Obama’s 194 Promises

June 27, 2009

194 Things Obama Intends To Accomplish As President

During the campaign, Barack Obama promised many things to the America voters, and since even before the inauguration he has been working furiously to accomplish them. Of course, we all remember his Marxist promise to Joe the Plumber in 2008, when he said: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”  President Obama has already made good headway on accomplishing that particular goal.

On 22 November 2008, a blogger listed the “194 Things Barack Intends To Do As President. He abstracted these promises, as he says, “verbatim from Obama position papers.” The blogger said that these intentions of Barack Obama had been consistent throughout his presidential campaign and were not only “sensible,” but “achievable.” He continued: “All that is required is a smart executive, a stellar team and robust grass roots support for change,” which we know well that Barack Obama possesses in spades.

So, how’s that “smart executive” Obama doing on fulfilling his 194 goals in four years? Let’s see … that’s 48 1/2 goals per year, which comes to four per month. Obama has now been in office for five months, which means that he should have about twenty of these goals already accomplished, or else he stands little chance of succeeding in this lofty mission that he promised if  American voters elected him.

Which twenty of these lofty, if not worthwhile, goals has Barack Obama already accomplished, pray tell? I’ve read much of the list, and I cannot find even one success. Can you?

 “194 Things Barack Intends To Do As President.”


FBI Anti-Piracy Warning

June 24, 2009

Why does the FBI rail about music piracy, but ignore piracy of photographs?

Flickr Photograph

Isn’t it interesting that the FBI and everyone else is so uptight about copyright violation of music? Yet almost no one anywhere has respect for the “© All Rights Reserved” labeled photographs we amateur photographers upload to Flickr and elsewhere. I have found my © photographs taken from my Flickr photo-stream and used commercially without my permission, nor even credit given, at Ancestry.com (The Generations Network, Inc.) and Icanhascheezburger.com (LOLCATS).

Amateur photographers such as myself upload photographs to share with others. We do not charge anything for you to view our photographs. We are not in the photography business; we just enjoy taking photographs and sharing them. We do not enjoy having those photographs stolen and used commercially by Internet businesses. 

Even though it is against copyright law to download our copyrighted photographs and then to pass them on to others as your own, with no credit to the original creator, it is rampant on the Internet. Sites such as Ancestry.com and Icanhascheezburger.com profit monetarily from our photographs that we never offered for sale. Those sites allow derivative products to be made from them, and then they claim ownership of our photographs and post warnings that it is illegal to steal “their” photographs, as both Ancestry.com (The Generations Network, Inc.) and Icanhascheezburger.com (LOLCATS) do at their sites.

Ancestry.com (The Generations Network, Inc.) operates behind an expensive subscription wall, so that most Flickr members will never find their photographs that have been illegally uploaded there. While Flickr members allow their photographs to be viewed for free, when they appear on the Ancestry.com site, one must pay a subscription fee to view them. The Generations Network has contacted me and given me a link  with instructions on contacting them about copyright violations: http://www.myfamilyinc.com/default.aspx?html=copyright .

After performing all of the legal requirements that Icanhascheezburger.com (LOLCATS) required before they would remove my photograph from their commericial site, someone has advised me that they continue to brazenly store my photograph at their WordPress.com server. (I have since contacted WordPress and WordPress promptly removed the following photo.) http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/funny-pictures-cat-has-hired-a-substitute.jpg . Someone else has it stored at the Photobucket site.

The image, FBI Anti-Piracy Warning!, is subject to copyright by bizmac. It is posted here with permission via the Flickr API by barneykin.

The “Reagan-less” Divine Comedy

June 16, 2009

The Divine Comedy minus Ronald Reagan

How interesting that so many world celebrities were included in the “Famous People Painting.” Why there is Bill Clinton. But don’t bother searching for President Ronald Reagan, as he was omitted! Who was a greater influence on world history? Was it Bill Clinton and the infamous blue dress, or Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism? Was it Bill Clinton who saved his own hide, or Ronald Reagan who saved millions of humans from the degradation of slavery? It’s okay, Margaret Thatcher WAS included. Bill Clinton has his beloved saxophone, but I have no idea why he is holding a peeled banana aloft. Or is that a cigar?

Discussing the Divine Comedy with Dante
Discussing the Divine Comedy with Dante

The Divine Comedy (available for “free” listening at Librivox.org) by Dante Alighieri (1265-1321). translated by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807-1882).


