Secretary Clinton Names Special Envoy for Climate Change

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
January 26, 2009

Today, Secretary Clinton named Todd Stern as the Special Envoy for Climate Change. The Special Envoy will serve as a principal advisor on international climate policy and strategy and will be the Administration’s chief climate negotiator. In her remarks, Secretary Clinton said:"As should be evident by now, the President and I believe that American leadership is essential to meeting the challenges of the 21st century. And chief among those is the complex, urgent, and global threat of climate change. From rapidly rising temperatures to melting arctic icecaps, from lower crop yields to dying forests, from unforgiving hurricanes to unrelenting droughts, we have no shortage of evidence that our world is facing a climate crisis.

And let’s be clear. A world in crisis goes well beyond the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink. It is at once an environmental, economic, energy and national security issue with grave implications for America’s and the world’s future. A quick scan of the globe vividly conveys the human toll. Competition for scarcer resources like food and water will lead to further migrations of populations, regional conflicts, and greater disparities between the rich and poor. Reliance on foreign sources of oil and gas influence our way of life here at home and continues to compromise our national security.

So the urgency of the global climate crisis must not be underestimated, nor should the science behind it or the facts on the ground be ignored or dismissed. The time for realism and action is now. And President Obama and I recognize that the solutions to this crisis are both domestic and global, that all nations bear responsibility and all nations must work together to find solutions. Under President Obama, America will take the lead in addressing this challenge, both by making commitments of our own and engaging other nations to do the same."Read the Secretary's full remarks here.

Comments

Comments

joe
|
Tennessee, USA
January 26, 2009

Joe in Tennessee writes:

Sounds like a movie or book: Soylent Green is a 1973 dystopian science fiction movie depicting a future in which global warming and overpopulation lead to depleted resources on Earth. This in turn leads to widespread unemployment and poverty. Real fruit, vegetables, and meat are rare, commodities are expensive, and much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green" wafers.

1. It is human nature to think we can control our peripherals and while there are things we may be able to do, the earth is in a natural cycle which we simply have moved up. Perhaps adaptation is needed first, not alteration first.

The magnetic North and South are changing, the earth has moved/tilted over 2 degrees on it axis in the last decade or so and we are consuming more water than is available. There are simply more people on the earth than it can accommodate given our consumption. Why do you think we can manufacture what does not exist? There is less water in the underground rivers, thus the mantle is heating up, the salinity of the oceans are altered due to the heat and the mantle is actually opening...we cannot do anything about this.

Energy cannot be destroyed...and that old Resonance of nature law:...where does all that energy from bombs and building end up? Perhaps the seventh day of rest was meant for the earth and not us. Gosh, we still dump hosptial waste in the ocean without regualtion, how long has that gone on? Why not burn it first? Opps, then we have OSHA problems..so we dump live bacteria and virus's into the sea for centuries. I am not wrong here at all. Common sense...

2. Our objective is frozen in maintaining our present existence of consumption and improving upon that, when in fact we cannot have it both ways in some cases. The earth is a biological mechanism which will find homeostasis regardless of our late intervention in a pro active manner. Why is this the focus rather than spreading out the resources to accommodate the earth which supports us? We can all do with less in many ways. From the obese nature of many countries people to the compulsive purchasing of unnecessary goods and services. The Huey Long concept of Every Man a King did not mean to imply we should all live like Kings; but, that seems the overview and goal of the citizens of many societies. We have lost our perspective as a people and it is not any one group who are responsible, but our own desires which are accommodated that is the problem. Like narcotics, if there is a market, someone will produce, if no one buys, then the market withers. I am not a socialist by any means, but we need some parody in needs vs. overall consumption on a personal level. This is not the work of governments, but individuals who can help by rethinking their habits. We depend too much on government to regulate us, and then complain when it has to intervene.

3. Kudos on focusing on this topic and there are countries like South Korea who have a step up with alternate energy application. Providing 2,500 new jobs in the last year or so and moving to 2.1% from 0 in alternate energy use. We need to collate with the rest of the world for solutions and use each others success and failures to do what we can.

This problem will take everyone to solve, not one system, not one company or government regulation, but all of us.

