Yes indeed, it is clearly happening, that fact is not being disputed.  The only real question is "by who".  This, by the way I regard as a serious issue.  I left Blogger 3 years ago to give my blog more creative control and security, and now I am even more glad I did.

We start at Sister Toldjah:

Just another example of how far some far left Obama supporters are willing to go to shut down criticism about the Obamessiah? Bloggasm and Stop The ACLU take a look.

I haven’t had much of a chance to dive too deeply into the controversy, but it wouldn’t be surprising to find out this indeed was happening, considering how so many far left Obama supporters react at the slightest hint of criticism of Barry Oh.

Yea, that much is certainly true.  The supporters of Obama defend him with a religious fervor.  Those who criticize him are essentially heretics.

Even denying Global Warming is a lesser sin then doubting Obama.

Stop the ACLU continues:

Google Shuts Down Anti-Obama Sites on its Blogger Platform

Update: Perhaps it isn’t google, but Obamaniacs taking advantage of google’s faulty sytem. A commenter explains:

The problem with blogger is that a group of people with an ax to grind can report any blog as spam and after enough complaints, it’s automatically suspended until a real live human being can get around to examining it. If enough complaints are registered with blogger, you might get a response within 5 days but it takes a concerted effort. This is a huge problem with blogger and something google needs to get a handle on.

Regardless who is at fault, this shutting down of free speech is disturbing.

-Edit by WTH: If I can find a link to prove that it was a concerted effort by Obama supporters, I’ll post it.

As the next story shows, one of the more interesting tidbits is that even liberal  blogs are being targeted, apparently for being critical of the Messiah.

Yes I know I have gone a few weeks.  I've been sick.  Sue me.

Topping today's blogs:  Is Obama even a US citizen? Are we coming close to electing the Illegal Alien in Chief?

It sounds like a joke, and initially I dismissed it as such, but the problem is the story has just enough legs to make it stick around, and the core issue it rubs against is a serious one:  Is Obama qualified to be the president?  Not by lack of leadership, but by nature of not being a US citizen?

At the heart of this, of course, is The US Constitution,  Article I section 3 and Article II section 1 specifically.  Those two areas deal with citizenship as a requirement for President as well as for the Senate.  Oh yes, the truth is that if Obama is not a citizen, natural born or otherwise, he would not be eligible for the Senate, though being a naturalized citizen for 9 years suffices for the Senate.  But only a natural born US citizen is eligible for the White House residency.

Laugh if you want, I think a reasonable question has been asked, and needs to be answered, one way or another.

While I don't fully know where the question/rumour started from, the principle defense used by Obama was posted at Daily Kos, a hi res copy of a Hawaii Birth certificate, which if real, would end the debate.  The problem was that there are some questions about its validity.

Polarik at Townhall details them:

The Daily Kos blog has posted a JPG that allegedly is Barack Obama's "Certificate of Birth." From a detailed analysis of the image and the text, it looks like it was created by a graphics program, and is not a true copy of an original, certified document.

I've been working with computers, printers, and typewriters for over 20 years, and given a set of printed letters, I can discern what kind of device made them. Printer output is quite different from the text created by a graphics program, and even if a document looks "official," it may not be.

OK, I may be narrow minded, but this bothers me.  I overheard this today on The Commentators.

Here in Washington, like other states, we have the state standards of graduation.  One of those is the controversial WASL, which has been under a lot of heat for being an assessment test that assesses nothing.

According to the Seattle Times, there is a total failure rate of around 5-10 percent, so presumable those kids did not graduate, or rather they did not meet the requirements for graduation.

In some schools, notably Federal Way, many of those students were allowed to attend the graduation ceremony and walk with their class anyway.

In other words, they were presented as graduates, when in fact they had not graduated.

Is this kindness or fraud?

Grads: WASL daunted some, motivated others

Some school districts allowed some students to participate in graduation ceremonies even if they hadn't passed the WASL.

Seattle Public Schools, for example, let some in English-language programs participate, as long as they had enough credits and met other criteria.

Federal Way probably went the furthest. For those who hadn't yet met all requirements for a diploma, Federal Way principals let individual students and their families decide whether or not a senior would "walk" in graduation. That felt, they said, like the humane thing to do.

Lisa Griebel, principal at Federal Way High, thinks the WASL has helped raise standards and that the Class of 2008 is better prepared than any before it. Still, she didn't want to deny any student the chance to attend graduation if he or she was close. She didn't want students to feel like failures, she said, just because they need more time to finish.

At her school, she said, about half the families said no diploma, no ceremony. The other half chose to let students participate anyway.

So exactly what was the point? 

Just a taking a few moments to dispel any rumours of my demise, defection or defenestration.

I've been under the weather again, maxed out in my day job and all that, but here lately, most of my energy has been getting ready for my daughter's High School Graduation.

How pleasant it is for a father to sit at his child's board.  It is like an aged man reclining under the shadow of an oak which he has planted.  ~Walter Scott

Yes, tomorrow afternoon my youngest child Kayla, whose writing has been showcased here, will graduate.

