McNaughton and Troy talk about Obama and Socialism

Troy has been wanting to debate the content of my paintings and my assertions regarding Socialism for a long time.  I have agreed to discuss it with him on my Blog.  It's difficult to simply throw out one sentence antidotes to heavy questions, therefore I have done my best to explain my positions.  I don't expect us to convert each other, but it makes for a good mind bender.

Okay Jon, where are the details? What Obama policies are unconstitutional? Which policies are hurting the country? And why? I've done some investigating on your website and can't find the details. I've asked these questions here and received no answers.

Here is my response:

I believe that Obama has committed many unconstitutional acts since becoming President.  He is certainly not the first president to do this, but we will focus our attention here on President Obama.

On my website, under “What Has Obama Done” (1) I have only listed a few of his unconstitutional acts as president.  I will attempt here to explain myself further:

Before Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court could not mandate law and could only take a position on whether laws and actions were deemed constitutional.  Now, unless a lawsuit is brought to the court and they feel it is worthy of their time, the court rarely makes judgments on the unconstitutional acts of Congress or the President. (2) To assume anything is constitutional just because the high court has not ruled against it is naïve.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court took the case of 28 states that have filed lawsuits against Obamacare for its individual mandate.  This is unprecedented in the history of our country. They are proving that the mandate is not a tax and it is in fact a “penalty” for not complying.  (3)This is the most egregious of his acts as president.  Forcing our citizens to purchase a product with penalty of noncompliance is a blatant disregard for the Constitution. Not only was Obamacare not approved by the majority of Americans and pushed through the Senate, it was also not given enough time to properly read what was in it before passing.  (4) It has created an environment of fear, which has prevented many businesses from hiring additional employees and many have concluded that it has extended the recession. (5) Also, there is plenty of evidence that it will reduce the quality and accessibility of healthcare (15) in the long run and lead to a trillion dollars in additional national debt.  It is Obama’s greatest “achievement” toward leading us down the road to Socialism.  To suspect that a new bureaucracy within the US government will be efficiently managed is a fantasy.  Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and numerous government programs are the continuous example of poorly managed federal government. (6)

Also, the evidence is mounting that Obama was in fact born in Kenya. In my original list I did not include this because the evidence was circumstantial at best.  But things have changed.  (7) If this is resolutely confirmed, it will be one of the greatest lies ever perpetrated upon the American people.  Whether it is considered important or not, it is a direct prerequisite of our Constitution, that he be a naturally born citizen.   People have tried to ridicule this notion since day one, but Obama has done nothing to resolve this until last year when he released the long form of his BC.  Since then, it has been proven to be a forgery and there has been additional evidence, which has shown there is reason to doubt its authenticity. (8)

We also have the appointment of various “Czars”, which have great power in his administration without any congressional oversight.  That is brow raising in itself, but many of his chosen appointees have Communist sympathies and radical ideologies.  (9)

Obama attacked Libya without consulting Congress to declare war.  We were not being attacked by Libya and it was an unprovoked act of aggression.  (10)

Buying GM was out of bounds.  When government decides who the winners and losers are without regards to a company’s bondholders you have crossed the line.  If GM has been allowed to go through bankruptcy court it would have been bought up by other car companies, rehired many of the workers and come out a better company. (11)

Signing the NDAA.  I was concerned when Romney stated he would have signed it as well.  All though it was necessary to pass a military budget, the disregard for the Fourth Amendment is stunning.  Where is the Supreme Court on this one? (12)

Everything about big government spending is unconstitutional because in goes outside the bounds of limited government. (13) I could go on, but for sake of time I’ll stop here. (14)

After you respond, I will move to the next topic:  The pros or cons of Socialism. 


  1. Wow, thanks Jon! The details I've been asking for. It may take a while to respond to it all.

    I'll hit Obama's birth certificate first.


    If that's not enough, let's just agree to disagree.

    Second, Obama's undeclared war in Libya. We live in a Republic, not a Democracy, which gives the leaders we elect the ability to do unpopular things. Obama was the fourth president to fight an undeclared war in Libya. The first and second were founding fathers.

    First undeclared war in Libya, President Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence).


    The second undeclared war in Libya, President James Madison (main author of the U.S. constitution)


    The third undeclared war in Libya, President Ronald Reagan (Republican hero - attacked Libya four times in his presidency, although the first one had no shots fired).


    So two founding fathers and a Republican president can fight an undeclared war with Libya but president Obama can't? If it's so unconstitutional, why did the author of the constitution do it?

    I'll get to the other items one or maybe a few at a time.

    Thanks again for this opportunity.

  2. Troy, you just lost all credibility. Snopes in not a reliable source and I thought everyone knew that wiki scrubs it's websites when O gets in trouble. This is just the latest one, and possibly the worst.

    So, go and find other sources.

    1. So Reagan didn't bomb Libya? Jefferson and Madison didn't send American marines to Libya?

      On the birther issue do you believe the libertarians?



      Bill O'reilly:


      The Wall Street Journal:


      National Review:


  3. Signing the NDAA:

    Don't blame the liberal democrats on this one - they voted against it.

    Here is the final vote:

    Republicans for 190
    Republicans against 43
    Democrats for 93
    Democrats against 93


    Republicans for 40
    Republicans against 6
    Democrats for 45
    Democrats against 6
    Independent for 1
    Independent against 1


    Notice the socialist voted against it. Jon, you're agreeing with a socialist (a real admitted socialist this time).


    Notice also Bush - a republican - signed the same law.


    I'm actually not too worried about it. A president has to be really careful not to abuse it or it won't get renewed. But I think there is usually a better way. And 'cause it has a sunset, we won't have it forever. They're already debating it for 2013.


  4. .

    Thanks for another hilarious post! And I love how the commenters get into it. Wikipedia is run by the Obama administration? Snopes propogates lies? Hilarious!

    Keep up the great work. I should really swing by more often.

  5. Troy, My comment about the NDAA was not to prove that Democrats are guilty and Republicans are not. You must not have studied my work much to think I care whether its Republican or Democrat. The point is that it contains policy that is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL! That is where you should focus your attention. Also, I checked your "Snoopes" source and it didn't even address the new data I was referring to about Obama's BC. If you can't refute my argument, just say so instead of, "we will agree to disagree." I have already planned to conceed if you present me with anything that I can't make a case against. I haven't had time yet to look into your Libya points. Just so you know, I'm not going to be satisfied with, "Other Presidents did it so that makes it OK" point of view. The two things you asked were, "What Obama policies are unconstitutional? Which policies are hurting the country? "

  6. You said, “We live in a Republic, not a Democracy, which gives the leaders we elect the ability to do unpopular things.“ You left out that we have a Constitution that defines the limits of the President. He cannot go to war unprovoked without congressional approval.

