also, courts ruled the draft was not forced servitude in Butler v. Perry. nm
Posted By: Amanda on 2009-06-22
In Reply to: He is registered - but we do not have a draft so it does not matter - - Amanda
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
fear has ruled us for eight years
It is a breath of fresh air to show TRUE faith in God, America, and Americans, by not being afraid of us.
Your hand up is called indentured servitude.
it just got a lot of people killed in Louisiana. It's why we have third and fourth generation welfare families and inhumane lifestyles. You do not challenge people to do better, have better lives.You say, vote for me and I will give you more food stamps. Stay with me, and I will fund your abortions on the state and also pay to deliver your 8th child, so that you can remain in poverty and I can control you. THAT IS YOUR HAND UP. It's criminal. One day the black population will see what you have done. I pity you that day.
White house butler guy.....you can't be serious.
He will be one of Obama's top advisors. You can't be that naive.
As to the Chicago political machine...google it. The Daleys of Chicago...crooked as a dog's hind leg comes to mind...you don't remember the current Mayor daley's dad?
Can't believe you never heard of the Chicago political machine. Obama was part of it, and he is bringing it with him to the White House. Yeah, that concerns me...and last time I looked, I have a right to be concerned.
The White House Butler guy
Ever see One Life to Live. Remember Asa Buchanan's butler, Nigel? Nigel knew more about Asa than his own family. OF COURSE, I understand what a Chief of Staff is. The position still sounds like a great big butler to me...one who sees all and knows all, exercises great discretion and is trusted by his employer.
To begin, I live in a parallel universe from you. I have no reason whatsoever to Google Chicago politial machine. I have seen the term thrown around here and there in paranoid rants and I am also acutely aware of how Chicago politics has been depicted by the right-wingers ever since the 60s...my mom being my prime source on that one (a Goldwater republican). I do not share this world view. When I think of Chicago politics, I think in terms of ideology, but that is a different story from this.
I was simply trying to get you to explain YOUR take on it and also why it is that you find so much fault ALREADY with Rahm Emanuel. He certainly will not be Obama's only advisor. As a matter of fact, Obama is bound to surround himself with many, many advisors from both sides of the aisle who represent a very WIDE variety of viewpoints, all of which he will listen to, consider, draw conclusions, formulate plans and policy initiatives and execute what he feels best. That's my thing. I was simply trying to get you to explain yours.
Jon Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
HNN History News Network Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.
12-20-04 An Interview with Jon Butler ... Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
By Rick Shenkman
Mr. Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University, is the author of Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People(Harvard University Press, 1990). This interview was conducted by HNN editor Rick Shenkman for The Learning Channel series, Myth America, which aired several years ago.
You hear it all the time from the right wing. The United States was founded as a Christian country. What do you make of that?
Well, first of all, it wasn't. The United States wasn't founded as a Christian country. Religion played very little role in the American Revolution and it played very little role in the making of the Constitution. That's largely because the Founding Fathers were on the whole deists who had a very abstract conception of God, whose view of God was not a God who acted in the world today and manipulated events in a way that actually changed the course of human history. Their view of religion was really a view that stressed ethics and morals rather than a direct divine intervention.
And when you use the term deists, define that. What does that mean?
A deist means someone who believes in the existence of God or a God, the God who sets the world into being, lays down moral and ethical principals and then charges men and women with living lives according to those principals but does not intervene in the world on a daily basis.
Let's go through some of them. George Washington?
George Washington was a man for whom if you were to look at his writings, you would be very hard pressed to find any deep, personal involvement with religion. Washington thought religion was important for the culture and he thought religion was important for soldiers largely because he hoped it would instill good discipline, though he was often bitterly disappointed by the discipline that it did or didn't instill.
And he thought that society needed religion. But he was not a pious man himself. That is, he wasn't someone who was given to daily Bible reading. He wasn't someone who was evangelical. He simply was a believer. It's fair, perfectly fair, to describe Washington as a believer but not as someone whose daily behavior, whose political life, whose principals are so deeply infected by religion that you would have felt it if you were talking to him.
Thomas Jefferson?
Well, Jefferson's interesting because recently evangelicals, some evangelicals, have tried to make Jefferson out as an evangelical. Jefferson actually was deeply interested in the question of religion and morals and it's why Jefferson, particularly in his later years, developed a notebook of Jesus' sayings that he found morally and ethically interesting. It's now long since been published and is sometimes called, The Jefferson Bible. But Jefferson had real trouble with the Divinity of Christ and he had real trouble with the description of various events mentioned in both the New and the Old Testament so that he was an enlightened skeptic who was profoundly interested in the figure of Christ as a human being and as an ethical teacher. But he was not religious in any modern meaning of that word or any eighteenth century meaning of that word. He wasn't a regular church goer and he never affiliated himself with a religious denomination--unlike Washington who actually did. He was an Episcopalian. Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that.
Where does he stand on Christ exactly?
Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ, but he believed that Christ was a deeply interesting and profoundly important moral or ethical teacher and it was in Christ's moral and ethical teachings that Jefferson was particularly interested. And so that's what attracted him to the figure of Christ was the moral and ethical teachings as described in the New Testament. But he was not an evangelical and he was not a deeply pious individual.
Let's move on to Benjamin Franklin.
