I've become a birther

By Gage Skidmore

By GARY BAUMGARTEN

I’ve been ridiculing the birthers since the start of this debate about where President Obama was born.

Obviously, it wasn’t part of a big Obama cover-up when the Republican health department director in Hawaii said the original birth certificate on file shows the president was born in the USA.

And he has a passport. Which isn’t issued by the U.S. government unless one produces a birth certificate.

Then there’s the little matter of the chief justice of the Supreme Court swearing Obama in as president. He wouldn’t have done that if Obama were not a citizen.

Finally, I point out, it would have been difficult for baby Obama to plant an announcement of his own birth in a Honolulu newspaper so that he could later lie and say he was born there in order to run for president.

But I poke fun no more at those who say they want to see the real, original birth certificate. And it took Donald Trump to open my eyes and change my tune.

Trump, who is contemplating a run for the presidency himself, admits he’s a birther. He just can’t trust a man who produces something other than his original birth certificate. You know, a fake.

Can’t trust him in any other way, that’s for sure, the Donald asserted.

Now he’s done some grandstanding to make his point – making his own birth certificate available for inspection. Just as he demands Obama do.

Only problem is, it turns out the birth certificate Trump released is a fake.

So, now I’ve become a birther too. I’m with Trump. I say, since he can’t produce his original birth certificate, and the one he permitted is a fake, then, following his very own stated logic, Trump was not born in the United States and does not qualify to run for president!

It also means he can’t be trusted.

Let’s now insist that Trump produce his original birth certificate and tell us where he was really born.

And is Trump really his name?

And what do we know about his daddy’s religion?

For that matter, what do we know about Trump’s? Maybe he’s a Muslim!

Does he attend a church? What does his pastor have to say about the United States?

We birthers demand this information from Trump. Before he runs and is elected. We don’t want to go through this process with another president after he’s taken office again.

Once was far more than enough, thank you!

Obama approves erosion of Miranda rights

By secretlondon1 23/Flickr

By GARY BAUMGARTEN

It’s the kind of thing that would result in an uproar from the left if a Republican president had done it.

The Wall Street Journal reports that President Obama has authorized delaying the reading of Miranda rights when questioning domestic terrorism suspects.

It’s the kind of disappointing move that continues and expands on policies started by the George W. Bush administration that eroded civil liberties in the name of homeland security.

It also shows that the differences in this arena between the former and current administrations is minimal. The Guantanamo Bay detention center remains open, for example. Warrantless wiretapping of international calls with suspected terrorists continues as well. (Warrantless wiretapping is being challenged in federal court.) Both were hot issues when Bush was president. But the left has been relatively quiet about them now that Obama is in the Oval Office.

I found interesting the remarks by some on the left, critical of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, for suggesting that the invasion of Libya was an impeachable offense. Doesn’t he know, asked one of my Facebook friends, that he is aiding the enemy (the GOP)?

That’s the problem with partisan politics. All-too-often, party comes first.

If the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were worth marching against during the Bush administration, why aren’t there massive demonstrations now?

Obama promised change. He promised to get us out of Iraq. He is, but on the timetable written up by Bush. No change there.

He promised to close Gitmo. No change there either.

Now he’s telling investigators that they can hold domestic terrorism suspects longer before reading them their rights against self-incrimination. Perhaps that’s not troubling to some. But I suspect that many who do find it disturbing and who would loudly complain if it were Bush issuing the order will - remain silent.

Questions the Libyan invasion raises

By GARY BAUMGARTEN

So now, President Obama has his own war, not one that he inherited. One that raises a lot of questions – and not just about Libya.

First, it appears that, unlike the Iraq invasion, this one actually is mandated by UN resolution. Though not everyone agrees.

The Arab League says the coalition is providing cover for rebel troops. So does, predictably, the Libyan government. Both argue that this exceeds the UN authorization – which primarily establishes an enforceable no-fly zone.

Yet, one would be hard-pressed to not see the justification in bombing military vehicles closing in on cities held by rebels. As the former Libyan ambassador to the United States said, the “cover” provided by U.S. and other warplanes saved thousands of Libyan lives.