Wendy
|
California, USA
January 27, 2009

Wendy in California writes:

Secretary Hillary's speech is a remarkable distillation of our planet's peril and of the stupendous adventure we can all embark upon to rescue our planet and the future. This should awake the dormant hero-story in each of us, and remind us that, like Frodo, the essential heroism is heart-wise persistence. Not everyone gets a glamourous role, but we each have a deep and glad part to play.

Mr. Stern also seems to grok both the peril and the adventure.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
January 27, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Mr. Todd Stern, Given the fact that you've been appointed to produce miracles and a daunting task lies before you, it seems to me you need all the inspiration you can get at the moment.

I define "miracle" as something good that defies probability and reasonable explanation for occurring.

By employing common logic and gut-instinct together with an open mind, one may anticipate miracles as a result.

We've been "terra-forming" our planet for millenia, and in some very negative aspects. But here's a proven , factual, biographical example of what one individual can do to change the world around him for the better.

This is a living , breathing planet. It has an infinite capacity to heal itself if given the chance. But we must replace what we've taken to restore balance.

Carbon capture and storage do not require high tech processes, simply the restoration of natural processes.

The film will provide food for thought on a number of levels, not just with the subject of climate change.

(from the archives)

http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entries/democracy_albania/

Eric in New Mexico writes:

The Dept of State has this video contest "Democracy is...." and in the case of our recent election I think it is self evident that America has the ability to inspire by example.

We've certainly lent blueprints to those we've liberated to be able to build their own democracies with the building materials they have to work with. But this sharing of of an idea never was intended to have another nation's democratic aspirations manifest exactly like ours. Democracy exists in many forms and structure, and its form must be chosen freely by the people as they ratify a constitution.

But what is Democracy?

Essentially it is an idea put to motion by people willing to plant the seeds of social change.

And in this context, this following film may serve as a beautiful metaphor for the transformation of societies that have endured the wasteland of tyrany, and what is possible.

Enjoy....

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/man_who_planted_trees.php

Posted on Thu Nov 13, 2008

---end post---

I think we as humans tend to overcomplicate dillemas and lose focus on essential solutions.

We seek high tech answers to problems that simply require labor intensive applications.

Got a lot of people out of work? Well, the average healthy individual can plant 150-300 seedlings per day, at altitude.
I should know having planted about 30,000 pine trees for the US Forest Service over a few summers back in the late 70's -early 80's.

Back then we'd get between 15 and 25 cents per tree planted on average, depending on terrain, soil and weather factors limiting individual productivity and overall time to complete contract.

Nice thing is, I've long since spent the money but I've left something for my kids to enjoy.

I suggest to you Todd, that were we to invest a trillion dollars into replanting America's forests, it would be money well spent, and wisely so.

And if all nations were to make a comparitive investment now, and continually over this next 20 years, by 2050 we'll have restored to a great degree the carbon capture capability of this planet.

It would be less money than what has been invested globally over the last 60 years for weapons of mass destruction that cannot be used and remain civilized.
( solid evidence that the family of nations is dysfunctional, if not criminally insane.)

Yes we can do this thing called becoming good stewards of the planet. If we wish to tell our grandkids, "Yes we did... finally get our act together."

John
|
Greece
January 27, 2009

John in Greece writes:

Co-DipNoters, watch and "double see" Eric's film suggestion.

It's a great thinking tank!

Slow but smooth, without an unexpected end, but pure and logical.

Our lives!
Our dreams!
A perfect world!

Maybe... someday? when we can do it, but without hurting our humanitarian priorities.
Human beings come first, "trees" come as a secondary "value".

Someone will say, how can we live in this planet without keeping the balance or the physical platform that will allow us (humans and our kids) live here?

-- that's a debatable issue indeed!

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
January 27, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7853250.stm

(excerpt)
The government says the ban is to deal with an "extraordinary" threat of desertification in Chad, which straddles the Sahel, the semi-arid region bordering the Sahara.

At the forefront of climate change, the environment ministry says more than 60% of Chad's natural tree cover has been lost due to indiscriminate cutting of trees for charcoal.

"Chadians must be aware of this problem," said Environment Minister Ali Souleiman Dabye.

"If we don't do something soon, we will wake up one day and there will be no trees. Then what will people burn?"

