued this document to her. It's a half-sheet of paper (8 1/2" X 5 1/2) and while it does not show such things as her birth weight or her parents' names, it does have the embossed seal of the Registrar of Vital Statistics for the county in which she was born, and it bears his signature.
According to the law, "In the United States, the term "birth certificate" can refer to either the original document or to a certification thereof." Sorry. But that information comes directly from the United States Department of State, and was included in my wife's passport application.
My wife submitted her application, along with a notorized copy of the "Certification of Birth", and sure enough, the US Department of State accepted her "Certification of Birth" and promptly issued her passport to her, with which she was able to travel to four European nations, two Asian nations, Mexico, and Russia.
You see, pv, in America, there are various types of certifed copies of birth certificates are issued, depending upon the state of origin. One is the "long form", which is an exact photocopy of the original birth record that was prepared by the hospital or attending physician at the time of the child's birth. The long form usually includes at least one parent's signature, plus the family's address, their race, etc. The long form also usually includes the signature of the doctor who delivered the baby.
Another form (which my wife and President Obama have) is the "short form", or "computer certifications", which are issued by most states these days, and include just what my wife's has: the baby's name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth. They are universally accepted throughout the United States.
This may come as a surprise to you, but there are even more types of certifications. There is a wallet-sized short form birth certifications and apostille/exemplified certifications (for use in foreign countries) AND even commemorative certificates (which my children have, issued by the State of Alaska and printed on a lovely print by an Alaskan artist). They're all legal! Shocking, I know!
ktsue - You're a sweetheart - I like how you think! And you're not long-winded - check out my posts. I think that when we feel passionately about something, we'll go to great lengths to prove our point. In school, people would groan when it was my turn to present an argument.
I wouldn't presume to try to explain the Palin "troopergate" issue - as you can see, it's a hot topic for folks here. I would advise you to go to the website that hobbes listed above:
http://download2.legis.state.ak.us/DOWNL...
It's long, but you can go through and read portions of it. You should make up your own mind on how that event played out. It's not all that defines the governor, of course, but it's a revealing look at her and her husband.
ktsue - Palin's brother-in-law was more than one who was not doing his job. If you research him, you will find , if the allegations are correct, that he was a sadistic creep to adults and children and more of a danger to those around him by far than most of us who are not hired to serve and protect. He was allegedly behaving contrary to what one should as a trooper or a human being is ,for that matter.
Do I think the Palins possibly played legal dirty pool against the guy who kept the trooper on the payroll ? Maybe, but I can say this:
If Wooten was what the Palins said he was, Sarah kept his boss hired longer that I would have if in their position. I'm not sure I wouldn't have gone the extra mile to send him into obscurity ,one way or the other as I know I would protect my family at any cost, regardless of who I am.
I'm somewhat curious to how true a portrayal Wooten received.
If that relation has been portrayed accurately by the Palins, whatever happens between them can stay between them.
I find it weird that some folks out there actually have more criticism because the alleged violations by Wooten involve relatives, not strangers, and somehow the Palins should be less effectual in deal with it because of who they are. If it is true , whether it is through a position of office or a tire iron , all the power to them for trying to shut him down.
whynot - You see, whynot, in America some documents establish a natural-born status and others merely establish citizenry.
A certification of live birth can be , and often is , granted to those who are not natural-born citizens of this country. Hawaii's 1911 act compounded this obscurity.
Natural-birth and citizenry are two completely different things , especially with presidential fitness.
Obama has not shown proof of natural birth through this document, nor could he with it in and of itself.
I'm glad your wife got a certification and it sounds like the right one for the circumstances. Now, if only Obama ( or anyone for that matter)could explain the circumstances for him having only this document for show and tell, that would help his case. Then again ,a simple copy of his long form would have settled things and he would have saved very large amounts of money by doing so.
Like I stated before, Obama has in effect, acted like a racer who entered into an engine size restriction class and is directing the judges to the tailpipes for proof of what's under the hood.