Still, the Republican Party is miffed because the action took place with no congressional consultations or authorization.

The president is getting squeezed a bit from some in his own party as well. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) argues the military action, absent congressional approval, is an impeachable offense.

Republicans are asking, too, about the end game. What exactly is the objective?

Is it merely to enforce a no-fly zone? Is it to assist the rebel troops on the ground? Is it to remove Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi from power?

If it is the later, and some of Obama’s comments suggest that it is, the U.S. has set itself up for the possibility of failure. One can declare that a mission to keep Gaddafi’s warplanes grounded has already succeeded. But only time will tell if Gaddafi ultimately survives. And if he does, then why did the U.S. get involved?

Of course, the United States government insists that Gaddafi isn’t the target – even though his presidential compound was pounded Sunday night by U.S.-fired missiles.

If this is a humanitarian effort, to prevent a leader from turning against his own people, does this signal a new U.S. policy? Because, as we have seen, heads of state and government are slaughtering their own people elsewhere as well.

Hardly anyone is focusing any longer, for example, on the carnage in the Ivory Coast.

What about Yemen? Do we look the other way simply because the alternative might be a government that is reticent to partner with the United States in thwarting al Qaeda in that nation?

Bahrain provides an interesting contradiction as well. The United States is on record as opposing using force against demonstrators. But then, there’s the little issue of a U.S. Naval fleet based there. We wouldn’t want to upset the apple cart too much.

Even when it happens in a country where it’s easier to vilify the leadership – problems are presented. Best case-in-point: Iran. No one in the Obama administration I’m sure is seriously advocating an invasion there.

The attacks on citizens by their own governments in these nations and others is pretty horrific, reprehensible and worthy of condemnation. But whether they warrant outside military intervention is another question altogether.

Perhaps the ultimate outcome of the Libyan action will help define future U.S. policy toward other governments that turn their might on their own.

Gadafi defies UN resolution

By GARY BAUMGARTEN

Avi Perry, author of 72 Virgins and Paltalk News Network talk show host said it best. To paraphrase, he suggested that the world not trust Moammar Gadafi when the Libyan president announced a cease-fire in the wake of a UN no-fly and military authorization resolution.

Today, the world is waking up to learn how correct Perry was.

Gadaffi used his announced cease-fire as cover to attack from the air Benghazi, a city held by rebel forces. Just as Perry had predicted.

And now he is publicly thumbing his nose at the UN, calling the resolution "invalid."

Gadaffi's response has prompted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to huddle with British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris to decide what their next steps should be.  If those steps include boots on the ground, there will be invariable comparisons to Iraq. But that would be unfair.

The United States used the most tenuous pretense to declare that the Iraq invasion was "authorized" by the United Nations. At a time when the UN's secretary general and chief weapons inspector both were clearly, to put it mildly, uncomfortable about it all.

In this case, the secretary general has been upfront and unambiguous about Libya. And there is a clear Security Council resolution, ink still drying, in hand, which says, military might is permitted, if necessary, to stop Gadaffi.

That's not to say there aren't lessons to be learned from Iraq. The United States, 'til now, has not taken the public lead in beating military drums. The fact that Clinton is meeting with Cameron and Sarkozy suggests that, this time, should there be an invasion, the United States won't be going it alone.

Even some in the Democratic leadership are urging the President Obama to take care to not appear as the puppet master.  House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland), for example, is on record saying the United States should not take the lead in any military action against Libya.

"I firmly believe," he says in a statement, "that our European allies and the members of the Arab League must take the leading role."

Therein lies a potential problem. The UK and France may be pointed to as fulfilling the "European allies" part of Hoyer's equation. But what of the Arab League?

Almasryalyoum reports in its English edition that Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa opposes an invasion. Moussa, the news site says, argues that the UN resolution doesn't support any military action or occupation of Libyan land.

