On Labor day 2010 the Marxist and Socialist movements are calling for a push to orginize a new political party.  The “Labor Party”.   Joel Rogers of COWS and Apollo Alliance, ( Apollo authored Obama’s Stimulus package) started out setting up a 3rd party based on Marxist philosophy in the mid 1990s.

The “bus them in from out of state” Astor-Turf organizers like SEIU and AFL-CIO will no doubt be pushing Socialist candidates and if they cannot seat a Socialist candidate already on the Democrat ticket, they are libel to run one of their own extreme left candidates from the labor ranks themselves.  America, Freedom is under attack from all fronts.

The likely hood of this new Labor Party being born is almost guaranteed.  You have to understand that utopiatic Socialist have no room for moderation or views that are not their own.  They will not stop until their collective thirst for power is satisfied.  New York already suffers from a similar madness with the existence of the “Working Families Party” and how it is using Fusion Politics to elect 3rd party candidates and skewing the election by posting candidates of the WFP on both Democrat and Republican ballots.

It is interesting how a Google search on working falmilies party shows he organizations website in the company of Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA websits.  Is Google profiling? Or using Common Sense in managing to group these orginizations together?  A  look a bit further down will even show Democrat Party as a close search result set.   These “Big Labor” political based unions may claim to be For the American Working Family, but Google shows they are nothing more than socialist Communist orginizations.

The New Party endorsed Senator Barack Obama in his bid for Illinois State Senate Seat.

We already know and see how these far left activist are with indoctrination and propaganda.  They will say or do anything to obtain the ends to an agenda.

Are these really the people you want teaching your children and running our country? Most of the Unionized Americans do not know that when they pay union dues that money goes to support these leftist leaders and their agendas . Do you think Patriotic American Union Members would continue to pay these Socialist promotion fees Union Dues if they understood the ramifications of the total destruction of Capitalism and the Free Markets is funded by doing so?

Offer the candidate if you want to but stop disguising what you are if you want to have any respect at all.  At least be publicly honest about the Marxist agenda.  The only place you find the truth about what is behind these unions is on the Marxist websites themselves.  The Unions websites will not advertise the outright Communist ideologies on the Union main site as that of “Communism”.  It will not be where the day to day union members may see outright what they are supporting and paying for with union dues.  The death of America.

In short order, the American people will have the opportunity to register their views about the CHANGE hysteria, the depressed economy, and the gutting of America defenses at the ballot box.

Due diligence is called for on the part of voters. Neglect of this vital function could make things even worse. All voters must know the issues and the candidates before voting.

A special shout out goes to the 8th Congressional District in California. Folks there will be asked to decide the fate of a candidate who believes:

• Investigations are needed to determine the source of funding for groups that advocate positions that she does not agree with
• Abortion is acceptable because the Catholic Fathers have never taken a position on the issue
• Holy scripture obligates politicians to fight on behalf of invading criminals who ignore our borders and laws and who cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars every year
• Enforcing US Immigration laws is “un-American”
• Drug rehabilitation is a more effective means for dealing with illicit drugs than securing the borders.
• Those who do not share her views are Nazis and/or racists

The candidate with those odd, un-American beliefs is Nancy Pelosi, currently the Speaker of the U.S. House.

Isn’t it time for San Francisco to come in out of the fog long enough to retire this aging, addled public menace?

The National Rifle Association is not getting a lot of rave reviews from its members lately. In fact, by the looks of things the NRA is willfully taking a long trip up poop creek and doing so without a paddle in hand. What is the whole kerfuffle that has led to this ill advised journey? Well it revolves around Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Harry Reid is in a not so surprising fight for his political future in Nevada. The incumbent Senator is in a statistical dead heat with challenger Sharron Angle. It is a fight that Mr. Reid does not believe he should be in and that he cannot understand. He thinks the people should adore him. If they are foolish enough not to blindly love him then at least he thinks they should show him some respect as a long term representative of theirs in Washington and simply reelect him. Whether or not Mr. Reid deserves such respect after years of trashing individual liberties and our Constitution is of secondary importance. For you see, Harry Reid is a member of the ruling class and he is entitled.

Like most liberals, Harry Reid is a walking gaffe machine. And when he speaks his lack of substance becomes regularly apparent. So it would be a surprise for most to learn that the NRA is actually considering endorsing this man in the 2010 midterm elections. Yes, you heard right, the NRA is actually considering endorsing a man who has been a leader in our charge off the cliff and into the abyss.

The NRA’s excuse? They claim Harry Reid has been a champion of gun rights. On top of that they opine that if Harry Reid is defeated and the Democrats retain control of the Senate someone unkind to gun rights might take his place as Majority Leader.

The NRA further defends this excuse by saying they are a single issue group and that the only important issue to them is the second amendment. What they fail to understand is that for the vast majority of their members other issues are important too. You know, like upholding and defending the Constitution, the whole Constitution and nothing but the Constitution? That is something Harry Reid has never done in his entire career in national politics.

The NRA’s support for the Second Amendment is admirable. But if there is no Constitution left because it has been torn apart by liberals like Mr. Reid how far does such support go? It harkens back to the silly slogan of leftists with regards to how they said that they support the troops but not their mission. The NRA is just as goofily saying that they are prepared to support Harry Reid but not his goal of a socialist America.

Sharron Angle on the other hand, as much as disgruntled Republicans in Nevada who are upset that their candidate did not win the primary and even Harry Reid himself hate to admit, has a much firmer grasp of reality. That includes her understanding of the Second Amendment. For example, Sharron Angle once correctly noted why we have a Second Amendment. She stated that it was to allow the people to protect themselves against government tyranny and perform the role the altering or abolishing government unkind to individual liberties. This is what the founders discussed in our Declaration of Independence. She said, with regards to the continual usurpation of individual liberties and state’s rights by those in Washington, Harry Reid included, that, “If Congress keeps going the way it is, people are already looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.”

Pretty straightforward right? Pretty much in line with the Founding Fathers right? The Reid Campaigns response? To call such talk, “crazy” and denounce her in a campaign ad.

So the fact that the NRA is even thinking about endorsing Reid is perplexing to many. And based on what I hear, it is perplexing to the NRA members too. What I am being told, and my email box is filled daily with notes from Americans discussing their dismay over this, is that the NRA is being inundated with angry responses from their members. These members are threatening to never again support the organization if they choose to endorse Harry Reid. The potential loss of revenue alone would be enough to make a sane person stop and take notice.

I am one of those angry souls who have told the NRA in no uncertain terms that there will be not one solitary penny more coming from me until they stop this insanity. Despite the repeated, and weekly, requests for donations I have not opened my checkbook to them because they have not agreed to not support Harry Reid. The latest request, which I think belies the trouble they are having, even included a $400 credit that I could use towards becoming a life member. This life membership is usually a $1,000 cost. So the markdown to $600 is significant and not something a group having no trouble at all raising funds would be doing. That is, if you ask me any way.

The leaders of the National Rifle Association must be daft to even be considering an endorsement of Harry Reid. They must be even dafter to even make this consideration public knowledge. The smart thing to have done, and it would have only taken someone of marginal intelligence to come up with, was to punt on the Reid and Angle race and endorse neither candidate if they really had their heart set on a liberal like Harry Reid returning to office.

The really smart thing to do in the Nevada race? That would be to endorse Sharron Angle.

And this would have only take someone of slightly higher than marginal intelligence to come up with.

But as it stands right now the NRA is already too far up Poop Creek and missing that ever crucial paddle required to save itself. The cat is out of the bag with regards to how idiotic the NRA’s leadership is. The outrage is swirling among the membership and donations are already being withheld. Sure the NRA is no doubt getting a lot of money thrown their way in a critical election year by people either unaware of their possible support for Harry Reid or people just willing to look the other way. But many loyal members are sitting with scissors in hand waiting for the NRA to commit to Harry Reid so that they can officially cut up their membership cards.

Even if now some semblance of rational thought enters into the brains of those at the NRA and the organization decides to not endorse either candidate or endorse the obvious choice of Sharron Angle, members will forever be wary of the intelligence of those at the helm. If the NRA wants to be a “single issue” organization and support a candidate now or in the future that has shown a willingness to throw out the rest of the Constitution on a whim and even one who calls an accurate and historical interpretation of the Second Amendment “crazy” then I say let them. It is their right to be stupid. And it will be their right to spend oodles of dollars begging all of us that have supported them over the years to support them again. Those dollars however will be wasted and in vain. Because, mark my words, if the NRA endorses Harry Reid officially or unofficially in November there will never be another check from my pocket going into their coffers.

That is my line in the sand. And judging by the looks of things a lot of my fellow Americans are going to proudly stand with me behind that line and tell the NRA to piss off.

Movement in poll averages for eight Senate races over the last week overwhelmingly favored Republican candidates, affirming the prevailing wisdom that a stiff wind is blowing and gaining force that will make the elections this fall very difficult for Democrats.

The GOP still faces an enormous uphill climb to take back control of the Senate. Republican candidates lead in only 5 of the 10 Democratic-held seats they would need to win to gain the majority. But a Republican Senate is not outside the realm of possibility, since their candidates are within striking distance in enough races that a perfect storm could sweep them in.

Two Democrats – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal – saw their leads over Republican candidates reduced. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who is running as an independent but is expected to caucus with Democrats if he wins and they retain the majority – also saw his lead over Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio downsized. And four Republican candidates saw their advantages increase.

One Republican candidate – Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois – saw his slim 2.3 point lead of a week ago, as measured by the Real Clear Politics average, dissolve. RCP moved Kirk’s contest with Democrat Alexi Giannoulias, the state treasurer who benefitted from President Obama’s Aug. 5 fundraiser, to a toss up.

But Republican candidates in Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania all extended their leads against Democratic opponents.

Physician Rand Paul’s lead over Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, measured by the average of all polling on the race, went from 6.5 percent to 8.2 percent. Rep. Roy Blunt went from 5.7 percent to 6.7 percent ahead of Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan.

Former Bush White House budget director Rob Portman increased his lead over Ohio Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, from 1.8 percent to 3 percent. And in Pennsylvania, former Congressman Pat Toomey saw a sizable jump in his lead over Rep. Joe Sestak, going from 2 percent up to a 5.6 percent advantage.

Reid, despite having spent millions of dollars in a furious attack on Republican Sharron Angle, a former state legislator, saw his lead slip from 2.5 percent to 1.5 percent. Both pollsters who have consistently surveyed on this race, the Las Vegas Review Journal and Rasmussen Reports, have tracked Reid’s trajectory as behind for most of the year until July, then losing ground over the last few weeks.

Angle is a former state legislator who many — including one of the Republicans she defeated in the primary — believe is one of the few candidates capable of losing to Reid, who is especially unpopular among many voters in his state. Yet while Reid has done an effective job of defining Angle by using her most unusual or extreme remarks against her, he has failed to deliver a knockout punch.

In Connecticut, Democrats wasted no time in going after Republican candidate Linda McMahon after she won her Aug. 10 primary last week. Democrats lobbed YouTube videos by the dozens showing McMahon engaging in all kinds of antics during her time as CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment.

There has been a spate of awful news recently about the war in Afghanistan and about the U.S. economy and the hijacked “Recovery Summer.”

In Obama’s “right war” in Afghanistan, July was the deadliest month in terms of American deaths since the battle was enjoined ten years ago.

A recent ambush of medical providers there claimed several more American lives in a heart breaking reminder that sometimes brutal force is the only fair and reasonable way in which to wage war.

Yet, we hear nothing from the dithering president, except his nauseating and stupid crowing about how his leadership saved the day in Iraq.

That spin is unbelievably dumb for one who hails himself as intellectually gifted.

On the economic front, another 170,000 jobs were lost in July, despite Obama’s blathering about the “Recovery Summer.”

In fact, as reported in part:

“The Federal Reserve is set to downgrade its assessment of US economic prospects when it meets on Tuesday to discuss ways to reboot the flagging recovery.”

That makes it the “Flagging Recovery Summer,” does it not, Mr. President?

Meanwhile, while Mr. Obama works 24/7 to foul up America even more, the elitist First Lady, Michelle Obama, is living it up in Spain at a cost of $75,000 a day!

Wow, $75,000 a day would fund one heck of a lot of unemployment checks for the president’s constituency, Michelle!

Why not let the Obama impostors pay for the Spain extravaganza, including the associated Secret Service coverage, out of the Obama’s personal checking account?

It’s called “Spreading the Wealth,” Michelle, a communist catch-phrase coined by a Marxist candidate with whom you are quite well acquainted.

In 2008, Spreading the Wealth was all the rage, but as they say, “BS talks, money walks” and it turns out that that Marxist candidate was talking about spreading YOUR wealth, not his or that of his clueless FLOTUS.

Men and women dying on the battlefield, Americans facing financial ruin at home, and Michelle Obama wastes $75,000 a day of taxpayer money?

Surprised? What the hell did you expect from an anti-American elitist couple like the Obamas?

This commentary was posted as a comment on this site, but is too important to be hidden among the comments. So here it is. Thanks for sharing and I hope everyone takes note.

WHO AM I?

I was born in one country, raised in another.
My father was born in another country.
I was not his only child.
He fathered several children with numerous women.

I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me.
My mother died at an early age from cancer.

Although my father deserted me and my mother raised me,
I later wrote a book idolizing my father not my mother.

Later in life, questions arose over my real name.
My birth records were sketchy. No one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.

I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my new country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs and didn’t follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.

I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them. That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life. and I embarked on a new career.

I wrote a book about my struggles growing up.
It was clear to those who read my memoirs, that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.

I became active in local politics in my 30′s then, with help behind the scenes,
I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s.
They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything.
I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization.
Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me, as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.
I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.
This bolstered my ego.

At first, my political campaign focused on my country’s foreign policy…
I was very critical of my country in the last war, and seized every opportunity to bash my country.

But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country’s economy.
I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better, and every poor person would be fed and housed for free.
I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
It was the free market, banks and corporations.
I decided to start making citizens hate them and, if they became envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight.

I called mine “A People’s Campaign”. That sounded good to all people.

I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support. I knew that if I merely offered the people ‘hope’, together we could change our country and the world.

So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include “persecuted minorities”.
My true views were not widely known and I kept them unknown, until after I became my nation’s leader.
I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with.
I’m glad they didn’t.

Then I became the most powerful man in the world.

And the world learned the truth.

Who am I?

ADOLPH HITLER

If you were thinking SOMEONE ELSE

You Should Be Scared, Very Scared!

To many political observers, it probably appeared that the Tea Party movement came out of the woodwork or even thin air. But the roots of the movement go back before then.

The Tea Party is sometimes considered to be a reactionary response to Obama’s presidency, and has therefore been vilified with false innuendos and inaccurate labels. Early last year the movement was deemed to be a group of fringe, angry crackpots, who were fit to be scorned and laughed at.

As the movement gained momentum, the laughter stopped, and it became necessary to depict the movement in derogatory terms. Accusations of racism and hatred began to tag along with the Tea Party. Just recently the NAACP has called on the Tea Party to purge the racist elements within its ranks. Of course such insinuation already presupposes such elements exist and can be readily identified. But let’s face it, virtually every organization has its bad apples mingled in with the good fruit.

If that wasn’t enough, in April, an Oregon activist announced a plan to infiltrate Tea Party protests, and deliberately misrepresent the movement by encouraging confederates to attend and carry inflammatory placards. How would you tell genuine participants from impostors?

If one asks the rhetorical question, “When did you stop beating your wife,” it is assumed that wife beating occurred in the past. The burden is on the one making the accusation to offer evidence for his assertion. What is missing is the evidence, but making the charge creates a beneficial distraction.