    Jefferson was within his constitutional rights to go to war with Tripoli.
    When the leader of Tripoli attacked an American vessel Jefferson deployed the navy to protect American interests. He did this without a declaration of war, or Congressional authorization. The funding of the navy by Congress gave the president constitutional authority to act in defense of the state. http://ata1515.hubpages.com/hub/The-Barbary-Wars-and-the-Libyan-intervention-of-2011

    Madison never did go to war with Libya, so I don’t know what you are talking about. Perhaps you meant the War of 1812? On June 1, 1812, President James Madison sent a message to the Congress recounting American grievances against Great Britain, though not specifically calling for a declaration of war. After Madison's message, the House of Representatives deliberated for four days behind closed doors before voting (79 to 49) the first declaration of war, and the Senate agreed by 19 to 13. The conflict began formally on June 18, 1812

    It’s true that President Reagan attacked Libya in 1986. But that was retaliation in self-defense, which is always reserved for the Commander-in-Chief, after evidence showed that the Gaddafi regime had attacked and killed Americans in Germany through a terrorist bombing.

    As a sitting senator and mere would-be president, back in December, 2007, Obama answered a number of questions from my old Boston Globe colleague Charlie Savage about presidential power. Asked about the circumstances under which a president could bomb Iran, Senator Obama gave an unequivocal answer about the limits of presidential authority generally (h/t Glenn Greenwald via Michael Lind):
    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
    As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

    And in case there is any question as to the unconstitutionality of Obama’s actions, read the following link:

    You see, Troy, Where the other presidents acted within the Constitution, Obama clearly did not. Please find a hole in my argument or conceed the above information is true.

    1. Jon, I brought up the earlier presidents' wars with Libya because I thought you were saying that the president doesn't have the right to defend our country without a declaration of war. You've shown that that is not what you believe.

      I am going to respond to your claim that I got my facts wrong. First, James Madison *did* fight a war in Libya. The Barbary pirates attacked American merchant ships after the war of 1812 had begun. President Madison, dealing with more important things like the British burning the White House to the ground, couldn't do anything about the pirates. After the war of 1812 came to an end Madison asked for and got the congress to declare war on the pirates. After two battles.


      The Dey of Algiers (which comprised Tripoli (Libya), Tunis, and Algeria) capitulated.


      Some combat did happen before a war declaration but most happened after.

      I believe Madison comes closest to what the libertarians are saying on declaration of war. He certainly showed he won't go on the offense without one.

      President Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, followed Alexander Hamilton's opinion that a formal declaration of war was not required when a nation was attacked. Jefferson didn't get or ask for a declaration of war against the Barbary pirates. But he did fight a war against Libya. Once the US marines were just outside of Tripoli a peace treaty was finally signed.


      Jon, from your comments you seem to believe in more of what Jefferson believed than Madison. But that is irrelevant to what Obama did. Certainly we were not attacked by Libya (at least since the eighties), and except for a few Americans that were in Libya, our citizens really weren't in danger.

      So why do I think what Obama did is not unconstitutional? The answer is in what is called the "Treaty Clause". It's in article 2 section 2 of the US Constitution and reads, "[The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...".


      The US signed a treaty with the United Nations October 24, 1945. The senate ratified the treaty by a vote of 89 to 2 July 28,1945.


      In March 17, 2011 the United Nations signed a resolution granting limited military intervention to stop what would have been a genocide in Libya.


      This treaty gave President Obama full constitutional authority to do what he did in Libya.

    2. Troy, I think I need to go back to your original question, “Were his actions constitutional?” Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, The passage within the Constitution provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[ have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.
      This leads to my assertion that ONLY CONGRESS can constitutionally declare war unless we are attacked. Please read the following:
      “An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President's powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bay of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war.1422 Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed.1423 Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli ''and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . .''1424 But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view.1425

    3. The same thing occurred under President Madison, (sorry I didn’t make the connection to Libya.)

      “President James Madison, after the conclusion of a peace treaty with Great Britain ending the War of 1812, sought authority to use the U.S. Navy to take action against vessels of the ruler and Regency of Algeria that had been seizing U.S. commercial vessels in the Mediterranean area. Due to acts of “overt and direct warfare against the citizens of the United States,” President Madison, on February 23, 1815, recommended that Congress declare the “existence of a state of war between the United States and the Dey and Regency of Algiers.”14 Congress did not declare war but did pass legislation, enacted on March 3, 1815, that authorized the President to use the U.S. Navy, “as judged requisite by the President” to protect the “commerce and seamen” of the United States on the “Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.” https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

      Now, as for the “Treaty Clause” and your suggesting that the United Nations Security Council resolution trumps the US Constitution…that in no way makes the actions of Obama constitutional. It justifies him to the world, but not to those who adhere to the Constitution. This is the sticking point. If your argument is simply because other presidents did it, (under completely different circumstances and still with Congressional approval.) or that we had made treaty with the UN and this trumped the Constitution and thereby granted approval, it will be hard for me to debate with you because it will be clear that you have little regard for the legitimacy of the Constitution and what is the point in going further. I am curious how you will argue Obamacare.

  7. You keep spelling "concede" wrong.

    1. Thank you for the spelling tip. I will try not to spell concede wrong next time. :)

  8. Quoting Jon, "This is the sticking point. If your argument is simply because other presidents did it,". Yes pretty much all of them have done it since the founding of the UN, including Reagan.


    Will you make a painting of Reagan standing on the Constitution? If Canada is attacked (a NATO ally under treaty) does congress have to declare war before the president can send troops to defend Canada? If so, what's the difference between defending Canada under NATO treaty and defending Libya under UN treaty?

    Further, when the war with Iraq started there were no Arab nations that were democracies. Now there are three. (Iraq, Egypt, and Libya.) Since no democracy has ever attacked another democracy in the history of the world, didn't Obama's policies on Egypt and semi-war on Libya defend American lives? If so, did he still need a declaration of war?

    Let's say congress did declare war. Do you think what we did was moral? Conservatives like to ask "What would Jesus do?" Would saving lives of thousands of men, women and children be approved by Jesus?

  9. 2. Troy, you haven’t addressed the premise of my argument. I said that the constitution allows the President to take defensive actions if provoked by the enemy. The US was unprovoked when we attacked Libya. You haven’t responded to my view of the UN Resolution excuse you offered. If Canada is attacked, it would be unconstitutional for the President to attack without some kind of Congressional approval. It may not have to be a formal declaration of war, but constitutionally it does require congressional approval. Troy, if you want to debate the moral implications that is another thing all together. You need to stick to the premise of our debate. Yes, Reagan acted unconstitutionally when he signed the Salt Treaty without Congressional approval. I said at the beginning of our discussion that most presidents have done things, but that is not the goal here nor does it justify their actions. I have pointed out the constitutional failings of each president on the interactive page on my website. Please stick with the debate topics. After I make a claim either concede or offer relevant rebuttal. Don’t try to turn this into something different by changing subjects. You still haven’t settled the two topics you chose to begin with: Obama’s BC and the Libya issue. If you feel we have beat this dead horse to death and we can’t reach an understanding, I will try to repeat back to you concisely what I understand your positions to be and you can correct me if I’m wrong and we can move forward. Obamacare being his most blatant act, I still look forward to your views on that topic.

