So entitled Ben Smith and Nia-Malika Henderson their recent TeamPOLITICO article over Van Jones' demise as Obama's so-called "green jobs czar." The article was generally okay, with examples of how the Obama White House and "lefties" in general had misjudged various things during the summer, not the least of which, apparently, was FNC's Glenn Beck's ability to kick up a stink over Obama's czars in general and Jones in particular.

However, in one of what might charitably be called POLITICO's occasional "bending over backwards to be fair" efforts, which sometimes bleed into simply being ever-so-sly Obama promoters (as when POLITICO.com's head honcho Mike Allen twice referred during the campaign to Candidate Obama doing this or that at the "Western White House" in Hawaii -- uh, can't have any kind of White House, Mikey, unless you're already the prez) or apologists for this White House and its current primary occupant, the article's authors said something I just didn't want to let pass, so I told them so.

Dear (supposedly objective) TeamPOLITICO:

"Actually the answer is simpler than that...

Van Jones founded an organization that decided to go after Beck personally by attempting to silence Beck and making a big deal about it in the national media. The choice of Jones is retaliation pure and simple. It's hardball politics and this is how its [sic] played."

No, TeamPOLITICO, it's even simpler than that...

If you're going to play apologist for the Obama White House, at least get your chronology straight. Look up the actual dates when Beck started talking and asking legitimate questions about all of Obama's czars and then when Color of Change called for its boycott of Beck.

Beck was already well into "exposing" some of Obama's czars (I think including Jones, but for your own "hardball politics" example, that doesn't really matter) when Color of Change announced its boycott of Beck sponsors in a rather obvious left-wing effort to silence Beck.

So much for freedom of speech, huh? So, it wasn't Beck who "picked on" Jones in retaliation for Color of Change's boycott; it was Color of Change which attempted to retaliate against Beck with its boycott for Beck's "outing" of Jones and others.

But Beck wouldn't be silenced and his audience, and other sponsors, not only rallied to him for it but also grew. Talk about a lefty idea which backfired!

That was the end of my comment to TeamPOLITICO about their bias.

But, encouragingly, it seems like Color of Change's thuggish tactic was just another in a string of lefty misjudgments lately. You know, like Democrat "Congressionals" calling town hallers "un-American," "too well dressed to be serious," "Astroturf," and "a mob," as well as two-thirds of Congressionals not even conducting town hall meetings with their constituents at all during the summer recess and many of the one-third who did either appearing only before specially selected, closed groups of constituents (in "gated" communities), conducting so-called "conference call town halls" rather than meeting face-to-face with their constituents, or, as one Democrat Congressional recently put it, that she was not going to give those people an audience, that she respected herself and her office more than that. Hey, Miz Democrat Congressional, that's not respecting yourself OR your office. That's just plain DISrespecting your constituents. Who do you think you are, and who do you think put you where you are? Those people are your constituents, you work for them. And if they voted you in, they can vote you out. And to say something like that is either the height of arrogance at worse or not even being a useful idiot at best.

2010 -- throw all the bums and crooks and self-servers out! Elect people who are of the people rather than above the people, who want to serve rather than rule, and who want to serve us rather than themselves.

On or about September 1st, President Obama’s continuing campaign organization, Organizing for America (OFA), published a notice on its Web site about blitzing US Senators with phone calls on 9/11, Patriot Day, in support of the ObamaCare (but maybe by now KennedyCare) government option. (By the way, isn't the campaign over now and didn't Obama win? Why then, does he need a continuing campaign organization? Shouldn't he stop campaigning now and start governing?)

The OFA site contained a notice to “grassroots” supporters about the planned 9/11 "health care organizing event,” saying:

"What day? Our US Senators return to DC the Tues after Labor Day. That next FRIDAY, Sep 11, is Patriot Day, designated in memory of the nearly three thousand who died in the 9/11 attacks.

"All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders."

Now, while Obama did not personally say any of this (at least, so far as I know), OFA, an organization representing him, did by allowing the post and/or by not having sufficient filters to prevent it. (And I thought, or so we've been told, that Obama supporters are so much more media and Internet savvy than "the rest of us," too.) Similarly, Obama did not personally participate in the August 11th White House-sponsored teleconference call made by Obama "associate" Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus, and Liv Havstad, the group's senior vice president of strategic partnerships and programs, about changing the focus of 9/11. Yearwood, who uses the honorific "Reverend" before his name, has been in the news in recent years, often for getting arrested.

On the August 11 White House-sponsored call, a source with insider knowledge said that Yearwood and other leaders (see more below) kept saying that they wanted 9/11 to be used for something "positive," "forward-leaning" and "productive." The plan is "remake" 9/11 from a "day of fear" into a so-called "day of activism" called the "National Day of Service." Now, there's a euphemistically and meaninglessly misnomered national day, if ever I heard of one. Besides, 9/11 already has a name, Patriot Day, and it doesn't need a new name nor any kind of radical activist revisionist "makeover."

And who were those other leaders on the conference call with Yearwood? Well, it was a coalition including the radically left-wing pressure group Color of Change and other far-left, environmentalist, labor and corporate shakedown groups, including: ACORN, AFL-CIO, Apollo Alliance, Community Action Partnership, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, 80 Million Strong for Young American Jobs, Friends of the Earth, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Mobilize.org, National Black Police Association, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, National Council of N-gro Women, National Wildlife Federation, RainbowPUSH Coalition, Urban League, and Young Democrats of America.

Although Obama hopes, as he often has in the past, to maintain "plausible deniability" by "six degrees of separation" from some of his associates and supporters, I resent the thuggish attempts of those associates and supporters to silence legitimate opposition and I therefore put ultimate responsibility for that where it belongs -- right in Obama's lap. He, as president, and even more particularly as commander-in-chief, bears no less overall responsibility than does a military commander who is responsible for all that his troops do or fail to do. And it appears pretty clear from all this that Team Obama wants to subvert and politicize the true meaning of 9/11, as well as to push back against protesters, referred to as “Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists.”