Benjamin Franklin was even less religious than Washington and Jefferson. Franklin was an egotist. Franklin was someone who believed far more in himself than he could possibly have believed have believed in the divinity of Christ, which he didn't. He believed in such things as the transmigration of souls. That is that human, that humans came into being in another existence and he may have had occult beliefs. He was a Mason who was deeply interested in Masonic secrets and there are some signs that Franklin believed in the mysteries of Occultism though he never really wrote much about it and never really said much about it. Franklin is another writer whom you can read all you want to read in the many published volumes of Franklin's writings and read very little about religion.
Where did the conservatives come up with this idea that the Founding Fathers were so religious?
Well, when they discuss the Founding Fathers or when individuals who are interested in stressing the role of religion in the period of the American Revolution discuss this subject, they often stress several characteristics. One is that it is absolutely true that many of the second level and third levels in the American Revolution were themselves church members and some of them were deeply involved in religion themselves.
It's also true that most Protestant clergymen at the time of the American Revolution, especially toward the end of the Revolution, very eagerly backed the Revolution. So there's a great deal of formal religious support for the American Revolution and that makes it appear as though this is a Christian nation or that religion had something to do with the coming of the Revolution, the texture of the Revolution, the making of the Revolution.
But I think that many historians will argue and I think quite correctly that the Revolution was a political event. It was centered in an understanding of what politics is and by that we mean secular politics, holding power. Who has authority? Why should they have authority? It wasn't centered in religious events. It wasn't centered in miracles. It wasn't centered in church disputes. There was some difficulty with the Anglican church but it was relatively minor and as an example all one needs to do is look at the Declaration of Independence. Neither in Jefferson's beautifully written opening statement in the Declaration nor in the long list of grievances against George the Third does religion figure in any important way anywhere.And the Declaration of Independence accurately summarizes the motivations of those who were back the American Revolution.
Some of the conservatives will say, well, but it does make a reference to nature's God and isn't that a bow to religion?
It is a bow to religion but it's hardly a bow to evangelicalism. Nature's God was the deist's God. Nature's God, When evangelicals discuss religion they mean to speak of the God of the Old and the New Testament not the God of nature. The God of nature is an almost secular God and in a certain way that actually makes the point that that's a deistical understanding of religion not a specifically Christian understanding of religion. To talk about nature's God is not to talk about the God of Christ.
John Patrick Diggins has advanced the argument that not only were the Founding Fathers not particularly religious but in fact they were deeply suspicious of religion because of the role that they saw religion played in old Europe, where they saw it not as cohesive but as divisive. Do you agree?
The answer is yes and the reason is very simple. The principal Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin--were in fact deeply suspicious of a European pattern of governmental involvement in religion. They were deeply concerned about an involvement in religion because they saw government as corrupting religion. Ministers who were paid by the state and paid by the government didn't pay any attention to their parishes. They didn't care about their parishioners. They could have, they sold their parishes. They sold their jobs and brought in a hireling to do it and they wandered off to live somewhere else and they didn't need to pay attention to their parishioners because the parishioners weren't paying them. The state was paying them.
In addition, it corrupts the state. That is, it brings into government elements of politics and elements of religion that are less than desirable. The most important being coercion. When government is involved with religion in a positive way, the history that these men saw was a history of coercion and a history of coercion meant a history of physical coercion and it meant ultimately warfare. Most of the wars from 1300 to 1800 had been religious wars and the wars that these men knew about in particular were the wars of religion that were fought over the Reformation in which Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other, stuffed Bibles into the slit stomachs of dead soldiers so that they would eat, literally eat, their words, eat the words of an alien Bible and die with those words in their stomachs. This was the world of government involvement with religion that these men knew and a world they wanted to reject.
To create the United States meant to create a new nation free from those old attachments and that's what they created in 1776 and that's what they perfected in 1789 with the coming of the federal government. And thus it's not an accident that the First Amendment deals with religion. It doesn't just deal with Christianity. It deals with religion with a small r meaning all things religious.
What about the conservatives' belief that we need to go back to the religion of the Founding Fathers?
If we went back to the religion of the Founding Fathers we would go back to deism. If we picked up modern religion, it's not the religion of the Founding Fathers. Indeed, we are probably more religious than the society that created the American Revolution. There are a number of ways to think about that. Sixty percent of Americans belong to churches today , 20 percent belonged in 1776. And if we count slaves, for example, it probably reduces the figure to 10 percent of the society that belonged to any kind of religious organization.
Modern Americans probably know more about religious doctrine in general, Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, than most Americans did in 1776. I would argue that America in the 1990s is a far more deeply religious society, whose politics is more driven by religion, than it was in 1776. So those who want to go back would be going back to a much more profoundly secular society.
What do you make of the politicians who take the opposite point of view. It must make you go crazy.
It doesn't make me go crazy. It makes me feel sad because it's inaccurate. It's not a historically accurate view of American society. It's a very useful view because many modern men and women are driven by a jeremiad, that is jeremiad lamenting the conditions in the wilderness. We tend to feel bad when we hear that we are not as religious as our fathers or our grandfathers or our great grandfathers and that spurs many of us on to greater religious activity. Unfortunately in this case the jeremiad simply isn't true. And I don't think that those who insist it is true would really want to go back to the kind of society that existed on thee eve of the American Revolution.
Americans do become religious in the nineteenth century, don't they? That's what you say in your book.