It's is a huge moment for her, no doubt, but it is also a signal of a change in my life as well.  We, as parents, devote a lot of time and energy into our children's lives, and the end of High School is one of the significant way points.

Making the decision to have a child is momentous.  It is to decide forever to have your heart go walking around outside your body.  ~Elizabeth Stone

For some of us, the child heads off to some college far away, proving that the money drain may not be over after all.  In my case, she plans to work and attend Jr College locally so no education loans for me.  She will keep her room, and still be here, at least for a while.

But still, the feeling of evolution and change is unmistakable.  A few weeks after graduation she turns 18 and another way point is reached, whereby the girl whom we have been treating as a young adult is truly an adult.

We parents dread this day even as we anticipate it.

The day signals the beginning of independence, and an end of dependency.  We enjoy that because we long for the freedom to reclaim our own lives somewhat, but at the same time, we long for the little child we raised.  Parents may be tired of that dependency by the time the child turns adult, but at the same time, we take from it as well, it is interdependent.

Oh I know the stock answer, that being that he is the first black presidential candidate.  Well half black anyway. 

So yea, I get the point that he has done what no one else has done.  But so did Hillary.  We had history on either hand.   

A friend of mine (call him Alpha), wondered about this, and posed this challenge:

Here's a thought experiment for those who want to debate the question of "media bias" -- and I'm not saying anyone should, but anyhoo.

For all the headlines that say "Obama makes history" and the like, would we have seen an equal number of headlines that said "Clinton makes history" if a few hundred delegates had gone the other way?

My instinct?  No.  I think the hype over the Obamassiah has been much more geared and glorified by his race.

First black presidential nominee, first female presidential nominee -- they're equally historic, are they not?

I personally think they are.  In fact Hillary herself made that point in a speech a while back.  I find it interesting that she recognizes the accomplishment of her rival but gets no return recognition.

Then again, in fairness, one could always say that a woman *has* been nominated for the *vice*-presidency before, way back in 1984.

But then again again, one could always argue that Obama, like Halle Berry etc., is only *half*-black -- or less, in his case, if we define "black" as something other than skin colour, e.g. if we defined it as being descended from a certain segment of the American population; it was, indeed, Obama's insecurities about not being "black enough" that drove him to associate with the extremist types at Trinity United in the first place, was it not?  Clinton, on the other hand, is all woman.

Anyway.  History has been made, as we knew it would, one way or the other.

I think that is not the same.  First, she was picked and essentially handed the nomination.  Say what you like about Hillary, but she fought long and hard for her campaign.

The woman in question lost a son to gun violence and went on a crusade against guns in the UK.  She formed a chapter of Moms against Guns, and was well know in her campaign to end gun and gang violence.

She was stabbed to death by her grandson:

The grandson of prominent anti-gun campaigner Pat Regan has been arrested on suspicion of stabbing her to death.

Mrs Regan, 53, was discovered at the property on Marlborough Grange in the Hyde Park area of Leeds on Sunday.

The mother-of-six started campaigning against gun crime when her son Danny was shot dead in 2002.

The 20-year-old man was being held on suspicion of murder, police said. It is thought he had been arrested earlier in the day over another stabbing.

So many points here.  Anti gun activists always point to the gun being taken from you in your home, and how domestic violence is increased with guns.

Yet in her case, both existed without a gun in sight.

This is not a case for or against her position, but clearly, it is a reminder that the gun is but one of many tools a person committed to violence can employ.

The real enemy is violence, not just the guns.  And as you can see, take away the gun, and the deaths will continue.

This is not intended to trivialize her death, or belittle her passion for her cause.

It is just sadly ironic.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Allie is Wired, Faultline USA, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, CORSARI D'ITALIA, , Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Stageleft, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

One of the news items on Orbusmax was this:

State GOP: No automatic citizenship for kids born in U.S. to illegal immigrants

The state Republican Party adopted a platform Saturday that includes a provision aimed at opposing automatic citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.

This is not a new idea...

The state party approved a similar platform plank at its 2006 convention that proved controversial. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizes citizenship for all persons born in the United States.

"Immigration is an issue that a lot of our party activists feel strongly about," state Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser said. "And it's certainly a very defensible position. It's not at all something that's based on race concerns. It's a matter of what is citizenship going to be based on."

And it is going to be just as controversial, and may continue to help the Democrats brand the Republicans as xenophobes and racists.

While it is a popular notion with the anti illegal immigration set, the fact is that there is not much congressional support for a Constitutional Amendment, which near as I can tell is what this would take.

Any legislation will immediately be challenged as being in violation of the 14th, and my personal belief is that the SCOTUS will uphold the conventional notion.

It is not to say the idea is without merit.  While pro immigration groups scoff at the notion, the facts actually support the critics.  it may hurt some peoples notions, but immigrants do sometimes come here pregnant hoping to deliver while on US soil so as to have the edge in immigration.

It is estimated that as many as 380,000 babies each year fall into this category, and may include not just illegals, but also tourists on a tourist visa (as opposed to a work visa).

The history of the 14th Amendment does support the critics to a degree: