December 6-7 — Assigned Reading

NOTE: I have a ton of studying to do this weekend, especially if I’m going to rearrange my work and studying schedule on Monday to attend the We The People Organization’s press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Therefore, we’re going to do something a little differently, and stretch out this entry of Assigned Reading throughout Saturday and Sunday. As I take a break here and there and inevitably stretch my legs and turn to the Internet, I’m sure I’ll see a few articles of interest and add them throughout the weekend.

Thanks for understanding, y’all.

– Jeff

Obama Shelves Oil Company Tax After Price Fall: Aide
(FROM: CNBC) All those advertisements advocating a “windfall profits tax” to be placed on big oil, to benefit the have-nots in America? Just words and populism, supplemented by $4-per-gallon gasoline. Perhaps someone told him that the 8.3 percent profit margin on the gas and oil industry pales in comparison with the 14.5 percent profit margin enjoyed by the electronics and appliance industry, the 18.4 percent margin for big pharma, or the 19.1 percent margin for alcohol and tobacco. Regardless of why, one thing is perfectly clear — Barack Obama is once again breaking a foundational campaign promise. Did you hear that sound? Somewhere, a hardcore liberal Obama voter just exploded (crime scene investigators are currently searching, apparently in vain, for any sign of a brain).

O.J. Sentenced to as much as 33 Years for Robbery
(FROM: Associated Press) I feel the need for a James Bond-type one-liner.

  • “The Juice is no longer loose.”
  • “He used to be a running back, now he’s gonna be a wide receiver.”
  • “Now, nobody will ever mistake him for a tight end.”
  • “Orenthal James? Now O.J. stands for ‘oh, Jesus, it’s the pokey.’”
  • “What does O.J. stand for? Orange Jumpsuit!”
  • “The Juice is canned!” or “The Juice is in the can.”

Got any of your own? If they’re good, I’ll put them up. Regardless, no matter how you look at it, no matter what you want to say — good riddance. Don’t let the bars hit you in the posterior on the way into the clink, Orenthal.

National Parks Allow Right-to-Carry
(FROM: U.S. Dept. of the Interior) It only makes sense that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to protect both themselves and their families while visiting our national parks. Of course, there are the animals and wildlife, but so many of our parks have their share of violent crime as well. Common sense decision, and I’m glad it was made.

One More Question (Head Obama Speechwriter Caught Boob-Handed)
(FROM: The Washington Post) The guy on the left is Jon Favreau–apparently not the actor from “Swingers”–and he was recently appointed Director of Speechwriting for the Obama White House. Now, however, this photo briefly came up on his Facebook page. Whoops. Now, as a former hard-drinking undergraduate at Auburn, there are indeed a few regrettable moments, some of which may very well have been caught on film (nothing too bad, though). So, let’s not make this out to be more than it is — a funny photo of a guy thinking sexual thoughts about a woman who, certainly in that respect, gives me the creeps. I’d point out that this is an obvious contradiction to the intentions of the questionnaire given to all potential White House staffers, but Barack Obama himself couldn’t pass his own test.


Geert Wilders: ‘Our Culture is Better’

(FROM: The Wall Street Journal) This is a week-old Journal interview with the Dutch MP who put together the widely-praised and equally-maligned “Fitna” movie showing the permeation of radical Islam in Europe. This interview is good, but if you haven’t yet watched “Fitna,” I highly suggest you do so. Providing a link would be near useless, as the video seems to always get taken down from various hosts, so you’re better off just entering the name in your favorite search engine. The video is graphic, but extremely necessary. The interview is interesting as well. Please read and watch both.

MSNBC Anchor Frets: Why Hasn’t Obama’s Election Ended Terrorism?
(FROM: The Wall Street Journal) Daytime anchor Alex Witt, talking about the Mumbai attacks on November 27:

Talking with correspondent John Yang, who was covering the Obama side of the story, Witt conceded that while “you certainly can’t expect things to change on a dime overnight….There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought — at least hoped — would be dampered down. But in this case it looks like Barack Obama is getting a preview of things to come.”

Mark Steyn: Jews Get Killed, but Muslims Feel Vulnerable
(FROM: Orange County Register) Every year, we see an assault on Christmas. We no longer have Christmas Trees but, instead, decorate “holiday” trees. We no longer have Nativity scenes in the town square. Christianity, regardless of the time of year, always seems to get the shaft. Yet, when Muslim women cannot work out in the same gym as men due to modesty issues, they get womens’-only hours. When certain segments of student populations complain, they get footbaths. They have prayer rooms in airports here. In the UK, it’s worse. In some hospitals, nurses are forced to turn the beds of Muslim patients toward Mecca at prayer times, and Muslim nurses have sued because scrubbing in for surgery requires them to show too much skin. (I’ll get links for these stories when I have time). Now, in the wake of the Mumbai massacre, Deepak Chopera blames the United States, while the rest of the world worries about how India’s Muslim population will weather the coming storm of discrimination and hate. I have nothing–NOTHING–against moderate Muslims, save for the fact that I’d like to see them speak out more publicly against the radicals who kill in the name of Allah. That, see, is the best way to avoid reprisal. Explain the difference, send your honest condolences, and offer to help root these fundamentalists out of your ranks. That’s the way to do it. Now, can’t we focus on the real issue at hand? Rabbi Holtzberg and his wife, along with the many, many others, were not murdered because of the dispute over Kashmir, or because of Bush’s foreign policy. Let’s get to the REAL root here, people.

