Archive for October, 2008


Six hours after the release of information by API on the planned broadcast by Fox News Network of the Michelle Obama tape, in accordance with an agreement that has been reached between API and Fox News Network, API  was contacted by Obama’s Campaign Manager.

Those who are close to the democratic presidential candidate must be desperate to win the elections no matter what, otherwise they would not have taken such bold step to contact API with an offer of a bribe in order to stop the airing of the tape.

 Obama’s campaign manager contacted API by telephone and email offering 3 million US dollars followed with a request to API to cancel the deal with Fox News Network.

Ten days ago API received the first request to accept 2 million US dollars by Mr Ed Hale, President of Plains Radio, Texas – USA, in an effort to suppress the information from reaching the public before the coming US Presidential elections.

 API has now taken a decision to contact the American Embassy in Oslo, Norway as soon as possible in order to report the matter and hand over the evidence for investigative purposes.

API’s Canadian lawyer is expected to fly to Oslo shortly in order to assist in the legal matters that arise from the bribery attempt.

API’s Chief editor is expected to travel to New York, together with the Canadian lawyer, where he will appear live in one of the shows that  will air the Michelle Obama tape.

The tapes in question, as of yet are still unconfirmed however the story is certainly intriguing to say the least. API claims that FOX News will air the tapes at an undisclosed time and place. They say they will not disclose when/where until 15 minutes before broadcasting to avoid people trying to pressure them not to be released. If this is real I hope they air it soon.

According to the API website the Obama campaign, specifically they say the manager, has offered a bribe of $3 Million dollars for the tapes. If true this is a violation of several laws as well as plain dishonest, but then it is Obama we’re talking about. Bribery is illegal right? Also were they planning on using campaign funds from donations to pay this bribe? That is also illegal I believe. Not to mention imoral, dishonest and just plain WRONG!

I’m waiting for confirmation of this story and the alleged bribery attempt. Should this prove to be true I hope they lock these people up and throw away the key! This would be one of the worst violations of public trust in history and certainly when you also think about Obama hiding behind lawyers to avoid showing his birth certificate, the real, paper, vault copy not the fake one he posted to his website. The state of Hawaii officially sealing his original birth certificate just days after he visited there, the media doing everything possible to avoid doing their jobs by reporting the truth about him, the fact that any thing you say that is not glowing and positive is considered racist and makes the person who says it a “right-wing nut-job”.

We are not allowed to talk about his radical associations or his marxist tendencies. We are not allowed to bring up his admitted past drug use although they are digging into Cindy McCain’s addiction to phx drugs what 15 or 20 years ago even though she was rehabilitated. Talking about Obama’s past is of course racist.

We’re told that it’s racist mud slinging bringing up Bill Ayers or the fact that Obama sat in the pew of trinity United Church of Christ with the man he called his spiritual mentor, the man who’s sermon he named one of his books after. You know the guy. Reverend Jeremiah Wright the God Damn Amerikkka guy. Yet we are supposed to swallow the idiotic attempt to explain that he was not in church on those days. In 20 years he never heard that crap. Yeah and I’m the Queen of England!

There has never been an election that was this important. The Bots have made life so miserable for many of us it’s tempting to say I hope they get what they deserve. Yet I know if Obama wins the entire country loses BIG! So I’ll avoid that temptation.


Read Full Post »

And here we have a reporter who is actually doing her job! Barbara West with Channel 9 News in Florida askes Biden some real and tough questions about his Marxist and Socialist tendencies! It’s about damn time!

Folks the station has been bombarded with angry Obama supporters and the Obama campaign has said the station will not get any more interviews with Democrats “at least through the election”! Well! I guess they told Channel 9! How dare they report the news or ask REAL questions?


You can call or write to thank them for their integrity and give support.

Newsroom: 407-822-8353

Newsroom: 407 841 9000


news@wftv.com = send letter of support to the station

Read Full Post »

This is from Hillbuzz and it is unbelivable! Warning the language written in some of these actual photos may be offensive. I would ordinarily not post stuff like that on this blog but it’s importantthat people see what is really happening in all it’s vulgarity!









Nice huh? Obama tells them to “Get in their faces” and we keep hearing and reading the words “by any means necessary” well apparently his followers are takng him at his word!

I can tell you this much I have 5 dogs and they are not little ankle biters either! They would not have let anyone get this close to my home! First the dogs would get them then my husband would chase them off with his double barrel shot gun! If they were really lucky he might just use rock salt!

