Amen

I also appreciate a thoughtful discussion.  Unfortunately, when "opinion" is based on lies, rumor, partisanship and innuendo, the impulse of the academically open minded, that learn so much from differing perspectives, is to straighten out those who introduce detours from the facts.  You can disagree with opinions, but not the facts.  Hopefully, we are all encouraged to read before we think, and think before we speak- then we are all the richer for the conversation.

Lots of speculation about a lot of rumors, with so much interest in these comments, why not do some real investigating and report back?  (Kudos Andrea for your check on Pakistan)

There are many internet sources that do this professionally, but sadly, vastly outnumbered by rumor mills and hateful propaganda.  I would say generally that anything you read you should cross check among many sources- and don’t forget the opposing view!  There are as many opinions as there are writers- but really only one truth.  Unlike LL and dd who have counseled me on previous comments that their opinions are based on research, and that facts are subject to personal taste, I myself feel embarassed when I get something so easily checked wrong, and would feel worse if I spread malicious gossip that frightened and misinformed others who trusted me.  

Now, before anyone accuses me of taking sides here, I make no excuses, but some things jump out as being common sensible:

Why is there an assumption here that Obama arrived at the Columbia University doorstep penniless?  Both his parents were PhD’s and his grandparents didn’t raise him on a streetcorner with a tambourine.  He may not have been wealthy, but his is education before college included elite, private and parochial schools- hardly the storyline that would seed any such assumptions.  This birth certificate saga is a dangerous political ploy - you are being used to fan flames of ignorance to keep a distraction alive to maintain the status quo of those who are stealing you blind- and have been for generations. How in the world could any person have campaigned in our 24/7 media orgy of Fox News/CNN coverage for two years, been elected to state office before that, gone to college, graduate school, law school before that, or ever held a job, driven a car….? and had time to develop such a "hidden" past.  Could you?  As far a his "world tour"- college kids have a knack for criss-crossing the world on a wing and a prayer- and not much else.  If your kids are on a semester abroad anywhere in the world today, you know they take advantage of every possibility and country jump on the meagerest of budgets.  There is too much conspiracy theorizing here that just sounds silly- or taken from dangerous web sites like World Net Daily that sell subscriptions with tin foil hats and prayers for assassinations and mass murder.  How about McCain’s birth in Panama?  You’d rather have your country represented by a second man who began life with every advantage- including entrance into our best schools, graduated at the bottom of his class, and then left his crippled wife for a richer and younger one?  How about George Bush II?  He didn’t even have a "presidential record" until he was 40.  BYT, his first executive order was reversing Reagan’s Presidential Records Act.  This gave Presidents AND (for the first time,) Vice Presidents and assigned representatives, the ability to lock up their records in perpetuity- used to be a 12 year window- which would have opened up the records of his father as VP during his own administration- an embarrassment of riches should those Iran-Contra records ever see the light of day. 

Also here rumors of Obama making questionable visits abroad- how about Cheney as CEO of Halliburton/Brown & Root (later KBR) in violating the Iran sanctions during the hostage crisis?  Rumsfeld and Cheney dealing with Sadaam- also violations at the time?  If you want to go after corruption- at least be fair in your application of judgmentalism.  or is this just blatant partisanship? 

a good place to start checking things written here so you don’t speak misguidedly anywhere: FactCheck.org  

The following excerpt from FactCheck.org: Does Barack Obama have Kenyan Citizenship?

anyone with half a brain knows that they were trying to keep us SAFE after 9/11

What about before???????

54 memos- intentionally disregarded.

 

If this was an assignment given to any high school student, it would would get an "F" for uncorroborated fact fudging:

just to start- followed your link:

"Earlier today, Obama asked President Bushto formally request the money from Congress because the financial system "is still fragile."  TARP I issued October 2008, the date at the top of the MSNBC article is January 12, 2009. 

The TARP program was not a discretionary slush fund- so the "big pile of money" was allocated specifically to purchase securities and obligations related to sub-prime mortgages from financial institutions.  It was amended to also backstop the crisis in the auto industry.

