U.S. presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, have spent the past week articulating policy goals for shoring up and modernizing the nation's infrastructure.
The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed over a five-year period to bring, roads, bridges, power plants, levees, rail lines and other systems into a state of good repair. Not that they/we/me have a dog in this hunt...
Here are some of the candidates' infrastructure policy proposals:
MCCAIN
* Energy. Proposes to build 45 nuclear reactors by the year 2030. Longer-term goal is 100 new plants. Plans to commit $2 billion annually until 2024 to clean-coal research, development and construction of demonstration plants. 'We will make clean coal a reality.' McCain also supports enhanced development of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources.
That's the sop to the middle class, since 'alternative energy' will be just that for the next twenty years.
OBAMA
* Energy independence. Proposed $150 billion over 10 years to advance biofuels, renewable energy and clean coal plants. Favors incentives for communities to invest in biofuel refineries. Wants to establish a federal investment program to help manufacturers modernize infrastructure, adopt clean technology.
Not that B.O. has any clue how to get to energy independence.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/02/2008 13:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ya can't trust Civil Engineers
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/02/2008 18:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Civil Engineers design and build Targets.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
07/02/2008 20:12 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Upgrade our infrastructure. It is the unwritten covenant between the generations. Or do nothing, except spend user taxes on feel good projects and have a bunch of falling bridges and failing roads and sanitation systems. Pay me now or pay me later.
I'm a Civil Engineer, and a nice guy, too. I endorse this message.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/02/2008 20:44 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
07/02/2008 12:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I guess now we know the national anthem of the Obama Nation.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
07/02/2008 13:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm all in favor of this "black national anthem", and hope that foolish and arrogant black liberals make it a point to sing it instead of the national anthem whenever they are handed a microphone.
I reminds me of how American black athletes gave the "black power" salute while receiving medals at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City.
At the same time it said "I am a racist", "My race is more important than my country", and "I demand special treatment".
#5
Re 68 Olympics-
Sure does look like the kid on the left could have suffered some "lowered self esteem" not being able to participate in the fun and games.
Step forward and make a claim in the 'Court of Political Correctness"
#6
YEAR IN REVIEW 1968 > whoa, that pic takes me back. The library at my former school ST. FRANCIS in Yona, Guam had a set which IIRC went from 1966 or 1967 up to 1977. Typhoon-related water damage over the years, however, claimed a few editions.
A GREAT YEARBOOK SERIES - QUALITY, PHOTOS, ARTICLES, ETC. LIKE THE 1950's COLLIER's ENCYCLOPEDIAS.
'Kos' himself, writing to his legions of loyal 'Kos Kiddies,' at 'Daily Me! Me! It'a all about me! Kos'
So many of you are upset that I pulled back my credit card last night, making a last minute decision to hold back on a $2,300 contribution to Obama. Let me explain further: . . .
First, he reversed course and capitulated on FISA, not just turning back on the Constitution, but on the whole concept of 'leadership'. 'It is as the Prophet Olberman said: Obama has sinned! Sinned!'
Personally, I like to see presidents who 1) lead, and 2) uphold their promises to protect the Constitution. 'Except Bush, that is!'
Then, he took his not-so-veiled swipe at MoveOn in his 'patriotism' speech. 'Traitor! MoveOn is dissenting, and dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Therefore, to oppose MoveOn is to commit treason!'
Finally, he reinforced right-wing and media talking points that Wes Clark had somehow impugned McCain's military service when, in reality, Clark had done no such thing. 'Not that there's anything wrong with impugning military service--heck, I do it all the time m'self!--but . . . hey, wait a minute! Let me think about that one. I'll get back to you on that. . . . Gawdahmnit, painted myself into another corner again! . . .'
Maybe what looks like cowering to me is really part of that 'moving to the center' stuff everyone keeps talking about. But there is a line between 'moving to the center' and stabbing your allies in the back out of fear of being criticized. And, of late, he's been doing a lot of unecessary stabbing, betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician. Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is now clearly not looking much different than every other Democratic politician who has ever turned his or her back on the base in order to prove centrist bona fides. 'Nooooo! Kos has denied The Obama!'
'Kos is a blasphemer!'
'Kos is a closet RethugliKKKan!'
'UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!'