Remember the USS Cole?

February 6, 2009

No? Well, you are not alone. The bombing of the USS Cole was a part of “The Clinton Legacy.”

The Clinton Legacy included the killings of dozens of American children by their government at Waco, the 2002 World Trade Center Attack, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Khobar Towers Bombing, the Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and Al Qaeda Attacks on the American warship USS Cole. 

  • February 26th 1993 – Terrorism first came to America with the first bombing of the World Trade Center. President Clinton treated it as a “criminal act” instead of an act of war.
  • 17 April 1995 – The Oklahoma City bombing seemed to have had a middle-eastern terrorist connection, which the government did not pursue. Instead, they arrested, prosecuted and promptly executed Timothy McVeigh.
  • The next year saw the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia where 19 innocent Americans were murdered.
  • In 1998, U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists.
  • In October 2000, Al Qaeda struck America again, attacking an American warship, the USS Cole, while docked in Yemen. Fifteen American sailors were killed in a Yemen port and the ship seriously damaged. The Clinton government did not consider it an act of war and did nothing in response. Two months later, in December of 2000, the Central Intelligence Agency was within 24 hours of apprehending Bin Laden. Clinton pulled them off the trail when the American Ambassador to Yemen complained that the investigation was causing trouble for US/Yemen relations. The CIA was pulled out of Yemen, and Osama Bin Laden got away.

Only ‘natural born’ Citizens Need Apply

December 7, 2008

Talk about discrimination bordering upon bigotry!

It is right there in the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Discrimination upon the basis of national origin, discrimination upon the basis of age, and discrimination upon the basis of residency status! How about that?

In this past presidential election we had two candidates running for the office described above who admittedly were born on foreign soil, one in Panama and one in Nicaragua. The candidate who won, Barack Obama, describes himself as born in the state of Hawaii, however he has released no proof of his birthplace other than a generated Certification of Live Birth, and there are reports that his own family members, and Kenyan government officials are conflicted over where exactly he was born.

Some Constitutional scholars spout off the legal definition of “natural born citizen” is one who was born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or born of citizens temporarily residing abroad. However, I found NO legal definition of “natural born citizen.” The phrase is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. In 1790, the Congress, attempted to make clarification with the Naturalization Act of 1790 that stated “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Seemingly this definition would have covered John McCain as a “natural born citizen,” except that in 1795, the Congress made another clarification, the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the words “natural born” and stated that children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally considered “natural born citizens” of the U.S. This confusion over the meaning of the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” is why the United States Congress passed a bill endowing Senator John McCain with “natural born citizen” status, so that, if elected President, he would be legal under the Constitution.

This murkiness over the Constitutional definition of “natural born citizen” has caused considerable scenarios to be proffered as to why Barack Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be President, even if born in Hawaii. Some of them have to do with the young age of his mother at his birth, who would not have had enough years of standing as a United States citizen to automatically confer American citizenship upon him, if he had been born in Kenya. It sounds far-fetched to you and me, but someone, somewhere has found some quirk in the law that seems to state that. (For other examples see sidrx at Pajamas Media.)

Other deniers claim that because Barack Obama was born a British citizen, as a son of a British father, regardless of where Obama himself was born, he cannot be considered a “natural born citizen.” That came as a shocker to me, as I had always considered myself a “natural born citizen,” even though I was born in Maryland of a British father. But, apparently, I am not only NOT a “natural born citizen,” according to some, I am not even a citizen of the USA, a most interesting fact to discover at my age. At least I am in good company. It’s me, President-elect Barack Obama, and President Chester A. Arthur. It must be true as I read it at a BLOG.

If the Constitution were truly the Law of the Land, certainly a definition of “natural born citizen” would have been offered by the Supreme Court or the Congress by now. Or there would have been a law passed by the Congress that no candidates could run for president unless first vetted for eligibility according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Of course, any American with a brain knows that we no longer live under rule of the Constitution, hence all of this kerfuffle over where Barack Obama was “really” born matters not one wit. He will be inaugurated President of the United States and will remain so, regardless of where in the world he was born.

Here is a long, involved treatise written by Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley to try and convince us that, oh yes, we are a nation of Constitutional laws, and as such it would have been “Unconstitutional” for John McCain to serve as United States President as he is NOT a “natural born citizen.”   Turley describes how he and his cohorts, while wrapped in the mantle of the U.S. Constitution, were all ready and willing to go to court to stop McCain’s “Unconstitutional” inauguration. Of course, the election happened a bit differently, and Jonathan Turley’s erudite but laughable opinion on “natural born citizen” suddenly turns 180 degrees as applied to Turley’s favored candidate, Barack Obama.

