New Bill proposes abolishing term limits!

Well we knew this was coming! Found a link to this over at New Hampster’s site:

 http://www.partizane.com/node/775

and I thought it was important enough to spread far and wide. People need to know what is going on. Take a look:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:hj5ih.txt.pdf

 

IA

111

 

 

TH

CONGRESS

1

 

 

ST SESSION H. J. RES. 5

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal

the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation

on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

J

 

 

 

ANUARY

6, 2009

Mr. S

 

 

 

ERRANO

introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

 

 

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment,

thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms

an individual may serve as President.

1

 

 

 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2

 

 

 

of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3

 

 

 

(two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4

lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con

 

 

 

5

stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6

 

 

 

intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7

 

 

 

ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HJ5.IH HJ5

 

 

 

 

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS

2

•

 

 

 

HJ 5 IH

1

 

 

 

States within seven years after the date of its submission

2

 

 

 

for ratification:

3

 

 

 

‘‘ARTICLE —

4

 

 

 

‘‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Con5

stitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’’.

 

 

So it didn’t take long at all for them to get started on their wet dream of having Obama be president forever did it? I think people need to know about this and we need to make it clear to our lawmakers that we DO NOT approve of this attempt at turning our country into a full blown dictatrship! We DO NOT want to abolish term limits and as a matter of fact I would LOVE to see some term limits imposed on members of Congress as well!

We are fed up with Career Politicians who stay on the payroll and do nothing for the citizens. Fooey to these people who sit there year after year collecting government paychecks AND lots of perks and contributions from lobbyists and special interest groups!

But most important of all WE DO NOT WANT TERM LIMITS FOR THE PRESIDENCY TO BE DONE AWAY WITH!  There are/were very valid reasons and arguments for term limits the main one beiong that we are a democracy not a monarchy. If we wanted a king we would have chosen to do that a long time ago. Our founders wanted no kings, no royalty just the process of electing our leaders and the knowledge that all natural born citizens were eligible for the job. Allowing any elected leader to take more than two terms is completely against the idea of a free and democratic society where no one is automatically entitled.

I saw some idiots were going on about how they could handle a dictatorship as long as Obama was in charge! Yeah! They actually call themselves democrats  Americans and spew this crap!

Perhaps the average Obamabot likes the idea of being told what to do and how to do it and not having to think for themselves but the rest of us would lie to keep the democratic process that we have used for over two hundred years thank you very much! Truly these idiots have no clue and it would serve them right if they were to get their wish. However the rest of us do not want to live like that just to teach them a lesson.

We cannot allow this to happen!

Read Full Post »

OK! Now for some serious observations

I have to say it’s been quite entertaining to watch the parade of people withdraw themselves from nominated positions as they head over to find their places underneath the bus. It’s probably a  fleet of buses or a long train by now there are so many people under it!

 It seems many of them have a hard time remembering  to pay their taxes. Hmm are these the same people who were blathering on about how paying taxes was patriotic and we should all want to pay higher taxes? Isn’t that what Joe Biden said?

Of course I forgot to mention Bill Richardson who is currently under investigation by a federal grand jury in a pay to play scheme thus he had to withdraw from his nomination for Secretary of Commerce.

Then we have Tom Dashel and Nancy Killefer withdrawing for not paying taxes and Tim Giethner was confirmed despite having a similar embarassing problem. Not to mention the whole “nobody will work in my administration if they have been a lobbyist.” thing.

Give us a break! Now the media is finally starting to report on the plethora of problems. Well all I can say is where the hell were they for the last two years? How is it no one saw this coming? WE saw it coming! We told you so idiots!

I’ll tell you why no one saw this coming because the mainstream media deliberately played the role of public relations representative rather than do their job and report accurately the facts and or lack of them in an unbiased and professional manner. They in fact became more than a little responsible for the outcome of the primaries and the election and they will share the responsibility of the aftermath.

I will admit to being pleased with the decision to limit the salaries and bonuses of top executives of companies that take Bailout funds. I think pretty much everybody agrees on that except maybe the execs who will have to take a pay cut.

Listen if they want the taxpayers to bail them out they should expect some conditions. After all if they are in bad shape and need bailing out shouldn’t they be looking for ways to cut expenses and railse more capital? Isn’t that more reasonable than to continue spending on lavish office remodels or over the top business retreats? Or paying say, $400 Million to have your name on a stadium?

If they want us to foot the bill they should expect not to go on as though it’s business as usual. It’s not. Not when you need bailing out that is about as far from business as usual as you can get and still be in business and it dictates that you do some serious evaluation and re-tooling at the very least. To get out of the position where you need a bailout and get to a position where you make a profit they should be thinking this way already.

If they don’t like the conditions they should look elsewhere for help. Now if they want to pull their own fat out of the fire it is their business how they spend their gains. That’s the American way.

Though lately I’ve had some interesting conversations with people on this subject and find myself wondering what some people are really thinking. One friend suggested that we go even further and limit the salaries and bonuses of all company executives regardless of whether they accept bailout funds or whether they are private or public companies.

His theory is that no one can possibly make more than the president without having broken some law or regulation and without having screwed over “the rest of us”. My reaction was something like WTF?

I think that is way too far myself. Isn’t one of the greatest things about our country? Isn’t the American Dream the idea that if you have an idea or a product, a service or whatever and you do what it takes to make a sucsess the sky is the limit? The idea that anyone can make it regardless of who they are?

I understand the anger and the feeling that many times the Big Shots get where they are on the backs of the rest of us. I mean I get just as PO’das the next person over all these people who rip others off or waste money on stupid things then cry about needing a bailout even as their own bad management caused the problem but do we really want to go so far that nobody can make more than a set amount?

Who decides what that amount is? Will that amount be different for different people or will everybody have the same limits? What happens if your idea makes more than that? Should you not benefit from your efforts?