Well, Senator, I am one of those protesters -- and a conservative, and a Vietnam vet, and a disabled vet, and a retired Army colonel, and a TEA Party supporter, and I disagree with most of Obama's agenda and the profligate spending of your 111th Congress. But I strongly resent being labeled a "Right-Wing Domestic Terrorist" just because I disagree, adamantly defend my Second Amendment rights, own guns and/or am a Christian. I HAVE A RIGHT TO DISAGREE! AND I HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY SO -- OFTEN AND LOUD!

So, when you receive all those OFA-organized blitz "grassroots" phone calls on 9/11, remember what 9/11 is really supposed to be about -- a day of sorrow, a day of reflection, of respectful remembrance and rededication to the protection of our Republic -- not a politicized day of partisan politics, a day to "sell" anything, or a so-called "National Day of Service." It's 9/11. It's Patriot Day. Out of respect for all those who died that day, leave it alone and let it be just what it is -- an annual national day of mourning and, yes, perhaps even anger, and renewal and rededication.

Mr. Jones sure seems full of himself -- as well as some pretty wild ideas and accusations.

There's a painting at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Oakland, CA, which appears in a video interview of President Obama’s so-called Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones. Mr. Jones, an unrepentant rioter, race baiter and professional victim monger, started the Ella Baker Center. The painting shows a Jimmy Carter looking white man on the left pointing a gun into the back of the head of what appears to be a Hispanic woman. On the right is an Orin Hatch looking white man holding a piece of paper that says “War on Youth” as he handcuffs a young black male. In the middle are young minority youths just trying to have a good time if only the evil white men would let them.

So, who was Ella Baker? Well, she was a peaceful but persistent activist in the early days of the civil rights movement in this country and, one might say, a modern day American heroine for her work for equal rights for all. Born December 13, 1903, in Norfolk, Virginia, she developed a sense for social justice early in her life. As a student at Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina, she challenged school policies that she thought were unfair. After graduating in 1927 as class valedictorian, she moved to New York City and began joining social activist organizations.

She began her involvement with the NAACP in 1940. In 1957, Baker moved to Atlanta to help organize Martin Luther King's new organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). In February 1960, a group of black college students from North Carolina A&T University refused to leave a Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, where they had been denied service. Baker left the SCLC after the Greensboro sit-ins because she wanted to assist the new student activists. She organized a meeting at Shaw University for the student leaders of the sit-ins in April 1960, and from that meeting, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was born.

Adopting MLK's Gandhian theory of nonviolent direct action, SNCC members joined with activists from the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) to organize the 1961 Freedom Rides. With Ella Baker’s guidance and encouragement, SNCC became one of the foremost advocates for human rights in the country. She continued to be a respected and influential leader in the fight for human and civil rights until her death on December 13, 1986, her 83rd birthday.

And who is Anthony "Van" Jones? Born September 20, 1968, he attended the University of Tennessee at Martin and subsequently obtained his JD degree from Yale Law School. He is a lawyer, a civil rights, human rights and environmental activist, a self-proclaimed communist, a former street rioter and jailbird, and the author of one book, The Green Collar Economy (2008).

His current employer is the White House Council on Environmental Quality, where he is listed as Special Advisor for Green Jobs, which means he's Obama's green jobs "czar," which means he works for and is accountable only to Obama but is paid by you, the American taxpayer. How much he's paid or the size and pay of his staff, we don't know -- just as with the approximately three dozen "other" extra-constitutional "czars" which Obama has appointed.
 
By virtue of being Obama's green jobs czar, Jones needs no Congressional approval -- approval he would not get either following an FBI SBI (Standard Background Investigation) or from Congress based on his record as a die-hard communist and self-described Marxist revolutionary. He also has some, ahem, other "interesting" beliefs, as well. He believes that "white polluters" intentionally steered poison into black neighborhoods. He also, just this year, attended a forum to promote Barack Obama’s agenda and, when asked how Republicans were able to block Obama’s agenda, repeatedly called them a-holes. He then said people around Barack Obama would need to get “uppity” to deal with the Republicans. (This is a guy with an advanced degree from Yale?! Well, that just made me much less impressed with Yale, and maybe with affirmative action, that's for sure.)

Oh, and Van Jones was also co-founder in 2005, along with James Rucker, previously Director of Grassroots Mobilization for MoveOn.org Political Action and MoveOn.org Civic Action (2003 - 2005), of Color of Change, the extremist racial grievance group that isn't happy with FNC's Glenn Beck for "outing" "Van the Man" Jones as a former jailbird, self-described "communist" and "rowdy black nationalist." 

Jones later moved on to other pursuits, but, coincidentally (I'm sure), it was Color of Change which recently called for a boycott of Beck's sponsors (let's hear it for free speech!), probably at least with the White House's blessing, if not its collusion. However, their attempt to destroy Beck by convincing advertisers to stop buying time on his show backfired because, although some sponsors did withdraw from Beck's show and/or equivocated about advertising on Fox but not specifically with Beck, it appears none canceled their ads with Fox in general and plenty of others have filled the void and signed up as Beck sponsors -- and Beck's already impressive ratings, especially for a 5PM show, have skyrocketed even more. It's like a few months ago when the DNC and Democrats in general tried to demonize Rush Limbaugh as the "head" of the Republican Party who wanted Obama to fail, and Rush's already incredibly large audience got even bigger.

By the way, Jones was also a founder and previously on the board of the Appollo Alliance, a hard-left environmentalist group that is now literally running parts of the Obama administration. So, had you ever even heard of them before? Me neither, but they're running part of the federal government now, it seems. As also recently reported by -- guess who? -- Glenn Beck (well, you didn't think it was the liberal lamestream media, did you?), the Appollo Alliance has not only recently acknowledged but actually bragged that it literally dictated parts of the legislative language in the February stimulus bill to Congress. (Hmmm, still more radical left associations with, and within, the Obama White House. Oh my! Who would've guessed?)

So, Jones said “people around Barack Obama would need to get ‘uppity’ to deal with the Republicans,” eh? Well, that's okay. I'm from the South, where Ella Baker did most of her good work, and we don't tolerate uppity folks too well. In fact, not much better than we tolerate fools or liars, or communists, or radicals or so-called "revolutionaries," for that matter. And we know how to deal with uppity folks, too, blacks as well as whites. We prefer to treat people as equals but if you're going to act uppity, then get ready for a plain old Southern slapdown. You know, like maybe yo' momma should have given you more of when you were a little, too-big-mouthed boy and before you grew up to be a big ole too-big-mouthed man.