  10. There always reasons to like or dislike a president. It is great if they generally act constitutionally, and even better if they act morally.

    Since I haven't (in my voting life) ever had a presidential candidate that I could say matched my beliefs morally, intellectually,etc. So, a lot of the back and forth would make a high school debate team ashamed, but it seems that really this is just a round about way to say it is okay to attack a president I don't like, and not addressing those concerns in other presidents I like but aren't in office.

    For me, the sad part is that this is what most of the "political debates" in this country. Thanks for the peek into "the debate" John and Troy. ;-)

  11. I hope this covers the birther stuff I missed.


    On NDAA - Obama certainly didn't like a lot of it.


    But funding our troops took precedence. From Obama's wording I have to assume that if the supreme court threw out the parts of the NDAA that we (Jon and I) think are unconstitutional, Obama would say "good".

    Let's get back to Libya when these two are settled.

  12. Well, I think the BC issue is going to have to hang out there because the pamphlet is not conclusive now. Although the Long form provided last year turned out to be a forgery, Obama didn't make the forgery himself. There really does seem to be something strange going on. I think the reason most Americans are suspicious is because he has sealed all his records from high school and college as well. Maybe some day we'll have a valid birth certificate? With the new evidence concerning his BC wonder why the Supreme Court doesn't demand he provide an authentic BC? They probably don't want to deal with it.

    As for NDAA, that's nice that Obama doesn't like it, but HE SIGNED IT ANYWAY!! He also said it was irresponsible to raise the national debt the way Bush did and he has done more than Bush in less than four years. So do you agree that the NDAA which he signed contained unconstitutional provisions?

  13. Troy, I hope you haven't given up...we were just getting started.

  14. Jon:

    Swinging by for the first time here.

    I am primarily interested in your discussion of the Libyan attacks. The constitutional provisions delineating the lines between the presidential power to direct wartime efforts and the Congressional power to declare war are not nearly as clear-cut as you suppose them to be.

    You say that the actions of other Presidents are irrelevant. But are they? Your own painting, "The Forgotten Man" reveals a pantheon of presidents, heralding and decrying their actions. It marks the lines clearly between the villains and the heroes. It tells us who we should be using as exemplars. If you do not want to use past Presidents in these discussions, then you should probably not draw paintings that do precisely that. So by your own work, we *must* use precedent. I would hope that you will not run from your heroes, even when their decisions do not accord with your view of Constitutional authority.

    Only with the War Powers Act of 1973 (an act that no one really wants to test for constitutionality--and one that is surprisingly absent from this discussion) would Congress dictate how long Presidents can have troops sent to a particular locale w/o Congressional approval. And it's an act that no one really thinks is Constituational; but no one will ever test it, because the outcome would inevitably undermine either the executive or legislative branches' warmaking authority.

    Prior to 1973, military action was widely understood as being the realm of Presidential authority--even without a formal declaration of war. The declared wars aside, Presidents ever since Lincoln have ordered a wide variety of military actions without Congressional approval (Harrison, Cleveland, Roosevelt, Wilson, Coolidge, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Reagan). Even Washington used federal force against his *own* people to extract taxes from them. You would say it's because Congress was weak-kneed. The truth is that they just understood the world differently than you do.

  15. Russtafarian, The actions of other presidents are only irrelevant to this discussion where we are trying to prove or disprove the constitutionality of Obama's different actions. Simply because other presidents have done something doesn't necessarily make it constitutional. I was attempting to prove that earlier presidents have acted only when provoked, attacked or given authority by Congress. I think there are modern examples where we came to the defense of our allies as in Vietnam and South Korea, but many believe that Obama did act unconstitutionally in regards to Libya because it was an unprovoked act of war.

  16. Obama went to war in Libya because he was told to do so by his puppet masters. Khadafi, Ghaddafi, etc. was going to set up an African continental gold-backed currency and they had just completed a several billion dollar water project to provide water for his people using a massive underground aquifer. Oh, by the way, despite his eccentricities and dictatorial ways Omar apparently did do some good things for his people, some things which you liberals would probably love such as, "If Libyans cannot find the education or healthcare they need in Libya, then the Libyan government funds them to go abroad to access it. All loans are interest free at 0% by law. If a Libyan buys a car, the government pays 50% of the price".

    Quoting my paraphrasing a video I found online in the past,

    "Now, I wouldn't post a note defending the former government of Libya, of all things, if I did not think what I found was credible and even astounding information. Feel free to research it yourself if you like, I have pulled this information from another source and will pretty much just rehearse below, word for word. I am not posting the original link to the information due to some profanity found at the end of the original source:

    In 1951 Libya was the poorest country in the world. However, before the NATO invasion Libyans enjoyed the highest standard of living in Africa, above Russia, Brazil and Saudi Arabia. In Libya, homes are considered a human right, newly married couples receive $50,000 to buy their own home and electricity is free to all people. Quaddafi vowed to house every Libyan before his own parents. He kept his promise and his own father died before he was able to be housed. Before Qaddafi, less than 1/5th of Libyans were literate, now education is free and high quality. The literacy rate is 83%. Healthcare is also free and high quality. If Libyans cannot find the education or healthcare they need in Libya, then the Libyan government funds them to go abroad to access it. All loans are interest free at 0% by law. If a Libyan buys a car, the government pays 50% of the price. The price of gasoline is $0.38/gallon. Any Libyan wishing to become a farmer is given free use of land, a home, equipment, livestock and seeds. On Jul. 1, 2011, 1.7 million people assembled in Green Square, Tripoli to show defiance against the NATO bombing of Libya. This represents around 95% of the population of Tripoli and about one third of the entire population of Libya.

    The Libyan central bank is state owned and unlike all banks in the west, it is not owned by Rothschild and issues debt free money. In the 1990’s Libya was accused of being responsible for the Lockerbie bombing of PanAm 103. It has been determined that the witnesses at the trial were each paid $4 million apiece to testify against the accused Libyan men. They were paid to lie and have since recanted their evidence. Quaddafi was also working to change payment for Libya’s oil away from the US dollar to the gold African dinar. This move prompted French President Nicholas Sarkozy to call Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind. One of the first acts of the ‘rebels’ was to create a new central bank that was owned by Rothchild, just as ours are in the west. The Rothchild family are estimated to own over half the world’s wealth. Rothchild owned banks create money out of thin air and sell it to the people at interest. This means we never have enough money to pay back what is owed. So, we and our unborn children are made debt slaves to Rothchild banking interests. Unlike our leaders, Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, et al., Qaddafi refused to sell his people out. Libya was debt free".