I’m all for doing what we can to preserve the idea of freedom we have here. I want to improve it as well by doing what we can to make all of us more free and insuring equality but if we get too involved in legislating people’s freedom it can have the adverse effect of making us all less free.

JMO what’s yours?

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

This is NOT the first time this country has faced this issue

Like many people I thought this case of the “certificate gate” or whatever was unique and the first time we as a country had faced this particular challenge. Wrong!

Over the course of our history this issue has come up before. (Yet no one has done anything about creating a method for preventing it.)

I’m not talking about Roger Calero, the candidate from the Socialist Workers Party, who has been on the ballot in the previous two elections in spite of the fact that it is well known that he was born in Nicaragua and is not even a citizen but a permanent resident alien and therefore ineligible. (He has a green card) That is a different story. Though one can’t help but wonder why would he run knowing he is ineligible and why would his party put him on the ballot knowing this? (Shouldn’t there be some recourse against this as it is fraud of the highest degree?)

I’m referring to President #21, Chester Arthur, who apparently became President when one of his ardent supporters shot and killed President Garfield making Arthur, then Vice President, the President.

Apparently there was some question as to whether or not he met the “natural born” qualification and it was a very similar argument to the one the Supreme Court Justices are hearing in a conference today. Eerily similar in many ways.

As many already know Leo C. Donofrio, an attourney from New Jersey, has filed a lawsuit to stop the Electoral College from casting their votes for Barrack Obama under the claims that he is not a “natural born citizen” under the law and that even if he was born in Hawaii, Mr. Donofrio assumes that he was unless the evidence shows otherwise, he is a dual citizen due to his father being a British/Kenyan citizen and his mother, a US citizen was not old enough at the time to have legally passed her citizenship on to her son.

There IS a precedent for this line of thinking which the case of Chester Arthur shows. There is also a similar pattern of trying to cover one’s tracks as you will see in the story I’m linking to below.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/president-chester-arthur-et-al-why-they-aren%e2%80%99t-precedent-for-obama%e2%80%99s-eligibility/

             Chester Arthur …or the strange lies of our 21st President

And here we have a very interesting story full of intrigue.   Arthur became President when one of his supporters shot President Garfield with an exclamation of joy that Arthur would now be President.

More relevant to our discussion is that during his Vice-Presidential campaign, Chester Arthur was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad.   But there was absolutely no merit to the charge.  Hinman first accused Chester of being born in Ireland, then he switched his claim to Canada.  Hinman, a new York lawyer, wrote an accusatory pamphlet under the heading, “How A British Subject Became A President of the United States.”

The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves.  It’s an exhaustive reference chock full of notes.  Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible.   It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history.  Also, Chester Arthur burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)

“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819.  His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped to Canada in 1821.  They had their first child, Regina in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.

THE MYSTERY – When was William Arthur naturalized?  I don’t know.  The only reference historian I know who ventured a date said it was 1843, but that historian also said he got that from “Gentleman Boss” and I could not find such a reference in the book.  I spent a few hours with the book today. I examined every reference to William in the index and also went over the early years with a microscope.  No reference to the naturalization date.

FACTS

By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont.  Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824.   Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829.   Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.

It gets interesting here because of the Naturalization Act of 1802.  That act set the requisite of five years residence in the United States for those who wanted to become naturalized citizens.   Doing the math, we know that William Arthur had moved to Vermont no later than 1824.  Chester was born in October 1829.  So if William had taken action on being naturalized in his first year, then he very well could have been a US citizen when Arthur was born.  William studied law and taught school before he became a preacher in 1827, so he should have been familiar with the process of acquiring citizenship.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S FIRST LIE

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 5… regarding Chester’s birthday:

“…on October 5, 1829, Malvina Arthur gave birth to her fifth child.  (The traditional date 1830 is incorrect.  Arthur made himself a year younger, no doubt out of simply vanity, some time between 1870 and 1880…)”

Perhaps it was out of vanity, but perhaps he had a more sinister motive.   Reeves establishes Chester changed his date in the decade of his most serious political career, 1770-1780.   Chester was also a very skilled New York lawyer.   If he had a problem with his father’s naturalization date, then moving back his birthday by a year might have fixed it.  We will revisit this later.   Suspend judgment for now.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE

And this is where our villain Hinman returns.  But was he a villain to Arthur?  Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen.   It wasn’t true.  Chester was born in Vermont.   But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.

Does any of this sound familiar?

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:

“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency.  By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen.  Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”

His mother had lived in Canada with her husband and had her first child there.  This was a blatant lie.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S THIRD LIE

In the the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880.  In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:

“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland.  He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”

This was another blatant lie.   His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23.   William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont.  The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.   So, a third blatant lie.

CONCLUSIONS

I think we’ve discovered a bit of esoteric history tonight.  I’ve not seen this analysis elsewhere.

It looks like Chester Arthur had something to hide.   He burned all of his papers (but the family Bible survived).   He moved his age back a year.  I think vanity is a poor excuse.   Only one year?  He lied about his mother’s time in Canada.  He lied about his father’s time in Canada.

By obscuring his parents’ past lives and time in Canada, he would have clouded all attempts at researching when his father naturalized.  Think about the time period.  He ran for Vice-President in 1880.  His father, being a law student, and moving his family to the United States, would have probably naturalized as soon as possible.  But it might not have been soon enough to make old Chester a natural born citizen.

As discussed above, the time frame between William Arthur’s five year residence requirement being met and the day Chester was born were probably very close.

Then when Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along basically demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States.  This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.

William Arthur was probably not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur would have been a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.

Regardless, Chester Arthur lied through his teeth about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William.   Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track.  Back then it would have been impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 as a United States citizen.  Had anybody been suspicious, Arthur having changed his age by a year could have protected his eligibility.  And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.

Because Chester Arthur lied about his father, any precedent he might have set for Obama is nullified completely as it appears Chester Arthur may have been a usurper to the Presidency.   Eventually we will probably unearth William Arthur’s naturalization records.