Jones has since, just recently, apologized for his "Republicans are a-holes" comments, saying something like since he started working in the White House, he's realized such comments are counter-productive and yadda, yadda. Well, duh! Looks like someone as smart as Jones seems to think he is, and with a law degree from Yale and all, would already have known that, wouldn't you think? Or were his "a-hole" comments just another example of "uppity" liberal-speak, when the mouth often just runs away with, or is that from, the brain?

Well, Van baby, "apology" NOT accepted! Your history and past comments and actions show who you really are, more than some "make nice" words of apology now. You're basically just another Saul Alinsky style, radical leftist (no wonder you and Obama "bond") who has most recently now taken on the mantle of White House enviro-terrorist and thug-in-chief. I don't think Miz Ella, who was not "uppity" herself, would be very proud of your methods or your mouth. In fact, if she were still alive, she might give you that good old Southern slapdown herself -- you know, the one yo' momma shoulda given you more of as a boy?

You recently said we need to completely overhaul the entire agricultural system in this country, and I simply ask you: Who the hell do you think you are? As we say in the South, "Don't get all carried away with yourself." What, besides your own ignorant arrogance, qualifies you to do anything with our agricultural system? I don't think a law degree even from Yale or the writing of one book or a background of radical victim activism qualifies you to even seriously talk about our overall agricultural system. So, as long as you last as Obama's "green jobs czar," why don't you just stick to seeing if you can create some overly expensive "green jobs" with all that "green jobs" money your Appollo Alliance aiders and abettors dictated into the so-called "stimulus plan" which so far, now even seven months later, hasn't stimulated much of anything?
 
Besides, I think you're already one of those "uppity" guys who needs to learn more about that old saying, "Don't let your alligator mouth overload your hummingbird as-."

But that's just me -- just askin' - just sayin'.

I just read on TVNewser that:

"CBS reporter Cami McCormick arrived at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC, at 2amET, September 2, and is in stable condition. She will undergo further surgery for the wounds she received and the fractures in her arms and legs. Last week, McCormick was injured while embedded with US troops in Afghanistan when an IED exploded, killing one soldier and injuring two others. McCormick underwent surgery in Afghanistan and was transported to Germany for further treatment."
 
My comments:

Now, I have nothing against Ms. McCormick personally. In fact I am truly sorry she was injured, wish her a speedy and complete recovery, and admire her courage for being embedded with US troops in an obviously dangerous part of the world. But I am wondering why she is being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC).

I can understand her having received emergency battlefield treatment, probably by military personnel in a field hospital in Afghanistan, and even intermediate treatment in Germany, probably at military facilities at Landstuhl, but now that she's been returned to the US, why isn't her employer CBS taking responsibility for her continuing treatment at a top-of-the-line civilian hospital?

...on pushing ObamaCare through Congress. Well, as Dirty Harry once said, "Go ahead, make my day." 

Falsely claiming, once again (or is that, still?), that the Republican "Party of No" won't be nice and "play bipartisan" by joining them in passing Obama's massive makeover/takeover of the American health care/insurance system, various Democrat "leaders" are now -- rather over-dramatically, I might add -- "threatening" to "go it alone" and use reconciliation, AKA "the nuclear option," to force ObamaCare through the Senate and down the throats of the American people -- say, "ahhhh" -- whether they want it or not. And polls increasingly show that they do not want it. (Hmmm, I'm getting confused now. Is that fascism yet or just more socialism by Obama and the Democrats?)

First, aside from President Obama publicly mouthing words of bipartisanship but privately reminding Republicans "Hey, we won," the Democrats in Congress, and especially in Princess Pelosi's House, have been the "Party of We're Not Listening."

It was Democrats who took it upon themselves to exclude Republican participation and "go it alone" in passing a $787 billion stimulus plan without reading it, a "plan" which hasn't stimulated much of anything, of which only about 10 to 15 percent has been spent even now going on seven months later and most of that not in the states most in need of job stimulation, while ignoring and shutting out Republicans who were offering an alternative plan which would have created twice as many jobs, in half the time, at less than half the cost.

It was Congressional Democrats who "went it alone" in passing a bloated budget, which also went unread, which was packed with over 8,000 pork projects and which was quickly signed behind closed doors by a Democrat president who had "promised" he would take his Sharpie and go line-by-line through any spending measure to eliminate earmarks and other waste.

It was Congressional House Democrats who "went it alone" in passing H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act, also called the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, otherwise also known as the clean energy cap-and-tax bill, otherwise known as global warming -- uh, sorry, climate change -- legislation, and otherwise also known as a manufacturing base destroyer, a small business crippler and a potentially huge individual American family energy tax.

At least this time they had an excuse for not reading the bill before voting on it, because they introduced 300 pages of amendments (which were not even integrated into the bill as required, much less read in toto by anybody) at 3AM of the same day on which they insisted on voting on and passing it.

(Is it just me, or does it seem that any time anybody is in that much of a hurry to do something, like this 111th Congress has been the whole time, it may be because they're afraid somebody is going to figure out they're doing something they shouldn't be doing and they just want to hurry up and get it done before anybody can stop them? Ah, no, that's just me, being my cynical old self again, right?)

The fact is, "bipartisanship" to the Democrats only means voting along with what they want to do, however and whenever they want to do it. And, truth be told, knowing they had the votes to approve almost anything they wanted to, they have only wanted so-called bipartisanship "for show" anyway, to give them the "political cover" of Republican participation in case something goes wrong.

Although White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel did recently say, in a stretch of logic meant to put lipstick on a pig (remember Obama saying that about something Palin said during the campaign?), that basically anytime Republicans didn't actively object to whatever the Democrats were doing, that was bipartisanship. No, it ain't, Rambo Rahm, and, just like with your boss Obama and much of what he says, just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so. You can't just "make up" new meanings for words as you go along and "redefine" things just to suit your own purposes of the moment. After all, it was your boss Obama who repeatedly said during the campaign that "words matter." And that means that their normally accepted meanings also matter. (Well, maybe, as we've found out since you all actually got into the White House, except for such words as "transparency," "open and accountable government," "no lobbyists in my government," and, oh yeah, "bipartisanship.")

