About Me

Name: Doug
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

ObamaCare: Changing the Narrative

In recent days, the Healthcare Debate has been headline news, as ordinary people (who are not usually seen at protests or at town hall meetings) are transitioning from merely shouting at their TV to getting out and directly expressing their displeasure and their concerns to their representatives.

Ironically, when ordinary individuals do what paid “community organizers” on the left have done for decades, they’re vilified as an “angry mob”, or shills for the GOP (who they’re generally JUST AS MAD AT!). Worse, they’re now being called UNAMERICAN, compared to Nazis and McVeigh, and some have been subjected to beating by SEIU union thugs! 

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/tea-party-protesters-attacked-1-man.html

It’s time to take a RATIONAL look at the ObamaCare “Health Care Reform” bill!

The rhetoric has been all about personal narratives, demonstrating the failures and shortcomings of the current system. A straw man argument is made that we have only 2 choices – between ObamaCare or maintainining the “unacceptable” Status Quo. There ARE alternative plans, but the Administration, the Democratic Congress and the Lapdog press will not discuss them.

We must move the narrative off the problems of the current system, and ask the question: Is ObamaCare a viable answer? What does the bill DO? Do we WANT what it does? Can we afford it?

Sadly, with the current occupants of the White House and the Hill, one cannot simply listen to the words they craft before the cameras. They are disingenuous at best and outright falsehoods at worst.

While focusing on the acknowledged PROBLEMS of the existing system - the age-old magician’s trick of misdirection is applied to this debate.  Never watch the hand with the wand!  What's the OTHER hand doing!?  In this case, what's IN the bill?  DOES IT fix the problem?  Does it CREATE NEW problems?  Is the "cure" worse than the "disease"? 

When they tell you “you can keep your current plan if you like it”… they don’t tell you that you CAN’T shop for a new private plan, or change your current one, or get a new one if you change jobs! Under the misleading heading of “Protecting the choice to keep current coverage”, the very first provisions of the ObamaCare bill (after the definitions), found on page 16, are nothing but LIMITATIONS on individual coverage!  It MUST be in force already when the law takes effect... Insurance companies can't write NEW policies.  If you change jobs, you lose it.  All private insurance policies must become a government-dictated cookie-cutter policy within 5 years.  They’re “grandfathering” (their word) existing policies, but your right to obtain a NEW PRIVATE policy is being ELIMINATED! Is this what you call REFORM?

Other dubious provisions include:

Pg 29: Healthcare WILL be rationed - despite what they SAY!

Pg 59: Gives Govt Realtime Access to YOUR BANK ACCOUNT – You want that?

Page 203:The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it really says that.

Pg 427: Government intrusion into END OF LIFE Treatment – Grandma gets pain pills instead of life saving surgery?

Does Government do ANYTHING well?  Would you choose the VA hospital over a private hospital?  Why would you trust the same government that has bankrupted Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid with YOUR healthcare?  They couldn't even get “Cash for Clunkers”, a one month program, to work for a week before bankrupting it!

Be more informed than Congress. Read the ObamaCare Bill! Find it at: http://api.ning.com/files/rlRf26JqH8yPmA8KEDsVtabBXoDeS8DcImqXQ7Okjd*uy-wtqp*fgygCwPpIGWZVxZ8L6brLHvb6EPGft1D*Bq8RG-f9raUl/HR3200HealthCareBill.pdf

Copyright © 2009 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

July 4 Tea Parties Shift Emphasis From Awareness to Action

 Back in February of this year, barely a month into the Obama presidency, the Tea Party Movement was born after a rant on the Chicago Board of Trade by CNBC correspondent Rick Santelli calling for a “second Tea Party” as a response to the Bailout Stimulus bill Obama had just signed.

Immediately conservatives took to their blogs, Facebook and Twitter, and email to hastily arrange the February 27 Tea Parties.
 
It was a cathartic event.  There was finally an outlet for the pent-up rage that many were feeling over the sudden leftward lurch our nation had taken.

In St Louis, organizers initially expected 50 to 100 “activists” to show up and were excited to have a couple hundred confirmed attendees on the event page on Facebook. They never imagined or dared to hope for numbers exceeding 1200, but at least that many people of like mind turned out on that cool day under the Arch.

Not much attention was paid to the tea parties. At least, there was little publicly acknowledged attention. President Obama later claimed to have been completely unaware of the Tea Parties, though few take that statement at face value.

Still, Tea Party Organizers knew they had done 2 momentous things. They had created a tremor in Washington, even if it was only a 3 on the Richter Scale; and they had awakened the “sleeping giant” of American Conservatism. The “Fools on the Hill” had generated so much angst and ire amongst the normally “Silent Majority” that folks who ordinarily would do little more than hurl expletives at their televisions now were motivated to take a page from the Left’s playbook… and take to the streets. The “Sleeping Giant” was awake and was becoming aware.

The 2nd major set of Tea Parties was held on Tax Day; April 15. This time, the numbers swelled thanks to the buzz created by the first Tea Parties. In St Louis, Keiner Plaza downtown was filled to overflowing – with a crowd exceeding 10,000 motivated patriots.

The April 15 Tea Parties showed the movement could no longer be ignored by the administration. So they set out to minimize, ridicule, belittle and do all they could to discredit, defang or emasculate the Tea Party movement. Awareness was spreading. Conservatives were becoming informed, yes… but also the Administration, the Congress, and their lapdogs in Media were also becoming aware – aware that there were a lot of angry and informed people out there who were going to hold their feet to the fire and demand accountability.

But while protesting with signs and speeches which preach to the choir is great for the above purposes, going forward it will serve little purpose to simply turn out crowds with signs (no matter how clever) if protest is not accompanied by action. This was the theme of the Independence Day Tea Parties. To answer that question, “What do we do NOW?”

In any popular movement, it is only effective as long as it remains a grassroots effort. Looking to “them” to do all the heavy lifting will inevitably lead to the collapse of the effort under its own weight. That burden must be “redistributed”!

Each person of like mind must become educated, not only in the facts - but in tactics and processes by which they PERSONALLY can respond. No army puts its generals on the front line leading a charge, while the troops remain in the barracks watching TV and cheering them on when they are on the news! While senior staff creates policy and establishes strategies, the real work is done by the enlisted soldier, directed by a non-comm.

For the movement to continue to have “legs”, each person must become an individual activist. This does not mean counting on the elected minority to move their agenda forward. We cannot on the voice of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham and the rest to be the lone voices in the wilderness, leading the way all the way to the promised land!  Not even leaving the work to the organizers of Tea Parties or other such protests.  Each individual must take the personal responsibility to make their OWN voice heard.

The message that came out of the July 4th Tea Parties – Become equipped and engage the battle!

The individual Activist must first become informed. There are numerous resources ranging from Fox News and Talk Radio to Blogs and Social Networking where reliable information can be obtained apart from the Mainstream Media.