While he did move around alot, he was a resident of Fairfield, Franklin County Vermont,  between 1829 when Chester was born, and 1832 when Malvina Almeda was born.  This is the most likely time period for his naturalization.  The official word from Franklin County was a fast, “We don’t have naturalization records for William Arthur.”

I have a strong feeling we’ve uncovered the truth about Chester Arthur.  Looks like he was the only ineligible President we’ve ever had.  And he got away with it through his lies.  But the light has a way of finding the darkness.

It’s no precedent to follow.

Leo C. Donofrio

This is an excerpt but if you go follow the link above to Leo’s site and this post you will find information about other US presidents who’s parents were not US citizens at birth and their eigibilty status and the methods of determining that. You will see it’s a well written article and he has certainly done his research.

Aside from that is anyone else bothered by the similarity in the story of President Arthur’s “cover-up” of the pertinent facts and the big Zero’s lame attempts to foil the truth?

When you are finished reading that interesting piece you should give the following one a read. It deals with the ramifications and consequences of a President Obama should he be determined to be ineligible for office. it gets worse the longer it goes on and would have a staggering effect on our country in many ways.

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=20210273

Here’s an excerpt for you but you will want to read the entire article to get the whole picture.

Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.

“Let’s assume he wasn’t born in the U.S.,” Mr. Vieira told The Bulletin. “What’s the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can’t make him president. So what’s the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he’s aware he’s not a citizen, then it’s a perjured oath.”

Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated.

“He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on (e)xecutive duty and done various things,” said Mr. Vieira. “The people that he’s put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped.”

Mr. Vieira said Obama supporters should be the ones concerned about the case, because Mr. Obama’s platform would be discredited it he were forced to step down from the presidency later due to his ineligibility, were it to be discovered.

“Let’s say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam,” said Mr. Vieira. “What’s the nation’s reaction to that? What’s going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it.”

Mr. Vieira said Mr. Obama’s continued silence and avoidance in the release of his birth certificate is an ethical issue because of the dire consequences that could be caused by a possible constitutional crisis.

“If he were my client and this question came up in civil litigation, if there was some reason that his birth status was relevant and the other side wanted him to produce the thing and he said ‘no,’ I would tell him, ‘you have about 15 minutes to produce it or sign the papers necessary to produce the document, or I’m resigning as your attorney,” said Mr. Vieira. “I don’t think any ethical attorney would go ahead on the basis that his client could produce an objective document in civil litigation [and refused to do so].”

And rightly so in my opinion. it is an ethical issue as well as simple matter of respect for our country and it’s laws not to mention our Constitution. Mr. Obama has shown a distinct lack of respect as far as many are concerned, even for his own supporters who deserve to know there are no doubts and he is legitimate if that is the case.

Furthermore, what is it that he is hiding? What possible harm could come of letting the documentation be examined and verified by officials? If he meets the requirement then why not shout it from the mountain tops and remove all doubts?

Continuing to spend huge sums of money in an effort to avoid showing proof only makes it appear that the suspicions could be true. It would be in the best interest of the country and Mr. Obama to clear this matter up and the sooner the better. Unless, of course, he can’t.

Man up Mr. Obama. if you are qualified and eligible then prove it because this controversy will never go away until you do.

CQ

Read Full Post »

More flying monkeys…

Apparently the earth is coming to it’s end! Got up this morning and turned on the news for a check of the weather and what did I see?

An actual MSM outlet (NBC) reporting that the Supreme Court will hold a conference today regarding the eligibility status of Obama! Of course they also said they it was “unlikely that the court will hear the case”.

I literally almost fell off the couch and I’m thankfull I was not sipping my morning coffee at the time! I screamed “Oh my God! It’s on the news!” while clutching my husband’s arm.

After months and months of people trying to get MSM to report what’s going on why now?

Easy answer is that they did not want to take the chance that they would be wrong and the Supreme Court might actually agree to hear the case. They would look like exactly what they are. Biased and in the tank. Can’t just let people find out they have not been doing their jobs. (Eyes rolling!) Like we haven’t seen that for the entire election cycle from the primaries up through the general election.

Most people have known for a long time they are not interested in doing their jobs or the truth. Only getting the Big Zero elected.

Some have even called them O’s 527 groups. That’s how obvious their bias and lack of integrity, proffessionalism and journalistic standards has been.

OMG! They are doing an in-depth report now as I type! Of course it’s a bunch of hooey! They are claiming the  COLB on his website is proof and that Hawaii “said” he was born there. Not true.

In fact Hawaii verified that he has a long form Birth Certificate, or Certificate of Live Birth, far different and more detailed than the Certification of Live Birth he has posted on Fight the Smears, that it is on file and they have seen it. They have not said that it verifies he was born there because by their own admssion they cannot divulge that information without either the permission of Obama or a court order requiring them to release it.

Actually, the state of Hawaii does not even accept the short form Certification of Live Birth for verification purpses in order to recieve state benifits because there is not sufficient information to verify squat on the document presented by Obama as “proof” of his citizenship status.

Also Hawaii allows for registration of births for a period of up to one year after the birth and because they allow persons born out of state and even out of the country to register birth records with the state and recieve, get this, a Certification of Live Birth rather than a Certificate of Birth which contains such information as actual place of birth, hospital, signature of witnesses, signature of attending physician and more. Don’t believe  me? Fine. Here it is from The State of Hawaii’s own website.

A. From Hawaii’s official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: “Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country“ (applies to adopted children). 

 

B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.

 

C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8.  A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.

 

D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error.  See, for example, HRS 338-17.

 

E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.

 

F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program.  From its web site:  “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL

So there it is in black and white with links to the actual laws. As you can see the state even admits that the system is subject to errors and that even a person born out of the state or out of the United States can apply for and receive a  “Birth Certificate” in Hawaii. It does not prove they were “natural born citizens” of either Hawaii or the US. In fact ONLY the information contained on the long form Certificate of Live Birth can verify that. Apparently there is a vast difference between the Certificate and a Certification.