As I said, the Democrats, knowing they have enough votes in both the House and Senate to pass almost anything they want to without Republican participation, much less support, have not only been excluding Republican participation while falsely claiming that Republicans are just being obstructionists but Obama and the Democrats have also been severely overreaching, some might say unconstitutionally so.

Now, at over seven months into the Obama presidency and with Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress responsible for (a) continuing TARP bailouts and government takeovers of private industry, (b) a massive stimulus plan which hasn't stimulated, (c) the largest and one of the most pork laden budgets in our history, (d) the House passage of Waxman-Markey as a huge energy tax in exchange for the least amount of real climate change benefit, and (e) a quadrupling of our deficit spending in mere months, no one -- I repeat, no one -- can any longer credibly blame Bush for the economy, or much of anything else, for that matter.

Obama and the Democrats own it now. The honeymoon and the hiding behind Bush are over. It's time for Obama and his Congress to lead and to govern on their own. Stop telling us all the time what your predecessors did wrong and show us what you've got.

And if Obama and the Democrats continue to overreach, as they already have so far, for example by using reconciliation, which is a Senate procedure for dealing solely with budget matters and not intended to be used for major pieces of legislation, to ram through ObamaCare, which is definitely a major piece of legislation affecting one-sixth of our total economy, and especially if they do it over Republican objections and against the will of the majority of the American people, they will own that, too. And they will have no one to blame but themselves, which means we will have no one to blame but them also. So, go ahead, Mr. President and the Democrat controlled 111th Congress, overreach again. In other words, again as Dirty Harry said, "Do ya feel lucky, Punk? Well, do ya?"

What's that old saying -- Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? And what's that other old saying about giving someone enough rope to hang themselves? Well, Obama and the Democrats have the power. So, like the kid at Mickey D's might ask you about fries with your order, would you like some more rope to go with that? We'll try our very best to have all your nooses ready by 2010.

Team Obama is trying to give the true meaning of 9/11 a "makeover." I guess it's more of what Obama promised during the campaign about "transforming" America. You know, a little revisionist history never hurt anybody, right?

Plans for this were outlined in an August 11 White House-sponsored teleconference call conducted by Obama "associate" Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus, and Liv Havstad, the group's senior vice president of strategic partnerships and programs.

Yearwood, who uses the honorific "Reverend" before his name, has been in the news in recent years, often for getting arrested. After Democrats took back Congress in 2006, the "Reverend" was handcuffed outside a congressional hearing in September 2007, during General David Petraeus' testimony. Yearwood later said he wanted to attend the hearing to hear Petraeus give his report, because "I knew that when officers lie, soldiers die." Gee, that sounds like maybe Yearwood might have extensive experience as a soldier himself and would thus have some standing, and the understanding, to make such a comment. But, alas, no. However, he was an Air Force lieutenant (and avid anti-Iraq war protester) in the Individual Ready Reserve until his discharge in mid-August 2007.

So, hey, Lennie, you got a M. Divinity degree from Howard University in May 2002 but so far as I can tell are not an ordained minister, yet call yourself "Reverend" and wear a white collar, no less, which is sort of like me insisting on being addressed as "Doctor" because I have a Juris Doctorate degree. And you're an activist who tried to jump the line waiting to get into a congressional hearing in 2007 and got yourself arrested instead of being allowed into the meeting you wanted to disrupt, er, attend. And you want to imply that whenever a distinguished Army general and authentic American hero is talking he may be lying and that is causing soldiers to die? What a presumptuous, self-important, radical, big-mouthed idiot you must be! But, of course, you're supposedly some kind of friend of Obama's (as well as P. Diddy's -- or whatever he's calling himself this week), so I guess that makes you good-to-go and gives you all the "creds" you need, huh?

However, one must stop and ask, just as the issue was raised during the campaign about Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko and many others (but never pursued by the liberal lamestream media), what kind of people is Obama (and this White House) choosing to associate with? And don't such associations say at least as much -- maybe even more, really -- about Obama the man and the politician as does his stage-managed presidential "pressers" and his other telepromptered pontifications and pronouncements? Just askin' - just sayin'.

And who were those other leaders on the conference call with Yearwood? Well, it was a coalition including the radically left-wing pressure group Color of Change and other far-left, environmentalist, labor and corporate shakedown groups, including: ACORN, AFL-CIO, Apollo Alliance, Community Action Partnership, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, 80 Million Strong for Young American Jobs, Friends of the Earth, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Mobilize.org, National Black Police Association, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, National Council of N-gro Women, National Wildlife Federation, RainbowPUSH Coalition, Urban League, and Young Democrats of America.

Gosh, how did two other Obama-favored special interest groups, the SEIU and UAW unions, get left out of that conference call? Oh, maybe the SEIU purple T-shirted thugs were out trying to intimidate some honest citizens at another town hall meeting that day and the UAW was as busy as ever running General Motors into the ground. So, as Dana Carvey's Church Lady used to say on SNL, "N-e-v-e-r m-i-n-d."  

Color of Change is an extremist racial grievance group that isn't happy with FNC's Glenn Beck for "outing" Van Jones, the former jailbird and self-described "communist" and "rowdy black nationalist" who became Obama's so-called green jobs czar after jumping on the environmentalist bandwagon. (Hmmm, more radical left associations.) Color of Change recently called for a boycott of Beck's sponsors (let's hear it for free speech!), probably at least with the White House's blessing, if not its collusion. However, their attempt to destroy Beck by convincing advertisers to stop buying time on his show has backfired because, although some sponsors did withdraw from Beck's show and/or equivocated about advertising on Fox but not specifically with Beck, it appears none canceled their ads with Fox in general and plenty of others have filled the void and signed up as Beck sponsors -- and Beck's already impressive ratings, especially for a 5PM show, have skyrocketed even more. It's like a few months ago when the DNC and Democrats in general tried to demonize Rush Limbaugh as the "head" of the Republican Party who wanted Obama to fail, and Rush's already incredibly large audience got even bigger.

By the way, Jones was also a founder and previously on the board of the Appollo Alliance, a hard-left environmentalist group that is now literally running parts of the Obama administration. So, had you ever even heard of them before? Me neither, but they're running part of the federal government now, it seems. As also recently reported by -- guess who? -- Glenn Beck (well, you didn't think it was the liberal lamestream media, did you?), the Appollo Alliance has not only acknowledged but actually bragged that it dictated parts of the February stimulus bill to Congress.

