www.thejudeo-christianview.com
Federal Sex Policies: Pastoral Options for
Full Disclosure and Informed Consent for your Congregation
Your congregation has a clear Right to Know, a right to Full Disclosure and Informed Consent on Sen. Obama?s pending Federal policies on:
New "Sexual Orientation" Laws affecting Pastors, Churches, Congregants, Businesses
Same-Sex Unions: Sen. Obama favors full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects your state from forced recognition of Same-Sex "Marriages" from other states where courts have ordered gay marriage (MA, CA, CT).
Expansion of Partial Birth Abortion, a barbaric procedure which involves piercing the skulls of babies during delivery. Sen. Obama?s pending "Freedom of Choice Act" would sweep away all restrictions on late-term abortions. Obama also favors federal taxpayer subsidies for abortion on demand and opposes requiring that parents be notified prior to an abortion on their teenage daughter.
Full, open integration of flagrant homosexuals into U.S. military barracks, forcing inappropriate same-sex intimacy (bunks, bathing, etc.) on heterosexual soldiers.
Possible permission of infanticide: Sen. Obama voted repeatedly to kill Illinois equal protection for infants who survive abortions. Infanticide of abortion survivors was later banned by bipartisan agreement in Congress, yet that ban is subject to repeal.
Complete documentation is at www.thejudeo-christianview.com
Q: What can a pastor, priest or rabbi legally say about these matters to the congregation?
A: Under the Free Exercise/Religious Liberty clause of the First Amendment, non-violent "pulpit to pew" speech in a house of worship is protected from government regulation. Pastors, rabbis and priests are free under both the Constitution and the tax code to preach Biblical ethics and morality, to name names of politicians, and to explain their public policies to congregants. Despite widespread misreporting and intentional distortion by opponents of religious liberty and free speech, no church has ever lost its tax exempt status for any such activity. Although The Judeo-Christian View does not advise express endorsement of any candidate from the pulpit, it is completely uncontroversial as a matter of law that pastors have a right to endorse/oppose in their personal capacities. For brief law videos, supporting documentation, details, caveats, and legal backup, go to www.thejudeo-christianview.com
Q: I'm not a wimp, I recognize my legal liberties, but I am simply uncomfortable using my pulpit to mention any politicians' names ? even if they threaten Judeo-Christian foundations on marriage, heterosexual monogamy, and child sacrifice/infanticide. What OTHER options are available to alert my flock?
A: Play the brief Interfaith Video Sermon you received on DVD for your congregation this weekend (or download it at www.thejudeo-christianview.com). Or, circulate the printed Sermon Outline /bulletin insert, or teach from it, or urge Sunday School or lay teachers to do so. If you feel impaired, allow a member of the congregation to speak this weekend on these paramount matters of Same-Sex Unions and Child Sacrifice. Or, lead the congregation in prayer for Sen. Obama's repentance on these matters. Email this message (available at website at Congregational Resources) or another message to your congregants. Email your flock to go now to the website, urging them to see the powerful videos and possibly join you in subscribing. Email in your personal capacity, or as religious leader (either way is fine legally). Contact your flock by auto-dialer, or put a prayer alert on your phone trees. But, by any or all of these means, be a Good Shepherd of your sheep and a Faithful Watchman at the walls (Ezekiel 33, 34).
TheJudeo-ChristianView.com P.O. Box 734, Vista, California 92085-0734
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Vital Resources:
Liberty Counsel: Many pastors, priests, rabbis and boards do not understand that they can freely preach/teach the Bible AND clearly explain to their congregations where NAMED political leaders stand on public policy issues informed by the Bible, distinct from any talk of endorsements. For example, because churches are not granted tax-exempt status by the IRS but acquire it automatically when they come into existence, the IRS has never been able to take it away from any church. Click herefor a video discussion (toward bottom of linked page) on this by Prof. Mathew Staver, Dean of Liberty University School of Law and Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel -- a nonprofit legal defense organization for congregational leaders and their houses of worship, upholding First Amendment freedoms for all Americans via litigation, education and policy work. Established in 1989, Liberty Counsel is a nationwide organization of attorneys with offices in Florida, Texas, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., and hundreds of affiliate lawyers across the Nation. Liberty Counsel's website is www.LC.org.
The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission: The CADC is a non-profit that aims to be the first-in-mind champion of Christian religious liberty, a first line of response to anti-Christian defamation, bigotry, and discrimination via public relations and, as necessary, litigation. According to CADC, by declaring he is a Christian, yet denying Christianity's essential doctrines and morality, Barack Obama has associated the name of Jesus Christ with practices expressly condemned in the Torah, the Tanakh, and the New Testament. To view CADC's brief and incisive videos on this and other vital topics, go to www.christianadc.org
The Anti-Defamation League: The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all." ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, scrutinizing and exposing hate groups and offering expertise on domestic and international terrorism. ADL also seeks to foster interfaith relations, to safeguard religious liberty, while defending the security of Israel and Jews worldwide. Through the Bearing Witness program, a partnership with The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Archdiocese of Washington, provides religious educators with the training and resources necessary to teach their students about anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. For more, go to www.adl.org.
Restore America: Restore America is a non-profit dedicated to engaging clerical leaders and laity in shared citizenship responsibility to "Value our Vote and Vote our Values" through conferences, seminars, commentaries, and electronic media. Restore America's objectives include a renewed understanding of America's Judeo-Christian history and founding principles, and the promotion of citizens of Judeo-Christian principle into public office. To view Restore America's vision, ministry and resources visit www.restoreamerica.org.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Crisis--you must visit this site
We may lose our American freedoms at the polls. God help us.
www.citizenslim.com
www.citizenslim.com
Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down
OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”
Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?
Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.
In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.
The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:
regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [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.
This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.
First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.
True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).
Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.
To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America’s voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?
These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”
Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,
[i]f, 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 [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .
Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).
In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.
What are some of those consequences?
First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.
Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.
Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:
[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”
Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”
Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.
Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”
Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.
Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.
The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.
Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.
Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.
© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserve
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”
Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?
Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.
In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.
The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:
regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [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.
This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.
First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.
True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).
Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.
To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America’s voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?
These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”
Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,
[i]f, 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 [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .
Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).
In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.
What are some of those consequences?
First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.
Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.
Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:
[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”
Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”
Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.
Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”
Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.
Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.
The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.
Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.
Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.
© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserve
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Check out this petition!
petition from Concerned American Voter
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/
Be sure to visit http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/ for important action items.
This message was sent via the Email-A-Friend feature at RallyCongress.com on behalf of Concerned American Voter. The sender of this message was a site visitor and has not been verified.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/
Be sure to visit http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/ for important action items.
This message was sent via the Email-A-Friend feature at RallyCongress.com on behalf of Concerned American Voter. The sender of this message was a site visitor and has not been verified.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Picking on Palin
PICKING ON PALIN
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_hawaii_plane/2008/10/26/144260.html
Newsmax.com
Obama's Hawaii Trips Cost More Than Palin's Clothes
Sunday, October 26, 2008 3:21 PM
By: Ronald Kessler
Barack Obama's trips to Hawaii on a chartered Boeing 757 each cost more than twice the price of Sarah Palin's new clothes.
Brad Blakeman, who was in charge of scheduling for President Bush, says a Boeing 757 costs about $20,000 an hour for fuel, crew, and maintenance. Since a trip to Hawaii entails 10 hours of flying time from Chicago, the total cost for each round-trip comes to about $400,000.
Obama used the Boeing 757 for trips to Hawaii over the summer for a vacation and again last week to see his failing grandmother. Admirable though that visit was, "By Obama using a private jet to go on a purely personal visit to see his grandma, he's wasting not only energy, but he's using the money that his supporters have given him for campaign purposes," Blakeman says. "It's a purely personal visit paid for with campaign funds."
On the other hand, the media are highlighting the Republican National Committee's purchase of $150,000 in clothes for Palin, even though the dresses will be donated to charities. The New York Times played the story on page one.
"They're picking on Palin, who was provided a wardrobe by the RNC strictly for political purposes, and it was always intended that these garments would be then given to charity," Blakeman says. "So there's a benefit that's going to charity, not a benefit that Palin will have after the election. There was a need for it because she's a modest person who didn't have an extensive wardrobe to do 24/7 campaigning."
To pick on Palin without going after Obama's plane trips is "an absolute journalistic abuse," Blakeman says. "This is the same plane that he took to Hawaii when he went on vacation. In the summertime, when gas was soaring and Americans were having to pinch their pennies, this guy gets on his campaign plane and goes to Hawaii on vacation. He did a couple campaign stops in a state that is not a swing state and is a guaranteed win for Obama. That was clearly to cover the tracks of this vacation."
Blakeman notes that at the height of the gasoline price surge, Obama suggested that Americans check their vehicle's tire pressure as a way of conserving fuel.
"I wonder if he checked the tires on his jumbo jet before taking off for a purely personal visit?" Blakeman says. "The way he spends campaign money is a direct reflection of how he will spend ours. He could have easily flown commercial or taken a much smaller corporate aircraft that would cost a fraction of a 757."