Dodd: General Motors Executive Should Resign in Exchange for Bailout
(FROM: Fox News) So, let me get this straight — Chris Dodd, one of the architects of our housing and credit crisis and the top money-getter from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is calling for the GM CEO to resign because of how he drove the automaker into the ground? HA! Now, I may happen to think he’s right, that GM and the other two must have a radical restructuring–I’m with Mitt Romney, who suggested in part to bring in executives from other industries, but even Dodd has to be smart enough to see the irony in all of this. Well, on second thought, perhaps not.

Auburn Split With Tuberville Echoes Other SEC Changes
(FROM: ESPN) Now, I realize that the vast, vast majority of you folks out there may not follow college football, and surely aren’t SEC or Auburn alumni. Still, Ivan Maisel’s piece was just so effective that I had to include it here. I knew Terry Bowden when he was at Auburn. I covered Auburn football for the school paper and third-largest weekly in the state, The Auburn Plainsman. I was outside his office when he was fired, and in the few times I spoke with Terry after that, he was always very pleasant and nice. Tommy Tuberville, however, just oozed everything that was right about Auburn football and the Loveliest Village on the Plains. He was calm and collected. He had class. He wasn’t one for poor sportsmanship. Off the field, he infused himself and his family into the community. On the field, he largely made good decisions, and up until this season surrounded himself with good people. Think of the NFL players who have come through his system: Ronnie Brown, Cadillac Williams, Jason Campbell, Karlos Dansby, Rudi Johnson, Carlos Rogers, Willie Anderson, Brandon Jacobs, Rob Bironas, Roderick Hood, Marcus McNeill, Kendall Simmons, Jeno James, Takeo Spikes, Marcus Washington — these are just the decent performers. Point being, I’m all for accountability, but Auburn has had one of the consistently good teams over the past half-dozen years or more … one bad season, predicated by a foreseeable, kneejerk bad decision in term of an offensive coordinator, should not end a good coaching career for an exemplary man. Thank you and War Eagle, coach — you were a class act, a good coach, and a great face for Auburn University.

Share

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    Now if a good samaritan saves the day in a federal park, they won’t get arrested for conceal carry. It’s about time the pendulum swung back the other way. The bad guys will be thinking twice now that karma may be instantaneous.
    Roses,WA

  2. Anonymous says:

    OJ once said, “If the glove doesn’t fit we must acquit”. His prison mates have a similar saying. “If it doesn’t fit, I’ll just use some spit”.

  3. Anonymous says:
  4. Anonymous says:

    Jeff,
    Get off the OJ thing. It doesn’t fit what you are trying to do here.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Thought for the day…How to make the liberals happy.

    Bush should resign now.

    Then Dick Cheney becomes President.

    Cheney appoints Condoleeza Rice as VP.

    Then Cheney resigns two weeks later and Condoleeza Rice, a Republican, becomes the first BLACK President and the first WOMAN President!!!

  6. Anonymous says:

    that list was for Dec 1, well befoe the haring of Donofrio v Wells even took place on Dec 5…… sorry to burst the magical feeling.

    Claudia,
    Reno, NV

  7. let us move forward says:

    On NPR, I heard that terrorism in the world should decrease because the US had shown that it wasn’t racist by electing Barack Obama! And that Al Qaeda’s comments that Obama was a house negro indicated that it was afraid! It is hard to believe that anyone could buy into that.

    Do you suppose this is where the mainstream media was coming from?

  8. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Jeff,
    Get off the OJ thing. It doesn’t fit what you are trying to do here.

    Oh, lighten up, people :)

    I’m just having a little fun with a guy who could use a big dose of accountability.

  9. K says:

    Re: OJ

    What goes around comes around. Does anyone remember Jesse Jackson’s comment likening Obama to OJ about 1 year ago?

    http://cecily.info/2008/01/05/obama-oj-jesse-jackson-jr-thinks-so/

    Well, somehow I saw irony that OJ was put away yesterday on the very day we were supposed be hearing from the SC on this BC issue. The thought that entered my mind was that BHO may get away with something for a time, but history shows that eventually your sins have a way of catching up to you.