An informed patriot must know how to effectively translate that information into action. Most importantly, they must communicate their ideas, their frustrations, their anger and their praises to their elected officials. They must do so clearly, frequently, and in such a manner as to put them on notice that they are being scrutinized and will be held accountable come election time.

They can gather with the likeminded – not just to enjoy the social enjoyment of gathering with birds of a feather – but to share with one another. To share informationl. To share resources like websites, books and publications, relevant TV and Radio programming etc. To share strategies and analysis of what has and hasn’t been effective. To share “war stories’ both for amusement and for “lessons learned”. To move initiative petitions along.

Making a difference and affecting “change” will take much commitment of Patriots who are willing to engage the process at the risk of “lives, fortunes and sacred honor”. But not to do so means allowing the ever-expanding and increasingly demanding hydra of government to direct our lives, confiscate our fortunes, and discredit our honor. We must never stand idly by and permit the rise of totalitarianism, socialism, or despotism or tyranny without at least standing up in opposition.

After the constitutional convention, Ben Franklin was approached and asked what type government they had given the people. His reply: A republic – IF YOU CAN KEEP IT. Are you ready, willing and able to commit yourself to this cause?

How can you get started?

1) VOTE!! Not just once every 4 years but EVERY TIME the polls are open, whether for the presidential election or for school board or zoning proposals!

2) Get informed. Avail yourself of the available resourses. New Media and Technology. Networking with others of like mind.

3) Get ACTIVE. Call, write, email, fax and visit your elected officials. Pester them till they know your name! Give them a piece of your mind. Make sure they know they’re being watched, and will be held accountable. Write letters to the editor. Post to blogs. Let people KNOW what is on your mind.

4) EVANGELIZE! Grow the movement by encouraging others to join it! That means being prepared to explain what is wrong, why it’s wrong, and what you are doing about it. If you can get someone to understand what’s happening and how it will affect them, you’re half way to changing their mind!

5) BECOME a resource! Share your knowledge. Share your experiences. Provide money and materials where you can.

Remember, only you can prevent the nation from going up in smoke!

Copyright © 2009 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nation's Largest "Tea Party Protest Held Under St Louis Arch

Dick Armey recently sent out a modest newsletter:
 
“Last week you may have seen or perhaps heard about CNBC's Rick Santelli and his report from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, ground zero for American capitalism and free market commerce, where he called for a "Taxpayer Tea Party" in the wake of efforts to enact a new, multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded housing bailout.
 
If you are like me, you stood up and cheered.
 
Rick was channeling what so many limited government advocates have been feeling now for a long time when it comes to out-of-control spending on the backs of hardworking U.S. taxpayers to reward the irresponsible and the corrupt: enough is enough!”
 
And with that, Freedomworks (http://freedomworks.org) called for grass roots protests against the massive spending stimuli across the nation.

Bill Hennessy of the St. Louis area was similarly inspired by Santelli. He contacted local blogger and radio personality, Dana Loesch (www.danaradio.com) and the two of them set off to organize the St Louis Tea Party at the Riverfront.

Utilizing the latest in technology – Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, as well as emails, word spread amongst the St Louis conservative community. Ms Loesch was even approached by a local TV station for an interview the night before the event. All this began on Monday, February 23, for an event which took place Friday February 28.
 
Organizers were hopeful for a turnout of 50 to 100 people, and were extremely encouraged when they had over 200 confirmed attendees on their Facebook event page Thursday night. But even they were flabbergasted when the crowd grew to over 1000 people; excited, energized, and motivated!

The majority of those attending took time off work – long lunches or days off – to attend. Many commented that they’d never participated in a protest demonstration before.

Said one participant, “Usually, it’s the Liberals protest when the government doesn’t do what they want. Conservatives go to work, take care of their families, and if they’re REALLY motivated, they email their Congressman. This time the stakes are so high we must resort to protests in the streets!”

Notable signs included one held by a college student stating she works 2 jobs to pay her own way thru college, and another held by a youngster asking “Does this mean I can overspend my allowance?”

Drivers passing by honked their horns in support of the demonstrators.

After short remarks by several dignitaries, the crowd descended the levee to the Mississippi River, where they symbolically dumped tea into the river. A Coast Guard Patrol Boat stood watch a short way off shore, in all likelihood a safety precaution against anyone falling in the water.  A few announcements were made to the effect that only LOOSE tea should be thrown into the river, lest the Coast Guard cite the protesters for an environmental violation for throwing paper tea bags into the water!

The event galvanized the conservative population of St Louis, whether they were able to attend the event or not. Similar protests are planned in the future, with Tax Day, April 15, being floated as a possible protest date.

Whether this “Tea Party” movement has legs, or is simply a vent of frustration by a decimated and impotent conservative constituency remains to be seen… but at this juncture, this is a force that the powers that be will have to reckon with.

Copyright © 2009 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice. His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business. He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/
 
.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Open Letter to the Electors of the Electoral College

Despite the failure of several lawsuits to get a hearing of the facts in the courts, there remain questions about Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States under Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution.  Only a "Natural Born" Citizen may serve in that office.

 

On his website Obama finally acknowledged that at one time he held dual citizenship between the US and Kenya.  This in and of itself could be argued to be a disqualifier; as the point of the "natural born" clause in the Constitution was to avoid divided allegiances.  But if Obama was not born in the United States, he is indisputably ineligible to inherit "Natural Born" US Citizenship from his mother. His father was not a US Citizen, and his mother had not fulfilled the requirement to have lived 5 years in the US past the age of 14.  She was only 18 at the time of Obama's birth.  Therefore if he was born in Kenya, he is NOT a "Natural Born" US Citizen and is ineligible to serve.

 

Obama put forth only a "Certification of live birth" as evidence of eligibility; which is NOT A Birth Certificate! 

 

After months and months of unrequited requests, the Obama campaign did finally present a document which they claimed validated your eligibility (per the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section I) as a "Natural born citizen" to have Obama's name on the ballot in contention for the office of the President of the United States of America. 

 

Some have claimed the document is a forgery; however it is unlikely that the document is not a genuinely issued form from the State of HI…

 

However, what the Obama campaign supplied was not, in fact, a "birth certificate".  What they supplied was actually a "Certification of Live Birth."  There is a major difference between a "birth certificate" and a "Certification of Live Birth." 

 

Aside from the level of detail differentiating the documents (hospital of record, doctor, height, weight, etc) - in the state of Hawaii, one authenticates natural born citizenship, and the other doesn't. This part is important; - and it has nothing to do with tin foil hats.

 

According to the State of Hawaii's Department of Health, "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country."  (For citation purposes, please feel free to visit their site: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html ). 

 

The "Certificate of Live Birth" as provided by Mr. Obama, is in fact, a derivative of the "Amended certificates of birth" they site.  Why is that important?  Because of that second clause in the above citation.  While you may show citizenship via such a document, you do not necessarily prove "natural born" citizenship.  "Natural born citizenship" is what is required to be eligible to be considered for the Presidency, per the United States Constitution. 