  17. Concerning Obama's online certificate anyone can inspect it themselves for authenticity if they have Adobe Illustrator, forget being an expert, with an iota of know-how a novice can easily see the thing was pieced together. The creator obviously was putting it together against their own will because at a bare minimum, they would have normally flattened the file (removed layers) before uploading it to mask some evidence that it had been fabricated or cobbled together. Here is the link to the online pdf file:


    Click on the blue link right above the image of the long form birth certificate. Download it, open it in Illustrator, then look at the layers, click the gray arrow in the layer to expand all of the elements within it. Then further expand those subgroups to see individual image elements and clipping paths. Some areas of text you can even select with the direct select tool and move them around.

    Experiment with making the elements invisible to see how it was pieced together, feel free to inspect it closely under high magnification to see the inconsistency of pixelization in the lettering vs the background, etc.

    1. Try scanning your own birth certificate and turning it into a pdf. You will find almost the exact same thing, depending on the program you use.

  18. Jon:

    But you clearly believe that those presidents *did* act Constituionally; otherwise, you wouldn't be applauding them. If you want to claim that certain presidents' undeclared and unprovoked military actions are Constitutional (Reagan's invasion of Grenada and funding of the contras in Nicaragua come to mind most easily), then why would you think that Obama's actions are any different? If bombing Vietnam after a largely imagined provocation is acceptable (which you yourself just condoned), then why wouldn't bombing Libya be similarly acceptable?

  19. Russtafarian, I am not defending Reagan or any other president. You don't understand. I'm not pro Republican/ anti Democrat. The very first thing I said on this page is that many presidents are guilty. I'm simply discussing the constitutionality of Obama's actions. You are getting lost in the same argument Troy had.

  20. Jon:

    Except that you *did* defend Reagan in your painting. If I take that painting seriously, then I have no choice but to believe that you count him among the defenders of the Constitution. It's quite obvious to any disinterested observer that you believe Reagan to have been on the "good side."

    Do you want me to completely disregard the message of your "Forgotten Man" painting?

  21. I point out where the presidents have acted with or against the constitution. Where did I show bias? Have you read what I said about the Forgotten Man painting on my website? Most liberals I talk with see it as us against them. Bush bad, Reagan bad, Obama good. I measure my politicians by how well they keep their oath of office. Reagan was far more constitutional than Obama.

  22. They feel that way because that is exactly how the painting depicts them. There is a fairly distinct line between the heroes and the villains in your painting. But at least we both now acknowledge that you *do* care about what past presidents have done.

    If you judge all presidents against the same standard, why do so many of the "good" presidents get a free pass on matters of undeclared wars? If Obama's actions in Libya were unconstitutional, what makes Reagan's any different? And we could go on with other presidents you claim were "more constitutional":

    1) Washington ordered military action against his own people--resistant taxpayers, at that (on the good side)

    2) Thomas Jefferson waged an undeclared war against the Barbary states (on the good side).

    3) Andrew Jackson told the Supreme Court to take a flying leap when he ordered the Native Americans evicted from their land in Georgia (a point you acknowledge, yet you still put him among the "defenders"). That's "more constitutional?"

    4) William McKinley opened the United States up to blatant imperialism with the Spanish-American war, yet it doesn't even get a mention [on the good side]

    5)Coolidge ordered bombing attacks in Nicaragua to protect American business--w/o Congressional approval [on the good side].

    6) Reagan's actions in Grenada, Libya, Iran, and Nicaragua were all w/o Congressional authority [on the good side)

    Obviously, every President has a dark spot. But if you choose to criticize Obama's actions in Libya, then you have a responsibility to criticize all other undeclared military actions as well. Yet you quite openly support American military intervention in Vietnam. You don't even mention Reagan's foreign policy. Jackson's actions against the INdians gets a mention, but the painting still makes him into an outraged hero because of his opposition to the national bank. And foreign policy is nowhere to be found in your discussion of Coolidge.

    If you're going to say that you base your judgments off of the Constitution (a laudable objective), then judge evenly. As it stands, you've strategically ignored several facts to portray certain presidents in a favorable light.

  23. Rustafarian, I don't think you are worth the time debating. I made my points as to Obama and Libya in the above posts. You don't pay attention as I have already compared Reagan and Obama. You are just playing the angry liberal. Good bye.

  24. Jon,

    1. You are almost unbelievably ignorant about politics. Only a fool with way too much time on his hands would even bother to deal with your maunderings, which are nothing but standard Republican lies from the last decade. But take it from me, Paul Krugman you aint.

    2. You are a shockingly bad artist, with a taste for maudlin kitch that has rarely been seen since the days of Nazi Germany. It's hard to believe that someone could make Thomas Kincade look good by comparison. And your "political" stuff sort of makes you the Jacques Louis David of stupid people.

    You know something? It's time that you grow up and find a way of making a living that is not a shameful mockery. I'm not kidding here- you have no right to make a living out of encouraging hatred, racism and greed, and that's all you have to offer.

    Care for more? http://largegreenbird.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-kincaid.html

  25. Mr.McNaughton, you keep claiming the copy of the President's long-form birth certificate has been "proven a forgery" when clearly it has NOT. Far from it, Democratic AND Republican officials in Hawaii have stated it to be an authentic copy of the original document, while non-partisan reporters from factcheck.org examined and photographed the original years ago, including certifiying the "raised seal" on the document.

    And no, though polifact gets a grant from Annenberg Foundation, that does make them a liberal outlet controlled by the Obama camp; the late Mr.Annenberg was a Nixonian Republican whose non-profit funds numerous worthy causes.

    Furthermore, the President has presented his Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii (and no, the state dose NOT list those who have not been born in Hawaii as having done so, despite what some have alleged; they issue a document listing the ACTUAL place of birth). There were birth announcements in the local papers. And there was no reason for the President's parents to make any effort toward such a subterfuge, as his mother's natural born status conferred the same upon her son.

    And please don't bring up "layers"-that nonsense has already been debunked numerous times.

    (Do you people really think if there WAS some massive conspiracy that the operatives behind it would make some kind of rookie mistake. Bro-ther!)

    I've noticed this a lot about right-wingers; you make an assertion and then proceed to act as if the statement should be assumed true.

    The Affordable Care Act WAS approved by a majority of congress-59 Senators is a majority of 100 last time I looked. The Republican filibuster made reconciliation the option used to merge and pass the House and Senate versions. Note the Bush Tax Cuts were also passed using reconciliation-was that unconstitutional?

    Tell me, given the actions of George W. Bush (violated two treaties, namely US-UN Compact against attacking another member nation save in self-defense or retaliation and the International Treaty Against Torture signed by Ronald Reagan), will you soon be painting him shredding the Constitution?

    Or perhaps the late President Reagan and the first George Bush for Iran-Contra, which was a violation of the Boland Act (signed into law) AND involved negotiating and dealing arms to the hostile nation of Iran?

