Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘We the People’

After spending the better part of the last two years being totally and completely obsessed with the election it’s over. The outcome was not even close to what I had hoped for. Not by any means. I’m not even sure that the outcome was in any way acceptable but accept it I must.

It’s not a ringing endorsement for the intellect in this country as once again Americans proved that more than half of us are stupid. I would have thought we would have learned our lesson after not one but two terms of GW Bush but I digress.

The really hard part is not so much that my candidate lost, or even that my second choice candidate lost but who “won”. Sure Obama won and it’s historical and all that. It’s not that I didn’t want to see a black man elected. It’s that I would have liked for that man to have been elected fairly, with honor and for him not to be a socialist/marxist/communist with a penchant for sexism and misogyny.

Truth of the matter is Obama won but America lost BIG. We will feel the consequences of our actions for a long time to come as we discover that sadly, race relations and womens’ rights have been set back decades by this election cycle and all the rotting, stinking, festering wounds that come with it.

It’s been a real wake up call for sure. Not only has it made me realize how many people were completely duped by this fraud I have also opened my eyes to things I would never have seen before. I’ve come to realize that, as much as it pains me, my party is just as complicit in “dirty fighting” as the GOP and maybe even more so this time around. I see now that it has been this way for far longer than I care to admit.

Democrats who I believed were the “good guys” the ones who stood up for the little guys and women and minorities, the ones who I though were all about principals and were above all that stuff were in fact the purveyors of some of the worst and most un-democratic behaviour I have ever witnessed.

Suddenly the party that has never missed an opportunity to remind me they are the party I can trust to stand up for women has become the party of trendy, young women wearing T-Shirts that degrade and denigrate women as a fashion statement. Who would ever have thought that it would be trendy for one woman to call another woman a derogatory term for her reproductive parts?

It has also become trendy to shove more qualified, experienced candidates aside as if they were garbage in order to insure a less qualified, inexperienced, arrogant and manipulative man gets elected at any cost because apparently all that fighting to be “equal” was just noise they made to attract the boys. Gotta find a husband somehow huh?

Yes it’s the latest fashion to be seen trashing women and treating them as second class citizens even if you are one! It’s a sick world we live in when things like this become the “norm”.

It’s also the latest and greatest to make sure anyone who disagrees with you or asks an answer and actually expects an answer is humiliated, smeared, outed, threatened, harassed and “taught” that they dare not try that again!

The way forward? I’m torn about that. Part of me wants to stay a democrat and fight to oust those who are false Dems. To take the party back and return to the principals that are so neatly laid out in the charter. You know pesky things like One Voice, One Vote and Free Speech. Stuff like that. A long road that frankly, I’m not sure is even possible any more. So infested with rot and corruption and people who have no morals or principals it may not be salvageable at this point. I’ve lost a lot of faith this cycle and I’m quite sure that I’m not alone. I’d like to see the party back to what it should be but I’m not sure it can happen.

Another part of me wants to run not walk to the nearest registration site and register as an Independant, beholden to no one and not associated with the sub-human element that is in control of the party now.

Even yet another part says “Hey if enough of us joined the republicans they would become more moderate simply as a matter of the numbers and we might actually get something done!” (I’m quite sure conservative republicans would dread this and I’m not sure I could go through with such a rash action but there it is.)

It’s taken me almost two weeks to be able to even write this post so I imagine it will take a bit more than that to decide what’s next but you can be sure that no matter what I decide with regard to party affiliation I will continue to watch Obama like a hawk and prepare to defend democracy and the American way of life should my worst fears about him prove to be true.

That’s about as far as I can go for now.

CQ

Advertisements

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.

 CQ

 http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/lawsuit-against-obama-dismissed-from.html

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 »

Hillary has had far worse satire made about her and has had lots of mean spirited insults hurled at her in this election season and all along but especially when she was the First Lady. Didn’t hear Obama complaining about any of that. Nope he has comedians making jokes about menopause and ho’s.

Remember all those Hillary nutcrackers and the Bros before Ho’s T-shirts? How about the very real attacks she dealt with on a daily basis in the media? Like when they said she was only in the race because Bill had an affair or when they said she was pimping out her daughter? How about when she was ridiculed for her hairstyles, not being a cookie baker, her pantsuits, her laugh, her voice?