"My commitment is that we are going to fundamentally change some of the practices in using this next phase of the program…" yes, this is true, because the initial money was given "away" unrestricted by any rules, oversight or requirement for audit: 

On January 21, 2009, (Obama’s second day of work) the Treasury announced new regulations regarding disclosure and mitigation of conflicts of interest in its TARP contracting. (Wikipedia: "Timeline of Changes to Initial Program")

your facts on unemployment statistics are manipulated, ignoring the trending up of unemployment that began at the end of the Clinton administration - up to 4.2% when President Bush took office.  During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate was 5% within the first nine months on September 10th, and averaged 4.7% during the boom of a "jobless" recovery- before beginning its rise from 5% in December 2007 to 7.6% at Obama’s inauguration. (Unemployment Rate figures obtained from the U.S. Department of Labor - www.dol.gov )
 

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
January, 2001: 4.2% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2001)
November 2008: 6.7% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2008)

On Friday, January 9, 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the unemployment figures for December 2008. As anticipated, the situation had continued to deteriorate. The unemployment rate for the total labor force was 7.2 percent, up from 6.8 percent in November.  (AARP online, Policy and Research)  http://www.aarp.org/research/economy/trends/fs150_worker.html

Data are from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Situation: December 2008, available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm; Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, available at http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=ln; and Employment and Earnings, January 2008, available at http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/empearn200801.pdf.

your other points are pointless to ponder- I have never heard of "Cap and Tax"

In many ways we are much worse off than during the Great Depression, in that a greater percentage of the population lived in rural areas- better able to sustain themselves in down times and required less currency to live.  Most people did not own houses-and carry the mortgages and debt that put us a greater peril today.  We had a manufacturing economy also- pushed to the max during WWII and later converted to drive up our middle class consumerism.  Today our service economy is entirely at the mercy of a paycheck and in turn consumer spending is 70% of our gross national product- we no longer have a manufacturing base- we don’t make anything but purchases.  no paycheck, no purchases.  the whole point of stimulus money is the government is providing money for us to spend so businesses will re-hire and pay taxes- put the money back into the economy.

as far as deficit spending, we began in 2001 with a "forecasted" surplus - the greatest re-distribution of wealth upwards (since Reagan’s deficit spending) was due to those multiple tax cuts- remember it was VP Cheney who reminded everyone "deficits don’t matter."  That "forecast" was clouded by two undeclared wars never put on the books until this year, the September 11th attacks, and a free-for-all by a one party- All Republican - congress that intended to campaign spend its way to a "permanent majority" via Karl Rove’s master plan- if you check P. Bush’s schedule nearly all of his trips out of Washington the first term were for campaigning- and pork spending was encouraged for this purpose.  your numbers on the deficit are too simplistic- much of the deficit has been offset by the current surpluses in social security (again forecasts since it was  collateralized and thus used during the Reagan years.)  So many things (like the wars) were never put into previous budgets so such "forecasts" that you quote are in the future and can really never be known- notice how often past numbers are revised?  We know we have to spend for now to keep the economy breathing- every government is doing the same thing- some better than others, and our current plan weakened by the agreement for further tax cuts- proven to never create jobs or stimulate an economy- the only time this happened was after WWII and during Clinton- when taxes were relatively high- sorry but it’s another inconvenient fact of history.

I agree we are in bad shape and I would blame the last three decades of corrupted government for it- crimes that Congress will never pay for- literally, and even worse, the incumbency rate still stands at 97%- lifetime job security.  

your commentary on "socialized health care" and "liberal buddies" and "left wing" television networks and beginning the end of the world at January 2009 - where were you the last eight years?  all the things you say started long before and will take as long to try to fix- if it is ever possible.  In case you haven’t noticed the rest of the globe has been destabilized since the end of the Soviet Union- but that is a lesson for another time.  baby steps……

p.s. there are no plans for socialized health care- unless you are already in the military, a senior on medicare, or receiving social security and/or medicaid.   

Sadly, the misinformation keeps coming…..

For the misinformed who want to blame Obama for the TARP "bailout"- preposterously done as a favor to him by President Bush- please note the timeline: October, 2008 ONE MONTH BEFORE THE ELECTION- so the "favor" that extended benefits initially intended to back up banks and later to the auto industry has already been recorded as a tactic to avoid having the collapse of the banking industry AND General Motors on his watch. 

As far as these unemployment figures- (don’t you ever feel betrayed by your "sources" when simple due dilligence would avoid these embarassments?) please for God’s sake absorb this—-unemployment statistics began rising from January 2001- into the year that brought us 54 intentionally disregarded security memos that would have avoided the September 11th sacrifice of innocents for the sake of creating a "Pearl Harbor" for the neo-cons grand planning for a New World Order- and following the temporary economic crisis led into the longest "jobless" recovery in our history.  Facts for those who care:    

Fact #1:  On October 14, 2008, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and President Bush separately announced revisions in the TARP program. (Wikipedia)

and Fact #2:

On Friday, January 9, 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the unemployment figures for December 2008. As anticipated, the situation had continued to deteriorate. The unemployment rate for the total labor force was 7.2 percent, up from 6.8 percent in November

Data are from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Situation: December 2008, available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm; Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, available at http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=ln; and Employment and Earnings, January 2008, available at http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/empearn200801.pdf.

