Monkeywrenching the political process

[unixronin]

With the popular vote in the just-past election so close, one could be forgiven for wondering how much the election may have been influenced by what amounts to an elaborate practical joke.

Of course, the article points out that the perpetrators observed that the news media could easily have exposed their hoax had they put the least effort into checking their facts.  But in this last election, by all appearances the media didn't WANT to check their facts, as long as the report involved something damaging to the McCain-Palin campaign.  Can you imagine the witch-hunt had Eitan Gorlin and Dan Mirvish chosen Barack Obama as their target?  Ah, but wait, we don't have to imagine — we have the persecution of Joe the Plumber as an example.

When I consider how one-sided the reporting of this past election campaign was, and yet how close the popular vote was, I find it hard to avoid speculating that in this Presidential election, the people of the United States did not elect Barack Obama; the news media did.

Comments

[smandal.livejournal.com]

Well, this is what I know:

* Palin *did* screw up her comprehension of the vice presidency. She basically has no say on policy except for her tiebreaker vote; the majority leader of the Senate would in fact have the right ot kick her out of any Senate proceeding, citing separation of powers (which has been done). I don't know what Biden said, but I find it hard to believe that a senator would not know the VP's role.

* I don't know what Obama said, but I find it hard to believe that a former editor of Harvard Law Review doesn't know how many states there are. If you read the NYT article, Fox is sticking by the story about Palin not knowing Africa is a continent. Morever, the hoax was about someone taking credit for the comment, not whether the comment was actually made by a McCain staffer.

* The media did scrutinize Obama's past, and found no story. His Hawaii birth certificate is legit, and everything he wrote in his autobiography checked out. Palin, OTOH, had a Down syndrome baby at a late age, and granddaughter out of wedlock -- this is a story given her family values/conservative platform, and because the GOP advertised her as an every-mom.

* I don't think it was particularly fair getting on Joe The Plumber for his lack of license and back taxes, but people rightly criticized him for thinking that Obama's tax increases would ever directly affect him.

Basically, in this election the Democrats had their shit straight and the GOP were the ones gaffing.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Basically, in this election the Democrats had their shit straight and the GOP were the ones gaffing.

Indeed. One could certainly argue that they didn't need any bias from the press to help them. But they got it anyway.


(At this point, I don't remember what Biden said either. And as for Barack Obama and law reviews... as a Director of the Joyce Foundation, the man bought up entire issues of law review journals in order to fill them with articles espousing the state-militia interpretation of the Second Amendment, as part of a plan to "poison" the legal literature on the subject. And it almost worked in DC v. Heller, making a 5:4 decision out of what might have been a 6:3 or a 7:2 one.)

[smandal.livejournal.com]

I just don't see the bias. If there was a story in Obama's past I think the Hillary camp would have found it. Moreover, if this were a viable angle, one would think that Fox would have run with it.

Now, one valid complaint of just about every MSM news source (right or left leaning) is that they don't pick apart and discuss policy at an intelligent level. Of course, they are just playing to their audience ...

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

If there was a story in Obama's past I think the Hillary camp would have found it.

Ludicrous.

Obama was slated to be her VP candidate. That's why they didn't attack him early on. By the time he was seen as possibly winning the whole thing, the press was in the tank, inside the other tank, which was inside another tank. In fact, it was tanks all the way down.

I just don't see the bias.

Considering you've admitted you didn't actually check on any of the points... (Biden's comments, 57 states...)

I don't think you're trying to look for it. Even if you found it, would you admit it?

[smandal.livejournal.com]

I freely admit that I haven't done the research myself -- I don't have the time. Instead, I go with a variety of news sources -- conservative, libertarian, liberal -- to see if there are differences of facts and get differences of intepretation. Since I don't see the bias, if one exists it's likely between MSM and indie, not left and right.

Also, I'm fairly certain I would admit Democratic flaws as I don't have a horse in the race (I try to never have one). So perhaps you could help me out here:

* Regarding the vice presidency, why is what Palin said correct, and what I explained wrong? I have the Constitution open in front of me, and I'm not getting it. The only powers the VP has beyond a White House staffer is a tiebreaking senate vote and 2nd place in the line-of-succession.

