Glenn Beck: The Birthers should work for the Obama administration

This computer generated, short form uncertified Hawaiian birth certificate, is what the Obama handlers pass off as the real thing.
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/6528/fakek.png

This is a copy of a long form certified Hawaiian birth certificate.
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/9779/hawaiib...

It is about placing Jindal in as President. Both parents were not citizens in Jindal's case. Beck does not care. He wants us to be "watchdogs of the Constitution". Well this watchdog doesn't follow a turd. Wake up Beck!

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizens...

Glenn Beck is starting to get on my nerves lately. I really think the reason he is wussin' out about Obama's presidential eligibility is because he's now in cahoots with Bill O'Reilly making bigg(er) bucks than ever by going around the country with O'Reilly on national comedy tours. I also believe that Beck hasn't researched the topic in depth on Barack Obama's birth certificate issue and is only spewing out info of what Bill O'Reilly has whispered in his ear regarding the matter. Since Glenn Beck seems to be sucking up to Bill O'Reilly for the obvious "financial" benefits it entails I can fully understand then why Glenn Beck would be leaning against the Birther's and siding with O'Reilly and on the side of "money" instead. It's starting to become apparent that, in my opinion, Glenn Beck sudden rise to fame and fortune is starting to affect is judgment and even his conscience if you ask me.

A digital COLB i.e. Certificate Of Live Birth (if it hasn't been digitally altered) can 'buy' you many things - like a driver's license, and even a social security card. What a COLB cannot do is "prove" your place of birth, which only a "long form" 'original' birth certificate can do. Hence the reason why smart people like Birther's see through the charade and want "REAL" proof as to Barack Hussein Obama's actual citizenship.

The truth is, Barack Hussein Obama has spent literally upwards of $2,000,000 on lawyers to "hide" not only his birth records but also the vast majority of his academic records from public scrutiny and legal scrutiny. Tell me, why would an 'innocent' man need to "hide" his birth records and/or his academic records from the public or from legal scrutiny?? Could it be he may have something to "hide" perhaps?? No doubt he does..

Well, you say - he's already in office and we just have to deal with the situation as it now stands? Yes, but that does NOT preclude the American people from 'pressing on' to demand legal proof of his actual citizenship status (which a COLB cannot do) but to also do it for the sake of knowing the truth and for Barack Obama to come clean with the American people. And which apparently Glenn Beck is only concerned about i.e. "truth" - when it doesn't happen to interfere with him making extra money in the process of his neglecting the matter. On the other hand, if Glenn wasn't making millions of more dollars going around the country with Bill O'Reilly (while given the fact that Bill O'Reilly utterly disdains Birther's - and has told Glenn Beck as much to his face) - if the fame was gone or started to dwindle and the money started to dry up you can be sure that Glenn Beck would have a change of heart (and conscience) and would find the birther issue much to his liking in my humble opinion. Imagine that?? Money and Fame actually corrupting a person? Who would have thought... ;)

As for YOUR message. Is Glenn Beck being more agreeable with O' Reilly to make extra money from the "Bold Fresh Tour?" OH YEAH. If you LISTEN CAREFULLY to the WAY Beck criticizes "birthers," it's NOT that you guys are WRONG. It's that you guys are GIVING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT by CONTINUING ON with it. On other words...STOP HELPING OBAMA. Find MORE PRODUCTIVE ways to attack him. He's already been PROVEN to be a LIAR. Use THAT. As I said above onfire's comment...I AGREE WITH YOU GUYS. I'm telling you what BECK IS TELLING YOU. You're DISCREDITING US...plain and simple. The media is gonna EAT YOU GUYS UP and SPIT YOU BACK OUT ALL OVER US. We DO NOT want to be associated with you guys, if you continue with this. We can do this WITHOUT the "citizenship issue." WE'RE WINNING!! Think about George Washington. He had DETERMINATION. He lost troops left and right, but he OUTLASTED the British. That's what WE'RE doing...but you're GIVING THE BRITISH (metaphor linking liberals to the past of course) GROUNDS for DISMISSAL.

Lemme lay it out for you like THIS. Just ask SIMPLE QUESTIONS!! Trust me. If you do your research, you've got PLENTY of questions to WAKE UP THE LIBERALS WITHOUT the citizenship ties.