    Col. Khadaffi was responsible for the order which brought down the flight over Lockerbie, Scottland, which killed Americans and citizens of friendly nations. He never faced retaliation for this until President Obama aided the Libyan people in overthrowing the mad tyrant. Which means there were two mass-murdering killers of Americans to which the President delivered justice-something Republican Presidents were not able to do.

    Try logical thinking sometime, people. Even right-wingers can learn to enjoy it, and it really does make life better.

    Have a nice day.

  26. Socialism! Phooey! How wicked and ungodly! It's a good thing that the Bible doesn't say anything about Christians "having all things in common, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had." THAT would be trouble.

    And it's a good thing that the Book of Mormon doesn't endorse holding all things in common so that the resources of the rich can meet the needs of all. THAT would be trouble. Especially if one of the wisest leaders of the Nephite nation were to come out and endorse this socialist nightmare!

    And it's a good thing the Doctrine and Covenants doesn't teach that either, as one of the conditions of "The Saints."

    And it's a good thing that the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible doesn't prophetically identify holding all things in common so that there are no poor, as one of the original requirements to establish Zion. THAT would be trouble.

    Thank you for staunchly helping to protect us from anyone who who might do these things that are CLEARLY not in harmony with ANY of the scriptures your faith endorses!

    1. Unknown,

      You apparently place far more faith in government than I do, I don't think anyone can look to government to create a society where we have all things in common. Government in all of it's forms harbors far too much corruption for that to take place.

  27. So let's see... to sum up so far,

    NDAA: Some unconstitutional policies that Obama didn't ask for and said he wouldn't use. Obama signed it because he had only three days left before American soldiers would have been defunded while in combat. NDAA was pushed through mainly by republicans and was fought against mainly by liberal democrats. It will expire in a year. And Obama will probably be able to veto it next time. (If we are out of Afghanistan by then.)

    Birther: Even the libertarians, who find almost everything Obama does unconstitutional, think this is ridiculous. Two Hawaiian newspapers announced his birth. And the state of Hawaii has certified it. And since his mom was a naturalized citizen, even if he *was* born in Kenya he would still be constitutionally allowed to be president.


    Libya: Obama did something that every American president has done since Washington.


    Jon, you say that under the treaty with NATO, even if Canada is attacked we have to declare war before we can help defend them. Part of the NATO treaty is an agreement that the NATO nations will not develop nuclear weapons. In order to secure this agreement, the United States has agreed that if they are attacked by nuclear weapons, we will counter-strike with nuclear weapons. There won't be time to wait for a declaration of war. If the members of NATO and ANZUS (Pacific treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS) think that we won't defend them until an official declaration of war is made, the number of nuclear nations will greatly increase as they strive to defend themselves.


    This would be very irresponsible of the United States.

    Furthermore, liberal democrats actually sued President Obama on the Libya thing and it was thrown out of court.


    Can we start on Obamacare or shall we continue with these?

  28. Jon:

    My apologies for missing your previous comments on Reagan and Libya. I did not read the entirety of the thread.

    I still see tremendous inconsistency in how various Presidents' legacies are handled. I can respect committed defenders of the Constitution, provided they apply that perspective in economic *and* national security matters. I hope you share that perspective.

  29. Troy, As I read your last post I kept saying to myself, "But what about..., but what about..." I feel that you keep dodging my points. (1) NDAA, regardless of who said what and who agrees or disagrees, it was unconstitutional. (2) The Birth Certificate issue would not exist had Obama provided a standard BC and there are legitimate questions. (3) Unless provoked, a president can not declare war himself without congressional approval. Whether a previous president did or did not do it. When we have a treaty and our allies are attacked, it is as if we are attacked. This is self defense under the Constitution and the president can move ahead without waiting for Congressional approval. How about we move on to Obamacare.

  30. Jon:

    "The Birth Certificate issue would not exist had Obama provided a standard BC and there are legitimate questions."

    The Naturalization Act of 1790, Hamilton's draft notes of the Constitution, and modern immigration all indicate that whether Obama was Kenya-born or not, it's irrelevant. As Troy indicated, he was born a citizen (which, according to Hamilton="natural-born citizen"). SeeU.S.. Code 1401(g): "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years"

    "This is self defense under the Constitution and the president can move ahead without waiting for Congressional approval."

    Given that both Washington and Jefferson found "entangling alliances" to be harmful to the republic, doesn't the fact that we have a permanent alliance at all fly in the face of Constitutional thought?

  31. Zuzu

    It's amazing to me the amount of bad information a birther is willing to believe in order to make his case.

    First of all, as Troy has pointed out, the State of Hawaii has certified Obama's birthplace in every way it can: long and short form birth certificates, official confirmation letter, birth registries, etc. As Troy has also mentioned, two Honolulu newspapers published the birth announcement based on information provided directly from the state department of vital statistics. So how many people were in on this conspiracy in 1961?

    Furthermore, INS records show that Obama's father did not leave the country at any time between his arrival in 1959 and his departure in 1964.


    Do you suppose his pregnant 18 yr old mother traveled around the world by herself, gave birth in August in a third world country where she knew not a single person, and then immediately returned in time to leave his father and attend school in Washington at the beginning September? Why would she do such a thing?

    As to this silly idea that Obama had his school records "sealed" for some mysterious reason: you do realize that your own school records are "sealed" as well, don't you? Yes, they are all confidential and may only be released with your written permission (with some exceptions not relevant here). Now, could you please name a single President or candidate for President who has voluntarily released his or her school records? (And no, neither Gore, Bush, nor Kerry released their own records voluntarily...others got hold of them and published them).

  32. Mr. McNaughton:

    Did the US President not have the right to order action against a mass murderer of American citizens? You do realize Khadaffi ordered the execution of the Lockerbie bombing do you not? And he was the authority behind acts of terrorism which claimed American and allied citizens' lives in Europe and the Middle East as well.

    That is one of the reasons Ronald Reagan sent warplanes to strafe and bomb Tripoli. You know that, correct?

    President Obama presented an official standard BC from the State of Hawaii from the get-go, and you know it. The Certificate of Live Birth is what Hawaii issues, and what all citizens or residents born in that state receive-there is no alternative Hawaiian document that is somehow more legitimate.

    And no, contrary to right-wing disinformation, those born elsehwere cannot get a Certificate of Live Birth issued which lists them as being born in that state. Epic Fail.

    The President has been far from perfect in his actions, and political misteps early on allowed a truculent right-wing House to take power, which along with a filibustered Senate allows Republicans to block any government attempts to spur the economy. Republican austerity policies will lead to economic contraction and reduced standard of living, just as they have in Europe.

    While I believe he is an underdog for reelection given a weakening recovery and high unemployment, I will of course support President Obama over the alternative.

