Pensacola Tea Party – April 15, 2009

I attended one of the two Pensacola, FL tax day “tea parties” on April 15th.  Considering that there were only 6 people confirmed to attend this on Facebook, I was pleasantly surprised when I drove up to 500+ people attending this.  Granted, this crowd was nothing compared to the 15,000+ in Atlanta, but I thought this crowd was pretty good for Pensacola.  The rally was in front of University Mall on N. Davis Highway and stretched a good 1/3 mile from one end of the party to the other.

Patriotic music was playing and there was an overall good spirit during this rally.  The entire time I was there, cars were driving by honking their horns in support.   I saw plenty of FairTax signs and plenty of people handing out literature regarding various causes.

The unfortunate thing about the nationwide mainstream media and their coverage of this event which happened in over 700 cities across this country was their focus on who attended these rallies rather than why they occurred.   The reporting of this was more about supposed “extremist right wing groups” coordinating these rather than the fact that people are genuinely opposed to the Democratic congress and Obama’s outrageous spending in the past 10 weeks or so.  People at these rallies aren’t against all forms of taxation, but just the type that punishes success and thus leads to less overall growth.

Make no mistake about it, liberals are genuinely afraid of what is going on here.  Otherwise, they wouldn’t have spent so much time denouncing these on TV and referring to them as an obscure homosexual practice (tea-bagging).  In fact, no one actually participating in these rallies called them tea-bagging parties.  I’m amazed at how many anchors on CNN and MSNBC show surprising familiarity with the term, which is one that I’ve never heard before a few days ago.

The total estimated attendance of all tax day tea parties is now at 618,000 according to PJTV.  Not bad considering getting conservatives to rally for a cause is next to impossible.

Below are some pictures that I took with my iPhone of the rally to give various perspectives.  I look forward to the next time one of these occurs.  I feel confident these will occur on a regular basis until 2012 or whenever Obama is out of office.

img_01281img_0127img_0122img_0120img_0119img_0115img_0114img_0113img_0123

Advertisements

The Effectiveness of the News Media

In the aftermath of this election, conservatives, Republicans, and anyone who supported John McCain was asking themselves one question: “how the heck did this happen?”.  I mean, seriously, if you told me two years ago that we were going to elect a man for president with virtually no executive experience, with an ideology far left of mainstream America, and with a middle name of Hussein, I just never would have believed you.  But, I guess, that’s water under the bridge now.   So, how did this happen and how do we prevent a hoax like this being pulled on us again?

The reason that this election was an elaborate hoax is because the majority of people who voted for Barack Obama simply had no idea what he stood for.  They had no idea about his past accomplishments and no idea about his past associations.  They, in large part, didn’t even know what he voted for or against in the past.  They simply didn’t care because he looks nice, gives a great speech, and apparently touches the emotions of millions because he is a black man.  All I can say is bravo to the Democrats for running a phenomenal campaign….you managed to pull a good one on us this time.  Let’s see if you can manage to fool the electorate again in four years.  They only way that will happen is if we and the rest of America isn’t paying attention.  We obviously weren’t this time.

A poll was conducted by Zogby and paid for by a man named John Ziegler into what Obama voters knew and believed about the candidates running for election.  Also included are some general questions about government.

  • 57.4% of Obama voters could not correctly say which party controls congress. (The Democrats have for the past two years, by the way)
  • 82.6% of Obama voters could not correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot
  • 88.4% of Obama voters could not correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket
  • 56.1% of Obama voters didn’t know that Obama started his political career at the home of Bill Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist.

Surprising?  Not so much.  But what is surprising is how good they are at associating certain things with Sarah Palin.

  • 94% of Obama voters correctly identified Sarah Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter.
  • 86% of Obama voters identified Palin as the candidate who spent $150,000 on a campaign wardrobe.
  • 86.9 % of Obama voters though that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though the quote actually came from Saturday Night Live.

What this shows is how effective the news media is…extremely effective when they want to be.  CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC all did plenty of leg work to destroy Sarah Palin and it worked.  What would have been the result if those comments about bankrupting the coal industry were as widespread as Palin’s pregnant daughter?

This video is well worth watching.  If you’re still wondering how Obama got elected, this video will clear the air for you. 

Dear Mr. Obama

The liberal media have attacked this as made by the McCain campaign.  It wasn’t.  This was made by one individual and it expresses the sentiments of the majority of military personnel.

McCain’s Constitutional Eligibility (Part Two)

The debate over this eligibility question for John McCain rages among some for now, but if it were a cut and dry answer regarding the “natural born” citizen issue, no one would be discussing it. Just simply because of the fact that it is being discussed means that some ruling body, either Congress itself or the Supreme Court, needs at some point to clarify this.

 

Matthew J. Franck who writes for National Review Online did some excellent research and analysis on this. In the case of determining naturalization status, this responsibility falls on Congress and therefore may fall on them to clarify their own laws of naturalization. It is rather hard to believe that children born to military members while serving overseas would not be eligible for the office of the presidency.

 

However, some of the initial confusion on this topic arises from a Supreme Court decision in 1898. Justice Horace Gray wrote that the Constitution:

 

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

 

Gray’s error is stating that only location of birth is relevant and effectively ruling out that parentage is relevant. This question seems to be the only one that Justice Gray failed to address in his decision in US vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

 

In my last analysis of this, I suggested that MoveOn.org or the Democratic party may bring a Constitutional argument/suit against McCain’s run for the Presidency on these grounds, but there may not be any group that has any sort of legal standing to raise this kind of question.