Uhhhhh, can we all say, "WAIT A DAMN MINUTE, HERE!"?

A far-left alliance I had never even HEARD of before, composed of a bunch of people I don't know and who certainly weren't VOTED FOR or ELECTED by anybody, not only INFLUENCED (as in special interest groups -- you know, those people Obama said would have no place in his administration?) the so-called $787 billion stimulus plan, which has failed to stimulate much of anything, except more debate over massive waste of taxpayer money, but also literally DICTATED large parts of the actual legislative language to members of Congress? WOW! Just think about that for a minute. Couple that with Obama creating a shadow government of his own by appointing about 40 plus or minus "czars," whose pay and powers are unknown, many of whom have no qualifications for their positions and some of whom have criminal and/or radical leftist backgrounds, and one has to wonder: WHO IS REALLY RUNNING OUR GOVERNMENT? Do "We the People" even know? Is it even "our" government anymore? It doesn't look like it. 

With the help of the Obama administration, the August 11 conference call coalition of far-leftist loons is launching a public relations campaign under the radar of the mainstream media -- which doesn't appear to be too hard to do nowadays, since their "radar" is basically turned off and they seem collectively too cowardly to criticize our first black president, not because he's right but just because he's black. What spineless so-called
"watchdogs" of the government!

The public relations campaign will try to change 9/11 from a day of reflection and remembrance to a day of activism, food banks, community gardens, environmentalism and green, green, GREEN. C'mon, all together now, say, "La-la. La-la-la." The conference call insider source said, "They think it needs to be taken back from the right." "They're taking that day and they're breaking it because it gives Republicans an advantage. To them, that day is a fearful day." (Italics added.)

Taken back from the right? Why, because it's the right which still wants to fight, and win, the "global war on terror," rather than engage in vague and limp-wristed sounding "overseas contingency operations"?

It gives Republicans an advantage? Why, because there are real historical and traditional reasons that the maxim "Republicans are better and stronger on national defense and national security than Democrats" is a maxim? That is, because maxims are truisms?

That day is a fearful day? Well, finally, they got one out of three right. Yes, 9/11 was a fearful day -- and it should remain so in our annual collective memory, and a day of anger as well. It is not a GREEN day! And no amount of leftist, revisionist radicals has any right to try and remake it into any other kind of day than it is. It is a BLACK day! And one we should never forget. Just as March 6, 1836, when Santa Anna's thousands of Mexican soldiers finally overran the Alamo and killed all of its less than 200 brave defenders, was a black day. Just as December 7, 1941, when the Imperial Japanese Forces bombed Pearl Harbor, was a black day.

And screw Obama's hip-hop, greenie revisionists.

No less than the liberal fish wrap rag New York Times has reported that seven months into his presidency and Obama has 43 percent of the top policy-making jobs requiring Senate approval still empty, including such positions as Secretary of the Army and Director of the Agency for International Development.

Meanwhile, he has, so far at least, appointed going on 40-something so-called "czars," (a) which are at best extra-constitutional, if not unconstitutional, positions; (b) many of which duplicate existing cabinet secretarial and other federal government positions; and (c) many of which are being filled with Obama loyalists who possess what may be charitably called  "questionable" credentials, either with backgrounds totally unrelated to the czar position they're given or, in at least one case so far, the outright criminal background of a self-avowed communist.

I guess it is easier, though, and perhaps more "distracting" to those of us in the great unwashed masses out here in the hinterland, to simply appoint approximately a czar a week (oh, it's Friday, so what new czar do we have this week?), to not only give the illusion that you are doing something to solve problems but to also accomplish political payback and establish a "shadow government of czars" (a) whose salaries are unknown, (b) whose staff sizes and salaries are unknown, (c) most of whom until you appointed them were also unknown, (d) some of whom even though you have appointed them are still unknown, (e) and who are loyal only to you and not even accountable to the Congress. That's all easier, as well as more showy, than contending with that pesky and contentious ole Senate and working to get 43 percent of the policy-making positions which are actually authorized in the federal government expeditiously vetted (remember vetting?) and filled.  

And while the czar issue is both growing and ongoing, that's not all the manipulative misdirection our presidential prestidigitator and his administration henchmen offer us. The most recent is the CIA thing -- again -- and it's not just to appease their left-wing nutjobs, either. They're also doing it now as another distraction, to "change the conversation."

It came out late Friday (of course, Friday -- that's the end of the regular weekly news cycle when the White House usually dumps bad news) that Team Obama had "underestimated" the debt they've stuck us and future generations with in just over six months and it's going to be NINE TRILLION instead of the "paltry" SEVEN TRILLION that was previously announced. Of course, with the way Obama and this Congress spend money we not only don't have but also may not have even printed yet, I guess a couple of TRILLION is more or less just a "rounding error" so far as they're concerned.

Also, ObamaCare is taking a beating not only in town halls across the country but also in the latest polls, and so are Obama's ratings, so they want to change the topic to something else, perhaps almost anything, for those reasons as well.

Any time Obama gets really pressed about something he doesn't want to talk about or gets caught in another, shall we say, exaggeration (AARP backs ObamaCare -- uh, next day, no they don't), he shifts the conversation rather than answer the question, and so do his henchmen by repeating talking points instead of answering what they're asked about. Good lawyers do that. Good debaters do that. And weasely politicians do that, and, in that regard, Obama represents a trifecta -- smooth-talking lawyer, skillful debater, and ....

Besides, raising the CIA investigation issue again now also lets Obama play good cop to Attorney General Eric "Americans are cowards about race" Holder's bad cop by repeating that he only wants to look forward but it's Holder who wants to drag up investigating the CIA again, and blah, blah, blah. In D.C., that's what's politely called being disingenuous. In other parts of the country, it's called what it is: lying.

Obama may be in over his head and be too inexperienced to really know what he's doing, as some of us worried he would be, but one thing you can count on: he is a skilled politician and whatever he does do is carefully calculated, if lately at least not that well calibrated, in terms of trying to shape public opinion.

