I doubt it, but I do expect this to be raised by many in the coming months:

McCain's birthplace prompts queries about whether that rules him out

The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

McCain's likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a "natural-born citizen" can hold the nation's highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

"There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent," said Sarah Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. "It is not a slam-dunk situation."

McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.

...

The phrase "natural born" was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to "declare expressly" that only a natural-born citizen could be president.

I saw this referenced at Hot Air:

Muslim Survey “Challenges” West

A new Gallup poll is being touted as a “challenge” to  western misperceptions of Islam. The survey was done on three continents and took six years to complete, and as the French news agency AFP reports, we’ve all been a little alarmist over here:

“About  93 percent of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews.”

The punchline (emphasis mine):

Seven percent of 1.3 billion leaves us with . . . 91 million radical Islamists. And to think we were concerned!

Nuff Said.

 Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, , Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Obama seems to be the candidate of choice on the left, so examining his values and such seems to be justified.

Yesterday I noted a video that surfaced recently of him detailing some of his thoughts of the military.  Frankly they concern me.  But it doesn't stop there.

I read this quick bit tonight and frankly I don't understand why he made this point, other than the desire to be considered the outsider in Washington.  He seems to determined to force people to accept his representation that he is the salmon swimming against the current in DC.

So, asked last night to name a regret, of all the voted he has been a part of, he comes up with this:

Obama regrets intervening to save Terri Schiavo

Asked in last night's debate to name a regret, Sen. Barack Obama said he would like to take back his vote authorizing Congress to intervene to save the life of the brain-injured Florida woman Terri Schiavo.

He has had what, 3 years of policy votes to draw from, and this is his first inclination?

Congress got involved by allowing the Schindlers to argue their case in federal court after their appeals in state courts failed. The Senate approved by unanimous consent a compromise plan that the House later endorsed and President Bush signed.

But during last night's Democratic presidential candidate debate with Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama confirmed he believed congressional intervention in Schiavo's case was wrong.

"When I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo," Obama said. "And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decision-making process of the families. It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped," he said.

"And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better," Obama continued.

I don't know where this came from (I got it from Andrews Dad), but is is worrisome.  While controlling spending is certainly advisable, and butting waste is essential, this contains far too many sweeping generalizations.  It seems to me that he really doesn't grasp some military concepts.

Scared yet?

More on this tonight.

 Trackposted to Hot Air, Sister Toldjah, STA, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, , Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

I'm worn out form a long work issue, so no profound pontifications tonight, just some light humour.

No intentional theme, just whatever struck my fancy tonight.

This reminds me of work:

This one I like because watching the Democrat nomination process has been illuminating.

Nufff Said.

And what about those media priorities... 

See ya tomorrow!

 Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, , Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Hillary's campaign has finally admitted by deeds that is recognizes it is losing.  Her campaign is slowly getting dirtier and dirtier, and her tactics nastier.

Clinton Campaign Starts 5-Point Attack on Obama

After struggling for months to dent Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy, the campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now unleashing what one Clinton aide called a “kitchen sink” fusillade against Mr. Obama, pursuing five lines of attack since Saturday in hopes of stopping his political momentum.

The effort underscores not only Mrs. Clinton’s recognition that the next round of primaries — in Ohio and Texas on March 4 — are must-win contests for her. It also reflects her advisers’ belief that they can persuade many undecided voters to embrace her at the last minute by finally drawing sharply worded, attention-grabbing contrasts with Mr. Obama.

After denouncing Mr. Obama over the weekend for an anti-Clinton flier about the Nafta trade treaty, and then sarcastically portraying his message of hope Sunday as naïve, Mrs. Clinton delivered a blistering speech on Monday that compared Mr. Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience to that of the candidate George W. Bush.

Way to go, popping in a bit of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

But her campaign (she denies any personal involvement) has really jumped the shark with this:

Obama slams smear photo

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of "shameful offensive fear-mongering" by circulating a photo as an attempted smear.

Plouffe was reacting to a banner headline on the Drudge Report saying that aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) had e-mailed a photo calling attention to the African roots of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

"The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat front-runner dressed as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya," the Drudge Report said. The photo created huge buzz in political circles and immediately became known as "the 'dressed' photo," reflecting the Drudge terminology.

Roseanne Barr Has a blog on Huffington that was startling in its simplicity as it showcases Obama's greatest weakness:  Experience.