* I think it's well known that Obama's mom registered him as Muslim in his Indonesian school so he wouldn't feel left out and minimize the chances of discrimination. If Obama's campaign claimed otherwise, that would be a strike against.

* 57 states ... I think one could produce a blooper reel hours long of all the misstatements that any candidates say over an arduous campaign marked by sleep deprivation. Liberal commentators (e.g., Bill Maher) have also picked on McCain's apparent senile statements from the campaign trail. I think it's fair to give interviews and debates more weight in this regard, as they are in calm, controlled settings.

So, link me! I would prefer credible news sources that cite multiple sources and can produce documents.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

I freely admit that I haven't done the research myself
Then why would you come here and state your conclusions as if you knew what you're talking about?
When you preface most of your answers with "Well, I really don't know, but I can't imagine..." then how can you expect to be taken seriously at all with anything you're concluding?

Regarding the vice presidency

Here's the relevant transcript (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html). Note the question.

IFILL: ... Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. ...
IFILL: Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency?
BIDEN: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

There is one _duty_ defined in the Constitution. And it's in Article I. Legislative. The VP is not defined as part of the Executive Branch (which was the question being asked). Personally, I think it's somewhat of a silly lawyer trick - but I went and looked and hey, he's got a point!

I think it's well known that Obama's mom registered him as Muslim ...
Stepfather. And part of his schooling was at a Catholic school. Who's released his enrollment papers, denoting him as Muslim.

Remember what you started off saying...

What did the Obama-Biden camp say/do comparable in stupidity or malevolence to the McCain-Palin campaign?

Which does a decent job to tell me how much you've actually been paying attention.

57 states ... I think one could produce a blooper reel hours long of all the misstatements that any candidates say over an arduous campaign marked by sleep deprivation.

Remember, you said.. I find it hard to believe that a former editor of Harvard Law Review doesn't know how many states there are

No matter how hard you find it, he said it. He made many similar mistakes and missteps - particularly if the teleprompter was acting up. And yes, he was former HLR editor. Your "belief" fails reality. (Maybe it was number of primaries? But that's still wrong.)

Which is what you keep doing, despite us pointing out that factually, your belief isn't believable. I don't know why you'd state with such certainty opinions that aren't backed by facts and demolish your credibility.

All I can do is observe and note that you've done exactly that. As hard as it might seem to believe.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

I believe the simplest explanation consistent with the facts I have before me, namely that the Obama-Biden ticket had its p's and q's straight better than the McCain-Palin ticket. Since I'm not a political expert (nor wish to be), I rely on reputable news outlets from across the political spectrum to get my facts. I have not claimed otherwise.

So, I was justified in making my claim that there is no bias -- at least, in the MSM.

You offer three examples which you claim clearly show that the MSM is indeed biased and to believe otherwise is to be counterfactual. Well, I disagree:


Biden doesn't know the VP's role, either

Biden understands the VP's duties (cast tiebreaking senate vote; benchwarmer) and powers (to serve at the pleasure of the president, which places him in the executive branch). This doesn't leave much flexibility that Palin is going on about, nor later in her interview where she was asking a child's question. However, I would agree that his jab at the unitary executive theory is a non sequitur.


Obama was not forthcoming about being raised Muslim

Perhaps this article (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070124-1317-obama-2008.html) during the primary started this rumor, but it also ends the rumor. CNN followed up (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/), and mentions how Obama writes about taking Koranic classes at his Muslim school.


Verbal slips on the campaign trail

Sorry, this is just an exercise in context-dropping. McCain has made plenty himself (see YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mccain+senior+moments&search_type=&aq=1&oq=mccain+seni)) , and the MSM did not hold it against him either.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

I rely on reputable news outlets from across the political spectrum to get my facts. I have not claimed otherwise.

The original point being that those were very biased and slanted.