The difference between Sanford and Clinton is that Sanford did it for love of a woman, whereas, Clinton did it for power over a young girl. One was lovesick and the other was a sleaze-bag criminal. Should Sanford resign? Probably. He's lost the confidence of many of his constituents, especially in light of his escapist absence. Should Clinton have resigned? Absolutely. He lied, obstructed justice, and was (is?) a chronic abuser of women; including his own adoring wife and daughter.
It is, however, clear that Sanford is not presidential material. He did not lie, he did not deny, and he did not accuse the opposition of conspiring against him. The Mencken quote offered above describe Bill and Hillary Clinton quite nicely.
Now, I've made analogies. One of them involved the subject of a passport, which had an analogous context to what Obama has done. Don't confuse the issue by removing that analogous context and by substituting Obama with some who this presidential fitness doesn't apply to.
sigh...
Do you deny that a COLB can be obtained by one who is not natural born?
whynot: thank you for your kind words and the website you have referred me to !! I have read every word of the ethics investigation of Troopergate( talk about long and exhaustive) and can voice my own opinion based on the facts and not on personal feelings. Whynot, I was wrong on many points. The investigation of the trooper in question was conducted by the book. He was disciplined, by the book. The case was over and done. And THEN the Palins (mostly the First Gentleman), not being satisfied with the disciplinary action, put pressure on the new Commissioner to "look into it to see if more could and should be done" which was absolutely unethical. Once the matter is done, it's done, and to keep pushing it was wrong. And boy, did they push it. The trooper in question is, if the allegations are correct, no angel. I don't like what I hear of him tasering a young boy, driving drunk in the patrol car, getting pulled over, let go by his cronies, and then bragging about it. There were issues of shooting a moose out of season with his wife's permit, and allegedly driving a snow machine while on Workmen's Compensation, but the snow machine allegation is suspect; he was supposedly 100 miles off-road, and Todd Palin just "happened" to be there to take his picture(??)..All the photo showed was a guy in a helmet. Apparently the trooper also threatened the Governor and her family; if that is so, why did she pare her security team down to a 70 year-old-guy and a part-time backup guy?. The ethics investigation,I believe,shows clearly that the Commissioner was fired for being ethical, for NOT retroactively going back and getting someone fired who had already been investigated, disciplined, and returned to duty. The Commissioner warned them that it was actionable, and they should stop. They persisted. The Governor claimed that the reason she fired him was that she wanted to take DPS "in a different direction" but after what I have read (exhaustively) it doesn't hold water. What worries me most is the amount of power and control the "First Gentleman" wields. Who's really running the show here? I was wrong about this whole deal. I made a crow stew and humble pie for dessert; anybody want some?
My dear friend plainview - words cannot express how weary I am of this subject. There is simply no rational argument to counter the absurdity you offer. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including the COLB, which was accepted by the court, newspaper announcements found in the 1962 Honolulu papers
However... Of course it's possible that "someone" could obtain a Certification of Live Birth who was not born in the US. Is it likely that a person not born in the US would risk his entire political career by falsifying a birth certificate (in any form) that could be easily exposed to be a fraud? No. Is it likely that he would involve dozens of people in a fraud of this magnitude without someone coming forward? No.
Have you offered any narrative that would explain WHY Obama would commit such a fraud, or why any of his alleged co-conspirators would involve themselves, or what, if anything, he could possibly stand to gain by such an action, besides taking office in the middle the worst financial crisis America has seen since the Great Depression - cuz it ain't no picnic, buddy, and it don't pay THAT much, plus there's the likes of you and Briseno swarming around like flies on honey. There is no conceivable reason for the man to lie on his job application for the presidency - and don't you think the CIA would be all over this if there was a reason for them to be? Do you think you're smarter than the CIA, the Supreme Court, and every Republican Senator in Washington? Really?