Detroit News auto critic quits after paper waters down criticism of Chrysler 200

By GARY BAUMGARTEN

The Chrysler 200, you know, the car that was introduced as part of an amazing music video commercial featuring Eminem during the Super Bowl as "imported from Detroit" is a "dog."

At least that's what Detroit News (ex) auto critic Scott Burgess wrote.

The story made it into the print editions. But was watered down online after a car dealer complained, says Crain's Detroit Business.

Crain's says Burgess reportedly quit in protest. The paper later acknowledged the decision to dilute his scathing review was a "mistake."

This is not the Detroit News I used to work for.

I remember when I was an aspiring reporter taking a journalism class from a Detroit News editor at the University of Detroit. The professor was so proud that the News never collapsed from pressure from advertisers.

He told a story about an horrific accident in the old - now demolished - downtown Detroit Hudson's store. The story went something like this:

A glass pane to one of the elevators was missing. Had been for awhile but the lift remained in use.

According to this professor, a guy impatiently waiting for the notoriously slow elevators stuck his head through the opening to check on its arrival and literally lost his head.

The paper reported that Hudson's - a major advertiser at the time - hadn't acted when the missing pain was reported. Hudson's demanded a retraction or it would pull its advertising, the professor said. The paper refused.

As the story went, the ads were pulled. Several days later, when the store's sales dipped, Hudson's came running back, demanding its coveted prime advertising space on page 3. Hudson's refused, saying the spot had already been sold to a competitor.

I don't know if the story was true, but, heck, it came from a college professor who was in a position to know. True or not, it spoke to the integrity of the paper.

I don't know if the 200 is a "dog" or not. I've never driven one. But I do agree with the paper. It made a mistake.

If you can't trust that the people who are critiquing products or music or films aren't being influenced by advertisers, you lose faith in the media outlet.

The News should beg Burgess to return. Apologize to him. And offer him a raise.

Japan's nuclear crisis worse than they're saying

Anti-nuke activist Harvey Wasserman says the damaged plants in Japan are worse than the company and authorities are telling us.

Speaking with me on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network, Wasserman warns the radiation that's been released into the atmosphere will reach as far as the United States.

'Winning!' the new battle cry

By 4rilla/Flickr

By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network news and programming director

Seems the life span of the popular phrase of the day is very short. So much so that, well, we’ve got to enjoy it when we can.

“Don’t touch my junk” was such a rallying cry for months – as Americans used it to describe, in four words, their distaste for the security screening process at airports.

But that’s so 2010. Old news. Sort of like the first iPad. Obsolete.

Today’s phrase is one word: “Winning!”

Nobody who has been on this side of the moon needs to know who coined it.

The great thing about the new use of the word (you need to include the exclamation point to convey what you mean) is that, well, it applies to winningand losing equally.

When Charlie Sheen got fired as star of Two and a Half Men, his declaration was “Winning!” (OK, maybe he actually said “they lose” – an acceptable variation.)

Imagine watching your favorite baseball team suffering through a losing streak this summer. Well, when the last out of the game is called in the ninth inning, you can gain some comfort by shouting out: “Winning!”

Or say you’re throwing away money in the slots in Atlantic City or Vegas. “How ya doing?” someone asks. You can answer, “Winning!” – even if you’re losing your shirt.

You get the idea!

It can be argued that Sheen hasn’t really contributed much to society. He’s a pretty good actor, yes. But beyond that, he’s not much of a role model as a parent or a spouse. But one thing we can thank him for today. He’s found a way for all of us, the common men and women, not just millionaire actors, to find a way to win, even when we lose.

So for that I say, “thank you Charlie!”

Can we afford to drive?

By Sid Sowder

By GARY BAUMGARTEN

Gary Baumgarten is news and programming director at the Paltalk News Network.

It’s time to economize on driving by combining errands, car pooling, grabbing public transportation where it’s available and walking more and driving less.

Gasoline prices in the United States have now gone up every single day for the past two weeks. Every single day.

Makes you wonder if a road trip is even possible these days.

