Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (48050)	4/19/2011 9:40:25 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Debunking the birther claim By: CNN's Ed Hornick politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com Washington (CNN) – Developer and reality show host Donald Trump has been pushing the claim that President Obama was not born in the U.S. - a myth that has dogged the president since he took office. CNN has investigated these claims and here are the key points: Certificate of live birth The Obama team and the state of Hawaii released a certification of live birth, which documents the president’s birth on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu. This is not the original birth certificate. In Hawaii and other states, original birth certificates are not released when requested later. CNN has seen a copy of the document and verified that it is official. The certificate, officials say, allows a person born in Hawaii to get a driver's license, purchase land and obtain a U.S. passport. What about the signature? The so-called “birthers” say there's no signature or raised seal on the live birth certificate. But the group FactCheck.org ( factcheck.org ), which viewed the original document, took a picture of the back of it and found there is a stamped signature and a raised seal. Where’s the original birth certificate? Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health, says she has personally viewed the president's original vital records and verified that he was born in Hawaii. Former Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican, has been quoted as saying, "I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records at the Department of Health. We issued a news release at the time saying the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that is just a fact." Newspaper birth announcement The announcement of Obama's birth ( i2.cdn.turner.com ) appeared in the Honolulu Advertiser on August 13, 1961, and a day later in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin: “Mr. And Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4.” Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo told the Star-Advertiser in July 2009 ( the.honoluluadvertiser.com ) that vital statistics such as birth announcements were sent to the newspapers by the Health Department, which received the information from the hospital. These announcements were not sent in by the general public, Okubu said. Current governor weighs in Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, was a close friend of the Obamas and has repeatedly said he was around during the future president’s birth and childhood. What about his grandma’s claims? Trump makes the claim that Obama's stepgrandmother in Kenya, Sarah Obama, said in an interview that he was born in Kenya. But the interview was done by a man characterized as a “street preacher” through a translator and there appears to be confusion over her answer. The translator then came back and said Sarah Obama was saying that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. –CNN’s Brian Todd contributed to this report

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (48050)	4/17/2013 11:09:02 PM
From: greatplains_guy	Respond to of 71588

Follow the Constitution, Not the Majority Who Cares What the Majority Wants on Guns? By David Harsanyi - April 18, 2013 President Barack Obama has been struggling to wrap his head around the "unimaginable" idea that Congress may "defy" the American people and stop a vote on a gun control package compromise. The notion, he says, resists the "overwhelming instinct of the American people" after the massacre in Newtown, Conn., to pass gun control legislation. Well, the unthinkable happened. The Senate's sweeping gun legislation came up short on the votes required to move forward. And despite all the idealistic calls for passage and despite the fact that many pundits and advocates seem to believe that something should be law simply because "the vast majority of Americans" support it, not every issue deserves a majoritarian decision. To begin with, whether Democrats like it or not, this issue concerns the Constitution -- where stuff was written down for a reason. That's not to say that expanding background checks or banning "assault rifles" would be unconstitutional (though you may believe they both should be). It's to say that when you begin meddling with protections explicitly laid out in the founding document, a 60-vote threshold that slows down stampeding legislators is the least we deserve. The Founding Fathers worried that "some common impulse of passion" might lead many to subvert the rights of the few. It's a rational fear, one that is played out endlessly. Obama, who understands how to utilize public passion better than most, flew some of the Newtown families to Washington for a rally, imploring Americans to put "politics" aside and stop engaging in "political stunts." This is, by any measure, a preposterous assertion coming from a politician piggybacking tragic events for political gain. It would have been one thing, I suppose, if the gun control legislation written in the aftershock of a gruesome massacre had anything to do with the topic at hand. But what senators came up with would have done nothing to stop the shooter in Newtown -- or the one in Aurora, Colo. Passions can be aggravated by events, but in this case, events have little to do with the policy at hand. Cabinet positions and judges should probably not be held up over ideological concerns. But if Washington is internalizing the 60-vote threshold as the barrier to pass legislation, voters should be grateful. Considering Washington's propensity to politicize everything and its increasingly centralized power (what your health care looks like is now up for national referendums, for instance), slowing things down can only help. I'm not operating under the delusion that any of this is good national politics for Republicans -- though the arguments about obstructionism's dooming the GOP are probably overblown. No doubt, when the next disaster hits -- and it will -- Democrats will blame the overlords at the National Rifle Association and Republicans for the act of a madman. That's life. But generally speaking, it'd be nice if Congress occasionally challenged the vagaries of American majority "instinct." Though it might seem antithetical to their very existence, politicians should be less susceptible to the temporary whims, ideological currents and fears of the majority. Theoretically, at least, elected officials' first concern is the Constitution. And if the need for gun control is predicated chiefly on the polls taken immediately after a traumatic national event, they have a perfectly reasonable justification to slow things down. In fact, if Washington internalizes the 60-vote threshold as a matter of routine, voters should be grateful. Considering Washington's propensity to politicize everything and its increasingly centralized power (what your health care looks like is now up for national referendums, for instance), this might be the only way left to diffuse democracy. realclearpolitics.com