 

The form that you posted wouldn't even be acceptable to make an application in Hawaii's Home Lands Program!  The STATE OF HAWAII that ISSUED the form won't accept it as proof of "natural born" Hawaiian eligibility for the program!

 

From:  http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

 

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

 

 

THIS is a "Vault Copy" HI Birth Certificate:

 

 

And this is the Certification of Live Birth posted on Obama's website:

 

Notice any differences?

 

Hospital of birth?  Residence address of mother?  Birthplace of parents?  SIGNATURE OF ATTENDANT AT BIRTH?

 

What Obama posted IS NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE! 

 

There is a further complication, however.  EVEN IF Obama was born in Hawaii, his subsequent adoption by Lolo Soetoro and resultant INDONESIAN citizenship represents a bigger fly in his ointment.

Indonesia, at the time Obama lived there and was deemed an Indonesian citizen, did not recognize dual citizenship; and neither did the US recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia.  Thus, whether Obama held dual citizenship with the US and Kenya, and whether he was born in the US or Kenya; all is irrelevant as the ONLY legitimate citizenship he would have held once his adopted father moved him to Indonesia was Indonesian!  Obama's US Citizenship would be forfeit!

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian/

 

 

Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would have had to be thru NATURALIZATION; and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II.  (Could this be why he opted to use the politically risky name Barack Hussein Obama instead of the more innocuous "Barry Soetoro"?  Perhaps Barry Soetoro is STILL an Indonesian citizen?  Perhaps there are naturalization papers in the name of Barry Soetoro?  I'm just asking...)

If there is any doubt in your mind as to the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve in the office of President of the United States under Title II, then you have a constitutional duty to withhold your electoral vote.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Post-Election Thoughts

It is indeed a great day when an African American can ascend to the highest office in this land. I offer congratulations to President-Elect Obama for his well run campaign and his election victory.
 
That said, I can think of OTHER black candidates I would have preferred, on policy and experience criteria. In fact, prior to the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate, I had lobbied the McCain campaign to select the former Lt Governor of Maryland, Michael Steele - also an African-American!
 
However:
 
Unlike the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" treatment which the left gave President Bush thru both terms - opposing every word out of his mouth and undermining him at every turn - I will give Barack my full allegiance and encouragement. For the sake of the country, I wish him a successful presidency. However, as I believe a number of stated policies and proposals will be harmful to the country, I will speak in opposition to those initiatives.
 

I will applaud President-Elect Obama when he does what I believe to be the right thing. I will remain the loyal opposition where he moves in a direction to do what I believe is not. Some ask, "Will McCain supporters unite with Democrats and lead this country in a new direction?" The short answer is "That depends on WHAT the new direction IS!!"

I will offer Obama the respect due to the office of the presidency. I will not compromise my conservative principles for the sake of Kumbaya "unity". People with opposing viewpoints can respectfully disagree on policy and programs. I believe strongly that this is appropriate, and is why the founders wisely established a system of checks and balances.
 

I certainly understand the elation and pride the African American community is presently experiencing. It remains to be seen whether Obama can govern effectively, and whether he will "change" the nation for the better or the worse.

Sadly, "change" is not a policy, a program or a plan. Change for its own sake is also not automatically positive. Whenever one speaks of change, it is wise to ask, "From what, to what?"
 
If the change Obama wishes to implement is to circumvent or weaken the founders' intentional constitutional restrictions on Government, as Obama wished the Warren court would have gone further in doing (check out his own words from 2001: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck ) or if his agenda and initiatives are shaped by his socialistic background ( evidenced in my prior article: http://starboard.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/31/obamas_socialist_roots_run_deep.thtml), this would NOT be what I would consider to be "change" in a positive direction!
 
The ball is now exclusively in the Democrats and Obama's court. How they play it will determine the future of the country for better or worse for years to come. 
 
And we of the loyal opposition, conservatives in exile, will be watching, recording, remembering, and reporting.
 

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Open Letter to America's African-American Community

First off, let me say that is truly is a great day in America when a person of color can stand at the very threshold of the presidency of the United States!  This is testimony indeed of the great strides made by our population as a whole towards a color-blind society.  We are moving past the ignorant bigotry and intolerance of previous generations.
 
With that said, however, we must now question whether the African-American community is themselves falling short of Martin Luther King's dream that one day his children would "be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
 
Barack Obama enjoys almost monolithic support (around 90%) within the black community.  Is this based on anything more than ethnic identity?  Is it any less repugnant for the black community to embrace a candidate BECAUSE he's black than it would be for the white community to OPPOSE a black candidate for the same reason?  Isn't it more appropriate to support one candidate or another based on the criteria of character, experience, policies and past performance?
 
Now, I am NOT telling you not to support Barack Obama.  I'm asking you, WHY do you support Barack Obama?  If it's nothing more than ethnic kinship, I would ask that you honestly examine both candidates on the other criteria before deciding soley on the color of a man's skin!  You KNOW what it's like to be judged on that basis!  It is no less rediculous to assign VIRTUE based on skin color than it is to presume dishonor or unworthiness soley on skin color.
 
And if you are determined to vote for a "black man" just because he IS a "black man... Have you ever realized that Obama is only 1/16 Black African, and has no "slave blood" at all?  He is 50% white.  His father was 7/8 North African Arab (think Khadaffi) and 1/8 Black African (think Mandella or Tutu).  So you are not even voting on the basis of RACE!  You're voting on the basis of high melanin pigmentation!  Would you vote for ME if I sat long enough under a sunlamp?
 
Let me appeal to your intellect.  WHY do you support Barack Obama?  For that matter, why do you support DEMOCRATS?
 
The Democrats have talked for 50 years about "the poor" and have been presumed to be the champions of the minority community.  What have they done to enable and facilitate the success of the black community?  Don't you find it DEMEANING when liberals talk about the black community as though they are incapable and must be "helped" by the "parenting" of government?  Don't you resent if people wonder whether you EARNED your degree or your position at work, or whether some Affirmative Action program elevated you above your qualifications?  Doesn't it bother you that the "soft bigotry of low expectations" permeates Democratic thought and policy when it comes to the black community?  Don't you feel taken for granted when the Democrats PRESUME upon your vote because you are expected to vote nearly unanimously to keep them in power?
 
Liberals define "compassion" by the number of dependent people they dole out meager government "help" to.  Conservatives define "compassion" by the number of people enabled to be no longer dependent and who don't need governmental help!
 
Do you realize that the most vocal OPPONENTS of the Civil Rights Act were Democrats?  Do you realize most Civil Rights Legislation would not have passed if it were not for the strong support of Republicans?  Did you know that LINCOLN, who freed the slaves, was a REPUBLICAN?  George Wallace, the segregationist, was a Democrat!
 