Which you have been echoing very biased and slanted comments - without apparently realizing it. People have been giving you examples, which you're dismissing out of hand, even while you admit you don't know the context or situation enough to do that.

Biden understands the VP's duties (cast tiebreaking senate vote; benchwarmer) and powers (to serve at the pleasure of the president, which places him in the executive branch).

It does not. If you had the Constitution in front of you, as you claimed earlier, you can quickly verify this.

The Vice President's duty is listed, where?

And he does not serve at the "pleasure of the president". That's utterly nonsensical. They run as a ticket together (originally it was the 1st runner up who was the VP - which further would frustrate the view that Biden was correct - would you want McCain as Obama's VP, or Gore as Bush's? Do you think that the VP would be a close part of the "executive" when they were the first loser in the contest?

After the election of the ticket, the VP cannot be removed by the President. In fact, only Congress can remove a Vice President. Replacing a Vice President requires Senate Confirmation (http://www.pacificaradioarchives.org/browse/recording.php?recid=392&catid=3&PHPSESSID=f4ecea45123ab5eaf85a59bf10b01feb). Again, "not at the pleasure".

Biden was wrong about the duty, he was wrong about the location and placement, and while Palin didn't say much ("That it was flexible") - she was correct. Biden was flat wrong.

Perhaps this article during the primary started this rumor, but it also ends the rumor.

Quite the opposite. I thought I had mentioned that the registration forms were released from the Catholic School. '“Moreover, he studied earlier at Fransiskus Assisi, which is clearly a Catholic school.”'

The registration forms from the Catholic school - clearly showing him under "religion" as "Muslim" are available on the internet with some minor searching.

It doesn't "end the rumor". Obama, at some point in time, was educated as a Muslim (even in the Catholic School). Thus, it's not a rumor, it's not debunked, and it's factual. (As little as it matters. What matters to me is the pattern of denial, then coverup when the denial fails.)
What have you done? You've claimed it was "debunked" when it was confirmed.

Obama was at one point, considered Muslim. Now, I don't care. I have no religion, and don't care about others. Except in some contexts. The fact that we now have (who will - hell is - be seen as) an apostate Muslim as the lead Executive may well have large implications to foreign policy and dealing with Muslim radicals.

Verbal slips on the campaign trail

And in how many does he miss how many States are in the Union? Or anything substantiative?

How about the LA Time dinner tape that they're withholding?
What about inquires into Ayers and Dohrn?

I was justified in making my claim that there is no bias -- at least, in the MSM.

You do realize that even the media (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html) is disagreeing with you that there wasn't a massive bias.
Or the celebrations in the press tents the night of Nov 4th.
Or the fact that 95% of media contributions went to Obama.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

The fact that we now have [...] an apostate Muslim as the lead Executive may well have large implications to foreign policy and dealing with Muslim radicals.

Oh hell, yeah. I hadn't put that together. If there's one thing the radical/fundamentalist Muslims hate worse than infidels, it's apostates.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

Heh.

I was making it about 18 months ago to the "early adopters", as they talked about how "tone deaf" Bush was to the "international community".

"So, you're supporting a guy who all of the radial Islamic states we're dealing with will have a problem with."

"Whaaa?"

"Even if he's never been a Muslim, if they think he is, then he's an apostate. So they can "deal with the apostate", and deal with the fallout at home, or... Yeah, it can get complicated.

"He's not Muslim!" "But what if they THINK he is, or was?" "That's just a right wing lie!" "Uh, I'm asking, what their PERCEPTION might be." "But he's NOT!"

And usually about there I gave up.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

* You're right, I was wrong to say the VP serves at the "pleasure of the president." This doesn't change the argument.

The vice president has the tiebreaking vote, is second-in-the-line of succession, and has whatever influence derives from these facts. He indeed in the executive branch as specified in Article II Section 1 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2); that his one power is specified in Article I is irrelevant.

Palin was being vacuous, because there's nothing to be flexible about. If the VP has any enhanced authority, it's because it "pleases" the President to informally delegate authority to negotiate as he would to some White House staffer or even private citizen.

Biden got it right.

* The rumor in question is that Obama is a covert Muslim. I agree, there's nothing covert about it -- he himself discussed the Muslim aspects of his upbringing. This is precisely why it's a non-story.

As to the question of whether or not it influences perceptions of radical Islamists, unless Obama professed to be a Muslim, then professed to be something else, it's not apostasty. (He was not "born" Muslim because his parents were non-practicing and atheist, respectively.) And, it hardly matters since the radical Islamists in question want to destroy America, assassinate the President, etc. anyway.

* As for a "substantive gaffe" from the McCain camp, here's the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6hGY985Zio) from the top of the list.

Finally, the Washington Post may lean liberal, but Fox, Washington Times and Wall Street Journal do not; and, if there was anything to Ayers or the LA dinner tape, it would have leaked for a nice payday.

You're reaching.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

You're right, I was wrong to say the VP serves at the "pleasure of the president." This doesn't change the argument.

It is continually proving that you have not studied the issue, yet are making definitive pronouncements. It doesn't change that, at all. The "novel legal argument" which was the question (That you didn't even know how Biden had answered but "believed" that he had to know), was that the Vice President is in actuality, part of the Legislative Branch.

And you know what? That's the only place a duty is defined.

And there is but 1 duty defined. As Palin said, it can be very flexible.

Not, as Biden said, that "Everybody knows" it's in the Executive Branch. If it was, why is the duty not specified there?

But I think the point has been made, and made well - the press got to your opinion long before you looked at the facts of the matter, and you've made your mind up. And having made your mind up, you're not going to question your conclusions, much less the assumptions they were made upon.

Thus proving unixronin's very point solidly.

Finally, the Washington Post may lean liberal, but Fox, Washington Times and Wall Street Journal do not; and, if there was anything to Ayers or the LA dinner tape, it would have leaked for a nice payday.

Fox does indeed lean liberal. Just not as much as the rest. They have a lot of conservative commentators, but again, as you're screaming FOX FOX FOX to the "The media is biased", you're again confirming that it is, and you know it. The Wall Street Journal is famous for it's left wing reporters.

The editors aren't, but that dichotomy at that paper is very famous for that.

And even if you were totally right, Fox, the WT, and WSJ together reach less people than even 1 of the nightly newscasts of the major networks.

LA Time never released the tape, despite much interest. Payday or not, they withheld it for their own reasons (they have multiple conflicting stories). The tape would have been damaging. Your "Belief" that they would have made so much that it would have been released is yet again unfounded.
You continually "believe" to start your thought process, then as facts contrary to your "belief" are pointed out, that they (to you) are irrelevant, or minor, not trumping your pre-formed "Belief".
It's not logical or indicative of critical thinking, throwing any other conclusions you've made into strong question.

Even if Fox doesn't lean liberal, does that excuse all the others? So they do "lean liberal"? You're admitting that? Despite arguing every nit and saying that they don't previously?

Laugh at the WP's ombudsman's comments - but she disagrees with you and she's in the newsroom.

She wasn't just talking about the WP. The fact that over 100 reporters were sent to Alaska to "discover Palin" - while only 1 attempted to interview Ayers (and they were from the hated FOX News), and none went to "discover Biden" again, shows that you're wrong about the coverage.

As long as you refuse to change your conceptions, you'll remain so, in denial, and in opposition when even the press says "Yeah, we were in the tank". Are you going to write Howell and tell her she's wrong? She has no idea?

See, this started out as "how one-sided the coverage was", and you said "I don't know what's going on, but it was hardly one sided, even though I reiterate, I don't know what's happened".

And you've held to that belief, attacking any and all of the examples, dismissing every one out of hand as irrelevant or minor.

Added together, they make for an obvious pattern - one even the press is admitting was shameful. Any one might be happenstance. Any two might be just coincidence. Once you start getting to every decision going in the same way, to harm McCain/Palin and help Obama/Biden, then no, it's not just an accident.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

You have not provided any knowledge that was not already out there for even a lay reader like myself. Indeed, your examples do not hold water.