The American Revolution created the basis for new uses of religion in a new society and that was conveyed in the lesson taught by the First Amendment. If government was no longer going to be supporting religion how was religion going to support itself? It would have to support itself by its own means. Through its own measures. It would have to generate its measures. And this is what every one of the churches began to do. As soon as religion dropped out of the state and the state dropped out of religion, the churches began fending for themselves. And they discovered that in fending for themselves that their contributions were going up, they were producing more newspapers, more tracts, they were beginning to circulate those tracts, they created a national religious economy long before there was a secular economy. You could trade more actively in religious goods than you could in other kinds in the United States in 1805, 1810.
What happened in the United States is that the churches actually benefited from this separation of church and state that was dictated by the First Amendment. In addition to which America became kind of a spiritual hothouse in the nineteenth century. Not only did the quantity off religion go up but so did the proliferation of doctrine. There became new religions--the Mormons, the spiritualists--all created in the United States. New religious groups that no one had ever heard of before, that had never existed anywhere else in western society than in the United States.
No, it's not complete......still in the courts
Obama and hs lawyer have tried to get this entire thing dismissed but to no avail. I guess this judge can't be bought. We'll see.
So you say, but evidently the courts
I have a tendency to agree with them....so do an overwhelming majority of rational citizens who are just as disgusted as I am over the mental illness that is the driving force behind this lunacy.
The courts aren't allowing it - the
REPUBLICAN leaning Supreme Court denied this today, so hopefully the ones clinging to this nonsense will open their eyes and see that it was baseless all along.
It has been release, viewed by the courts
Sme people just want to live inside the lies they create...and often are not able to distinguish reality from fiction. Most children outgrow this but, on the other hand, some never do.
If they cannot get information from the courts, there is nothing to report!
nm
I love it...when the courts decide against liberals...
they are biased and wrong. When they decide for liberals...they are right on and good old boys. Can we just admit it...you don't care what the facts are. Conservatives are wrong and Bush is wrong...every time posting, every time opening mouth.
If Bush was a Democrat, we would not be having any of these discussions.
What a twisted value system. Twisted.
So if this is true, then just produce your BC to the courts, hmmm...
Is Barack Obama a U.S. citizen?"
Of course he is, dummy..
"But how do you know?"
Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website. Not to mention, the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . Also, factcheck.org (a non-partisan and highly credible political fact checking website) investigated it heavily and validated, beyond doubt, that the birth certificate he posted was real. Did I mention that if there were an actual conspiracy surrounding this...it would have to be 47 years in the making? That's right, read it and weep: his birth announcement was posted in a Hawaii newspaper way back in 1961! But if you're really not sure, just remember there have been court cases challenging his citizenship, and every one of them was laughed off the docket.
"That's all pretty compelling. But I got this email that said...."
The email you got is just a crazy, internet-born rumor. It's nothing but a desperate attempt to discredit him. Trust me.
"Yeah, I'm sure you're right...."
Sound familiar? I've personally had a similar conversation several times, but mine ends differently.
"Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website."
Really? Well humor me, because I think this is important enough for us to get our facts straight. So let's explore that. Hawaii doesn't issue "birth certificates". The state offers "Certificates of Live Birth" and "Certifications of Live Birth." What Barack Obama has posted on his website is a "Certification of Live Birth." So let's talk about the difference between the two documents. As you probably know, the document we commonly refer to as a "birth certificate" (more formally called a Certificate of Live Birth) is packed with detail. Detail like the hospital you were born in, the doctor who delivered you along with his/her signature, etc. It looks like a tax form with all the boxes and everything. The Certification of Live Birth is really just a snapshot of that. So which one is more credible? Which one does the state of Hawaii give the "last word" to? Based on information that existed long before this issue came up, let's take a look at one example of what the state of Hawaii has to say on it:
"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." ( http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl ).
So if the state of Hawaii itself doesn't accept "Certifications of Live Birth" as a last leg of verification, it's safe to say there's a pretty solid distinction we too can make when comparing a Certificate to a Certification. What Barack Obama posted, was a Certification. What people want to see, is the Certificate. When you say he "posted his birth certificate" on his website, the truth (painful as it may be to hear) is that he posted a much different document that if accurately described, would be a "birth certification" - which is far less credible and far easier to alter.
"That's pretty lean. It's not really a big deal to me because I know it's just a rumor. But still, if you're going to insist there's a question here, I have to tell you....the state of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . They have the 'Certificate' you're talking about, and they proved it was authentic. Are you saying they're in on this crazy conspiracy?"
I'm not saying they're involved in a conspiracy, or even that one exists. But I'm not sure you can honestly say you actually read that statement. Here, take a look:
Director of Health for the State of Hawaii , Chiyome Fukino: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i."
Now you tell me, where in that statement does it say anything about where he was born? Public officials are very careful when they release these statements. They carve their words out precisely and check and double check to make sure what they release is accurate and viable. I have to be honest, it wasn't until this statement came out that I became more concerned by the citizenship question. If you actually read it, it's plain to see that as it relates to his birth, the statement really only "proves" 3 things: 1) Barack Obama was born, 2) proof of that birth exists on paper, and 3) their office is in receipt of that paper. An official statement with a lot of affirmatives about requirements and procedures means nothing if they can't find the words, "originating from Hawaii " or "was born in Honolulu " or "as documented in the Certification he has already released". Now maybe it was an accident that Dr. Fukino was able to authenticate virtually every scrap of it's existence - except the part everyone is asking about. However, pressed on this, there has been ample opportunity for her to revise or expand her statement, and she still to this day has not done so.