They compared her to their mother-in-law, their ex-wife at probate and wondered if America would stand for watching a woman president age? Sound familiar? This stuff was all sanctioned by the Obama campaign although they wanted us to think the oppisite.

He attacks and then claims everyone is attacking him. He and his big mouth wife say all kinds of crude, inappropriate things in public and even on video tape and yet they whine that it’s not fair to attack them like that when they are called on it. “I’m proud of my country for the first time in my adult life..” springs to mind as does “How can you run the whitehouse if you can’t run your own” or “He’s been my spiritual mentor”, “Typical white person”, “God Damn America”? Ok paraphrasing here but we’ve all heard it so many times we know it by heart anyway.

So it’s ok to critisize and attack his opponents and he will, if forced to, make some weak comment and try to brush it off or better yet insist that although yes, there was sexisim in the campaign, it was not harmful to Mrs. Clinton (OOOHH it really pisses me off when he calls her Mrs. and NOT Senator! It’s called RESPECT and she has earned it!) and furthermore, according to Obama, there was more than one woman who was battered by it. WTF???

Seriously, he can barely admit that Hillary had to deal with a plethora of sexisim and that he and his supporters were behind a lot of it. Yet we are supposed to feel sorry for Michelle because she got attacked for stupid crap that actually came out of her own f-ing mouth! 

Sorry! I don’t feel one bit sorry for her she brought every bit of it on herself. I DON’T condone sexisim ever and do not condone it against Michelle Obama any more than I do against Hillary Clinton. Having said that I can hardly see how they can complain about attacks for something one has actually said or done!

Oh, that’s right, I forgot. The Obamas are supposed to be special and to be treated with kid gloves. After all they are both where they are today because of affirmative action and special, preferential treatment. Before you start sreaming I will say I don’t have  a problem with affirmative action in general. I think it was created to try and level the field and hopefully it will eventually die a quiet and respected death after the field has been deemed at least mostly level. Having said that I don’t think it should have any place in our political election process.

When you are talking about electing the people to represent all of us and to be in charge of our country then I beleive it is our duty to elect the people we trust to do the job best and the people who have earned the right to do so with their service and commitment to this country. I don’t believe that means propping up someone who lost a contest by huge margins and calling them the clear winner and calling the actual winner of said contest a loser!  I don’t believe a 36 or a 41 point win is meaningless regardless of what the media idiots tell me.

I also don’t believe John Edwards when he says the party has spoken and so has he because it made no sense coming on the heels of such an astronomical loss. Every time he lost big we saw a trotting out of super delegates claiming he was the clear winner and we better get behind him. Yet if he were really the clear winner as they wanted us to believe we would not have needed them to come out and tell us so. It would have been obvious. You know like the DNC bias that’s as plain as the nose on your face.

These are the tactics of Senator Obama. Throw shit as far and as fast as you can then duck and cover. You can blame it on someone else and drive over them with your bus, ‘er I mean campaign. Cry that you are being persecuted for being black and then call everyone who disagrees with you, regardless of the reason a racist or republican and every word spoken or written against you  a smear whether it’s true or not. If they complain about the shit you threw at them just say that yes there was some shit but they were not the only ones who got some on them. So what if it was on your hands!  The last rule is the most important. If the media quits bringing you presents and starts depicting you realisticly come out with a statment saying that it’s tasteless and inexcusable making sure they don’t see your guys working on your next smear campaign.

Honestly, I don’t care much for the cartoon either but if Obama wants to run for president then he should be at least as tough as his competition and not expect to be treated like royalty or some spoiled, rich brat that people cow-tow to. In short grow up and deal with it because if he were to ever get elected this is probably mild compared to the attacks he would undoubtably endure as president. If you can’t take the heat….

Read Full Post »

Well I don’t know about any of you but I had a decent weekend. It wasn’t too hot here in the high 80’s and low to mid 90’s. Nice but not too hot!

Apparently one of my posts 

https://caffinequeen.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/puma-call-to-action-let-the-dnc-know-you-wont-be-supporting-obama-in-november-and-oh-by-the-way-we-wont-be-sending-the-dnc-any-money-either/

was used by Obamabots on Yahoo answers as I had several visits yesterday from there I decided to see what was up. Kind of comical. The comments I mean.

What Will Obama Supporters do If Puma gets their way some how?