That's not an indictment, just an observation. Now we see the masterful Kos demonstrate his mad coalition-building skillz:
Now I know there's a contingent around here that things Obama can do no wrong, and he must never be criticized, and if you do, well fuck you! I respect the sentiment, but will respectfully disagree. 'When I said 'F--- you!' I meant that respectfully.'
We're allowed to do that here. 'Except for Republicans, Catholics, Christers, Freepers, LGF-ers, Jew Lieberman and his Mossad masters, Cindy Sheehan, extra-chromosome Bush-loving redneck idiots (all 62 million of 'em), the fascist goons serving in AmeriKKKa's racist army of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and anyone who dares transgress the sacred name of Ned Lamont (PBUH). They all get banned and their comments get deleted.'
But fair notice -- I will never pull a Rush Limbaugh and carry water for anyone. Not for the Democratic Congress, and not for our future Democratic president. As a matter of logic, Kos is now compelled to demonstrate his independence from the Dem establishment by endorsing John McCain.
Of course, when did logic ever apply to Kos?
Posted by: Mike ||
07/02/2008 07:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[18 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I didn't think Kos had a credit limit that high.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
07/02/2008 8:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
think Senator Ned Lamont will comment? Me neither
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/02/2008 8:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hey Swamp BLondie, was just htinking of you when I saw that bit about the helicopter crash with the first responders in Arizona. (And thinking you hadn't been around in a while). How are things?
#6
Money quote: ...betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician. Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is now clearly not looking much different than every other Democratic politician...
#7
Howdy, Abdominal Snowman! Yep....been MIA since moving from FL to IA. I've been dealing with weird innernut service problems out here, but compared to what a lot of people have had to deal with in this part of the world, it's nothing.
All's well, and hoping to add another denizen to the 'Burg around 15 February, 2009. ;)
Missed youse guys around here, and glad to be back.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
07/02/2008 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Obama cares about these leftwing nuts now because....
This only helps BO. Kossacks mainly vote in swing states, and many wont have the nerve to not vote for BO anyway. BO doesnt need their money or their man power.
#10
Oooooh, another Rantburg baby? Well done, Swamp Blondie, and to the Tsar, too! I liked the people I met while doing a plant start-up in Iowa City -- I hope your neighbors are as nice, and I'm sure they're just as independent. :-)
#11
Kos said: "Now I know there's a contingent around here that things Obama can do no wrong, and he must never be criticized, and if you do, well fuck you! I respect the sentiment, but will respectfully disagree."
That reminds me of a Dom Irera line. "You dirty, filthy rat bastard. I mean that with all due respect."
Bonus Irera line: "Do I look fat to you?"
"To me? No. But to everyone else . . . ."
Posted by: Tibor ||
07/02/2008 18:10 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Kos is a f**king moron. Limbaugh doens carry water for the GOP at all - look at his relationship with McCain as a primary example, his slamming of Trent Lott, and the beatdown he gives to RINOS.
With the dust having finally settled after the prolonged Democratic presidential primary, a new poll shows Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama locked in a statistical dead heat in the race for the White House.
With just over four months remaining until voters weigh in at the polls, the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey out Tuesday indicates that among registered voters nationwide, Obama holds a 5-point advantage over the Arizona senator, 50 percent to 45 percent. That represents little change from a similar poll one month ago, when the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee held a 46 to 43 percent edge over McCain.
CNN polling director Keating Holland notes that Tuesday's survey confirms what a string of national polls released this month have shown: Obama holds a slight advantage over McCain, though not a big enough one to constitute a statistical lead.
'Every standard telephone poll taken in June has shown Obama ahead of McCain, with nearly all of them showing Obama's margin somewhere between 3 and 6 points,' Holland said. 'In most of them, that margin is not enough to give him a lead in a statistical sense, but it appears that June has been a good month for Obama.'
But the new CNN/ORC poll shows that the race gets even tighter when the two most prominent third-party presidential candidates are considered. In a four-way matchup that includes independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, Obama's lead over McCain dwindles to 3 percentage points, 46 percent to 43 percent. (Nader registers 6 percent, and Barr gets 3 percent.)
But it remains unclear just how much effect Nader and Barr will have on the election, as summertime surveys often overstate the eventual Election Day showing of third-party candidates. 'A useful rule of thumb is that third-party candidates in November get no more than half the support polls show them having in June or July,' Holland said.