    I think OJ is a perfect example of someone who got away with his crime, thought he was invincible, so kept up his shenanigans until he finally got caught.

    Do y’all see the analogy and irony?

    K

  10. Anonymous says:

    The 21st century New Deal

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16258.html

    Translated:
    We are putting in more surveillance into each one of these areas as a step to monitor your every move. And we will rob you, the taxpayer, of your hard-earned dollars to take away all freedoms.

    I have a question? Since when have we seen so many press conferences from someone who hasn’t even been officially elected (by electors) yet? This is one big ego…. kind of like OJ, huh?

  11. RatTrader says:

    Just as an FYI: Leo Donofrio is not going to be at the News Conference on Monday.

    Lately he has been saying that he believes Obama was born in Hawaii. Now, I don’t really care what he believes about the COLB because if Obama would have come up with it over 3 months ago, it would not be an issue.

  12. Anonymous says:

    O.J., don’t pass go,
    judge says off to jail you go..

  13. Bo says:

    By putting all these plans/ideas Obama hopes that will inspire people to keep on fighting on his behalf against ALL odds (the rest of the country and US supreme court). His team will do whatever it takes leagal or unethicall to get him in.
    MSM is dead in my view. How can we organize and have them feel the financial pain so that we can get
    BALANCED information (or is this a fantasy).

  14. Anonymous says:

    Jeff,
    Get off the OJ thing. It doesn’t fit what you are trying to do here.

    =========
    yeah… jeff…. isn’t it your job to tell the folks that obama is done? even if the courts don’t agree? isn’t it your job to give your readers what they want? your writings have gone from credible to just giving them what they want. get back to your job. give ‘em what they want. no matter the truth.

  15. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Just as an FYI: Leo Donofrio is not going to be at the News Conference on Monday.

    Shame. I was looking forward to meeting the guy. Now, I’m also planning on taking some photos (I used to be a news photographer), but WAS worried that, if I took a bad one of Donofrio, he might threaten to sue me again.

    :)

    The thing is, when I look at Donofrio’s case, it looks to me to be more of the type of thing that the Supreme Court would want to decide. Just seems like a pretty good question presented — it’s a shame he won’t be there to present it to anyone else.

  16. bluewater says:

    Jeff said, “I have nothing–NOTHING–against moderate Muslims.”

    Just saying it takes the steam out of your rant. It is a ridiculous disclaimer we have to get over. It’s like saying, “I have nothing against law abiding football players, soldiers, accountants, etc…”, but we don’t waste our time constantly adding disclaimers to the others. Just say – Muslims who don’t want to wash need to be thrown out of surgery. Muslims who demand bed-turning need to get over it in a secular world. etc.

  17. Jet says:

    Looks like Donofrio found conclusive proof that President Chester Arthur was a British citizen at birth because his father was a UK citizen until he became naturalized when Chester was 14. The parallels to Obama’s story are striking, especially the part where people were trying to prove that Chester was born in ireland or Canada while not realizing that his father wasn’t a US citizen at all at the time of Chester’s birth because Chester concealed the truth about his family.

    http://tinyurl.com/635dl7

  18. Anonymous says:

    HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH
    December 6, 2008 6:36 PM

    [I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of "Chester Allan Arthur", Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ]

    I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.

    Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.

    He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.

    We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.

    How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.

    Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.

    That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.

    We’ve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthur’s true history of having been born as a British citizen.

    Chester Arthur’s lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880. His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP. His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility.

    HISTORICAL CONTEXT

    Chester Arthur was in politics at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification. He was a lawyer and a politician while the 14th Amendment was being debated. It was ratified in 1867. In that same year Chester Arthur rose to become chairperson of the Executive Committee of the State Republican Committee. He would have been fully cognizant of the natural born citizen issue and that should he ever run for POTUS or VP, problems could arise.

    He would have known that if anybody found out his father naturalized after he was born, he could never be President or Vice President.

    CHESTER’S LIES

    The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference. Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. He burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)

    “Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped in Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina, in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.

    By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824. Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.

    From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:

    “…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”

    Arthur’s mother had lived in Canada with her husband and even had her first child there.

    In the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:

    “My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”

    This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.

    On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old. Another blatant lie. His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.

    In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen. This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman .

    It was very convenient for Arthur that Hinman kept the focus on the extraordinary and false claim – that Arthur was born abroad – while the more subtle and true eligibility issue stayed hidden in plain site.

    FATEFUL FACTS

    I contacted Greg Dehler a few days ago after finding a reference in his Chester Arthur biography which said William Arthur became a citizen in 1843. I wrote to Greg and asked him about the reference. As fate would have it, Mr. Dehler, after checking his notes, wrote back to me to say that he got it from Thomas Reeves’ book, “Gentleman Boss”.

    I went to the library the next day and devoured the Reeves book. But the reference to William’s naturalization was not there. Greg also knew I was interested in the Hinman scandal and pointed me to the Brooklyn Eagle search engine from the Brooklyn public library.