This Puma thing where they are pretty much black mailing the DNC to make Hillary the Nominee. I myself don’t think it will change anything. If they did that, I am sure some group that supports Obama would turn around and say the same thing.
But if some how Hillary pulls out an the nominee. How will Obama supporters react? Key word hear is Obama supporters, not Hillary supporters.

PUMA Call to Action; Let the DNC know you won’t be supporting Obama in November and OH, by the way we won’t be sending the DNC any money either https://caffinequeen.wordpress.com/2008/0…

  • 14 hours ago
  • 3 days left to answer.
  • Here’s the link:  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsJVEq9zdJUdgaG75EaSSYTS7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20080713152431AAUHOKh

    Fricking Bots! I notice some Hillary supporters commenting there too! i’m still composing my own special  response. ;^0

    So they’re calling us blackmailers now! Hmmm! Wait a minute! I thought they said using the word black in any negative context was racism???? I mean if you can’t say black hole, black sheep and black-balled then they should not use such a word as blackmail right? Doesn’t that make them racists by their own standards?? I’m just sayin’!

    Funny how they see our demanding fair treatment for our candidate as extortion isn’t it? So then if things had been the other way around and their candidate had been robbed of rightfully earned delegates, constantly attacked and called a racist, persecuted by the media, and pretty much forced out of the race in spite of a long history in which no other candidate has ever been pushed and strong armed out of their right to compete they would not be demanding fair treatment, respect and the same treatment that every democratic candidate has been granted automatically in the past? They wouldn’t consider that blackmail now would they? The hypocrisy of these people is unprecedented! Apparently, if you drink the kool-ade, all judgement goes out the window and instead is replaced with a perverted sense of justice that only goes in one direction!

    I think I’ll just post a link to this post there instead of respondindg seperately. Unless that could be called racist…..   ;^I

    Whatever!

    CQ

    Read Full Post »

    Before I get too carried away this morning  I want to give props to a fellow (or sister as the case may be) blogger Madamab who also loves satire and like me seems to be able to sit on ice cream and tell what flavor it is. (That means I’m a smart-ass and sorry Madamab I guess I just called you one too but I meant it in the most sincere and admiring way!)

    There is a link to her latest below. Too funny! Here’s a favorite line or two of mine from this piece. Just to give you a little taste and whet your appetites!

    BRAZILE [faux-fended]: For Pete’s sake, Hillary, what the hell am I doing here? I’m neutral! How could I be guilty? Don’t you know I work for CNN?

    [Brief pause]

    ALL except BRAZILE: HAHAHAHAHA! [BRAZILE glares at everyone, then slowly breaks into a grin and laughs along with them]

    HILLARY [wiping her eyes]: Whew! Thanks for the laugh, Donna. That really broke the ice! [returning to seriousness] Okay, are we ready to get down to business?

    I LOVE IT! And then there’s this:

    OBAMA [offended]: Who, me? Are you kidding? I AM the Democratic Party! I moved the DNC to Chicago! I’m Obama for America! And besides, everyone loves me. Yes, I can!

    HILLARY [unable to keep silent]: Oh, for god’s sake, Barack, you don’t believe your own propaganda, do you? Save it for your deluded worshipers in the blogosphere!

    AXELROD [aside to Obama]: Yeah, Barack. I told you that most of those [makes air quotes with his hands] “anonymous supporters” work for me anyway.

     

    http://oohnuance.blogspot.com/2008/07/who-killed-ole-yeller-play-in-one.html

     
    Sigh! If only we would get to hear Hillary REALLY SAY THIS TO BARKY! Do yourself a favor and check out the rest of the play. Unlike me, Madamab seems to know how to spin a yarn AND keep it short and sweet. I think yours truly could learn a thing or two about that!

    This one is quite a hoot as well. I’ll restrict myself to one quote just because I loved it so much I can’t NOT quote it!

    BOLTEN [jumping in]: Yes, sir, it sure is! Anyway, what the Vice President is saying, is that the Democrats nominated the one guy who couldn’t win this year. The Democratic base doesn’t like him, and he’s managed to piss off a lot of people so much that they started their own movement.

    BUSH: Oh yeah – that PUMA stuff. Can you believe that some morons think those PUMA idiots are Republicans? We wouldn’t stand for that shit in our house, would we Turd Blossom?

    [KKKARL ROVE steps out from behind a curtain.]

    ROVE: No, we sure wouldn’t. The idiots in our party wanted Huckabee. We put a stop to that crap right away.