Presently, character assassination is the new American pastime du jour. We all recognize that racism is a serious offence, but few are as careful and keen to observe that false accusations of such a vice are equally egregious. One must then ask about the general motives behind such accusations. I think the answer becomes obvious: nobody likes to be accused of bigotry in any form, and claims of such motives or illicit conduct cause the one being accused to abandon his arguments or agenda and focus on defending himself from the allegations. It’s a strategy of desperate distraction, hopefully to stall the momentum of a movement that has been politically effective.

The way they are connecting the Tea Party with racism is to assume that any opposition to the president’s policies are de facto evidence of impropriety. It seems dissent was only patriotic during the prior administration.

I have been sympathetic to the grievances and agenda of the Tea Party, but had not experienced the happening first hand. But recently an acquaintance, who is an expert in American history was invited to be an event speaker. That accorded the opportunity for a credible account of what was going on, which was unfiltered by news media editing.

As irony would have it, one of the other speakers was The Reverend David King , a tall African-American man. He is also a candidate for the Wisconsin Secretary of State position. Rev. King used part of his allotted time to poke fun at the idea of racism in the Tea Party ranks. It made for quite a comical moment.

At this point, it doesn’t appear that the Tea Party is a bona fide “youth movement.” The preponderance of the several hundred people in the audience were adults ages between 40 and 60. There was a fair amount of homemade signage, with slogans that were often clever, but not insensitively provocative.

The tenor of the attendees was cordial, but intense. The themes were patriotism, the loathing of excessive government spending, concern over eroding spiritual foundations, and a desire for personal autonomy without excessive government strictures.

The Tea Party movement has often been criticized for the perpetual theme of claiming they will “take back America.” That phrase has been examined in a pejorative manner by detractors. I would myself abandon that phraseology, in favor of a more endearing sentiment. I would say that the movement is about restoring the influences of government into the hands of the people. There is a justified fear that the American citizenry has lost control over its government. Statesmen and representatives of the people have been replaced by self-serving politicians. A recent case-in-point was the passing of a health care bill, which was highly unpopular, and was passed seemingly without proper legislative due diligence.

In addition, there is concern over the mounting national debt, the threat of increasing taxation, the rebirth of Keynesian economic policies, and pre-eminence of left-leaning political policies. It would be a mistake to still be laughing about the Tea Party. In early primary elections, they have often proven to be the “king-maker,” pushing their chosen candidates over the finish line.

The Tea Party is about “hope and change” as much as Obama appeared to be about those virtues as a candidate, two years ago. To describe what I believe this movement is about in a nutshell, I present an except from the First Amendment “…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

© Robert Meyer

The Courier Post in my old home state of New Jersey has an intriguing investigative piece into the shady candidacy of a self-proclaimed “Tea Party” candidate — whose candidacy was sponsored and promoted by Democrats apparently in need of a spoiler.

Everyone wants to know “Who the hell is Peter DeStefano?” Some answers (hat tip: JWF)…

Peter DeStefano, the independent Tea Party candidate this fall, didn’t announce himself as a candidate. Rather, his name surfaced for the first time as a viable candidate in an internal poll commissioned by Rep. John Adler and released to several blogs.

DeStefano has been attacking the Republican challenger, John Runyan, and avoiding face-to-face meetings with local Tea Party activists and the media. The Dems’ (incomplete) release of the internal poll including DeStefano raised eyebrows among veteran political observers in Jersey.

Adler’s campaign would not release the complete poll to the Courier-Post, nor did the campaign respond to numerous attempts for information over the course of the week about the poll and why it was released.

“This poll is not reportable in terms of the numbers,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. “Really the issue is why they released it.”

“Internal polls are notoriously unreliable, because often times, pollsters are going to skew data in favor of the candidate paying the bill,” said Brigid Harrison, a political science professor at Montclair State University.

Buried at the end of the Courier Post story, some tell-tale ties:

Republicans said it was troubling that longtime allies and donors to Adler had signed DeStefano’s petition. They include Marshall Spevak, who has worked for the Camden County Democratic Committee, pollster Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, Adler’s 2008 congressional campaign, and Adler’s state Senate office. He works on the campaign of Chris Coons, a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate in Delaware.

Asked through a Facebook message last Thursday about his signature on the petition, Spevak wrote: “Yes, I signed that petition. I did so with regret because I was very disappointed in the Congressman’s (Adler’s) vote on health care.”

Runyan campaign adviser Russell responded: “That’s the most ridiculous, dishonest political spin I’ve ever heard. Mr. Spevak is a professional political operative. He’s paid to run campaigns.”

Christy Gleason, Spevak’s boss on the Coons campaign, declined comment through a spokesman. Gleason also worked for the Camden County Democratic Committee last year.

Runyan aide Chris Russell has more:

“We always knew that career politician John Adler would literally say or do anything to salvage his career in Congress and keep feeding at the trough,” said Runyan General Consultant Chris Russell. “But for Adler associates to get caught propping up a fraudulent third-party candidate in an underhanded attempt to hijack the tea party movement and split the Republican vote takes the cake. The fact that the Adler campaign and leading Democrats refused to talk to the Courier Post about the evidence linking them to Peter DeStefano, and DeStefano himself cancelled all interviews, tells you all you need to know. This is nothing more than political dirty tricks, and it’s going to backfire on them in a big way.”

…“Marshall Spevak’s claim in the Courier Post, that he signed DeStefano’s petition because he was mad at Congressman Adler is preposterous,” said Russell, who pointed out that Spevak only recently deleted his facebook links to Adler and his LinkedIn profile detailing his many connections to Adler and South Jersey Dems, and that his family has close ties to Adler personally. “Mr. Spevak is a paid political operative who knew full well that a candidate running under the tea party banner in November could only help his old boss by splitting the Republican vote, not hurt him. Frankly, I wouldn’t doubt if his involvement in this petition drive didn’t go a lot further than just his signature. Given his grassroots campaign experience it’s more than plausible to believe that Mr. Spevak helped coordinate the petition drive itself. Don’t you have to wonder how Mr. DeStefano just magically wound up going door-to-door for signatures in Mr. Spevak’s neighborhood?”

* The Notaries who signed off on Mr. DeStefano’s petitions both appear to be politically active Democrats in Burlington and Ocean counties, respectively. Leonard Niedermayer contributed to Jon Corzine’s re-election campaign and is a perfect Democrat voter, while his facebook page contains numerous references bashing House Republicans. He certainly doesn’t sound much like someone with an active interest in or affinity for Tea Party candidates for Congress. The other lawyer was Harold Hensel of Toms River. Also a Democrat, he has contributed campaign funds locally to Democrats in Lakewood.

“Based on their backgrounds, I don’t see any other logical reason for two politically active Democrat lawyers from opposite ends of the district to help an unknown, self-proclaimed tea party candidate secure a position on the November ballot unless they were intentionally trying to aid Congressman Adler’s campaign,” said Russell, pointing out that notarizing a few petitions isn’t profitable legal work and is largely done by attorneys with a personal and political connection to the candidate. “The questions I have are: Did someone instruct them to help Mr. DeStefano? Were they paid for their work? If not, then what was their motivation for helping him? How did Mr. Hensel in Ocean County even meet Mr. DeStefano? Our campaign, for one, would love to get an answer to these questions.”

On Sunday night, several readers e-mailed to let me know about a cartoon in the Imperial Valley (CA) Press that upset them immensely.

Reader Marty sent the jpeg. It shows two young skateboarder punks looking up at a campaign poster. The candidate is not identified. He is bald and wears an eye patch. The punks crack jokes about the candidate’s physical disability and appearance:

The candidate is Republican Nick Popaditch, a war hero, 15-year Marine, and Silver Star/Purple Heart recipient who became famous around the world after the Associated Press snapped a cigar-smoking photo of him and his unit pulling down the statue of Saddam Hussein and celebrating in April 2003. Popaditch was critically wounded in Fallujah a year later by an RPG to the head. Watch more here:

Everyone should know this man’s incredible story of courage and sacrifice. Forget Lindsay Lohan’s disgusting fingernails. Tell your kids about how Popaditch lost his eye, survived, and returned to public service stronger than ever.

As for the cartoon: Popaditch’s Democrat opponent is blasting it. The paper is scheduled to issue an apology tomorrow. And Popaditch has exactly the right attitude about it:

Filner and Popaditch are rivals in the 51st Congressional District, which covers Imperial County and much of the border region of San Diego County.

Filner, chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, said he hopes the newspaper “would educate the public on how we can support our troops as they return home.”

Popaditch said he was not bothered by the cartoon. “I’ve got much thicker skin than that,” he said. “It’s not going to hurt me in any way.”

But he said he was concerned that other wounded veterans might feel that the cartoon suggests that it is acceptable to poke fun at war wounds.

In a phone call, editor Brad Jennings apologized to Popaditch. He has promised an apology in Tuesday’s paper. Jennings said the cartoon was meant to satirize how ill-informed many voters are about the Iraq war.

The cartoon was poorly executed. Instead of mocking ignoramuses who know nothing of war heroism, it pandered to the troop-dissers. It would be nice if the editors had the cartoonist explain himself. Why, if he were trying to educate the ignorant, didn’t he put Popaditch’s name on the poster so the skateboard crowd could at least Google the man and learn about his war record?

But instead of calling on the cartoonist to be fired, perhaps he deserves thanks — thanks for inadvertently creating an opportunity for the rest of us. It’s a moment not merely to complain about a boneheaded media slap, but to spread the word about Nick Popaditch.

He’s exactly the kind of fighter we need in Washington to take back the Hill.

Support his campaign here.

Given the grave problems he faces at home, it is astounding that Mexican President Felipe Calderon has time to think about, much less worry about, how the law is enforced in Arizona.

Indeed, while Felipe arrogantly lectured the U.S. Congress about democracy and the rule of law in America, his beloved Mexico continued to collapse further into the grips of drug cartels, corruption, and violence.

Democracy in Mexico took a major hit with the murder of a gubernatorial candidate as reported at reference in part:

“Last Friday, June 25, gubernatorial candidate Rodolfo Torre raised both his arms to the sky in front of 15,000 cheering white-shirted supporters in a baseball stadium minutes from the Rio Grande. After he promised security in his violence-ridden border state of Tamaulipas, the crowd erupted to his campaign anthem, sung to the catchy tune of the smash hit “I Gotta Feeling” by U.S. pop band Black Eyed Peas.

They had reason for celebration. Opinion polls all concurred that the mustachioed physician would win the July 4 election by a landslide of more than 30 points. But on Monday, as Torre left the state capital to conclude his campaign, assailants showered his convoy with gunfire from automatic rifles and heavy-caliber weapons, killing him instantly. Army commanders said the attack bore all the signs of the Zetas, a paramilitary drug gang that was born in the state.

Mexico’s highest-profile political assassination since the 1994

Mexico’s highest-profile political assassination since the 1994 murder of presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio was a blow not only to Torre’s supporters but to the nation’s entire ailing democracy.

On July 4, voters will choose governors in 12 of 31 states in a “Super Sunday” of local elections. The ballots come almost exactly a decade after the nation voted to end 71 years of one-party rule. But rather than showcasing the success of multiparty democracy, the campaigns have highlighted its hazards. Races have been dampened by arrests of candidates on racketeering charges, leaked tapes of organized vote buying and a succession of violent attacks.

After the Torre killing, some politicians asked for half of the races to be suspended. “This is extremely worrying,” says political scientist Maria Eugenia Valdes. “If there is fear and violence, there is no freedom. And if there is no freedom, we cannot have fair elections.”

In light of the awful news about Mexico, the burning question of the day is:

Why are President Obama and the Democrats wasting time and energy in an effort to legalize 12-38 million invading criminals from Mexico, rather than working to secure our borders and protect American citizens from the violence and mayhem that runs rampant in that failed state?

Why has President Obama not sent tens of thousands of troops to the border to keep the decay that is destroying Mexico from spreading north?

The Democrats are up to more dirty politics in Utah, trying to attack Mike Lee and now Senator Jim DeMint with even more lies.  Hopefully the good people of Utah will rise above dirty politics and will send a clear message to Washington that this is not the “change” the citizens of the United States wanted.  Here is the email letter from Senator DeMint:

Dear Friends:

Over the past couple weeks, I’ve shared with you the details of a Chicago-style attack against Mike Lee, the conservative candidate for U.S. Senate in Utah.

As you may recall, an anonymous … and likely illegal … mailer was sent just days before the May 8th GOP Nominating Convention that smeared Mike Lee and prevented him from winning the Republican nomination without a primary. While we uncovered one of the sources of the mailer, the identity of others involved remains a mystery.

I shared this information with you because I wanted you to see what the Washington establishment was doing to defeat Mike Lee and because I was concerned that there could be more dirty tricks leading up to tomorrow’s primary election. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what has happened.

Last night, I learned that Mike Lee’s opponent — Tim Bridgewater — sent out a last-minute mailer telling Utah Republicans that I am supporting Mike Lee so nuclear waste can be transferred from my home state of South Carolina to Utah.  You can see the mailer for yourself here.

This accusation is a disgraceful LIE from a desperate candidate.

My involvement in the Utah Senate race has been to provide positive support to Mike Lee, a man with the character and integrity we desperately need in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. Bridgewater’s malicious and dishonest attacks on me and the state of South Carolina only confirm he would fit in all too well with the Washington establishment.

The people of Utah deserve better, and they will get it with Mike Lee.

As you know, the Senate Conservatives Fund focuses on promoting principled conservative candidates, not attacking their Republican opponents. But if Mr. Bridgewater is going to spread lies about us and our support for Mike Lee, we’re going to correct the record.

This race is still close because of attacks like these and because Mr. Bridgewater is self-funding his campaign with money made from businesses that are directly subsidized by government programs.

He’s been telling voters that he’s a businessman but as someone who ran a small business for over twenty years, I can tell you that gaming government programs does not make you a businessman. It makes you a lobbyist.

If any of you can make a contribution to or volunteer for Mike Lee’s Senate campaign today, please do so now using his website (http://mikelee2010.com). Conservatives must unite today to make sure he wins this race tomorrow and can help us take back our country.

Thank you for your continued support.

Respectfully,

Jim DeMint
United States Senator
Chairman, Senate Conservatives Fund

What is done in New York could filter its way into the general elections across the country as the progressive activist Judges and the democrats in general continue to position themselves to kidnap as much of the voting populous as possible.  If they cannot purchase your vote with entitlements they will simply give you more trips to the voting booth.  Will 6 votes each be enough?

Federal Judge Stephen Robinson

Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.

Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas. SOURCE :  Yahoo! News.

So where does the favoritism end.  Would a Federal Judge ever allow Caucasian voters in Los Angles to have 3 votes each at elections since they are the minority?  How about the Asian communities and Muslims?  Will those communities with a particular race creed or color get special consideration at the polls in other cities as well?

Well I am glad this is in New York, (for now) but the problem here is that a Federal Judge passed the law for a local election process.  New York already has a system that allows for favoritism towards a democrat or progressive candidate by using FUSION POLITICS.  Fusion Politics allows for a 3 party system where 2 of the parties cast support to one candidate.  The result is that the candidate ends up on the ballot more than once.  The candidate is listed on the ballot under each party designation.  That third party is the WFP, a party that openly professes a Marxist philosophy. Sound fair?

The village held 12 forums — six each in English and Spanish — to let voters know about the new system and to practice voting. The bilingual ballot lists each candidate across the top row — some of them twice if they have two party lines — and then the same candidates are listed five more times. In all, there are 114 levers; voters can flip any six. SOURCE :  Yahoo! News.

So as the election laws and policies continue to get corrupted by organizations like SEIU, the AFL-CIO, Building Trades unions and other corrupt institutions like ACORN we will continue to see a skewed result leaning more and more to the left with each pull of the lever.