Ironically, it was Palin as governor who saved money for Alaskans by selling the state's jet and instead flying commercial.
Kellyanne Conway, one of the most respected Republican pollsters, says the media's attack on Palin's clothes is an example of elitist snobbery or "classism." Noting the media's treatment of her, "I can't believe her own family still approves of her, after the unprecedented, personal and relentless attacks that this woman has undergone," Conway says.
Besides attacks on Palin over her clothes, Conway cites snide remarks about "the way she speaks, her husband's lack of a college degree, the barefoot and pregnant 17-year-old daughter, you know who hunts moose anyway? The classism is so raw and unapologetic, so unconsidered and so undisguised."
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDk0MTlkNDVlYmIyNTlmNTQwZDAxNzk4MTZmOWQwY2M=
October 24, 2008, 7:00 a.m.
An Instructive Candidacy
What Sarah Palin taught us about ourselves.
By Victor Davis Hanson
Soon this depressing campaign will be over, and we can reflect on what we learned from our two-month introduction to Sarah Palin.
Clearly, it is more than we would have ever wished to know about ourselves.
First, there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Palin's career as a city councilwoman, mayor, and governor of Alaska was never seen as comparable to, or — indeed, in terms of executive experience — more extensive than, Barack Obama's own legislative background in Illinois and Washington. Somehow we forgot that a mother of five taking on the Alaskan oil industry and the entrenched male hierarchy was somewhat more challenging than Barack Obama navigating the sympathetic left-wing identity politics of Chicago.
So we seem to have forgotten that the standards of censure of her vice-presidential candidacy were not applied equally to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. The media at times seems unaware of this embarrassment, namely that their condemnation of Sarah Palin as inexperienced equally might apply to Barack Obama — and to such a degree that by default we were offered the lame apology (reiterated by Colin Powell himself) that Obama's current impressive campaigning, not his meager political accomplishments, was already an indication of a successful tenure as president. The result is that we now know more about the Palin pregnancies — both of mother and daughter — that we do the relationships of Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and Father Pfleger with our possible next president.
Indeed, the media itself — in private, I think — would admit that while have learned almost everything about Tasergate and the Bridge to Nowhere, we assume that at some future date a publicity-starved, megalomaniac Rev. Wright will soon offer his post-election memoirs, detailing just how close he and a President Obama were. Or we will learn Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, as long-time friends, in fact, did communicate via phone and e-mail well after Ayers had told the world, about the time of 9/11, that he, like our present-terrorist enemies, likewise wished he had engaged in more bombing attacks against the United States government. And the media never wondered whether a Palin's falling out with those who ran Alaska might have been more of a touchstone to character than Obama's own falling in with those who ran Chicago.
While Gov. Palin's frequent college transfers and Idaho degree are an item of snickering among pundits, none of them can claim to care much about Barack Obama's own undergraduate career. To suggest that he release his undergraduate transcript is near blasphemy; to scribble that Sarah Palin's Down Syndrome child was not her own is journalism as we now know it. To care that Joe Biden is vain, with bleached teeth, the apparent recipient of some sort of strange facial tightening tonic, and hair plugs is deservedly mean and petty; to sneer that the Alaskan mom of five bought a new wardrobe to run for Vice President is, of course, vital proof for the American voter of her vanity and shallowness.
Second, there does not seem to be much left of feminism any more. Of course, feminists once gave liberal pro-choice Bill Clinton a pass for his serial womanizing of vulnerable subordinates, and Oval Office antics with a young female intern. But they gave the game away entirely when they went after Gov. Palin for her looks, accent, pregnancies, and religion, culminating in assessments of her from being no real woman at all to an ingrate — piggy-backing on the pioneer work of self-acclaimed mavericks like themselves.
Feminism, it turns out, is no longer about equal opportunity and equal compensation, but, in fact, little more than a strain of contemporary elitist identity politics, and support for unquestioned abortion. Had Gov. Sarah Palin just been a mother of a single child at Vassar rather than of five in Alaska, married to a novelist rather than a snow-machiner, an advocate of pro-choice, who shot pictures of Alaskan ferns rather than shot moose — feminists would have hailed her as a principled kindred soul, and trumpeted her struggles against Alaskan male grandees.
So there was something creepy about droves of irate women, in lock-step blasting Sarah Palin from the corridors of New York and Washington, when most of them were the recipients of the traditional spoils of either family connections, inherited money, or the advantages that accrue from insider power marriages. Indeed, very few of Palin's critics on their own could have emerged from a small-town in Alaska, with an intact marriage and five children, to run the state of Alaska.
We have come to understand that — for a TV anchorwoman, op-ed columnist, or professor — it would be a nightmare to birth a Down Syndrome child in her mid-forties, or to have had her pregnant unwed teen actually deliver her baby. In the world outside Sarah Palin's Wasilla, these are career-ending blunders that abort the next job promotion or book tour— or the future career of a prepped young daughter on her way to the Ivy League.
Third, from the match-up of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, we discovered that our media does not know anything about the nature of wisdom — how it is found or how it is to be adjudicated. For the last eight weeks, Palin has been demonized as a dunce because she did not, in the fashion of the class toady with his hand constantly up in the first row, impress in flash-card recall, the glasses-on-his-nose Charlie Gibson, or clinched-toothed Katie Couric.
Meanwhile Joe Biden has just been Ol' Joe Biden — which means not that he can get away with the occasional gaffe, but that can say things so outrageous, so silly, and so empty that, had they come out of the mouth of Sarah Palin, she would have long ago been forced to have stepped aside from the ticket.
Factual knowledge? Biden, in the midst of a financial meltdown on Wall Street, apparently thinks that the last time it happened in 1929, we heard FDR rally us on television. And such made-up nonsense came in the form, as many of Biden's gaffes do, of a rebuke to the supposedly obtuse George W. Bush.
Sobriety? Biden now admits that dangerous powers abroad will immediately test a President Obama. He warns that the results of such a crisis will be very disappointing to the American electorate, and thus Team Obama/Biden will need loyal supporters to rally as their polls sink. Yet remember that Biden himself has been a fierce and opportunistic critic of Bush, who despite a frenzy of congressional demagoguery, initiated the successful surge and ignored the very polls that the for-the-war/against-the-war Biden so carefully tracked. More importantly, if an Ahmadinejad, Chavez, or Putin ever had any doubts about carving out new spheres of uncontested influence, they may entertain very few now.
Veracity? If one were to think that Biden's past brushes with plagiarism, inflated bios, and falsehood were exceptional rather than characteristic, the last two months confirmed otherwise. For all the false recall, it is hard to remember anything he said in his Palin debate that was true, whether describing the status of Hezbollah in Lebanon or his own past remarks about the wisdom of burning coal.
Silliness? Imagine the following outbursts, mutatis mutandis, from the mouth of a Sarah Palin — "John McAmerica," "a Palin-McCain administration," "Senator George Obama," "Congressman Joe Biden," who is both "good looking," and "drop-dead gorgeous." Or "I guarantee you, John McCain ain't taking my shotguns. . . . If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem. I like that little over and under, you know? I'm not bad with it. So give me a break."
Or "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Or "Mitt Romney is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly he might have been a better pick than me."
The list could go on ad nauseam. But we got the picture. Biden has devolved from the ridiculous to the unhinged, confident that in-house journalism would understand that the law graduate with 36 years in the Senate was simply being Joe, while a Sarah Palin, who flinched when asked to parse the Bush Doctrine, was a Neanderthal creationist. I thought by now the You-tubed exchange of a Congressional Finance Committee hearing between the pompous Harvard Law School graduate Barney Frank and the conniving Harvard Law School graduate Franklin Raines — at the proverbial moment of conception of the financial meltdown — would have put to rest the notion that graduation from law school was any proof of either wisdom or morality.
I don't know whether Sarah Palin would make a great vice president. But I did learn that by the standard of John Kerry's pick of John Edwards, and now Barack Obama's choice of Joe Biden, as running mates, she is wise and ethical beyond their measure.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
For more information about the National Black Republican Association please visit www.NBRA.Info
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_hawaii_plane/2008/10/26/144260.html
Newsmax.com
Obama's Hawaii Trips Cost More Than Palin's Clothes
Sunday, October 26, 2008 3:21 PM
By: Ronald Kessler
Barack Obama's trips to Hawaii on a chartered Boeing 757 each cost more than twice the price of Sarah Palin's new clothes.
Brad Blakeman, who was in charge of scheduling for President Bush, says a Boeing 757 costs about $20,000 an hour for fuel, crew, and maintenance. Since a trip to Hawaii entails 10 hours of flying time from Chicago, the total cost for each round-trip comes to about $400,000.
Obama used the Boeing 757 for trips to Hawaii over the summer for a vacation and again last week to see his failing grandmother. Admirable though that visit was, "By Obama using a private jet to go on a purely personal visit to see his grandma, he's wasting not only energy, but he's using the money that his supporters have given him for campaign purposes," Blakeman says. "It's a purely personal visit paid for with campaign funds."