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Then: 4.2% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2001)
Now: 6.7% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2008)

DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE
Then: 10,587 (close of Friday, Jan. 19, 2001)
Now: 9,015 (close of Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2009)

The doctrine of states’ rights has long been confused with separate issues—strong versus weak or unobtrusive government, and the relation of judicial to executive and legislative power. McDonald skillfully guides us through these problems, which the Florida fiasco again brought to the surface…

Since this "book review" that deber d cut and paste so skillfully is now nine years old and pre-dates the Bush/Cheney era, if revised surely would have added the texas contingent sputtering here with her as well…

there is so much superficial conjecture here, and I thought it was only limited to the Liz Cheney talkfest.  I get flashbacks of sitting with my mother and elderly aunts who complain about their high cholesterol while eating desserts, complain about the long lines at the bank while cashing their social security checks- the only "paychecks" they’ve ever gotten, and watch Fox news because the spokesmodel/news readers are the most attractive and speak the slowest (average age of viewers is over 65.)  Of course, they are all up to date on why Obama, the Muslim with no birth certificate, is to blame for the rising cost of their cholesterol pills and why their miserly checks are being stretched by his mismanagement of the economy.  Their children, a combination of MBA’s, MD’s, CPA’s and the JD in training, generally check on them to see if their coffees’ need hottening, but don’t even try to inflict on them the complexities that make their discussions silly- the same look they get trying to understand the questions on Jeopardy. 

deber d’s selective paragraph from this book review of "Getting States’ Rights Right" is from 2001 in The Atlantic- very good magazine, and if read in entirety, would elevate the commentary considerably- maybe they offer holiday 2-for-1 subscriptions that can be shared…

the point preceding the except that was "inadvertently" left out- or maybe not included if lifted from a third party blogging (sorry, "research") posting:  

The argument McDonald drives home in his epilogue highlights the theme of the book: The claims of the federal government and the claims of the states have resulted in a tension, sometimes creative and sometimes not, the specifics of which undergo constant reassessment and shifts in balance. A shift toward states’ rights has been discernible in recent decades, but within limits much narrower than those advocated by Jefferson and Jackson, not to mention Calhoun. Our Republic arose and has thrived in a constant struggle to effect the most efficacious balance. We would therefore do well to end the petulant, not to say demagogic, categorization of the rival viewpoints as "progressive" or "socialist" and "racist" or "reactionary."

paragraph # 1- yes children lie and we teach them it is wrong.  sooner or later they get punished, or fired, or embarassed as their lies grow with them- politicians make promises not lies- a lie as not telling the truth about something already a fact.  that people cannot always be trusted is why we have laws, and why we have governments to enforce them.

paragraph #2- "we" as Americans have not made a group pact to allow anyone to lie- or I missed your meeting.  You say Obama lied during his campaign- and then accuse him of doing something Congress did-  He is not a monarch and cannot "do" anything - he signs off or vetoes what congress does.  In this case, the disgusting pork added to the stimulous bill was the work of your state representatives - call them and ask they what they added and then if you disapprove- vote against them next time they run.  The political process is about compromise.  In order to get the stimulous money to keep the federal and state governments from shutting down- Obama signed the bill he was given by them- a veto would have gone back to them for approval anyway.  a catastrophic shutdown was truly so terrifying the Bush White House met in the fall to review implementation of military/Marshall Law in case it happened and the entire country descended into chaos.  I make no apologies, especially since many who have dirt on their hands are still in the Government and running banks- instead of jail where I believe they belong.    

paragraph #3- you do believe politicians lie to keep their jobs but policemen don’t- how I wish I lived in your world. 

signing off for good.

WHAT LIBERAL MSM??????

Conservative media outlets and programs outnumber "liberal" media 80 to 1.  DO SOME RESEARCH AND STOP REPEATING UNTRUTHS!

In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford’s prohibition on assassinations. In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination.