What has Obama done?  Can you name an accomplishment?
 
Did you know that John McCain has a long list of legislative credits, with a history of coalition building and working across the aisle?  Did you know Obama has never introduced a single piece of legislation in the Senate?
 
Does "community organizing" qualify one to be president?  What is a community organizer? - Think ACORN.  Are you concerned about ACORN's activities?  Do voter-fraud and racketeering investigations give you pause to consider that maybe there's something fishy going on there?
 
Does Rev. Wright represent your thinking?
 
Do you support abortion up to (and beyond) the moment of birth?  Would you deny medical care for an infant born alive in a failed abortion?
 
Why is it ok to pursue the American Dream... but as soon as you achieve it, it's ok for the Government to take it away from you?
 
Robbing Peter to pay Paul may sound like a great idea, if you're Paul... but isn't the one doing it nothing more than a benevolent THIEF?
 
Do you know what Socialism or Marxism is?  Do you believe it to be a BAD thing for America?  Would you recognize a Socialist when you see one?  If not, check out:  http://starboard.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/31/obamas_socialist_roots_run_deep.thtml
 
Did you know Obama views our Constitution as an OBSTACLE to his policies?  I thought the President is sworn to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.  Obama views the RESTRICTIONS on Government placed in the Constitution by our founders to be a TRAGEDY!  Don't believe it?  Check it out:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck 
 
If the so-called "Trickle Down" theory of economics isn't valid, then why are you worried about the Wall Street Collapse, the Sub-Prime Mortgage crisis, or failures of insurance companies, banks and brokers?  Maybe it's true that when Business does poorly, EVERYONE does poorly and when business does well, EVERYONE does well.
 
Barack says his tax plans won't raise taxes on 95% of "small businesses".  What he doesn't tell you is that the 5% of small businesses that he WOULD be raising taxes on are the source of nearly EVERY new job created in the last decade!!  Sure, there are a large number of smaller businesses that make under $250K a year, but these businesses also do not employ more than a few people.  The 5% of "small businesses" (defined as those that are privately held and employ under 500 people) that WOULD experience increased tax burdens are the ones that employ 100, 200, 500 workers.  THEY have been hiring over the last decade while the big fortune 500 corporations have been simply maintaining, outsourcing or downsizing.  Do you work for an employer who is NOT on the Fortune 500 list?  HE will probably get hit in the wallet.  What happens when a small businessman sees his cost of doing business go up?  He must do one of two things.  Either he will raise the prices of his goods and services to cover the increased expenses, or he will cut his costs where he can.
 
In a down economy, raising prices may be impossible, as the market may not be able to sustain a price increase and his customers will stop buying.  If he does raise prices, that is an added cost to everyone who buys his product or service.  But if he doesn't raise prices, his options to cut costs are limited, and usually fall to workforce reduction.  YOUR JOB maybe!
 
So, if Barack wants to "soak the rich" by taxing those making over $250K - he may be costing YOU your JOB!
 
Remember, too, that the government doesn't tax "wealth" it taxes "income".  The wealthy HAVE money.  Tax policy doesn't take that away (until you die).  The wealthy make still more money by investing.  Sometimes they invest in municipal bonds, which fund local government projects like roads (that helps YOU).  Those investments are tax free.  Sometimes they invest in the Stock Market.  Those earnings are Capital Gains, which are taxed differently than ordinary income.  And those investments are the engine which enables companies to expand an create jobs.  And finally they invest OFFSHORE where the tax man doesn't get his hands on it.  Who bears the biggest burden of "Soak the Rich" policies?  The small businesses that employ the vast majority of US!
 
Are you willing to consider that while America may finally be ready to elect a black President, perhaps Barack Hussein Obama shouldn't be that one?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Socialist Roots Run Deep

As a candidate, Barack Obama presents more questions than answers:  questionable associations, rhetorical gymnastics, style over substance, questions over experience, even questions over eligibility and citizenship.  But when it comes right down to it in the home stretch, it's all about meat & potato economic issues.  As Clinton made his mantra "It's the economy, stupid", so this election is turning on the perception of the candidates' views and plans regarding the current economic woes.
 
Recently, Obama was leading comfortably in the polls.  But then "Joe the Plumber" dropped out of the sky and breathed new life into the McCain Campaign.  So what happened?  Joe just asked a question.  It was Obama's answer that woke people up and changed the dynamic of the campaign.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDVM7ODUBn8 
 
Obama revealed a socialist agenda.  "Spreading the Wealth" is his tax policy.  (Conservatives view tax policy as a means to raise necessary revenue for necessary services.  Liberals view tax policy as a means to raise necessary revenue, and to direct behavior.  Socialists and Marxists view tax policy as a means to redistribute wealth and restructure society!)  A large portion of Americans still find socialism distasteful.
 
Robbing from Peter to pay Paul may seem like a great idea to Paul.  (And frighteningly, we have an increasing population of "baby birds" sitting in their nest waiting with their mouths wide open.)  But Peter may not think so highly of the concept.  One might dismiss his objections as he has a vested interest, but the objective observer who is neither Peter nor Paul would have to acknowledge that Robin Hood is, in reality, no more than a thief.
 
So, was the "Joe the Plumber" just an isolated statement that too much is being made of?  Hardly.  It was a crack in the armor that revealed the true core beliefs of Barack Obama, which had been well cloaked before they came to light with his answer to Joe.
 
Back in 2001, Obama lamented that the Constitution RESTRICTS Government and stands in the way of the REDISTRIBUTIVE change he'd like to make!  The audio is SHOCKING and should be heard by every voter before heading to the polls.  So here it is!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck 
 
This is not surprising, given the Socialist, Marxist, and radical bent of so many of the cloud of questionable associates swirling around Barack Obama.  While Ayers and Wright got the press, they are just the tip of the iceberg.  http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1445/pub_detail.asp
 
Is it coincidental that Obama is surrounded by such a motley crew of associates?  Hardly.  In his own words from his book "Dreams of My Father":
 
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.
 
You can hear the audio here:  http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/barack-obama-admits-i-chose-my-friends.html
 
So, since COLLEGE he's sought out Marxists and Structural Feminists?  And he chose his friends carefully?  (I refer you back to WHO are his friends!)
 
And just what IS a "Structural Feminist"?  Well, there are many different varieties and branches of feminism.  Obama was specifically drawn to the "Structural Feminists".  As explained at http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev108.htm:
 
Structural feminist theory focuses on social structures, notably patriarchy and capitalism that oppress women. Theorists in this tradition emphasize the dominating influence of these social structures, but by doing so they also tend to construe women as passive. Despite their somewhat deterministic view of women's circumstances, structural feminists nevertheless call for resistance toward the mechanisms in families, schools, and workplaces that serve to reproduce oppressive relations of power.
 
So, of all the varieties of Feminism, he sought out the branch that is AntiCapitalist and Anti-Establishment.
 