On the other hand, the media are highlighting the Republican National Committee's purchase of $150,000 in clothes for Palin, even though the dresses will be donated to charities. The New York Times played the story on page one.
"They're picking on Palin, who was provided a wardrobe by the RNC strictly for political purposes, and it was always intended that these garments would be then given to charity," Blakeman says. "So there's a benefit that's going to charity, not a benefit that Palin will have after the election. There was a need for it because she's a modest person who didn't have an extensive wardrobe to do 24/7 campaigning."
To pick on Palin without going after Obama's plane trips is "an absolute journalistic abuse," Blakeman says. "This is the same plane that he took to Hawaii when he went on vacation. In the summertime, when gas was soaring and Americans were having to pinch their pennies, this guy gets on his campaign plane and goes to Hawaii on vacation. He did a couple campaign stops in a state that is not a swing state and is a guaranteed win for Obama. That was clearly to cover the tracks of this vacation."
Blakeman notes that at the height of the gasoline price surge, Obama suggested that Americans check their vehicle's tire pressure as a way of conserving fuel.
"I wonder if he checked the tires on his jumbo jet before taking off for a purely personal visit?" Blakeman says. "The way he spends campaign money is a direct reflection of how he will spend ours. He could have easily flown commercial or taken a much smaller corporate aircraft that would cost a fraction of a 757."
Ironically, it was Palin as governor who saved money for Alaskans by selling the state's jet and instead flying commercial.
Kellyanne Conway, one of the most respected Republican pollsters, says the media's attack on Palin's clothes is an example of elitist snobbery or "classism." Noting the media's treatment of her, "I can't believe her own family still approves of her, after the unprecedented, personal and relentless attacks that this woman has undergone," Conway says.
Besides attacks on Palin over her clothes, Conway cites snide remarks about "the way she speaks, her husband's lack of a college degree, the barefoot and pregnant 17-year-old daughter, you know who hunts moose anyway? The classism is so raw and unapologetic, so unconsidered and so undisguised."
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDk0MTlkNDVlYmIyNTlmNTQwZDAxNzk4MTZmOWQwY2M=
October 24, 2008, 7:00 a.m.
An Instructive Candidacy
What Sarah Palin taught us about ourselves.
By Victor Davis Hanson
Soon this depressing campaign will be over, and we can reflect on what we learned from our two-month introduction to Sarah Palin.
Clearly, it is more than we would have ever wished to know about ourselves.
First, there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Palin's career as a city councilwoman, mayor, and governor of Alaska was never seen as comparable to, or — indeed, in terms of executive experience — more extensive than, Barack Obama's own legislative background in Illinois and Washington. Somehow we forgot that a mother of five taking on the Alaskan oil industry and the entrenched male hierarchy was somewhat more challenging than Barack Obama navigating the sympathetic left-wing identity politics of Chicago.
So we seem to have forgotten that the standards of censure of her vice-presidential candidacy were not applied equally to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. The media at times seems unaware of this embarrassment, namely that their condemnation of Sarah Palin as inexperienced equally might apply to Barack Obama — and to such a degree that by default we were offered the lame apology (reiterated by Colin Powell himself) that Obama's current impressive campaigning, not his meager political accomplishments, was already an indication of a successful tenure as president. The result is that we now know more about the Palin pregnancies — both of mother and daughter — that we do the relationships of Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and Father Pfleger with our possible next president.
Indeed, the media itself — in private, I think — would admit that while have learned almost everything about Tasergate and the Bridge to Nowhere, we assume that at some future date a publicity-starved, megalomaniac Rev. Wright will soon offer his post-election memoirs, detailing just how close he and a President Obama were. Or we will learn Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, as long-time friends, in fact, did communicate via phone and e-mail well after Ayers had told the world, about the time of 9/11, that he, like our present-terrorist enemies, likewise wished he had engaged in more bombing attacks against the United States government. And the media never wondered whether a Palin's falling out with those who ran Alaska might have been more of a touchstone to character than Obama's own falling in with those who ran Chicago.
While Gov. Palin's frequent college transfers and Idaho degree are an item of snickering among pundits, none of them can claim to care much about Barack Obama's own undergraduate career. To suggest that he release his undergraduate transcript is near blasphemy; to scribble that Sarah Palin's Down Syndrome child was not her own is journalism as we now know it. To care that Joe Biden is vain, with bleached teeth, the apparent recipient of some sort of strange facial tightening tonic, and hair plugs is deservedly mean and petty; to sneer that the Alaskan mom of five bought a new wardrobe to run for Vice President is, of course, vital proof for the American voter of her vanity and shallowness.
Second, there does not seem to be much left of feminism any more. Of course, feminists once gave liberal pro-choice Bill Clinton a pass for his serial womanizing of vulnerable subordinates, and Oval Office antics with a young female intern. But they gave the game away entirely when they went after Gov. Palin for her looks, accent, pregnancies, and religion, culminating in assessments of her from being no real woman at all to an ingrate — piggy-backing on the pioneer work of self-acclaimed mavericks like themselves.
Feminism, it turns out, is no longer about equal opportunity and equal compensation, but, in fact, little more than a strain of contemporary elitist identity politics, and support for unquestioned abortion. Had Gov. Sarah Palin just been a mother of a single child at Vassar rather than of five in Alaska, married to a novelist rather than a snow-machiner, an advocate of pro-choice, who shot pictures of Alaskan ferns rather than shot moose — feminists would have hailed her as a principled kindred soul, and trumpeted her struggles against Alaskan male grandees.
So there was something creepy about droves of irate women, in lock-step blasting Sarah Palin from the corridors of New York and Washington, when most of them were the recipients of the traditional spoils of either family connections, inherited money, or the advantages that accrue from insider power marriages. Indeed, very few of Palin's critics on their own could have emerged from a small-town in Alaska, with an intact marriage and five children, to run the state of Alaska.
We have come to understand that — for a TV anchorwoman, op-ed columnist, or professor — it would be a nightmare to birth a Down Syndrome child in her mid-forties, or to have had her pregnant unwed teen actually deliver her baby. In the world outside Sarah Palin's Wasilla, these are career-ending blunders that abort the next job promotion or book tour— or the future career of a prepped young daughter on her way to the Ivy League.
Third, from the match-up of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, we discovered that our media does not know anything about the nature of wisdom — how it is found or how it is to be adjudicated. For the last eight weeks, Palin has been demonized as a dunce because she did not, in the fashion of the class toady with his hand constantly up in the first row, impress in flash-card recall, the glasses-on-his-nose Charlie Gibson, or clinched-toothed Katie Couric.
Meanwhile Joe Biden has just been Ol' Joe Biden — which means not that he can get away with the occasional gaffe, but that can say things so outrageous, so silly, and so empty that, had they come out of the mouth of Sarah Palin, she would have long ago been forced to have stepped aside from the ticket.
Factual knowledge? Biden, in the midst of a financial meltdown on Wall Street, apparently thinks that the last time it happened in 1929, we heard FDR rally us on television. And such made-up nonsense came in the form, as many of Biden's gaffes do, of a rebuke to the supposedly obtuse George W. Bush.
Sobriety? Biden now admits that dangerous powers abroad will immediately test a President Obama. He warns that the results of such a crisis will be very disappointing to the American electorate, and thus Team Obama/Biden will need loyal supporters to rally as their polls sink. Yet remember that Biden himself has been a fierce and opportunistic critic of Bush, who despite a frenzy of congressional demagoguery, initiated the successful surge and ignored the very polls that the for-the-war/against-the-war Biden so carefully tracked. More importantly, if an Ahmadinejad, Chavez, or Putin ever had any doubts about carving out new spheres of uncontested influence, they may entertain very few now.
Veracity? If one were to think that Biden's past brushes with plagiarism, inflated bios, and falsehood were exceptional rather than characteristic, the last two months confirmed otherwise. For all the false recall, it is hard to remember anything he said in his Palin debate that was true, whether describing the status of Hezbollah in Lebanon or his own past remarks about the wisdom of burning coal.
Silliness? Imagine the following outbursts, mutatis mutandis, from the mouth of a Sarah Palin — "John McAmerica," "a Palin-McCain administration," "Senator George Obama," "Congressman Joe Biden," who is both "good looking," and "drop-dead gorgeous." Or "I guarantee you, John McCain ain't taking my shotguns. . . . If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem. I like that little over and under, you know? I'm not bad with it. So give me a break."
Or "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Or "Mitt Romney is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly he might have been a better pick than me."
The list could go on ad nauseam. But we got the picture. Biden has devolved from the ridiculous to the unhinged, confident that in-house journalism would understand that the law graduate with 36 years in the Senate was simply being Joe, while a Sarah Palin, who flinched when asked to parse the Bush Doctrine, was a Neanderthal creationist. I thought by now the You-tubed exchange of a Congressional Finance Committee hearing between the pompous Harvard Law School graduate Barney Frank and the conniving Harvard Law School graduate Franklin Raines — at the proverbial moment of conception of the financial meltdown — would have put to rest the notion that graduation from law school was any proof of either wisdom or morality.