--end--

@ John in Greece, here's a real world reality check to prove my point that as so go the trees, our fate is intertwined. I never said this would be easy, or without sacrifice. I said reforestation was critical to our continued survival as a species. The facts will bear out the truth of my words over time.

But unfortunately our previous discussion on this was deleted during the archival process, most likely because it was deemed somewhat off topic. Only my original post was kept.

So, I'll be glad to have the same conversation all over again if you'd like, but I don't need to remind you I'm pretty hard to argue with....(chuckle).

@ Dipnote:

Will someone on the Dipnote staff please send the link to this film (The man who planted trees) to the U.S. embassy in Chad and see if it will help the government of Chad inspire change people can live with? Seems they have a bit of a public dilomacy problem as result of trying to do the right thing.

I'd appreciate that very much. I'd do so myself, but my email's on the fritz at the moment. Let me know if you can take the ball I'm handing off to you and run with it for a touchdown. Thanks.

( feedback requested )

Donald
|
Virginia, USA
January 29, 2009

Donald in Virginia writes:

29 January 09

Climate Change interesting change from Global warming.

1. Mr. Gore who is so keen on saving the planet has he himself taking any steps in his own personal life to help bring down the emmissions of climate change other than producing a Global warming movie? I mean if your going to Lead by example: Doesn't this also mean you must start living by example? Tell people they must do something about the Climate but has he taken any steps in his own home, own vehicle or in his life that has produced any positive steps other than being a politician and standing up for Climate Changes?

2. If the White House plans on making all these wonderful changes regarding the Planet and earth, then they themselves must start Leading by Example: Otherwise it becomes "Don't do as I do, Do as I tell you to do" You must live like this but we can live any way we want. This kind of double standards will only be problems for people.

3. While the Politicans are flying in their personal Jets and creating more Global warming, the family of 5 trying to make a living will be the ones hurt in this process, especially when they need energy to live. Think about this in more detail because you can't tell someone to do something if you yourself are not prepared to make those changes first. In your own personal lives.

4. There is one show on Television, the actors name is Ed Bagely Jr. shows on Planet Green. He has taking the steps towards going green, If anyone deserves the air time for representing the Planet or going Green it should be him and his family. They have proved how to make their home environmential safe. I believe Mr. Gore can learn a few things from him because unlike Gore he has done it and succeeded at it. "Proof is in the pudding" Compare the two for a moment. One has taking his own home and made it green. The other a Politian who promotes going green. I hope people can see their is a difference between the two families.

Good luck on Climate Changes!!!

sekar
|
United Arab Emirates
January 29, 2009

Sekar in India writes:

Please help Tamils in SriLanka. They are killed like animals. Ptotect tamils from genocide. Act as you did for Kosovo. Please please help. God bless you.

Luke F.
|
District Of Columbia, USA
January 29, 2009

DipNote Blogger Luke Forgerson writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico -- Just wanted to let you know that we forwarded your message to the Public Affairs Section of the Department's Bureau of African Affairs. We'll keep you posted.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
January 29, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Luke, Many thanks! This is what I love about Dipnote...it's a results oriented blog.

If I might offer a suggestion on how we can help address the immediate problem of what people might use to cook with, perhaps USAID could have a chat with Coleman, (they put out a pretty cheap, reliable camping stove) and see what might be done on a bulk order basis.

John
|
Greece
January 29, 2009

John in Greece writes:

@ Eric in NM -- Maybe I was not so clear. I absolutely agree with you and your film suggestion.

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/man_who_planted_trees.php

I just attempted to "add" that some things take some time...

So there is no need to argue as long as we agree.

Besides, I wouldn't dare to argue with you? (Chuckle!)

Best Regards Sir!

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
January 30, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ John in Greece, You know I very much appreciate our "arguments", as you are always so gracious as to provide your fellow contributors with the ideal opportunity to further an idea.

When you have a subject as complex and interdependant on social engneering as the science involved in reverse engineering man-made climate change, by the very fact that these changes exist as a result of the human condition; you got to try to keep the implementation of solutions as simple as possible for the sake of consensus.

As Joe in Tennessee rightly put it:

"This problem will take everyone to solve, not one system, not one company or government regulation, but all of us."

I would venture a guess that planting trees might be the most politicly neutral activity one could imagine the international community undertaking collectively.

