Seems the Issue is Not Dead Yet

Though I'm sure that Mr. Obama wishes that it was. Somebody filed criminal charges against Obama over his birth certificate.

Still makes me wonder: why doesn't he just end all the fuss and show the world his papers? Unless he's got something to hide. I hope there is still a judge in America with the courage to stand up to the President. And I hope the case makes its way to that judge's courtroom.

Legit or not, Mr. Obama needs to put this scandal to rest.




And another question: Why is the press not all over this? Citizen or not? This is a fair question the President should answer. He won't. He's going to a great deal of trouble and expense to avoid the question. Why isn't the press all over the story?

Why Would They Do That?

I thought the media was all about exposing governmental problems. That they saw it as their duty. That's how the stories usually go. But apparently we're not supposed to question Mr. Obama's sketchy citizenship. A World Net Daily columnist and her orginization tried to purchase air time for an add about Mr. Obama's Constitution/citizenship woes, and not one of the major networks would sell her the time. Not CNBC, not MSNBC, not Headline News, not CNN, not Fox. So here's the ad, which has now been posted on YouTube. It's chilling, if you believe the assertions. Given the effort that Mr. Obama has gone to in order to avoid explaining his birthplace, I say it's pretty credible. You can read the World Net Daily article here. If you'd like to send a letter to the Supreme Court asking them to take the question of Mr. Obama's citizenship and presidential eligibility seriously, click here.

Watch the ad. Then ask yourself: why won't he just show folks his birth certificate? Why not just end the controversy?

Ponder: What would it mean to America to have a foreign national inaugurated as President? This question is worthy of our serious consideration.

Is the Constitution, in fact, our highest law? Or has something else replaced it while We, The People weren't looking?

A Response

I browsed across this video on a blog I visit. The woman who posted it seemed to be looking for a response. This is what I said. Perhaps some others would like to comment for her as well? She's very far to the Left, but she's polite & informative. And she's also got some great birth stories and information!

-----------------------



As I am assuming that your posting of Olbermann’s video means that you share his questions, so I'm going to try to answer them.

I think that Mr. Olbermann’s assertion that it's about love is childishly simplistic. His display of emotion about an issue that he so carefully distances himself from strikes me as contrived and manipulative.

Love has very little to do with what's happening here. This is about freedom and about society's ability to continue as a functional civilization. There is a much more at stake here than who can be married.

I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Let me briefly sketch for you the doctrinal foundation that I work with. Although I know that you will likely reject these ideas, I think that a reasonable dialog needs to be based on understanding of where the other person is coming from. In my case there is a dual interest in the issue. My private feelings on the matter are faith-based. My public concerns with homosexual marriage are concerns for the preservation of freedom. However, humans are messy creatures and it is often hard to completely pull the two sides of the coin apart.

In 1995 the Church issued a statement of our beliefs about the family, gender roles, and other related issues. This statement expresses very well what I believe. In our view, marriage and the family are holy institutions which continue in the next life. Gender and gender roles are Divinely determined prior to our birth. God makes no mistakes in creating His children as male or female.

The Church has also posted information about our faith's stand on homosexuality on our website. I quote from that article:

This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.” In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach. (emphasis added)

I don't know if you've seen the mobs of GLBTs and their supporters that have formed and marched on the Church's most holy places, but the ones who most loudly demand that all tolerate their whims and excesses are the least tolerant when they don't get their way. Look at the signs they carry. They openly announce that they want to strip the freedoms of those who oppose them. "Ban Mormons" (Freedom of religion?) "End tax exempt status for bigoted Mormon church. They preach hate and buy votes" (The Church does no such thing, but they'd like to punish us for it anyway. So far as I am aware, the Church's official efforts involved a letter, and possibly some flights for leaders to get together with other pro-Prop 8 leaders. The money and man hours came from individual decisions to donate time and money.) "Go back to Utah" (Restrictions on where Americans can live?)

Orson Scott Card (novelist and member of the Church) wrote a great piece about why homosexual marriage is a bad idea. He's writing following the Massachusetts court decision, so some of his comments are a bit dated, but the vast majority are still applicable. One of the things that Mr. Card does very well is talk about the effects of the changing of the definition of family on children, and thus on the society they create. The word "family" has, for time immemorial, meant "Mom, Dad, and kids." It usually includes extended family as well: Grandparents, Aunts & Uncles, ect. This creates stability for the children and also teaches them a myriad of things ranging from self-esteem to gender roles. Mr. Card talks at length about the societal benefits of monogamous traditional marriage. I'll give you a sampling:

But society has a vital stake in child-rearing; and children have a vital stake in society.