Gateway Pundit had John Burns as a guest writer discuss the current disposition of the Tea Party and where it is going. The press and liberal pundits like to say that the Tea Party is in decline. Like Mr. Burns writes, that is not true. He brings up a good point in that the Tea Party rallies were the birth of the grass roots conservative, constitutional movement. But we quickly realized that despite our numbers and protests we were not being heard. The statist, socialist agenda was going to be jammed down our collective throats whether we wanted it or not. The majority of the people in this great nation stood behind the Tea Party Patriots. Many joined us. Many stayed out of the fray yet silently supported the movement. But the people of this country do not want the statist agenda. So the Tea Party is adapting as Mr. Burns describes below. And understand, he is only 26 year old. There is a future for this country.

There’s been much ado recently about the decline of the Tea Party Movement. Pundits opine that we’re losing momentum, losing support, losing steam; “they just peaked too soon.”

Not True. Not by a long shot.

Years from now, historians will look back at the Tea Party Movement and divide it into two primary eras. Tea Party 1.0 was about the birth of the first massive, spontaneous grassroots movement in a generation. It was about rallying the troops and waking up America to realize that the inmates are running the asylum; that the first Manchurian Candidate became the first Manchurian President; that government programs and government spending were poised to destroy our children’s future. Tea Party 1.0 was the start of what I believe will prove to be the 4th Great Awakening in America. Tragically, we learned that rallies alone could not stop the powerful river of socialism from surging through our nation and our communities.

We recognized that a new focus was needed. Whereas before we would protest and rally, now we will activate, organize, and build.

This is not the beginning of the end for the Tea Party Movement, but merely the End of the Beginning.

Tea Party 2.0, is characterized by the swift march of Tea Party Patriots into political activism on a permanent basis. Tea Party 2.0 is an unstoppable freight train. Patriots will be just as active on November 3rd as they were on November 2nd. Because, win or lose, we’re fighting to WIN…permanently. Sure, this will take a number of years. But the election of Barack Obama and the hegemony of socialists in our government were not suddenly achieved overnight. After the protests and turmoil of the ‘60s, liberals marched into institutions of higher learning and bureaucracy, and they are now running them. Today, we are living in the world they built. Tomorrow, they shall live in ours.

In St. Louis we’ve just started organizing Block Captain Teams, which are similar to precinct captains, except that the teams don’t rely on a party for their strength, energy, or legitimacy. The teams are decentralized and don’t rely on a pecking order. Anyone can be a leader. And whereas precinct captains are only active during the campaign season, Block Captain Teams are in the field year-round. Anyone can become a Block Captain overnight, and anyone can start a Block Captain Team and start making a difference immediately. The Teams have many projects, including voter registration, Liberty Evangelism, activist trainings, candidate trainings, petition drive projects, volunteering with various candidate campaigns, and on and on.

BUT THIS IS THE KEY: Whereas in the past we were content to win a given election (a mere battle), now we’re focused on winning the war. The war doesn’t end on November 2nd, and neither will our volunteerism. Win or lose November 2nd, we’re still fighting come November 3rd, December 3rd…until we restore the US Constitution, kick every socialist out of office across the nation, and restore the culture of liberty that our nation was founded upon.

The mistake of the ’94 revolution was thinking that after we had taken the “beaches” of Congress we had won the war. But Eisenhower didn’t stop at Normandy, nor shall we at Scott Brown, Chris Christy, or Rand Paul.

We’ve recognized that no one is coming to save us. Many would-be leaders are overly concerned about preserving small fiefdoms of power or rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. So, we must rise up and save ourselves. We didn’t ask for this war, and we didn’t start it. We will, however, finish it. And that may mean time sacrifices and fewer vacations and hard work. But the salvation of our nation and the restoration of US Constitutional government (unabridged and without disclaimers) is worth the sacrifice. There are millions of noble servicemen and women who understand this all too well. Patriotism demands service and this is our duty: to fight until we win.

So, maybe the pundits are right. So far as it constitutes the first incarnation of this massive social movement, maybe the Tea Party is in decline or dying. Maybe the Tea Party 1.0 is over. But the social movement, the 4th Great Awakening has not and will not die. Tea Party 2.0 and the era of the Block Captain, has begun.

Fusion politics is the integration of a third party into a two party system. In 1996 Joel Rogers, founder of Apollo Alliance, the people that brought you the stimulus, was getting fed up with the “abusive relationship” the progressives had with the Democrat party and was ready to dump the Democrats. 14 years later the Progressives have eaten the democrat party instead of dumping it. It has not been enough to work with the democrats and have a mutual give and take. They want it all and have gone for it.

If the elected officials do not do 100% of what the Progressive asked for when offering their vote then the elected official has abused the relationship. That does not sound anything like a bipartisan relationship being allowed. It is an all or nothing mandate for the Progressives vote. Because of this perceived abuse the progressives have achieved a sudo form of Fusion Politics becoming a parasite on the Democrat party. Only after so many years of feeding nothing remains of it’s puppet-ed host. They have actually eaten the Democrat party. A similar parasite has been eating the Republicans in recent years and can be found in an almost malignant nature in South Carolina and Arkansas. Lindsey and McPain are the most disguised and yet most volatile variants of this cancer.

How it works in theory. Fusion is simple. It refers to the electoral tactic of two parties “fusing” on one candidate, meaning the candidate appears twice on the ballot under two separate party labels.

But what the Progressives have achieved is a hollow shell party it controls in totality. Reconcile this & slaughter that, you get the picture.

I have written on the issue of Fusion Politics before but after watching this video clip of Joel Rogers discussing how the Progressives have essentially been used by the Democrat party and now it is time to divest themselves of it I had to revive the message.

When I wrote about this before I cited an interview done of Rogers in 1995.  That interview touched on Fusion Politics.  Then a year after that interview Rogers restates his message about Fusion  Politics but he added something.  He talked about dumping the democrat party.  He claims it has become an “abusive relationship”.

Currently Fusion style politics has been reborn in a New Party.  Strangely enough it was actually at one time called “The New Party“.  Now it is known as the “Working Families Party”, WFP.  This is an active political party in New York.

The WFP chapter meetings around New York are very different than Democratic Party meetings. They are not full of people who are angling for jobs. They are not full of political staffers. They are full of union members, ACORN members, schoolteachers, retirees, tenants, students, immigrants, and anyone else who shares our values. SOURCE : bostonreview.net

What a minute! Acorn and Labor Unions in the electoral process.  I wonder how that has turned out for the Working Families Party so far?

Judge Michael Lynch, a New York State Supreme Court judge threw out 33 absentee ballots in the September 15, 2009 Working Families Party primary and found that “testimony and affidavits reveal significant election law violations that have compromised the rights of numerous voters and the integrity of the election process. SOURCE : troyrecord.com

They were seemingly the best of times, but they ended up looking like the worst of times.

That is, things have turned out pretty badly for one particular congressional candidate and the party that endorsed him.

Much has been said and written about the current and ever-growing backlash against Washington. Is it an “anti-incumbent thing?” Or is it an “anti-Democrat, anti-Obama thing?” Is the momentum moving against the Democrats and in favor of the Republicans, or is it more about ideals and principals and less about political parties?

The short answer to these questions is “yes.” It’s all of these things, and more. And to better understand what I mean, consider what just happened in the state of Idaho.

Vaughn Ward was the perfect Republican congressional candidate. A native of Idaho who was raised in humble beginnings by his mother, Ward grew up to serve in the Iraq War, to work as a CIA Operations Officer, and continues to serve today as a Major in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve.

Involving himself in Republican politics, he worked his way up to an assignment in the last presidential election. And despite the failure of the McCain-Palin ticket, Ward emerged from the rubble with some prime assets: big-time endorsements, and big-time cash, for his own congressional run back home in Idaho.

The value of these “assets” can’t be underestimated. Endorsements from both John McCain, AND Sarah Palin. The official “seal of approval” from the Republican National Congressional Committee. And perhaps most importantly, all the fund-raising mechanisms a congressional candidate could hope for.

By July of 2009 Vaughn Ward was the “heir apparent” with a clear lead in fundraising and name recognition, as he sought the opportunity to run against incumbent Democrat Congressman Walt Minnick. And along with the endorsements of nationally prominent figures like Palin, powerful Republicans in Idaho had coalesced around Ward, including current Governor Butch Otter, Idaho Superintendent of Education Tom Luna, and former Governor (and former U.S. Secretary of the Interior) Dirk Kempthorne. Indeed, these were “the best of times” for the Ward campaign.

But then – to quote an old “classic” Phil Collins song – “something happened on the way to heaven,” and as the calendar moved into the year 2010 the cracks in the veneer began to show.

For one, it was discovered that Ward’s wife was the family bread winner, working as a salaried employee of Fannie Mae. Of course there’s nothing inherently wrong with being an employee of the federal government. But being reliant on a federal salary raised questions about Ward’s authenticity as he railed against the ever-expansive Obama government.

The “Fannie Mae matter” was one thing. But it was quite a different thing when, in late April of this year, Major Ward received a rebuke from the Pentagon, and the U.S. Marine Corps itself. Images of Ward in military gear had been used in campaign web advertisements, and this, the Pentagon noted, violated the policy of the U.S. Military that it remain a-political, and that military imagery not be used to endorse political agendas.

From there the remaining few weeks of the “Ward For Congress” campaign were tragic. A journalist in Spokane, Washington discovered that Ward had lifted huge sections of “policy positions” content from other Republican congressional campaign websites (in some cases duplicating entire paragraphs, line-for-line), and placed them on his own campaign website.

Rather than trying to argue that Ward was in agreement with the various other congressional candidates that he was “emulating,” the campaign instead responded to the news in a very guilty, embarrassed fashion, firing a campaign spokesperson, shutting off the policy pages on the website, and insisting that it was all a mistake committed by the web designer.

Then Ward embarrassed himself in a debate against his severely underfunded grass roots Republican challenger Raul Labrador, by claiming that he opposed congressional representation for the “country” of Puerto Rico (Labrador, who grew up in Puerto Rico, was quick to pounce on Ward’s factual error about the U.S. Territory). And hours before primary election day, an embarrassing (albeit severely edited and “doctored”) video of Ward using words and phrases from an Obama speech popped-up on Youtube, a video that was so stunning that Jay Leno used it for comedic content on his show.

On primary election day in Idaho, grass roots Republican Raul Labrador defeated the “establishment” Republican Vaughn Ward by nearly ten percentage points. Ward had the entire national Republican machine on his side, and a campaign visit from Sarah Palin to boot. Labrador had few endorsements, and very little cash, but he had achieved something incredibly important – he had earned the trust of the people of Idaho, including those of the local tea party movement.

Ward is an honorable man who has served our country valiantly. Yet he showed himself to be “not ready for primetime” in his congressional campaign, and the Republican Party establishment showed itself to have not done its homework.

The current backlash against Washington is anti-Obama, yes. But it’s also about a return to principals, and about Americans scrutinizing those who want to represent us in Washington.

Is the Republican Party listening?

I believe it was Freud who was first got credit for saying he didn’t know what women wanted. Frankly, I don’t think he was half-trying. Quite simply, women want a man who is rich, handsome, sexy, is as interested in fabrics and color as they are, who can get weepy at sunsets, tear up at Judy Garland singing “Over the Rainbow,” and whose favorite movie is “The English Patient.” In short, they’re looking for a very successful interior decorator. I say, good luck to them. But it’s no wonder that so many married women feel they wound up settling.

The folks who mystify me are liberals. For instance, consider the way they speak. Without even blushing, they refer to the “peace process” whenever they’re slapping down Israel. No matter what that little tiny country does — be it defending itself against missile attacks and suicide bombers or building houses in Jerusalem — the lunkheads on the left will insist the Jews are jeopardizing the peace process.

And just what exactly is the peace process to which Arabs, Muslims and just about every U.S. president since Carter pay lip service? When you get past the P.R. spin, it’s the extinction of Israel!

Another term the leftists toss around is the “international community.” That has a high-sounding ring to it, which is why the nincompoops love it so much. In fact, if by that particular community, one is referring to the members of the U.N., one is referring to a gang of chiselers, cowards and incompetents, representing the interests of gangsters, rogues and butchers.

Frankly, I wouldn’t trust the creeps at the U.N. to run a 7/11, let alone the world. Only a mushy-headed liberal would endow the organization with moral authority. In fact, between the two groups, if I had to pick one, I’d vote for the Mafia, if only because it doesn’t rely on American tax dollars to survive.

Another term liberals like to use is “misspeak.” Recently, Richard Blumenthal, candidate for the U.S. Senate, claimed he misspoke when he went around claiming he’d served in Vietnam. It seems he’d never even been there for a vacation, let alone a war.

When a person says, “They is coming over for dinner,” he has misspoken, using “is” for “are.” What Blumenthal did was lie. Then to compound his sin, he held a press conference after his lies were uncovered by the NY Times, and claimed he was taking complete responsibility. Yet another lie. If this schlimiel was taking complete responsibility, he would have said, “I have lied to all of you. I have shamed my friends and family. At no point in my life have I possessed even an ounce of the courage displayed by the men who actually served and suffered in Vietnam. If I stood on my tiptoes, I couldn’t reach their shoelaces. I stand here today completely disgraced by my past words and actions in order to announce that I have tendered my resignation as attorney general of Connecticut and to withdraw from the Senate race.”

Instead, this punk told the world that he was proud of his years of public service. What’s more, he was applauded by several of the liberal yahoos in attendance, thus turning what was supposed to be his public confession into just another campaign speech.

Years ago, liberals hated those who had served in Vietnam. Back in the 1960s, mollycoddled left-wing kids who tried to make a virtue of the fact that they’d lacked the guts to serve in the military actually spat on returning vets and called them the vilest of names. Flash forward and you have the disgusting spectacle of presidential candidate John Kerry donning a military jacket and announcing to cheering yahoos that he was “reporting for duty” and now you have Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal lying about having faced not only the horrors of war, but the public vilification by people exactly like himself!

Yet another thing that liberals love to lie about, on behalf of the corrupt teachers union, is the importance of a public school education. For one thing, no politician in Washington, D.C., would think of sending his own children to a public school — and that means every beneficiary of the union’s slush fund, including Obama and the members of the Black Congressional Caucus.

Also, if education is so bloody important, why is it that the Democrats seem to have turned Capitol Hill into a no-read zone? First there were all those 2,000-page bills being voted on by people who bought into Nancy Pelosi’s suggestion that there would be plenty of time to figure them out after they were passed; and there was Arizona’s immigration bill that had the liberals in a proper tizzy even though such administration heavyweights as Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and P.J. Crowley, all admitted weeks after its passage that they’d all been too busy to read it.

I mean, as lies go, this one probably isn’t quite as egregious as Blumenthal’s. Besides, it was so darn blatant, it actually made me laugh. I mean, did anybody in America really believe that the attorney general, the head of homeland security and the assistant secretary of state, couldn’t spare five minutes to read a bill that was just slightly longer than a menu, before attacking it with pitchforks?

The really embarrassing thing about this particular lie is that it highlights just how contemptuously these airheads regard those of us who aren’t Obama’s acolytes.

Otherwise, wouldn’t Holder, Napolitano or Crowley, at least have said, “I took it home, fully intending to read the bill, but my dog ate it.”

©2010 Burt Prelutsky

Incoming search terms:

• liberalism

Privately I have been telling friends that Barack Obama has made it nearly impossible for any black American politician to become president for at least the next two generations, maybe more. He has sealed their fate.

Then I read Walter E. Williams’ column, “Can Black Americans Afford Obama?” He wrote, “I am all too fearful that a future black presidential candidate will find himself carrying the heavy baggage of a failed black president.” Williams is a distinguished black economist and a syndicated columnist who sometimes sits in for Rush Limbaugh.