If that's the case, then the possibilities for better relations among nations exists in cooperative effort, and the general mental health of peoples may be improved by planting hope for the future in the process.

Uncertainty about one's future and indeed the viability of the planet to support as many people as projected causes social instability which leads to conflict over resources, which in turn destroys habitat for humanity and other species.

So to end this vicious cycle requires more than just technological applications to reduce global warming.

If "The man who planted trees" inspires an elegant social solution that addresses multiple problematic issues, simultaneously and over time, then I've done my job as a contributor to this debate.

Essentially this is all about humanitarian priorities, and those are indeed worthy of debate.

So I thank you for your invitation to think!

Zharkov
|
United States
January 30, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

There is no country, government, or geographic region named "climate change", therefore, any "Special Envoy for Climate Change" is a void appointment and represents a waste of taxpayer funds by Senator Clinton, a person ineligible to be appointed Secretary of State.

The second clause of Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution reads, "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time..."

The "Saxby fix" is unauthorized by the constitution, and every act Mrs. Clinton does is without any constitutional or legal authority. As an attorney, she knows that her appointment is violating the constitution which she swore on numerous occasions to uphold. All purportedly offical acts of Mrs. Clinton are legally void as she remains constitutionally unqualified to act as Secretary of State.

John
|
Greece
January 30, 2009

John in Greece writes:

@ Zharkov in U.S.A.

Welcome back Z. You had a problem with the 66th Secretary of State, now you have a new one with the 67th and I imagine that you will still have one with the 1000th too, 'cause I believe that the States will at least reach this great number of Democracy years.

So, see you in some 4000 years from now -- as your cartoon hero inspires.

And now back to "space": do you think that it's the appropriate time for starting an anti-U.S. SD campaign just a few days after the transition?

Give the guys a chance -- some space -- for Christ's?

@ Eric in NM: Thank you very much Sir!!!

Zharkov
|
United States
January 30, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

@ John in Greece:

The kind of democracy you want was described in "1984", and I hope you get it. America doesn't want that kind of government and neither do I.

I want the president-alleged, and his almost-imaginary Secretary of State, both of whom studied constitutional law, to simply obey the constitution. Until they get that right, I will complain about it because the constitution is the law. Democracy is about law, not popularity.

John
|
Greece
January 31, 2009

John in Greece writes:

@ Zharkov in U.S.A.

Oh come on Z! Quit this Orwellian illusion of utopia and conspiracy literature. There is no "farm" my friend and the year today is 200&9, not "1984".

However(1), if you prefer to go this argumentation path to extreme "flying" conditions, here is the pilot.

In case I'm a fan of a "1984" type of governing, then you are a fan of "anarchism". I am not afraid to say that if I had to choose between these two unexpected, hypothetical extreme "political" situations, I would certainly prefer the "farm" and not your "anarchy" platform. At least in the "farm", there is "some kind of life", while in the "anarchy" scenario you simply attempt to reach the ABSOLUTE expected and sure- END of humanity. [But, this is a simplified extreme/hypothetical answer to your extreme/direct accusation of my views and certainly not what I desire for the humanity and the world.]

Nevertheless(2), all these are utopias you bring to table in order to accomplish and encourage your social engineering "valves" and not the U.S. values. America doesn't want that kind of government and neither do I. END QUOTE.

Do you think that you represent the States. You are a simple Z, I am a simple J. You do not even represent all the other Blog readers that may agree with you. Otherwise, run for office and after election appoint your kind of Secretary of State. But, unfortunately4U, until then, you have to respect the decisions that the People of the United States of America made JUST A FEW DAYS AGO.
Otherwise, YOU ARE a 1984 "fan" -- full of air.

Zharkov, I respect the U.S. Constitution! Maybe more than you! But I am sure that the Congress and the new Administration can better deal, analyze and explain these parameters of the Constitution analysis than the two of us.

Z, it's not personal, although the two of us frequently disagree; THERE IS DEMOCRACY IN THE U.S.A. AND IT'S THE BEST IN THE WORLD. That's why we can debate this very moment.

GIVE THE NEW ADMINISTRATION SOME TIME and your "1984" will be even more miles and times away from your literature fears!

Every U.S. democratically elected Administration is: the "next step", the change, AND the future -- of this haunted "thinking way" that all the times attempts to create conspiracies against America and Freedom!