Why didn't he keep his promise to stop using signing statements A.K.A. executive orders??
Why didn't he keep his promise to dismantle the Patriot Act?? Why did he EXTEND the Patriot Act INSTEAD??
Why is he REALLY building FEMA "emergency camps" all across the nation??
Why didn't he keep his promise to end the NAFTA??
Why did he hire Eric Holder as his attorney general who is a former LOBBYIST when he EXPLICITLY STATED that he would KEEP LOBBYISTS OUT of policymaking jobs??

See where I'm goin with this?? He's BROKEN just about EVERY promise he made in his campaign speeches. We DON'T NEED the "birthers" makin this battle to SHED LIGHT in the dark seem "CRAZY." We HAVE the ammo ALREADY. Let's USE WHAT WE'VE GOT.

ANOTHER reason I'd like for you not to discredit Beck TOO quickly is because if you go to www.infowars.com and listen to some Alex Jones for a little while...you'll SEE that Beck is basically a SOFTER version of HIM. He uses "Progressive" instead of GLOBALIST. He brings up the Federal Reserve bankrupting America, but in SOFTER WORDS that DON'T DIRECTLY blame them.

THINK FOR YOURSELVES. DECONSTRUCT EVERYTHING. That's all. I've spoken my peace.

Beck has actually called for people who question the official version of 9/11 to be jailed! Alex is actually the opposite of Beck in that he speaks the truth and stands for something. Just go to youtube and look at the Beck videos yourslef where he calls for truthers to be jailed. It's outrageous.

Beck is a full blown hypocrate. He claims he stands for the Constitution, and says to question with boldness, yet he refuses to question Obama's eligibility to hold the Office of President. The Constitution says, "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" and clearly Obama was NOT a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution; if he was he would now be well over 200 years old. Therefore the President must now be a "natural born citizen", meaning one that was born within the United States and being the child of US citizen parents. A child born under such conditions would be subject only to the jurisdiction of the United States from the moment of his birth. It is common knowledge that Obama's father was NOT a US citizen, and Obama admits that he was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948, from the moment he was born. It is also a well known fact that the State of Hawaii routinely issues "Certification of Live Birth" to foreign born children; the only requirement being, that one parent OR a relative, show proof that the child's parents lived in Hawaii for one year prior to the birth. When a foreign birth is registered, a notice is sent to the newspapers. So, just because a birth announcement appeared in two newspapers is not proof of US citizenship. Even if Obama could prove he was born in Hawaii, his was still subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation, the moment he was born, and there is no way he can be legally considered to be a "Natural Born Citizen of the United States". Beck would have us all ignore this, because if Obama was removed from office, his show would lose it's targeted purpose of existance. It was Obama's presents in office, which propelled Beck show. If Obama were removed, Beck would loose money. So while you are questioning with boldness, ask yourself, "Why does Beck refuse to defend the Constitution's requirement that the President be a Natural born citizen"?

Guys. You MUST realize that in order to TRULY GET POWER OF THE PEOPLE BACK...we've got to IMPEACH THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION. JOE BIDEN isn't gonna do ANY BETTER if he takes over. HE, PELOSI, HILLARY...ALL a part of the SAME INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL ELITES who are trying to DESTROY OUR COUNTRY. We have to get ALL of them out. Now...THAT being said...HOW THE HECK are yall gonna do that if you continue to spend time and effort on something that NOBODY will pay attention to. NOBODY paid attention to the OBVIOUS EVIDENCE that BUSH CREATED 9/11. WHY ON EARTH would they pay attention to "where the president was born?" All you "birthers" need to JUST THINK. We DON'T NEED to KEEP ON with this citizenship issue because he is CLEARLY A LIAR. The people have ALREADY WOKEN UP. Now, the time is here to TAKE AMERICA BACK and we DON'T need "Get him out cause he's not a citizen." Beck CLEARLY SAID IT...Obama's administration is THRIVING on you guys to do this. You may not believe in everything Beck says, but he is WELL AWARE that there are SOME battles that CAN be won and SOME that CANNOT.

Just to set the records straight. I TOO believe that Obama was NOT BORN IN THE U.S. and is NOT A CITIZEN. I'm just NOT gonna give the media the "conspiracy looney" edge that it THRIVES on from YOU GUYS.

TRUTH doesn't matter in YOUR case because it's ALREADY been "PROVEN" as far as the MEDIA & PUBLIC ARE CONCERNED. The TRUTH about 9/11 was MORE than evident, but NOBODY WANTED TO HEAR IT. SAME HERE, guys.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP!! I CAN'T STAND Obama and want him out of office as much as the next guy, but you CAN'T DESTROY OUR FIGHT with this.