Thank you, Walter, for saying what I have been thinking for a very long time. Just how much irony is there that both Carter and Obama are so liberal that they estranged voters so swiftly and so deeply while in office that they will become the standard for failure against which others will be measured.

Political failure is neither white, nor black. It’s just failure.

Having forced “Obamacare” on America, the President is so tone deaf he thinks, despite having signed it into law, that he must go out and “sell” it again. Somewhere close to two-third of all Americans want it repealed!

The comparison to Carter is accurate. The 1979 Iranian revolution and Carter’s inability to secure the release of U.S. diplomats held hostage sealed his fate. Fast forward to Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who literally mocked the latest UN sanctions that took the U.S. sixteen months to fashion and secure.

The Iranians continue to use Obama as a doormat and he continues to think that diplomacy will achieve anything with these fanatical Islamists.

White people have long been accustomed to keeping their opinions to themselves about blacks and for very good reason; the history in America for blacks was one of slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow laws, the KKK, school segregation and violations of their humanity until the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Following the Civil War, the 15th Amendment to the Constitution stated that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude. It was passed on February 3, 1870. It took nearly one hundred years before blacks had any real chance of enjoying the American dream.

Forgotten in this history, however, is that a lot of white people also fought very hard to correct the wrongs that had become institutionalized in American society. Barack Obama would not be president if a lot of white people hadn’t voted for him. I think they saw an opportunity to say to the world, see, we’ve changed.

Williams wrote “Early indications suggest that the Barack Obama presidency might turn out to be similar to the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter. That’s bad news for the nation but, especially bad news for black Americans.”

It is, indeed. It’s especially bad news for black Americans running for public office. I am not talking about those from heavily black districts, but those who must compete for white votes. One, Alan West, is a black candidate for Congress in South Florida. He is an articulate and outspoken conservative. He transcends color. He’s about real leadership, real ideas, and real change.

Any member of a minority will tell you that they cringe when “one of theirs” screws up because, in the end, it makes them all look bad. Barack Obama is not doing black Americans any favors these days.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

“A party divided” is the Democrats’ attack line, as they have argued for months that the Tea Party is provoking a civil war within the Republican Party. But on Tuesday in Arkansas, most of the political discord was within their own ranks.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s victory in a runoff against attorney general Bill Halter, by a 52 to 48 margin, was also a major defeat for big labor, which poured $10 million into Arkansas on the challenger’s behalf.

Halter’s defeat set off a round of finger-pointing between the White House and labor unions, which have traditionally been a strong ally for the Obama administration. And the exhausting primary fight left Lincoln wearied and with a diminished war chest heading into a general election where she has so far polled well behind Republican nominee John Boozman, a congressman serving his fourth consecutive term.

Top White House officials have said in recent weeks they meddled with primary challengers in Pennsylvania and Colorado because they had “a legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight.” Arkansas was Exhibit A for what Democrats wanted to avoid, though the administration’s bungled handling of Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff has created more problems than it has solved.

Boozman and national Republicans immediately pounced on Lincoln’s votes in favor of President Obama’s biggest ticket items – the $1 trillion health care law and the $787 billion stimulus bill.

“We are going to run an aggressive campaign making the distinctions clear on Obamacare, card check, cap-and-trade, job killing stimulus legislation and the tax-and-spend initiatives that continue to plunge our nation further into enormous debt,” Boozman said in a statement.

Nonetheless, results in other states showed that the GOP still faces challenges of its own. The party’s nominee to take on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada – former state lawmaker Sharron Angle – is another insurgent candidate with sometimes doctrinaire Tea Party movement positions, a la Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul.

After defeating a crowded field of Republican candidates in Nevada’s primary Tuesday by winning 40 percent of the vote, Angle became the Democrats’ newest target.

“Like other Tea Party candidates already picked to run for federal office – such as Rand Paul in Kentucky – Angle believes in radical social and economic ideas that would turn back the clock and take America backwards,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine.

“From proposing to abolish Social Security and eliminating the Department of Education to advocating for no regulation for Wall Street and repealing health reform, Angle’s views are wrong for Nevadans and dangerous for the country,” Kaine said.

The GOP establishment has been slow to embrace Angle. Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, had plenty of criticism for Reid but little that was positive about Angle in a memo sent to reporters. It was highly similar to the NRSC memo released after Paul’s win last month in the GOP primary.

Sarah Palin didn’t even endorse Angle, who Democrats believe represented their best chance for Reid to retain his seat despite high disapproval ratings in his home state.

However, Paul’s strong libertarian views came under a microscope following his win due to appearances on National Public Radio and “The Rachel Maddow Show,” where he answered questions on whether he would have supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

If there’s one thing that national Republican strategists are telling the Angle campaign Wednesday morning, it is to avoid such interviews.

The GOP establishment got what they wanted in California. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina easily won a hard fought primary to face incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer this fall, and former E-Bay CEO Meg Whitman handily defeated a well-financed challenge from businessman Steve Poizner by spending $71 million of her own money.

Fiorina won 56 percent of the vote to Campbell’s 22 percent. State lawmaker Chuck Devore won 19 percent. Whitman defeated Poizner by 64 to 27 percent.

The Republican Party’s choice of Fiorina over former congressman Tom Campbell – Palin did endorse Fiorina, who also had the backing of the party machinery in Washington – was a calculated choice that the cancer survivor had the best shot of unseating Boxer.

Campbell was a smart and able lawmaker with a liberal social platform, who did not have doctrinaire opposition to tax increases. Fiorina, however, embraced pro-life positions and her campaign ridiculed Campbell for refusing to sign a pledge promising not to raise taxes. Fiorina’s campaign also torpedoed Campbell with a whisper campaign about his support for Israel and became known for the most bizarre election video so far this cycle: the demon sheep.

Cornyn said he was “confident that this Senate seat is a prime pick-up opportunity for Republicans in November.”

“Numerous statewide polls have also shown that Carly Fiorina is within striking distance of Barbara Boxer, and I expect that momentum will continue to increase as Carly becomes even more well-known to the electorate,” the Texas Republican senator said.

Cornyn’s criticism of Boxer was similar to the critique of Lincoln, only Boxer has a much longer record of supporting tax and spending increases.

“She has taxed and spent Californians’ hard-earned dollars and idly watched as the Golden State went from a bustling and thriving destination to the state’s current economic disaster,” Cornyn said.

But Democrats went hard after Fiorina for catering to the conservative base and for her record at HP.

“Carly Fiorina has spent the past year defining herself as a right-wing extremist,” said Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “She is against a woman’s right to choose, supports the Arizona immigration law, wants to repeal health care, and supports allowing people on the ‘no-fly’ list to buy guns.”

Menendez also attacked Fiorina for a “record of failure” at HP.

“She nearly drove Hewlett-Packard into the ground, laying-off 32,000 workers and outsourcing many jobs, but still collected a $42 million golden parachute,” he said.

The Boxer campaign announced a new website, FiorinaFacts.com, that has a color graphic showing expensive purchases made by Fiorina during her time as HP CEO contrasted with the company’s falling fortunes during her time there.

The Fiorina campaign has countered attacks on her HP tenure from Campbell with a one-page memo framing her time there as one in which she “made the tough decisions necessary to shake up a stagnating organization” and position it for success.

Fiorina also went on the attack against Boxer in her acceptance speech.

“In her 28 years of being a career politician in Washington, D.C., Barbara Boxer has been a bitter partisan who has said much but accomplished little. She may get an “A” for politics but she gets an “F” for achievement,” Fiorina said.

Members of congress demand criminal probe

“This is punishable by prison. This is a felony.” – Rep. Darrell Issa

Joe Sestak

29 May 2010: Due to the recent equivocations from the Obama White House and the apparent unwillingness by the mainstream media to investigate this matter, the majority of Americans are unaware of the seriousness of the Obama administration’s alleged actions involving Joseph Sestak.  If proven, the reported actions of the Obama administration are clear violations of three federal laws[i]. The impact and fallout from documented violations, as well as the refusal of the Holder Justice Department to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate this matter, have the potential to eclipse the Watergate scandal of the early 1970’s – it is that serious.

The crime

In an attempt to retain as much political control over Congress during the 2010 midterm elections, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel dispatched William Clinton and lawyer Doug Band to meet with senatorial candidate Joseph Sestak who was running against Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. In exchange for dropping out of the race, Sestak was offered a position with the administration. It was reasoned that should Sestak accept, Specter would be unopposed in the primary and have a much better chance of retaining his senatorial seat. The meetings reportedly took place in June and July of last year.

Based on open source reports stemming back to February, it is apparent that Sestak had no idea that such overtures are illegal as he readily admitted the meeting and job offer in a February 18, 2010 interview with Philadelphia TV newscaster Larry Kane (documented here).

The overture made to Joseph Sestak is not the first time the Obama administration attempted to alter this year’s Senate races by promising employment to opponents posing serious challenges to Obama allies. It is, however, garnering the most attention. The first known incident involves Andrew Romanoff, a Democratic challenger from Colorado running against Senator Michael Bennet. The Obama administration offered Romanoff a position in the administration if he canceled plans to run for the Democratic nomination against incumbent Senator Bennet as detailed in this Denver Post article dated September 27, 2009. As in all cases involving possible criminal activity, such documented multiple instances show a continuing course of conduct and intent.

The cover-up

Recalling the days of Watergate, it is important to understand that it was obstruction of justice charges that ultimately brought down the Nixon administration. Obstruction of justice can take on different forms, including but not limited to obfuscations, equivocations, denials, as well as lack of cooperation with investigative bodies. So far, the White House has failed to cooperate or provide any specific answers to questions posed by lawmakers. The Holder Justice Department has also declined to investigate.

The Timeline

June/July 2009: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel dispatched William Clinton and lawyer Doug Band to meet with senatorial candidate Joseph Sestak who was running against Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. In exchange for dropping out of the race, Sestak was offered a position with the administration. It was reasoned that should Sestak accept, Specter would be unopposed in the primary and have a much better chance of retaining his senatorial seat.

February 18, 2010: Sestak interviewed by Philadelphia, PA TV newscaster Larry Kane, admits job offer by White House in exchange for dropping out of Senate race.

March 10, 2010: Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee sends letter to White House Counsel Robert Bauer to inquire about the details of the Sestak matter. Specific questions included:  (1) who on the White House staff communicated with Sestak about the 2010 race for the Senate; (2) what position, if any, was offered in exchange for the commitment to not run; (3) what, if any investigation did your office undertake to determine whether the criminal activity described by Rep. Sestak occurred?; and (4) Do you expect to make a referral to the United States Department of Justice in this matter? Rep. Issa issued a March 18, 2010 deadline for a reply.

March 16, 2010: Under pressure from reporters, White House Press Secretary issues the following statement during a press conference: “I’ve talked to several people in the White House. I’ve talked to people who have talked to others in the White House.”  I’m told that whatever conversations have been had, are not problematic. I think Congressman Sestak has discussed that this is – whatever happened is in the past and he is focused on this primary.”

March 18, 2010: No response from the White House counsel.

March 22, 2010: Second request sent, with advisory that that if no satisfactory answers from the White House were forthcoming, Rep. Issa would ask Holder to appoint a special prosecutor; Bauer was also asked for more information about who Gibbs spoke with in the White House about this matter. A deadline set for April 5, 2010

April 5, 2010: No response from White House. It was during a press conference that CNS News asked Gibbs if the White House would support a special prosecutor investigating the issue, citing the deadline of April 5.  Gibbs did not answer the question, instead referred to his March 16, 2010 comment.

May 18, 2010: Pennsylvania primary; Specter defeated.

May 26, 2010: Seven republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee requested the Holder Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to probe the allegations (Letter – PDF format).

May 28, 2010: Letter from 14 Congressmen to FBI Director Robert Mueller requesting FBI probe of criminal conduct. Official White House memo released.

[i] 18 U.S.C. § 600: Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

18 U.S.C. § 211: Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Whoever solicits or receives anything of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States.

18 U.S.C. § 595: Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Incoming search terms:

• affair billboard congressman writer

I cannot think of any other subject in recent American history that has been so mired in controversy, so factually misrepresented, mischaracterized and so misunderstood than the matter of the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to hold the office of President of the United States. Despite its importance, the topic has been summarily dismissed as fodder for conspiracy theorists by many, while others insist that the question of OBAMA’s citizenship has been “asked and answered.” But has it really been answered, and if not, why not?

In consideration of the controversy that continues to plague Barack Hussein OBAMA over his citizenship status and his well documented sustained pattern of refusal to provide authenticated documentation of his birth records and numerous other pertinent records, I’ve conducted an in-depth investigation into the matter in an effort to separate fact from fiction, myth from reality. My approach was the same I’ve used as an investigator over the last 25 years on behalf of Fortune 100 companies in their selection of corporate executives, conducting due diligence background investigations. In this case, however, I was not afforded direct and unfettered access to the “applicant’s”, or in this case, OBAMA’s original records. Nonetheless, I conducted inquiries and a lengthy investigation researching the information directly or indirectly disclosed by OBAMA, as well as collections of documents, court records, official federal and state documents, verbal statements, utterances and other documents determined to be of authentic provenance.

At issue is whether Barack Hussein OBAMA or any of his representatives have furnished sufficient documentation to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that states:

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

Presently, OBAMA occupies the White House as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America. As president, he is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces and ultimately responsible for the security of the United States. Any person of reasonable sensibilities would logically believe that his eligibility status has long been established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) or those in positions of oversight for such matters. But has it?

In order to be as comprehensive as possible, my investigative findings include important background information into the legal definition of a “natural born citizen” as applicable to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. This background information is provided to clear up many common misconceptions about the eligibility controversy, and to explain why so many people are confused and easily mislead over this issue. After thoroughly investigating this matter, I have found demonstrable evidence that this confusion is a deliberate and highly effective tactic used to divert attention from a constitutional issue and thus, the rule of law, to the detriment of American citizens.

This report will also provide insight into the reasons for the largely ignored yet unprecedented legal fight by Barack Hussein OBAMA II, his representatives and assigns, against any release of the authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate and a multitude of other relevant historical documents.

Natural Born Citizen Qualification: The Facts

Based on extensive research, there are two separate but equally relevant legal issues that involve the specific eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to legally serve as President of the United States. First is the U.S. Constitution which was adopted into law on 17 September 1787. As noted by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless that person is a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

The second issue is the precise definition of a “natural born citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted on 9 July 1868, furnishes a rather broad definition of who qualifies as a “natural born citizen.” Specifically, who qualifies as a natural born citizen legally qualified to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution lies at the core of the eligibility argument. For the sake of clarity in advance of potential ancillary arguments, it is noted here that the Twelfth-Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates that Vice-Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents.

Obviously, there is no legitimate controversy over the eligibility status of Barack Hussein OBAMA in terms of his age and length of residency within the U.S. Despite popular belief by many to the contrary, there is, however, an unresolved issue over his status as “a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States.”

While many constitutional scholars hold different beliefs over the intent of the natural born citizen qualifier, I submit that an extraordinarily prescient illustration of logic behind this qualification can be found in a brief letter from John JAY, a founding father of the United States and the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to George WASHINGTON dated 25 July 1787:

——————————————————

Dear Sir,

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

I remain, dear sir,

Your faithful friend and servant,

John Jay.

——————————————————

A study of the Federalist Papers and the writings of our founding fathers clearly indicate a concern for the security of the United States stemming from “threats from within,” or to prevent foreign enemies from becoming commander-in-chief. Given the nature and various enemies we currently face, the brief but ominous note to George WASHINGTON would certainly appear as relevant today, if not more so,  as it was over 200 years ago.