Obama is and always has been a radical socialist if not Marxist.  It is who he is.  It is his foundational core. 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Berg v Obama - Headed for SCOTUS!

The lawsuit against Barack Obama challenging his citizenship eligibility to serve as President of the United States has been dismissed with the ruling that Philip Berg, the plaintiff, had no standing as a US voting citizen to bring the suit. Dismissal on these grounds means the judge has decided that the MERITS of the suit don't have to be weighed or decided (so he won't be on the hook for such a decision either way!) The FACTS of the case never get presented in open court, and the documents don't have to be produced. A very clean getaway for Obama.

The judge's ruling was based on precedents where voters were not found to have standing because they could not demonstrate direct harm to them or made vague generalities about wrong done to the general population. Lower courts have tended to avoid granting standing, seemingly preventing David from causing Goliath any great annoyance.

The Berg case is different, however. If Obama is elected President, and is later found to be ineligible to hold that office, the entire nation will suffer through a constitutional crisis. Berg simply sought to have an examination of the facts to determine the validity of Obama's candidacy. Those facts have not yet been vetted by a court! If a voting citizen of the United States does not have standing to prevent a national crisis of such a magnitude by raising the question of eligibility, to be decided on the evidence in open court, WHO DOES?

Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court."

There are even questions on whether the judge was "influenced" or had the decision written for him by some tied to Obama: http://james4america.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/judge-surrick-received-the-decision-he-issued/

It remains to be seen whether SCOTUS will hear the case, and even if so, it would appear the election will take place before the matter is legally settled.

Berg's suit sought to present evidence that Obama may have been born in Kenya, where under the law at the time, his mother (a US citizen) would have had to have been 19 years old to have conferred her citizenship to him. (Obama ACKNOWLEDGES dual citizenship with Kenya on his website). Berg also sought to produce evidence that Obama later held Indonesian citizenship when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and moved with him to Indonesia. Indonesia and the US did not recognize dual citizenship at the time, so the only valid citizenship he would have held in that case is Indonesian. He would have expatriated any US or other citizenship held.

Even if he subsequently regained US citizenship, it would be thru naturalization, which is expressly ineligible to serve as POTUS under Article II of the Constitution.

These facts have not been decided or ruled invalid. They have not been heard in court. The case was dismissed on the basis of WHO was bringing it, and not on its merits. The question of Obama's eligibility to serve REMAINS an open question.

There are other lawsuits pending on the issue. Marquis v Reed in the state of WA names the Secretary of State in Washington as the defendant rather than Obama – so it's possible a citizen of the state may be found to have "standing". This suit seeks to present the same facts as evidence that the Secretary of State has failed to verify Obama's eligibility before placing his name on the ballot. Marquis says similar suits are in progress in 10 other states.

In the end, this question will, in all likelihood, remain unanswered until after the election. Voters should be aware that it is still an open question as they head to the polls.

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another Lawsuit Filed on Obama's POTUS Eligibility

Thanks to the lawsuit filed by Philip Berg, Obama now ADMITS (on his "Fight the Smears" website and factcheck.org) that he held dual citizenship with Kenya as a child.  This, in and of itself, may arguably disqualify him under Article II as the whole point of the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is the avoidance of divided allegiances.  (Which makes his covert and quite possibly illegal activities [Logan Act?] on behalf of Kenya's thugocrat, Odinga, all the more relevant and disturbing.)

Image
Obama and thugocrat Odinga
 
 

There is a further complication, however.  His subsequent adoption by Lolo Soetoro and resultant INDONESIAN citizenship is a bigger fly in his ointment.  (I laugh whenever reference is made to "citizen of the WORLD'... Obama truly is a WORLD CITIZEN!)

Indonesia, at the time Obama lived there and was deemed an Indonesian citizen, did not recognize dual citizenship, and neither did the US recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia.  Thus, whether he held dual citizenship with the US and Kenya, whether he was born in the US or Kenya, or even - as some suggest - CANADA, is irrelevant as the ONLY legitimate citizenship he held once his adopted father moved him to Indonesia was Indonesian!  His US Citizenship would be forfeit!

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian/

Image

Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would be thru NATURALIZATION and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II.  (Could this be why he uses the politically risky name Barack Hussein Obama instead of the more innocuous "Barry Soetoro"?  Perhaps Barry Soetoro is STILL an Indonesian citizen?  Perhaps there are naturalization papers in the name of Barry Soetoro?  I'm just asking...

The judge in the Berg suit has not, to this date, granted Obama's motion to dismiss the case and it continues to move forward.  (If the case has no merit, why hasn't the judge granted the relief Obama filed for??)  Now Obama has a second suit he must contend with.  Both could be easily dispensed with by providing the demanded documentation which would prove he is a "natural born citizen" and thus eligible to serve.  He has not produced these documents and instead seeks to DELAY discovery and production of any documents while he makes motions to dismiss.  The "proof" of eligibility he's offered is a "Certificate of Live Birth" posted on his "Fight the Smears" website, and duplicated on Factcheck.org and the Daily Kos sites!  (Forensic experts have declared it a forgery!) Even if it were a genuine Hawaiian "Birth Certificate" with raised seal (and it's not), it would still not adequately address the Indonesian citizenship issue which Obama has yet to acknowledge!

The text of the new suit appears below.  Note the factual argument in section 5 which is the basis of the case.

(Hey, anyone know a good pro-bono attorney in MO???  I'd love to bring a similar suit that our loony leftist Missouri Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, would have to respond to!!) 


STEVEN R MARQUIS Plaintiff

vs.

SAMUEL SUMNER REED, ACTING IN THE OFFICE OF WASHINGTON STATE, SECRETARY OF STATE

Defendant


CIVIL ACTION NO___________


1. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ORDER

1.1. Plaintiff Steven R Marquis, [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] hereby offers this memorandum in support of his motion for injunctive relief, to demand performance of constitutional duties related to the Office of Washington State, Secretary of State by Samuel Sumner Reed, a/k/a Sam Reed, [hereinafter Defendant”].

1.2. Plaintiff’s complaint challenges the presidential candidate Mr. Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for the Office of President and demands that the Office of Secretary of State make such determination by acquisition of original documentation or by receipt of verifiable information from another government entity so charged with overseeing the election process such as the Federal Elections Commission.

1.3. Plaintive argues that when a challenge is received by the Washington State, Secretary of State to the qualification for office of a candidate appearing on the Washington State Ballot that the entire burden of proof falls on the Candidate for Office to present such information and documentation to the Washington State, Secretary of State as would be normal and customary to establish ones minimum qualifications for office.

1.4. Plaintiff argues that the Office of Secretary of State has the Constitutional and Statutory authority to make such determinations as part of certifying and executing fair and open elections.