Monogamous marriage is by far the most effective foundation for a civilization. It provides most males an opportunity to mate (polygamous systems always result in surplus males that have no reproductive stake in society); it provides most females an opportunity to have a mate who is exclusively devoted to her. Those who are successful in mating are the ones who will have the strongest loyalty to the social order; so the system that provides reproductive success to the largest number is the system that will be most likely to keep a civilization alive.

Monogamy depends on the vast majority of society both openly and privately obeying the rules. Since the natural reproductive strategy for males is to mate with every likely female at every opportunity, males who are not restrained by social pressure and expectations will soon devolve into a sort of Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get. ...

Civilization requires the suppression of natural impulses that would break down the social order. Civilization thrives only when most members can be persuaded to behave unnaturally, and when those who don't follow the rules are censured in a meaningful way. ...

Civilizations that enforce rules of marriage that give most males and most females a chance to have children that live to reproduce in their turn are the civilizations that last the longest. It's such an obvious principle that few civilizations have even attempted to flout it. ...

Let me put it another way. The sex life of the people around me is none of my business; the homosexuality of some of my friends and associates has made no barrier between us, and as far as I know, my heterosexuality hasn't bothered them. That's what tolerance looks like.

But homosexual "marriage" is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society -- to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.

So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.

So what about if Prop 8 had passed? What if homosexual marriage was allowed? Would that have been the end of it and the GLBT movement will now leave the rest of us alone to get on with our lives? To think so is as childish as Mr. Olbermann’s original question. Having accomplished their goal of redefining what a marraige is, they'd continue to squash "discrimination" by insisting that everyone, regardless of their own beliefs, act in accordance with this vocal minority's beliefs. We would all need to teach our children not only that homosexuality is an option, but that it's as good or better than any other option. Mr. Card addressed this eventuality as well:

Once this is regarded as settled law, anyone who tries to teach children to aspire to create a child-centered family with a father and a mother will be labeled as a bigot and accused of hate speech.

Can you doubt that the textbooks will be far behind? Any depictions of "families" in schoolbooks will have to include a certain proportion of homosexual "marriages" as positive role models.

Television programs will start to show homosexual "marriages" as wonderful and happy (even as they continue to show heterosexual marriages as oppressive and conflict-ridden).

Can there be any doubt what a short trip it will be from this situation to outlawing the preaching in churches that denounces homosexuality?

Had I been in California (or the other states that had similar measures on the ballot) I would have been actively supporting Prop 8. My sister does live in CA, and did do some work to help it pass. I'm sure that eventually I will get my turn.

It's a very long answer to Mr. Olbermann’s short question. Love has very little to do with it. It's got to do with what is right and wrong, and what is best for the society as a whole. I believe that the movement for homosexual marriage will not be satisfied with "simply" redefining the word marriage, but that they will continue to seek to silence any that say anything whatsoever against their choices. I believe that my freedoms are threatened by their radical agenda. (I think their own freedoms are threatened by their actions and that they are too short-sighted to see what they are doing to harm themselves in their zeal to have what they want right now.) I have nothing against people who choose a homosexual lifestyle. I prefer that ALL people around me leave me in the dark about their sexual practices, regardless of what they are.

I believe that homosexual behavior is a choice and a wrong choice. I don't know that this alone would motivate me to oppose Prop 8. However.

I believe homosexual marriage is very bad for society. Therefore I oppose it.

Temple Protests

From "Temple Protests Go Too Far" by Bob Lonsberry:

In the name of tolerance, great intolerance is shown. The biggest bigots in our society are the ones who routinely accuse others of bigotry. ...

Those who favor abortion rights do not protest outside the parishes and cathedrals of Catholicism. Those who denounce militant Islam do not march around American mosques. Supporters of Palestinian rights do not shout through loudspeakers outside synagogues.

If they did, we would be offended as a society, and see the impropriety of their deeds.

But thousands can hatefully mill outside the gates of the sacred buildings of Mormonism and do so with impunity, knowing that their actions and motives will go unchallenged, that the evening news will bring them nothing but the publicity they seek. ...

Which is why this is taking place. In an act of bigotry against houses of worship, supporters of the homosexual agenda are sending a shot across the bow of every church, mosque, synagogue and temple in the country.