I don't know whether Sarah Palin would make a great vice president. But I did learn that by the standard of John Kerry's pick of John Edwards, and now Barack Obama's choice of Joe Biden, as running mates, she is wise and ethical beyond their measure.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
For more information about the National Black Republican Association please visit www.NBRA.Info
Who Has Standing?
Philip J. Berg is Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court as Obama is "NOT" qualified to be President of the United States Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court
For Immediate Release: - 10/25/08 - Contact Info at end.
UPDATE: Ruling attached at end. It's a really poor copy, but it is all we have for the moment. Willl put up a better copy when we get one.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?
So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.
According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.
Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.
Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.
* * For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com
# # #
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
POST COMMENTS
Attachments: File Description File size
Obama, Judge Surrick Ruling 10 24 2008.pdf 392 Kb
Press Release 10 25 2008 Berg Appealing Berg v Obama to U S Supreme Court.pdf 105 Kb
Last Updated ( Saturday, 25 October 2008 18:09 )
Phil J. Berg on Michael Savage - Audio
Friday, 24 October 2008 17:38 administrator Main - News Phil J. Berg appeared on the Michael Savage radio program on October 23rd, 2008.
Here's a link to the audio file. Mr. Berg was on the program for the first hour and thirty minutes.
For Immediate Release: - 10/25/08 - Contact Info at end.
UPDATE: Ruling attached at end. It's a really poor copy, but it is all we have for the moment. Willl put up a better copy when we get one.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?
So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.
According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.
Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.
Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.
* * For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com
# # #
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
POST COMMENTS
Attachments: File Description File size
Obama, Judge Surrick Ruling 10 24 2008.pdf 392 Kb
Press Release 10 25 2008 Berg Appealing Berg v Obama to U S Supreme Court.pdf 105 Kb
Last Updated ( Saturday, 25 October 2008 18:09 )
Phil J. Berg on Michael Savage - Audio
Friday, 24 October 2008 17:38 administrator Main - News Phil J. Berg appeared on the Michael Savage radio program on October 23rd, 2008.
Here's a link to the audio file. Mr. Berg was on the program for the first hour and thirty minutes.
Obama's 3 lies
plumber" has a secret plan to destroy Barack Obama.
If you believe the media, Joe is a sinister, McCain-supporting Republican of the Reagan type — he is a true threat to the "Anointed One" — Barack Obama — and his chances of becoming president of the United States .
This sounds almost like a make-believe story, but it's true. The media has been seeking to decapitate Joe the plumber.
Why? Because he's an ordinary American who has a dream of business success for himself and his family.
One day, Joe woke up and suddenly realized that Barack Obama is going to punish him with brutal taxes.
Just by coincidence — and I know Chris Matthews and Katie Couric will never believe it was simply a coincidence — Joe met Barack Obama as Obama passed through his Ohio neighborhood.
When Joe challenged Obama with a tough question — something the press has not done during the past two years — the Anointed One wilted.
How dare Joe want to make and keep his own money? The nerve of this man to want to be a success in a small business!
As Obama put it, shouldn't Joe want to help him "spread the wealth around?"
With that one remark, Obama's disguise as a moderate crumbled.
At the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee (PAC), we are working to remove Obama's disguise as a moderate once and for all.
Dick Morris, the famous Fox News analyst has praised the National Republican Trust for our work and says we can change this election.
Here's what Dick said: "The National Republican Trust is a very effective organization that can make a huge difference on Election Day."
That's why we are going directly to folks like you and millions of Americans via the Internet, cable, and broadcast TV.
We are telling the unvarnished truth about Obama, exposing his out-and-out lies.
You Can Help Us Expose Barack Obama — Go Here Now
Here are just three of Obama's biggest lies:
Obama Lie No. 1 — I will tax just the rich.
There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich. Taxes on wealthy people affect everyone.
Remember, Obama defines anyone making over $90,000 a year as "rich."
Joe the plumber discovered that Obama thinks Joe's rich too. Under Obama, he won't be able to hire new employees and grow his business.
Joe's not alone. Obama says he'll strip away the FICA cap at $90,000 for every worker. That means every dollar you earn over that amount, you'll pay 7 percent!
Obama Lie No. 2 — I want to give a tax cut
to the middle class.
Baloney!
Obama says he will let the Bush tax cuts expire. That's an automatic 5 percent (maximum) tax increase on almost all taxpayers.
Plus middle class folks pay capital gains taxes. Obama has said he wants to almost double them from a low of 15 percent to almost 30 percent.
He wants to hike the dividend tax, and he also has promised taxes on gas and energy.
Obama also wants to dramatically increase the estate tax, which had almost disappeared. There goes your idea of sharing your wealth with your kids in the future.
Obama Lie No. 3 — I want to make America
more secure.
Another outright lie.
In an age when crazies like Iran 's Ahmadinejad are building ballistic missiles and promise to "destroy" the United States and Israel , Obama has promised to gut the missile defense program created by President Reagan.
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems," Obama said.
He has promised to cut "tens of billions" of dollars from the Defense Department. In an effort to make us more "secure," Obama plans to disarm us.
In the age of 9/11 can we afford such a radical Leftist in the White House?
No, we can't.
Help the National Republican Trust PAC Tell the Truth About Obama — Go Here Now
Obama is not just a danger to our economy, with his plans to raise taxes and spend $800 billion in new programs.
He is a radical out to reshape America beyond recognition.
He is so radical he even backed driver's licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States .
Even Hillary Clinton opposed his radical plan.
But Obama not only touted such a plan running for president, he pushed for giving illegals driver's licenses as a state senator in Illinois .
He is also the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois , he opposed a bill to protect live-born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
He originally backed Washington D.C. 's total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an "F" on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard-educated elitist. To him, we Americans are simply "bitter" and he has mocked us saying "[they] cling to their guns and their religion."
Support the National Republican Trust PAC's Campaign to Expose Obama — Go Here Now
Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.
Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama's home state of Illinois .
And even though Obama was "anointed" by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.
Finally, McCain is fighting back — just like Hillary did. His poll numbers have improved.
But Obama is spending huge amounts of cash in the swing states.
That's why we need your help. To go into these states and tell the American public the truth about Obama.
Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton's strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.
Send a Donation Today to Help Our Cause — Go Here Now
You Can Make a Difference
This is why the National Republican Trust PAC is already implementing a "shock and awe" strategy against Obama in key states.
We are taking out powerful television ads, Internet ads, and other communications to inform Americans about the dangers posed by Barack Obama.
If you believe the media, Joe is a sinister, McCain-supporting Republican of the Reagan type — he is a true threat to the "Anointed One" — Barack Obama — and his chances of becoming president of the United States .
This sounds almost like a make-believe story, but it's true. The media has been seeking to decapitate Joe the plumber.
Why? Because he's an ordinary American who has a dream of business success for himself and his family.
One day, Joe woke up and suddenly realized that Barack Obama is going to punish him with brutal taxes.
Just by coincidence — and I know Chris Matthews and Katie Couric will never believe it was simply a coincidence — Joe met Barack Obama as Obama passed through his Ohio neighborhood.
When Joe challenged Obama with a tough question — something the press has not done during the past two years — the Anointed One wilted.
How dare Joe want to make and keep his own money? The nerve of this man to want to be a success in a small business!
As Obama put it, shouldn't Joe want to help him "spread the wealth around?"
With that one remark, Obama's disguise as a moderate crumbled.
At the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee (PAC), we are working to remove Obama's disguise as a moderate once and for all.
Dick Morris, the famous Fox News analyst has praised the National Republican Trust for our work and says we can change this election.
Here's what Dick said: "The National Republican Trust is a very effective organization that can make a huge difference on Election Day."
That's why we are going directly to folks like you and millions of Americans via the Internet, cable, and broadcast TV.
We are telling the unvarnished truth about Obama, exposing his out-and-out lies.
You Can Help Us Expose Barack Obama — Go Here Now
Here are just three of Obama's biggest lies:
Obama Lie No. 1 — I will tax just the rich.
There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich. Taxes on wealthy people affect everyone.
Remember, Obama defines anyone making over $90,000 a year as "rich."
Joe the plumber discovered that Obama thinks Joe's rich too. Under Obama, he won't be able to hire new employees and grow his business.
Joe's not alone. Obama says he'll strip away the FICA cap at $90,000 for every worker. That means every dollar you earn over that amount, you'll pay 7 percent!
Obama Lie No. 2 — I want to give a tax cut
to the middle class.
Baloney!
Obama says he will let the Bush tax cuts expire. That's an automatic 5 percent (maximum) tax increase on almost all taxpayers.
Plus middle class folks pay capital gains taxes. Obama has said he wants to almost double them from a low of 15 percent to almost 30 percent.