We'll see what kind of a president he turns out to be, but, make no mistake, he already is a calculating and cunning Chicago-style politician who will throw anybody he has to under the bus and who will say just about anything he thinks people will swallow. And, sadly, the liberal lamestream media and many of the people who joined his cult of personality and voted for him are not only still swallowing but also still gladly gulping down his faux "facts" and empty rhetoric. However, I myself have by now developed a pretty strong gag reflex.

After Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett was alerted last week by some of his viewers that they had received unsolicited emails from the WH, Garrett asked WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about it on Thursday, raising privacy issues. (As it happens, Garrett was later joined by the ACLU, of all groups. Who would have thought the very liberal ACLU and rather conservative Fox News would be on the same side of an issue? Go figure).

Gibbs gave one of his somewhat snarky and arrogant NON-answers and then basically stonewalled Garrett for the next few days as Garrett pursued trying to find out how the WH obtained people's private email addresses and why it was sending them unsolicited emails, mainly about ObamaCare.

Now, finally, the White House has provided its version of what happened. Politico.com's Mike Allen reports that WH spokesman Nick Shapiro said in a statement Sunday night: “We are implementing measures to make subscribing to emails clearer, including preventing advocacy organizations from signing people up to our lists without their permission when they deliver petition signatures and other messages on individual's behalf.” (Italics added for emphasis.)

So, the issue was raised on Thursday and surely could have been answered by someone by sometime Friday but the answer wasn't provided until late Sunday night. Talk about being able to claim credit for finally responding while at the same time trying to bury your answer out of the normal news cycle!

And did you notice that, once again, it's not the White House's fault? Heaven forbid that this White House should ever admit it made a mistake, much less actually and intentionally did something wrong. No, no, no, this time people's private email addresses were obviously but inadvertently obtained by the WH because, while these people didn't specifically opt in to receiving WH emails, they had apparently signed some kind of petition, letter, etc., etc., at some time or other, which some third party organizations (vague and kind of hard to trace, eh?) sent to the WH. So, it was these appropriately amorphous third party organizations' fault, you see -- NOT US! (What kind of ether do these people breathe -- and do they think if they pump enough of it into the news cycle that we will inhale it, too?)

Awww, now see, here I thought I was so "special" because I got three -- yes, THREE -- unsolicited emails from the WH, one from Obama and two from Axelrod. I was just SURE that I had earned a place on SOME kind of WH "enemies" list. Oh darn! Well, guess I'll just have to keep trying.

Just as I can't get over Axelrod's appearance somehow reminding me of a door-to-door salesman of some kind (Fuller brushes? Electrolux vacuums?), Gibbs reminds me of the overly large, overly self-important, overly privileged and overly boorish frat boy I sometimes ran across during my college days. You know the guy -- his daddy made sure he got into the right school and the right fraternity, had the right kind of clothes, the right kind of car and plenty of money, etc., but his daddy couldn't disguise the fact that his little boy wasn't quite as smart as he was arrogant and wasn't quite as polished as he was just plain used to being privileged and pampered.

You may also remember that the WH recently asked Americans to notify it of any "fishy" info, mainly pertaining to health care/insurance reform, that their family, friends or neighbors might casually mention or repeat. Well, the only thing "fishy" to me about the WH explanation of this latest apparent disregard for citizen privacy is that most of the organizations for and with which I've signed petitions, letters, etc., have specifically (in accordance with privacy and anti-spamming laws) stated that your email address may be requested for purposes of notifying you that your petition has been sent or for sending a copy of your letter back to you, etc., but that it will not be published or released to anyone else.

So, how do you explain that, Mr. White House Spokesperson? Anyone?

AFTERTHOUGHT: A poster named roxsteady claimed on Politico.com that Major Garrett and Fox News (I guess, along with the ACLU) were idiots for raising the question of the WH sending unsolicited emails to citizens and sought to excuse the WH by saying it is simply known as SPAM.

But isn't SPAM wrong, even illegal? Why, I think there are even LAWS.....and stuff.....against it. So, roxsteady, are you saying that Garrett, Fox News, etc., are idiots for even asking the questions, but the WH is okay for spamming its citizens, if in fact that's ALL it's doing?

Get a grip and stop excusing the Obama White House for everything. After all, normally AFTER they're CAUGHT, they do enough of that for themselves, usually by blaming someone -- and sometimes it seems, anyone -- else!

(Subtitle: Anybody else getting unsolicited emails from the White House lately?)

Well, I am evidently one of the "chosen ones." Within the last month or so, I have received an unsolicited email from Barack Obama and two unsolicited emails from his senior advisor David Axelrod. (I'm secretly waiting and hoping for a personal billet-doux from Rahm Emanuel next. That would give me a trifecta.)

The emails are individually and singly (not one in a multiple listing) addressed to my email address, greet me with the salutation of "Good Morning" or "Dear Friend" and have the WH logo at the top and the standard 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address info across the bottom.

Now, I can assure you that they didn't get my email address from any of their campaign supporter lists or from any nice letter I've sent the White House lately, but I'm not going to be paranoid about where they did get it -- just curious. It is a little Big Brother-ish, though. 

So, it is just me being "targeted" because I'm already on Obama's "enemies list" and they're trying to persuade me to "come over," or have many -- any -- of you also received these emails? Are they sending them to some of us, or are they sending them to all of us? And if it's only some of us, how are those some being "chosen"?

I now know that at least some other people are receiving these, because Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett was recently alerted to it by some of his viewers and is now pursuing an answer from Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about how people are selected to receive them (and good luck to you with that, Major).

Finally, it all makes me wonder just how desperate the White House is to "get its message out." And why.        