1.5. Plaintiff argues that is it only sufficient to show reasonable cause for complaint to the Secretary of State for his Office to require documentation of the respective candidate relevant to determination of minimum qualification; that lacking explicit statute defining the requisite documentation that the Secretary of State has the intrinsic authority to set those reasonable standards that would establish certain confidence in the people in the electoral process.

1.6. Plaintiff seeks focused and expedited review, to protect the veracity of the electoral process and maintain the people’s confidence in the government.

2. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2.1. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states in particular part, "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." .

2.2. Mr. Barack H. Obama is a candidate for United States Office of the President. However, Mr. Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which is, he must be a "natural born" citizen. Mr. Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a "natural born" citizen. There are other legal challenges before the Federal Courts regarding aspects of lost or dual citizenship. That challenge in an of itself further demonstrates plaintiff’s argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the veracity of the electoral process that would allow such fundamental questions exist at this late hour preceding the election.

2.3. The Washington State office of Secretary of State is responsible for the veracity of the Washington State election process from verifying ahead of time the qualification of the voters, the ballots themselves, the candidates and the final counting and certification of results. That office is intended to be non-biased and to provide the critical sense of fairness and correctness necessary for the people to have faith in the fundamental underpinnings of the democratic basis for our republic.

2.4. There is a reasonable and common expectation by the people that to qualify for the ballot that the individuals so listed meet the minimum qualifications as outlined in the constitutions and that proof of those minimum qualifications has been received by the officials executing the election process. Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to meeting those qualifications was requested and received by the Office of the Secretary of State with no verification demanded. This practice, it should be noted, represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting even a driver’s license. Since the office of Secretary of state has at its core the mission of certifying and establishing the veracity of the election process, this complaint seeks a directive to the Washington State Office of Secretary of State to receive appropriate verifiable documentation and certify any individual’s qualification for Office whose basic credentials for that Office have been challenged by formal request to the Office of Secretary of State from a citizen of Washington State.

2.5. In the case of individuals seeking the Office of President of the United States, the US constitution prescribes a system of electors where citizens of the respective state have a state controlled election wherein electors representing the interest of the named individual on the state ballot are so elected to represent the interests of the respective state at the electoral college. Thus, we do not have a federal ballot controlled by the federal government; we have a Washington State ballot where we elect electors who in turn represent the named individual on the ballot. That is one more reason that the Washington Secretary of State has prevue over the certification of not just the counts of the ballots so cast, but also the veracity of the contents of the ballot.

2.6. This complaint of failure to carry out a key task in our election system could be satisfied should verification of candidate qualifications be received from original or certified documents from primary sources or from a verifiable report generated from government agencies such as the Federal Elections Commission. It is the Washington State, Secretary of State’s duty to certify the veracity of documents or reports so received.

2.7. To avert likely civil unrest and a constitutional crisis which would certainly accrue after the election through laborious legal challenges and impeachment process, this complaint seeks to resolve such complaints prior to the election. It was incumbent on the candidates to present such documentation, but to date Mr. Obama has failed to do so.

2.8. This complaint seeks specifically to verify through the office of the Washington Secretary of State that Mr. Obama is a "natural born" citizen.

2.9. At this point, Mr. Obama has not allowed independent or official access to his birth records and supporting hospital records. Mr. Obama’s citizenship status has and is being challenged in the federal courts which challenge will cast doubt on the veracity of the electoral system regardless of outcome if not resolved prior to the election. The Washington State, Secretary of State Office is specifically charged with certifying and guaranteeing the veracity of official documents and overseeing the elections to wit the people’s confidence in the fundamental aspect of democracy is maintained. To date, in this regard, Secretary of State Sam Red has not carried out that fundamental duty.

2.10. The Federal Elections Commission FEC is generally tasked with providing oversight and verifications of federal candidates. To date the FEC has not produced either certification or verifiable documentation regarding the candidates basic qualifications for office. Lacking that certification from the FEC, this complaint request the Washington State - Secretary of State Sam Reed to formally request of Hawaii State Health Department officials to produce forthwith a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate.

2.11. This complaint requests that Washington State - Secretary of State Sam Reed formally requests primary backup materials if they exist of hospital records that would lend veracity to a Hawaii live birth declaration. A court order of discovery is requested to assist that investigation directed to the respective hospital if so identified on a live birth certificate.

2.12. Should Mr. Obama be discovered, whether by virtue of malfeasance, or negligence, or ignorance on his part to not have a valid certified US birth certificate or to otherwise due to have been revealed by such examination of original records to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and thereby his nomination be declared void by the appropriate authorities acting under the law, Plaintiff as well as other Americans will suffer irreparable harm including but not limited to:

2.12.1. Functional, or actual, disenfranchisement of large numbers of citizens, being members of the Democratic Party, who would have been deprived of the ability to choose a qualified nominee of their liking;

2.12.2. Irreparable harm to the structure and integrity of the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. In turn, this too would lead to disenfranchisement.

2.12.3. If the candidate Mr. Obama were to secure the election and later be discovered ineligible, the resulting constitutional and national security crisis that would ensue would generate a severe and genuine likelihood of civil disturbance by virtue of reaction to said disenfranchisement and upset.

2.13. It was well expected that after all the public concern that has been raised over the preceding months now that Mr. Obama would have released for public or official scrutiny the relevant documentation to back up his claim of qualification as a “natural born citizen”. His reaction to public concern and his recent actions in Federal District Court 9/24/2008 demonstrate that Mr. Obama has no intentions of releasing said documentation for review or cannot because they do not exist. The late hour of this request was dictated by the delaying tactics of the candidate Mr. Obama, and the non-responsiveness to Plaintiff’s repeated request to the Office Washington State - Secretary of State Sam Reed.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3.1. As we do not have federal ballot per se, Washington State, through the office of the Washington State, Secretary of State creates its own ballot and supervises the same, electing electors to represent our choice for the Office of President. This case arises under the Washington Constitution RCW 42.04.020 and Section 15, Article III, Section 17 of the Washington State Constitution and Chapter 43.07 RCW. and the laws of the United States and presents a state question within this Court's jurisdiction.

4. PARTIES

4.1. Plaintiff, Steven Russel Marquis [hereinafter "Plaintiff'], is an adult individual with a home address of 34077 SE 56th St Fall City, WA 98024. Citizen USA.

4.2. Defendant, Samuel Sumner Reed, a/k/a Sam Reed is an adult individual with an office address of PO Box 40220 Olympia, WA 98504-0220. Washington State, Secretary of State.

5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS THAT DEMOSTRATE THE NEED TO PROOF THE CANDIDATE’S MINIMUM CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION.

5.1. These allegations and statements are not intended to be proof of the status of Mr. Obama’s citizenship or lack thereof. That will be determined in the venue of the US District court. The listing of the allegations detailed below are included to demonstrate the reasonable assertion of the need for the Washington State, Secretary of State to reestablish public confidence in the veracity of the electoral process and the obvious need for precertification as to a candidate’s meeting the minimum constitutional requirements.