For a more detailed report on this and why it matters read this post from American Thinker.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html

A. Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, “State declares Obama birth certificate genuine.”

B. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino “ha[s] personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.“  That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii.  Unlikely, but possible.

C.  The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama’s birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence.  Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.

D. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children.  Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child’s life. 

1. We don’t know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama’s birth) than they are today.  However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.

2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals:  “An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children.”

3.  Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the “ease” of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently.  From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official:  “Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently.”

The American Thinker article written by Joe the Farmer is well written and researched with all the links embedded so you can go check them out for yourself and it covers much more than I have written here. Go check it out.

Then if you still need more convincing read this piece at ireport wich effectively de-bunks the de-bunkers. http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-156768

And finally if you have any doubts that O and his cronies have been working to get around this requirement for quite some timecheck out this 26 page pdf file written by a Chicago lawyer with ties to Obama that outlines why they feel this constitutional requirement is “outdated” and should be abolished. 

http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-1/Herlihy.pdf

Is the requirement outdated? I’m not qualified to answer that. Maybe it is maybe not. Maybe it should be axed or maybe not. Regardless it IS the law as it stands now and therfore it MUST be followed and respected as such.

Why has The One spent over $800,000 on lawyers fighting this. Why won’t he simply show the proof instead of hiding behind technicalities like lack of standing and lack of an established proceedure requiring verification?

That’s right he’s NOT arguing that he is in fact “natural born” but rather his lawyers are arguing that the voters do not have standing or an established method requiring him to show verification and that the voters can’t show injury that would result byhis taking office if in fact he is ineligible.

I’d say that the voters ultimitely have standing and the injury would be the fact that anything he does, any international treaties or agreements he might sign or any person he appoints would be illigitimate if he were in fact proven ineligible.

Not to mention all those voters who sent him $600+ million dollars for his campaign who, were he proved to be ineligible, would have been frauded by a candidate who had no business soliciting funds for a campaign for an office he could not legally hold. I’d say that would qualify as standing and proof of injury in my book but we’ll have to wait and see what the Supreme Court says.

Let’s just pray, send positive thoughts and vibes or whatever your personal preference might be that the Courtin it’s wisdom will decide to hear the case and judge it on it’s merits rather than do the easy thing and not “rock the boat” out of fear and tredipation.

Our country, it’s citizens and our Laws deserve better than that. at the very least they deserve respect from the man who might be sworn in to the highest office in the land and would be sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution as well as all of our laws.

Seriously, the Court needs to hear this case if only to set the minds of voters atease and to establish asystem for verification or vetting of all future candidates once and for all.

There was a candidate on the ballot in 5 states, Roger Calero, born in Nicaragua, who was a candidate for president of the United States for the Socialist Workers Partythat no one bothered to vett properly either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero

Apparently he was on the ballot in 5 states in the 2008 election and in 9 states in 2004 in spite of the fact he was born in Nicaragua and therefore is not eligible for the office. How can this happen? The Supreme Court must hear this case and provide some insight or solution to prevent this in the future or abolish the requirement altogether.

Finally Mr. Obama must show the American voters he respects them, their country, it’s laws, it’s courts and it’s Constitution and he must step up to the plate and prove his eligibility if he can do so. He should do so out of respect but also because it is not fair to leave the voters with these doubts. It will not just go away and his presidency will never be considered legitimate unless he does this.

What do you say Mr. Obama? Please be a man and show the integrity required by the office you seek. If indeed you are “natural born” and eligible then what do you have to lose?

CQ

Read Full Post »

Joe the Plumber is Now One of Us

That’s right! He may be a registered Republican but like Sarah Palin and others he has been maligned and mocked, he has had his privacy invaded and his personal information spread throughout the world wide web for all to see. In short he has become the target of the Obamabots.

We PUMAS know what that’s like. We know it quite well. You need not commit a crime, no all you have to do is question The One or speak out against him and you will soon find yourself in the same situation as Joe.

The only “crime” Joe the Plumber committed was asking a simple question of the Democratic Candidate for president. He wanted to know how Obama’s tax plans would affect his future. He wanted to know why if he worked harder and was successful he would be punished for that success. He wants to buy the business he’s been working for and he wants to keep the fruits of his labor. ( Imagine that! He wants to keep the money he earns! How scandalous! )

Obama basically mocked him and said we need to “spread the wealth around” said a bunch of hoo haw crap and basically he told Joe that if he is successfully through his hard work the tax plan would take some of Joe’s hard earned money and spread it around to those who weren’t so successful. Because you know Joe should feel bad and somehow guilty that those people aren’t successful right? I mean it must be Joe’s fault if some of those people don’t work or don’t achieve success on their own and Joe and the rest of us should be responsible for them right? Spread the wealth around!

And he wonders why people are calling him a Socialist or Marxist or just flat out the next Hitler! Yeah I said it!

Next we have the Media, Obama’s personal 527’s, jumping on Joe too! We’ve heard it from Biden too. “Well Joe doesn’t actually make $250,000 so he won’t be affected by the tax plan.”

NEWS UPDATE FOR OBAMA SURROGATES, SUPPORTERS AND THE MEDIA: It doesn’t matter how much money Joe makes or doesn’t make or if he would be affected by the tax plan. He has every right to ask the question and as a voter he deserves the respect of not only an honest answer but to not be attacked simply for asking! Obama wonders why people hate him?

There it is in print! Voters deserve respect from a candidate and any candidate of any worth knows that! You don’t ask for their votes and attack them publicly if they disagree or question you! It is not typically an incentive for support. He has to be the densest candidate ever to not see this simple, obvious truth.