WH Email #1
Subj: My Supreme Court Nominee  
Date: 7/14/2009 10:38:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Good Morning,
Subject: Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor
From: Barack Obama

WH Email #2
Subj: It's time for a reality check  
Date: 8/10/2009 8:29:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Dear Friend,
Subject: The need for health care/insurance reform and sources to use for the "truth"
Encourages visiting the new www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck web site and helping to "spread the truth" to family, friends, etc.
From: David Axelrod

WH Email #3
Subj: Something worth forwarding  
Date: 8/13/2009 7:56:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Dear Friend,
Subject: 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about health insurance reform, and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now  
Encourages visiting www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck and forwarding email to friends, etc.
From: David Axelrod

[Subtitled: Ah, those delightfully doofus (and dangerously delusional) Democrats]

With angry constituents showing up in increasing numbers at Democrat (and some Republican) town hall meetings across the country and demanding to be heard about their growing dissatisfaction with a host of Obama Administration and Congressional issues, rather than just being passively preached to about the Democrat talking points gospel of Obamacare, the Democrat so-called "leadership" is going on the attack, or I should say, counter-attack. Herewith, some of their "reasoning."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, that crusty curmudgeonly princeling of the senate, grouses and grumps that town hall attendees are just trying to "sabotage" health care reform. Well, Harry, first of all, which of the at least five so-called health care/health insurance reform "plans" currently floating around in Congress do you think they're trying to sabotage? Or are you talking about what at least the House of Representatives (not your Senate, Harry) has voted on so far, the euphemistically named but seriously flawed and certainly far from final H.R. 3200, "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009"?

The fact is, when the prez or any of you talk about the prez's health care, uh, sorry, more recently renamed health insurance, reform "plan," there is no "plan" yet. At most what you have is about five differing versions of something embodying most of what are Obama's "goals" for health care/insurance reform. Goals ain't plans, Harry. (Example: Obama still has the goal of closing Guantanamo, but we've yet to see a plan -- even a workable cart-before-the-horse one -- to actually do that.) And once you do get it down into a single plan, with or without Republican participation, if that plan includes things like single payer and a massive government makeover/takeover of the best health care system in the world, especially without tort or insurance rate reform but with rationed care, especially for the elderly, and federal funding of abortions, then you're damn right there will be people at those town hall meetings trying to sabotage it. And I will be one of them.

Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA, says many town hall attendees are too well dressed to be "sincere." Is that because they're not wearing red ACORN or purple SEIU union T-shirts, Babs? From what I've seen, the people attending the town hall meetings are wearing everything from suits and ties to T-shirts and jeans. Most look like they came to the town hall meeting from work. Don't you try to dress well, Barbara? And aren't you sincere? Just askin'.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, who is both the princess of power in the House and the botox queen (wow, double royalty!), thinks she's seen people with swastikas at town hall meetings. Look out, the skinheads are invading our town hall meetings! Why, they're even crowding out some of our own paid, bussed-in union thugs! How about one person with a crossed-out swastika at one meeting, Miz Nancy? Oh my! But far be it from ME to accuse YOU of exaggerating something just to try and make a point. Or were "those swastikas" at a TEA Party protest, which Democrats also try to deny and decry? How does that work, exactly, where you deny something and then decry its existence? Of course Nance also has said the CIA lies to Congress but has yet to offer any proof of that, either. I guess just claims and allegations are enough nowadays. 

Back in April, President Obama, who as the president of the United States is someone who can have several someones find out anything he wants to know, any time he wants to know it, was dismissive of thousands of TEA Party protesters at hundreds of venues across the country, saying he didn't know what all that was about, except he saw someone waving a tea bag around. (Whattaya think now, Mistah Prez?)

Since then, various Dems and their lamestream media handmaidens have derided TEA Party protesters and denied their authenticity, yet decried their obviously growing numbers. So, lemme see now, (a) they're not authentic, (b) you don't understand what they're all about, but (c) you decry and disparage their activities anyway? And how come when Bush was prez, disruptive liberal "free speech" (read: shouting down any speaker with a conservative point of view) was a sign of "patriotism," but now concerned citizens gathering to demonstrate to their elected representatives their dissatisfaction with a runaway government is not only somehow "unpatriotic" but should also be "ignored"? Don't you have to be at least a little schizophrenic to do all that, all at the same time? Or is that just another example of Dems trying to have their cake and eating it too?

But, speaking of cake, Senator Richard Durbin, D-IL, seems to take the cake among all the Democrats lately. Senator Durbin seems to think the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy has been reactivated (if it ever was dormant, eh, Senator? -- nudge, nudge, wink, wink.) and that there is nothing authentic about the people or their anger at recent town hall meetings: They're all Republicans, or at least all conservatives. They're organized and funded by the GOP, or some other Obama-unapproved and unapproving special interest group. They're all bussed in just to disrupt the meetings and prevent a fair discussion of health care/health insurance reform. They're right-wing fringe nutjobs who don't really represent mainstream America. They just want to be disruptive and get on YouTube. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Hey, Dickey, I know you've been a senator for a long time, but either (a) you are desperately disconnected from what's going on in this country right now, (b) you are perniciously paranoid about what you do know is going on, or (c) you want us to think you're just little Dickey Durbin, Democrat from Illinois, and just really dumber than dirt. Either that, or you think we are.

Ann Coulter recently wrote about Kathleen Parker, the formerly alleged conservative columnist, going on MSNBC and other "fair and balanced" news shows and talking about being a real Southerner and that Southern resistance to Obama's massive and expensive health care/insurance reform is linked to racism rather than it being simply because it's a really, really bad idea.

I knew KP had gone off the tracks a couple of times during the campaign, and a couple more since then, and, shall we say, "strayed" from really being a conservative columnist, but claiming to be of and from the South when you're actually from Winter Haven, Florida, and just happened to marry a South Carolinian is like thinking Northern Virginia, where I live now, is also the South, when nothing north of Richmond even comes close. I'm from Georgia, and I KNOW what's Southern! It's in my DNA, even the Cherokee part.

So, as we say in the South, "bless her heart," KP first gave up her bona fides as a real conservative columnist and is now playing at being a real Southerner.

Well, KP, you don't speak for me, or any other real Southerner, about things Southern. And, bless your heart, please don't claim to be a conservative columnist while appearing on liberal lamestream media outlets and making liberal left-wing leaps of logic that simply objecting to what's just not a good idea has anything to do with racism. As we also say in the South, that dog just won't hunt, and you just sayin' so makes you look dumb in the bargain.

And also do please try to get over your obvious female version of "weiner" envy with Sarah Palin. It's, as we would say in our understated way in the South, a little bit more than just unbecomin'. It's becomin' downright embarrassin'.

Ben Stein's TV ad for a "free" credit product finally caught up to him. The New York Times, the once venerable newspaper but now fit only as the fish wrap rag of record, the purveyor of partisan politics and the publisher of national defense secrets, has fired Stein as a Sunday business columnist -- for violating ethics guidelines, no less.