Meanwhile, one day after the Illinois senator sharply defended his devotion to America during a high-profile speech in the crucial swing state of Missouri, the new survey shows that some voters continue to have lingering questions about his patriotism. The poll was taken before Obama's Monday speech.
One-quarter of all registered voters say Obama lacks patriotism, according to the poll. That breaks down to 10 percent of Democrats, 29 percent of independents and 40 percent of Republicans who say Obama lacks patriotism. But it's likely the issue will not have a significant impact this fall. 'Strategically speaking, the question is not how many people consider Obama unpatriotic, it's how many people consider Obama unpatriotic who would have voted for him otherwise,' Holland said 'Most of the respondents who think Obama is unpatriotic are Republicans. That indicates that Obama may not have lost a lot of votes -- so far -- on this matter.'
McCain, a former Navy pilot and prisoner of war in Vietnam, is viewed as being patriotic by 90 percent of all registered voters.
The poll, conducted June 26-29, surveyed 906 registered voters and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
WASHINGTON - High gasoline prices have dramatically changed Americans' views on energy and the environment, with more people now viewing oil drilling and new power plants as a greater priority than energy conservation, according to a new survey.
The poll released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center shows nearly half of those surveyed or 47 percent now rate energy exploration, drilling and building new power plants as the top priority, compared with 35 percent who believed that five months earlier. Gas prices speak volumes. I support widespread drilling on the Arctic Shelf because I know it can be done without causing environment havoc. Also, the Russians have made claims, and the US - and its Arctic allies - have to address same. The Shelf WILL be drilled; if you want to play, you have to get in the game.
The Pew poll, conducted in late June, showed the number of people who consider energy conservation as more important declined by 10 percentage points since February from a clear majority to 45 percent. People are now about evenly split on which is more important. Viewers of History Channels' "Ice Road Truckers" can see first hand the environmental practises of Big Oil. Even minor spills are cleaned up. Waste at Well-Head camps is pumped into "Vac" trucks, and taken away for safe disposal. That's Canada, but Alaskan natives run a fairly large Summer fishing fleet. I don't hear them complaining about toxic waste. "Arctic Grayling" makes its way into pricy seafood restaurants.
The number of people who said they considered increasing energy supplies more important than protecting the environment increased from 54 percent in February to 60 percent and the number of people who favor oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge also increased.
"This shows the real impact of higher gas prices on the public," said Carroll Doherty, associate director for the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which commissioned the telephone survey of 2,004 adults from June 18 to June 29. The margin of error was plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, slightly larger for subgroups.
Since February, gasoline prices have soared from just over $3 to a national average of $4.08 a gallon, according to the Energy Department...
#1
Too bad the poll didn't have "Drill, Drill, Drill AND Conserve, Conserve, Conserve" as an option. If the domestic auto industry had expended the resources on engineering and technology that they instead pissed away on lawyers and lobbyists, your Ford F150would be able to lug a bedful of stuff from Home Depot and still get 50 miles a gallon.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
07/02/2008 2:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Ah, the three card monty of MSM. Americans are awaking to the radical green agenda and aren't happy. To cover their 'environmental' ass, MSM now subs the word 'conservation'. They'll find they'll only destroy the value of the word rather than alter the consequences of their watermelon [green on the outside, red on the inside] program.
#3
Ricky, I was thinking the same thing. Why is this always presented as an "either/or" scenario? I prefer drilling AND conservation AND alternative fuels AND nuclear power AND new technology. Whatever it takes to get us away from dependence on third world dungheaps for our energy.
#5
RbR, I'm all for the Drill AND Conserve approach but anyone that thinks that the auto industry hasn't been trying to maximise fuel economy for the last 20 years is a fool.
Where's Toyota's truck that's as big and strong that gets that kind of mileage? Hyundai? BMW? VW? Nissan?
Get a grip. Physics is a hard mistress especially when regulated by the Feds.
Oh, and do you really think that Lawyers and engineers are interchangeable?
#6
I could be wrong but I think RbR's saying the safety and other requirements heaped onto the trucks have increased the weight making for poorer gas mileage than we otherwise could have attained by now.