Either keep your mouth shut, or get what the Mormons are getting.

Here’s hoping that that warning will be ignored, and that people of conscience will have the courage of their convictions – that people of all faiths will stand their ground. Contention must be avoided, but not at the cost of capitulation.

Americans do not lose their civil rights because they believe in God or worship with their fellow believers. People of faith are as free to vote and speak their mind as anyone else.

What this episode teaches is that people of faith had better stand together in the defense of their rights, or they will be picked off one by one.

Read more...

Wish I Knew

I wish I knew her dialect.

I wish I knew HER. Her family, her village.

I wish I knew enough to know if she speaks the truth. If her words have been translated fairly.

I wish I knew where our President Elect was born.

Obama Citizenship Problems

Write your representatives. Tell them you want some substantial assurances that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen. He needs to answer the question.

Third Party Voting Results

Kudos to C-Span for posting some third party election results! It's an interactive map, and although Baldiwn didn't get enough vote to be listed on the main page, if you mose over the individual states he is often listed with the percent he took.

Kudos to CNN too. They have a nice list of total tallies for all the candidates, right down to a Lyttle, who got 103 votes.

Also interesting: the Green Party candidate, McKinney, was a woman. A black woman. Guess it just proves that the media's not really all that interested in third parites. A black woman would have gotten some coverage, you would think.

It's Just Too Bad

One Last Time, for a Laugh

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

Why Vote Baldwin

In a nutshell: you can't do the same thing and expect a different result.

Debate

That debate is actually on C-SPAN2, or you can watch it online here.

In Other Words

Here are some more lovely posts about the dangers of voting for the "lesser evil."

From Harvest Academy:

My question when I hear something like this is, "So how will it be any different if a Republican wins?" Don't get me wrong, I have been a "faithful Republican" all my life. I have never not voted Republican. I had these feelings of "gloom and doom" eight years ago when George Bush ran against Bill Clinton. ... However, over the past few years I have begun to realize that the Republican agenda is not that different from that of the Democrats. If you look at the outcomes the results are typically the same, no matter who is in office. What we end up with from either party is more government "programs", with a bigger National debt as a result, and more government control of our lives. We can see that thanks to President Bush things are just as bad as they would have been with Clinton, if not a little worse. He has single-handedly taken away more freedoms from the American People than any President before him, violated the constitution over and over again, and left us with a country that is teetering on the edge of collapse. In regards to this election, and many before this, I have heard a number of people express the sentiment that although John McCain isn't the ideal choice for President, in this case "you have to vote for the lesser of two evils." My contention is, the lesser of two evils is still evil. This is the President of the United States we are talking about. This is supposed to be the most venerated secular position known to man. To think of settling for "the lesser of two evils" in choosing who should hold this high office should be reprehensible.

Read more...

From Apples of Gold Ministries:

May I introduce to you the Constitution Party. This party's candidates are Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle. Here is what they stand for and have not danced around their convictions. You owe it to yourself and your children to look into your options. ... What direction do you see our government going? People say they want change, but these two main political parties have not brought us a real change. ... When was the last time we had another political party on the Oval Office? Wouldn't a new party show CHANGE? I understand these two main teams have some different experiences that many of you like, but are you 1000% positive in who you are voting for? Are you convinced that who you are considering voting for is the right choice for America?

What did our founding fathers work so hard for? Why would they go to battle against other countries in order to have a FREE nation? Why would they go the extra mile to be sure the Bill of Rights and Constitution was established? Why did people give up their lives for these documents?

We ARE a free nation and it's time we start living like we're free. We are free to make up our own minds without the media persuading us. We CAN get online and read about the other options. We do know how to figure out who WE want without the bombardment and onslaught of immoral ads that are targeted to fill our minds with their propaganda.

Read more...

Third Party Presidential Debate

CSPAN TO AIR PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE LIVE!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Free and Equal is pleased to announce that CSPAN will be covering tomorrow night's [October 23rd] debate LIVE from 9:00pm to 10:30 EST. Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin and Independent candidate Ralph Nader have confirmed their participation.
Read more...

Joe the Plumber on Obama

I tried to get the full video, but it's been pulled. This next one is a clip from "The O'Rilley Factor," and the commenter is pretty annoying & apparently thinks her viewers are pretty dim, but they do have a little more of what Obama said. "Spread the wealth around." Sounds pretty socialist to me.

Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin

From Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty blog:
The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign. ...

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate. (emphasis added)
Read more...

Choosing Between Two Evils

From Connor's Conundrums:
The Lesser of Two Evils

A common critique against the “lesser of two evils” mantra is that the lesser of two evils is still evil itself. The Lord appears to agree. This is nothing to be trifled with, as the Lord continues in the following verse by explicitly commanding us to shun all evil (including the “lesser”):

And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God. (Doctrine and Covenants 98:11; emphasis added)

Imagine if the Saints collectively upheld this rule, did their homework, and proactively supported the campaigns of those candidates that applied (after all, the Lord says to diligently seek for such people, not wait until the primaries and caucuses have decided the candidates for you). We alone would be a great force to be reckoned with, as would the worthy individuals we support.
Read more...

Democratic Lawyer Questions Obama's Citizenship

Examining the News

The Headmistress had a great idea:

---

Take an essay, an editorial, the transcript of a political speech, a news article. Copy and paste the article in question to a word processing document or a blog. Then read it slowly, very slowly. As you read each paragraph, try to sum up the point of that paragraph, exactly what was that paragraph saying? Type out your summing up of that paragraph, either in a bolder font above it or below it, putting that paragraph in parentheses.

---

I thought I'd try it out. My article is the first political thing I ran across over at Fox. (I wasn't in the mood to fool around with MSN's page.) So I have

---

Obama Fine-Tunes ‘Change’ Message, as Race Tightens

The presidential debate has turned from which candidate can deliver change to which candidate has the best change to deliver.

---

Here's my first impression after just glancing at the first little bit of this article. I haven't even read anything yet and I'm wondering: Since when does paragraph = one sentence?

---

And in the new messaging landscape, Barack Obama is fine-tuning the most basic element of his campaign.

---

This should go with the sentence above. The next three sentences should as well. That would be a paragraph. Connected thoughts on a single topic: the change in Obama's propaganda.

---

Obama, whose slogan has long been “Change We Can Believe In,” has since the end of the Democratic National Convention in late August altered his rallying cry — and not because it ends in a preposition.

Obama now speaks at a podium that bears the words “Change We Need.”

He advertises upcoming “Change We Need” rallies on his Web site. And he incorporates the modified phrase into his stump speeches.

---

Obama tweaked his call for change.

---

It may seem like a small tweak, but in the carefully calibrated Obama campaign nothing is incidental.

---

Obama et. all do nothing by accident.

---

“There’s a real distinction between more of the same John McCain would bring to this country and the change we need,” Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, when asked about the slogan shift.

“It’s not that we’re moving away from (the theme of change). We are incorporating the seriousness of the issues this country is facing with the commitment to change we have been talking about for 20 months.”

---

McCain's dangerous; we (Obama & friends) are responsible.

---

The sudden focus on change-iness, as Stephen Colbert might put it, comes after John McCain and running mate Sarah Palin began to market themselves as the true reformers. McCain declared “change is coming” in his GOP nomination acceptance speech, and the duo has since played up its maverick roots in television ads and on the campaign trail.

The poaching of Obama’s campaign theme coincides with an uptick in the polls for McCain, who has been leading in the Gallup daily tracking poll since just after the close of his party’s convention Sept. 4.

---

McCain stole Obama's thunder, and it's working. People like to hear about change.

---

The enthusiasm surrounding the GOP ticket has been attributed in large part to his history-making selection of Palin as his vice presidential nominee, but McCain’s themes also fly in the face of the Democratic Party’s attempts to cast his candidacy as a third Bush term.

“(Obama) needs a sharper, more focused, tighter, more immediate message,” Democratic pollster Doug Schoen said, casting the 2008 race as still a “simple” choice between Bush policies and real change. “The slogan is a baby step but it’s only that.”

He said the slogan adjustment is a recognition that, “we’re past the point where we need to believe in things. We need results.”

---

McCain's not as important as his VP, and his proposed change isn't genuine.

---

Obama himself has taken public exception to McCain’s use of the change theme.

As he does so, he draws the “distinction” Psaki referenced in the type of change he would deliver — change we need — versus McCain.

---

Obama is irritated that McCain is stealing his thunder and Obama further says his change is more desirable than McCain's.

---

“That’s the change the American people need,” Obama said in Golden, Colo., Tuesday. “While Senator McCain likes to talk about change these days, his economic program offers nothing but more of the same. The American people need more than change as a slogan — we need change that makes a real difference in your life.”