"Wait a minute, Hank. Didn't factcheck.org already investigate this whole thing. You're just grasping at straws. What do you know, that they don't?!"
I guess the first thing I'd tell you is that, on this particular subject, factcheck has already missed a lot of "facts", and even created a few of their own. You know that statement we just read from Hawaii 's Director of Health? Well this is what factcheck had to say about it: "Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu " ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html ). Did you see that in the statement? I didn't. If this site's only claim is to report facts in a non-partisan manner, how much credibility can we really give them when they start making up their own, very partisan and very inaccurate facts? They also failed to make the distinction between the Certificate and the Certification. And to be fair, factcheck.org is a product of the Annenberg Foundation. You may remember, Barack Obama worked for Annenberg as a spoke in their umbrella. If you look at the actual facts, this is a slight conflict of interest on factcheck.org's part - which might help to explain their not having met their own obligation of getting the facts right. An accident on their part? Maybe. But they too have had plenty of time to correct it, but chose instead to close the book on this one...fabricated facts and all.
"Look....if there was any truth to this, it would have meant that Barack's parents and a Hawaiian newspaper were in on it too. And they were in on it 47 years ago! There's a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper for crying out loud."
Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you're bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn't have to be a "conspiracy" for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper.
"Hmm. Okay. Well newsflash Hank. This has already been challenged in court and the judges dismissed it as frivolous and ridiculous."
Actually, this has been heard in a handful of courts. The judges by-in-large dismissed the cases, you're right. But the majorative reason was not merit, but rather standing. "Standing", as an act of dismissal in the courts, is a technicality. The judges said that individual citizens did not have standing to ask that the Constitution be upheld. This raises a pretty clear question: If "We The People" don't have standing to ask that the contract we hold with our government be upheld (ie the Constitution), who does? There are several other cases still pending; at least 12 confirmed. One of those is actually active on the Supreme Court's docket, as we speak. Another has been brought in California by 2008 candidate for the Presidency, Alan Keyes...and several of California 's electors (members of the electoral college who will officially vote our President in on December 15, 2008).
I don't think too many grounded people could say, "I know the answer." For instance, I am not saying Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. I'm not saying he was born in Kenya . I'm not saying he renounced his U.S. citizenship when he moved to Indonesia and attended school there (a right reserved only to Indonesian citizens - in a country that didn't recognize any dual citizenship.) I'm not saying that due to his father's citizenship at a time when Kenya was still part of the British empire , Barack, as a son, was automatically and exclusively afforded British citizenship. I'm not saying the video footage of his Kenyan grandmother claiming to have been in the delivery room, in Kenya , when he was born, is necessarily "evidence." I'm also not saying he was born in Hawaii . What I'm saying is, none of us have these answers. I'm saying, there is an outstanding question here - that only Barack Obama can answer. And rather than answer it, having promised a new sense of transparency throughout his campaign, his course of action has been to spend time, money and the resources of at least 3 separate law firms....fighting to keep any and all documentation off the discovery table and out of the courtroom. It is a well known legal fact that if you have documentation/evidence that will help you - you are quick to produce it. If that documentation will hurt you, however, you fight to keep it out of court. Let's be fair. He was quick and happy to give documentation he claimed validated and authenticated his citizenship to a website - but is fighting to keep that same documentation out of the courts. If that document really does authenticate and validate everything, why not just hand it over? Why fight?
"Alright Hank. Well MY question is, if there was any validity to this, why isn't the media covering it?"
I have no idea.
As an Independent and initial Barack Obama supporter, I can safely say that contrary to what many think, asking these questions is not an attempt by Republicans to win a technicality-laden seat in the White House. Republicans lost. They were due the loss. Most know that. The seat will ultimately go to a Democrat. But if there is truth to Barack Obama not being able to formally prove his a) natural born, and/or b) properly maintained citizenship statuses - we as Americans must not gloss past it. If there is truth to it, this will represent the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and our most coveted process of democracy. If there is truth to it, this will demonstrate a wanton and relentless pursuit for power which left President-Elect Obama trapsing all over our Constitution - in pursuit of a position that ironically and foremost swears him to uphold and protect that same document.
There is much unanswered here. I know it is very embarassing for the Democratic party to have allowed what might be such an incredibly elementary oversight to occur - but nothing good that Barack Obama might do in the next 4-8 years, will be able to repair the damage done by setting a precedent that affords anyone in our Country the room and right to trample the contract "We The People" hold with our government, let alone a person who is asking to be our next President.
"Everyone will riot if they kick him out." We can't be intimidated by that. The people of our country elected a black man for the Presidency. Nothing can change that. If it turns out his entire campaign and effort were based on fraud, that reality is still 100% independent of the color-blind lenses our nation took to the polls. So if we bow down to the potential for race riots - recognizing that we did in fact (perhaps ignorantly relating to his eligibility) initially vote for him, we are only fostering a new evolution of racism that is nurtured by intimidation and complicit with failing to incite accountability over a man, people and process - simply based on color.
Very few people know any of this is even occurring. Those who do are greatly divided. Some are sure Barack Obama has acted fraudulently, some are sure he hasn't. Neither group can be sure of anything though, until Barack Obama himself answers the question for us. We all show our "birth certificates" (Certificates of Live Birth) several times over the course of our lives. Why should someone running for the Presidency be an exeption to that expectation, or even a more fiercely vetted recipient of it? More questionably, how can we as a government, media and nation - allow someone running for the Presidency to be an exception to that expectation?