He wants to hike the dividend tax, and he also has promised taxes on gas and energy.
Obama also wants to dramatically increase the estate tax, which had almost disappeared. There goes your idea of sharing your wealth with your kids in the future.
Obama Lie No. 3 — I want to make America
more secure.
Another outright lie.
In an age when crazies like Iran 's Ahmadinejad are building ballistic missiles and promise to "destroy" the United States and Israel , Obama has promised to gut the missile defense program created by President Reagan.
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems," Obama said.
He has promised to cut "tens of billions" of dollars from the Defense Department. In an effort to make us more "secure," Obama plans to disarm us.
In the age of 9/11 can we afford such a radical Leftist in the White House?
No, we can't.
Help the National Republican Trust PAC Tell the Truth About Obama — Go Here Now
Obama is not just a danger to our economy, with his plans to raise taxes and spend $800 billion in new programs.
He is a radical out to reshape America beyond recognition.
He is so radical he even backed driver's licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States .
Even Hillary Clinton opposed his radical plan.
But Obama not only touted such a plan running for president, he pushed for giving illegals driver's licenses as a state senator in Illinois .
He is also the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois , he opposed a bill to protect live-born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
He originally backed Washington D.C. 's total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an "F" on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard-educated elitist. To him, we Americans are simply "bitter" and he has mocked us saying "[they] cling to their guns and their religion."
Support the National Republican Trust PAC's Campaign to Expose Obama — Go Here Now
Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.
Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama's home state of Illinois .
And even though Obama was "anointed" by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.
Finally, McCain is fighting back — just like Hillary did. His poll numbers have improved.
But Obama is spending huge amounts of cash in the swing states.
That's why we need your help. To go into these states and tell the American public the truth about Obama.
Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton's strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.
Send a Donation Today to Help Our Cause — Go Here Now
You Can Make a Difference
This is why the National Republican Trust PAC is already implementing a "shock and awe" strategy against Obama in key states.
We are taking out powerful television ads, Internet ads, and other communications to inform Americans about the dangers posed by Barack Obama.
Against Obama--Larry Elder
THE CASE AGAINST BARACK OBAMA, PART 2
http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2008/10/23/the_case_against_barack_obama,_part_2
By Larry Elder
Thursday, October 23, 2008
1) What about this business of Barack Obama and William Ayers?
Ayers and his wife, Bernardine, belonged to a radical terror group in the '60s and '70s called Weather Underground. The organization committed murders, bombings and attempted acts of terrorism. In a Sept. 11, 2001, article about Ayers' book "Fugitive Days," Ayers showed no remorse. Indeed, he said: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."
When Obama ran for state senator in Illinois, Ayers hosted what one person present called Obama's political "coming-out party."
Ayers and Obama sat on two boards together. One -- the Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- distributed more than $100 million from 1995 to 2001 to improve Chicago schools. Their own assessments show they failed. The money went for things such as peace initiatives, multiculturalism, Afrocentrism, bilingualism and courses that condemn capitalism and encourage attacking "oppressors."
Obama and Ayers also served on the board of the Woods Fund, an organization that distributed grant money to ACORN, which pushes its leftist agenda -- "tax justice," livable wages, anti-school choice, voter registration and affordable housing. The nearly 400,000-person-strong organization is currently under investigation by state and federal authorities in several states for voter registration fraud. The Obama campaign dismisses any connection to ACORN as tangential.
But on Dec. 1, 2007, Obama spoke at the Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum before leaders of community organizing groups, including ACORN. He said: "Let me even say before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we'll be calling all of you (community organizers) in to help us shape the agenda. We're gonna be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America."
"Meet the Press" moderator Tom Brokaw called Ayers -- a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago -- a "school reformer." Ayers, on the other hand, calls himself a Marxist and a "small 'c' communist." A Venezuelan government Web site, translated to English, calls Ayers "the leader of the revolutionary and anti-imperialist group the Weather Underground, which initiated armed struggle against the government of the USA." Ayers sits on the directorate of a think tank funded by Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.
2) Is McCain's support for the Iraq war a political winner or loser?
McCain needs to clearly state that America and the world sleep easier without Saddam Hussein in power, and that Saddam intended to restart his chemical and biological programs. McCain makes a mistake by conceding, through silence, that the war was a mistake. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that more Americans than not believe that history will judge Iraq a success.
Obama was wrong about the surge, and continues to maintain -- despite clear evidence to the contrary -- that political reconciliation is not taking place. Even The Washington Post, which endorses Obama, editorialized against Obama's insistence on withdrawing troops by a date certain. Furthermore, the Post wrote: "Democrat Barack Obama continues to argue that only the systematic withdrawal of U.S. combat units will force Iraqi leaders to compromise. Yet the empirical evidence of the past year suggests the opposite: that only the greater security produced and guaranteed by American troops allows a political environment in which legislative deals and free elections are feasible."
3) Obama supports the use of our military to stop genocide in Darfur while showing indifference about a possible one in Iraq.
Brokaw, moderating a debate, asked Obama when American combat forces should be used to quell humanitarian crises that pose no threat to U.S. security. Obama -- specifically mentioning Darfur and Rwanda -- said, "When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us." But after a 2007 interview with Obama, The Associated Press wrote, "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there." So Obama wants to use our military to stop genocide in Darfur -- a tragedy that we did not start. But he wants our military to withdraw in Iraq, possibly resulting in a genocide of our own making. Got that?
4) As for the current financial crisis, does Obama bear some responsibility?
In the subprime crisis, many people took out unaffordable loans, and lenders lent under government policies that encouraged them to make risky loans. As a lawyer, Obama and his firm filed a class action lawsuit against Citibank, alleging that the bank systematically shut out minority borrowers. According to The Associated Press: "The case was settled out of court. Some class members got cash payments, and the bank agreed to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages."
Bottom line. When the Communist Party USA approvingly says Obama would "advance progressive politics for the long term" -- run.
More information about the National Black Republican Association is available at: www.NBRA.Info/
http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2008/10/23/the_case_against_barack_obama,_part_2
By Larry Elder
Thursday, October 23, 2008
1) What about this business of Barack Obama and William Ayers?
Ayers and his wife, Bernardine, belonged to a radical terror group in the '60s and '70s called Weather Underground. The organization committed murders, bombings and attempted acts of terrorism. In a Sept. 11, 2001, article about Ayers' book "Fugitive Days," Ayers showed no remorse. Indeed, he said: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."
When Obama ran for state senator in Illinois, Ayers hosted what one person present called Obama's political "coming-out party."
Ayers and Obama sat on two boards together. One -- the Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- distributed more than $100 million from 1995 to 2001 to improve Chicago schools. Their own assessments show they failed. The money went for things such as peace initiatives, multiculturalism, Afrocentrism, bilingualism and courses that condemn capitalism and encourage attacking "oppressors."
Obama and Ayers also served on the board of the Woods Fund, an organization that distributed grant money to ACORN, which pushes its leftist agenda -- "tax justice," livable wages, anti-school choice, voter registration and affordable housing. The nearly 400,000-person-strong organization is currently under investigation by state and federal authorities in several states for voter registration fraud. The Obama campaign dismisses any connection to ACORN as tangential.
But on Dec. 1, 2007, Obama spoke at the Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum before leaders of community organizing groups, including ACORN. He said: "Let me even say before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we'll be calling all of you (community organizers) in to help us shape the agenda. We're gonna be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America."
"Meet the Press" moderator Tom Brokaw called Ayers -- a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago -- a "school reformer." Ayers, on the other hand, calls himself a Marxist and a "small 'c' communist." A Venezuelan government Web site, translated to English, calls Ayers "the leader of the revolutionary and anti-imperialist group the Weather Underground, which initiated armed struggle against the government of the USA." Ayers sits on the directorate of a think tank funded by Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.
2) Is McCain's support for the Iraq war a political winner or loser?
McCain needs to clearly state that America and the world sleep easier without Saddam Hussein in power, and that Saddam intended to restart his chemical and biological programs. McCain makes a mistake by conceding, through silence, that the war was a mistake. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that more Americans than not believe that history will judge Iraq a success.
Obama was wrong about the surge, and continues to maintain -- despite clear evidence to the contrary -- that political reconciliation is not taking place. Even The Washington Post, which endorses Obama, editorialized against Obama's insistence on withdrawing troops by a date certain. Furthermore, the Post wrote: "Democrat Barack Obama continues to argue that only the systematic withdrawal of U.S. combat units will force Iraqi leaders to compromise. Yet the empirical evidence of the past year suggests the opposite: that only the greater security produced and guaranteed by American troops allows a political environment in which legislative deals and free elections are feasible."
3) Obama supports the use of our military to stop genocide in Darfur while showing indifference about a possible one in Iraq.
Brokaw, moderating a debate, asked Obama when American combat forces should be used to quell humanitarian crises that pose no threat to U.S. security. Obama -- specifically mentioning Darfur and Rwanda -- said, "When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us." But after a 2007 interview with Obama, The Associated Press wrote, "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there." So Obama wants to use our military to stop genocide in Darfur -- a tragedy that we did not start. But he wants our military to withdraw in Iraq, possibly resulting in a genocide of our own making. Got that?