I’m quite sure that we won’t be seeing this on the evening news. They will probably lead with yet another false story about people at McCain/Palin events threatening The One with bodily harm even though NO ONE will collaborate because it isn’t true! The media expects us to buy their BS hook, line and sinker and feel obligated to vote Obama becuase “poowr wittle Bawarck” is the Victim! Excuse me while I puke!

On a happier note my husband says he will dress up as Obama for Halloween and promtly announce that he is dropping out of the race! Oh, how I love that man!  🙂



Read Full Post »

Pumas, Disappointed Democrats, Just Say No Dealers listen up!

At the end of the Democratic Primary season, this was the situation:

Popular Vote
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: 17,857,446,  (48.04%)
Senator Barack Obama: 17,584,649  (47.31%)

Pledged delegates

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: 1,730.5 (39.17%)
Senator Barack Obama:  1,747.5 (39.55%)


Then, for no apparent good reason, in June Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosis decided THEY, not the delegates chosen by the electorate and not the superdelegates appointed via proper party procedure, were going to decide who would represent the top of the ticket for the general election. Now that same leadership wants YOU to legitimize their undemocratic and unprincipled methods by putting their selected candidate into the White House on November 4.

But WE can say no to the subversion of democratic principles within the Democratic Party. We can say no with our votes and by urging our fellow Democrats to pay attention to the particulars of the candidate Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi selected to represent the Democratic Party.

Put this ad on the air and let America know that our voices count.

Over the next 24 hours and across the internet, we as a community will urgently be raising money to run edgy and persuasive ads made by http://tdg.typepad.com/democrats_for_principle_b/ in key battleground states. Generous contributors have pledged $500 in matching funds. Your voice counts. Please contribute now.

Please go to Democrats For Principle Before Party !!!http://tdg.typepad.com/democrats_for_principle_b/– The Denver Group’s general election website, where you can donate to the cause and view other ads the group is running!

It’s more important than ever! Go PUMAS!


Read Full Post »

This is a really simple and clear way to explain the tax policies proposed by Obama and how they work as well as the lng term effects of such policies. Ordinarily I’d say reading about economic and tax policies would be way too dry and complex perhaps better suited to before bedtime reading. In other words a snooze fest. However this is well written in language anybody can understand.



Old, but worth repeating…
Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got’ ‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

Boy oh boy! Those last two sentences speak volumes!


Read Full Post »

News on the Berg lawsuit. The latest update from America’s Right is not the news I hoped for but it does bring up some interesting points. If one voter, or all voters, do not have standing who would? Why is there a constitutional requirement if we have no standing to ask for the law to be upheld?

I am very offended at the suggestion that the people have no right to expect their leaders or future leaders are in compliance with constitutional requirements. More on that later and besides I’m sure Berg will appeal and we will eventually get to the truth once and for all be it before or after the election. Mark my words even if Obama gets in office, should it be proved he is ineligible there will be legal consequences. We will not alow an unqualified president to stay seated. He will be impeached if this turns out to be the case.



The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg’s lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.

Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.

Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama’s childhood form the basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter … and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff’s opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama’s cover-up.

A judge’s attitude toward the factual foundation of a plaintiff’s claims is an essential factor in understanding just who indeed has standing to sue. The question running to the heart of the standing doctrine is whether or not the plaintiff indeed has a personal stake in the outcome of the otherwise justiciable matter being adjudicated. As has been discussed before many times here at America’s Right, a plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress.

In this case, Judge Surrick’s attitude toward the evidence presented by Berg to support his allegations figures in heavily because, while there is a three-pronged test to standing in itself, there is no definitive test by which the court can determine whether a certain harm is enough to satisfy the first element of that three-pronged test by showing true injury-in-fact. Traditionally, it hasn’t taken much to satisfy the need for an injury-in-fact, but as the plaintiff’s claimed injury is perceived as being more remote, more creative, or more speculative, the injury-in-fact requirement becomes more difficult to satisfy.

As it were, much of Berg’s basis for injury-in-fact could be considered threatened injury–he felt that the country was at risk for “voter disenfranchisement” and that America was certainly headed for a “constitutional crisis”—and, while threatened injury can certainly be injury enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact element, such satisfaction depends upon the threat being perceived by the judge as being not too creative, speculative or remote.