They ( Obama supporters AND the MSM ) have now dug up everything they could on Joe the Plumber. We now know that Joe is his middle name and where he has lived previously. The Bots on Daily Kos have listed his address, the value of his home, his proffessional status, his tax liens, divorce records and all kinds of other private information that they have made public. A whole page dedicated to threads about Joe the Plumber.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7479265&mesg_id=7479265

Nice huh? They also went way overboard with Sarah Palin as we know but she is a public figure seeking office so some ( not all ) of that was to be expected but Joe the Plumber and so many more of us are neither yet the Bots seem to live to smear, threaten and harass all who refuse to worship their Idiot God.

What’s next? Joe the plumber T-Shirts? Probably already printing them. November can’t come soon enough!

CQ

Read Full Post »

A few words about Justice and Justification

 A few words about justice and justification.

People can find a way to justify pretty much anything. The only requirement is the ability to momentarily (or in some cases permanently) suspend reality. It’s like a different facet of denial in that way.

Consider this, Al Capone, notorious mobster, murderer, breaker of the law, considered himself to be a misunderstood and persecuted individual who , in his own words, was a “great benefactor to the people”.

I guess he thought that his running of the gambling, prostitution and illegal liquor establishments was somehow a humanitarian effort. All those murders committed by him and at his request were obviously acts of “public service” and he should have gotten the keys to the city!  

Apparently to Capone the law and it’s enforcers were unfairly and unjustly persecuting him because they expected him to obey the laws of the land and they intended to stop him and prosecute him for not doing so. I suppose every criminal in the prison system probably thinks the same way. It’s part of their make up. If they admitted to themselves, or anyone for that matter, that they were in the wrong they might be forced to really think about their actions and the repercussions of them. Thus to them they are innocent and wronged by the system.

The Justice system sees things quite differently indeed. If you break the law you will pay the price. Message: Don’t break the law and you won’t have a problem.

We’ve seen an awful lot of this in the last 19 months. It seems lots of law breaking has been “justified” and gone unpunished.

A prime example is the recent hacking into the personal email account of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. It’s old news to anybody who surfs the net and it’s starting to get some exposure on MSM. Her personal email account was hacked, password changed and screen shots of her emails, contact list, photos of her family and email addresses and cell phone numbers of her family were published on the web by the hacker.

I have heard time and again from Obama supporters that the hacker was supposedly justified because there were reports she might be using her personal email to hide work related things she doesn’t want the public to see. Bullshit! Even if that were the case it is for officials and law enforcement to find out not some snot-nosed college punk who proudly calls himself an Obamacrat.

We are not allowed to take the law into our own hands in this country for a reason. So even if the allegations were true (the hacker himself admitted there was nothing incriminating in the emails) it is not the “job” of non-professionals to break the law to find out.

I have also heard that Sarah Palin supposedly “deserved” it or that this should prove she is incapeable of being VP because her email was hacked. First off who deserves to have their privacy invaded? Second how in the hell is that her fault or does it prove that she is not up for the job? Someone broke the law and invaded her privacy but we’re told that this makes her unqualified?

So what about when Obama’s, Hillary’s and McCain’s passport info was accessed illegally?  (by people connected with the Obama campaign no less) Wouldn’t that make Obama unqualified too by those standards? I mean if it makes Palin unqualified how come Obama was just a “victim” when it happened to him? Answer: because according to Obama and the Obamacrats he is ALWAYS the victim in any circumstance. It’s just a given.

When ever there is any question they automatically give the points to their guy just like the RBC meeting in May when the DNC gave Obama the uncommitted delegates and then the gave him 4 delegates that Senator Clinton earned even though his name wasn’t even on the ballot. Yup! And they broke their own sunshine rules to do it with a secret vote during their 2 1/2 hour lunch break.

Oh but they were “justified” in doing so because, well, because they wanted Obama to win. We’re up to here with their “justification”.

This is far from the first time Obama and his supporters have broken the law. Hillary supporters have been hacked, threatened, had their blogs shut down, been kicked off of previously democratic web sites that are nothing more than Obama shills now and the list goes on and on. Alot of these activities are illegal but we’re told that the Bots are justified and if we didn’t have the sites there they wouldn’t be able to hack them. It’s our own fault according to these people because we won’t just shut up and go away.

So I guess in their view if you speak out against them or speak out for what is right you are standing in their way and according to them that is a crime. I have news for them it is not a crime to refuse to vote for someone. It is not a crime to speak out for what you beleive is right. In fact is the opposite. Speaking out against corruption and evil is a civil duty of the highest order!

Then we have the fact that the hacker in question turns out to be the 20 year old son of a Democratic Senator from Tennessee. According to one MSM source he says “he was just playing around” and there are supposedly no charges being filed? That’s what I heard on CBS last night anyway.

I don’t care if he was playing around or not it is a crime to access someone’s personal correspondence and it should be treated as such. Plus they said he was the son of a “prominent democrat” but failed to mention just how prominent. Just one more example of how Obama has the media in his pocket.

If this was my email account, or yours, or anybody else’s they would be steaming mad and rightly so. Why is it only a crime if it’s against Obama but not when it’s against his opponents? This kid should be prosecuted for breaking the law and the media should be honest about the fact this is a crime and who his father really is. We are tired of them protecting the politicians they want to protect and crucifying the ones they don’t.

Actually we are tired of the media as a whole period. They should just go find jobs as hot dog vendors or carnival workers and leave the news to real journalists with scruples and ethics.

What about the crime Obama committed by trying to stall the troops withdrawal from Iraq for his own political gain? It is a crime. It is a felony. He violated the Logan Act. It is treason.

Thanks to Shtuey at http://ohmyvalve.blogspot.com/ for the excellent video!

Not to mention the fact it’s about as phony and hypocritical as you can get to campaign on the whole “Stop the war and bring our troops home” all the while wheeling and dealing behind the scenes to manipulate the public.