The behavior, mostly (to my personal dismay) for his part, has only fueled speculation. Why factcheck.org? Why not a governing body like the Federal Election Commission, Board of Elections or even the DNC? When a governing body did finally inject itself in to this matter, why were they only able to do so vaguely...leaving the real question entirely untouched and unanswered? Why spend more than $800K fighting this in court, at a time when our nation is in economic crisis and that money could be better spent in far more charitable ways; when it could ultimately and universally be resolved for the small $12.00 fee required by Hawaii for a copy of the actual Certificate of Live Birth? In the spirit of transparency, why refuse to release this basic document for inspection? In the spirit of unity, why leave so many Americans alienated and debating the matter - when all most of them want is affirmation so that people on both sides of the debate can move to more healthy and productive lines of communication?
It was opinionated that he had left this door open prior to the election, so that those who opposed him would be led down a blind and pointless alley. The general election is over though. And still, he offers nothing to end the speculation.
By the time I am done with the conversation I outlined above, those I am speaking with inevitably return to what I have typically found to be their first and last refutation....
"He must have been properly vetted. Right....?"
I don't know. And without support for that contention coming directly from the Federal Election Commission, the Board of Elections or (ideally) Barack Obama himself, neither does anyone else.
"This is ridiculous" doesn't count as a refutation. Simply, answer the question with the simple documentation that is being asked of you in double digit numbers of court rooms across the country, including the Supreme Court. It may go away. It may be dismissed again based on standing. But President-Elect Obama's refusal to quell what have become very real questions about this, will only serve to leave many good Americans who hope to vigorously support their President...with far too much doubt to be able to do so. Production of a Certificate of Live Birth is a very small price to pay for unity. |
draft
Yes, there will be a draft, its inevitable, and that urks me to the core. I have a friend who went to Canada to avoid Vietnam and he is still there as a teacher..and believe me, if anyone wants my help in the coming draft, they got it. Using 9/11 as an excuse for this war bugs the crap out of me..I grew up in NYC, the WTC and all of Manhattan and Brooklyn were my stomping grounds..Relatives on my mother's side of the family still live there. I moved to CA with my then husband 20 years ago (going back to NYC hopefully within a year or two) and when 9/11 happened, it tore my heart apart. I wanted so to be there, to put my hands in the dirt of the WTC, to help in any way I could..My cousin who lives in Brooklyn could see the smoke when she looked out over the water, my friends in Wesley Hills and Nyack, NY had debris on their lawns..To use 9/11 for political gain makes me want to vomit..My cousins daughter worked at the WTC for a Japanese bank, she was on floor 42 when 9/11 happened..She got out okay and now works in New Jersey for the same bank..9/11 is sacred and should never be used for political gain..It just shows the character of these creeps..MQ had a worker that was flying back from Massachusetts..She was scheduled for a later flight but the airline told her and her daughter there was an earlier flight. The mother, the MQ worker, decided to take the earlier flight, the daughter remained at the airport. That earlier flight turned out to be the first flight to hit the WTC.
I have not seen a draft yet.
Everyone that is in Iraq joined the military of his/her own free will. Many, after the war started.
Duh!!! You know what else courts aren't keen on? TAZERING CHILDREN!
xx
There is a difference between courts agreeing and denying based on standing...
Is this what it has come to, a bunch of draft dodging, sm
stay-at-home politicians calling decorated war veterans cowards. They have their nerve.
I have been out of the loop lately with politics, but this tops all.
Draft System To Be Tested...sm
Military Draft System to be Tested
Body: Associated Press | December 22, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Selective Service System is planning a comprehensive test of the military draft machinery, which hasn't been run since 1998.
The agency is not gearing up for a draft, an agency official said Thursday. The test itself would not likely occur until 2009.
Meanwhile, the secretary for Veterans Affairs said that society would benefit if the U.S. were to bring back the draft and that it shouldn't have any loopholes for anyone who is called to serve. VA Secretary Jim Nicholson later issued a statement saying he does not support reinstituting a draft.
The Selective Service readiness exercise would test the system that randomly chooses draftees by birth date and the network of appeals boards that decide how to deal with conscientious objectors and others who want to delay reporting for duty, said Scott Campbell, Selective Service director for operations and chief information officer.
We're kind of like a fire extinguisher. We sit on a shelf until needed, Campbell said. Everyone fears our machine for some reason. Our machine, unless the president and Congress get together and say, 'Turn the machine on' ... we're still on the shelf.
The administration has for years forcefully opposed bringing back the draft, and the White House said Thursday that its position had not changed.
A day earlier, President Bush said he is considering sending more troops to Iraq and has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to look into adding more troops to the nearly 1.4 million uniformed personnel on active duty.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, increasing the Army by 40,000 troops would cost as much as $2.6 billion the first year and $4 billion after that. Service officials have said the Army wants to increase its force by 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps would like 5,000 more troops.
The unpopular war in Iraq, where more than 2,950 American troops have already died, complicates the task of finding more recruits and retaining current troops - to meet its recruitment goals in recent years, the Army has accepted recruits with lower aptitude test scores.
In remarks to reporters in New York, Nicholson recalled his own experience as a company commander in an infantry unit that brought together soldiers of different backgrounds and education levels. He said the draft does bring people from all quarters of our society together in the common purpose of serving.
Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat who has said minorities and the poor share an unfair burden of the war, plans to introduce a bill next year to reinstate the draft.
House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has said that reinstating the draft would not be high on the Democratic-led Congress' priority list, and the White House said Thursday that no draft proposal is being considered.
Planning for the Selective Service exercise, called the Area Office Mobilization Prototype Exercise, is slated to begin in June or July of next year for a 2009 test. Campbell said budget cuts could force the agency to cancel the test, which he said should take place every three years but hasn't because of funding constraints.
Hearst Newspapers first reported the planned test for a story sent to its subscribers for weekend use.
The military drafted people during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System was reincorporated in 1980 to maintain a registry of 18-year-old men, but call-ups have not occurred since the Vietnam War.
What do you think?
Then I expect you to be the first in line for the draft.
Everyone has the right to protect themselves, their beliefs, religion, and country, but it seems that yours takes precedence over everybody elses and you can't seem to bring yourself to that level of understanding.
I don't have a stomach to being lied to and I especially don't stomach flippant remarks about my beliefs, as I have a right to protect them. Hatred is formulated. It has been formulating for years. Love turns to hate. Jealousy turns to hate. Intolerance turns to hate. Just give the right stir, formula 101.
2006 NIE report findings stated the the occupation of Iraq is creating more Islamic radicalism.
"An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology. The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official."
Who's wearing the blind fold? Two hates to do make peace or tolerance.
I do know what the original SS draft looked like....
A great great uncle of mine was a friend of Roosevelt and was a long-time military man. He finally retired and went back to the midwest when Roosevelt called him and asked him to please come back to Washington to draft a plan for SS.
We are fortunate to have this to see and I can guarantee you it had nothing to do with freeloaders and moochers but was to look out for the older crowd. Yes, they were taking into account the average lifespan of a man and then their windows, so she could have money to help feed their children if he died early. This was in part because of the stock market crash where so many lost their life's savings. It was never never meant to be what it has turned into. Wealthy older Americans were not to have this money JUST because they hit a certain age. If they had money, they were not to draw SS, only those with extreme need.
Unfortunately, over the decades government has turned SS into anything but its intended use.
He is registered - but we do not have a draft so it does not matter -
They no longer draft people. To be honest, I think they should though. The military is made up of poor people who feel that is their only option. I bet if we got some of those rich boys in the army putting their butts on the line, then a lot of decisions that are made at this point would be made differently!!!
but we do not have a draft anymore, so it does not matter!
On Jan. 27, 1973, Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird announced the creation of an all-volunteer armed forces, negating the need for the military draft.
I just read the draft of the bill on line...
the lenders are getting the bailout all right, but there are provisions in the bill about letting people in foreclosure get "modifications" so they can keep their houses. We are essentially buying the bad mortgages from the lenders, we the taxpayers. And then those folks who got those mortgages they really didn't qualify for and could not afford to begin with...can try to pay it back, which in and of itself is not a bad thing...however, the rub is the "modifications." I don't disagree with modifying the interest rate to the average others are paying...but there is a thing there that says "reduction of loan principal" as one of the options. I think that is going too far. I think they should have to pay back every dime they borrowed no matter how long it takes...becaue of they don't, WE have to. Sigh.
Draft Dodger Cheney attacks War Hero
The words President Murtha are sounding pretty good!
DERRICK Z. JACKSON
White House plays chicken with a war hero
By Derrick Z. Jackson | November 19, 2005
THE WHITE House is so deluded, it actually believes it can turn a soaring hawk into a scrounging chicken. Stung by the call by US Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania to pull out of Iraq, Scott McClellan, President Bush's press secretary, said this week, ''It is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
Talk about playing the chicken-hawk card. A White House where most of the architects of war avoided combat in their own lives dared to associate two people who are worlds apart in world views. Moore made the anti-Bush ''Fahrenheit 9/11, which infuriated the right wing by breaking box office records for a documentary film. Moore was booed at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
Murtha is the 73-year-old recipient of two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for combat duty in Vietnam. He is a Democrat whose three decades in office are marked by support of President Reagan's policies in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Murtha was a top Democratic supporter of the 1991 Gulf War. He wants a constitutional ban on burning the American flag.
In a 2002 press briefing, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz termed the support of politicians like Murtha for the Pentagon as ''wonderful. In the 2004 vice presidential debate, incumbent Dick Cheney said, ''One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was secretary of defense was Jack Murtha.
For all those shows of patriotism, Murtha was skeptical about the rush to invade Iraq in 2003 of Iraq even though he voted to give President Bush the authorization to go to war. He publicly said Bush beat the war drums before building an international coalition. Murtha said he had not seen anything in intelligence reports that indicated an imminent threat. Murtha said Bush ''has put the country in such a box. He can say, 'You'll undercut me if you don't vote for this resolution.'
One month after the invasion, when no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found, Murtha warned that American credibility was at risk. By the September, the absence of weapons of mass destruction made him join the much more liberal House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, in calling for Bush to fire the planners of the invasion. Despite the proclamation that ''we achieved a marvelous military victory, Murtha became increasingly frustrated with the chaos of the occupation. This summer, Murtha said administration officials were ''not honest in their assessment that they were winning the ongoing battle.
Finally, this week, Murtha unleased a scathing attack on Bush's Iraq policy. He called it ''a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. He said he believed military officials when he visited Kuwait just before the war and they showed him where American forces would be attacked by weapons of mass destruction when they approach Baghdad. But now, with no end to the killing in sight, he said, ''The US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home. . .They have become the enemy.
