alt.education

In article
<20a3841e-94fa-462f-9c71-3f36844183fd@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Citizen Jimserac wrote:

> On Mar 1, 12:48 pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> > Gunny Freedom writes:
> >
> > > In article ,
> > > Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >
> > > > Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> > > > >>As for you, and as for anybody else who is curious to verify the
> > > > >>facts
> > > > >>of we are discussing, I recommend actually reading a copy of the US
> > > > >>Constitution. Upon actually reading it, it will become apparent that
> > > > >>it
> > > > >>is quite straightforward, and is not subject to interpretation.
> >
> > > > Since it is in the news today, is John McCain qualified for President
> > > > under the "No person except a natural born Citizen" clause?
> >
> > > > How is that NOT "subject to interpretation"?
> >
> > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/us/politics/29mccain.html?_r=1&ref=...
> > > > login
> > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/
> > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20080229/cm_rcp/post17
> >
> > > > lojbab
> >
> > > I'm pulling together data from the congressional record in regards to
> > > your other query now.
> >
> > > But the idea that John McCain is not qualified to be President because
> > > he was born on a US Naval Base in Panama, of American
> > > parents...is...well...stupid.
> >
> > > There are plenty of valid reasons why John McCain should not be allowed
> > > to be our President, this Panama thing is not one of them.
> >
> > > The very idea that two Americans should have a child ON a military base,
> > > while on DUTY for America, IN the Military, and somehow this makes the
> > > child unqualified as an American to be President is just stupid. Even
> > > if it somehow violated the letter of the law (and I don't believe that
> > > for a minute) then it surely violates the spirit of the law.
> >
> > > The purpose of the law is to prevent a foreign citizen with uncertain
> > > allegiances from taking command of our nation. In no way is John McCain
> > > a 'foreign citizen' nor is he an American by naturalization.
> >
> > And that, I take it, is your interpretation?
> >
> > -- cary
>
> It's tough dealing with Bob but I'm a fan
> and actually learned a thing or two after
> his persistent historical references forced
> me to double check several American history
> things I thought I knew but really did not.
>
> I don't agree with him often but
> do like his style.
>
> On certain things, Bob's innate mule headed
> stubborness can wreck his thinking,
> for example his absolute loathing of
> John Taylor Gatto's book
> "The Underground History of American
> Education".
>
> Likewise, we had a long exchange a while back
> on how I thought that revolutionary fervor
> could again occur in America and he thought that
> media thought control and his generally pessimistic
> assessment of the common man's mentality
> made that impossible. Of course it is a delight
> for me that the Obama phenomenon is happening,
> not only because the lobbyists' "approved"
> candidates Hillary and John McBush are losing
> badly but also because the fervor itself is
> sooner or later (if not already) going to
> affect Obama. (Aside to Bob - IT'S HAPPENING!)
>
> Desultory side comments ended.
>
> Citizen Jimserac

The Obama craze is not a positive development for those who want to
change the course of this nation. Barak Obama voted in favor of the USA
PATRIOT Act, supports the Homegrown Terrorist bill, and is in fact in
the pocket of the very lobbyists he claims to oppose.

Barak Obama collected $99,240 from registered Lobbyists in this election
cycle. He raised $1,175,885 from the Commercial Banking industry,
$241,507 from HMO's, $781,361 from insurance companies, $11,246,596 from
lawyers and law firms, $395,923 from big Pharma, and $118,844 from the
Telco lobby.

Barak Obama also is a member of the globalist Council on Foreign
Relations.

Barak Obama may talk about change, but he is as establishment as are
Clinton and McCain. The fact that people who WANT change are voting for
Obama, is more of a testimony to the DEFEAT of the American people
through rhetoric than it is to a victory by those who want change.

Obama talks about change, but he never specifies what he will change.
And, if he truly wanted change, wouldn't his Senate voting record
reflect a desire for change? Problem is, it does not. If he was truly
opposed to Lobbyists and Special Interest influence in Washington, then
why does he raise so much money from Lobbyists and Special Interests?

Instead, his voting record shows him supporting the USA PATRIOT Act,
which is about as establishment as you can get. Instead, he has raised
well over $15 Million from Lobbyists and Special Interests.

I am NOT encouraged by the Obama craze, and my position has NOTHING to
do with race. I voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 primary (this was
before he disowned his daughter, by the way) But Barak Obama only
pretends to be anti-establishment, while he supports every establishment
measure to pass over his desk.

If you voted for the Patriot Act, this should disqualify you from being
President, IMHO.
--
Gunny Freedom's Blog: http://libertyline.blogspot.com/
Gunny's Hangout: http://www.rwva.org/yabbse/index.php "Liberty's Price"
Become a Rifleman: http://appleseedinfo.org/