In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition. Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

Though it has been mentioned here that there is some type of exemption in a time of war,  the executive order was not formally amended to do so, this only appearing in a "finding" memoranda in 2001 expressing the opinion of the White House and CIA that is was not un-Constitutional. 

From the same article:

Following the September 11. 2001, attacks, the White House said the presidential directive banning assassinations would not prevent the United States from acting in self-defense.

According to an October 21, 2001, Washington Post article, President Bush in September of last year signed an intelligence "finding" instructing the CIA to engage in "lethal covert operations" to destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization.

White House and CIA lawyers believe that the intelligence "finding" is constitutional because the ban on political assassination does not apply to wartime. They also contend that the prohibition does not preclude the United States taking action against terrorists.

Just another correction: though it was mentioned many times we were at war, there was never any formal declaration of war against a country or entity- and the entire project to find WMD, Saddaam, liberate Iraq’s, etc. was funded entirely through emergency appropriations- not requiring any legal or formal submission of information to Congress for approval or audit. 

ok, so you made my point.  you choose to believe what you want as fact even if it isn’t fact. 

…including your belief that I cut and paste my information from the Huffington Post. 

I read through everything I have to - including conservative websites to get to the truth- there is no opinion in the truth.

Conservatism is a perspective and point of view that must also rely on facts as a foundation if they are a credible source.

David Brooks, Michael Barone, William Buckley, Irving kristol- all brilliant conservatives in my library.

I have absolute respect for Ron Paul even though we have some differences of opinion- would absolutely vote for him for president- I believe him to be an intelligent man with integrity and respect for the rule of law. 

I previously asked deber d who her sources were and she brushed me off.  At least you gave an honest answer.

NO!!!!!

If you read every word I’ve ever posted, there are no apologies for anyone.  If you accept that not getting caught makes a wrong universally acceptable- you have made it so.  If you lie to your boss, you get fired.  If you lie to your spouse, your marriage is broken.  If you lie to your children, they will never trust or respect you.  If your country lies to the world, you are on your own. 

If you feel lying is a human weakness, fine- take that up with your pastor.  But we are talking about positions of leadership that carry great responsibility.  These people have only one job- to uphold the laws that keep our society viable.  Every organization is built upon law- so whether you are in church or driving, you are guided by laws.  Moreover, we are a liberal nation- one that aspires to see every individual equally and apply law following precedent, which has blessed us with a stability over time many other countries do not have.  If every person in authority- a president, a doctor, a teacher, a bus-driver broke with the fiduciary trust their job requires, our society would become unsalvagable. 

Your acceptance of lying by anyone including a politician is very troubling.  No matter what the reason She/He has chosen this profession, whether they feel a calling to public service or they love the power and the spotlight, they still have a paying job that is reviewable and renewable every few years- and that job is to govern by established laws- maintaining the peace and well being of a community according to the law as it applies to everyone- and should be required (BY US) to symbolize the highest standards personally and professionally, in the role of leader.  If your priest lies, what golden rules do you aspire to?  If it is ok for you to never get a ticket for speeding, is it no different when an officer padding his numbers gives you one when you weren’t?  How about your doctor making some extra vacation money by taking out your good gallbladder?  How about your teacher failing you because she hates you?  The laws are there to protect us from the weaknesses in the human character.  

Jefferson said without a free press we have no liberty- which is why once we become aware of such weaknesses- we must seek the truth and if there is a REAL crime or abdication of personal responsibility, remove this person from the leadership position.  The choice between the lessor of any evils is a false one- why in the world would you accept that?    

quite the contrary, a ludicrous amount of coverage focused on Ayers and Acorn THAT FOUND NOTHING but must not be what you expected, so you are worried the nothing must be a something.  What educational transcripts worry you?  the elite primary education?  the years at Harvard or Columbia or teaching Constitutional Law at the U. of Chicago?  Besting in the election only means he did better than his opponent, which was enough to win, but in this case conclusive because it was over 51%.  Now I never said it was a landslide, only that he won, albeit by a decisive margin not needing the Supreme Court to fix it for us.

I’m glad you find comfort in McCain’s 47% and his educational transcripts and associations- though to be fair he did graduate at the bottom of his class and destroyed quite a few expensive planes before becoming a POW/national hero who left his crippled wife for an association with a younger and richer one. 

I do not dwell on innuendo or take much stock in campaign promises- no one knows the future, only the character shown by the person…so far.  If the next president is impressive in this respect I will vote for him/her, not a party and not for wishful promises that make no sense or foolish fearmongering about who is "pal-in around with who."