#7
My example would be California's attempts to virtually outlaw diesel engines from non-commercial trucks because the diesels in the 70s were so bad. The Europeans have been chugging away improving on diesel engines getting better and better gas mileage while the US has not. Why build a better diesel engine for a truck primarily used in the US market when a huge section of that market won't allow it.
I think the law recently changed but there really is no excuse. The US buys trucks. We make the best trucks. Trucks work better on diesel. Prettymuch everything that isn't a sports car should be running on diesel now except some well-intentioned but ignorant laws have made it nearly impossible for decades.
This has little or nothing to do with engineers and everything to do with politicians and activist and opportunistic lawyers.
#8
There are some things that just can't be done, and some things that are too hard to do to make it worthwhile. ANYTHING ELSE should be on the table. I agree with AuburnTom - we need whatever we can build to meet the needs of the United States. "Environmentalists" - elitists who want to dictate to the rest of us - have all but shut down the nuclear power industry in this country. France has 48 nuclear reactors in service. We have 45 at last count. We need about 200. We can also use another 70 or 80 coal-fired plants, a half-dozen natural gas plants along the Gulf Coast, tidal basin energy production sites, wind farms (and nail Ted Kennedy's and John foney Kerry's hides to the supports), and anything else that will produce energy at market or near-market rates. We need to drill in Alaska, the Gulf, the Atlantic, and the Pacific. We're fast becoming an all-nuclear navy (and should move faster in that direction). As soon as we are, we need to open up the Alaska Naval Petroleum Reserve for drilling. In fact, why are we buying foreign oil to run our ships NOW?
There has to be a trade-off between fuel economy and safety. We do not need to kill any more Americans on the highway because a tiny little motorized roller skate mixes it up with an F-350 diesel. Still, if we can increase gas engine efficiency even one percent, it would cut our DAILY oil useage by a million barrels.
We have a problem with Colorado oil shale. Extracting oil from oil shale uses tons of water - water that's scarce on the Western Slope. We need to find some other way to use it that doesn't use other scarce commodities. There's enough coal in Colorado to continue to supply much of the nation with cheap, dependable electricity for generations to come. Coal technology is getting cleaner and cleaner all the time. Six 80-car coal trains go through Palmer Lake every day. There is no spilled coal, and no layer of coal dust, as there used to be 20, 30 years ago. HALF THE COAL MINES IN COLORADO are closed - not because there's no more coal, but because it became too expensive to get it out of the ground. Now oil companies are drilling those coal beds for methane - natural gas. There's four million acres in the northwestern part of the state that's effectively been put off limits for natural gas drilling - yet that area has multiple beds of coal, and methane seeps out of the ground in places. We won't EVEN get into the absurdity of Escelante-Grand Staircase.
World supply and demand are forcing every American to reassess what a handful of our "leaders" have committed us to. Many of those "environmentalists" have ideas about the oil and gas industry they got from watching the movie "Giant". Their heads are also locked into a 1950's mentality that needs to come to grips with the reality of the 21st Century.
End MY rant... for now.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/02/2008 22:50 Comments ||
Top||
#10
That's right P2K. If we want the little shit's dick in the ringer, all the other 49 states should DEMAND that Vegas gets shutdown until new power supplies come online, as it's extraneous to our welfare. The little chirper would start spinning another tune real quick.
#11
High fuel prices make me sick. And the democrats who work to keep them high make me sick too..
This November, let's tattoo "oil make us sick, and Harry's high prices are the cure" on Harry's backside. I know it's long, but let's face it: Harry's a pretty big A$$.
Posted by: Bin thinking again ||
07/02/2008 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#12
But approval ratings don't?
Better figure out who you work for mister. Fast. In the long run, odds favor the house, right Vegas?
#14
Palm Springs gets most of its drinking water from aquifer sources. A lot of those sources are recharged by the Colorado Aqueduct, IIRC.
Shutting down Vegas would free generated power to communities that rely on coal fired power plants. Anyway, the threat of that should shut down Reid's piehole, if he could see cause and effect.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/02/2008 20:55 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Why Palm Springs? It's not in Nevada.
Why not? It would certainly put a knot in Nancy Peeloosely's ugly tail, along with Babs Boxer and that supposed-to-be-singer that lives somewhere in California. Besides, all that water COULD be used to separate oil from oil shale in Colorado, where it originates.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/02/2008 22:56 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Actually, more of it is used to grow alfalfa and hay in the Coachella Valley than water golf courses.