Experience vs. Inspiration

When I fly in an airplane I want the pilot with the most experience, not the one who can inspire hope in me that I get to where I am going. When I pay my taxes, I want the person filing them to be experienced, not the new person who inspires hope in me that he can do the job. When I hire someone to fix my washing machine, I want the tried and true experienced person, not the one who inspires me to hope that he can fix it. When I go to the doctor I do not want to get the one who inspires hope in me that s/he can cure what's wrong, but the one who knows what the hell to do the minute I call. It's not really the job of a public servant to inspire, but to get the job that the people demand done. The democrats think that if they have hope and are inspired things will get better, but they actually won't. When Oprah makes her employees sign her fifty page non-disclosure statement, she doesn't "hope" they can't break it, she pays teams of experienced lawyers to MAKE SURE they can't break it, or be sued in an experienced court by an experienced judge.

She is right.  Inspiration is a fine thing, and so is an offering of hope, but neither of these can succeed without a leader who has the ability and experience to make the hope come to fruition.

Can Obama offer that?  It remains to be seen.   He has not been a leader for so long that his resume offers any comfort or assurance.

So in this case Roseanne has clearly shown the reality of Obama's campaign.  Of course the fact she is an Edwards fan who went for Hillary, so that may be a sign of bias.

This is a tribute to someone you may not have ever heard of but he had a much greater influence on music then you may know.

Back in the 60's and 70's there was a revolution in music that many people may have seen but they may not have understood it.  Religion found its way into modern music and the Christian rock genre was born. 

If you recall the 70's group People, and their top 20 hit "I love you", you knew this man.

If you have heard Amy Grant, Collective Soul or Jars of Clay, or the more recent offerings by Flyleaf and Fireflight you have heard music born of that era.

And the person who is generally considered the father of that era was Larry Norman.

Larry took the raw energy of Rock and Roll and fused it with the power of the Christian Gospel, and thus was a new kind of music born.

His work was not born quietly, he faced opposition in the Church by people who saw his music as ungodly and sinful.  His strongest critics often enough were the people in his camp as it were.

Larry died early this morning of heart failure, a condition he had struggled with for years.

Christian music was a central part of my life for many years, and I can still remember that one of his songs was the very first I had heard in the genre. 

He will be missed by friends, family and fans alike.

I am taking a slightly different approach to the Obama weapons story.

If you didn't know, this was a product of the debate the other night, where Obama said:

You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

Now, that's a consequence of bad judgment. And you know, the question is, on the critical issues that we face right now, who's going to show the judgment to lead? And I think that on every critical issue that we've seen in foreign policy over the last several years -- going into Iraq originally, I didn't just oppose it for the sake of opposing it.

OK, aside from the body armor rumors a few years ago, and the factual complaint that there are not enough armored Humvees to go around, this is really the first serious accusation of underfunding I have heard.

The Pentagon, of course denies it:

Pentagon doubts Obama account of equipment problem

The Pentagon on Friday cast doubt on an account of military equipment shortages mentioned by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama during a debate with rival Hillary Clinton.

...

"I find that account pretty hard to imagine," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.

So is it true?  Yes and no.  What it seems to boil down to is a nuanced account of one platoon in Afghanistan.

Obama took several anecdotes and merged them into a single tale which made it sound worse than it was.  He deliberately spun this make it appear that our troops were struggling for survival armed with Swiss Army knives and rocks, and only the availability of captured weapons gave them any hope of survival.

With more allegations of cheating coming to light, it does make you wonder.

I personally have no opinion, but I can see why the questions and the taint will linger:

New Claim of Taping Emerges Against Patriots

The Patriots’ pattern of illicitly videotaping the signals of opposing N.F.L. coaches began in Coach Bill Belichick’s first preseason with the team in 2000, a former Patriots player said. The information was put to use in that year’s regular-season opener against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Belichick’s debut as New England’s coach.

The secret taping of signals, which is against league rules, continued at least through three championship seasons to the 2007 season opener against the Jets, when the Patriots were caught and subsequently sanctioned by the league.

...

According to several executives in the league, the season opener against the Jets was not the first time the Patriots had been spotted taping another team’s defensive coaches at Giants Stadium. In the final preseason game of 2006, the Patriots were caught taping a Giants defensive assistant giving signals, the executives said.

The incident prompted a letter addressed to all teams seven days later from the N.F.L. vice president Ray Anderson that detailed the league’s interpretation of the rules. That letter was cited by Commissioner Roger Goodell when he punished the Patriots.

Now, this part cracks me up.  His excuse?

Belichick has said that he misinterpreted the league’s bylaws, telling Goodell that he thought it was permissible to use electronic equipment as long as the information was not used in the same game. That explanation has been greeted with disbelief by some peers and league officials.

Yea, like anyone is buying that.

In a news conference last week, Goodell said Belichick’s explanation led to the assumption that he had been videotaping opponents’ signals “as long as he has been head coach.”

...