---

Like the Headmistress's commenter said: Yadda yadda yadda.

---

And Saturday in New Hampshire Obama said: “If we are going to bring about the change that we need, we have to understand what change is. We can’t be fooled because John McCain — I’ve been talking about change since we started this campaign.”

---

Yadda yadda yadda. He didn't even finish saying whatever it was he was going to say about McCain.

---

The Democratic presidential nominee used the “change we need” phrase several times in his nomination acceptance address in Denver. But the new rhetorical tack is still being incorporated into the campaign set.

Obama supporters Saturday in New Hampshire waved new “Change We Need” signs as the candidate spoke. But as recently as Sunday, Hillary Clinton stumped for Obama in Ohio at a podium decorated with a banner that displayed the old slogan.

Monday in Michigan, running mate Joe Biden was equipped with a “Change We Need” podium. Obama’s set on Tuesday said the same.

---

Hillary is outdated and somewhat on the fringes of the campaign.

---

The push-pull over change is similar to the rhetorical chess-play that emerged after the January Iowa caucuses in the Democratic primary, when the race between Obama and Hillary Clinton was widely viewed as a contest of change versus experience.

Bill and Hillary Clinton attempted to differentiate between the type of change being proffered in the primary campaigns, saying the former first lady would bring “change you can count on.”

---

Everyone talks about change this election. It's how they're playing the game this time.

---

The Obama campaign, though, has in the past few days attempted to use the financial turmoil on Wall Street to turn the campaign back to issues, and buttress their argument that McCain only talks about change.

---

Obama wants to talk about issues; Obama says McCain is just full of hot air.

---

McCain took heat Monday for saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

But the Arizona senator on Tuesday likewise applied his reform message to the financial meltdown.

“We’re going to start where the need for reform is greatest,” McCain said in Tampa, Fla. “In short order we’re going to put an end to the reckless conduct and unbridled greed that have caused the crisis on Wall Street. We’re gonna put a stop to it.”

However, McCain later returned to his years in Washington in an ad addressing the economy that pointed to “experience and leadership in a time of crisis.”

---

McCain says he's going to fix the economy... with more of the same.

Isn't "Senator" usually capitalized? I wonder if that's an actual typo or a subtle hit on McCain. Not that anything else in this article indicates that it should be given that much credit. This is not great writing. It's not even particularly good.

---

Leonard Steinhorn, professor of politics and media at American University, said the new Obama message seems to be an attempt to “create a partnership of change between Obama and the voters.”

He said the new rhetoric stresses the voters over himself, as he tries to blunt McCain’s use of his campaign theme.

“It’s not about the candidate. It’s about the type of society that we want, that we need to be different from the past eight years,” Steinhorn said. “There’s a subtle difference between the two, but the message is clear.”

---

Obama puts the voters before himself.

This is very interesting. I've been reading Literacy is Not Enough, and I think that Valentine Cunningham hit the nail on the head when she said this on page 10:

---

But there is, of course, reading and reading. And mere reading, base reading, simple, instrumental reading, does not raise you much above Jo's beast like level. [Jo is an illiterate street urchin in Dickens' Bleak House.] And what is most striking about the changing nature of modern reading material is how it moves us insistently back to a more and more simplistic, merely instrumental, reading position. We, and it, are progressively dumbed and dumbed-down. We are treated more and more as nearly-Jos, forced increasingly to inhabit a sort of glorified Reader's Digest kind of world, the zone of the hand-out, the precis, the ad-man's slogan, the politician's catch-phrase, the government department's brochure, the headline. Public words get progressively baby-like. The lettering up in neon is gargantuan easy reading stuff. The tabloids' mastheads come in massive print, as if for nursery readers. We're surrounded by baby-words writ large, and simple sentences for the learner reader. Public discourse is made up of little words, short phrases, small paragraphs [!], brief texts.

It is one of the great ironies of our time that as the means of modern writing production get more and more sophisticated, modern reading-content gets more and more playschool.

---

Case in point. Neither Obama nor Fox's Berger and Kapp, authors of the article, manage to use any complex sentences or vocabulary. Paragraphs are too short to communicate a complete idea. The single quote from McCain (The article is noticeably one-sided, in favor of Obama, who was complaining about Fox not endorsing him last I heard.) is more of the same.

Though I do think that Ms. Cunningham is not giving children's literature enough credit. It's better than this particular example of "public words."