The whole damn thing is ridiculous, my friend - absolutely absurd, and the only ones out there supporting this theory are your loudmouthed morons (Limbaugh), your crazy wannabe presidential candidates (Keyes) and your garden-variety right wingnuts, including a certain lawyer in California - not to mention a dentist in California with an online law degree who's suing Michael Medved for saying that the leaders of the conspiracy are, "crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters" who are "the worst enemy of the conservative movement. It makes us look weird. It makes us look crazy. It makes us look demented. It makes us look sick, troubled, and not suitable for civilized company." They don't call it lala land for nothing...
I know you're invested in this theory. I understand how difficult it must be for you to accept Obama as president - I felt exactly the same way about Bush. But please, stop and think. It just doesn't add up!
No ktsue, you were simply fooled, as so many are, by the governor's guise of being an ethical, competent, "transparent" leader. She strikes me as being the kind of politician who would step on her own children to make her way up the ladder to the White House, but I'm confident that her facade will be obvious to most people should she try again for an office in Washington. I'm concerned, too, about her husband's role in government, and wonder who's home with the kids?
I feel good and bad at the same time. I am a conservative and an evangelical Christian. I was DELIGHTED when I heard she was running for VP!! I thought, great, here is a woman who is down-to-earth, an outspoken and unashamed Christian, stands against abortion, even goes to the same kind of Church I do...sign me up! I heard her on TV talking about the ethics charge, and saying innocently with wide eyes that this must be a mistake, she would NEVER abuse her authority like that...I know, she is human, and let her personal feelings get in the way. She, and her co-Governor husband, should have just shut up and let their ex-brother-in-law alone; if history serves, he'll mess up again. Only now, it will be a lot harder to prove that he wasn't "set up" or treated unfairly; the Palins's credibility, at least to me, is shot. I am very grateful that there are still people like the DPS Commissioner, who stood for what was legal, ethical, and right, knowing full well that the writing was on the wall and he would almost certainly lose his job for it. For I am convinced that if he had played ball with Sarah and Todd, he would have his job today.
It would depend on who and how many friends high up on the food chain Obama has to how easily he would be exposed to being a fraud. I think your number of dozens is probably quite low. I never said he was a fraud. I stated he hasn't proven natural birth and that is a fact.
he could merely be hiding who his real father is for all I know.
It's just common sense that if a COLB is not an indicator of natural birth, which by your own admission by agreement that those who are not natural-born can obtain it, why use that for proof when a long-form copy would satisfy the requirement? He, as Fukino, claims one exists . Why not show it instead? Why place so much time ,money and effort not showing it? Why tie up the courts ( both district and supreme) with suits? Like stated before, SCOTUS never addressed the COLB meeting requirement of natural birth, that is another fact. Don't be so sure that the CIA doesn't take an ugly turn on him after he released it's records yet keeping his sealed.
You are evidently more impatient than I as suits and investigations were mounting on one prez I remembered as he won a re-election by a landslide.
A perfect time to seize control of a people is when they are desperate, and in America, like Germany, that translates into economic crisis.
I don't pretend to know what his deal is or why ,nor do I subscribe to any conspiracy outside the question of his qualification. Limbaugh and his ilk that you claim are mine haven't made a case to suspect a problem. Obama , factcheck, fightthesmears and SCOTUS did that all by themselves. It's funny ,because I don't and never did listen to talk radio and it's only thanks to Obama supporters that I was alerted to anything those guys said.
Once again, I don't know what Obama's deal is, but that's the whole point. all Obama has to do is show qualification for presidency in order for me to accept him.
Allow me to place the shoe on the other foot:
Surely Obama is aware that hundreds of thousands of Americans hold him in a myriad of suspicions concerning this matter. Even if he believed that no appeasement may be sated by doing so; wouldn't he as a reasonable person in his position hazard the minuscule risk to try so by just materializing a copy of a long-form certificate?
There is nothing to lose and a possibility of much to gain. I know of one guy who would accept it.
By the way, although I never stated he was a fraud, I suspect he is or at least he committed it concerning documentation. That's his fault the suspicion is there, plain and simple.
What money?
When Obama went to college, why did he register himself as a "foreign student"?