4) As for the current financial crisis, does Obama bear some responsibility?
In the subprime crisis, many people took out unaffordable loans, and lenders lent under government policies that encouraged them to make risky loans. As a lawyer, Obama and his firm filed a class action lawsuit against Citibank, alleging that the bank systematically shut out minority borrowers. According to The Associated Press: "The case was settled out of court. Some class members got cash payments, and the bank agreed to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages."
Bottom line. When the Communist Party USA approvingly says Obama would "advance progressive politics for the long term" -- run.
More information about the National Black Republican Association is available at: www.NBRA.Info/
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Obama--Love is Blind
BELIEVERS IN BARACK - APPARENTLY, OBAMA-LOVE IS BLIND
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MzU5YWNhMGY1NjY4NTJlMjg4YzE0ZGQ2MzM1ZWI1NGQ=
By Thomas Sowell
Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.
It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts.
An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short: "You don't like him and I do!" she said. End of discussion.
When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives on the line in battle to defend and preserve this country, it is especially painful to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of generations yet to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they like his words or style.
Of the four people running for president and vice president on the Republican and Democratic tickets, the one we know the least about is the one leading in the polls — Barack Obama.
Some of Senator Obama's most fervent supporters could not tell you what he has actually done on such issues as crime, education, or financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — much less what he plans to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear nation supplying nuclear weapons to the international terrorist networks that it has supplied with other weapons.
The magic word "change" makes specifics unnecessary. If things are going bad, some think that what is needed is blank-check "change."
But history shows any number of countries in crises worse than ours, where "change" turned problems into catastrophes.
In czarist Russia, for example, the economy was worse than ours is today and the First World War was going far worse for the Russians than anything we have faced in Iraq. Moreover, Russians had nothing like the rights of Americans today. So they went for "change."
That "change" brought on a totalitarian regime that made the czars' despotism look like child's play. The Communists killed more people in one year than the czars killed in more than 90 years, not counting the millions who died in a government-created famine in the 1930s.
Other despotic regimes in China, Cuba, and Iran were similarly replaced by people who promised "change" that turned out to be even worse than what went before.
Yet many today seem to assume that if things are bad, "change" will make them better. Specifics don't interest them nearly as much as inspiring rhetoric and a confident style. But many 20th-century leaders with inspiring rhetoric and great self-confidence led their followers or their countries into utter disasters.
These ranged from Jim Jones who led hundreds to their deaths in Jonestown to Hitler and Mao who led millions to their deaths.
What specifics do we know about Barack Obama's track record that might give us some clue as to what kinds of "changes" to expect if he is elected?
We know that he opposed the practice of putting violent young felons on trial as adults. We know that he was against a law forbidding physicians to kill a baby that was born alive despite an attempt to abort it.
We know that Obama opposed attempts to put stricter regulations on Fannie Mae — and that he was the second-largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. We know that, this very year, his campaign sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines.
Fannie Mae and Raines were at the heart of "the mess in Washington" that Barack Obama claims he is going to clean up under the banner of "change."
The public has been told very little about what this man with the wonderful rhetoric has actually done. What we know is enough to make us wonder about what we don't know. Or it ought to. For the true believers — which includes many in the media — it is just a question of whether you like him or not.
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
For more information about the National Black Republican Association please visit www.NBRA.Info/
© National Black Republican Association, 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MzU5YWNhMGY1NjY4NTJlMjg4YzE0ZGQ2MzM1ZWI1NGQ=
By Thomas Sowell
Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.
It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts.
An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short: "You don't like him and I do!" she said. End of discussion.
When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives on the line in battle to defend and preserve this country, it is especially painful to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of generations yet to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they like his words or style.
Of the four people running for president and vice president on the Republican and Democratic tickets, the one we know the least about is the one leading in the polls — Barack Obama.
Some of Senator Obama's most fervent supporters could not tell you what he has actually done on such issues as crime, education, or financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — much less what he plans to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear nation supplying nuclear weapons to the international terrorist networks that it has supplied with other weapons.
The magic word "change" makes specifics unnecessary. If things are going bad, some think that what is needed is blank-check "change."
But history shows any number of countries in crises worse than ours, where "change" turned problems into catastrophes.
In czarist Russia, for example, the economy was worse than ours is today and the First World War was going far worse for the Russians than anything we have faced in Iraq. Moreover, Russians had nothing like the rights of Americans today. So they went for "change."
That "change" brought on a totalitarian regime that made the czars' despotism look like child's play. The Communists killed more people in one year than the czars killed in more than 90 years, not counting the millions who died in a government-created famine in the 1930s.
Other despotic regimes in China, Cuba, and Iran were similarly replaced by people who promised "change" that turned out to be even worse than what went before.
Yet many today seem to assume that if things are bad, "change" will make them better. Specifics don't interest them nearly as much as inspiring rhetoric and a confident style. But many 20th-century leaders with inspiring rhetoric and great self-confidence led their followers or their countries into utter disasters.
These ranged from Jim Jones who led hundreds to their deaths in Jonestown to Hitler and Mao who led millions to their deaths.
What specifics do we know about Barack Obama's track record that might give us some clue as to what kinds of "changes" to expect if he is elected?
We know that he opposed the practice of putting violent young felons on trial as adults. We know that he was against a law forbidding physicians to kill a baby that was born alive despite an attempt to abort it.
We know that Obama opposed attempts to put stricter regulations on Fannie Mae — and that he was the second-largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. We know that, this very year, his campaign sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines.
Fannie Mae and Raines were at the heart of "the mess in Washington" that Barack Obama claims he is going to clean up under the banner of "change."
The public has been told very little about what this man with the wonderful rhetoric has actually done. What we know is enough to make us wonder about what we don't know. Or it ought to. For the true believers — which includes many in the media — it is just a question of whether you like him or not.
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
For more information about the National Black Republican Association please visit www.NBRA.Info/
© National Black Republican Association, 2008. All Rights Reserved.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Obama's Disdain for Middle-Class
OBAMA'S DISDAIN FOR MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICANS
By his words and deeds, Sen. Barack Obama shows utter contempt for middle-class, average Americans. A prime example is how Obama trashed Joe the Plumber for daring to ask Obama a question. While standing in his own driveway, Joe asked why Obama wanted to raise his taxes. Obama said he wanted to confiscate Joe's hard-earned money and "spread the wealth around" to reward people for not working. This is pure socialism that will kill the will to work and destroy our economy. After Obama realized he had exposed himself as a wealth-distribution socialist, Obama and his media allies went on the attack to destroy Joe and deflect attention away from Obama. Stunned, Joe, a single parent, said during a TV interview: "When you can't ask your leaders a question, that's scary." If Obama becomes president while Congress and the media are controlled by his fellow left-wingers, there will be no check on our government's absolute power, and we will lose our freedom to challenge our government. Just ask Joe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA&feature=related
For more information about the National Black Republican Association please visit: www.NBRA.Info/
By his words and deeds, Sen. Barack Obama shows utter contempt for middle-class, average Americans. A prime example is how Obama trashed Joe the Plumber for daring to ask Obama a question. While standing in his own driveway, Joe asked why Obama wanted to raise his taxes. Obama said he wanted to confiscate Joe's hard-earned money and "spread the wealth around" to reward people for not working. This is pure socialism that will kill the will to work and destroy our economy. After Obama realized he had exposed himself as a wealth-distribution socialist, Obama and his media allies went on the attack to destroy Joe and deflect attention away from Obama. Stunned, Joe, a single parent, said during a TV interview: "When you can't ask your leaders a question, that's scary." If Obama becomes president while Congress and the media are controlled by his fellow left-wingers, there will be no check on our government's absolute power, and we will lose our freedom to challenge our government. Just ask Joe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA&feature=related
For more information about the National Black Republican Association please visit: www.NBRA.Info/
How Long Do We Have?
HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?
About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'
'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats - 19; Republicans -29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats - 580,000; Republicans - 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats - 127 million; Republicans - 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats -13.2; Republicans -2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...'
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler 's definition of democracy, with some 40% of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE!
About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'
'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats - 19; Republicans -29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats - 580,000; Republicans - 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats - 127 million; Republicans - 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats -13.2; Republicans -2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...'
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler 's definition of democracy, with some 40% of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE!
I Am a Jew--Ben Stein
The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.
My confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.
It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a crib, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too.. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking..
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'
In light of recent events. terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're a asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.' Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet? Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
My confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.
It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a crib, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too.. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking..
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'
In light of recent events. terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're a asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.' Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet? Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Obama's Acorn Attacks Our American Democracy
OBAMA'S ACORN ATTACKS OUR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
The below editorial provides a chilling look into the ugly and utterly reprehensible efforts by the Obama/Democrat-controlled ACORN that are undermining the right of all Americans to vote and, thus, our entire American democracy.