I suppose IF we hear anything about it from the MSM it will be somehow “justified” too. I suppose Obama is “justifying” any deaths that occur because of the delays caused by his meddling as a sacrifice that must be made in order for him to gain control and therefore “save” us! Pfffft! Don’t even get me started on that one!

Every single one of the soldiers serving overseas is worth more than a hundred Obamas! Every single one of them is out there fighting to protect the rights Obama would bargain away at the drop of a hat and issue some lame “justification” afterwords. He is not worth the spit they shine their boots with!

On a lighter note I found this on http://harddriller.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/new-nickel-design/ while tag surfing!

It was just too funny not to steal!

 

Oh such sweet truth!

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Cash Strapped Obama

Awww! That’s like so sad! Apparently The One, the Rock-Star-Money-Machine, Senator Barrack Obama himself is now cash strapped, fighting for his political life and is unable to support and stump for the
down-ticket Dems. I guess right about now he’s wishing he had stuck to that pledge on public financing.

Mark Impomeni writes about it here:  http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/16/cash-strapped-obama-turns-down-dem-senators/

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign announced that it raised $66 million in the month of August. That figure was hailed as a recordfor a single month in many media accounts. But left out of the analysis is the amount of money that Obama had to spend to raise that cash, known as the burn rate. At the end of July, the campaign reported having cash-on-hand of $66 million. Add in the $66 million the campaign raised in August, and the campaign would have $132 million available if it spent nothing. But the Obama campaign reported having $77 million in the bank at the end of August, meaning that it spent $55 million during that time frame. In other words, the campaign spent 83% of what it raised in August, netting only $11 million of that record total.

Hmmm… it seems the funds are drying up and the fundraising is now costing nearly the amount raised. How awful! I’m so sad! NOT!

In fact, quite the opposite is true. I find a smile on my lips and a sense of satisfaction in my heart. No wonder Barbara Streisand had to throw a big fundraiser for him! He’s going to need a lot more than Hollywood endorsements and over the top $28,500 a ticket parties to make it through the next 47 days!

CQ

Read Full Post »

Hypocrisy by any other name…..

Nice! Real patriotic NOT! Here is the first of three articles that tell the truth about how Obama feels about Iraq and our troops there.

Obama Interferes In US-Iraq Agreement

 

In direct interference in US foreign policy and the execution of the war in Iraq, Barack Obama today told the Iraqi foreign minister, according to the New York Times’ Caucus blog report,

While the Bush administration would like to see an agreement reached before the summer’s political conventions, Mr. Obama said today that he opposed such a timetable. 

“My concern is that the Bush administration, in a weakened state politically, ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it’s my administration or Senator McCain’s administration,” Mr. Obama said.

According to Obama, “The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made.”
What else could he say when confronted with such effrontery by someone not the president who might be.

The CBS reporton the phone conversation doesn’t think it’s significant enough to mention this part of their conversation, nor that regardless of the progress that’s been made Obama says he’s firm on withdrawing US troops quickly. Jenifer Rubin at Commentary’s Contentions blog, however, correctly sums it up: “Great Surge, Let’s Quit.”

The Washington Post’s editorial today says of the agreement,

It means that Iraq, a country with the world’s second largest oil reserves and a strategic linchpin of the Middle East, just might emerge from the last five years of war and turmoil as an American ally, even if its relations with Iran remain warm. So it’s hard to fathom why Democrats in Congress have joined Ayatollah Khamenei in denouncing the U.S.-Iraqi agreements even before they are written….

 

Ed Morrissey comments,

So why haven’t the Democrats shown more enthusiasm? They would have to admit that they were wrong about the surge, wrong about Maliki, and wrong to declare defeat fourteen months ago. Democrats from Barack Obama down have insisted that the US should abandon Iraq as a failed mission rather than adjust to better strategies. Had the Bush administration listened to them, Iran would already be in charge of Iraq through Moqtada al-Sadr.

 

Another example to add to the many that Barack Obama is a dangerous poseur.

— Bruce Kesler | Jun. 16, 2008 | 4:52 PM

So not only did he meddle to try and influence the elections he used the troops that he claims he is so concerned about to do it! The media did know but said nothing. I see the pattern is not straying from the traditional Obama “whatever it takes to climb the ladder” mindset that we’ve all come to know so well.

Here’s more:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_tour_de_farce_122049.htm?page=0

 

O’s Tour de Farce  by Amir Taheri 

Posted: 3:24 am
July 29, 2008

TERMED a “learning” trip, Sen. Barack Obama‘s eight- day tour of eight nations in the Middle East and Europe turned out to be little more than a series of photo ops to enhance his international credentials.

“He looked like a man in a hurry,” a source close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week. “He was not interested in what we had to say.”

Still, many Iraqis liked Obama’s claim that the improved situation in Iraq owed to Iraqi efforts rather than the Gen. David Petraeus-led surge. In public and private comments, Obama tried to give the impression that the Iraqis would’ve achieved the same results even without the greater resources America has poured into the country since 2007.

In private, though, Iraqi officials admit that Obama’s analysis is “way off the mark.” Without the surge, the Sunni tribes wouldn’t have switched sides to help flush out al Qaeda. And the strong US military presence enabled the new Iraqi army to defeat Iran-backed Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad.

Nevertheless, in public at least, no Iraqi politician wants to appear more appreciative of American sacrifices than the man who may become the next US president.

Iraqis were most surprised by Obama’s apparent readiness to throw away all the gains madein Iraq simply to prove that he’d been right in opposing the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein. “He gave us the impression that the last thing he wanted was for Iraq to look anything like a success for the United States,” a senior Iraqi officialtold me. “As far as he is concerned, this is Bush’s war and must end in lack of success, if not actual defeat.”

Even so, Obama knows that most Americans believe they’re still at war with an enemy prepared to use terror against them. So he can’t do what his antiwar base wants – declare an end to the War on Terror and the start of a period of love and peace in which “citizens of the world” build bridges between civilizations.