Three years after that note was written, Congress affirmed in 1790 that a person born abroad whose parents are both citizens of the U.S. is, in fact, a U.S. citizen. In the years that followed, there have been many legal arguments to further define a natural born citizen. Based on extensive research, it would appear that the “next best” definition originates from an 1874 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if an individual is born in the United States and both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, that individual is, in fact, a natural born citizen. That same Supreme Court decision also addressed the issue of a person born in the United States where one of the parents is not a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth of the child. The ruling noted that in such a case, the child’s natural born citizenship status is “in doubt.”

In any event, subsequent rulings by Congress and enacted by federal statute affirm that children born abroad by parents who are both U.S. citizens are not only U.S. citizens themselves, but are recognized as “natural born citizens.” On the other hand, individuals born in the United States or elsewhere by one or more parents who are not U.S. citizens are not likely to be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States absent of federal statute affirming their eligibility. Therein lays the current situation of Barack Hussein OBAMA II and the need to establish his citizenship status through authenticated documents.

Presidential eligibility; historical & current oddities

Since the U.S. Constitution was adopted into law, every elected U.S. president who was born after 1787 was born in the United States of parents who were both U.S. citizens except two: Chester Alan ARTHUR and Barack Hussein OBAMA II. It is interesting to note that when Chester Alan ARTHUR was born, his father, William ARTHUR was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen. There is ample authenticated historical evidence to substantiate that ARTHUR deliberately and publicly misrepresented his family lineage during his campaign and following his election in 1880 as the 21st President, took steps to destroy evidence, including family and birth records.

Barack Hussein OBAMA II has publicly admitted that his father was a Kenyan native and a British citizen who never became a U.S. citizen. Based on that admission and further verification of his father’s nationality, OBAMA’s status as a natural born citizen and thus, his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States is questionable at best, at least according to the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of Minor v. Happersett. This issue becomes more prescient and ominously nefarious when one investigates the overt and covert behavior of OBAMA as a candidate, his actions following his election, the duplicity of the media, members of the U.S. Congress, the Federal Elections Commission and other factors by those who appear to be working individually or in concert to purposely misdirect the core Constitutional argument.

It is obvious that not all presidential candidates are treated equally in terms of their eligibility, as illustrated during the 2008 election. During the 2008 campaign, a lawsuit was filed petitioning the removal of Presidential candidate John McCAIN from the ballot. Ironically, the suit stemmed from the questions over McCAIN’s constitutional eligibility as his natural-born status was in doubt.  To put to rest any doubt, McCAIN responded by providing an authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and Congress. Despite the early rumblings of controversy over OBAMA’s origins, OBAMA did not.

Although McCain provided his long form birth certificate and took proactive measures to ensure his eligibility to hold office, many political and media pundits remained unsatisfied. Before the term “birther” became synonymous with racist conspiracy theorist, an article published on 28 February, 2008 in The New York Times titled McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out questioned McCAIN’s eligibility.

On that same day, Senator Claire McCASKILL, a Missouri democrat introduced a bill titled Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. Oddly, the bill was co-sponsored by both Senators Barack Hussein OBAMA II and Hillary Rodham CLINTON, both who were running against McCAIN at the time the bill was introduced. Despite the specificity of its title, the bill (SB 2678) was an attempt to change the legal definition of a natural born citizen as referenced by Article II, Section I, clause V of the U.S. Constitution, a move that by default, would arguably and preemptively take away any constitutional challenges against the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.

Although the bill failed to progress in the Senate, the same lawmakers introduced a non-binding resolution (Senate Resolution 511) on 10 April 2008 to again ostensibly recognize McCAIN as a “natural born citizen,” the resolution contained broad language that could be applied to OBAMA.

The controversy surrounding the eligibility of John McCAIN to hold office continued, at least in the media. On 11 July 2008, an article was published in The New York Times under the title A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue. The article cited a law professor from the University of Arizona who concluded, in a detailed analysis “that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”  The law professor cited in that article, Gabriel J. Chin, published a sixty-two page discussion paper in August 2008 titled Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship (Arizona Legal Studies, Discussion Paper 08-14).

The status of Barack Hussein OBAMA, however, remained unquestioned by the majority of academia.

Arguments over importance & relevance: “Birthers” are born

Like the layers of an onion, one must peel back the layers of hyperbole, political agendas, accusations of racism, and other types of detractions and distractions to arrive at the very core of the argument, which is simply this: Is Barack Hussein OBAMA in fact legally eligible, under the United States Constitution, to serve as President of the United States?

There are many who claim that the issue of Obama’s eligibility is unimportant and irrelevant, or an unnecessary distraction to the “real” crises facing America, including but not limited to OBAMA’s policies and actions as President. It is an interesting dichotomy that some of the most vocal proponents of the first amendment are the same who appear to disregard the fourteenth amendment, a practice especially virulent among those in the media. There are also those self-proclaimed conservative media pundits who have the collective audience of millions of Americans who flatly refuse to discuss, let alone demand answers to a legitimate legal question as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

Others claim the argument is moot, as the President was duly elected by the will of the people. Those people are in need of a history lesson as that argument is technically flawed at the most fundamental level.  Others assert that questioning the eligibility issue is rooted in racism and bigotry, at which point the rule of law is ultimately lost in a flurry of deliberate distractions presented in the form of incendiary accusations.

Perhaps the most calculated and methodical approach in use today to dissuade people from addressing this issue is the labeling of anyone who believes that American citizens deserve to know whether Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements as a “birther.” The negative connotations of this label are vast and incisive, and the evolution of this term has grown to include ancillary questions of OBAMA’s past.

The popular but erroneous perception is that “birthers,” often lumped together with “9/11 truthers” and others who have legitimate questions and concerns about important issues either live in a world where conspiracies dominate their thoughts, or are simply branded as kooks seeking answers to non-existent questions. The fact is that there are indeed legitimate unanswered questions about the events of 9/11 as there are legitimate unanswered questions about the background and overall eligibility of OBAMA. Individuals asking rational, fact based questions about either subject are intentionally combined with others whose questions are obviously well beyond the realm of reason.

In particular, it is not only the absence of authenticated evidence regarding OBAMA’s citizenship status at birth that cause rational people to question his eligibility status under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, but the manner in which OBAMA and those in positions of government oversight have responded to legitimate inquiries. It is also how some members of the media have chosen to report on this issue, misreport or otherwise distort the issue, or not report on it at all.

Whatever arguments are used to understate or even mock the importance of this matter, it cannot be denied that the rule of law is being ignored and as a result, the Constitution of the United States is being trampled. If the fourteenth amendment is permitted to be exploited, ignored or violated, it might not be long before other amendments, along with the entire Constitution, become nothing more than a footnote in American history. As such, questions surrounding this matter must be taken seriously.

The Obama eligibility issue: has it already been answered?

No. It has been a common tactic to refute questions about OBAMA’s eligibility by citing the Internet publication of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB), also known as a “short form birth certificate” purportedly issued by the state of Hawaii. The controversial document was originally posted on the Internet at http://www.dailykos.com, a political website on or about 12 June 2008 as questions about OBAMA’s place of birth and eligibility status began to become a popular Internet topic. As there was no certification of authenticity that accompanied the alleged document, its provenance could not be established.

Subsequent to the document being posted on the aforementioned website, the “Fight the Smears” website reproduced the document here.  While many believe “Fight the Smears” website is an independent organization dedicated to separating fact from fiction, it is actually owned and operated by “Organizing for America,” the successor organization to “Obama for America.” Clearly, it is far from independent.

Yet another website purported to be an independent arbiter of truth is “FactCheck.org,” which claims that the eligibility status of OBAMA has long been satisfied. Like the previous site, it is important to understand who owns or operates the site in order to assess the reliability of the site. The Fact Check website is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. It receives its primary funding from the Annenberg Foundation. It is relevant to note that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was a founding member, chairman, and past president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Accordingly, it is reasonable to challenge the neutrality of the information provided by that site.

Since then, the image, including variations of the image, have appeared on the Internet to “prove” that Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.

Since its original posting, numerous individuals and websites have sought to disprove the authenticity of the document, which was posted as an image in JPEG format, through analysis of the image or by other means (e.g. sequencing of certificate numbers, absence of state seal, etc.).  Although there appears to be sufficient evidence suggesting the document is not a valid certificate and has been falsely created or the image has been deliberately altered, limiting discussion at this time to the merits of the COLB detracts from a much larger issue: OBAMA’s massive and unprecedented campaign to keep sealed his actual birth certificate (and other relevant records) from public view.

This is not to say that the publication of the COLB document is unimportant. In fact, quite the opposite is true if the matter of legal eligibility is ever properly and thoroughly investigated by a legitimate court of inquiry within the United States. As agents, representatives or the assigns of Barack Hussein OBAMA have publicly asserted that the question of eligibility has been officially answered by the publication of the COLB as listed on officially sanctioned web sites, and it is ultimately proven that the document is deliberately deceptive by any means, an inquiry into violations of the United States Crimes Code, 18 USC Section 1028 encompassing fraud and other related activity involving identification documents might apply.

Since the initial COLB was first published in June 2008, there have been at least two additional incarnations of the document, each containing revisions that bear additional information allegedly “supporting” its authenticity. Accordingly, the Certification of Live Birth is consistently cited by individuals, the media and others to prove the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA.  Nonetheless, even an authenticated and genuine Certification of Live Birth is legally insufficient for the purpose of proving eligibility, as it merely represents that OBAMA’s birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. It falls short of providing the information necessary to determine constitutional eligibility in at least two areas: it does not offer any information regarding who supplied the information, nor does it confirm the authenticity of the information provided. Again, it merely indicates that the information is “on file.”

Hawaii officials declare Obama eligible

Yet another deception levied against the American people is the assertion that the Hawaiian officials have confirmed Barack Hussein OBAMA’s “eligibility” through a statement issued on 27 July 2009 by Dr. Chiyome FUKINO, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a “natural-born American citizen.” Those who claim that the 2009 press release by Dr. FUKINO must understand that FUKINO has absolutely no statutory authority to make such a statement. Accordingly and based on the rule of law, that statement cannot be considered as evidence or legal documentation either to support or deny OBAMA’s eligibility status.

Hawaii birth announcements: anecdotal evidence of eligibility

Many who argue that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was born in Hawaii not only point to the COLB as direct evidence of eligibility, but they also point to two separate birth announcements that appear in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin in 1961. Those doing so either fail to understand the legal definition of a natural born citizen as it applies to the eligibility factor, or are guilty of intentionally misdirecting the core issue. A birth announcement is simply that – a public announcement that a baby was born. The birth announcements do not provide any information about the child’s citizenship, cannot be authenticated, and hold no weight of evidence to support either side of the eligibility argument.

In the first part of this investigative report, background was provided to identify the core legal and constitutional arguments in the matter of Barack Hussein OBAMA II’s eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States. Using my investigative experience, I performed this investigation in compliance with the same “industry standards” that apply to performing background investigations of individuals selected for corporate positions by Fortune 100 companies.

As noted in my initial report, the primary intent of this investigation has been to establish whether Barack Hussein OBAMA has indeed furnished the necessary proof to confirm his eligibility to assume the position of the President of the United States, and whether that proof has been properly authenticated. In other words, this investigation sought to determine whether there are any legitimate questions or concerns over the eligibility issue, or whether the matter has been sufficiently resolved. Or to put it yet another way, is there a legitimate reason to mock, belittle, marginalize, or otherwise consider the so-called “Birthers” as kooks living on the fringe of conspiracy?

Despite assertions by politicians, media pundits and others, this issue is far from having been resolved. Investigation found that those who will not discuss this issue or mock the questions and those asking the questions either do not fully understand the issue, or have agendas that conflict with the truth being disclosed. This part of the investigation will provide detailed information outlining how that conclusion has been reached, and will offer additional information of relevance pertaining to the narrow scope of the issue of eligibility itself. Additional investigative results in the form of supplemental reports will address the methods being presently employed – and identify those who are employing them – to keep the truth from being made known to the American people.

It is the conclusion of this investigator that Barack Hussein OBAMA II has not only failed to provide proof of eligibility, but has and continues to fight efforts to release the proof necessary to confirm that he is legally eligible to occupy his current position as the president of the United States.

To be clear, it is important to understand that there is a vast and significant difference between the meaning of the words evidence and proof, although most people use the terms synonymously. While Black’s Law Dictionary offers the legal definition of both terms, they can be easily summarized for the purpose of this investigation as follows: Evidence is something that offers the basis for belief or disbelief, or knowledge on which to base belief, while proof is the establishment of facts by evidence.

Clearly, the United States Constitution requires the higher standard of proof and not merely evidence of eligibility to hold the office of President. Contrary to the assertions of representatives speaking on behalf of OBAMA, media accounts and numerous reports on various Internet sites, OBAMA has provided absolutely no proof that he meets the eligibility requirements as of the date of this investigation.

Before proceeding, it’s important to understand that the distinction between evidence of proof is neither petty nor is it “mere semantics,” as the legal definitions between evidence and proof are exceptionally clear, especially in a court of law and especially when considering someone to assume the highest position in U.S. government. In fact, it is this distinction that is being methodically exploited to misrepresent the facts of this case, and to pejoratively label anyone who continues to demand proof as a “birther.”

“Certification of Live Birth” as proof

Clearly, the image of the Certification of Live Birth is a large part of the eligibility question. Much debate and discussion has taken place over the image’s authenticity and provenance. As noted, that document first appeared in JPEG image format on or about 12 July 2008 on the political website DailyKos, and was subsequently published on the OBAMA-backed website “Fight the Smears” and also on www.FactCheck.org.

Controversy became rampant as numerous analyses of the image at each site suggested that in certain cases, alterations to the image were made. The controversy became exacerbated by the obvious revisions made to that image that appeared on various web sites to such an extent that the accusations distracted from the most basic of issues: The Certification of Live Birth, even if authenticated, is not legally sufficient to be considered proof of citizenship and therefore, is legally insufficient to be prove the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II. Accordingly, the “long form,” or “vault copy” of the actual birth certificate needs to be released for the legal burden of proof to be satisfied.

The release of the authenticated “long form” of OBAMA’s birth certificate will identify the parents, the exact location of birth, as well as the source of the information provided on that form. By virtue of the legal definition and standards of proof, it is the only document suitable to meet the legal definition of proof, and the only document that will contain all of the necessary information to prove or disprove his eligibility to hold office.

While investigation of possible alterations of the JPEG of the COLB posted and presented as “genuine” on a site sanctioned by OBAMA or those representing him could become relevant in a separate criminal investigation, the topic is subordinate to and detracts from the primary issue of OBAMA’s eligibility. Analysis of the JPEG image purported to be that of OBAMA’s Certification of Live Birth is beyond the scope of this investigation, especially since the document itself (and not a JPEG image of the document) has not been made accessible for review. Nonetheless, allegations of alteration must be properly investigated as any evidence of alterations with the intent to deceive, done by an individual or group acting in an official capacity, can be used to illustrate a course of conduct that might later prove useful in the venue of a criminal investigation.

The authenticity of the Certification of Live Birth notwithstanding, it is the conclusion of this investigator that OBAMA has not only failed to produce the appropriate form necessary to prove eligibility (the vault copy or long form birth certificate), but has gone to significant lengths to keep that form from being released.

Investigation into this area has produced sufficient evidence to indicate that representatives of Barack Hussein OBAMA II, either at his direction or with his knowledge and consent, posted or caused to be posted the Certification of Live Birth at the Fight the Smears website, claiming the document is incontrovertible proof of his citizenship status and thus, his eligibility to hold the office of President. At that site, the Certification of Live Birth is improperly labeled and presented to the visitors as “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.” It is, in fact and reality, no such document.