Oh my God - what has been going on here while I was fishing this weekend? Plainview and Andrew - the usual rants and raves... whynot, fighting 'em off... and ktsue, good for you, darlin', you read the investigative report - revealing? It's hard to believe that someone so pretty and who seems so nice could be so conniving, but...
OK, obiwan - why, oh why do people continue to blindly accept the stupid rumors they read? I have friends in the states who daily forward me crap they've been sent about Palin (how people are always pickin' on her) and Obama (what a fraud he is) and you know what? It's almost always freaking crap!!!
Here's the Snopes report on your comment: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/occ...
Hope you realize that an entire cottage industry has sprung up to smear this president - thousands of people make it their business to dream up the worst possible rumors and send 'em out like viruses over the net. BTW, most of these folks are redneck racists... Check your sources.
And plainview - not that you'll believe it, but... the link I gave obiwan addresses your "concerns" - "Why place so much time ,money and effort not showing it? Why tie up the courts ( both district and supreme) with suits?" I'll cut to the chase for ya - no case denying Obama's citizenship has made it to court - no money spent. Why? Because it's CRAP! He's a citizen. Give it up!
The difference between Sanford and Clinton is that Sanford did it for love of a woman, whereas, Clinton did it for power over a young girl. One was lovesick and the other was a sleaze-bag criminal.
------------------------
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5238/go...
OHPLEASE,
Are you sure you don't live in catimaco,Mexico? The reason I ask is there Island a short way from the city where they still practice witch craft.
You seem to know a lot Sanford and Clinton relationships.
Plainview - You said that it's Obama's fault that there is "suspicion" about his birthplace? So wrong - those who created and continue to spread the ridiculous rumor are to blame. No one except these crackpots (and sorry, but you do seem to be one of them) believe that nonsense. It has long been proven to the satisfaction of the court that ordered his certification - the only people who didn't accept it would do and say anything to disqualify him. Stop it! You're sounding like Andrew Brisno!
Obama indeed has lawyers dealing with the sealing of records and they actually have set precedence by meeting with SCOTUS without the presence of the press. Lawyers get paid money for their services.
So now we are to take Fukino's and Snopes words for what is and isn't concerning constitutional matters? Are you nuts?
Gee, here's another groovy thing to wrap your minds around,man : Maybe Obama was really born here, but is a foreign citizen by birth.
Here's a novel idea:
Answer the natural-birth question with a copy of the original birth certificate.
Answer the 'foreign student' question by releasing college records.
See how easy that is? No lawyers need not apply for the long haul.
Using Snopes, Huffington post, factcheck,fightthesmears for the establishment of truth on this matter is like the hen-house chickens getting a physical exam from Dr. Fox. I'll tell you what, I'll start taking Snopes for the gospel on this matter when you start taking Limbaugh for the gospel. Who gives you a physical? Your mechanic? Who fixes you car? You doctor? Unfreakingbelievable!
You really can't be that stupid or think that other are.
You can just as easily be accused of believing in the conspiracy that certain things exist where no proof is present.
There's no need or reason for all this arguing as a couple very simple acts by the prez could put it all to rest. I know it, you know it and the next guy knows it, so stop blowing smoke.
Don't you know there's already enough smoke and mirrors in place?
Many of you really need to pull your heads out of Obama's backside every now and then to get some fresh air.
At lot of us are conspiracy theorists that believe things exist and a lot of us are conspiracy theorists that believe things don't .
Thanks Obama.
Make it stop!
Yes Obama, make it stop!
Geez Andrew, did it take you THAT long to think up that insult for whynot? He said the same thing about your writing three days ago:
6/26/2009, 6:01 p.m. Ah Andrew, the absurdity continues... But Andrew, you're becoming so predictable that one need not read your posts anymore - they're that formulaic.
Only when whynot wrote it, it made sense. And I read all of his posts - don't bother with yours, because they're all the same-old, same-old... whine, whine, whine.
Ever get sued for plagerism?
Have a great day!
Um... plainview - you and Andrew need to move into a cave together somewhere and make tinfoil hats for each other. I hear there are lots of empty caves down there in California where Andy lives. I know you'd enjoy each other's company.