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
January 31, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ John in Greece, the reason I said this, "You know I very much appreciate our "arguments", as you are always so gracious as to provide your fellow contributors with the ideal opportunity to further an idea." is because you deserve credit as well if the idea goes forward.

Also, now that I think of it, my recognition of your graciousness is partly out of my own self awareness that I have virtually no patience with idiots...(chuckle).

Zharkov
|
United States
February 2, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

@ John in Greece -- I commend you for recognizing that liberty does resemble anarchy to those unfamiliar with it. Our constitution blocks the federal government from many of the things it does today, in order to preserve the liberty that existed when the constitution was written. If we allow federal officials to ignore our constitution, we will lose what remains of our liberty because nothing will constrain them from exercising total power over us.

What most foreign citizens do not understand is that the U.S. Constitution was written for the citizens themselves to interpret and enforce. Our people do this through lawyers and courts, but our citizens themselves ultimately have the final word on what our constitution means.

You might better understand if you will read our Declaration of Independence and the conditions under which a government may be abolished and a new one established by the people themselves and not through elections.

The framers of our constitution never intended for federal government officials to be the final judges of their own powers under the constitution for that would be the very definition of a tyranny. When, for their own convenience, federal officials begin making exceptions to clear constitutional limitations, we are no longer a nation of laws but a tyranny.

It is liberty, not democracy, that is not the ultimate goal protected by our constitution and the reason it exists.

A democracy, however perfect in your eyes, does not necessarily protect liberty. Adolph Hitler was elected in a democracy, and for Germans, liberty vanished. Democracy can easily exist without liberty.

Our constitution protects liberty and democracy in the event our public officials do not. For this reason, there must be strict compliance with its provisions and our new administration has already rejected the part that applies to it. Every federally elected official swears under oath to support the constitution, as does every lawyer, every soldier, and every judge. It is astonishing to me that, out of thousands of State Department employees and officials, only one State Department officer lawsuit has been filed challenging Senator Clinton's appointment. There should be thousands of lawsuits challenging this apparent violation of U.S. law. There were no exceptions written in the constitution for former residents of Arkansas.

Zharkov
|
United States
February 2, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

I wish to correct the following error in previous post, which should have been posted:

"It is liberty, not democracy, that is the ultimate goal protected by our constitution and the reason it exists."

Protecting our liberty was the real purpose for making our constitution.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
February 2, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Zharkov, I suppose you would see Thomas Jefferson's apointment as Secretary of State unconstitutional as well, since he did serve in Congress prior.

So now that we've established a founding father's precedent, the logic of your argument does not hold water as the premis of the provision was to ensure the separation of powers between executive and legistaltive branches, thus no member of Congress my SIMULTANEOUSLY occupy an appointed position of the executive branch.

The Constitution and the spirit of the law remain intact today. On the flip side, it may very well be unconstitutional to restrict the powers of the President to nominate those he sees as best suited to fill the posts in his Cabinet, since Congress must approve the appointments anyway.

Don't know what you're actually complaining about, but it sure has nothing to do with climate change.

Zharkov
|
United States
February 2, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

No, Eric, the objection is that the Senators shall not vote for a salary increase and then be appointed later to the same office. If no salary increase had occurred for the Secretary of State job, there would be no problem, but since it increased three times while the Senator held office, she is ineligible for appointment.

The constitution is quite clear on that point.

As for climate change, you are right. The State Department has nothing to do with climate change and needs no "special envoy for climate change". If any federal agency is responsible for controlling the earth's climate, it certainly isn't the State Department.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
February 2, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Well that rational doesn't fly either Zharkov, unless you think a grand conspiracy's afoot that salaries were raised in anticipation of Ms. Clinton becoming Sec. of State.

Fact is she was anticipating becoming President not Sec. of State, and so I can see nothing willfully in violation of any Constitutional provision by having voted for a pay increase and then being appointed to the position.

The two are not connected by intent for personal gain, which is at the heart of the second part of the provision you originally cited.

So if she had voted for a pay cut, you'd have no problem with this then?

I don't know why you have a problem in the first place, but maybe you should ask why Congress gives itself pay raises? I don't have to ask myself why I gave myself a pay raise some years back. Cost of living, and I'm worth it. (chuckle) My clients definately got a big bang for the buck.