When one considers the text above the image as shown above, it is reasonable to question the intent of the site operators with regard to improperly representing that the document is something it is not, and to allege that those “claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.” It would appear that the actual manipulation is not originating from anyone asking reasonable, fact-based questions, but by those who deceitfully represent that the image of the COLB is an actual birth certificate.

Arguments used to deflect the truth

To be sure, there are numerous individuals and groups who claim that the presentation of the Certification of Live Birth is sufficient to prove Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. In January 2009, Janice OKUBO, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health, stated that the COLB provides sufficient information to answer all of the questions surrounding OBAMA’s eligibility. To illustrate her assertion, she noted that the COLB lists OBAMA’s location of birth as Honolulu, Hawaii:

“If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.”

As noted in the previous section of this report, it is important to understand that the COLB does not provide the critical information pertaining to OBAMA’s parents, the exact location of birth, or the source of information provided. Only one document (of current relevance) will provide that information: an authenticated copy of the long form or vault copy of the birth certificate of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.

In an article titled “Born in the U.S.A originally published on 21 August 2008 and updated on 1 November 2008, FactCheck.org also attempted to quell further questions of OBAMA’s eligibility by commenting on the Certification of Live Birth:

“FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.”

This assertion is a bit more misleading, as the author refers to the Certification of Live Birth as a “birth certificate.” In other words, the “staffers” examined the COLB, not the long form or vault copy of the birth certificate of Barack Hussein OBAMA II. The affirmation that the COLB is genuine notwithstanding, only one document (of current relevance) will provide that information: an authenticated copy of the long form or vault copy of the birth certificate of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.

In summary, arguments over the authenticity of the COLB are nothing more than a distraction from the primary issue: the Certification of Live Birth, even if authenticated, is not legally sufficient to be considered proof of citizenship and therefore, is legally insufficient to be prove the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II. Accordingly, the “long form,” or “vault copy” of the actual birth certificate needs to be released for the legal burden of proof to be satisfied. And THAT is the document that Barack Hussein OBAMA II continues to fight against being released.

Nomination without proof

It is reasonable to ask how any individual could successfully secure the nomination of their respective party if they did not furnish the necessary proof of eligibility as required by the U.S. Constitution. This question is especially relevant considering the intense examination of Senator John McCAIN as candidate for the Republican Party. A follow-up and equally reasonable question is who would allow such an event to occur absent of such proof, and who would have had to known about the potential controversy in advance?  A prevailing yet erroneous theory is that for one to believe that Barack Hussein OBAMA II is not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, there must be a massive conspiracy that involves numerous individuals and multiple levels of government.

Although one would reasonably suspect that there had to have been a large number of “co-conspirators” involved in such an act, the opposite is actually true.

An investigation into this issue found that only the chairperson of each party (the party’s national convention that nominates the candidate) has to sign an “Official Certification of Nomination,” which is the recognized legal instrument that affirms that the party’s candidate meets all of the eligibility requirements to hold the office of President. In the case of Barack Hussein OBAMA II, that responsibility fell with Ms. Nancy PELOSI. It is a surprisingly simple process that is completed following the official nomination of the candidate for office, and is usually filed immediately after the close of the party’s convention.

In the case of Barack Hussein OBAMA, PELOSI signed the affirmation of eligibility in her capacity as Chair of the Democratic National Convention along with Alice GERMOND, the Secretary of the Democratic National Convention. Her signature, affixed and notarized to this legal instrument, was viewed as “sufficient documentation” by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) “that both OBAMA and BIDEN were duly nominated and met the Constitutional eligibility requirements,” according to an official interviewed by this investigator at the FEC in Washington, DC. According to this FEC official, “no further verification was required or performed at any level [within the FEC].”

Unsurprisingly, repeated attempts by this investigator to secure information from Ms. PELOSI’s Washington, DC office for information about the eligibility and background verification process were not answered as of the date of this report. Meanwhile, one Washington insider with ties to the FEC told this investigator that the process of filing the Official Certification of Nomination is “easier than getting a DC driver’s license. No one asks any questions and the process is nothing more than a mere formality,” stated this source.

Oddities surrounding the “Official Certification of Nomination” affidavits

One very suspicious circumstance verified during the course of this investigation involves the production and filing of the “Official Certification of Nomination” forms. Numerous web sites and open sources have furnished two images of the same affidavit as best illustrated at the web site operated by Reverend James David MANNING (at this link). Under the heading of “Exhibit 6” at this location are two nomination documents, each with different wording as to the certification of the candidates.

This investigator took steps to verify the authenticity of the original documents and not the Internet copies. Using a federal index system of certified election documents, the authenticity of both documents was established and it was verified that both exist on file. Additionally, this investigator and Judi McLeod, founder and editor of Canada Free Press, interviewed Reverend MANNING in February 2010 about this and other matters, in a further attempt to secure bona fide documentation about OBAMA’s background and the authentication of documents. Reverend MANNING noted the discrepancies in the wording, and has since conducted his own inquiries of these documents.

Interestingly, the wording within the certifications is significantly different; one contains the Constitutional certification clause within the body of the document, while the other does not. The different wording of these two separate documents is detailed as follows:

Document “with” Constitutional certification clause:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

Document “without” Constitutional certification clause:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively.”

During the course of this investigation, attempts were made by this investigator to have the differences between documents explained by various government officials within the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Despite numerous attempts, no explanations were obtained. The absence of the “constitutionality clause” remains of significant concern to this investigator and is an area that requires further exploration.

This discrepancy was also addressed in an article written by Canada Free Press columnist JB Williams on 24 April 2010. In that article, Mr. Williams accurately described the difference in documents:

“Note that the language which certifies that Barack Hussein Obama meets all constitutional qualifications is missing in the DNC documents filed in 49 of the 50 states. The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president was filed only in Hawaii. That text is missing in the DNC certification filings for all other states.”

“Whereas the RNC filed the exact same certification document, including the constitutional text for John McCain in all 50 states, Obama was technically certified in only one state, Hawaii.”

Prior knowledge of eligibility problems

That the process of filing the “Official Certification of Nomination” is indeed a simple one and rests on the sworn statements of two individuals, it is not intended to mean that others did not possess prior knowledge of OBAMA’s failure to provide sufficient proof of eligibility. In fact, as early as 2005, some individuals presently serving in his administration appear to have known that the eligibility issue relative to his citizenship might become a future problem.

A twenty-six page article written by Sarah P. HERLIHY was published in the Chicago-Kent Law Review, Volume 81:275 titled “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle.” The date of publication is 22 February 2006, although the article appears to have been written by HERLIHY in late 2005. As the title implies, the author argues that Article II of the U.S. Constitution inhibits “globalization” of the U.S.  She further opines that the provision is discriminatory, outdated, and undemocratic. On page fifteen of her article, HERLIHY references several hypothetical arguments that bear an eerie likeness to the not-so hypothetical implementation of policies we are witnessing under the OBAMA administration.

The “HERLIHY BRIEF,” as I have labeled it, is interesting on several levels, but relevant on one level in particular: HERLIHY was employed as an associate by Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, a Chicago, Illinois based law firm with offices worldwide. Further investigation found that a senior partner of that same firm, Bruce I. ETTELSON, was a former member on the finance committee of Barack Hussein OBAMA II when he was a Senator in Illinois. Could this be a mere coincidence, or perhaps an attempt to break psychological barriers while grooming a future President?

That, combined with legislative efforts during the 2008 campaign involving McCAIN’s eligibility (as documented in Part I of this report), appear to suggest a broader level of knowledge among individuals that the issue of eligibility as it relates to the U.S. Constitution, might present a future problem.

A mission gone wrong?

John O. BRENNAN is currently the assistant to President OBAMA and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Until he began working for OBAMA, BRENNAN was the CEO of a firm called the Analysis Corporation, a government subcontractor whose work involved providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies. In 2008, a contract employee of BRENNAN’s firm was caught inappropriately accessing certain passport files in the State Department’s passport office. BRENNAN’s firm was “cited” in March, 2008 for breaching sensitive files, including the passport files of Hillary Rodham CLINTON, John McCAIN and Barack Hussein OBAMA.

On 21 March 2008, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack confirmed that the contractor from BRENNAN’s company had accessed the passport files of the presidential candidates that included OBAMA. It is significant to note that the passport files include a virtual treasure trove of personal information, including an applicant’s name, social security number, date and place of birth. The files would likely contain additional information including original or authenticated copies of birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.

It should be noted that at the time of the incident, BRENNAN was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign and was said to have virtually unfettered access to the candidate. BRENNAN, of course, denounced the actions of the employee.

The nature of the “breach,” according to intelligence sources close to this investigator, confirmed that the target of the unlawful access was the file containing documents related to Barack Hussein OBAMA (a fact that was originally reported in an article written by Ken Timmerman for NewsMax.com). This is significant, of course, as OBAMA has not permitted the release of his passport records or the documentation contained in that file.

It is important to note that this was not the first breach, nor the only one. At least two other incidents that resulted in the termination or other disciplinary action took place in the several months around this same time period. This breach, however, was different, and the difference between this incident and the others must not be dismissed as it is directly related to the potential disclosure of personal information of Barack Hussein OBAMA II, including his original, “long form” birth certificate. This incident involved more than a curious subcontractor worker; it involved other co-conspirators, including an unidentified contact within the U.S. State Department itself.

Research into the three separate incidents was performed, noting that two of those incidents were somewhat limited in terms of what was accessed. The breach that involved HARRIS, however, as often happens with “the use of unmanageable criminal assets,” went dangerously awry.

Following this incident, federal investigators identified a cooperative witness with direct information about the breach of the passport records – allegedly by accident. That individual, identified as Leiutenant Harris Junior, 24, was stopped for a minor traffic infraction on 25 March 2008, and was found to be in possession of stolen credit cards and documents that were traced back to the breach of the passport records. (Copy of arrest record here in PDF format) HARRIS, known to DC police, began working with federal authorities to strike a deal as they expanded their investigation into the passport incident. According to a review of the arrest record, HARRIS admitted to investigating officers that he obtained the documents from (an unnamed) co-conspirator “who works for the U.S. Department of State” [emphasis added by this author].

Less than a month later, HARRIS was found with a single bullet wound to his head on Thursday, 17 April 2008, inside of his car that was parked in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Washington, DC. HARRIS was described as “an important witness in the breach of the passport records.” While his death was attributed to an increase in violence in the city, at least one detective interviewed by this investigator is not too sure. “It’s an awfully big coincidence, and you know how I feel about coincidences,” stated this homicide detective. “I’ve considered that it was someone tying up loose ends,” he added. The murder of HARRIS remains unsolved.

Legal stonewalls

From an investigative perspective, the reluctance of Barack Hussein OBAMA to release an authenticated copy of his actual long form birth certificate is as revealing as it is troubling. The exact number of lawsuits filed within the last two years to legally compel Barack Hussein OBAMA to release a copy of his authenticated, long form birth certificate is unknown. According to Canada Free Press columnist JB Williams in an article he wrote on 24 April 2010 discloses that OBAMA has spent “in excess of $2 million in legal fees” [to prevent the release of that document]. Mr. Williams stated “nobody spends $2 million in legal fees to hide an authentic birth certificate. At least no one who is not hell bent on hiding information of significance.”

Mr. Williams also notes that “[I]n every instance, the lawsuits were dismissed prior to discovery, or the legal process that in these cases, permit the petitioning party to review evidence relevant to the lawsuit.”

From an investigative perspective, the most obvious and nagging question is why Barack Hussein OBAMA II has refused and continues to refuse to authorize the release of that document for review. Consistent with the background investigations I have conducted on behalf of Fortune 500 and 100 companies, such a refusal would be sufficient cause to automatically dismiss the individual seeking the high-level executive position from such consideration. By comparison to the 150 or so investigations of this type I have performed over the last 25 years, I have yet to find anyone under consideration for such a position to refuse this most routine and basic request. Moreover, I have never experienced anyone who has not only refused to do so, but spent extraordinary sums of money in legal fees to fight against such disclosure.

The authenticated long form birth certificate is not the only document of interest that OBAMA refused to provide, but it is the most salient and direct method of furnishing proof to answer the eligibility issue once and for all.

Barack Hussein OBAMA II promised transparency to the American people during his campaign and if elected, during his time in office of President. Yet, that promise of transparency has been replaced with walls of lawyers and an administration of individuals who have mounted an unprecedented campaign of opacity. In addition to his actual birth certificate, OBAMA has refused to release the following records that would provide insight into the individual currently occupying the highest office in the United States:

• Official U.S. passport records
• Medical records
• Occidental College records & transcripts
• Columbia College records & transcripts
• Harvard College records
• State of Illinois Bar Records
• Private practice law client list

Each of the above records would be considered relevant to his position as President, and most previous presidents have themselves authorized the release of such information for public review. Requesting the release of the above records is certainly reasonable, and is consistent with the requests of previous administrations.

Of course, cursory research of various web sites will provide lists of other documents undisclosed by OBAMA, including but not limited to his natural parent’s marriage license, records from overseas primary schools, and even his Baptismal certificate, if one even exists. Also included by some sites are his adoption records, various grade school and high school transcripts, and published articles that he would have authored while enrolled in college. While the release of such records would indeed prove enlightening, they are not necessarily intrinsic to the issue of his Constitutional eligibility.

The production of a single document could put this entire controversy to rest: the long form birth certificate. As noted in this investigative segment, it is that single document that OBAMA has not only refused to release or authorize to be released, but has spent an estimated $2 million to keep under wraps.

Incoming search terms:

• $3 million legal fees obama passport

Imagine that you are a salt-of-the-earth Iowan clinging to his guns and religion. You love, revere, and worship the only true, living God and try as best as you can to obey His commandments. You believe that America has been given a providential place in human history. You believe that your rights come from God, not the government, and are guaranteed by our Constitution. And you believe the Constitution is intended to limit the power of the government, not the freedom and liberty of the people.

Imagine that’s who you are. Imagine that to you this isn’t a battle of right versus left, it’s a battle of right versus wrong.

Then imagine as you watch everything you believe and hold dear in your heart taken away from you, and most of the time by unconstitutional judges that you did not elect. Instead of a government by the consent of the governed, imagine you are now living in an oligarchy with power not in the hands of the people but instead in the hands of a scant few judges you can’t directly hold accountable.

Then imagine your horror as you watch those judges take prayer out of schools, remove every public reverence for Christ out of your community, steal your century farm from you and deliver it to private developers who use it to put up strip malls, rip the flesh of at least 50 million unborn babies from their mothers’ wombs, demand that the state gets to tell parents how to educate their children and what to teach them, and then unilaterally and with no authority decide to destroy the family that is the foundation of a civil society.

Imagine watching this imploding of a culture take place for a generation, and then imagine begging your elected leaders to take a stand and do the will of the people and not the state, only to have your elected leaders – including the ones that say they believe all the same things you believe – stand by and do largely nothing as evil rapes, pillages, and plunders the countryside.

Imagine how frustrated, heartbroken, and afraid for your children’s future you would be.

Then imagine a candidate for office comes along who seems to finally get it and is willing to confront evil at its source. Against all the scrutiny and mockery from the scoffers who play the fiddle while the republic burns he stands firm in his convictions. Imagine he still stands for the truth even when it costs him big money donors. Now, since he is a man he is not a savior and has blemishes like everyone else, but imagine he was speaking truths clearly and plainly in public that boldly hadn’t been proclaimed for more than a generation. Imagine after hearing this candidate your excitement because perhaps God had heard your prayers, and by His grace was willing to raise up leaders like this man to finally take a stand for your kids’ future.