Please note that the editorial below does not mention the fact that it was the Democrats who controlled the Southern states for over 100 years after the Civil War. Also, the editorial omits the fact that it was Democrats who enacted those Black Codes and Jim Crow laws designed to keep blacks from voting, because during that era almost all blacks were Republicans.
_______________________________________
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081018/news_lz1ed18middle.html
The San Diego Union-Tribune
UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
A genuine threat
ACORN targets a weakness in democracy
October 18, 2008
To end the many obstacles Southern states put up before African-American voters as late as the 1960s, Congress worked for decades to make voting much easier. These efforts had a hugely positive effect – until the 1993 "motor voter" law. This measure and some related laws made registration so easy – and so difficult to verify because of a lack of resources and time – that they created nothing less than a structural weakness in American democracy.
This election year, we're seeing a determined, well-funded effort to exploit this weakness, led by ACORN – the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
Using corporate, partisan and taxpayer grants, the nonprofit group has spent $35 million this year to register 1.3 million people in 21 states. But it's highly likely that hundreds of thousands of these registrations are bogus. That's because ACORN relies on canvassers who appear to be paid based on how many signatures they get – an invitation to fraud – and because ACORN as an institution appears to collectively think such fraud is tolerable in the name of "social justice."
ACORN's voter drive in San Diego County – detailed in yesterday's Union-Tribune – is troubling. Nearly 2,000 of the 26,000 forms it turned in were invalid, much higher than the norm. But compared with what ACORN did elsewhere, its San Diego effort was a model of probity. In Ohio, for example, officials say ACORN gets the primary blame in the registration of 200,000 new voters whose forms appear to be bogus.
Unfortunately, many Democrats depict concern over ACORN as Republican hysteria. They are right that voter fraud has been a tiny problem in recent years. But they ignore a key point: the stunning scale of bogus registrations this time around.
Even if a tiny fraction of these fake voters actually fill out a ballot, they have the potential to tip the presidential vote in battleground states – such as Ohio. Or Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina or Wisconsin – all swing states where ACORN has been active.
If we have another very close race, the subsequent court fight could make Florida 2000 seem like a polite tiff.
So, please, spare us the "social justice" rhetoric. What ACORN has done isn't noble. It's reprehensible. We hope that the FBI's investigation into the group is vigorous and thorough.
For more information about the National Black Republican Association please visit: www.NBRA.Info
The below editorial provides a chilling look into the ugly and utterly reprehensible efforts by the Obama/Democrat-controlled ACORN that are undermining the right of all Americans to vote and, thus, our entire American democracy.
Please note that the editorial below does not mention the fact that it was the Democrats who controlled the Southern states for over 100 years after the Civil War. Also, the editorial omits the fact that it was Democrats who enacted those Black Codes and Jim Crow laws designed to keep blacks from voting, because during that era almost all blacks were Republicans.
_______________________________________
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081018/news_lz1ed18middle.html
The San Diego Union-Tribune
UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
A genuine threat
ACORN targets a weakness in democracy
October 18, 2008
To end the many obstacles Southern states put up before African-American voters as late as the 1960s, Congress worked for decades to make voting much easier. These efforts had a hugely positive effect – until the 1993 "motor voter" law. This measure and some related laws made registration so easy – and so difficult to verify because of a lack of resources and time – that they created nothing less than a structural weakness in American democracy.
This election year, we're seeing a determined, well-funded effort to exploit this weakness, led by ACORN – the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
Using corporate, partisan and taxpayer grants, the nonprofit group has spent $35 million this year to register 1.3 million people in 21 states. But it's highly likely that hundreds of thousands of these registrations are bogus. That's because ACORN relies on canvassers who appear to be paid based on how many signatures they get – an invitation to fraud – and because ACORN as an institution appears to collectively think such fraud is tolerable in the name of "social justice."
ACORN's voter drive in San Diego County – detailed in yesterday's Union-Tribune – is troubling. Nearly 2,000 of the 26,000 forms it turned in were invalid, much higher than the norm. But compared with what ACORN did elsewhere, its San Diego effort was a model of probity. In Ohio, for example, officials say ACORN gets the primary blame in the registration of 200,000 new voters whose forms appear to be bogus.
Unfortunately, many Democrats depict concern over ACORN as Republican hysteria. They are right that voter fraud has been a tiny problem in recent years. But they ignore a key point: the stunning scale of bogus registrations this time around.
Even if a tiny fraction of these fake voters actually fill out a ballot, they have the potential to tip the presidential vote in battleground states – such as Ohio. Or Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina or Wisconsin – all swing states where ACORN has been active.
If we have another very close race, the subsequent court fight could make Florida 2000 seem like a polite tiff.
So, please, spare us the "social justice" rhetoric. What ACORN has done isn't noble. It's reprehensible. We hope that the FBI's investigation into the group is vigorous and thorough.
For more information about the National Black Republican Association please visit: www.NBRA.Info
Foreign money for Obama
Maureen Dowd, winner of the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, became a columnist on The New York Times Op-Ed page in 1995 after having served as a correspondent in the paper'sWashingtonbureau since 1986. She has covered four presidential campaigns and served as White House correspondent. She also wrote a column, 'On Washington,' for The New York Times Magazine.
Ms. Dowd joined The New York Times as a metropolitan reporter in 1983. She began her career in 1974 as an editorial assistant for The Washington Star, where she later became a sports columnist, metropolitan reporter and feature writer. When the Star closed in 1981, she went to Time magazine.
Born inWashingtonD.C., Ms. Dowd received a B.A. degree in English literature fromCatholicUniversity(Washington,D.C.) in 1973.
WHERE DID OBAMA'S MONEY COME FROM ???????Subject:
New York Times Editorial
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating
OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING .......
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama's campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obama's internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can't be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obama's internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites..
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were 'programmed' by a very sophisticated user.
While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia.
Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.
It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.
It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.
This is a shocking revelation.
We have been concerned about the legality of 'bundling' contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaign's internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.
IS IT RIGHT FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO HAVE AN INVESTMENT IN WHO BECOMES OUR NEXT PRESIDENT??? IF YOU ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS, PLEASE PASS IT ON.
The fact that the NY Times allowed this to be printed is amazing in itself.
Ms. Dowd joined The New York Times as a metropolitan reporter in 1983. She began her career in 1974 as an editorial assistant for The Washington Star, where she later became a sports columnist, metropolitan reporter and feature writer. When the Star closed in 1981, she went to Time magazine.
Born inWashingtonD.C., Ms. Dowd received a B.A. degree in English literature fromCatholicUniversity(Washington,D.C.) in 1973.
WHERE DID OBAMA'S MONEY COME FROM ???????Subject:
New York Times Editorial
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating
OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING .......
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama's campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obama's internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can't be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obama's internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites..
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were 'programmed' by a very sophisticated user.
While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia.
Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.
It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.
It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.
This is a shocking revelation.
We have been concerned about the legality of 'bundling' contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaign's internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.
IS IT RIGHT FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO HAVE AN INVESTMENT IN WHO BECOMES OUR NEXT PRESIDENT??? IF YOU ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS, PLEASE PASS IT ON.
The fact that the NY Times allowed this to be printed is amazing in itself.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Obama's Muslim commitment
Here are excerpts from these two books. DO NOT FAIL TO
READ THE BOTTOM ONE…
From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'
From Dreams of My Father:'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'
From Dreams of My Father:'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
And FINALLY the Most Damning one of ALL of them!!!
From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
* If you have never forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to Do so!!! We CANNOT have someone with this type of mentality running our GREAT nation!! I don't care whether you a Democrat or a Conservative. We CANNOT turn ourselves over to this type of character in a President. PLEASE help spread the word
READ THE BOTTOM ONE…
From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'
From Dreams of My Father:'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'
From Dreams of My Father:'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
And FINALLY the Most Damning one of ALL of them!!!
From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
* If you have never forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to Do so!!! We CANNOT have someone with this type of mentality running our GREAT nation!! I don't care whether you a Democrat or a Conservative. We CANNOT turn ourselves over to this type of character in a President. PLEASE help spread the word
Saturday, October 18, 2008
McCain--The Better Plan
2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS
ISSUE JOHN McCAIN BARAK OBAMA
Favors new drilling offshore US Yes No
Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it Yes No
Served in the US Armed Forces Yes No
Amount of time served in the US Senate 22 YEARS 173 DAYS
Will institute a socialized national health care plan No Yes
Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy No Yes
Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately No Yes
Supports gun ownership rights Yes No
Supports homosexual marriage No Yes
Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase No Yes
Voted against making English the official language No Yes
Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals No Yes
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
MCCAIN 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
OBAMA 28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)
DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN 15% (no change)
OBAMA 39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')
INCOME TAX
MCCAIN
(no changes) Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!
INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN - 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax
Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.
NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA
New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!
