New passport rules will keep you grounded (forever) — Don’t believe me? Check out the proposed new passport requirements: “Form DS-5513 asks for all addresses since birth; lifetime employment history including employers’ and supervisors names, addresses, and telephone numbers; personal details of all siblings; mother’s address one year prior to your birth; any ‘religious ceremony’ around the time of birth; and a variety of other information,” reports Consumer Traveler, which adds that only “some” citizenswill have to fill out the questionnaire. Who of us counts as “some” is a complete and total mystery, as the State Department’s proposed rule does not include a handy chart for determining which level of hell applicants must travel to in order to be able to go to Cancun for spring break. Consumer Traveler also reports that “the State Department estimated that the average respondent would be able to compile all this information in just 45 minutes.”
New Media Journal
The issue of eligibility where the federal government’s Executive Branch is concerned is not one of politics; it is not, in any way, shape or form related to the so-called “birther” issue. The issue of presidential eligibility is one that addresses the protection of our citizenry’s fidelity to the United States Constitution. Yet many disingenuous political operatives – who put the well-being of their political parties or special interests above honesty and good government – and many pundits, editors and producers – unwittingly or otherwise – have seen clear to blur the lines between the “birther” issue and an honest movement to affect the closing of a loophole unforeseen by our Founders and Framers.
With the stunning news that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer had vetoed legislation that would have required a candidate for the Executive Branch of the federal government to provide first-source prerequisite materials proving his or her satisfaction of Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution, one of the more promising doors to protecting unqualified candidates from accessing the federal ballot slammed shut.
The anti-war movement was all over the news before President Obama was elected. But apparently they weren’t really anti-war … they were just anti-President Bush. Two college professors just released a study of national protests between 2007 and 2009. What did they find?
… After January 2007, the attendance at antiwar rallies [measured in] roughly the tens of thousands, or thousands, through the end of 2008.
… After the election of Barack Obama as president, the order of magnitude of antiwar protests dropped […] Organizers were hard pressed to stage a rally with participation in the thousands, or even in the hundreds. For example, we counted exactly 107 participants at a Chicago rally on October 7, 2009.
Amazing. Especially because the war in Afghanistan ramped up after Obama was elected. American fatalities shot up in 2009 and 2010.
The protesters have remained silent over Libya.
And I’m struck by the hypocrisy of the supposedly “anti-war” politicians who voted against Iraq, like Nancy Pelosi. Since Obama was elected, she has voted to continue the war in Afghanistan … and supported the attack on Libya.
Only a handful of Congressmen have remained principled on foreign intervention. One of them is Ron Paul. On my FBN show this week, I’ll talk with him about why he opposes our “aggressive foreign policy.” Thursday at 10pm EST.