Then imagine there was a faction of people who for many years claimed to care about the same things you do, and claimed to share the same vision of a Godly nation ruled by “we the people” that you have. Yet secretly this faction of people was really just using you for their own motivation, whatever that selfish motivation may be. Sure, they would act on some of the things you care deeply about if it was easy for them, but only when it also clearly benefited them and their personal agenda. Imagine how betrayed you would feel, especially after breaking bread with them and letting them into your life, to find out people you thought were on your team were really working for and even giving direct aid to the other side.

Then imagine those same people spent every resource they had to convince people who believe as you do to not support the candidate that shares your principles and passion, but to instead support someone who is a winner, and winner to them is defined as someone who will give them a job, purchase their products, appoint them to a prominent position, offer them a seat at their table of power, or give them a big, fat cut of other people’s money.

Imagine the winner those sellouts suggest you support is a likeable family man who has for the most part served his community with distinction except for one not-so-minor detail—his core convictions aren’t the same as yours.

Imagine their winner received $130,000 from casino pimps who cynically fill their own troughs on the backs of desperate people looking for an easy buck, and some of the winner’s biggest donors gave huge sums of money to the even more unrighteous candidate.

Imagine their winner has a close confidant that routinely goes out in public to ridicule what you believe.

Imagine their winner doubled the size of state government, raised taxes and fees 30 times, and despite presiding over a massive $4.5 billion budget is “bragging” about cutting taxes by a measly $194 million.

Imagine their candidate is proud of leaving a state of only 3 million people with a “government surplus” of $900 million, as opposed to giving you back a lot of more of what was your money in the first place.

Imagine their winner appointed two of the judges that destroyed marriage in your community, and then refused to advocate for people voting against retaining those judges when given the chance.

Imagine their winner got the endorsement of the progressive teachers union, which is using your tax-funded schools to indoctrinate your kids into beliefs totally contrary to what you believe.

Imagine their winner appointed someone who advocates for murder and depravity as his second in command.

Imagine their winner openly saying that he believes the judges who have taken away nearly virtue from America that made her special are the final word on the law, and not the people or their God.

Just imagine.

Imagine how concerned you would be that others may be deceived by the winner and the wolves in sheep’s clothing you once thought were your friends. Would you do everything in your power to share the truth? Or would you shrink away from your responsibility to tell the truth in love out of fear of reprisal from friends, family, or even your capability to feed your family?

Imagine if you would love your neighbor enough to tell him the truth he may not want to hear but needs to. Imagine if you would be willing to hold your alleged “leaders” tempted to sell out accountable. Imagine whether or not this is a hill to die on, or if you even have any at all. Imagine that no one on their death bed ever wishes they could’ve sold out once more when looking back at their legacy. Imagine if you would be more interested in doing what’s right as opposed to what feels right. Imagine you, too, will one day give an account to your Creator for what you chose to do.

Imagine that never in human history has injustice been vanquished without bloodshed (either literally or figuratively), with Calvary being the greatest example. Imagine if you would have the courage of conviction to pledge your lives, fortunes, and sacred honors to the cause of righteousness as those who came before you once did.

Then imagine what God might do if you did.

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.
Cicero

Parker Griffith

‘Tis the season and Americans have the reason. The summer of discontent is about to manifest itself in a big way. I’ve referred often to the undercurrent of real anger out there, over the President and the DeMarxist Congress’s assault on our freedom. Three primaries were held this last week. Putting it mildly, it didn’t go well for the Democrats. They were not the sole recipients of the voters’ long suppressed angst, however.

Party-switching GOP Representative Parker Griffith, (R) Alabama, became the fourth Republican incumbent to fall before the voters anger this year. If the June 1 primaries in Alabama, Mississippi and New Mexico are in any way an indication of the way the primaries being held this coming Tuesday, June 8, are going to go for the DeMarxists, things could get very ugly. This, more than anything else that has happened up until now, is going to be the best indicator of what is likely to occur in November.

Democrats have just about exhausted their supply of good will when it comes to the American people… the real American people, not the government sector union goons and government employees, or their slavishly devoted Lame Stream Media. It’s ironic that the audience that the LSM has lost has turned out in huge numbers… in the Patriot groups, in the Tea Parties and in the millions who support them and the new media.

Special note to our California friends; Proposition 14 (the open primary initiative) is just plain stupid for Californians, and for California Republicans it’s worse than that. In a state with so many Democrat voters we would literally have our political opponents picking the Republican candidate they want to run against. Don’t laugh. That is exactly what happened to Mitt Romney in the 2008 Michigan Presidential primary where there were thousands of cross over voters from the Democrat side voting for McCain, whom they knew to be the weaker candidate, resulting in Romney’s loss there. Proposition 14 is bad medicine for a state that is on the ropes financially and politically.

Get everyone you know to get out and vote on June 8 in the following states: California, Iowa, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, New Jersey, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia and Georgia with a special election runoff in House Congressional District 9.
Now it’s your turn to make a real difference. Your votes do count, very much so.
Vote America, Vote Freedom.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Interesting tid-bits and links from the campaign trail…

Key booser of newly minted Florida Independent Charlie Crist arrested for fraud (Fox News)

The former chairman of the Republican Party of Florida — an ally of now independent Gov. Charlie Crist — was arrested Wednesday for allegedly running a scam bilking money from the party.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement took Jim Greer into custody Wednesday at his Orlando-area home. The 47-year-old has been charged with six counts of organized scheme to defraud, four counts of felony grand theft and one count of money laundering. …

Insofar as it complicates Crist’s race for the Senate, it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

Democrats fall to a historic low in the Gallup Poll (Michael Barone)

Wow! The Gallup organization reports that on the generic ballot question—which party’s candidate would you vote for in Congress—Republicans currently lead Democrats 49%-43%. That’s the biggest Republican lead since Gallup began asking the question in 1950—and in fact Republicans have seldom been ahead in those 60 years. More bad news for the Democrats: 39% of Republicans say they’re enthusiastic about voting, compared to 25% of Independents and 24% of Democrats.

Again, this is Gallup.  Rasmussen has had the Dems in big negative territory on the generic ballot for almost a year now. And when it comes to Gallup, the GOP usually does really, really well when they are within 5 points of Dems in this poll…much less holding a lead.  Methinks some butts are starting to pucker on Capitol Hill.

Connecticut Senate: Blumenthal 56%, McMahon 33% (Rasmussen)

Democrat Richard Blumenthal apparently has weathered charges that he exaggerated his military service in Vietnam for years and is running as strongly as ever against both his Republican challengers in Connecticut’s race for the U.S. Senate.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Connecticut finds Blumenthal with 56% support versus 33% for Linda McMahon, the officially endorsed GOP candidate. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided. McMahon has come under criticism recently as people have focused on her role in World Wresting Entertainment, a corporation that one conservative pundit compares to the Gulf oil spill as “a relentless gusher of pollution.” …

It doesn’t seem that lying about serving in Vietnam hurts your chances in getting elected to the Senate in Connecticutt.  I suppose it’s like Limbaugh usually says, this sort of thing is a resume enhancement for these guys.

Latest Kentucky poll has Rand Paul up 51% to 45% (Washington Examiner)

Republican ophthamologist Rand Paul holds a slight lead in the race for the Kentucky Senate seat of retiring Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky, according to a new poll conducted by Survey USA for WHAS television and the Louisville Courier-Journal.

Remember, this comes in the wake of the media going just about wall-to-wall with hyperventilating over Paul’s statement that he basically didn’t like how the Civil Rights Act was structured, from a philosophical standpoint.  Odds are we’ll see his number go up a bit from here, as that wears off some and becomes old news.

Yet another Democrat Senate candidate says he was offered a job to “not” run (Politico)

Colorado U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff confirmed Wednesday that Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff, suggested three administration jobs that would be available to him last September if he dropped his plans to run against U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, who had the support of the White House.

Romanoff said he informed the White House that he would stay in the race. The revelation comes days after the White House confirmed that Rep. Joe Sestak was approached about an unpaid position in the administration if he dropped his campaign against Sen. Arlen Specter. But in this case, Romanoff was offered paid positions in the administration, a clear difference from the Sestak case. …

And keep in mind we still don’t have the full scoop on the first case like this.  Is this like reverse payola?  Pay “not” to play?

It’s a bad year to switch parties (Hot Air)

One difference should be noted between two party switchers in Congress this term, Arlen Specter in the Senate and Parker Griffith in the House.  Specter bailed out of the GOP in order to join the majority as well as to avoid what looked like a brutal primary challenge from a former Republican Congressman.  Griffith switched out of frustration with Democratic leadership to join the minority, and at the time didn’t appear to be worried about a primary challenge.  Those differences are real, but in the end, purely academic — since both ended up getting the boot in the primaries from challenges within their new parties …

Maybe it’s also not a good year to “not” be the conservative in the race.  As in, Specter switches because he’s going to get creamed in a GOP primary by a conservative…then loses among the Dems…and Griffith switches to run as a Republican and gets beat by a conservative.

Michael Barone has a good analysis of the Alabama race here.

The Obama administration is under fire for reportedly offering another Senate candidate job for a political favor (AP)

One of the jobs floated by a top White House official to Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff, in an attempt to get him out of a primary challenge to an incumbent Democrat, would have paid him $165,300.

The director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency is paid an annual salary at the Executive Level III, according to the Plum Book, the government publication that lists roughly 9,000 appointment positions every four years after a presidential election.

The Office of Personnel Management lists Executive Level III positions as receiving a salary in 2010 of $165,300. A spokesman for the USTDA confirmed this number as the director’s salary.

The USTDA’s director position is a post requiring Senate confirmation.

USTDA has an annual budget of $55 million and 78 employees. The director’s post was one of three government positions that were dangled in front of Romanoff by deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina, according to both Romanoff and the White House.

The other two positions were Deputy Assistant Administrator for Latin America and Caribbean at USAID and Director, Office of Democracy and Governance at USAID. Neither of those jobs appeared to be as high-paying as the USTDA position, based on searches of OPM’s website.

The White House has insisted that no job was technically offered to Romanoff, but that Messina followed up with Romanoff after the former state legislator had applied online for government jobs following President Obama’s election in November 2008.

But even the mention of a potential job with such high compensation, in exchange for political activity such as leaving a Senate race, is certain to raise new questions about whether the White House has broken the law.

The incident also casts new doubt on the administration’s contention that all it offered to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, to move him out of a Senate primary challenge was an unpaid position on a presidential advisory board.

The resurrection of Rod Blagojevich
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

We’ve had the Summer of Love and the Summer of the Shark. Now, are you ready for the Summer of Corruption? On Thursday, jury selection begins in the federal trial of disgraced former Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois. The timing couldn’t be worse for Blago’s old Chicago pals in the White House. Just as Team Obama tries to bury one job-trading scandal, another one resurfaces.

It’s a useful reminder that Washington didn’t turn Obama into a business-as-usual politician. He was born and bred among the slimiest in their class.

At the center of the Blago trial is the convergence of the Chicago political machine – the corrupt Democratic Party establishment, Big Labor heavies at the Services Employees International Union, and Team Obama.

In December 2008, the political ties that bind them all came under national scrutiny when federal prosecutors publicly released their criminal complaint against Blagojevich. SEIU figured prominently in Blago’s secretly taped musings on how to profit from his power to appoint Obama’s Senate replacement. So did a larger union umbrella federation, Change to Win, led by SEIU secretary-treasurer Anna Burger. Blago hatched a plan to snag a $300,000-a-year job as head of Change to Win in exchange for appointing a union-friendly successor to Obama.

Like Obama, Blago enjoyed massive campaign donations and on-the-ground support from the SEIU’s Purple Army. Like Obama, Blago repaid his Big Labor backers with labor-friendly executive orders and legislative largesse to facilitate union organizing and carve out major portions of the health care industry for them. At the time of his arrest, Blago was preparing another executive order to expand the union power grab over an even larger portion of home health care workers targeted by the SEIU.

Blagojevich did the country an extraordinary unintended favor. As health care analyst David Catron wrote: “He has made it clear to the meanest intelligence that Obama emerged from a hopelessly corrupt political culture. Barack Obama oozed from the same stinking Chicago swamp that produced Blagojevich, and a man whose formative years were spent wallowing in the muck with such creatures isn’t likely to be long in White House before the stench of pay-to-play politics begins to pervade the place.”

Fast-forward. Nearly two years later, Obama’s legal fixers can’t mask the Chicago-esque odor of Sestak-gate. The president’s legal team, led by chief fixer and legal counsel Bob Bauer, orchestrated a Memorial Day weekend document dump intended to squash mounting public criticism of the administration’s alleged government job offer to Pennsylvania Democrat senatorial candidate Joe Sestak. Bauer’s memo acknowledged that “options for Executive Branch service were raised with him” through former President Bill Clinton, whom White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel enlisted to woo Sestak.

Blago knows all about working with Team Obama through intermediaries to explore, ahem, “options.” Blago’s then-chief of staff, John Harris, allegedly mapped out “three-way deal” to give the White House a “buffer” obscuring the obvious quid pro quo. SEIU would assist Obama with Blago’s appointment of a union-friendly candidate; Blago would get his cushy union job; and SEIU would be rewarded down the road with favors from the White House. Team Blago reached out to the SEIU. An unnamed SEIU official agreed to float their plan and “see where it goes.”

The Senate candidate Blago allegedly approached was top Obama adviser and Chicago political godmother Valerie Jarrett, who removed herself from the running when she took a top White House adviser post instead. Who was the “SEIU official” Team Blago spoke with and met? Internal communications in December 2008 fingered President Obama’s longtime Chicago pal, SEIU Local 1 president Tom Balanoff. Balanoff, not coincidentally had been appointed by Blago to the llinois Health Facilities Planning Board.

Two days before Christmas 2008, legal counsel Greg Craig released an official, self-exonerating report outlining contacts between Team Obama and Team Blago. Balanoff, it turns out, had indeed spoken with Jarrett. The Obama defense? Despite her much-touted political brilliance, the legal team argued, Jarrett “did not understand the conversation to suggest that the Governor wanted the cabinet seat as a quid pro quo for selecting any specific candidate to be the President-Elect’s replacement.” The Blago subpoena of the president filed last month begs to differ – and directly implicates Obama:

“…despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of any deals, labor union president [presumably SEIU’s Andy Stern] told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to labor union official on November 3, 2008 who received a phone message from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message labor union official told labor union president “I’m the one”. Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick.”

It’s going to be a long, hot summer of Chicago corruption.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs speaks to the media during the daily briefing at the White House in Washington Tuesday, June 1, 2010. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs indicated Tuesday that Rep. Joe Sestak was not offered a spot on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board but refused to say what was dangled in front of the Democrat to remove him from a Senate primary.

The spot offered to Sestak, Gibbs said to reporters at the White House, “didn’t constitute a lot of what you’re hearing.”

But Gibbs refused to clarify what Sestak, who won the May 18 primary and is now the Democratic nominee for Senate, was offered.

Sestak indicated Friday he was offered a spot on the PIAB by former President Bill Clinton, who was acting on behalf of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

“I heard presidential board and I think it was Intel,” Sestak said to reporters, describing his conversation with Clinton.

White House counsel Bob Bauer said Friday that Sestak was offered a spot on “a presidential or other senior executive branch advisory board.”

However, Sestak would have been ineligible for such a post. Sestak and the Obama administration both said the congressman would have kept his seat in the House if he took a spot on the PIAB. But the PIAB is comprised of individuals who are “outside the government.”

Gibbs confirmed Tuesday that Sestak could not have served on the PIAB.

“That is how I understand the way the PIAB is written,” Gibbs said.

He referred further questions back to Bauer’s memo, as did a White House spokesman in response to direct questions from The Daily Caller.