Murtha talked about soldier after soldier he has visited in hospitals, wounded and maimed by the invasion. Yet, there's more terrorism now than there ever was and it's because of what? Is it because of our policy? I would say it's a big part.
In perhaps the most humble admission of his press conference, Murtha said, ''The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress.
This came the day after Cheney threw mud in the direction of critics who gave Bush his war authorization. Cheney accused them of making ''irresponsible comments. He accused them issuing ''cynical and pernicious falsehoods to make ''a play for political advantage.
He said, ''The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory -- or their backbone.
This was the same Cheney who gave us some of the greatest falsehoods of this generation with ''There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction . . . We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons, and that we would be ''welcomed as liberators.
Murtha clobbered Cheney's words the next day, saying, ''I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.
This hawk still soars, above the scrounging chicken hawks.
Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com. ![src=http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif]()
McCain should draft Tammy to cover all his bases.
nm
Obama has already said he is in favor of draft - see link inside
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/obam-s13_prn.shtml
BTW, no the actual sneak in the draft registration thing
nm
Right, but who should be forced to help her? The
nm
Why must you be FORCED to do
something that you acknowledge a desire for, and is the right thing to do? This only gives credence to the theory that govenment has to solve our problems for us.
I was raised by smokers (one of which died of lung cancer). As a child, every family gathering was a nightmare because all the aunts and uncles were smokers as well. I've never smoked, hate smoke, and am pretty happy that it's now banned in businesses in my state. If it it were not a health issue, it's still an annoyance and I never understood why for most of my adult life I was required to put up with it in a restaurant or an office. At outdoor events it's still legal. This is a courtesy issue; just because you legally may smoke does not mean it isn't rude to do so when surrounded by people in a stadium.
But that's about as far as I am willing to go. I don't care if someone wishes to smoke in their own personal space. Somebody who has been smoking smells nasty to me (on a par with b.o., intestinal gas, or overwhelming perfume) . Some hypersensitive people actually are sickened by these odors on others, but if I get an occasional whiff of it, this is merely offensive and will do me no particular harm. Some folks are quite unaware of (or do not care) how they smell. It's another courtesy issue.
To argue that there are larger societal impacts to many of our personal behaviors such as smoking, overweight, transfat and sugar consumption, and alcohol use has validity in terms of health care costs. But to the extent that these behaviors directly harm only ourselves, I still think that we should be permitted to reach these conclusions on their own, and take measures to correct them without the intervention of a nanny government.
Millions of people quit smoking or drinking, change their diet or lose weight of their own volition and I think that a sense of accomplishment should accompany these successes, not the sense that somebody just nagged or taxed you into it.
Being forced to own up. Not impressive.
nm
we are not being forced into socialism -
Obama is not a socialist.
I might would agree that we woudl be socialized if Hillary had won, but I do not consider Obama a socialist.
Not forced. Not compulsory.
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free."
Money for college in exchange for voluntry community service. What's so "disgusting" about that?
Yes, they SHOULD be forced to filibuster.
I was shocked to learn that these Republicans DON'T have to stand there and read the telephone book, etc.
And the Democrats are in "control" of Congress?
Okie-dokie.
GM may be forced into bankruptcy......... sm
Looks like it might happen anyway. Remember the heated debates over this on this very forum a while back?
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52428I20090305?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Exactly - just as your viewpoint is being forced
It works both ways, ya know.
Perhaps she would not have been forced into making it public...
had not the left gone to the blogs trying to claim that Trig was Bristol's and they were passing him off as her brother. To let that stand would do more damage to her daughter, don't you think?
Forced into that positin by your favorite...
political party, the DEMOCRATS. McCain told them this was coming in 2005. Sponsored legislation to look closer at Fannie/Freddie. The Democrats (big money buddies with Freddie/Fannie) blocked it. And here we are...Freddie/Fannie started the freefall. And let's not forget Barney Frank...another Democrat...pushing Fannie/Freddie to make those subprime loans to minorities and low income folks who did not have a hope in heck of paying it back. Most with no credit or bad credit. And THOSE are the people we are bailing out. Wonder how many of THEM are Democrats??
Yes, it is form of socialism, but at least we do not have SOCIALISTS in charge of it. If we elect Obama, we WILL have a hard core socialist in control.
Be careful what you ask for.
if kids are forced to do it, then adults should be too
x
If the religious freaks forced me to have it, -
I'd stomp on it the moment it popped out.
Dems forced to stoop way low while speaking
su
"You're not forced to read this" is what I was
nm
Gay cirriculum forced on elementary schools
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521209,00.html
Talk about your double standards here. You can't pray in school, pass out Bibles in school, or talk about God at all but hey....talk to them about being gay. Once again, if you want me to keep my beliefs out of public school, stop forcing homosexuality upon my kids. They are wanting to teach this to kids as young as 5 years old.
Why can't they just talk to the kids about not being mean and making fun of others without bringing the whole subject of homosexuality into it?
It should be the parent's job to talk to their kids about homosexuality....not public schools.
Forced bible reading in public school
The Bible is without question the most recognizable and known literary works in the history of literature. It has been read time and time again by people of all races, nationalities and religions all over the world for hundreds and hundreds of years. It is the most prominent, dominating pieces of writing in cultures around the globe.