I'm a Birther!!. It's not about Just BHO'S Birth Cert", I'ts about his eligableity to hold the Offiice of the (POTUS),Legally!!, as in "Natural born" citizen"

Obama is not a natural born citizen..!

..because his father was not a US citizen!.

His father was a British subject, and because of that Obama was born a subject of the Crown and later became a citizen of Kenya and Indonesia,
when adopted by Lolo Sotoro.

..Even if he was born in Hawaii, and his mother was old enough to pass US citizenship on to him, he would still only be a citizen-not a natural born citizen.

Natural born status must exist at the moment of birth.

It can not be earned, or received at a later date, or by a retroactive law.

It is about placing Jindal in as President. Both parents were not citizens in Jindal's case. Beck does not care. He wants us to be "watchdogs of the Constitution". Well this watchdog doesn't follow a turd. Wake up Beck!

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizens...

What an idot. When he can't debate the facts Beck just calls names. Please just tell me what hospital Obama was born in Mr. Beck. Oh that's right, you can't and neither can he. The fact is that an actual birth certificate would actually have that information listed, I know mine sure does!

And if you served in the Armed Forces of this great Nation, you had to present your actual birth certificate before you could have enlisted.

If Obama was to walk into his local recruiting office and present that certificate of live birth would he be able to enlist in the Armed Forces using that document as it has been presented on the Fight the Smears website?

Just show us the OFFICAL, birth certificate!

Why do even need the birth certificate?

When the Democratic National Committee has admitted the following ever since they published it in 2008:

http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetes...

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

In their Take Action side bar, they stated:

The fact is Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Actually, it's the supposed Obama opponents who complain about the birthers who are helping Obama, the Dems, and the MSM. They simply aren't smart enough (or don't have enough integrity) to be able to do things in a way that helps them rather than hurts them.

Hahaha! I love it when Liberal/Progressives underestimate the tenacity and intelligence of the people they despise -- that's been working out pretty well lately, hasn't it, champ?

Obama is an all-around Poser. Can't lead, can't follow, can't think, and can't get out of the way -- no wonder he wants no one to examine his life record and simply believe what he says. What a sap a person has to be to continue to be taken in by this liar ... but, apparently, they're still clinging to their little shred of Hope.

Obama said "Don't question my faith. Don't question my citizenship." Yet he expects us to have faith in his citizenship.

24AheadDotCom, I'll tell it like this. For all we know...the "birthers" MIGHT BE liberals in disguise. The thing WE need to do is NOT GIVE IN to this distraction. We DON'T NEED the birth certificate to bring this administration down.

Obama is a PROVEN LIAR. HIS OWN MSM has PLENTY of proof when we look back at the differences between his campaign rhetoric and his SOTU rhetoric. He's a PROVEN LIAR and he can NO LONGER be TRUSTED. So...it DOESN'T MATTER what he says. It's WHAT HE DOES that matters and we need to be VIGILENT of him and his administration.

Wilburn & Mick, DON'T take this as an attack to you guys. YOU guys MAY NOT be liberals in disguise. All I'm trying to say is DON'T take information at face value. We can go on all day about how Obama's not really a citizen and that the birth certificate was fabricated and all about how the judges who were SUPPOSED to look into it SUPPOSEDLY DIDN'T. This is EXACTLY the DISTRACTION THEY WANT. Just remember that as we continue to use LOGIC and TRUTH to fight this battle instead of goin off of what MAY or MAY NOT be conspiracy theories. I'm RIGHT THERE in thinking "Hm...his citizenship sure seems shady." It's NOT productive and is ONLY HELPING THEM keep us BICKERING over things OTHER than the REAL issue of say...BANKRUPTING OUR COUNTRY.

Obama has failed to produce a valid birth certificate as required by the Constitution. Can anyone argue with this fact? No. OK, it benefits the Democrats. Suppose it is. But what about the truth? Should we back away from demanding to know the truth just because of cold political considerations? Do tell.

Read the oath that all soldier's give when they voluntarily enlist in the Armed Forces of America:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Once a soldier swears that oath, it becomes their solemn duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same [the Constitution of the United States of America]. This duty is without question.

However... the next portion of the oath they swear where they will obey the orders of the President of the United States, would be dependent upon:

1) The Citizens of the United States giving the soldiers who serve in their Armed Forces, a constitutionally legal President.