    I began poking around and discovered a few of the lies mentioned above.

    Earlier today I was telling my sister that this matter of Chester Arthur having falsified his parents’ personal history might lead to a very important revision of history. I suggested we put together an outline of a book as we might be able to prove that Chester Arthur was a fraudulent President and that would be quite a story. My sister thought I was jumping the gun a bit in that we really needed to define when William Arthur was naturalized before we could get excited.

    About an hour later I received an email from Greg Dehler. I’ll let you read it:

    Leo,

    Needless to say I was more than a little embarrassed that you could not locate the reference in Reeves. I thought that was odd because my note concerning William Arthur was with the Reeves notes. I conducted a more thorough search and found the source. It was in the Chester A. Arthur Papers (what is left of them at least) at the LOC. I own the microfilm reels and made a copy for you which is attached. The Washington County Clerk in NYS dates it August 31, 1843. How does this affect Chet?

    Greg

    I almost fell off my chair when I downloaded the William Arthur naturalization PDF and was staring at the shifting sands of history.

    Chester Arthur had something to hide.

    He had all of his papers burned which was very odd for a President.

    Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.

    When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time, the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.

    Is this the twilight zone?

    William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.

    Chester Arthur lied about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been virtually impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 and had been a United States citizen for thirty-two years.

    And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, or the proper timeline of events, potential researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.

    Reeves proved that Arthur changed his birth year from 1829 to 1830. I don’t know if that would have protected recorded information. It’s another lie. I just don’t know what it means.

    Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency. He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.

    And it’s no precedent to follow.

    Leo C. Donofrio COPYRIGHT 2008

  19. Anonymous says:

    After all I think this attorney Donofrio is on the right track. But perhaps it will end up like with Chester Arthur.

  20. Laptoplizard, TN says:

    In response to the story about Tommy T. I think the man did as well as could be expected, with the problem being that anything short of SEC and Nat’l Title championships just dont cut it in the SEC anymore.

    Sorry friend but I had to pull for Bama this year as I wanted them just where they were yesterday…so that my Gators could get to where they are today.

    Dont let none of these posters tell YOU what YOU should be doing with YOUR blog.

    Continue the GOOD WORK My friend

    GO GO GATORS……

  21. Anonymous says:

    Jeff,

    During this time of focus on our nation’s Constitution, might I suggest the following for your next assigned reading column. This all important article might just begin to reeducate the masses with the intent of which our country was founded. The United States is a Constitutional Republic NOT a democracy.

    Republic vs. Democracy -
    Our Survival Depends On Knowing The Difference
    by Andrew Nappi

    http://www.itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/1174

  22. Anonymous says:

    Jeff…”Leo Donofrio is not going to be at the News Conference on Monday.”

    Leo has taken great pains to try to keep his case separate from the other cases that have been filed. From the time that the case was first filed in the NJ appellate court, it was filed naming three people as not being natural born citizens, and thus ineligible to be President of the US.

    Through all of his filings he has emphasized that it was not a racial issue, and that it was not pertaining to the Hawaiian BC, but was strictly a Constitutional issue.

    Although some small part of the MSM has printed articles about the suit, almost none of them has had the facts correct. His original web site was taken down, as was the parent site, blogtext.org. There have also been reports that threats have been made against him.

    From reading much of the material on his webpage, his case seems to be very well researched and written. I, too, was disappointed that he said that he would not appear at the Press conference, but I feel that he doesn’t want to in any way jeopardize his case before the Supreme Court.

    I, too, feel that he has a very good case, and I hope and pray that the Justices will decide to hear it as it presents a Constitutional question that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Okay, Leo says that Chester Arthur’s presidency does *not* set a precedent, but for me it still seems worrisome . . .

    Leo says Chester Arthur’s father became a naturalized citizen of the United States when Chester Arthur was 14 years old, consequently, Chester Arthur was not a “natural born citizen.” Leo says this renders Arthur’s presidency illegitimate and, therefore, because of the illegitimacy, does not set a precedent for the presidency of a non-natural born citizen.

    Apparently Arthur hid his father’s citizenship and late naturalization from everyone and lied about it while successfully fending off allegations that he, himself, was actually born abroad; indeed, he was not born abroad but that was hardly the real issue.

    Now, Leo knows a heck of a lot more about all of this than I do, and he says it can’t be construed as a precedent because of the illegitimacy. But, given the current political climate of Obama worship, it still seems troublesome to me. Why will it not now be far easier to argue that Leo’s line of legal reasoning lacks effect because a previous U.S. president was born to a non-citizen? (What’s a little matter of legitimacy when hero-worship is involved?)

  24. Anonymous says:

    I think the female cut-out in the picture looks a lot like Hillary Clinton.

Speak Your Mind

*