Second, those water rights were locked up early last century. If'n you wanna negotiate for 'em, fine. Otherwise it's no better than Kelo.
'And John McCain's my long-time friend, if that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it`s that, don't be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them because they don't, any more than when the Democrats have political issues during the Vietnam War.'
I heard B.O. on the teevee last night promising that he wouldn't question his opponent's patriotism.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/02/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
McCain wants to be judged as a politician who can reach out to the average American. He announced his candidacy on the David Letterman Show and, earlier this year on that same venue, he attacked Rumsfeld for "mismanagement" of Iraq security measures. He doesn't peddle himself as a war hero. He will be judged on his political program, as will Obama be measured by his pie in the sky promises.
#2
What respect I used to have for Webb is now completely gone. A number of years back, he wrote an article excoriating the Dems for abandoning South Vietnam, even telling about a confrontation he had with George McGovern in which McG said flat-out "what you don't understand is that I didn't want us to win that war". And now Webb's carrying the water for the same pack of back-stabbing traitors.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
07/02/2008 1:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Sigh. What did James Webb run for Senate on. As for Democrats and 3 card Monte dealers: watch the hands, not the mouth.
Posted by: ed ||
07/02/2008 1:50 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I heard B.O. on the teevee last night promising that he wouldn't question his opponent's patriotism.
Well, yeah, Fred, he did. But he never promised that his dingleberry buddies wouldn't do that for him.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
07/02/2008 9:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Webb CAMPAIGNED on his military service and criticized the hell out of others for not having served.
What a dickwad you people in VA put into office.
Webb is trying to fast track himself into ex-Marine status and reach the cratering lows achieved by his college fatass Jack "Haditha" Murtha.
#7
There must be a million or so people who had their kids serve in Iraq. I am beginning to think Jim Webb isn't the best possible senator out of that half million.
'She seemed to be a very open, reasonable, responsible person, but certainly, the allegations that have been made are shocking to everybody who has known her.'
Posted by: Fred ||
07/02/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Look on the bright side: There are at least two Democrats who don't think Bush is the devil.
#4
bo was 6 when McCain was was on the Forrestal later shot down, and 12 when McCain was released. bo spent most of that time in Indonesia. bo was working on a book about race relations during Desert Shield/Storm - a book by someone who spent their early days in a foreign country and started spending time with an organization built around 'the mistreatment of blacks in the USA since slavery' and from parents who were not and did not own slaves (unless his father is decended from the olde slave trader days but hey bo didn't have to take history to get his law education). randy beer is stating indirectly that 1) you had to be around during the 60's to understand the war/anti-war movement in USA and 2)McCain being a captive so he could not continue in the military operations then beer just disqualified bo on 2 counts.
"We're gonna need a bigger boat bus"
Wanna talk experience in bo's field, for someone who taught Constitutional Law he 1)does not understand the Bill of Rights and 2)does not know the Pledge of Alliegence. All he can claim is his qualification is unionizer of the masses community organizer. bo again and again shows himself to be a tool of chicago politics and not even the right own for the job.
It is my opinion the reason wright said those words in that final news conference is he felt betrayed by bo; got used.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who caused a stir over the weekend when he dismissed John McCains military service as a qualification for the presidency, stood by his remarks on Tuesday but sought to soothe ruffled feathers after Barack Obama was forced to distance himself from his campaign surrogate.
On Sunday, Clark who was NATO commander under President Clinton said of McCain: I dont think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
But after two days of angry responses and denunciations on both sides, Clark tried to clarify that while he respects McCains military service, he believes Obama has better judgment without having served in the military to be president. As a retired serviceman, someone who came home from Vietnam on a stretcher, someone who spent 38 years in uniform, someone whos worked his way up through the ranks of the United States Armed Forces, I would never discredit anyone who chose to wear the uniform. I fully respect John McCain and his service, and Ive said so repeatedly, Clark told ABCs Good Morning America.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/02/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Christian left = liberation theology = Marxism hiding behind a bible.
You're welcome to them, BHO.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
07/02/2008 18:04 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Christian Left.
Oxy moron.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/02/2008 19:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
If Obama cannot legally become president because Federal Law requires that the office of President must be a natural-born citizen, if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents, Hillary, or Edwards or someone else who may not have been considered, will have to be named the Democrats nominee for President at their convention. [See the argument presented below.]