2) A constitutionally legal President giving lawful orders to soldiers who serve in the Citizens Armed Forces.

How can Citizens of the United States expect soldiers in their Armed Forces to obey an Unconstitutional Illegal Putative President?

How can Citizens of the United States expect an Unconstitutional Illegal Putative President to give lawful orders to soldiers who serve in their Armed Forces?

The fact that Obama is ineligible is already apparent and admitted. he has aditted here, under the big green distracting COLB and under FactCheck that at birth his citizenship was "governed" by Britain:

http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetes...

At birth he was a Dual Citizen of Britain, owing allegiance to a foreign power. He is not a Natural Born Citizen as reqired by A1S2C4,5. The term is derived from Vattels Law of Nations, a Treatise on Natural Law. Natural Law is our Common Law and is cited as such in A1S8C10 (law of nations). Natural Born Citizens are Born in the US of 2 Citizen Parents, a unification of Blood and Soil, where citizenship is readily apparent and needs no statute--Natural Law. Obama knows this very well, and uses the COLB as a distraction from the real issue, that no matter WHERE he was born, he is ineligible because his father was never a citizen.

On that same page, the Obama Campaign identifies Obama as a "native born" citizen, not a "natural born" citizen.

It's been there all along.

A "native born" citizen is one born in the US with only one US citizen parent. Anchor babies are "native born" citizens (14th Amendment).

They know he's not eligible. They just don't care. After all, the end justifies the means with these people.

Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed that but yeah, sure enough, there it is... the Democratic National Committee stating:

Hi everyone!

People who are determined to keep us divided start these rumors about Barack’s birth certificate to manipulate us into thinking he is not an American citizen.

The fact is Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Learn the facts and see the birth certificate for yourself:

http://my.barackobama.com/birthcertificate

Together we can make sure these negative and divisive attacks don't affect this election.

Thanks for your help.

"Mick" just isn't smart enough to realize that what he states as fact isn't necessarily fact and isn't accepted by the vast majority of Americans. He's like a buttonholer with his literature about some obscure subject.

The only way to resolve the questions Mick has is either a court case or to have the MSM look into it. Those on Mick's side don't have the money or the intellectual firepower to get the first. And, they aren't moving to have the MSM look into this.

In fact, those like Mick are helping the MSM: they'll tell you that the cert issue is a red herring. That lets the MSM skate on all the lies they've told about the basic facts of the cert issue and thus takes away leverage Mick might have to get the MSM to look into his issue. I've seen enough people like Mick to know that they just aren't smart enough to understand how they aren't helping themselves.

What Mick states as fact, while granted... it may not be accepted by the vast majority of Americans, however it has been decided with four (4) US Supreme Court cases, which have defined "natural born citizen" as all citizens born in the country of parents [plural... meaning both parents], who are themselves, citizens of the United States.

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

Sorry, forgot the link for the excellent summary of those four (4) Supreme Court Cases:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-suprem...

Tyler, you are quoting from the Declaration of Independence. They are explaining their reasons for rebelling against England. If you read the Constitution and all the work they put it into it to keep the parts of the government balanced, keep religion and government separate, set up the finest rule of law ever devised (which people want to trash because they're so scared of terrorists, they're willing to let our government do anything), but they were not busting their tails and arguing like dogs to set up a government that could be overthrown because one group didn't like the group in power. People call Obama a socialist and it's a joke -- the guys not even a liberal. He obviously doesn't want government to take over heatlh care, he got rid of Chrystler as soon as he could find a corporation dumb enough to buy it, the banks keep effing up, practically begging him to nationalize them and a year ago, most Americans were wanting him to and he wouldn't do it -- if he's as socialist he's the most right wing socialist I've ever seen or heard of. I voted for him and probably wouldn't now because he's gone too centrist. He inherited the biggest mess since FDR and before that Lincoln and after the stimulus it's been all downhill. But I hear this despot-socialist-fascist crap and it's like -- have you people lost your marbles? After 30 years of de-regulation, tax cuts, trickle down economics, repeal of Glass-Stegall and letting Big Business, Wall Street and the big banks run wild with no oversight, and the last 8 yeas, two big tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars that were suplementalled so they wouldn't make the yearly budget (debt) look so high, a Medicare gift to Pharma and a corresponding defecit that exploded (and the guy told us to keep buying SUVs and go shopping)--- and now BHO's a despot because he has to raise taxes? What else is he supposed to do, throw bake sales? But where is the tyanny? Explain the slave part to me. How is the man a despot? We need single payer health care - government run or non-profit/government run, it doesn't matter,but health care which is already the main reason the future defecit is projected so high (costs will rise another 10 per cent this year) has got to be controlled somehow or we're sunk. We might be anyway but I can guarantee that as long as we keep this damn empire, keep fighting wars we can't win, be it terrorism or drugs, keep mucking around in the mideast so we can pretend we have access to all the oil we want and keep refusing to start setting up clean, alternative energy sources, keep insisting health care remain a for-profit enterprise,keep letting the gap in wealth between rich and poor keep expanding -- we are doomed. Listening to the pathetic statements those republican congressmen were making in Baltimore-- we can't survive another 8 years under conservatives so we're no doubt doomed anyway. (And i include Blue Dogs in that) especially listening to the Tea Partiers and their idiotic statements,convinces me this country is going to be saying yes, sir to China, Russia, India and probably a few other countries we've considered "backwards" for centuries. It's not 1955 anymore, it's never going to be 1955 again and you can't bring it back by trying to replicate 1955 through legislation. Time doesn't work that way.