That’s why Obama is trying to adopt Afghanistan as “his” war. He claims that Bush’s focus on Iraq has left Afghanistan an orphan in need of love and attention. Even though US military strategy is to enable America to fight two major wars simultaneously, Obama seems to believe that only one war is possible at a time.

But what does that mean practically?

Obama says he wants to shift two brigades (some of his advisers say two battalions) from Iraq to Afghanistan. But where did that magicalfigure come from? From NATO, which has been calling on its members to provide more troops since 2006.

NATO wants the added troops mainly to improve the position of its reserves in Afghanistan. The alliance doesn’t face an actual shortage of combat units – it’s merely facing a rotation schedule that obliges some units to stay in the field for up to six weeks longer than is normal for NATO armies.

Overall, NATO hopes that its members will have no difficulty providing the 5,000 more troops it needs for a “surge.” So there’s no need for the US to abandon Iraq in order to help Afghanistan.

The immediate effect of Obama’s plan to abandon Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan is to ease pressure on other NATO members to make a greater contribution. Even in Paris, some critics think that President Nicolas Sarkozyshould postpone sending more troops until after the US presidential election. “If President Obamacan provide all the manpower needed in Afghanistan, there is no need for us to commit more troops,” said a Sarkozy security adviser.

Obama’s move would suit Sarkozy fine because he’s reducing the size of the French army and closing more than 80 garrisons. Other Europeans would also be pleased. German Chancellor Angela Merkelwill soon face a difficult general election in which her main rivals will be calling for an end to “the Afghan adventure.”

Today, with the sole exception of Spain (where the mildly anti-American Socialist Party is in power), pro-US parties govern Europe. These parties feel pressure from the Bush administration to translate their pro-American claims into actual support for the Afghanistan war effort. By promising to shoulder the burden, Obama is letting the European allies off the hook.

Obama doesn’t seem to have noticed the European scene’s subtleties. Despite his claim that he came to listen, he seems to have heard nothing of interest during his 10,000-mile trip.

Having announced his strategy before embarking on his “listening tour,” he couldn’t be expected to change his mind simply because facts on the ground offered a different picture.

In Paris, a friendly reporter asked the Illinois senator if there was anything that he’d heard or seen during his visit that might persuade him to alter anyaspect of his polices. Obama’s answer was clear: no.

Amir Taheri’s next book, “The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution,” is due out this fall.

 

So Obama saw the whole tour as a photo op. Not news. That he tried to interfere in foreign affairs for his own political gain? Big, game changing news. This article was from July, the previous one from June yet we haven’t really heard much about this until now. The media for the most part is beyond not doing their job they are now doing Obama’s job.

The latest again from the New York Post is by the same author and is dated today. Really informative.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”

“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.

There’s more. Click the link to read the entire article.

The idea you might get here from reading these things about Senator Obama is that he really doesn’t care as much as he claims about the troops and getting them home. He cares about how he can spin this to favor him in the election. How refreshingly new and full of hope and change! (Sarcasm off sorry  couldn’t resist)

Mr. We need to Just admit defeat and bring our guys home decided he wants them to stay a bit longer because he doesn’t want the Republicans to look less lik the Devil if people know that they did at least one thing right. The surge that Obama did not support actually worked to some degree and the American officials are actually working with the Iraqis to get things under control and get our troops headed home. Remember how hard he fought to admit the surge actually worked? How about the NAFTA thing with Canada anybody remember that? How he denied it all and then had to admit that he did just what he said he would not do. Pander to the guys he was railing against just to make him look “good”.

That’s a joke. Nothing could make him look good to me. Everthing about him screams narcicistic, arrogant fraud. He is not above using anybody and anything to further his own career and adgenda.

Oh I forgot to mention that what Obama did by trying to interfere in the politics of a foriegn country without authorization from our government is illegal. It is against The Logan Act.

So yes by any other name it is still a stinky, fake, hypocritical rose just the same! (Sorry Shakesphere!)

CQ

Read Full Post »

It’s a hard time to be a Democrat

 

You know I’ve been back and forth with this many times over the last year or so. Should I just change my registration to Independent or Unaffiliated? Or should I stay a Dem because the only way I can affect real change is from within? Many of my fellow Dems and Hillary Supporters have been agonizing over this for quite a while now. Some have already left the party and I, for one, consider it a great loss.

Many of us have been considering who to give our votes to as we know we will not be voting for Obama. Most of us have been subjected to ridicule, scorn, Internet flaming and even real threats, stalking and in some cases abuse. We’ve lost friendships and family over it or at the very least those relationships are strained.

I’ve had several friends who have tried to convince me “for my own good” of course that it doesn’t really matter what happened in the primaries that it’s over now and I should just move forward.

In my experience “moving forward” is not going to do anything other than condoning the fraudulent process that got us here and therefore rewarding and inviting more of the same. If they get away with it this time they will use more voter suppression tactics and threats and intimidation to subvert the process next time. You can count on it. If you give in to it you are feeding it and it will grow.

You do not fix a problem by ignoring it’s existence or by allowing it to go on unchecked.

I have other friends who say I just need to get over my anger. Hillary lost, she endorsed Obama end of story. He has a D beside his name what else do I need to know?

Did she really lose? Who won the popular vote? Who got the most votes of any primary candidate ever? Why do Caucuses only represent about 3% of the population but they are allotted delegates in the same manner as primaries which represent a much larger percentage of the population?

What was the final delegate count really? I mean BEFORE the forced and scripted roll call that was halted for a fake show of unity. The pledged delegate count was very close before Obama decided to restore Michigan and Florida to full vote status yet they never reported how that changed the actual delegate counts.

The media and the DNC swept all that under the rug since they were already busy planning how to spend the profits they intended to make on this Obama Gravy Train.