Stein was criticized for his endorsement of a credit report bait-and-switch which offers a free credit score but charges an outrageous monthly fee to see the credit report behind the score, while under federal law consumers can get an online report free.

The NYT's real issue with Stein, though, so it says at least, is that he has violated its ethics policy, which states "it is an inherent conflict for a journalist to perform public relations work, paid or unpaid."

Well, it's nice to know that the Times even has an ethics policy, something which some would say must be at least situationally applicable and sometimes subject to plausible deniability. But what's really ironic about all this is that this is the newspaper whose journalistic standards permit making up stories out of whole cloth, whose "journalists" often offer opinion, without source attribution or substantiating facts, above the fold on the front page, whose "fact-checkers" are about as alert as some metro rail operators in various parts of the country unfortunately have been lately, whose readership is (predictably) plummeting and whose stock value is, shall we charitably say, waning?

So, if not ethically unacceptable, isn't it at least journalistically unacceptable for the NYT's "journalists" to accept pay without really acting like, uh, real journalists? Oh, the irony! Well, as the old, bearded wise man, in his solitary cave high up in the mountains, once told me, "Karma is as karma does."

I attended a TEA Party organizing meeting this past week.

By the way, I write TEA Party, instead of just tea party, because TEA is an acronym standing for the core idea of "Taxed Enough Already," whereas a tea party is presumably where tea may be served. That is, unless you're talking about "teabagging" and that kind of "tea party." [You see, snide comments in April by some cable news, and other, TV network nitwits and nincompoops labeling TEA Party protesters as "teabaggers" (snigger, snigger, snork, snork, coffee out through your nose, tee-hee, simper, simper, sigh, sigh) "educated" me about some in the gay community practicing what's called "teabagging."] So, since I'm all about being "Taxed Enough Already" (TEA) and do occasionally enjoy a cup of hot tea or a glass of iced tea but am definitely not into "teabagging," I use TEA Party, just to be grammatically correct, accurate and clear.

Anyway, this organizing meeting was voluntarily "organized" by a couple of guys who had voluntarily collected email addresses from those of us who had voluntarily attended a local 4th of July TEA Party and wanted to be kept informed of other, similar upcoming events which we could voluntarily attend and/or otherwise support. I wasn't paid to attend, nor was I coerced into attending. Heck, they didn't even serve refreshments, not even tea.

This organizing meeting was held in the mid-sized meeting room of a local library. They expected about 20 to 30 people to show up. There were over 100 of us there ..... Republicans, Federalists, Independents, Libertarians and moderate Democrats ..... some from the distance of several counties away ..... on a Wednesday midweek work night ..... from 8-10PM ..... when we could all have been relaxing, spending time with our families or watching our favorite TV shows. And many lingered after the meeting to further exchange ideas and contact information.

This is the kind of concerned citizen, genuine grassroots movement which Obama, his White House henchmen and the Congressional Democrats all want to ignore and deplore, deny and decry, demonize and denigrate, claiming the protests and meetings are organized by the GOP or some other Obama-unapproved organization, funded by this or that nefarious special interest group, and that we participants are "organized" and "enticed" to attend (please refer back to my third paragraph, above).

Besides, it's too late. Already too big and still growing, one might say by leaps and bounds. I'm hearing of more and more local TEA Party events which are having to be moved to larger venues at the last minute because of turnout exceeding planners' projections. Each one seems to be bigger and better attended than the last.

Democrats and other liberals may hold sway in Washington for now and you may ridicule us if you like (some of us know ridicule is a standard Marxist Saul Alinsky tactic anyway), but we won't be relegated to the sidelines any longer. Ignore, deplore, deny, decry, demonize, denigrate, ridicule and relegate us at your own risk. The more of that you do, instead of really listening to what your constituents are upset about, and the more you are aided and abetted in that by the liberal lamestream media's unrepresentative and unbalanced coverage (or selective lack thereof), the more anxious and angry, the more denied and disenfranchised, the more frustrated and furious we will feel and the more persistent and powerful we shall become.

Watch out, Dems and other liberals! A growing giant is finally awake now, and watching everything you do. Try to ridicule and relegate us now if you dare, but a reckoning is coming.

Politico.com recently ran an article about Obama's birth certificate controversy and MSNBC's Chris Matthews questioning of a Congressman who wants to introduce a requirement for all candidates for president to produce a birth certificate to prove eligibility for the office.

(Amazingly enough, although many of us have to show our birth certificate just to get a new driver's license and I had to literally give my certified birth certificate to the Social Security Administration for a while before they would approve my receiving the social security which I had paid into for over 45 years, there evidently has never been and there still is not any legal requirement for presidential candidates to prove by showing their birth certificates that they are, in the language of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, "a natural born Citizen" of the United States.)   

Someone called HookahJoe was one of the commenters on the article: "Actually, these Birthers are the same people who claimed '911 was an Inside Job!' They just need a new unreasonable theory to keep pushing."

My reply:

Not so, HookahJoe -- although I don't know why I'm even replying to someone who calls himself HookahJoe. What do you smoke in that hookah, Joe? Never mind, just kidding. Besides, I didn't Mirandize you first.

I don't think 9-11 was an inside job and I am not a die-hard "birther," either, but I do wonder why Obama has gone to such lengths to conceal all sorts of what would normally be public records about his past.

For example, in addition to whatever type of birth certificate one may want to discuss or question, there's also: (a) Obama's kindergarten records, (b) Punahou school records, (c) Occidental College records, (d) Columbia University records, (e) Columbia thesis, (f) Harvard Law School records, (g) Harvard Law Review articles, or even Editor's comments on other people's articles, (h) scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, (i) passport, (j) medical records, (k) files from his years as an Illinois state senator, (l) Illinois State Bar Association records, (m) any baptism records and (n) his adoption records.

One doesn't have to be any particular kind of conspiracy theorist or whacky nutjob to wonder why all the secrecy about all that. If you have nothing to hide, then why are you hiding so much? Seems to me like a logical question to ask -- as well as one which should be fairly easy and straightforward to answer -- once and for all.  So, why doesn't Obama just do that?

Just askin' - Just sayin'.