    You are of course entitled to your beliefs-but no one is entitled to their own set of facts. Bias are acceptable and unavoidable as we human beings are imperfect in our thinking. But self-awareness and integrity must be practiced as much as possible; they are not optional. If your belief system is to consistent, you should admit under your standards President Reagan and George W. Bush blatantl violated constitutional standards in far more serious ways than our current Chief Executive. Accordingly you should either admit your paintings are in error or apologize for not depicting either of those men denigrating the Constitution.

    And also, just man up and admit that as much you would like it to be otherwise, Barack Obama is entirely a natural born citizen completely eligible for the office he holds.


  33. Campaingner1, I have never defended Bush or Reagan for their share of unconstitutional acts. I see you haven't investigated my paintings and what I have written about them. I never said much about the birth certificate issue until recently. The BC is not even at the top of my list for Obama. He is the most socialistic president we've had since FDR and conservatives are up in arms over his policies that have run roughshod over the Constitution and are hurting our country. Obama has created an air of mistrust over his handling of the BC and Americans have reason to be suspicious. When has any previous president ever had doubts cast on his eligibility? This would have been dismissed long ago with the proper handling.

  34. Please explain exactly how "Obama has created an air of mistrust over his handling of the BC." Be specific.

  35. Obama refused to release the long form of his BC until last year. Instead of immediately taking care of the problem, Obama did nothing until last year when the long form was sumitted. Zuzu, Troy and I have already kicked this around. You're a little late to the party.

  36. JM said:

    "Obama refused to release the long form of his BC until last year. Instead of immediately taking care of the problem, Obama did nothing until last year when the long form was sumitted. Zuzu, Troy and I have already kicked this around. You're a little late to the party."


    Yes, I see that you have "kicked it around" quite a bit, but you don't seem to be able to come up with a definitive answer. Just vague accusations.

    As to the idea that Obama "refused to release the long form of his BC until last year," maybe you are a little late to the party. No one can "refuse to release" something he or she does not have access to, as specified by Hawaii law. If you had done your own research instead of repeating birther talking points, you would know that it has long been the official policy of the State of Hawaii that all requests for *certified* birth records are satisfied ONLY by the computer-generated version provided to the Obama campaign in 2008:


    What Obama released in 2008 is the OFFICIAL record of birth provided by the State of Hawaii, acceptable for all purposes including the issuance of a passport. It contains all the information needed to verify Obama's birthplace and date of birth. The idea that there needed to be some sort of "long form" instead was simply a red herring...the name of the hospital or the doctor who delivered him has nothing whatsoever to do with his status as a natural born citizen. Just another example of goalpost moving by the never-satisfied conspiracy nuts.

    In the meantime, the veracity of the information contained in the "short form" certificate was confirmed in every way imaginable, including the formal statements of the relevant officials in the Hawaiian state government. Not to mention, of course, all the related evidence such as contemporaneous birth announcements based on health dept records and the entry in the official birth registry open to the public.

    Finally, in total exasperation, the State of Hawaii made an exception to its long-standing policy in 2011 and issued a certified copy of the "long form" birth certificate. Only the state health department had the authority to make such an exception, so it had nothing to do with Obama simply deciding to "release" it on his own.

    The "air of mistrust" was entirely the creation of the birther fringe, no one else.

  37. Jon:

    "When has any previous president ever had doubts cast on his eligibility?"

    Grover Cleveland comes to mind most readily

    1. And of course the infamous Chester A. Arthur, about whom was written a conspiracy theory book: How a British Subject Became President of the United States.

      There were rumblings about Eisenhower, who didn't even have a birth certificate until he applied for a delayed certificate based on the statement of his brother.

      And believe it or not (it's true) there were persistent 19th century rumors that no less than George Washington himself was born in England, and quickly shuttled back to Virginia to be baptized on the American Continent.

      America has always been the land of the free and the home of the crank.

  38. Russ, I was referring to his natural born status. It's interesting how the BC issue keeps getting kicked around. I'm not convinced either way on this one. It wasn't until recently that I started to wonder if there many be some validity to what the "birthers" were saying. I have done research on both sides and I see reasons to be suspicious, but I am not yet ready to bet the farm that his new long form is not authentic.

    Obamacare is the top of my list. I''m ready to move on to more interesting subjects.

    1. Well frankly if an official certification from Hawaii to Arizona that the long form matches their files, and a number of other press releases from Hawaii saying Obama was born there, the 1961 Hawaii birth index, the Health Bureau birth lists in two 1961 Honolulu newspapers, contemporary notes in the Barack Obama Sr. immigration file (plus the utter implausibility of Obama being born anywhere else) doesn't convince you, you're beyond convincing, and you're right to move on to something else.

    2. Facts are well known to have a liberal bias.

  39. Jon:

    Even if he were born in Kenya, every piece of evidence available indicates that he would still be a natural-born citizen. The Naturalization Act of 1790, Hamilton's draft notes of the Constitution, and modern immigration law indicate that because Obama's mother was a natural-born citizen and had lived in the USA for five years before his birth, this makes Obama a natural-born citizen as well.

    So sure. His BC is a total fraud. Completely. Why not? It's entirely a moot point.

  40. Jon:

    Do you object to individual states having healthcare plans?

  41. Again,

    Birther: Even if Obama was born in Kenya. And he knew it. And he lied about it. He would still be a natural born citizen due to his mother's citizenship. Hence it is not unconstitutional for him to be President of the United States.

    Libya: You stated towards the top:

    "If Canada is attacked, it would be unconstitutional for the President to attack without some kind of Congressional approval."

    Then later you stated:

    "When we have a treaty and our allies are attacked, it is as if we are attacked. This is self defense under the Constitution and the president can move ahead without waiting for Congressional approval."

    So the president doesn't have to get congressional approval to defend the lives of other nations who are part of the NATO treaty but does have to get approval to defend the lives of Libyans who are part of the UN treaty? Again, this was not unconstitutional. It is just as much a treaty as NATO and just as much defense of a nation.

    NDAA: You, I and President Obama think parts of this are unconstitutional. Not signing it would have endangered the lives of our soldiers. I will support a President who puts the lives of our soldiers above a trivial law that will expire in a year anyway. Let the supreme court throw out NDAA and have our soldiers come home alive. It is the moral thing to do.

  42. Obamacare: This one will be decided very soon by the supreme court. Intrade is giving it a 63.3% chance of being ruled unconstitutional.


    My take is a little different on the constitutionality of it.

    First, government has and does insist on people purchasing things. Liability insurance is mandatory for car owners. And before you say that's a state thing, it's a federal thing also. Washington DC, the US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico are all federally run territories that require liability insurance.

    Second, congress has the right to tax.


    and the right to issue fines.


    As this constitutional law professor points out, Obamacare is a tax.


    If the supreme court rules against it, I assume it will be saying that the government has no right to let the private sector collect taxes. What if the IRS were to place one of its employees into each insurance company in order to make it a federal tax? Would it then be constitutional? Are we really going to have to jump through hoops like that? Or are we going to have to set up full socialized medicine because the supreme court won't let the government let the private sector run it?

