Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Major media networks on both sides of the political divide agree about one thing -- but are they right?

(Posted by Bryana Joy on May 25, 2012)

The major conservative and liberal media networks have found one thing to agree about: birthers are wackos, freaks and raving lunatics, to be avoided at all costs. The mainstream liberal pundits poke fun at the “conspiracy theories” they turn out in endless succession and conservative writers bemoan the way they waste their energies on irrelevant issues and detract from the credibility of conservatism. Unfortunately, the stigma that has been attached to these doubters has prevented many of their very valid concerns from receiving the media attention they deserve and has forced the natural-born citizen skeptics into an ignominious corner of public affairs where they can be comfortably avoided by respectable people.

Obviously, not all birthers are created equal: there’s birthers and then there’s birthers. Overall, though, the birthers have a lot of serious questions to ask about the Obama administration and the President of the United States, if only we can bring ourselves to pay attention to them.

However, regardless of whether or not their concerns turn out to be valid, it is a fatal mistake to shrug off the birthers as pursuing a “pointless” aim or to condemn them for distracting the American people from the damage that President Obama is doing to the union. On the contrary, it could be said that the birthers have hit upon the very crux of the matter of President Obama’s alarming authoritarianism.

Whether the birth certificates that the President has released are fraudulent or not, the doubters have a legitimate reason to be perturbed: it took President Obama three years to provide his evidence, and when he did so he did it in an arrogant and condescending manner. “We do not have time for this kind of silliness,” he said. “We’ve got better stuff to do.” Better stuff to do than assuring the American people that their Constitution has not been violated by their President? Better stuff to do than complying with the legal requirements of the nation that has elected you to be its leader? I think not.

Furthermore, there has been a slew of worrying claims leveled against the birth certificates that were finally released, and some of these are disturbing enough and compelling enough to merit some consideration and independent research at the very least.

In the first of a few examples,
Breitbart has released some unsettling information this week. As Mark Steyn puts it, “the lunatic theory that Barack Obama doesn’t meet the minimum eligibility requirements to be president of the United States was first advanced by Barack Obama’s official representative.”

CBS News reported several weeks ago that Arizona Sheriff Joe announced that his six-month investigation had found that "probable cause exists indicating that forgery and fraud may have been committed" in the release of President Obama's long-form birth certificate.Controversial journalist Jerome Corsi claimed last year that moles in the Department of Health in Hawaii say the birth certificate which the President ultimately released in 2011 was not present in the department records just a few weeks before it was released.

When investigators commissioned by Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio to examine Barack Obama’s eligibility for office went to look through the Immigration and Naturalization Service travel records, they found that the records for the week of Obama’s birth were missing.

Is Barack Obama a natural-born citizen? Is the birth certificate that he released three years after his election a valid document or a forgery?  We may never know the answers to these questions, but we should be able to expect our President to take our laws seriously and to respond with grace and understanding to challengers who demand further proof that he is what he says he is.

(First posted at The College Conservative)
President Obama

Why President Obama's very commitment to smooth Julia's way might be the biggest danger to her LIBERTY

(Posted by Bryana Joy on May 14, 2012)

President Obama’s newest campaign tool has been providing laughs all week in conservative circles. This is hardly surprising, as The Life of Julia meme, in addition to being short-sighted and factually inaccurate, almost seems to have been made for ridicule. There’s something in it for everyone to laugh at, and although not everyone can agree on just what it is that’s wrong with the poor Julia’s life, everyone agrees that something is wrong.

A little perusal of the web results in a smorgasbord of takes concerning the debacle of Julia from conservative bloggers and columnists. The most prominent of these seem to be:

Julia gets some awesome benefits, but the national debt skyrockets as a result of them, leaving her future uncertain

Julia has a better life under conservative leadership

Julia gets some awesome benefits alright, but she doesn’t represent the average American woman.

Julia gets some awesome benefits, but what about the men in her life?

Julia gets no awesomeness and no benefits.

Julia gets some awesome benefits and you and I pay for them.

The Obama campaign failed to consider some less desirable things that Julia will get

Julia may or may not get awesome benefits, but the whole thing is so laughable I don’t even want to think about it! Make the stupid people go awayyy…..

Julia gets some awesome benefits…..for a citizen in an Orwellian 1984 regime.

Upon further consideration, what Julia gets isn’t that awesome after all.

A number of these conservative responses are spot-on and insightful and even many liberals have weighed in against the Obama campaign on this one, but I’d like to spend a few moments considering a possibility for the Julia saga that I’m not seeing discussed as much as I’d like to, and that I think may be the most likely possibility of all:

What if Julia gets some awesome benefits for the price of her liberty?

Let’s suppose for a moment that the highly improbable is, in fact, true: that the champions of fiscal sanity and personal responsibility are wrong and that President Obama is not only altruistic but also correct in his figuring and that Julia gets awesome benefits. Let us suppose that Julia gets government money to be enrolled in a
Head Start program and that the program actually works and improves her three-year-old learning skills immensely, vaulting her into the world of grade school education with a bang. Let us suppose that Julia’s high school gets government money via Obama’s new Race to the Top program which also shocks everyone by actually working. Let us suppose that this money really does improve her SAT scores and that Julia also qualifies for President Obama’s American Opportunity tax credit and a Pell Grant, breezing through college, except for a short interlude during which she undergoes surgery that is covered by Obama’s healthcare plan.

And so on.

In short, let us suppose that everything goes right for Julia as she waltzes through life under the protective shadow of her government’s wings. Even so – even in this very unlikely paradise of Obama’s to which we have committed Julia – I would not want what Julia has, for Julia has got all of this at the expense of the most precious civil right she possesses:
her right to be right when the government is wrong.

Because it’s all well and good to be dependent on an altruistic governmental system you adore. If you are of one mind with your nation’s ruling powers, there is, theoretically, little reason to object to the concept of a shared money-bag and no fear of a future state of involuntary servitude to scare you away from the benefits of having all things in common.

The question is, what about when the system that claims a desire to nurture and nourish you is one with which you fundamentally disagree? Is it truly wise or even sane to support the burgeoning and swelling of such a system by feeding into its open jaws more and more responsibility for your life?

The question is, how is Julia going to break away from her protector and her supplier when he demands of her things she cannot in good conscience do? And the answer is that we don’t have to look far to find ample examples of the bondage that results from a people’s exaggerated dependence upon their government. 

How is Julia going to respond when her healthcare provider insists that her web design company pay
for her employees’ abortions or allocates her funds for the purpose of research utilizing aborted fetal cells? Who is likely to get the upper hand: Julia’s health or Julia’s conscience? What is she going to do when her privacy is violated by airport and train station security officials at every checkpoint? Who is likely to get the upper hand: Julia’s need to travel (to visit her aging parents, and to keep her job) or her privacy? What will she do when her children are subjected against her will through the public education system to ideological indoctrination concerning family, homosexuality, sex ed, political science, religion, history and everything in between? What will she do if she wishes to liberate her children from an education system she finds ineffective and abhorrent and to homeschool them but isn’t permitted to by her government? Who is likely to get the upper hand: Julia’s relatively comfortable lifestyle or Julia’s conscience and her children? 

I know not what course others may take, but it seems to me that handouts and awesome benefits pale in comparison with the freedom to think and to abide according to my convictions and to do business and raise children in the way that I see fit and to keep myself from becoming tethered to the manipulative and unstable monster that is government.

Upon further consideration, what Julia gets isn’t that great after all.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...