It’s still cheaper to drive than fly on, say, a 12 hour road trip, if you have more than one person in the car. But when you crunch the numbers, if you’re traveling alone, flying may be more economical.

That is before you factor in the cost of renting a car. And filling it with gasoline.

Plus, if you’re calculating the cost of a road trip, remember, it’s going to cost you more to return than it will to go. At least if the current trends continue.

Massacre in Libya

Apparently the rag-tag rebels who have been holding key towns in Libya don't have the firepower nor the training to stave off an all-out assault by troops loyal to Moammar Gaddafi.

The New York Times reports a pitched battle in Zawiyah, a key town held by the opposition, by Gaddafi's militia. The paper quotes two residents as describing the scene as a "massacre."


Sky News reports fierce fightings in other towns held by rebels as well.


The evacuation of foreign nationals continues. The Times of India reports 9,200 Indian citizens have been removed from Libya but thousands more remain. The Hindustan Times reports that before the special flights sent in by the Indian government arrived to take them to safety, many of the evacuees say they were robbed of their luggage and money by Libyan troops. The Associated Press reports that all the Chinese workers known to be in Libya have now been safely evacuated.


Libya continues to blame outside influences for its troubles. Deutsche Press-Agentur reports that Tripoli is now pointing its fingers at the Netherlands for allegedly sending spies into the country. The Netherlands, of course, is home to the International Criminal Court, which is investigating crimes against humanity allegedly perpetrated by Gaddafi against his own citizens.


All these allegations of outside interference in Libyan affairs - including specific allegations that African workers had been employed by Gaddafi as mercenaries - is making the situation particularly upset for black foreigners who are desperately trying to get out of the country, the Sydney Morning Herald reports. 


Recently imposed sanctions have apparently already taken their toll. Libya has petitioned the United Nations to lift them. But Italy, which has strong financial ties to  and depends on that nation to feed its oil consumption needs is balking at freezing Libya's assets, the New York Times reports.

Texas governor blocks reporters from Twitter account

By GARY BAUMGARTEN

The relationship between reporters and politicians is often strained.

There should be a healthy adversarial atmosphere. One in which each respects the other. But also, one in which the journalist questions the politician.

Critical reporting is key to a free society. But sometimes, elected officials, don’t want the reporting to be too critical. They, after all, need to stand for re-election. And too many bad reviews in the press can thwart those aspirations.

The attempt to control the message goes back, probably, to the time of the first town criers.  But it evolves, as does the means of getting the message out.

In nations where press freedoms are suppressed, alternative means of accomplishing this have been embraced. Social media sites, like Facebook and Twitter, are prime avenues for getting at least a first look at what’s going on in these nations.

That’s why, when people rise up as they have in Egypt, Iran and Libya, the governments try to control the flow by impeding Internet access.

Governments, too, are embracing the technology to get their messages out. Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was the first in that position to release information via Twitter. But he wasn’t the only one in government using Twitter to get the message out.

In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry tries to influence the public perceptions of him, unfiltered by the news media, by tweeting. But sometimes, those pesky reporters get in the way anyway, by taking those messages and then writing stories about them.

Occasionally, since, unlike the 140 character missives fired off by the governor the reporters actually strive to get the other side, the stories are less flattering than Perry would like.

All part of the healthy adversarial relationship.

But now, we’re learning, Perry is striking back.

Members of the Austin statehouse press corp who have been writing stories too critical of the governor are being blocked from his Twitter account.

Of course, any reporter who is blocked can simply create another, anonymous, Twitter account to see what Perry has been up to.

We are in an age where technology makes transparency in government all the more possible. Citizens can now get virtual access to everything from court records to purchasing commuter parking lot permits without leaving their house or office for a trip to the courthouse or city hall.

Perry should be commended for using Twitter to get his message out. But he shouldn’t be trying to punish reporters who are not as kind to him as he would like by trying to limit their access to the message.

The behavior is childish. He’s the governor of Texas. An adult. He should start acting like it.

–

Talk to Paltalk News Network News and Programming Director Gary Baumgarten at 5 PM weekdays on News Talk Online.