Now it's up to the public to see that Madam Secretary earns her paycheck (chuckle). I suspect we will. Especially if she reads this blog.

So, while you go fishing for "red herrings", let me be so bold as to suggest that the Dept of State is part of an essential mechanism to bring nations to consensus regarding a global approach to climate change, and thus a special envoy is appropriate and usefull to the diplomacy involved.

A reasonable person would let the fellow have a chance to do his job, and perhaps offer a constructive suggestion or two on how best to deal with the problems humanity faces.

Instead of simply trying as you are to detract from the debate and impune the character of "America's face to the world", now that she's been duly sworn in to office as Sec. of State. and decided to delegate authority.

Besides, it's not for you or me as members of the public to interpret the Constitution, as that's the Supreme Court's job.

One is free to challenge the constitutuionality of the law, but the buck stops with them as to the law's interpretation and its Constitutional merits.

And since niether you or I are experts in the law, we should move on to more topic related subjects.

Zharkov
|
United States
February 3, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

The constitutional principle isn't concerned with which office Senator Clinton sought but only the one which she accepted, nor whether she intended to profit by quitting her representation of the people of New York. Her motivation for the violation of law is not a defense, just as Mr. Obama's motivation for being president does not qualify him to hold that office if he was not born in the U.S. or a U.S. citizen.

The Supreme Court had long ago arrogated the interpretation of the constitution to itself, in Marshall vs. Madison, but the framers of the document said they wrote it for the public to interpret and enforce and the constitution was written with our Declaration of Independence immediately in mind, (you apparently have not read either document), to protect our liberty and not our public officials or their aspirations.

The Supreme Court is only authorized to resolve disputes between parties before it, but has no authority to alter the clear meaning of the constitution, and in that regard, no branch of our government can ever unilaterally set its own powers -- the constitution has done that -- and the citizens enforce it themselves. As the Declaration of Independence states, our citizens ultimately determine what government shall exist, and what its powers shall be, not the Supreme Court.

It is legally irrelevant that Senator Clinton's appointment will not destroy liberty or America itself, or even that she is willing to take reduced pay for the job (the Saxbe "fix"); there is no constitutional provision allowing those things to alter the constitutional prohibition.

As a constitutional officer, Senator Clinton knows she is ineligible for the job, just as Mr. Obama knows he is ineligible to be president if he was not born within the United States, and it is their intentional disregard of constitutional law that is the conspiracy.

The simple truth is that if Mr. Obama disclosed a genuine birth certificate and Senator Clinton obeyed the law and resigned, those questions would instantly end. As for Congress awarding itself pay raises, they are directly elected by the people and the framers were aware that they could be voted out of office to end any problem of excessive generosity. As long as the questionable situation exists, the court system will continue to receive complaints.

Zharkov
|
United States
February 3, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

Very funny slip -- Marbury vs. Madison. Perhaps it should have been "Marshall vs. Madison".

Zharkov
|
United States
February 3, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

One might argue that no person is required to make his birth certificate public against his will, but the counter argument is that a citizen who seeks to be president must provide conclusive proof of his place of birth.

Other presidents whose place of birth was never questioned, had done this without demand being made -- http://bidenobama.blogspot.com/2009/02/speaking-of-birth-certificates.html

So it is very strange that Mr. Obama has not done this, and stranger still that he actually refused to produce such evidence.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
February 3, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

"Law is logic" as a former 1st district court judge here in NM put it to me almost a decade ago when seeking guidance on procedure.

Look around Zharkov, two Senators ran for President heading their party's ticket, one was appointed Vice President, one became Sec. of State.

Simply by the very fact this all came to pass without objecton should logicly tell you no violation of constitutional law was committed in the process.

I know it's a romantic notion to be the lone voice of dissent but somewhere in that brainpan of your's is the knowing that you are not correct in your interpretation of events, let alone constitutional law.

If you had a case you'd persue it in court if you think it is your personal duty to enforce the constitution, not on Dipnote on a topic thread about climate change.

Which leads me to the logical conclusion that you are testing the limits of your constitutional freedom of speech through slander, inuendo, and illogic in order to get booted off Dipnote so you can say your liberties have been violated....then sue the government for personal gain.