You simply choose to construe the same facts to fit your preconception, that the entire MSM (including those sources with largely conservative readership, like National Review) has a liberal bias.

This is a far more complex hypothesis than mine, which is that there was no story lurking with the Obama-Biden ticket -- they were competent and boringly who they said they are.

Unless you have new information that shows that my hypothesis to be counterfactual, I don't see why I should be persuaded to your more complex one.

I fear that the GOP has the same mindset and will persist in "gotcha" politics like during the campaign, lobbing smears that won't stick. This is unfortunate for the country, because many substantive criticisms can be made of the Democrats, and this will be needed with their newly gained power. It's time for the grown-ups to be in charge of the GOP again.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

You have not provided any knowledge that was not already out there for even a lay reader like myself.

Which ought to indicate to you that it wasn't that hidden. Yet it didn't make it into the "MSM". That's MainStream Media. Not niche media.

Of your examples, only Fox News would be considered MSM.

Unless you have new information that shows that my hypothesis to be counterfactual,

Which I've presented and you've ignored.

In fact, you're exhibited exactly the same thought process as the MSM, which might explain some of your defensiveness.

You "believe" something, then went to look for ways to "prove" it. Your MO is exactly what we're complaining about, it's not surprising that you fail to see it as a problem.

You simply choose to construe the same facts to fit your preconception, that the entire MSM (including those sources with largely conservative readership, like National Review) has a liberal bias.

Watch out, those strawmen are flammable. You're now flat-out-lying. I've never said that, nor even indicated it. I'm sure you "believe" I think that. But, as you've been throughout this thread, you're wrong.

This is a far more complex hypothesis than mine, which is that there was no story lurking with the Obama-Biden ticket -- they were competent and boringly who they said they are.

Considering the MSM didn't even start to investigate the previous scandals, associations, and previous work history, this is a laughable hypothesis. We've presented many cases that would call it into question, you dismiss each of them individually, ignoring what the sum total of the issues proves you wrong.

You've said "I can't believe that [something happened that did]" several times. Nevermind what that should indicate to you as to your conclusion-drawing ability, you just continue down the same path. Just as the MSM did.

because many substantive criticisms can be made of the Democrats,

And they'll be dismissed, just as you've dismissed all the bias. Exactly the same way. After all, they "believe" they're fair, and anything that disproves that, well, it "just doesn't hold water."

Want to see the problem with the MSM? Look in the mirror, you're proving unixronin's point, not disproving it.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

I'll just add that you made the case for WSJ and Fox being liberal, which again wasn't very convincing. And National Review is certainly mainstream, just like The Nation is on the liberal side.

I know you never said that you are fitting the same facts to your preconception, but I realize now that that's precisely what you are doing. I hoped to be enlightened, but you have not delivered.

Your conspiracy theory is not believable, because the same facts fit the boring theory much better; any additional "facts" you offer is just tilting at windmills. It's like claiming that imaginary pink unicorns got Obama elected, and then complaining that the MSM failed to investigate it.

If you have any real evidence that the MSM failed to do their due diligence, please let me know. Just to be fair, I'll give you two examples of new data that would change my mind:

* An adult Obama is on videotape attending a mosque or praying Muslim-style for a non-political event.

* Biden is shown at a senate committee meeting with the proceedings flying over the head, or gives an interview showing the same.

Mind you, McCain has actively courted the Religious Right in public, and Palin already bombed the interview with Charlie Gibson.

Until then, all you have to offer is paranoia.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

Until then, all you have to offer is paranoia.

You really need to look up "projection".

Your conspiracy theory is not believable,

I've posited no conspiracy theory. Just as I've not said the other strawmen you've credited to me

because the same facts

Remembering that you've declared off limits the facts that don't fit your admittedly uninformed initial "conclusion";

fit the boring theory much better;

per your classification. I reject it, as I reject your dishonest classification that I have a "conspiracy theory". I believe in no conspiracy.