This came from a USNA alumnus. It'll be interesting to see how the media handle this...
Barack Obama is not a legal U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between December 24, 1952, to November 13, 1986. Federal Law is that the office of President requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents. This is what exempts John McCain, although he was born in the US Panama Canal Zone.
US Law very clearly states: ". . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one's birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16." Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.
Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama's birth, but-after-age-16.
In essence, Mother alone is not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, 2 years elapsed from his mother turning 16 to the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18. His mother would have needed to have been 16 + 5 = 21 years old at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to be a natural-born citizen. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at the time his mother would have needed to be to allow him natural citizenship from his only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama should have been naturalized as a citizen . . .. but that would disqualify him from holding the office.
The Constitution clearly declares: Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. Though Barack Obama was sent bac k to Hawaii at age 10, any other information does not matter because his mother is the one who must fulfill the requirement to be a U.S. Citzen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16.
Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the USA for some time frame to protect any citizenship he might have had, rather than living in Indonesia. This is very clear cut and a glaring violation of U.S. Election law. I think the Governor Schwarzenegger of California should be very interested in discovering if Obama is allowed to be elected President without being a natural-born U.S. Citizen, since this would set a precedent. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days.
#6
Besoeker - sounds like fun, but his mother became a citizen from birth when Hawaii joined the Union.
Back when Goldwater was running for President, the Dems (of course) claimed he wasn't eligible because he was born in Arizona when it was still a territory. That got shot down pdq, so the precedent was set.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/02/2008 21:14 Comments ||
Top||
CARTAGENA, Colombia (Reuters) - U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain arrived in Colombia on Tuesday for talks on trade, drugs and human rights in a visit aimed at showcasing his foreign policy experience over that of Democratic rival Barack Obama.
McCain, is meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and other officials in the first leg of a three-day journey that will also include Mexico. "We want to talk about drugs to a large degree. We want to talk about the progress that they've made against the FARC," McCain told reporters about the goals of his visit, referring to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), an outlawed leftist guerrilla group.
Free trade will also be on the agenda, he said during the flight to the South American nation. Human rights -- an issue that critics encouraged him to bring up -- will be on the table as will Uribe's call for a new election.
"Wherever there's a single abuse of human rights, it concerns me," McCain said. "I will also add that there has also been significant improvement (in Colombia) and I want to see that improvement continue."
McCain has highlighted Obama's opposition to a free trade agreement with Colombia as a key difference between their respective candidacies, and though he pledged not to criticize the Illinois senator on foreign soil, he pushed for the pact. "He doesn't support the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. I think it would ... have very serious consequences if we rebuked our closest ally," McCain said on Monday.
He brushed off concerns that his advocacy for such an agreement would not play well in important electoral states, such as Ohio, where many people blame a loss of manufacturing jobs on free trade agreements. McCain said he understood the concerns, and advocated training programs to get the unemployed back to work.
On Thursday he is scheduled to meet with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Mexico City before returning to Arizona for the July 4 U.S. Independence Day holiday. Immigration will be a key issue in McCain's talks in Mexico. "I want to work with the Mexican government on securing our border," he said. "It would be so much easier if we had the ability to trust our neighbors to the south as much as we trust our neighbors to the north as far as cooperation on border security is concerned."
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/02/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[14 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
McCain was in Canada last week, promoting the Free Trade Agreement. Columbia presents an opportunity to support drug eradication, anti-Communism and free enterprise prosperity. In March, Obama told a Texas audience that "a wall" - the Border - won't solve illegal immigration. Which candidate looks Presidential?
#2
If all you get in the way of news is from Mother MSM, then McCain doesn't seem to know much about anything and is largely mute, the dottering old fool. Obama, now, there's a guy who can really paint word pictures in the sky!
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
07/02/2008 10:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"Word Pictures in the sky"?? How about pie-in-the-sky Chicago bullsh$$? Measuring BHO's truthfulness on a scale of 1-10 would require the invention of negative numbers, if there weren't such a thing already.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/02/2008 23:06 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who caused a stir over the weekend when he dismissed John McCains military service as a qualification for the presidency, stood by his remarks on Tuesday but sought to soothe ruffled feathers after Barack Obama was forced to distance himself from his campaign surrogate.