If we were truly living under the Constitution, Hillary Clinton would be unqualified to be appointed from the United States Senate to Secretary of State. Yet, no one, not Barack Obama, nor the American media, is offering any explanation of how her appointment can be Constitutional. Other American Presidents who disregarded the “Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution were Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, who both got away with it, as will Barack Obama. President George W. Bush who wanted to nominate Senator Orin Hatch for the Supreme Court was told that would be Unconstitutional and he accepted that ruling and did not nominate Hatch. All of the above support my view that the United States Constitution is just a quaint and moldering document under glass at the National Archives, existing only to hammer heads, when needed, of those with unpopular ideas. It is now generally disregarded as little more than a venerated historic document.

According to what I have read of the birth certificate conspiracy, I believe Barack Obama was born in the United States. He probably believes as I believe about myself, that we are “natural born” citizens even though our fathers were British subjects when we were born. Deniers – think about this. Is it possible that Barack Obama, himself, created this smokescreen over his birthplace to drive you to distraction as a way to divert attention from the more serious and controversial plans he has for his new nation?

Defining ‘Natural Born Citizen”>
Obama’s Birth Rumors


Save Us From the Christians

December 14, 2007

Lord — Save Us from Hate!

My “political” essays, HERE and HERE, concerning Mitt Romney and the attacks upon his faith have resulted in many virulent anti-Mormon comments at my website from self-proclaimed “Christians.” Lord save us from such a religion as these “Christians” espouse. In fact, my eyes have been opened so, that I am considering dropping my membership in the ranks of Christendom to become just a lowly follower of Jesus, as I feel that if the Master were to return today,  He would not want to be called a “Christian.”

I am not the only one who has been so offended by such “Christian” behavior. The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913, and is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism throughout the world. It offers programs and services to counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry. In March of this year, the ADL condemned “Mormon-Bashing,” and commented that Hate directed at any of us is hate directed at all of us.”

If you don’t care because you are not a Mormon,  then wait until they come for whatever creed or religion or non-religion that you espouse. You will care about virulent hatred then.

ADL Condemns “Mormon-Bashing” DVD

Phoenix, AZ, March 27, 2007……The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned the distribution of an anti-Mormon DVD by the organization Concerned Christians as nothing more than “Mormon-bashing.”

Bill Straus, ADL Arizona Regional Director, observed: “This is the same kind of plain, old-fashioned Mormon-bashing that Jim Robertson and his group have been spewing for over a quarter-of-a-century. The only difference is that back then, it was the film, ‘The God Makers,’ and today it’s the DVD, ‘Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith.’ It was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.”

ADL Regional Board Chair David Bodney added, “Hate directed at any of us is hate directed at all of us. From whomever that hate comes, and to whomever it’s directed, ADL takes it very seriously and will continue to speak out against it.

Before accepting the lengthy anti-Mormon diatribes by some of the commenters here and Mormon-bashing websites, I suggest perusing the official site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is an area of “NEWS” where the church explains its official position on various currently discussed themes, such as Mike Huckabee’s claim that the Mormons believe Jesus and Satan were brothers.  There is another section about DNA and the Book of Mormon.    The LDS News Room


Shine Blogger, Shine

November 7, 2007

Hollywood’s professional writers are striking this week because they are demanding recompense for their writings that appear on the Internet. If they end up getting the same pay that bloggers and photographers receive for their work on the Internet, are they ever going to be disappointed, as in “ZILCH,” which is what they claim they are already receiving. “The Late Show with David Letterman” and “The Daily Show” have had to stop production, but the Internet’s free YouTube, FunnyOrDie.com, etcetera continue — for FREE.

How ironic and funny at the same time it will be when, after all the dust has settled, the writers’ union finds that its strike for more money from the Web, will have actually driven more of their viewers to the FREE Web.  Will their viewers return to television, when the writers return? The current trends say NO!

So we won’t be here, but while we’re not here, you can check out all of our content on our new Web site, the DailyShow.com,” Jon Stewart said wryly on “The Daily Show” on Thursday. “Every `Daily Show’ since I got here is on it, free, except for the advertising. So support our advertisers.

So here is your chance blogger! Shine Little Blogger Shine!