Not to mention the uncommitted delegates and the four Clinton delegates that were given to him in Michigan even though he was not on the ballot. Now that those were full votes it makes twice many delegates he gained by fraudulent methods. It’s twice as many delegates for Hillary too. She won both states hands down. 

I  don’t think that’s something I want to get over. The day when there is no outrage at cheating will be a cold day in Hell in my book and the books of many, many people in this country.

Truthfully for many of us it ceased to be about Hillary Clinton on May 31st, 2008. That was the day it became about so much more than Hillary vs. Obama it became about right and wrong. it was the shock of seeing our “leadership” distort the rules and pervert the process in order to spot Obama a few points because I guess they knew he would need them to “win” that created the outrage and the movement that is PUMA.

They have only themselves to blame. In a democratic society cheating will always cause outrage. You could say it’s the expected reaction even. The fact that it was carried out by our own side does not make it acceptable. I feel as strongly about it as I do Rev. Wright and his racist, anti-American rants. There is no context in which that is acceptable.

Most people in this country are decent, hardworking people who care very much about the difference between right and wrong. They work very hard to live by those values and to instill them in their children. Party makes no difference to those people but truth does. As does honesty, integrity, loyalty and compassion. These are things most people feel very strongly about regardless of their typical voting preferences. Things like these are deal breakers.

I have also heard the Roe v Wade argument to death. Won’t happen, we have a Dem controlled congress. The Supreme Court Argument. The Palin is pro-life argument. I don’t know many republicans that aren’t so why would they think this is news? I’ve heard them all.

I’ve also gotten a chorus of defensive stuff too over the exposure of Obamabot behaviour. For instance my last post that linked to Hillbuzz and the video of Democratic Underground posters and their EBay listing of Sarah Palin’s 4 month old baby. Of course the fact that this was on a Democratic blog and the posters were long time members with 1000+ posts each would NOT suggest to me that this is a Republican strategy. Someone is faking it to make the Dems look bad. No it would not suggest that to me at all but you be the judge. Some people! Eyes rolling!

The other things they do also like the recent discovery by the custodian at Invesco Field of 84 trash bags filled with American flags, Obama/Biden campaign signs, empty pizza boxes and other assorted trash. The custodian found them in the dumpster and called around eventually getting in touch with the Veterans and the Boy Scouts who sorted, rolled and recycled them by handing them out at a GOP campaign event. Flags that people did not want to keep were to be donated to be placed on Veteran’s graves.

The fact that Democrats who were touting this convention as the “Greenest Ever” would be so wasteful and that they would treat our flag with such disrespect is appalling to most people. I have heard though that this too must have been republicans, that everybody throws flags away, that they were supposedly “stolen” and intended for reuse. I’ve heard that it wouldn’t have been the Dems’ fault the custodian would be to blame. Obviously they didn’t read the part of the story where it said the custodian found them in the dumpster and I saw photos they were not being recycled they were in with the garbage.

Anybody remember when Obama went to Oregon and his people set up a port-a-potty on the memorial for a fallen police officer? That was probably republicans too. I know LOTS of republicans who go around volunteering to help set up for Obama events. (Sarcasm OFF.)

I can identify with that a tiny bit however because I know my friends are really just in denial. They do not want to admit to themselves that people could do these kinds of things and the idea that it could be members of the party you have held dear and worked hard for, been a loyal soldier for, well that’s a bitter pill to swallow.

I have a feeling though that swallow it they will. They have 54 days to let it sink in. 54 days to decide to do the right thing. I’m confident many of my friends will do just that because in the end they are decent, hardworking and compassionate people. They will not legitimize the atrocities that took place in the name of a win at any cost quest for power. They will not give their votes or their trust to those who cannot be trusted.

Obama and his supporters will understand in November when people go to the polls with determination to do what is right and what is best for our country.

In the end it is far less important who you vote for than who you vote against.

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

OK here’s a point or two for Sarah Palin detractors

First I’m sick to death of the argument that McCain should have picked this woman or that woman if he wanted to pick a woman. The media pundits, talk show hosts and the Dems cannot stop criticizing McCain’s pick for VP.

Did they really think he was going to pick someone the Dems would pick? They say she’s no Hillary. Undoubtedly true but did anyone ever think he would pick Hillary? Or anyone like her?

They said Snowe or Hutchison have more experience but the fact is they don’t like her because she has a fresh appeal. She seems real and genuine and she seems like a big help to the GOP ticket. She seems like a winner.

All this outcry over John McCain’s choice for VP when we were barraged how many times by the media AND the DNC that nobody should try to pressure Obama into picking Hillary because it was his choice and that should be respected. His choice. Get over it. Who cares if she actually got more votes and had all the plans The One has been “chosen” and you WILL respect The One! Remember all those articles?

We’re constantly reminded of how The One should be respected. Yet I have as yet to see him earn it. I think he may have missed that lesson. Respect must be earned. It cannot be a give away. It cannot be demanded and forced.

He demands we respect him but wants us to disrespect McCain, a war hero and patriot as well as Sarah Palin because The One demands full fealty and he will not tolerate respect given to false notobama’s! I ask you is this the demeanor of a full grown man or a spoiled, petulant child?

Then the assumption that because Alaska has a smaller population, is rural ect. that it’s not like she runs a “real” state. I think Alaskans would disagree with that. It’s definitely a real state and a rugged one that not everybody could thrive in. Sure the population is not huge but as my friend Bill Demo at Hillary Clinton Forum says it’s a larger population than the state of Vermont.

Hmmmm nobody ridiculed Howard Dean (then Governor of Vermont) for running for president in 2004. If the population is the only relevant factor to being considered a “real” state I think the Dems have strayed far from their message there. I thought the Dems were for the little guys? Obama is not playing to the little guys or the blue collar Dems at all. In the end it will be that and the reprehensible tactics that lose the race for him. He thinks it’s just PUMAS. He has no clue.

 

CQ

Read Full Post »