You can verify the above at the following web sites:
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html
http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/
ISSUE JOHN McCAIN BARAK OBAMA
Favors new drilling offshore US Yes No
Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it Yes No
Served in the US Armed Forces Yes No
Amount of time served in the US Senate 22 YEARS 173 DAYS
Will institute a socialized national health care plan No Yes
Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy No Yes
Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately No Yes
Supports gun ownership rights Yes No
Supports homosexual marriage No Yes
Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase No Yes
Voted against making English the official language No Yes
Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals No Yes
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
MCCAIN 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
OBAMA 28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)
DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN 15% (no change)
OBAMA 39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')
INCOME TAX
MCCAIN
(no changes) Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!
INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN - 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax
Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.
NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA
New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!
You can verify the above at the following web sites:
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html
http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/
We All Pay the Price of Ignorance
"The number of ignorant people in America is growing much faster than the number of intelligent ones." (Chris H, paraphrase)
The Saturday morning business segment on FOX News has its moments of silliness and posturing. But if you listen carefully, you'll learn more about jobs and the economy in one morning than the average Obama Supporter has learned in a lifetime.
For example, "the top 10% of wage-earners [Joe the Plumber is smiling] pay 80% of federal income taxes." Barack Obama knows this startling fact, but you'll never hear him or and other left-wing Democrats admit it. The average American, according to various surveys, knows nothing about the huge "patriotic" (?) "contributions" (?) made by high wage earners.
Our typical American apparently believes -- falsely, absurdly -- that high wage-earners pay little or nothing in taxes. People like Obama and Biden make lucrative careers out of fostering such illusions. Alas, when its comes to economic knowledge, the average American is relentlessly . . . average. As such, he or she is the custodian of a vast horde of misinformation.
Another FOX insight: since the stock market crash in 1987, how much has the "tech-heavy" NASDAQ index declined? In fact, since that sharp market decline two decades ago, the NASDAQ has gone UP by 486%. That number takes into account the the recent decline.
If you focus on that time period (1987 until now), it would have been wise to put ALL your money in NASDAQ equities. Your investment then to now would have skyrocketed.
Oh, and if you'd been able to put a portion of your Socal Security contributions into the NASDAQ, as Bush and McCain proposed -- and Obama opposed -- you'd be looking at an affluent retirement. Of course, your involuntary "contributions" to the Social Security Trust Fund really didn't grow at all -- since the money went out as fast as it came in.
Again, we turn to FOX: What about Obama's plan to dole out $500 (or more) to all Americans earning less than $250,000 a year? Isn't that just what he calls it, a tax "rebate?"
No, it isn't because the $500 would go both to most of the 60% of wage earners who DO pay taxes -- and to all the 40% who don't pay taxes.
In other words, for approximately 100 million Americans who don't pay federal income taxes, the $500 would be a welfare check. It would be especially welcomed by Obama's core demographic: the tens of million of non-income-tax payors who will be voting for the Illinois Senator.
There are just a few paragraphs in this piece. But they contain information that most American voters should know -- but don't. The smart Americans, those who are economically savvy, will not generally be voting for Obama. The stupid Americans -- those who know as much about economics as they do astrophysics -- will cast their ballots heavily for the Illinois Senator.
Why do left-wing Democrats like Obama continue humoring -- and deceiving -- ignorant people, uninformed voters? They do so because it's good politics. They may end up wrecking the economy, but -- unfortunately -- such demagogues will rarely lack for work themselves.
Putting Obama in charge of the economy is like making Rev. Wright president of a theology school.
Sarah Palin's motto is: "Serve the people." Obama's seems to be: "Deceive the people."
steve maloney
ambridge, pa
The Saturday morning business segment on FOX News has its moments of silliness and posturing. But if you listen carefully, you'll learn more about jobs and the economy in one morning than the average Obama Supporter has learned in a lifetime.
For example, "the top 10% of wage-earners [Joe the Plumber is smiling] pay 80% of federal income taxes." Barack Obama knows this startling fact, but you'll never hear him or and other left-wing Democrats admit it. The average American, according to various surveys, knows nothing about the huge "patriotic" (?) "contributions" (?) made by high wage earners.
Our typical American apparently believes -- falsely, absurdly -- that high wage-earners pay little or nothing in taxes. People like Obama and Biden make lucrative careers out of fostering such illusions. Alas, when its comes to economic knowledge, the average American is relentlessly . . . average. As such, he or she is the custodian of a vast horde of misinformation.
Another FOX insight: since the stock market crash in 1987, how much has the "tech-heavy" NASDAQ index declined? In fact, since that sharp market decline two decades ago, the NASDAQ has gone UP by 486%. That number takes into account the the recent decline.
If you focus on that time period (1987 until now), it would have been wise to put ALL your money in NASDAQ equities. Your investment then to now would have skyrocketed.
Oh, and if you'd been able to put a portion of your Socal Security contributions into the NASDAQ, as Bush and McCain proposed -- and Obama opposed -- you'd be looking at an affluent retirement. Of course, your involuntary "contributions" to the Social Security Trust Fund really didn't grow at all -- since the money went out as fast as it came in.
Again, we turn to FOX: What about Obama's plan to dole out $500 (or more) to all Americans earning less than $250,000 a year? Isn't that just what he calls it, a tax "rebate?"
No, it isn't because the $500 would go both to most of the 60% of wage earners who DO pay taxes -- and to all the 40% who don't pay taxes.
In other words, for approximately 100 million Americans who don't pay federal income taxes, the $500 would be a welfare check. It would be especially welcomed by Obama's core demographic: the tens of million of non-income-tax payors who will be voting for the Illinois Senator.
There are just a few paragraphs in this piece. But they contain information that most American voters should know -- but don't. The smart Americans, those who are economically savvy, will not generally be voting for Obama. The stupid Americans -- those who know as much about economics as they do astrophysics -- will cast their ballots heavily for the Illinois Senator.
Why do left-wing Democrats like Obama continue humoring -- and deceiving -- ignorant people, uninformed voters? They do so because it's good politics. They may end up wrecking the economy, but -- unfortunately -- such demagogues will rarely lack for work themselves.
Putting Obama in charge of the economy is like making Rev. Wright president of a theology school.
Sarah Palin's motto is: "Serve the people." Obama's seems to be: "Deceive the people."
steve maloney
ambridge, pa
Obama's 95% Illusion
Obama's 95% Illusion
It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
AP
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
www.djreprints.com
It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
AP
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
www.djreprints.com
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Terrorist have been Muslim Extremists
A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine that America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves. Pause a moment, reflect back. These events are actual events from history.. They really happened!!! Do you remember?
· 1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male extremist.
· 2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim male extremists.
· 3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim male extremists.
· 4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim male extremists.
· 5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim male extremists.
· 6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim male extremists.
· 7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim male extremists (remember the pilot of this flight was from Richmond, MO)
· 8. In 1988 , Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim male extremists.
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim male extremists.
· 10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim male extremists.
· 11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim male extremists.
· 12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim male extremists.
· 13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by-- you guessed it-- Muslim male extremists.
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people... Absolutely No Profiling! They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
According to The Book of Revelations: the Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, he will destroy everything.
And Now...
For what may be the award winning Act of Stupidity of all times, the people of America want to elect, to the most powerful position on the face of the planet -- the Presidency of the United states of America ... A male of Muslim descent who is the most extremely liberal Senator in Congress (in other words an extremist) and in his 40's.
Have the American people completely lost their minds, or just their Power of Reason?
I'm sorry, but I refuse to take a chance on the 'unknown' candidate Obama... Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other stupid attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves -- if they have any such sense.
As the writer of the award winning story 'Forest Gump' so aptly put it, 'Stupid Is As Stupid Does'.
Each opportunity that you have to send this to a friend or media outlet...do it, or again just delete it if you disagree.
· 1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male extremist.
· 2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim male extremists.
· 3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim male extremists.
· 4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim male extremists.
· 5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim male extremists.
· 6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim male extremists.
· 7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim male extremists (remember the pilot of this flight was from Richmond, MO)
· 8. In 1988 , Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim male extremists.
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim male extremists.
· 10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim male extremists.
· 11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim male extremists.
· 12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim male extremists.
· 13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by-- you guessed it-- Muslim male extremists.
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people... Absolutely No Profiling! They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
According to The Book of Revelations: the Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, he will destroy everything.
And Now...
For what may be the award winning Act of Stupidity of all times, the people of America want to elect, to the most powerful position on the face of the planet -- the Presidency of the United states of America ... A male of Muslim descent who is the most extremely liberal Senator in Congress (in other words an extremist) and in his 40's.
Have the American people completely lost their minds, or just their Power of Reason?
I'm sorry, but I refuse to take a chance on the 'unknown' candidate Obama... Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other stupid attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves -- if they have any such sense.
As the writer of the award winning story 'Forest Gump' so aptly put it, 'Stupid Is As Stupid Does'.
Each opportunity that you have to send this to a friend or media outlet...do it, or again just delete it if you disagree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