End of story.

(long term pattern recognition at work)

As I said to John in Greece,

"Also, now that I think of it, my recognition of your graciousness is partly out of my own self awareness that I have virtually no patience with idiots...(chuckle)."

Seems I've stretched my own limitations in the patience department, so back to reality:

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/conflict/publicatio...

Zharkov
|
United States
February 4, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico: You apparently have no clue concerning all the lawsuits filed over Obama's eligibility. You say there have been no objections when in fact there are many objections made by many people including former attorneys general, former candidates, and other interested parties.

You may prefer to dispute obvious facts but do you think the rest of the world cannot read?

In August 2008, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court challenging Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency on the grounds that Obama was actually born in Kenya (not Hawaii) and/or subsequently gave up his U.S. citizenship and thus does not qualify as a native-born citizen of the U.S. Many other cases have been filed since then.

If you are literate, for starters you might begin to read:

www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87622
liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=4007

U.S. Law very clearly stipulates: "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16."

Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born.

In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
February 8, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

"One is free to challenge the constitutuionality of the law, but the buck stops with them (the Supreme Court) as to the law's interpretation and its Constitutional merits."

Just because some decide to file suit does not mean they have a case.

And I'm sorry it took so long to get back to you on this, but the President's birth certificate is not a topic of priority to me, and you really should abide by the rules of discussion and stop engaging in slander.

You are violating people's (President Obama for one) constitutional rights to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and this is not the place to conduct your mock trial in the first place.

Now I do believe your complaints about me to the Dipnote staff have illicited a response (Welcome to Dipnote) I can concur with.

A. That you should review the rules of discussion for this blog.

B. That you are a valued member here.

Well I value your presence as well, as you consistantly help me make some really good points in debate.

You choose you're side as you wish. If I choose to disagree, I will certainly excercize my analytical abilities in rebuttle as is my right to, and with my keen sense of humor.

I would however suggest you not again attack me on a personal level, as I am more than you can handle apparently.

I will push you to be the best you can be intellectually, and on the rare occasion when I see you on a path of "no return", you can count on me to halt you in your tracks and make you think about what you are saying.

That's the deal, now you want to discus climate change?

This would be the place to do so.

Zharkov
|
United States
February 11, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico: I would not have used a hypothetical post if I had thought it would hurt your feelings. Thanks for the tip and it won't happen again.

I was making a suggestion, not a complaint, to signal when a post is rejected, as a few of mine have been.

It would be nice to know, at least, that someone received a post that is never posted. The reply tells me that officially acknowledging censorship isn't done here. Even Pravda will tell a poster when their post is rejected and that is not a government blog.

I enjoy your enthusiasm in support of the Trilateral Commission takeover of America (11 out of 85 members now run our government).

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
February 15, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Zharkov -- If you didn't supply an email address (optional), you won't get the standard email notification from Dipnote staff as to why a post has been rejected. Simple.

You just don't get it...nothing you actually could get published here would (or could) hurt my feelings, as I'm laughing too hard at you right at the moment...

See, in my opinion, it would never be profitable for you to attempt to read my mind, or assume a damn thing about what I think. Just read the words on the page, and your life will be a lot easier....(chuckle).

If I were on the Dipnote staff, your submitted posts would be judged by two basic criteria for publication, and would summarily be rejected if:

(a) The content strayed beyond relevence to the particular topic thread being discussed (as this thread provides a good example of a long standing pattern of behavior in this regard on your part).

(b) The content included any negative personal insinuations of any type, for any reason.

I'm sure you can find a creative way to oppose policy without trying to turn Dipnote into your personal 3-ring political circus.

That being the case, I'd also institute the "3-strike rule" in your particular case, as the multiple warnings you've gotten in the past seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

This is a very effective "no return" method utilized on many blogs to ensure dicipline in debate where the forum member cannot seemingly excercize self-dicipline of their posting privilages.

We'll see if you can muster that from within or not.

Now I appreciate a variety of perspective, and on the topic of Climate Change, I thought you'd appreciate this one, since you made mention of the Trilateral Commission:

http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu;_k...

.

Latest Stories

September 27, 2008

Life Aboard an Icebreaker

About the author: Brian Van Pay is a Maritime Geographer with the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific… more

Pages