    On a side note, here are medical costs per capita per year by three different countries (for 2007):
    USA (current system) $6096
    Switzerland (closest to Obamacare) $4011
    Sweden (full socialized medicine) $2828


    I use Switzerland because they are the closest to Obamacare. But Sweden’s full socialized system is even cheaper.

    Jon opposing Obamacare is taking money away from Americans that could be used for far better things. Like starting a small business. Conservatives say that we should keep our own money to do with it what we want, then they run the government so badly that we have less money than even in a way more socialized country like Sweden.

  43. Troy,

    As you have mentioned, there are quite a few countries that are providing healthcare through a variety of more socialist/governmentally run models. I don't want to run that same experiment here in the United States, you will not agree, but I think reform in the healthcare industry is better than going to a model that is more European in nature. If someone really thinks that is best for their own well-being or that of their neighbors, perhaps Canada would be a better place of choice for them and their family, or another socialist country that is more in line with their personal preference. Frankly, people come to the United States from all over the world (master of the obvious I know) but it is not to embrace the systems they encountered in Europe or anywhere else.

  44. After reading some of the posts on here regarding Obama's status as a natural born citizen I decided to read both sides as much as possible. There are some that argue if Obama was born in Kenya that he would still be a natural born citizen. If that had been public knowledge at the time of the election, Obama would not be the president today. Here is some of what I read regarding the long form forgery accusations:


    Then I read: http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/296881/

    So many question marks regarding Obama's birth. Have you ever seen anything like it? Some of the questions have answers and some do not. People try to debate and argue Obama's legitimacy. Why do we even have a president with so many question marks? In my opinion, the long form has too many inconsistencies to not suspect a forgery. I challenge you to go to both links above and read through and watch both sets of videos. They do raise questions.

    Under most American's understanding of the rules of natural born citizenship, the situation from which Obama was born in Kenya would not qualify him as a natural born citizen. Obama's entire past is clouded with suspicion because of the people he was associated with. His many ties to those who were Marxist and Communist create a lot of red flags. It doesn't help that he appoints ideologically radical Czars to handle his affairs in the White House.

    I'll answer Troy's questions in the next few days when I have a little more time.

    1. Based on the law at the time, a Kenyan-born Barack Obama would not have been born a citizen of the United States, and hence not a natural born citizen.

      However, a statistical report from the INS published in 1962 lists ZERO American citizens entering the United States by air on trips beginning in Kenya. This means that Obama's mother could not have gone to Kenya and returned to the US by air during the entire year ending June 30, 1962. A round-trip by boat would have taken an impossible 3 months.

      You have a birth certificate signed by a doctor in a hospital vouched for by two Hawaiian administrations, one Democrat and one Republican.

      You have newspaper announcements of the birth from the health department in two competing Honolulu Newspapers.

      You have an August 1961 hand-written note in the Barack Obama Sr. immigration file specifically mentioning Obama born in Honolulu.

      You have the testimony of Barbara Nelson who talked to a doctor at Kapiolani who mentioned the unusually named child born there.

      You have various reports in the Obama Sr. file that say that HE didn't leave the country between 1959 and 1964.

      And what is there on the other side? A bunch of birthers pretending to be experts in document analysis, and a handful of people WHO HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER who said it in error.

      This whole born in Kenya thing is the most ridiculous rumor that I can remember hearing in my 61 years, and I have heard a lot. Why otherwise sane people believe this escapes me and I continue to wonder how folks without basic critical thinking skills survive in the modern world (but they do).

      I say that this phenomenon escapes me, but actually it doesn't, after reading the academic literature on conspiracy thinking. Shermer's book, "The Believing Brain" is an excellent popular treatment. The two books by Michael Barkun ("A Culture of Conspiracy" and "Chasing Phantoms") are accessible, and of course the indispensable work is Richard Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." The latter is available online:


  45. Troy, "Birther: Even if Obama was born in Kenya. And he knew it. And he lied about it. He would still be a natural born citizen due to his mother's citizenship. Hence it is not unconstitutional for him to be President of the United States."

    I went to your favorite website:

    It makes its determination based on Obama's birth to in fact be in Hawaii. That is the point of question. If you read the info in the green box it suggests otherwise.

    1. Not to be dismissive, but I don't think Jon understands Snopes. The information in the green box to which Jon seems to be giving credence is precisely the claim that Snopes determines to be False.

    2. I saw the argument on Snopes to assume he was indeed born in Hawaii. "The Fourteenth Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Since Hawaii is part of the United States, even if Barack Obama's parents were both non-U.S. citizens who hadn't even set foot in the country until just before he was born, he'd still qualify as a natural-born citizen. " I certainly would agree with that, no argument there if in fact he is born in Hawaii.

  46. I said, "If Canada is attacked, it would be unconstitutional for the President to attack without some kind of Congressional approval." Yes, that was a brain cramp on my part. We can go to the protection of our allies and still be conforming to the rules of war under the constitution.

    "The historically acceptable conditions under which a president can unilaterally order the military into action are clear. If our country or our military forces are attacked; if an attack, including one by international terrorists, is imminent and must be preempted; if treaty commitments specifically compel us to respond to attacks on our allies; if American citizens are detained or threatened; if our sea lanes are interrupted, then—and only then—should the president order the use of military force without first gaining the approval of the Congress.

    The recent actions by this administration, beginning with the months-long intervention in Libya, should give us all grounds for alarm about the potential harm to our constitutional system itself. We are in no sense compelled—or justified—in taking action based on a vote in the United Nations, or as the result of a decision made by a collective security agreement such as NATO when none of its members have been attacked." Senetor Jim Webb, May 18, 2012

  47. Troy,
    I've just read all the comments, and if I were you I would refuse to debate anything but Birtherism. It's pretty obvious at this point that Jon knows he's cornered and that he desperately wants to move to another subject without having to admit defeat, but if he's unable to see the light on such an obvious slam dunk issue where all the facts come down firmly on your side, he is very unlikely to come to your point of view on anything else. You are wasting your time with him.

    My two cents.

  48. Troy, if you want to stick with the BC (birtherism) that's fine. I do desperately want to move on because I'm getting bored. My conclusion so far is that I don't see a cut and dry conclusion. As I mentioned in one of my last posts I still see some issues with it. My two problems are that I still think there is reason to believe the long form is forged and that if he is not a natural born citizen he is ineligible under the Constitution. Point out my mistakes and I'll admit them as I did the Canada thing. If I see an argument with no holes I will concede.

  49. More on Obamacare:

    1790: Congress enacted a law requiring ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen. This was signed into law by President George Washington.

    1792: Congress enacted a law requiring all able bodied men to obtain a firearm. Again signed by Washington.

    1798: Congress enacted a law requiring seamen to purchase hospital insurance for themselves. Signed into law by President John Adams.