But I'm old so why am I worrying? It's guys your age who'll suffer.It's just a drag seeing you embrace what's going to ruin our country and your lives. You'll all trash me -- not that I care, after 70 years as a lib, I've heard it all -- but Glenn Beck, Rush, and the rest are not your friends. They are not looking out for your welfare. You're a pawn, we all are. But it's always been that way so its' foolish to think it can be changed through dialogue.
But like I say, not my worry much longer. Good luck to you young people.

Oh your a "old" lib...great...once they pass national health care your dead...Hope and Change baby..

I'm 70 too. But, I'm not a whiner like you.

I keep my weapons clean and my rounds dry.

Obama a right-winger -- ha, ha, ha -- I doidn't know 70-year-olds were doing drugs.

Also, lemme say that I DO agree with you about Americans letting government trample over their liberties in the name of "keeping us safe," which is HOW Bush got away with using executive orders...in the name of "fighting terrorism." OBAMA is making is making it WORSE with this underwear bomber thing. If this "grave mistake" makes the administration look weak...then Obama will have to do things such as...oh...say...EXTEND THE PATRIOT ACT, BUILD FEMA EMERGENCY CAMPS, and PARTNER NSA WITH GOOGLE TO MONITOR OUR SEARCHES. That's YOUR president that's done that...but I'm sure he'll find a way to BLAME THAT on BUSH AS WELL. Haha.

Tyler, if you read my post you'll see I said i voted for him, but probably wouldn't now. Well, make that definitely wouldn't now, he's got 3 years yet but the path he's taking isn't very encouraging. He's been a major disappointment. In fact the things you mention at the end are the main reasons. So I wouldn't exactly call him "my" president. I haven't heard him blame Bush for that -- he's validated Bush's policy on that which is what I feared back when Bush was getting Congress to give him the right to determine who was a terrorist and what they could do to them. Once started, no president was going to give those things up. Able to spy on your enemies in secret? Hell, I wouldn't give that up and I'm as big on civil rights as any libtard you'll ever find. I'm not that into conspiracy theories, I just think he's gone back on his word too much, and while I have in the past always assumed politicians are lying to me, I had higher hopes for Obama. He talks it, but he doesn't walk it. Don't ask me why I had higher hopes -- at my age you'd think the "won't get fooled again" philosophy would certainly be true, but we all get older, we don't necessarily all get smarter I guess. Right now I'm still following politics because I always have but I'm pretty apolitical when it comes to parties and candidates.