 

Franck finished his analysis by stating:

 

The Times article contains a fair amount of handwringing over the fact that there has been no authoritative Supreme Court ruling on this presidential eligibility issue—though near the end it recognizes the difficulty of determining who might have “legal standing” to raise the issue in a court of law. This is the simplest question of all. No one has standing. This is a quintessentially political question, to be settled outside the judiciary by the constitutional authorities responsible for choosing presidents. If, next January, the joint session of Congress, presided over by Vice President Cheney, determines that John McCain is to be president by virtue of a victory in the electoral college, and either assumes silently or addresses openly (in case of a member’s objection) the question of McCain’s U.S. citizenship eligibility and holds in his favor, that will be an authoritative settlement of the matter—at least as far as McCain is concerned. No court of law could possibly have authority to gainsay such a decision. It never ceases to amaze me, though, how many otherwise sharp legal analysts consider constitutional questions to be unsettled until the Supreme Court has something to say on them.

 

While I have no doubt that McCain would emerge victorious should this question go before Congress or the Supreme Court, just the mere question among the public of having a Constitutionally illegitimate president could severely degrade the morale in the McCain campaign and cause irreparable damage.

 

Read all of Matthew J. Franck’s analysis here and here.

McCain’s Constitutional Eligibility for President in Question

For at least several weeks, discussions have been underway about McCain’s Constitutional eligibility for the presidency in certain circles. I was fortunate enough to listen to discussion on this topic for over an hour on local North Florida talk radio. Now, apparently the New York Times, who is obviously seeking to put an end to any hopes of a McCain presidency, is about to break a story on McCain’s Constitutional problem.McCain

The problem is this: McCain was born August 29, 1936 in the Panama Canal zone to parents who are both American citizens. Naturally, by his birth to two citizens, he is a citizen at birth. However, the qualification for president states that the president must be a “natural born” Citizen, which is where the apparent problem arises. Through documents from the State Department, the Panama Canal zone in 1936 may not be considered soverign U.S. territory to the point of qualifying McCain as a “natural born” citizen.

If true, this could lead to a Constitutional debate and suit challenging McCain’s eligibility for the presidency. This suit could likely be brought by any political group, from the Democratic party to MoveOn.org. This Constitutional challenge, if brought sometime in the summer or late fall could tie up the McCain campaign in a battle that could go to the Supreme Court for a decision! Obviously, any battle of this sort would tie up the campaign so much that an effective run for the presidency would be nearly impossible.

Click here for part two (updated analysis).

Shocker: Love affair between McCain and NYT is over!

 

Literally only weeks after the New York Times “endorses” John McCain for president on the Republican side (Hillary was the Times Democratic pick), they publish an article this morning that alleges ethical misconduct by McCain throughout his career. Along with inappropriate ties to lobbyists, the Times article leaves you with the distinct impression that McCain had a secret affair with a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman who is 31 years his junior. The Times sources? They conveniently don’t have one. The parts of the story about Ms. Iseman are surprisingly devoid of substance other than a few McCain campaign workers apparently felt Ms. Iseman was hanging around too much back in 1999. All parties affiliated with this “alleged affair” deny that there was an affair. John McCain denies it, Ms. Iseman denies it, and all of McCain’s staff during the time period deny it. So, how does this story have any legs? Answer: It doesn’t other than for tabloid-quality amusement.

Vicki.Iseman

 

The most interesting thing about this story isn’t that McCain might have had an affair nine years ago, but it’s that the New York Times knew about this story when they endorsed McCain. This story was on the Drudge Report around three weeks ago and these rumors about McCain have been around since McCain last ran for president in 2000. Why would the Times endorse McCain as the Republican nominee? More than likely because they knew they could torpedo his campaign early. Or maybe because either way the election goes, they get a liberal in the White House. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had more in their bag of scandals saved for later. However, the real truth to this is that the New York Time’s threshold for breaking stories is closer to the National Enquirer than it is to a legitimate news source. Their front page exposé on McCain is largely an empty rumor.

 

Fabricating stories isn’t anything new for the Times. Remember Jayson Blair in 2003? In case you don’t, Jayson Blair was a national reporter for the Times that covered a number of stories, including the Iraq war, and ended up resigning after it was discovered that nearly half of what he was writing was either plagiarism or pure fabrication (36 of 73 articles to be exact).

 

There are plenty of other allegations of misreporting and wrong-doing by the Times. Chris Hedges, who is a reporter for the Times, gave a rambling commencement speech at Rockford College in Illinois that was profoundly anti-Bush and anti-war. Maureen Dowd was investigated for misrepresenting a George W. Bush quote in an article to suit her own political agenda. While there is no problem with people giving speeches and expressing their opinions about politics, they shouldn’t do it under the guise of “unbiased reporting”. People this partisan shouldn’t be allowed to report the news under the pretext of being non-partisan. The Times leans distinctly left and has been for years, yet somehow maintains the illusion of legitimacy. It should be no surprise that the Times threw McCain under the bus this early. Is anyone actually shocked by this? Come September, the Times will endorse the Democratic nominee whomever it is. When was the last time they endorsed a Republican over a Democrat for president? Not in my lifetime.

 

This should be a lesson to you Republicans who voted for McCain over Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson because of his electability. McCain has been cozy with the liberal media for years, but do you think for a second that they will cozy up to him when it’s real election time? If you really think so, you’re out of your mind. This should be the last time you let the media pick our candidate. McCain is likely to get beaten like a drum in November and primarily because he doesn’t represent the base of the Republican party. You don’t beat the Democrats by picking a candidate just like them. But that’s a topic for another day.