When it came to Philip Berg’s personal stake in the matter at hand, Surrick compared his action with those of Fred Hollander—the man who, earlier this year, sued Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire on grounds that, born in the Panama Canal Zone, he was not a natural born citizen—and held that Berg’s stake “is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters.” The harm cited by Berg, Surrick wrote, “is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that’s completely up to Congress to decide.
Judge the 34-page memorandum. In one such instance, Surrick noted that Berg had misinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in asking the court to permit him to amend his complaint. The first amended complaint was deemed admitted by Judge Surrick on grounds that, under FRCP 15(a), a party can amend once so long as it’s done before being served with a responsive pleading and that [just as I had not-so-confidently suggested] the motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 24 by Obama and the DNC was not a responsive pleading. Because Berg perceived the motion to dismiss as a responsive pleading and was waiting on the court to grant or deny the motion for leave to amend, he did not serve the additional defendants added in the amended complaint. This, too, was noted by Surrick.Berg’s attempts to distinguish his own case from Hollanderwere deemed by Surrick to be “[h]is most reasonable arguments,” but his arguments citing statutory authority were said by the judge to be a venture “into the unreasonable” and were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.” All in all, the judge wrote, it was the satisfaction of the injury-in-fact requirement which was the problem. Berg’s harm was simply too intangible.

Intangible or not, Berg said, we have a case where “an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”In fact, the motion to dismiss and motion for protective order filed by Barack Obama and the DNC were not only proper but also an expected maneuver by the defense attorneys. The very idea behind such motions is to foster the adjudication of the matter with minimal damage to the named defendants, and both are measures used more often than not. Still, Berg believes there is more to it.

“While the procedural evasions may be proper,” Berg said, “it only makes me believe more that we were correct in the first place, that Obama does not have the documentation we’ve requested.”


While the evidence presented by Berg was largely circumstantial, the attorney says that he is learning more about this narrative–and about the Democratic Party nominee for president–with each passing day. For example, regardless of whether it could be attached to the proceeding as it goes through the appellate process, Berg said, he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth.”The tape is in the native language there,” Berg said. “I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya.”

Berg, nonetheless, is disappointed by Surrick’s decision and will issue a press release today detailing his plans to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.

“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,” Berg said. “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”


If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.


…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.


Read Full Post »

Hat tip to Ace over on Uppity’s site. This video is chilling to say the least.

Hmmm! Not long ago I had quite an argument with a friend about how O and his Bots were just the new Natzis and would be carting dissenters off to camps. She said I was “crazy” or “right-wing” that Obama would never. Then we heard about the Missouri Truth Squad and their threats to “go after” anyone daring to air negative ads about The One.

We also talked about Bill Ayers who she fondly called a “distinguished scholar and proffessor who had simply excersised his right to protest an unjust war” as if he were just some guy standing around at rallies with a sign and a megaphone. But as you can see Ayers and his organization The Weather Underground did far more than protesting at some rallies.

It is an undisputed fact that they set bombs and some of those bombs killed people. The Bots have tried saying that they didn’t kill anybody or that Ayers was not personally involved in the instances where people died. Total bullshit! Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dorn were fugitives for a decade and only escaped prison on technicalities. Ayers founded and ran the group.  As such he was responsible for all the bombings and acts of terror carried out by this group!

Bots will also tell you that Ayers and Obama are NOT cnnected other than living in the same neighborhood r that they barely know each other. WRONG! Obama launched his career from Ayers’ living room and They workerd together very closely on the board of the Woods Fund and the Annenburg Challenge during which they funneled money to ACORN, Trinity United Church of Christ and many other radical groups. The main focus was supposedly education but in reality it was to propmote radical change in the public school system in the vien of political and social ideas rather than actual educational goals. Obama wrote a blurb for one of Ayers’ books. They shared an office for a time.

Obama has always looked up to Ayers and has treated him like a mentor. I can see why he doesn’t want us to know that though. Because it looks bad. It looks bad because it IS bad!

The Bots scream “Guilt by association” yet there’s an old, and wise saying. Birds of a feather flock together. All the birds in the flock Obama hangs with seem to be radical extremists and criminals, people who hate the rest of us. I have not yet seen one of his “good friends” that is a credible and decent person. Rezco, Wright, Kahlidi, Auchi, Odinga, Ayers, Farrakkan, Phleger and the list goes on and on and not one of them I would invite over for dinner!

Let’s make this viral. The truth needs to be told loudly to get heard over all the lies and media crap!

Nobama in November! Country 1st!



Read Full Post »

Older Posts »