I'm not going to waste another brain cell conversating with either one of you geniuses today. You'll turn my brain to mush, and then I'll start spouting off crazy stuff - like this brilliant hypothesis: "Maybe Obama was really born here, but is a foreign citizen by birth..." Yeah, and maybe I'll grow feathers from my butt and fly to the moon.
Bye.
That's a good idea about your saving brain cells, as it appears you may have a very limited supply.
It's how they operate, hobbes.
They simply roll over any opposition with an unfathomable amount of obfuscating information. They're like a BS steamroller. And they'll be here doing it LONG after you get frustrated, give up, and go away...
Prove qualification : show long-form copy
Prove loan status : release college records
Real confusing, obfuscatin' stuff there.
hobbes, Most people stopped reading Andrews post along time ago. (Gives them too much of a gut ache from laughing). He was posting the same garbage before the election and no one listened then. He is under the sad impression that comments here will change people's opinion. Poor guy.
You are all silly, half the posts on this arent even reflecting the new article. Some people need to get jobs, and actually work at them, go get a job pushing carts, I hear those people are whiners too, you'll fit in.
Fairbanksborn79, I agree that somewhere along the line, the comments here took a turn into something entirely different than the original article. But I followed it closely over the weekend, when most of the posts were written - not during the work week, although Mr. Briseno and plainview seem to be at liberty to post at any time.
It was a fascinating trip into some very disturbed minds, and troubling to see what evil lurks in the minds of these folks. I can only believe that their hatred toward our young black president has perverted their minds and poisoned their thoughts. Their premises are vacuous, and they cannot be reasoned with; it's troubling to think that there are others like them out there.
So, while it was a u-turn from the original article, it was, at least, a scenic trip. Silly, no, but frightening, yes.
Whynot, I've always thought you were smart, man, but you sure pegged Briseno. You've pegged him all along, but his last post proved what you said about him yesterday.
In your 1:09 PM post, you said: "But this, this is telling: "it is not a conspiracy... it is a simple alignment of a common purpose". First of all, it sounds like something Hitler might have said in Mein Kampf..."
And today, here's Andy confessing: "I understand the mentality of Brownshirts since I studied the National Socialist Movement of Germany in the 1930's and 1940's.
Denigrating the opposition is old playbook procedure for those who seek to cloak the indefensible in a false veneer of legitimacy. With the assistance of Media, such disinformation served the Führer and should serve our current tin plated Führer of the National Socialist Party West."
He's a frickin' student of Hitler! Now it all makes sense. And he actually tipped his hand, explaining his own tricks. Incredible. And he has the gall to call Obama a socialist... Unfreakingbelievable.
Good call, whynot.
So hobbes, if someone studies a movement it means they believe in the movement. Does that also apply to Obama than?
Yeah Andrew, I have a degree in Sociology and studied several movements. Like anyone cares.
Andrew is probably the only one on here that doesn't realize that the only thing he finds interesting in our state is the governor.
Like I said, he can rage all day and it won't change anyone's opinion of her. They either like her or they don't.
Andrew, I am a little curious how much you really know about the National Socialist Movement in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's since the brownshirts were disbanded when Hitler murdered Ernst Rohm and the rest of the leaders of the SA in 1933.
Hey, thanks for the shout-out, Andrew. We think you're pretty funny, too.
And no, Snog, the point was that whynot pointed out that one of Andy's rants sounded like something from Mein Kamph, and then, lo and behold, here's Andy - telling us that he is, in fact, a student of Hitler... Seems he learned a lot from the old guy, the scourge of Germany, perhaps including how to "to cloak the indefensible in a false veneer of legitimacy"... They share so much in common, Andy and Adolph.
LOL Andy...
I hope the Personnel Board is not costing the State anything. That would be another 'caucus' team formed with unneeded spending. That is what they call CYA the old fashion way - Not in this State.
Wow! It looks like the annual Sigmund Freud / J. Egar Hoover fan club met last night!
That's what happens when your 'argument' gets the dry-heaves.
pv - Your arguments tend to be one-sided. You spit out your asinine questions, then spend hours ignoring or ridiculing the responses, resorting to name-calling and schoolyard taunts, but neither you nor Andy ever get around to answering the questions asked of you. Your hot air could float the Goodyear blimp.
How come you never answered whynot's question about why Obama would commit such an easily discovered fraud as forging details of his birth? You didn't, because there isn't a viable answer to that question. Nobody would be fool enough to do such a thing, let alone a guy running to be the first black president of the United States. He knew he'd come under intense scrutiny, more intense than most, because there are soooo many racist a-holes in this country, like yourself - forget your weak objections, pal, your racism shows thru, just like Andy's. The two of you march in lock step with racist redneck rightwing fringe of the Republican party - you know all the codes and phrases. You're not fooling anybody.
hobbes - Actually, I did answer whynot . Learn to read.
So now I'm racist for expecting the reasonable request for Obama's claimed existing long-form copy to be shown.
You are losing your composure by turning your brain off.
So now you happen to know my racial makeup ?
Alan Keyes has the same problem I do with the prez, so the question is this:
Is it the white in Obama that Keyes and I are prejudiced against or is it the black?
You are a joke.
Nope - read 'em all - no answer. Better show me.
And no. You're a racist because you're a racist.
Any other insults to hurl at me, genius?
Try again. Hint: 3:02
I'll give you another hint about the racism issue, since you appear to be dense about it:
Is Alan Keyes a racist? Do you know for a fact where my racial makeup fits into the scheme of things? Does it appear to go towards Keyes or Obama? That's another hint , clown.
"I don't pretend to know what his deal is or why ,nor do I subscribe to any conspiracy outside the question of his qualification"
THIS is your answer? This???
Yup, that's my answer.
de⋅lu⋅sion
/dɪˈluʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA
–noun
Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
This kind of explains the Obama Libs. IMA
"You're a racist because you're a racist." -- hobbes
“We call things racism just to get attention. We reduce complicated problems to racism, not because it is racism, but because it works.” Alfredo Gutierrez-1992
pv, so let me get this straight... You have no theory as to why Obama would fake his birth certificate and pretend to be an American-born citizen in order to become president of the United States. You can't imagine a scenario in which he would take such extraordinary measures, involve "hundreds" in his nefarious plot, spend untold amounts of money to cover up his horrible lie - you're just dead sure that he did.
You demand that the president bring forth his "long form" birth CERTIFICATE (not his "Live Birth Certification", because that's just not good enough for you - you're an expert on these things).
You're CERTAINLY not racist or anything - God forbid, because you're a decent, God fearing American... but for some reason, you can't abide by the fact that our president is a (gasp) black man, whose father was African, and his mother was white.
This concept is so foreign to you that you demand to see proof (in the long form, please). You have no reason for wanting to see it... you just wanna see it. You can't imagine why the man won't show it, even though people far more qualified than you or the redneck jerk sitting on his front porch in West Undershirt, Alabama, have deemed the "live birth certification" AMPLE proof of the president's "born in America" citizenship... you just wanna see MORE proof. You've got nothing against Obama (and you're NOT RACIST or anything...) you just wanna see it. You don't subscribe to any CONSPIRACY THEORY or anything... (you're not one of THOSE people, God forbid....) you just wanna see Obama gone because OBVIOUSLY he's hiding something, tho you can't imagine WHY anyone would do such a thing as fake his birth certificate...
That's the biggest load of crap EVER!
Is Alan Keyes a racist? Heck no - he's black. Learn to read. (Doncha just hate it when someone disses you like that? Yeah, me too!) Alan Keyes is a black man, of course, and a wanna be president. He, like you, would like to see Obama disqualified, but unlike you, he wants him to be disqualified because he'd like to be the first black president himself. Duh.
hobbes - I guess a review is in order:
I stated that the president's ( and scotus and others) behavior in this matter makes me suspicious ( no 'dead sure' there). Experts deeming that a document that was/is commonly obtained by those who are not natural-born as proof of natural-birth should be considered questionable in their judgment. Good judgment would dictate that a document that only applies to those who are natural-born would be the proper document to base clearance on.
