Obama... How many years left till we get a new president?

President Obama. What can we say about this man? Well, he has made a huge step forward for all Africans in America in that they can do the same things that every other race can, but is this the only good thing about President Obama? Honestly, for the most part yes. There are so many questions when it comes to President Obama.

The main question at hand is if Obama is a true natural born-American citizen. According to multiple blogs, news groups, and websites, two experts inspected the alleged birth certificate of Barack Obama and they are finding it to be fraudulent!! If all of these people are right in that President Obama isn’t truly an American citizen then our country is in trouble. It is a requirement from the constitution that our President of the United States be at least 35 years of age, lived in residence for at least 16 years, and most importantly, be an natural born-American citizen. Some stories are stating that President Obama has been using his sister’s birth certificate. The reason for that theory is that the certificate used is one that is for a female. So, what will America do? Probably nothing because all people can seem to think about is how great this President is. But, do they love the President and his policies, or do they love what he represents which is an African man that has made a difference? I have nothing against change for the better for all races, and in this case the African American race, but I wish that there had been a different, more qualified, reliable African American candidate to take this step toward change.

Another important question when it comes to President Obama is what on Earth is he thinking when he makes his decisions?! Half of the things he does are completely idiotic. One of the most important decisions he has made is his decision to be slow at giving direction toward the oil spill. President Obama waited weeks before allowing any cleanup. This caused the oil to spread further into the ocean harming the marine habitat majorly. Now, the government has finally put a cap on the oil leak so we are finally being able to fix a little bit of what President Obama didn’t help attempt to repair.

So, is that what we want: a president who isn’t for sure an American born citizen and doesn’t take immediate action on critical events that affect our economy and society as a whole? I know that isn’t what I want. The sooner President Obama’s term is up, the better. That way we can get a move on to a better life without Obama, his questionable identity, and his thoughtless decisions.

Does Credibility and An Appeal to Emotions Help Seal the Deal?

I will be the first person to agree with someone on not liking President Obama and his politics, but the blog that I am reviewing goes a little further that just stating dislike towards President Obama. It’s called Obama, The Religion of Resentment and it discusses the author’s views on President Obama. Let’s just say that the author’s views are not that nice.

The first line in the blog says, “Obama is a religious cult leader ruling America….” Now, right off of the bat the blog is attacking President Obama’s character. For anyone reading this article that is a President Obama fan probably was quite offended. This article isn’t really meant for President Obama supporters that pay attention to the news; this article is more directed toward President Obama supporters that have no idea what is going on in the world and just support President Obama because of his race or for some other reason. The article is also of course meant for the people that don’t support President Obama and will just be fueled by the blog.

This Armaggedon writer was brutal through his article on calling President Obama a “cult master” and accusing him of being mentored by different groups such as the Islam, the Marxism group, and by the Chicago Machine but while the writer’s tactics are crude, they do appeal to the emotions of the readers and make new arguments known. By being so up front and vocal, both supporters and non-supporters will pay attention to the blog. So, by being so out there, the writer’s issues that he brings up are being noticed and discussed whether the reader is agreeing or not.

The one major thing in the article that bothers me though is the constant misspellings and grammatical errors. For an article to be fully credible, it should be thoroughly proof read. By not spelling words correctly, the writer and his article loses a lot of credibility. Therefore by knowing that the blog might not be completely credible, but makes a good argument geared towards the emotions, it is really up to you on if you are affected by reading this article.

Stage 3: First Amendment vs. Stolen Valor Act

How far will the government go when supporting the first amendment? While searching The Dallas Morning News, I came across an interesting article called When Freedom of Speech, Lies Collide by Tom Robberson. He was bringing up an issue focused towards the first amendment and the Stolen Valor Act. Now, I know you are probably wondering what I mean considering you haven’t glanced at the article quite yet, but basically what was bothering Mr. Robberson was that there were cases of people lying about being in the military service and when they got arrested for their untruthful lies, they got out of all possible fines and charges because the first amendment allowed free speech.

Now, Mr. Robberson has a good point, however I could be siding with his opinion because of his writing techniques used to persuade his audience. First of all, a main point to notice right off of the bat of this article is Mr. Robberson only gives two examples of people lying about their alleged military service and getting away with it. The way he generalizes his statements makes the reader possibly believe that many more cases are out occurring in the US, but from this article we are not given any information of that sort. The next thing I believe is important to point out in the article is the way Mr. Robberson uses pathos continually throughout his piece. The very first person he brings up lied about being a 9/11 victim. This is a very sensitive subject to many Americans and therefore would push people to feel angry about someone lying about being a survivor in 9/11 when possibly someone’s family member could’ve been a real survivor or died in the 9/11 attack. With bringing up an event such as 9/11, Mr. Robberson is appealing highly to the audience's emotions so that they will take his side. The next example Mr. Robberson used was a man who lied about being in the military to get ahead in his career. The writer once again used pathos by bringing up the active-duty service members and veterans. He said that by Rick Strandlof (the man who lied about being in the military) lying, he was actually hurting the veterans and active-duty service members. Overall, the article was well written and very persuasive because of all of the pathos throughout the article.

Federal vs. State Government

Imagine getting pulled over for a speeding ticket and asked to show your papers stating that you were a legal citizen. Does this action seem intrusive or discriminating? That is what some people believe according to Feds to Sue Over Ariz. Immigration Law in TIME. The new law in Arizona has created quite the uproar. The outcome of keeping the law or dismissing it is completely up in the air. Summarizing the information from TIME, I am going to briefly review both sides of the argument. If time permits it, I highly recommend you reading the full article because it gives wonderful background information and details to both sides of the issue at hand.

Jen Brewer, the governor of Arizona, enacted the immigration law to enforce clearing out illegal immigrants from Arizona, as it is one of the main locations in the United States for illegal immigrants to reside. With the illegal immigrants residing in Arizona, they bring large problems to the community such as violent kidnappings and major drug trafficking. These problems are problems that can’t go untouched, yet they are hard to fix unless the root of the problem is dismissed. This was Arizona’s reasoning for having police officers ask to see people’s papers stating that they are citizens or have a work visa. This interaction with the police officer is only supposed to occur if there is probable cause, but the people contesting this law believe it will cause discrimination towards Hispanics anyways.

In opposition, Obama believes that the law is wrong even though there is already a federal law stating that it is illegal for immigrants to reside in the US. The reasoning for his opinion on the dislike for the law is that if one state enforced an immigrant law, then other states would soon follow. That chain of events could cause an unbalanced reaction towards immigrants in different locations in the United States which could cause major discrimination. The only issue with both arguments is that they both have hypothetical affects and no one really knows what will come from this law being enacted. So with that said, we have a collision of federal government versus state government… which side do you support?