    Apparently the the founders didn't have a problem with government mandated purchases.


  50. Troy:

    I'm going to have to disagree with you on just about every example. To use them as fodder for Obamacare is exactly what historians ought to avoid in assessing historical validity.

    Just for one example...the 1798 law amounted to nothing more than a tax that happened to be earmearked for healthcare usage. If you want to argue that the function of the law was government-mandated insurance, I suppose you can. But the law itself *nowhere* required the sailors to purchase anything. If you believe the that language of a law matters (and if you don't believe that, you should; Supreme Court cases generally hinge on that), then it's simply incorrect to call the 1798 law a precursor to Obamacare.

  51. This comment has been removed by the author.

  52. Mr. McNaughton, the fact that you see an equivalence between a WND article and the Snopes article, containing links and videos that completely debunk the first, makes me wonder how serious you are in your research.

    For example, let's take a look at this linked response to Mara Zebest's shockingly lazy analysis of the BC:


    Yes, by right-clicking on the online version of the BC posted by the White House, you yourself can disprove her claim that the document was Photoshopped. There goes her basic argument. Secondly, try scanning and analyzing any document - you will find that the simple act of scanning creates a kind of coding and well, "layering" for lack of a better word - this doesn't make your document a forgery.

    And if Zebest had bothered to do a little original research herself, she wouldn't have said such silly things about the unlikelihood that more than one person might sign on behalf of the local registrar, or that his name ("Uk--lee"?) had to be made up. A quick Google reveals the same signature on other BCs from the same era:



    And as to the sequencing of the certificate numbers, let's hear from a real expert, one who made a career out of developing and implementing vital record systems:


    Seriously, what "legitimate questions" can you possibly see being raised about the document at this point? I am really curious.

    1. You only accept 'evidence' that supports your side of the argument.

    2. Well, let's have some actual evidence instead of opinions and bad information.

  53. PS, maybe you could also explain why anyone would bother to forge a document that the Hawaii State Registrar has officially verified (to two different states) contains the exact same information as the original document on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health?

    (last page of document)

  54. There is no further point in eviscerating Mr. McNaughton's arguments regarding the "birther" issue; all of his points have been completely refuted many times over. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear, the entire "forged BC" is based on irrational thinking, since basic logic demonstrates how ridiculous it is (why forge a document readily available and vouched for by state officials, does anyone actually think a "forgery" produced by individuals with the finest cryptographers, programmers, and forgers available would be uncovered by bloggers, etc.). Mr. McNaughton has lost the argument badly but refuses to admit it. Period.

    Second, he also clearly won't respond as to why President Obama is shown destroying the Constitution in his paintings, but George W. Bush, President Reagan, and the first President Bush among others have never been depicted as doing so. He knows Ronald Reagan broke federal law-the Boland Act-by funding the contras, and he ALSO supplied arms to a hostile foreign power, Iran (though Iran was partial to the Reagan administration because they despised Jimmy Carter, whom Ronald Reagan defeated handily). George W. Bush violated treaties at whim. But Mr. McNaughton just really hates the idea of government subsidized health care, especially with a mandate. Somehow that will turn us into a communist nation (like, you know, Canada or Australia or Germany). So that means the Mr. Obama is a traitor, Marxist, possibly ineligible/usurper, etc, and an enemy of the Constitution.

    It's really all just gut feelings and visceral emotions with right-wingers (not conservatives, right-wingers-very different). They accume liberal of acting based on emotions because of psychological projection-they cannot deal with the contradictions of their own thoughts and opinions (the President is a socialist/Marxist/Communist-AND he caters to Wall Street!).

    Sorry for the rant. But when someone who clearly is capable (not willing) to think intelligently clings to the ridiculous birther stuff and just won't admit all the arguments have been refuted ten times over, it just gets frustrating.

    So, Mr. McNaughton-prove me wrong if you can. Draw up a quick sketch of George W. Bush tearing the Constitution into pieces while VP Cheney looks on laughing, and I'll be convinced you consider his violations just as serious as those of Obamacare (GW Bush broke treaties with UN, violated anti-torture treaty signed by Reagan, violated habeas corpus, wire tapped citizens without FISA court sanction, and on and on).

    But you won't, because your sentiments are just based on partisanship, not principles. Sorry.

    1. Campaigner1 you have given voice to the truth and I would like to thank you for doing so, in my opinion Bush not only used the Constitution as toilet paper he is a war criminal. I am still waiting for a proper explanation regard Weapons of Mass Destruction!

  55. Campaigner1:

    Well, in order to believe the "forgery" story, one would have to believe the culprits used a computer to forge the document, printed the document out and presented the hard copy to the world ... and THEN put the computer forgery online. Whereas if they just scanned the hard copy and put that online, the forgery would be undetectable. Why would they be so stupid?

    I guess being a birther requires a certain...well, let's just say suspension of logic.

  56. Well, there you have it...SCOTUS votes in favor of Obamacare 5/4 and goes down as one of its more imfamous desicions. Roberts is a traitor and the liberal judicial mandate is alive and well in America. God help us.

  57. Notice he said it was a tax, just like I said it was. Also this will give Americans on average about $2500 more per year.

  58. "Roberts is a traitor"?

    No, Justive Roberts is a jurist-who actually displayed professional integrity, the kind lacking in Scalia, Alito, and Clarence Thomas ("Silent Clarence" is really just a sock puppet for Scalia, though.)

    The decision should have been 6-2, as Kennedy made a rare misstep and Thomas should have been forced to recuse himself due to his wife Ginni's activism and financial stake in defeating the ACA.

    So Mr. McNaughton-will you now acknowledge the ACA (and hence President Obama) are not in violation of the Constitution and revise your work accordingly?

    Likely not, right?

  59. "So Mr. McNaughton-will you now acknowledge the ACA (and hence President Obama) are not in violation of the Constitution and revise your work accordingly?"

    Well, since he now sees Roberts as a "traitor" maybe he will show the Chief Justice ripping up the Constitution. Ya think? Nah, me neither.

  60. Both Obama and Roberts are traitors. No revision necessary. The only way to save the country from the Obama Deluge is to vote him out and pray that Romney repeals Obamacare among other things.

  61. You do understand that "traitor" has a specific meaning, right?

    BTW: Mitt Romney cannot "repeal" the ACA because it is a piece of legislation. It must be repealed by Congress, which would inclue overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate. Nor could Mitt Romney issue blanket exemptions for all fifty states, as the legislation specifies conditions to be met before exemptions may be granted.

    Just another Romney campaign falsehood.

    Oh-and I am not calling him Mitt Romney or Mr. Romney instead of Governor to be disrespectful. But he has chosen to entirely repudiate his past as MA governor, reversing every previous position (formerly pro-choice, pro-gay rights, enacted a healthcare mandate, descriped his policies as progressive, etc., etc.) and decided to run as a business executive. His own choice, not mine.