There is nothing on the COLB that determines that, nor is it designed to.
The COLB isn't good enough for me, nor should it be for anyone else, including SCOTUS. That might explain why It won't make a determination on it's fitness pertaining to natural-birth. It knows It can't ,and if It does,It knows there's direct dereliction on it's part for doing so, with consequences and punishment possible. Dereliction by doing nothing is much safer than dereliction by doing something. It takes the 'willingness' out of neglect, so to speak. Believe me, judges are politicians too. Unfortunately, it is still dereliction.
You can play the race card all you want, but you probably should have at least confirmed what my race is before you used it ( if you believe in fair, honest assessments, that is)., or will you have an argument that I'm just an 'Uncle Tom' by my unfavorable stance towards Obama when you find that I am as dark as he?
There is no doubt Obama is hiding something. That is one thing I am sure of concerning this matter. Whether it's conspiratorial, criminal or personal, who knows. He has expended much manpower,time and money making that clear.
Alan Keyes didn't want Obama for president because, as he illustrated quite logically to no avail in debates, it was certainly not through ignorance that Obama struggled with concepts of the constitution, government and religion. I never saw an indication the Keyes wanted to be the first black president, but a man who felt he would better serve this country than the other guys. I agree with him on that and would vote for him in a heartbeat.
You're fundamentally wrong about our reasoning as Keyes and I share it quite closely.
Litigation and supreme court attorney Tom Goldstien illustrated the whole problem by his thoughts that the SCOTUS wasn't going to touch this as "the people have found Obama to be qualified as president and the people have spoken."
Now,if one needs to explain to you what is horribly wrong with that train of thought ; especially inexusable from a supreme court attorney, then one can only logically surmise that you have no concept of this country's principles.
Unfortunately, this in effect ,is what exactly what happened concerning Barack Obama.
There are those who argue that " he owes you nothing", but that could not be further from that truth. He established it as fact when he took the oath of office as the chief law enforcement officer of this land.
I've read everything you've posted on this thread, and throughout the exchanges with me and with others, you've thrown out several ambiguous statements that you purport to be fact. Here are the latest ones:
"He (Obama) has expended much manpower,time and money making that clear." Obama's attorney in the CA case worked pro bono. When else might he have expended time or money?
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?u...
"...it was certainly not through ignorance that Obama struggled with concepts of the constitution..." Proof? Citation?
"Tom Goldstien illustrated the whole problem by his thoughts that the SCOTUS wasn't going to touch this as "the people have found Obama to be qualified as president and the people have spoken."
Now,if one needs to explain to you what is horribly wrong with that train of thought ; especially inexusable from a supreme court attorney, then one can only logically surmise that you have no concept of this country's principles."
Tom Goldstein is an attorney who has argued cases before the Supreme Court, and who analyzes Supreme Court cases. He is not, as you stated, "a supreme court attorney". I'm NOT a lawyer, but I couldn't find any such animal in an online search.
As to the issue of racism - I've done some basic research into the issue of this conspiracy theory, with its cadre of "birthers", and the issues that prevent them from accepting the presidency of Barack Obama, and I've found that the recurring underlying theme is racism. It's no accident that the gunman who shot the guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington was a confirmed white supremacist birther.
I'll repeat my assertion about Keyes, who as a black candidate for the presidency, most certainly DID want to be the president, and if he had won, he WOULD have been the first black president, not Barack Obama, so yes - he wanted to be the first black president of the US.
That's all I have time for today - I have to go to work. I'm sorry for my impatience with you on this topic, but I find it hard to stomach that you and others continue to fight this crazy battle. It's divisive and creates hatred, maybe not in you, but in others who may subscribe to the theory and find credence in what you say.
