News organizations concerned about access issues at the Obama White House

Representatives from Obama’s press office held a conference call with photo editors, who are concerned that the administration prefers distributing photos taken by a White House photographer in cases where photojournalists have been permitted access in the past…

…Television network bureau chiefs also protested the exclusion of video cameras from the second oath of office…

…Four reporters witnessed the oath of office and shared their observations with others, and a White House photo was released.

“We think it was done in a way that was upfront and transparent,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a briefing when questioned why video cameras were not present.

What goes around, comes around. How enamored are the media with their messiah now?

Dobbs: ‘If you’re the police where are your badges?’
Gold Hat: ‘Badges? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges!’

Translation: We are the law because we say we are. We don’t need no stinkin’ laws!

President-Elect Obama has chosen Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, completely disregarding Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.”

In January 2008, during Hillary Clinton’s current Senate term, an Executive Order by President Bush increased the salary for Secretary of State making Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.

That is the law.

We don’t need no stinkin’ laws.

Dec. 11, 2008: Congress late Wednesday lowered the salary for the nation’s top diplomat to keep Clinton’s nomination [as Secretary of State] from running afoul of the Constitution.

From Judicial Watch we learn:

Former President Richard Nixon circumvented this constitutional provision after appointing former Ohio Senator William Saxbe to the position of Attorney General. The Nixon administration managed to force legislation through Congress to reduce the salary for the position of Attorney General to the level that existed prior to Senator Saxbe’s appointment. This scheme, known thereafter as “The Saxbe Fix,” was also used to allow Senator Lloyd Bentsen to assume the position of Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.

“The Saxbe Fix” may reduce the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels, but it does not affect what is a clear constitutional prohibition. It cannot change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress. (President Ronald Reagan reportedly did not appoint Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court because of this provision.) Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause.

So before even taking office we see Obama following in the footsteps of President Nixon and President Clinton - in lack of respect for the rule of law.

Nixon’s circumventing of that law did not make it okay for Clinton to do it. Breaking a law does not make that law invalid. What it does do, however, is make it easier for others to break that law and eventually for the courts to excuse the breaking of the law as “reinterpretation” of the law and then “precedent.”

Apparently the Pentagon thinks so:

US secret forces are intensifying their cross-border raids into Pakistani tribal areas because of fears of a high-profile al-Qaeda attack during the American election campaign…

…Against this backdrop, a senior US intelligence official said that al Qaeda was seeking to stage a major attack on an American target close to the election, to test the new president-elect.

“Their goal would not be to influence the election but merely to send a message that they are still a force to be reckoned with,” the official said. “They know that a successful attack in the election season will have maximum impact, and they want to give the new president the jitters.”

Any attack in the weeks before the Nov 4 election - what is known in American political circles as an “October surprise” - would almost certainly give a decisive boost to John McCain, the Republican candidate who already holds a commanding lead on questions of national security.

Which, if true, really makes me wonder - why would al Qaeda want to boost McCain just before the election? Or are they foolish enough to think that an attack would help Obama? Those are real questions, by the way; I’m perplexed.

Personally, I think it has everything to do with influencing the election (even if I can’t quite figure out their reasoning) which will be evident IF an attack happens BEFORE Nov. 4. If after, then, and only then, will I buy the bit about “sending a message.” But also, personally, I doubt that al Qaeda can do anything on the scope of 9/11 or the London bombing, and I also doubt that they can pull off anything on U.S. soil that wouldn’t be worse than the criminal incidents that we suffer every day.

What do you think? Am I right? Or am I full of BS?

“The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign,” News 4 reported.

“They want to remind voters that Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for those making less than $250,000 a year,” said KMOV reporter John Mills.

The Barack Obama Truth Squad is an initiative based on pure unadulterated Marxism, a Marxism where the end justifies the means. Through the Marxist dialectic, Marxists are taught to lie and to accuse their detractors of lying.

Let it be remembered that on Saturday, Sept. 27, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama became the only truth.

And let it be remembered that also on Saturday, Sept. 27, 2008, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt called BS! on this attempt to silence free speech:

St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.

Now, here is a statement from Joyce:

As a citizen, I believe that elections should be about issues. I also have enormous respect for our First Amendment and freedom of speech. My sole purpose in participating in this initiative is about getting truthful information to the voters. This has never been or never will be about prosecuting people.

Clearly there are those who are attempting to twist the purpose of this initiative for their own benefit. This attack is a great example of how the truth is distorted in campaigns and what we’re trying to stand up against. [emphasis added]

Joyce and liberal bloggers are spinning this as an attempt by conservatives to squelch the free speech rights of St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer. However, these people are all in elected public positions in the local law enforcement and judicial systems and as such are not ordinary citizens. By virtue of their positions they carry the color of authority as well as a duty to pursue their official tasks in an unbiased manner.

IF these people were committing to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign REGARDLESS of the target of the ad, they would be well within their rights. But to openly and publicly state that they will pursue enforcement of the law on a partisan basis is a gross violation of the law and I CALL BS! on them!

The questions, their answers, and my snarky comments:

Q. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?

Obama: My administration will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade. We will increase research grants for early career researchers to keep young scientists entering these fields. We will increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at our science agencies. And we will invest in the breakthrough research we need to meet our energy challenges and to transform our defense programs.

INCREASE FUNDING DOUBLE BASIC RESEARCH BUDGETS INCREASE RESEARCH GRANTS INCREASE SUPPORT INVEST IN THE BREAKTHROUGH RESEARCH - Wait, let me guess…he’ll do all this without raising taxes, right? NOT!! “We will increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at our science agencies.” As if! The Dems would be too afraid of ending up with egg on their faces if those “high risks” don’t pan out.

McCain: My policies will provide broad pools of capital, low taxes and incentives for research in America, a commitment to a skilled and educated workforce, and a dedication to opening markets around the globe. I am committed to streamlining burdensome regulations and effectively protecting American intellectual property in the United States and around the globe.

Broad pools of capital? From where? Do I hear higher taxes under McCain, too? Low taxes, incentives for research, streamlining burdensome regulations - those are basically sound ways of accomplishing goals without putting the cost on the backs of the taxpayers.

What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change — a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, or research?

Obama: . . . Specifically, I will implement a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. I will start reducing emissions immediately by establishing strong annual reduction targets with an intermediate goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

. . . I will also create a Technology Transfer Program dedicated to exporting climate-friendly technologies, including green buildings, clean coal and advanced automobiles, to developing countries to help them combat climate change.

McCain: I will institute a new cap-and-trade system that over time will change the dynamic of our energy economy. By the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emissions, by 2020, a return to 1990 levels, and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of 60% below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

. . . I am also committed to investing $2 billion every year for the next 15 years on clean coal technologies, to unlock the potential of America’s oldest and most abundant resource.

And we will issue a Clean Car Challenge to automakers, in the form of a tax credit to the American people, for every automaker who can sell a zero-emission vehicle.

We will commit up to a $5,000 tax credit to each and every customer who buys that car.

Well, no matter which candidate you favor they both want to cripple the American economy with a cap-and-trade system that will accomplish nothing (unless someone can explain to me how shuffling carbon credits around will reduce overall emissions). That said, IF there is an international market for climate-friendly technologies then Obama’s proposed Technology Transfer Program has possibilities. McCain’s tax credits for zero-emission vehicles also holds promise, but that $2 billion a year for 15 years for clean coal research is just a another tax hike that will effectively offset those tax credits. A disguised form of wealth redistribution. I thought that was the exclusive ground of the Democrats, but I guess I was wrong.

In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from global pandemics or deliberate biological attacks?

Obama: Overseas, I will launch a Shared Security Partnership that invests $5 billion over three years to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks. I will also strengthen U.S. intelligence collection overseas to identify and interdict would-be bioterrorists before they strike and expand the U.S. government’s bioforensics program for tracking the source of any biological weapon.

. . . I will invest in new vaccines and technology to detect attacks and to trace them to their origin, so that we can react in a timely fashion. . . . Because of the unpredictability of the mode of biological attack, I will stress the need for broad-gauged vaccines and drugs and for more agile and responsive drug development and production systems.

$5 BILLION OVER THREE YEARS INVEST IN NEW VACCINES

Just trying to keep up with the tax hikes. I like the idea of strengthening U.S. intelligence collection overseas as well as improving our responsive capabilities.

McCain: First, we must limit the spread of disease to the United States. Second, we must limit the spread of disease within the United States. . . . Third, we must mitigate symptoms of the disease and minimize suffering and death with effective treatments and countermeasures. . . . Similar response capabilities would be necessary if a deliberate biological attack were to occur.

. . . We must fund research and development of new medicines and vaccines and make sure that we have adequate stockpiles of countermeasures and a robust and well-thought-out distribution plan in case crisis strikes.

FUND RESEARCH

Is funding research really the best answer? How about allowing the free market to work with some other kind of incentive, such as tax breaks? Historically, private companies give us much more bang for our buck than any government program.

What is the right policy balance between the benefits of genetic advances and their potential risks?

Obama: I have been a longtime supporter of the recently passed Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

In addition, concerned about the premature introduction of genetic testing into the public domain without appropriate oversight, I introduced the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007, aimed at ensuring the safety and accuracy of such testing.

Advances in the genetic engineering of plants have provided enormous benefits to American farmers. I believe we can continue to modify plants safely with new genetic methods, abetted by stringent tests for environmental and health effects and by stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice.

Obama may have been on board with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act from the beginning, but he wasn’t there for the vote that passed it. In fairness neither was McCain, and since it passed 95-0 there wasn’t really the need for two more votes.

The Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007 has been stuck in committee since its introduction in March 2007.

McCain: As genetic research becomes increasingly deployed, the need to ensure privacy of human records will become all the more essential, as will be the rigor to ensure there is no genetic discrimination. The scientific potential and ethical issues associated with genetics are important and complex enough that I will seek out the wise counsel of experts about how to ensure that we are best serving the needs of the American people.

Genetic research can already provide real assistance for those in some of the poorest regions who lack access to adequate food. . . . Our aid programs should help focus on research into higher-yielding crops and make investments in infrastructure that will help farmers increase their yields and deliver their products to market.

OUR AID PROGRAMS

When are we going to stop subsidizing farming? The lower food prices on depression-era crops are offset by the higher prices on other produce, thus any savings to the consumer is a wash. Not to mention that those depression-era crops - wheat, sugar, corn, etc. - are also those often associated with obesity in the poor.

And stating what a good President does anyway - consult experts - is a pretty non-responsive response.

So there you have it, the candidates on science and me on their responses. Make of it what you will.

A post at Strata-Sphere purports to END the Controversy over Mr Obama’s eligibility to serve as American president, by carefully examining the online scan of something alleged to be Mr Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth (but NOT his Birth Certificate), when in fact its Obama’s mother’s AGE at birth, 18 or 19, that invalidates his eligibility to serve as president.

If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen under because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for “ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.”

Ann Dunham was 18 when Obama was born – so she wouldn’t have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16.

quoted at Baldilocks’ Blog

Strata-Sphere, then, is essentially burning a strawman. Obama’s birth, IN Hawaii, may have been certificated, despite his father’s still-married-to-first-wife status, but with Mom being 18, Obama does NOT meet US legal criteria to serve as president.

What’s YOUR take on this? (Go ahead, that’s what the Comments are for!)

Wanna Call BS? on which aspect of this?