White House officials likely had hoped that questions about Sestak would be behind them following their carefully scripted release of Bauer’s memo, which was followed by Sestak’s own prepared statement in the middle of the day Friday.

Sestak’s offhand comments under fire from reporters — in particular the remark about being offered a position on an intelligence board — have kept the story alive, especially since he would have been unable to serve on the PIAB.

The Sestak campaign said only that the congressman did not know exactly which job or post was offered, referring to his remarks on Friday where he said as much.

Gibbs very briefly on Tuesday accepted some responsibility for letting the Sestak flap get to this point by taking three months to answer questions about it.

“If I bear some responsibility for that, I can understand that,” Gibbs said.

Republicans attempted Tuesday to keep the heat on the Obama administration about these unanswered questions.

“Are we to really believe that the best the White House could do to try and convince Congressman Sestak not to run is to dispatch a former president with an unpaid offer that he could not accept while remaining a member of Congress?” said an e-mail to reporters from Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member on the House Government Oversignt and Reform Committee.

Issa also sought to broaden the story to include the Senate primary in Colorado, where a challenger to a Democratic incumbent was reported months ago to have received a similar offer from a White House official if he would drop out of the race.

“Did White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina offer Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff a job – because Romanoff isn’t talking?” said the Issa e-mail.

Since the furor over the Sestak offer increased following Sestak’s victory in the primary, Colorado media have asked Romanoff, a former state legislator, whether the reports by the Denver Post that said he was offered a job at USAID are true.

Romanoff has refused to answer the questions.

One of the more stunning bits of insanity to come out of 2008 is that during an economic crisis caused by “Buy Now, Pay Later” fiscal planning, a candidate whose entire economic philosophy was built on “Buy Now, Pay Later” was voted in. The difference is that Obama’s “Buy Now, Pay Later” plans weren’t there for capitalism, but to fund socialism. And now with the national debt tripled, and his approval rating lower than a skunk’s at an aromatherapy session, he’s pushing out ObamaCare’s “benefits” ahead of schedule. Still Buy Now, Pay Later.

Buy Now, Pay Later had already done a stunning job of undermining the basic financial competence of large numbers of Americans over the years. What had been a country where people understood the value of saving money, became a country of consumers who were talked into running up credit card debts and taking out loans they couldn’t afford. But this was a mirror image of what they saw happening in government at every level, with their leaders spending money non-stop, without any serious thought of when the bill would come due. Companies not only seduced customers into abandoning common sense, but they threw their own financial accountability overboard. Debt became Detroit’s real commodity, not steel or muscle cars. Debt became Wall Street’s best investment. And as the national debt grew, debt also became America’s biggest export to China.

And while liberals continue preaching against the sins of Wall Street, they display a flagrant hypocrisy in ignoring the fact that their own policies are based on even worse financial planning. Furthermore major industries now assume as a given that if they’re too big to fail, then they can make whatever missteps they like, and Johnny Taxpayer will be there to bail them out if it all comes crashing down around them. Buy Now. Pay Later. Keep passing the buck and forwarding the bill, without any real thought of who’s going to pay for it all. Now the world economy is tottering because so much of it turned out to be a fraud, which in turn is being held up by the fear that if any part of it collapses, so much more of the fraud will become apparent, bringing it all crashing down.

And so the US government spends like mad and sells the debt to China, which buys it with the proceeds of its own giant financial scamming, and is now terrified that our house of cards will bring their house of cards down. Europe bails out Greece to protect the Euro, whose collapse would expose the house of cards of the EU. The US intervenes to help save the Euro with more taxpayer money which is added to more debt which is sold to China, which hopes the whole wobbly mess will be righted before Dubai’s own royalist house of cards goes down for good. The big achievement of Globalization is that now everyone is too big to fail, so we all have to keep passing the monopoly money around the world table as part of a consensus in which everyone pretends to believe everyone else’s lies, if they believe theirs. The sheer scope of it makes Madoff look like a shoeshine boy pinching nickels.

And the only way to play at every level of this three-ring circus is to keep spending money. If you assign imaginary values to counters in a global pyramid scheme, you have to constantly keep moving more of the counters to keep up the charade. And that means spending money. From the consumer loading up three credit cards to the big developer borrowing hundreds of millions to spend on a grandiose project to a company with no business plan making a public offering of overvalued shares to the government announcing another huge spending package– the counters always have to stay in motion. And someone else always has to get the bill. Until everyone realizes that there’s no money and no one to take the bill.

That hasn’t happened yet, but sooner or later it will. What we think of an economy is actually a tremendously persuasive scam built on maintaining a buzz of activity, but creating no actual value. And people like George Soros who understand that there is nothing beneath the economy but a tissue of mutual deceptions, have profited enormously from their financial terrorism. From causing limited financial catastrophes in the knowledge that everyone else will have to limit the fallout, while pushing to centralize economies further on the “The Bigger They Are, The More Profit There Is In Toppling Them Over” scheme of piratical rewards. Because socialism can be profitable, so long as you set it up and then bet against it. Meanwhile liberal court jester economists like Paul Krugman who put his Enron experience to good use, by encouraging politicians to think that non-stop debt based spending is actually more beneficial than cutting back on spending. And the genuinely terrifying thing, is that like medieval witchhunters, they probably even believe what they’re saying.

What all this adds up to is socialism. Since once a government becomes the financial reservoir for its country’s businesses, the end result is that the companies will use it as a safety net, passing along its own failures, while the government attempts to control the economy– resulting in a government run economy. Which naturally makes them into an even bigger target for financial terrorism and economic hit men. Because there is no such thing as too big to fail. Everything can fail. It just fails bigger. And the bigger it fails, the more it takes down in its wake.

The more an economy runs through the government, the more vulnerable both government and economy are due to their intertwined state. Government authority feeds corruption and waste, opening the door to a cycle of diminishing returns in which more centralization produces less product and profit, which when combined with a Culture of Entitlement can leave a formerly productive country looking like the USSR. But that very same culture also seduces citizens with Buy Now, Pay Later. Entitlement builds hidden debts, which are passed along from generation to generation, until the interest outweighs the principal. Until the debt itself becomes an asset. Until everyone realizes that the emperor has no clothes.

Socialism competes with capitalism for resources. Its philosophy demands that people invest in a government that will take care of them, rather than in pursuing their own economic destiny. Put the American Dream on the shelf and say hello to the Nanny State. That’s the general idea here. But Buy Now Pay Later Capitalism and Buy Now Pay Later Socialism are partners in passing the torch from the former to the latter. Authentic free enterprise is built on hard work. Buy Now, Pay Later Capitalism however sold people on the idea that they could buy now, and pay whenever. Entire advertising campaigns were built on luring people into piling up debt. Banks began banking on the financial incompetence of their customers, turning penalty fees into their major revenue source. Debt was resold. Detroit began selling credit instead of cars. And all that debt had to stop somewhere. And that somewhere was always the government.

Where the America of generations past understood that there was no free lunch, a new America forgot that fundamental lesson and began putting it all on a card. And from the individual shopper to the halls of the United States Congress, that became the way it was done. War or no war. Recession or prosperity. Rain or shine. It didn’t matter anymore. And thus began the era of the world’s most expensive free lunch. Liberals offered free entitlements with very huge back end price tags that had to be paid in taxes. Free this and free that. All of it more Buy Now, Pay Later.

Now the huge cost of putting Obama where he sits has to be paid for with the biggest Buy Now/ Pay Later package that Americans have ever seen. Socialism in all its sordid glory. Free everything that you and your children’s children will have to pay for through the nose. Bailouts and takeovers. Rivers of regulation, all formulated to benefit the regulators, not the regulated. Enough people have woken up to the lies. Enough families recognize that their children will be in debt for generations to pay off just the debt that has already been accumulated. And despite all the calls of “Don’t Worry” and “The Experts are on the Case”, they’re worried and they’re angry. Because buying socialism now, means we’ll have to keep paying for it forever.

By now it should be no surprise that many of those driving the Tea Party movement are conservatives who’ve fled the Republican party in response to the party’s abandonment of conservative values and principles.

Prior to this “great awakening,” conservatives assumed that the Grand Old Party (GOP) was championing the tenants of smaller government, lower taxes, and greater personal freedom. In truth, the GOP was more concerned about winning elections than holding strong to its founding principles–so much so that they often elected candidates whose beliefs were more in line with the Democratic party than their own.

It’s been well over a year since the first Tea Party signs started popping up all across the country; and of course, the GOP now says they too are in favor of smaller government, lower taxes, and greater personal freedom. But are they really?

In California, our first opportunity to answer this question will be during the Republican primary election for US Senate as it is the only high profile race that offers a real choice between a constitutional conservative, Chuck DeVore, and two so-called moderates, Tom Campbell and Carly Fiorina.

If the GOP plans to continue mimicking the Democratic party in hopes of drawing in more liberal voters, they will be well served by electing either Campbell or Fiorina. Both candidates have expressed their approval of the Wall Street Bailout, Cap-n-Trade, and the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor. Campbell is for gay marriage, abortion rights, and stricter gun control laws. Fiorina is for the stimulus package, taxation of the Internet, and limiting free speech. In many cases, Campbell and Fiorina’s views are so in line with the incumbent Democratic candidate Barbara Boxer that at times it is difficult to tell the three of them apart.

If, on the other hand, the GOP has learned from its past mistakes in electing Republicans in name only (a.k.a. RINOs), they will be much better served nominating Chuck DeVore as their candidate for US Senate. DeVore’s political views are in stark contrast to not only his opponents in the primary on the aforementioned issues but to Boxer as well. DeVore is the perfect candidate for those voters who know that the Republican primary election isn’t about unseating Boxer or even the Democratic party so much as it’s about unseating the political ideology that is drowning our country in massive debt, entitlements, and regulations.

Come Thursday, June 8th, we will know exactly where the priorities lie for Republican voters in California. So, don’t forget to vote.

The battle to replace Charlie Crist as Florida’s governor is heating up in the GOP primary.

Earlier this week, the Bill McCollum campaign released a new TV ad with Jeb Bush, the popular former governor, urging conservatives to back McCollum.

Former healthcare executive Rick Scott is waging a multimillion-dollar TV ad effort to wrest the GOP nomination from McCollum, the state’s attorney general.

On Saturday, McCollum’s campaign released a memo sharply criticizing Scott. It cited press reports from the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, which slammed Scott for his role running one of the nation’s largest hospital companies.

The newspaper reported: “It was and still is the biggest Medicare fraud case in U.S. history and ended with the hospital giant Columbia/HCA paying a record $1.7 billion in fines, penalties and damages. Now the guy who ran the company at the time wants a new job: Florida’s governor.”

The McCollum release follows:

Today, McCollum for Governor Campaign Manager Matt Williams issued the following statement on Rick Scott’s misleading attacks on Attorney General Bill McCollum regarding immigration:

“It’s sad but unsurprising that Rick Scott is so desperate to avoid questions about his own role in orchestrating the largest Medicare fraud scheme in American history that he is misleading Florida voters about Bill McCollum’s record on cracking down on illegal immigration.

“Rick Scott shamelessly distorts Attorney General McCollum’s record on cracking down on illegal immigration and opposing amnesty. This is just another case of fraud by a man whose company was forced to pay a record $1.7 billion in fines for defrauding taxpayers, before being forced out by his own board.

“We challenge Rick Scott to do what he has yet to do in more than a month of running millions in television ads – come before the press to clear his name. He won’t because he can’t. He’s a fraud.

“In August, Florida voters will have a clear choice between Bill McCollum, a candidate who has fought fraud as Florida’s Attorney General, and Rick Scott, a candidate who has committed it.”

BACKGROUND

Today, Rick Scott launched a massive statewide television ad buy attacking Attorney General McCollum, distorting his position and record on illegal immigration. It’s clear the Scott Campaign is desperately reaching to change the conversation from the headlines on his candidacy this week:

SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL: “It was and still is the biggest Medicare fraud case in U.S. history and ended with the hospital giant Columbia/HCA paying a record $1.7 billion in fines, penalties and damages. Now the guy who ran the company at the time wants a new job: Florida’s governor.” (SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL, 5/21/10)
SUN-SENTINEL: “Rick Scott was co-founder and CEO of Columbia/HCA in the 1990s, when the FBI launched a massive, multi-state investigation that led to the company pleading guilty to criminal charges of overbilling the government.” (SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL, 5/21/10)
SUN-SENTINEL: ““Among the fraudulent practices uncovered: billing Medicare and Medicaid for unnecessary lab tests, creating false diagnoses to claim a higher reimbursement and charging for marketing and advertising costs that were disguised as community education.” (SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL, 5/21/10)

Since February, we advocates of full transparency have been raising questions about Pa. Democrat senatorial candidate Joe Sestak’s allegation that the White House attempted to bribe him out of his candidacy by offering him a job (see here, here, and here for background).

Tight-lipped Attorney General Eric Holder refuses to answer those questions, despite his ostentatious efforts to tout the DOJ’s commitment to full and open government.

GOP Rep. Darrell Issa confronted Holder once again last week. The stonewall of Eric The Silent still stands:

Mr. Holder said he would not discuss the specifics of the allegations because the matter could come before the Department of Justice. When asked by Mr. Issa to discuss the matter as a hypothetical situation, Mr. Holder also declined.

“If I offer you a job in the White House, let’s say Secretary of the Navy, in return for you doing something, such as dropping out of elected office to clear a primary, is that a serious crime?” said Mr. Issa. “Is that hypothetical a crime?”

“I don’t answer hypotheticals,” said Mr. Holder. He said the Public Integrity section of the Department of Justice would be the appropriate place for an investigation to take place, and he would defer to their judgment.

Neither the White House nor the Department of Justice responded to letters sent by Mr. Issa in March asking for an explanation and investigation of the claims made by Mr. Sestak.

The Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary, with Sestak and White House-backed RINO-turned-DDIDOO (Desperate Democrat In Danger Of Obsolescence) Arlen Specter running neck and neck, is tomorrow.

Corruption in government – it starts with the election process.  Special interest groups, labor unions, big pharma, all making campaign contributions supporting the candidate that is going to give them the back room deals they are after.  Why do you think this country is in this much trouble!  They have all basically bought and paid for the candidate of choice, the one who is looking out for their special interests instead of the interests of the American people.  The corruption needs to stop now, and reform needs to start with the funding of political campaigns.

The democrats seem to want to make everything equal – take from the rich and give to the poor.  So let’s start with campaign funding.  Let’s implement this equal for all system for the politicians, right from the start of the campaign process.  It’s time for a radical campaign funding change.

Instead of companies and individuals supporting one candidate over another, campaign contributions would be made to a government fund for each elected position.  There would be one fund for the president, one for each state senator race, one for each representative of the house race.  All campaign monies would go into this fund and NO OTHER funding for campaigns would be permitted.  The money from these funds would then be divided equally to all candidates running for that position, whether it be two or more.  Everyone would have an equal opportunity in campaigning for the desired position.

How the campaign spends this money would be up to them, but they would have to limit spending to only the money received from the fund.  It would be restricted, of course, to legal activities only.  At the end of the campaign a full disclosure of the money would be required within a specific timeframe and an audit would be completed on the final campaign funds.  Any money remaining from the election would be returned to the fund for the next elections.  There could be no “outstanding balance due” at the end of the campaign.

A radical move, but the problems we see in the government today are because every special interest group and every company has their own agenda and they have all made deals with the politicians to get what they want.  They donate and expect to receive benefits in return – and they don’t just mean a thank you letter.  The government is no longer run by the people, for the people.  It is being run by special interests and big business.  This has got to stop!  Start the reform where the corruption begins – the campaign funding.  Equal opportunity for everyone.

In history we have seen democratic governments come and go and they all share common traits.   Is Obama betting on these events playing out as they have in the past.

Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.