Af far as looking weak, I think that's something Americans worry about and not too many other people. Most countries think the John Wayne cowboy thing is pretty sad and they know we've got like six gazillion nukes sitting around and if they start laughing too hard, who's to say some crazy oaf like Rahm wouldn't decide to level their capital city? I personally think the underwear bomber is getting blown up into something huge for political reasons. There were actually many more attacks by terrorist groups against us during the late 70s and 80s, they just didn't take place here. Why we thought they never would I don't know but as Colin Powell once said, "Americans fail to realize that most people in other countries tend to react to being pushed around exactly like we would." If we somehow think we can invade two countries over there, drone bomb two others, rattle a sword at a fifth and we're never going to get attacked on our own soil again, they're dreaming. But people keep saying Bush/Cheney kept us free from Terrorist attacks like their presidency started on Sept. 12, 2001 so maybe they think it's a one-time thing. I get to feeling very detached the older I get, the more BS I hear stated by people who accept whatever they hear as truth without questioning it; nobody can think for themselves any more. On either or any side.
And while we disagree somewhat on the Declaration of Independence's relavency today, and in my opinion it gives us no right to dissolve our bands, The DofI is almost totally a list of grievances against King George. I guess it could serve as a precedent for a revolution though. At least you do know there is a difference in the two documents and they were written for totally different reasons and purposes. Most people haven't got a clue, I'd be willing to bet 70 percent of the people of this country think the Pledge of Allegiance is part of one of the two documents, never heard of the Articles of Confederation or that not that many men signed both the Declaration and the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson never signed the Constitution, nor did the two Adams and many others signed one but not both. You could probably win quite a few bar bets on that alone.
Liberal or Progressive is fine, but please not populist. Another area where Obama has let me down -- he's not liberal and only seems a progressive to his loyal core and seems to have embraced certain populist causes at the moment. Populism to me is more like a mob. And mobs cannot be trusted.

one more thing....YOU LIE!

Look Mike, Tyler is way ahead of you in terms of understanding the danger in backing the policies of the current president and this Congress. Tyler and many, many like him know that this just will not end well for the Liberal/Progressives because they are a fast-shrinking and ideologically inflexible group. When you lump in the mindless drones, who only want the government to provide for their welfare at the expense of everyone else, the Liberal/Progressives are a laughable collection of ideological rabble.

You continue to rationalize the motives and actions of this inept DC bunch, while voicing the greatly exagerrated and unsubstantiated Liberal dogmas. You state weak opinions and narrow personal views as if they are fact, but that is expected from your ilk -- we do understand that you've painted yourself into various corners, and this time rational, objective people intend to leave you there to starve.

The Declaration and Constitution are not, as you imply, outdated and ineffective in today's Republic -- attacks and a wide variety of ruinous actions have been in motion since Wilson and FDR, yet there has been a conservative/Constitutionalist awakening, finally, in this 11th hour. You may have your inconsequential quibbles surrounding the small stuff (as evidenced by the policy beefs you've chosen to highlight in your posts), but the heavy-lifters are about to flex their political muscles and they would appreciate it if folks like you would just get out of the way and allow them to get the country back. You can thank them later.

I commend Tyler for actually taking the time to attempt to point out the various untruths and misconceptions in your posts. As for me, the evidence against any Liberal/Progressive argument has become so overwhelming that I'm just working to push the entire bunch into a political mass-grave without wasting the energy in the obvious, pointless debates with the all-too-common mouth-breathers on the Left.

Good. You're not a mindless drone like my grandpa. You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about people not thinking for themselves anymore. I actually choose to take my truths piece by piece from everywhere. Naked Emporer News is GREAT at taking the mainstream media videos and puttin ALL the channels together and makin you go...wait a minute. I don't know if you took a look at it on here, but there's a video from THEIR site that shows 16 different instances where Obama lied at the SOTU address. I definitely feel like a LOT of people were fooled by Obama and his pretty face still does fool them. I have NEVER leaned to any party nor will I ever. I believe in something Alex Jones said back in 1997. "Two sides of the same coin; Slavery Incorporated." Even if you're not into conspiracy theories, you've GOT to wonder WHY IS IT that NO NEW PARTY has become president since Abraham Lincoln the first Republican? There's a number of OTHER things the country doesn't know such as there were ACTUALLY 6 DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTIES that ran in the presidential campaign. Another thing people don't know is that in SOME states (Oklahoma - my state - being one of them) has ONLY THE TWO PARTIES on the ballot. WON'T LET an independent candidate on the ballot. So...conspiracy?? Maybe. Maybe not. I think remaining vigilent is the BEST path of all to take for us young folks because we most certainly CAN'T let the government do what they want behind closed doors anymore. It was clearly stated when it was FINALLY admitted that we were RIGHT to be so fired up about not letting them pass that heathcare bill due to the original promise of choosing our care being violated.