Let's especially remember that you're rejecting all the information you admit you didn't know when you made your decision. And now it's irrelevant, wrong, or in some other way not sufficient to change your initial opinion. On anything. Despite all the things mentioned, your "beliefs" are still paramount. Unchanged. Unchallenged.

Of course, when you reject all that could possibly challenge your preconceived notions..

I hoped to be enlightened

I don't know if that's honest or not, but,

but you have not delivered.

Even Mohammed had to go to the mountain.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

I'm not a political junkie, and I don't have time to verify every fact. We do this all the time in our lives -- e.g., we don't go to medical school, we seek doctors who seem to know what they're talking about.

I was hoping you would show me why the MSM can't be trusted in this regard vis-a-vis Obama, but I remain unconvinced. I have given you my standard of evidence, which is no different from that for the criticism leveled at the Republicans.

This being said, I appreciate the time you have spent here.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

Let me tidy up a bit of reasoning: if I all consume are MSM news sources, how do I know that the MSM isn't biased?

I cannot be absolutely certain, of course, but it's more believable that Obama-Biden have in fact been properly vetted rather than National Review and Fox being in on a vast conspiracy to elect the Democrats.

However, this still leaves room for indie media to say something useful by directing investigative resources towards issues that the MSM thinks are non-stories. It's a question of whether or not what they come up with passes any kind of muster.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

I cannot be absolutely certain, of course, but it's more believable

When you're rejecting facts in favor of "probabilities" (thus throwing immense doubt on your ability to judge probabilities), I think I should merely quote my friend pdb (http://papadeltabravo.com/blog), with his take on your position, from early yesterday:

"I am uncomfortable with your facts disagreeing with my preconceptions!"

[smandal.livejournal.com]

As I describe in the other post, your "facts" are just your own mistaken analysis. Of course I reject them.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

Palin *did* screw up her comprehension of the vice presidency.

No, she didn't. And if you don't know what Biden said:
I don't know what Biden said, but I find it hard to believe that a senator would not know the VP's role.

Then it's impossible to take seriously that you know what Palin said. Considering their two answers were right after the other. There's no reasonable way you read Palin's answer and didn't read Biden's.

Unless you're proving his original point.

I find it hard to believe that a senator would not know the VP's role.

So did I, but he didn't. Plus he's a lawyer.

I don't know what Obama said, but I find it hard to believe that a former editor of Harvard Law Review doesn't know how many states there are.

Then why are you commenting instead of looking up what he said?

So your "feelings" outweigh facts? Again, you're proving unixronin's point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

How can you dare to refute facts with "Well, I just can't believe that. I just can't. It couldn't have happened."

The media did scrutinize Obama's past, and found no story.

Considering how much you've admitted that you don't know, you might want to back off there on how much you know about that much.

They gave no scrutiny to his years on the Board of the Joyce Foundation - as noted - when they were buying law review issues. They didn't go into his Indonesian years, when he was schooled as a Muslim. (Hey, I don't care. I went to a Lutheran church when I was that age, I'm not Lutheran.) But his campaign claimed that it never happened, and it did.

They barely mentioned Tony Rezko..
Bernadette Dorhn.
His prior campaigns.

What party did he originally win office as a member of?

everything he wrote in his autobiography checked out.

I think your lack of research is showing again.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Plus he's a lawyer.

You know, this actually jogged a thought in my brain earlier. And I just now got around to posting it.



You see, I've heard lots of people say "Obama could/would never do anything to undermine the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, he's a Constitutional law scholar/professor!"

This is a complete non-sequitur. There is absolutely nothing about being a Constitutional law scholar or professor that says he wouldn't attack or attempt to subvert the Constitution. What's the first thing you do when planning a military operation against an enemy target?

That's right. You study your enemy and your target.

Sure, I have no problem accepting that Obama has studied the Constitution. Any argument that says that automatically proves he believes in it is sheer nonsense. It proves no such thing.

Granted, it doesn't prove he is hostile to it either. But when one weighs his words in his Presidential election campaign against his documented and provable past actions as a private citizen, as an Illinois state Senator and as a US Senator, his actions speak far, far louder than his words.