Yet apparently, it is exempt from that pesky little law of the separation of Church and State in the United States of America.
In Boca Raton, Florida, at West Boca Raton High School, the book of Genesis is on the required reading list for all incoming 11th graders to the school. It is not suggested or recommended, but is mandatory.
The school claims that no laws have been broken, as state law permits studies of the Bible as long as it is studied for its literature purposes, rather than as history. And this is the loophole which is allowing the school to force its students to read from the Bible, as it is seen as preparation for literary reading in the school year to come.
Wait a second … Students are being forced to read the Bible, because the school thinks it is pertinent to their reading in their particular grade level? And no one sees the problem with this?
Separation of Church and State was established to prevent religious beliefs and practices from interfering with activities within the government. And last time I checked, public schools fall under the category that is protected from religious teachings. While the Bible may have many great stories, and the style of writing and language may be absolutely fascination, why must students be required to read it? It is clearly the most blatant symbol and teaching tool for religion, despite its values as literary work.
Students should be recommended to read the Bible if the school feels so strongly in its “practical” use as literature teachings. Or have the teachers explain the important stories and style of writing, suggesting that the students follow along if they wish. But to down right require students to read it is a slap in the face to everyone who has valued the importance of keeping religion out of the government.
Would the school ever consider requiring the reading of the Koran? Or what about the book of Mormon? Of course these literary works would never be considered, mainly because of the overwhelming influence Christianity has on today’s society.
What could students possibly get from reading the book of Genesis that they couldn’t get from any other great work of literature? I managed to breeze through my 11th grade English class without ever having to pick up a bible, and I seem to be doing okay as far as literature knowledge goes right now.
Also, what will happen to the students who refuse to partake in the required reading? They school already stated that their will be quizzes and tests on the material (the book of Genesis), so does that mean if a student feels it is wrong to be forced to read the bible and doesn’t do it, he is out of luck come test time? If so, wouldn’t you think that those students wouldn’t care less of their grade by that point? If that was the case, then the school’s ploy to teach students the writing of the Bible would be a lost cause.
Requiring students to read books to better understand the English language and literature as a whole is a normal part of school. Teachers are supposed to assign work … that is their job. But to force religious teachings and preaching onto students isn’t the work of teachers or a school board … it is the work of pastors/ministers/priests.
And until West Boca Raton High School becomes a private school, requiring teachers to take the place of spiritual leaders is a crime.
We at the Noyse are furious and disappointed that this is taking place. While we value and respect the religious beliefs of everyone, we do not feel it appropriate to force religion or religious teachings upon anyone.
So we are taking action. We are doing this for all the unheard voices of the upcoming 11th grade class, who will read the book of Genesis because they have to and are unable to say no … or unable to be heard when they do say no. We are doing this for all the students who are bound to fail their tests because they refused to read the Bible as instructed. We are doing this for everyone who believes in the first amendment: The freedom of speech, the freedom of press and the freedom of religion. We are doing this for everyone who is frustrated with the State misinterpreting and reshaping the beliefs of the Separations of Church and State. And we are doing this for everyone who thinks this is down right wrong.
We are prepared to go to war over this issue. We are not afraid to make noyse, and are anticipating being heard only after we hear a lot in return. We are going to fight, and will not back down, slow down or shut up until this issue is brought into question by those with the authority to remedy the problem.
First off, we have started a petition, that we encourage everyone to sign if they wish to help us in this battle. You can view the petition here. Please, sign it and pass it along to everyone you know. The more voices who speak up, the louder we will be.
Also, we will be sending a letter to West Boca Raton High School, as well as the school district, stating our grievances, intentions and expectations. We will give them an opportunity to respond to our mission if they so choose to do so. We will inform them that while we may be a small army, we are not easy-influenced or easily intimidated, and will not go away quietly.
We will also be sending out press releases to all local media outlets (news stations, newspapers, etc.) in the Boca Raton area, exclaiming our business and informing them that a battle will be waged and to prepare for us to make some noyse. Also, everyone and anyone reading The Noyse who wishes to stand on the battle lines with us will be encouraged to contact their local media outlets as well and inform of them our mission.
Students heading into the 11th grade will be notified of our intentions and informed that they can either submit to the requirements, or stand up and make noyse along with us.
And finally, the government of Florida will be notified of the problem we see in this situation, and asked to reevaluate it as a whole. We will not beg, not plead, but insist that action be taken to prevent the students at West Boca Raton High School to be required to read the bible.
Obama and Ayers forced radicalism in schools...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
Wow, this is explosive stuff!
Also, James Johnson, who headed Obama's VP vetting committee...one of the Fannie CEOs who walked away with a several million golden parachute. Obama is on the Fannie list of donation recipients...#2 on that list, topped only by Chris Dodd. Wow...that is explosive stuff. Another advisor...Franklin Raines...another fired corrupt CEO from Fannie...walked away with a golden parachute in the multimillions...wow...explosive stuff.
excuse me....show me the person who forced Ohhbaaamaaa....
to ANSWER it the way he did??? Keep trying to hide the elephant in the room.
agree, but to be fair if 1 person is forced, then everyone (adults too) should be
x
Rahm Emanuel wants forced civil service
Listen to the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfV8iXiB9Xg
DH said its disgusting that he's laughing about it.
You feel someone should be forced to do something they feel is wrong? sm
Sounds like communism to me.
|