    I agree with Dick. The Democratic Party won’t win the White House in November. We’ve got our ads all ready to go – we’re just waiting in case the Democrats come to their senses and nominate Hillary.

    HAHAHAHA!!! Here’s the link to the rest. Enjoy! 

    http://oohnuance.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-about-bush-play-in-one-final-act.html

    OOOPS!!! MUST STOP! COFFEE CUP EMPTY! MUST REFILL!

    OK! Emergency avoided! Wheew!

    Now that I’ve got that under control I’ll get back to the point. You will not hear this in the media. You won’t hear it said in public unless it is spoken in hushed wispers. You won’t hear it from the DNC that I absolutely assure you! Having said that I’m going to say what most of us, especially those of us who are PUMAS already know. THIS IS NOT OVER YET!

    The Denver Group   http://thedenvergroup.blogspot.com/ and PUMAPAC http://blog.pumapac.org/ as well as many other groups are doing everything they can to get Hillary the respect she deserves in Denver by demanding that her name be on the ballot and the traditional Roll Call takes place. If you can do anything to help in any of these efforts please do so. I will also say that if they DON’T GIVE HILLARY THE RESPECT SHE DESERVES AND HAS EARNED there will be a hefty price to pay! We Hillarycrats won’t riot or burn the city or anything as unseemly and immature as that.

    No, instead we will systematicly vote out every Democrat who did not support Hillary, Fair Reflection, the will of the people and the core principals of the Democratic Party! Every Democrat who tried to gloss over the inconvienent reality of the situation and instead tried to force this faux-unity crap down our throats all the while recieving what amounts to the political version of a blowjob (cabinet positions, fundraising ect.)  in exchange for their loyalty to the standard bearer of the “New Marxocratic, ooops, I mean Democratic Party”

    In addition I feel fairly confident that Hillary will take the MI/FL decision to the credentials committee regardless because, hang on Obamabots if you’re listening, because IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO! Yup! That’s right! Hillary will stand up for those voters who did their civic duty (Some Obama supporters may not know about this as Civics is unforunately no longer taught in school.) and voted their concience for President for which their “reward” was being told that their vote didn’t count or at least didn’t count for as much as everybody else’s votes and oh, by the way since one candidate removed himself from the ballot the RBC decided that the votes that were cast should be altered to reflect votes that weren’t cast! This has to be the most undemocratic, uninspired, and frankly the most unintelligent decisions the party has ever made!

    I think Hillary will fight for them as she has always fought for all of us. I think she will fight for their rights because in spite of all the heat she has taken for it, Hillary has always fought for what is right and fighting for Florida and Michigan to be treated fairly and with respect is what is right.

    So for all those unity pushers who think they can threaten us or smooth us over or better yet try to ignore us think again sweeties, it aint over till it’s over! You cannot win votes with the above mentioned tactics. In fact you are doing the exact opposite. More of us than before say we won’t vote Obama and our numbers continue to grow fueled by his arrogance and that of his supporters. If you think you can win without us then you truly are delusional. There are 18 million of us who know your guy is a fraud, an empty suit, in short a loser.

    Come to your senses people! Delegates! Abort this fary-tale with no chance of fruition that is the Obama Campaign! Back away from the cool-ade before it’s too late! You’re country needs you to do the right thing! Get Hillary Clinton nominated and elected! She can win! We need her! With Obama we are doomed!

    PUMAS know this and they are working behind the scenes and PUMAS are not republicans I assure you. PUMAS are the core of the party, the people who vote and fight to protect us all! PUMAS are smart enough to know that advertising is usually created to attract and distract as in make you think this new thing is just what you need and don’t look at this it’s a work in progress you know, unfinished and all that. Hey looky over here instead!

    PUMAS know real meat (substance) when they see it! Clinton has plenty of subtance and the fortitude to stand when others fall back. (FISA anyone?) She’s the real deal and if she’s not the nominee the party will regret it. Obama will lose and we will have 4 more years of GOP in the Whitehouse. NOT what I or any other democrat wants but at least the devil we know is better than the devil we don’t. I shudder to think about an Obama presidency. What that would do to our country, how many of our rights would he pander away for his own agenda? Would this country even be recognizable? I doubt it. We’d all be wearing brown shirts and jack boots in no time.

    PUMAS UNITE! CAST OUT THE OBAMANITES!

    Read Full Post »