Obama's campaign against the challenge indeed cost man-power ,time and money, I didn't say it was all his money. So I guess SCOTUS was bored and needed to have conferences and be tied up with suits, which doesn't cost anyone anything evidently. He has lawyers dealing with differing aspects of what is sealed alone ( medical, school, passports, selective service. work with Ayers, blocking the FBI,etc.). Woocher isn't handling cases in other states like Illinois, Hawaii and New York. He is handling the Occidental College records. Obama hired three law firms for the Berg motion for dismissal alone (Lavelle of Ballard Spahr andrews & Ingersoll, Sandler of Sandler,Reiff & Young, Bauer of Perkins and Cote).These are not pro-bono.There are reports that Obama has spent close to a million keeping records sealed and I'm still looking into that, although I believe spending anything is indicative of a problem.
I noticed Politico is still recycling the red-herring about Hawaii 'forbidding to release the long-form'. The long form is not being requested by most - a copy of it is , which Hawaii doesn't 'forbid'.
as far as Goldstien goes, you are correct and I'm guilty for being lazy with the vernacular. 'SCOTUS practitioner and litigation lawyer Tom Goldstien' I have been reading his scotusblog since last winter and like the official SCOTUS website, it amazed me of the timing of information blackouts during conferences.
There is no doubt that an element of racism is at play as a motive concerning some 'birthers', but you are practicing the 'Chris Matthews school of constitutional principles assassination' by even implying that the concept of the 'birther' question is a product of a lunatic fringe due to a lunatic who believed in said concept.
Many insane murderers wore shoes, yet it would be dishonestly ridiculous to charge them with complicity. It's more dishonest and dangerous to accuse those who believe in adhering to the constitution as being lunatics. It is assassination to the constitution's principles themselves, and that is sick.
there is no advocacy by those who advocate adherence to the principles to kill anyone and to state 'it's no accident' is plain dishonesty, plain and naked for all to see.
Your argument about Keyes is specious: 'Since Alan Keyes wanted to be president and he would be the first black president because he is black, therefore he wanted to be the first black president.'
Your earlier use of this wasn't 'no accident': There was implication to a particular competitive motive on Keyes part by your doing so and you know it.
I never heard him express or imply any focus on his being the first black president.
as far as Obama's 'misunderstandings' of constitutional,religious,
etc. concepts goes, all one has to do is listen to the debates themselves ( many on youtube) and look at who he appointed to what positions , and the reasons given for doing so. There is a pattern of 'misunderstanding' on his part in almost every facet of his involvement.
His appointment of a "wise Latino woman" versus "white men" Sotomayor , who declared that her ethnicity and sex "May and will make a difference in our judging" is quite indicative of 'misunderstanding. His appointment of Rahm Emmanuel, who openly expressed many 'misunderstandings' from property taxes to the census is indicative. His reply to 'Joe the plummer' demonstrates a 'misunderstanding'. His "I would want to know if I am up or down" and "above my pay grade" shows it.
To lump all of us who demand to hold Obama accountable with proof of constitutional fitness as 'Birthers' is a bigotry no different than using a racial slur to define a race. You are ,in effect, the 'West Undershirt, Alabama redneck on his porch' by doing so.
OMG... There's no hope for you, pal. I quit.
No? What would Obama think of your not believing in the audacity of hope?
I think this headline in "The Onion" was meant for you, plainview:
"Obama Modifies 'Yes We Can' Message To Exclude Area Loser"
I suspect many will be area losers when parcels are sold off to pay for mounting taxes.
Nate Walsh ... hummm.
I wonder if he belonged to the Trinity Church like the other three guys.
Oh no! It's 3:00 a.m.
" He is, therefore it's true!"
Ghost of Nixon in 2012 !
"The paradoy of legitimacy"?
Correcting spelling ? Be careful, someone might call you racist for it!
Federal Election Commission record shows 'Obama For America' paid $688,316.42 to Baurer of the law firm Perkins Coie (Obama lawyer fighting disclosure of long-form,etc.). Some will argue he also worked on the campaign through the DNC. What a setup. Sweet!
...to use campaign funds for legal representation to keep records sealed if one so chooses,that is.
C'mon we can get at least one more rant from AndrewB on this story.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.