HOW ON EARTH can you STILL SUPPORT OBAMA?? There's VIDEO DOCUMENTED PROOF of him LYING. He says ONE THING ONE time and DOES or SAYS ANOTHER LATER. This has BEEN PROVEN. You STILL BELIEVE A LIAR?? It DOESN'T MATTER what he says or "proposes to do" next. He LIED therefore CANNOT be trusted anymore....PERIOD. I've got TONS of examples, but allow me to give you JUST ONE that you SHOULD fear if you use LOGIC. While he was campaigning, he said he would OBEY THE CONSTITUTION and NOT use signing statements. In his SOTU address, he said he would ISSUE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER in order to "move forward." Guess what...THOSE ARE the signed statements he PROMISED HE WOULDN'T USE. You can argue all you want with me about WHY he did it or that "it's for the best," but HE CLEARLY STATED DURING HIS CAMPAIGN that it was AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION. If he ACTUALLY DOES IT (probably already has), then he will have BROKEN THE LAW ACCORDING TO HIS OWN WORDS. The 3 branches of the government were ALWAYS SUPPOSED to be EQUAL as a system of CHECKS and BALANCES. This is American Government 101 I'm speaking here.

The Declaration of Independence OF COURSE applied to King George because HE WAS THE TYRRANT at the time, but the WORDS STILL REMAIN TRUE. As a matter of fact, "King of Britain" was ONLY USED ONCE. Other than that, NO REAL MENTION of WHO this is to is in there. If it SOLELY WAS just a paper talking to King George, then we would NOT hold it in the high regard that we DO. The actions they showed grievances towards can STILL BE DONE BY GOVERNMENTS TODAY. SOME OF THEM ARE being done by our government AS WE SPEAK.

If more LIBERALS (populists, progressives, or whatever yall call yourselves with the trend) ACTUALLY READ these documents instead of just LISTENING TO OTHERS who say things like "They were just addressing King George and it's no longer relevant," then they MIGHT SEE FOR THEMSELVES.

MOST of the language UP UNTIL "King of Britain," was NONSPECIFIC. The REASON for this was because the words were to REMAIN TRUE THROUGHOUT TIME.

I'm not gonna get into my "conspiracy theory" TOO far, but OBAMA IS NOT THE TYRRANT that people need to fear. This was plan STARTED LONG BEFORE Obama. Money, jobs, healthcare...these are the ESSENTIAL WEAPONS. We need to REMAIN VIGILENT of this man however in order to stay free because his PUPPETMASTERS are MUCH closer than you think to their goal. THINK for a moment. PAST conquerers failed for ONE MAIN REASON above all else. They TRIED BRUTE FORCE. What BETTER way to enslave people than to make them COMPLACENT and BELIEVE that they're free?? It's a SLOW and METHODICAL process. All those who are BEHIND OBAMA need to do is just find the PERFECT time to strike. Do I believe that this will happen while Obama is still in office?? NOPE...UNLESS WE LET IT!!

Lemme clarify. I don't want Arianna Huffington to misuse my words. I mean "MUST REJECT" tyranny...NOT the 2nd American Revolution.

Ya know...the best point to this testament to liberals not being willin to give others a chance to speak reason...well, I've got a couple actually. I'll just give one.

I'm a liquor store clerk and I was talkin about how I wanted to get home in time for Glenn Beck for that Revolutionary Holocaust documentary. The customer in a snarky voice said "Can't miss Glenn." I stood true and said "That's right." Then he said "So, has he drowned his studio with all those tears yet?" Lemme see here. The VERY END of an episode ONE TIME (as far as I know) and they basically know Glenn as the CRYBABY. What REALLY surprises me is that there are STILL people who think "Obama rules," after he's been PROVEN to lie time and time again. Oh well.

The Declaration of Independence clearly states "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." On other words, this means that we WILL deal with these evils...while they are TOLERABLE.

NEXT sentence states: "But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security."

On other words, the REASON why Americans are STILL puttin up with this administration is because it's STILL TOLERABLE. It has to be COMPLETELY DESPOTIST before we will REVOLT. The founding fathers PREDICTED the possibility of a 2ND AMERICAN REVOLUTION and this was a REMINDER for future generations that we MUST (our DUTY to) REJECT IT.

I CAN'T WAIT!! I'm READY for it. I signed away my life for 5 years to Uncle Sam and did 2 year-long tours in Iraq. I was SO GRATEFUL to be GIVEN BACK my freedom when I left the military. I will DIE FREE than LIVE AS A SLAVE.

Yep. Glenn knows liberals. They don't actually watch/listen to his show or to Rush, they just take things out of context and spread it around to the drive bys. I love the Norm/Cliff reference!