Retaking NPR's Candidate Quiz

Keeley recently retook the Candidate Quiz, which matches you up with the Presidential Candidate that you agree with the most. And she got matched with a guy name Bob Barr & wondered, "Who's that?" Then I took the quiz and wondered the same thing.

Here are my most recent scores:

Bob Barr: 15
John McCain: 10
Barak Obama: 2
Ralph Nader: 1

Nader's score surprised me. I didn't think there was anyone that would be a bigger problem than Obama. But, like Keeley, I've never heard of this Bob Barr guy either. So I'm checking him out.

Bob Barr's official website.

He's certainly got a better resume than Obama.

Let's see. He's been involved with some groups that I know a bit about:
*The US House of Representatives,
*the National Rifle Association,
*CNN, and
*Ronald Regan's administration.

His bio also mentions some groups I don't know:
*American Conservative Union

From their website:
The American Conservative Union is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying organization. ACU's purpose is to communicate and advance the goals and principles of conservatism through one multi-issue, umbrella organization. ACU's Statement of Principles expresses our commitment to a market economy, the doctrine of original intent of the framers of the Constitution, traditional moral values, and a strong national defense.

*The Constitution Project’s Initiative on Liberty and Security

From their website:
Our Liberty and Security Initiative, created in response to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, addresses the importance of preserving civil liberties, even as we battle new forms of terrorism.

Privacy International

From their website:
Privacy International (PI) is a human rights group formed in 1990 as a watchdog on surveillance and privacy invasions by governments and corporations. PI is based in London, England, and has an office in Washington, D.C. We have campaigned across the world to protect people against intrusion by governments and corporations that seek to erode this fragile right. We believe that privacy forms part of the bedrock of freedoms, and our goal has always been to use every means to preserve it.

I'm not sold yet, but it's looking interesting. One thing that I like is that you can see in Mr. Barr's associations that he cares about the Constitution, and more particularly about the original intent of the framers. I'm off to check out the Constitution party guy that I ran across the other day.

My Beef With McCain

In a word: the Constitution.

More than any other consideration, I want a candidate that loves the Constitution. A President (and Congress, and Judiciary!) that will function within the limits that it places on their power.

I'm not convinced that McCain values the Constitution much at all. Consider the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform bill." It places limits on free speech. But not just any free speech, it limits who can say what about politicians during elections, just when people need to be the freest to say what they think about who ever happens to be running!

Consider this from Reason Online:

Item—In June, the FEC ruled that the Bill of Rights Educational Foundation, an Arizona nonprofit corporation headed by a conservative activist named David Hardy, could not advertise Hardy's pro-gun documentary (The Rights of the People) on television and radio during the pre-election season...

Item—On September 9, the FEC ruled that a conservative group called Citizens United was not a "media organization" and therefore could not use unrestricted money to broadcast ads marketing a book and film critical of Democratic presidential candidate...

Item—Also on September 9, the FEC ruled that the Ripon Society, a Republican group, could run TV ads touting the anti-terrorism efforts of "Republicans in Congress" because no political candidate was referred to in the ads...

Item—That day, the FEC also ruled that a Wisconsin car dealership, called the Russ Darrow Group, could continue using its own name in its car ads during the election season. ... [The] dealership's ads were not "electioneering" because they did not feature the candidate himself. ...

McCain didn't just sponsor this law (passed in 2002 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003), it's got his name on it. This says a lot to me. I don't want a man in the highest office in the land that doesn't mind tearing apart the Bill of Rights.

Reason Online continues:

Worries about free speech, however, have proved all too well founded. "We're heading into a new era," says Smith. "You get less protection talking about your congressman than for Internet pornography sites or burning a cross outside a church or topless dancing."
Astonishingly, the Supreme Court, which many in Congress had counted on to overturn the Wellstone amendment, instead ringingly ratified it. And so the law of the land now sharply circumscribes what is arguably the most important of all civil rights in a democracy: citizens groups' right to criticize politicians. "What the Supreme Court has done," says David O'Steen, the executive director of the National Right to Life Committee in Washington, "is make it possible for these guys to set limits on how and when they're criticized."

Read the whole article here.

I like McCain a whole lot better than I like Obama. And I'd be a whole lot more tempted by the Republican ticket if Palin was going for the Presidency rather than the Vice-Presidency. I like what I've seen of her. But with McCain at the top of the ticket I'm still in the market for a candidate that I can support.