5.2. By the U.S. Constitution, in order to run for office of the President, you must be a "natural born citizen" and you may not hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships with foreign countries. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

5.3. There are questions as to where Obama was actually born; in the United States or abroad but subsequently registered in Hawaii. There are further questions regarding Obama's United States citizenship, if he ever held such, being expatriated and his failure to regain his citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance once he turned eighteen (18) years of age. There are additional questions regarding Obama's multi-citizenships with foreign countries, which he may still maintain. To date, Obama has refused to prove he is qualified under the U.S. Constitution and his eligibility to run as President of the United States despite requests and recent opportunities to do so in Federal Court.

5.4. The "certificate" that Mr. Obama has posted on his official WEB site is a "Certification of Live Birth," and not a “Birth Certificate” from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place.

5.5. Researchers have claimed to have been unable to locate any birthing records in island hospitals for Barak Obama’s mother. Mr. Obama has offered none for review.

5.6. Three forensic document experts have published extensive reports claiming that there is evidence of tampering on even the Obama WEB site displayed certificate.

5.7. Numerous Freedom of Information Requests have been sent to Officials in Hawaii with no response from the public officials nor has Mr. Obama granted access for release of the information lending to the concern over the veracity of the attestation on the candidate’s application for candidacy for the office of President of the United States.

5.8. The facts are undisputed by Obama that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen however, his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama's parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.

5.9. Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961; however, has never given the name of the hospital he was born in; whereas there are reports that Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Mr. Barack H. Obama was born in Kenya. Reports further reflect that Mr. Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy. Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008 stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen. There are claims of records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii, but these have not been released for scrutiny. It is alleged in the Federal trial and is a matter of much general speculation that Mr. Obama’s mother was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. It is likely that Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth.

5.10. Regarding the alleged birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, it is variously circulated that Obama's birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Obama has provided no proof of birth from of either of these or any other US based facility. He has made no effort to address these public concerns.

5.11. There are no published or known hospital birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), Obama's mother. There are only claims of records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.

5.12. There is even a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.; however, the date of birth shows to be August 23, 1961

5.13. At the time of Obama's birth in 1961, Kenya was a British Colony. Subsequently, under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Mr. Barack H. Obama became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. There are no indications or reports that Mr. Obama ever renounced that dual citizenship conferred either by nature of birth or by virtue of his father’s Kenyan citizenship. On Mr. Obama’s Senate web site, Mr. Obama acknowledges his father holds Kenyan nationality but avoids addressing that that he (Mr. Obama) also held/holds Kenyan nationality.

5.14. If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of “natural born.” The laws in effect at the time of Obama's birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obama's mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a "natural born" citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27,1952,66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.c. §1401(b), Matter of S-F-and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att'y Gen. 1944). Obama would have only been Naturalized and a Naturalized citizen is not qualified nor eligible to run for Office of the President. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section Clause 4.

5.15. Furthermore, if Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya.

5.16. The Nationality Act of 1940 provided for the loss of citizenship when the person became naturalized upon the naturalization of his or her parent having custody of such person. Obama's mother expatriated her U.S. Citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and relocated herself and her son (Obama) to Indonesia.

5.17. Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has available copies of the school registration where it clearly states Obama's name as Barry Soetoro and lists his citizenship as Indonesian, Obama's father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama's date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4,1961 in Honolulu and Obama's Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by television show Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher took the actual footage of the school record.

5.18. In or about 1971, Obama's mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.

5.19. Sometime after the return of Obama to Hawaii, Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham returned to Hawaii and divorced her husband, Lolo Soetoro. At the time of divorce, Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham could have regained her U.S. citizenship. In order to regain her citizenship, Obama's mother would have had to take the oath of allegiance required. Such oath of allegiance may be taken abroad before a diplomatic or consular of the United States, or in the United States before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of a court. Such Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General and upon demand, a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered, under the seal of the embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General shall be delivered. The certified copy shall be evidence of the facts stated therein before any court of record or judicial tribunal and in any department or agency of the Government of the United States. 8U.S.c.§1435.

5.20. Obama's mother failed to take the oath in order to regain her U.S. Citizenship. Therefore, Obama would not have been able to regain his U.S. Citizenship until he turned eighteen (18) years and then only after he took the Oath of Allegiance before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the U.S. before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of court. Since the Oath of Allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General, then Obama should be able to produce in court a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered. No such copy has been to date produced for public examination.

5.21. After many attempts of the public to obtain Obama's Certificate of Birth, a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was placed on Obama's campaign website. However, as posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth as posted on Obama's campaign website. The Forensic Expert findings were that the posted Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was a forgery. It was further discovered that the posted COLB had evidence of having been created from an altered/forged from a COLB issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Maya Kasandra Soetoro is Obama's half sister who was born in Indonesia and her birth was later registered in Hawaii. The altered and allegedly forged COLB is still on Obama's website located at http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

5.22. Even if Obama had and subsequently maintained his United States Citizenship, which citizenship he has failed before District Court to demonstrate, he may still carry citizenships in Kenya and/or Indonesia. These facts call into question what the constitution attempted to address regarding potently divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Mr. Obama carries multiple citizenships and would be ineligible to run for President of the United States. United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

6. Failure to grant injunctive relief will realize these detriments:

6.1. Failing to officially and publically vet the status of the citizenship claims of Mr. Obama will cast a pall of doubt on the election process and taint the election results themselves.

6.2. Failure to grant injunctive relief would allow a potentially corrupted, fraudulent nomination and election process to continue.

6.3. Failure to grant injunctive relief demanding the Washington State, Secretary of State certify the minimum qualifications of challenged candidates not only allows, but promotes an overwhelming degree of disrespect and creates such a lack of confidence in voters of the primary and electoral process itself, so that it would cement a prevailing belief that no potential candidate has to obey the laws of this country, respect our election process, follow the Constitution, or even suffer any consequence for lying and defrauding voters to get onto the ballot when they have no chance of serving if they fraudulently manage to get elected.

6.4. As stated above, Plaintiff as well as all American citizens will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted. Plaintiff does not have any other way of redress regarding these very significant and important issues.

6.5. Despite many complaints, the FEC has failed Plaintiff and the American citizens by their failure to date to perform due diligence and inquire into Mr. Obama's eligibility to run for Office of the President. Lacking such certification, it is incumbent on the Washington State, Secretary of State to certify or decertify as to the eligibility for office before the election based on the availability of clear documentation demonstrating that minimum qualifications for the respective office has been met by candidates.

7. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:

7.1. Grant injunctive relief demanding that Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed immediately acquire primary documents or certified copies from primary sources such as Health Department and hospital records or verifiable reports regarding same from the FEC.

7.2. Plaintiff requests Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed to immediately demand such verifiable report from the FEC or demand a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth and subpoena as needed for the release hospital records if so claimed on said Live Birth Certificate to further prove he was born in Hawaii as Mr. Obama claims.

7.3. Direct Washington State, Secretary of State Sam Reed to certify or decertify the challenged candidates prior to the election based on the availability of clear documentation.

7.4. Plaintiff requests the Washington State, Secretary of State to immediately demand a certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance proving he regained his United States Citizenship.

7.5. If Secretary Sam Reed is unable to document a certified record of Obama’s oath of allegiance and birth and hospital records, Secretary of State Sam Reed must decertify Mr. Obama as a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States Office of the President under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I;

7.6. Award Plaintiff such costs and fees applicable by law; and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

Steven R Marquis

34077 SE 56th St Fall City, WA 98024

               425-698-7084        

VERIFICATION

I, STEVEN R MARQUIS, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint for Injunctive Relief are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties law relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.  

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tax Facts!

 Sure, Barack Obama's associations are troubling and raise questions of his values, world view, judgment, character and honesty... and Bill Ayers isn't the half of it

But for so many of us today, these issues are just so much "talking heads" noise. The American public is much more focused, in this day of financial turmoil, on "meat and potatoes" issues of the economy. And the health of Wall Street isn't as significant as the "Main Street" viewpoint of "what about my job, my healthcare, my TAXES?"

The discussion of taxes occupied a prominent portion of the final debate and "Joe the Plumber" has become a phenomenon!

Unfortunately, neither candidate clearly articulated their own or their opponent's tax policies clearly or concisely enough that the casual viewer could possibly extract a lucid understanding of how their policies would or could affect U.S. It then falls to analysts and commentators to distill it all down for public consumption.

So, here are some Tax Facts to bear in mind as you evaluate the candidates and their statements on taxes.

* Remember that there are scores of taxes imposed on the American people... not just the income tax. Your net buying power is affected by the sum total of them, and not just the income tax. So if you have your income tax reduced, but taxes on the goods and services you buy increase, you may see a net reduction in your purchasing power though you have more dollars in your pocket. Moreover, if tax policies result in higher prices, this is effectively a hidden tax as your purchasing power erodes.

* 30% of Americans have no income tax liability! They pay no income tax. When Obama offers "tax relief" to 95% of the people, 1/3 of those people will get "relief" in the form of a check when they paid nothing into the system! This is classic socialistic redistribution of wealth. Obama unwittingly revealed this intent in his "Joe the Plumber" conversation.

* Even if it were so that 95% could or would receive a tax cut, the top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. Yes, almost 40% of all income taxes are already paid by the top 1%. Based on these numbers, is further soaking the "rich" sustainable?

* Tax cuts for the rich? You are in the top 25% of income earners if you bring in more than $62,068 a year. (Bet you didn't know that means you're rich…) The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). (source) This means that the bottom 75% of earners already bear only 14% of the burden despite earning almost 1/3 of all the income. Who needs tax relief? If you're in the top 25% at $62K, how low must your income be to be considered by some to be "middle class"? Low enough to be one of those not paying income taxes at all?

* Tax cuts don't reduce federal revenues; they stimulate economic growth which results in increased revenues to the federal government! It happens every time it's tried.  Kennedy's tax cuts raised revenues. Reagan's tax cuts doubled revenues. Bush's tax cuts also increased revenues. (Spending is another issue entirely.)

* Tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas: The implication, of course, is that there is some policy, implemented or proposed, to reward companies for sending jobs abroad. There is not. A generalized policy toward tax relief on business in general (which would positively impact the economy as a whole) would be a tide that lifts all boats – including those who might outsource – but there is no concerted effort to inventivize shipping jobs offshore.

* On the other hand, there are dis-incentives in the tax code to bring overseas jobs back home. Removing these barriers has been painted as a "tax break" for companies who have overseas operations, even though doing so would bring these operations back home. Currently, the U.S. has the second highest tax rates on businesses in the world, something mentioned by John McCain during Wednesday’s debate. When a company has overseas operations, they pay the prevailing tax rate in the country of the operations. Here is the conundrum: Whatever the difference is between that overseas tax burden and our U.S. rates is required to be paid to the US, but is deferred as long as the operations remain overseas. Upon repatriating these operations back to the U.S., the cumulative difference is immediately due. Therefore, companies can avoid paying this accrued tax by remaining overseas. (These policies have been in place since long before George W. Bush, by the way.) If this barrier to returning home could be mitigated, many operations would be repatriated, creating domestic jobs and stimulating our economy. This could be accomplished by a moratorium on collecting the accrued difference, by allowing the accrued difference to be amortized over a number of years, or by removing the requirement to pay the difference at all. Furthermore, the current high corporate tax burden in the U.S. drives business overseas to pay the lower rates and defer the difference, so cutting the rate to a rate more competitive with the global market would keep more business at home in the first place.

* Corporations don't pay taxes? The fact is that corporations consider taxes part of their cost of doing business, and so they respond to increased taxes in one of two ways: they either increase the cost of the goods and services they provide (impacting their customer's buying power) or they reduce other costs by cutting jobs. When we say we will reduce taxes for the "middle class" and increase taxes on those earning over $250,000 (which are primarily small businesses who employ people), we will see higher prices – which reduces buying power and therefore hurts the "middle class."

Sadly, most Americans do not understand these facts, and are therefore easily swayed by eloquent "we're going to take care of you" speeches. Whenever a politician promises you a free goodie, please: ask “how?”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Joe the Plumber: Destroy Him!!

Isn't it interesting how predictable the American Left is? When someone scores an indisputable point against "the One", they ignore the message and attack the messenger! "Joe the Plumber" has revealed and highlighted Obama's socialistic agenda – and it's had an impact on Obama's support! So he must be destroyed.

First, we heard the immediate "I don't know any plumbers making $250,000" argument. I'm still not sure what the purpose of such a statement could possibly be, but the dismissive tone accompanying the statement is obviously intended to attempt to ridicule Joe away! But the statement is completely disingenuous, as Joe didn't even say he was a plumber, nor that he makes $250K.  He said he's considering buying a PLUMBING COMPANY, which EMPLOYS plumbers, and which GROSSES around a quarter mil. He didn't say he makes $250K. He didn't say he'd EARN 250K after buying the business. The business grosses $250K. The business pays it's employees. The business maintains its vehicles. The business buys its materials. The business pays for its office, phones and utilities. The business pays its taxes. The business pays to advertise. After all that, the business owner can take a salary.

Next the LeftMedia lights up with the accusation that Joe isn't even a registered voter. Aside from the fact that this is blatantly false… Joe is registered and voted in the OH primaries… what possible relevance would this have? I thought ACORN has, as its purpose, to get unregistered people interested, active and REGISTERED now! So here's a guy who's now very interested and engaged in the political process. We should rejoice!

So then the thugocracy dispatches their investigators to dig dirt on Joe. They claim he's not licensed… But he doesn't need one presently, and the company he works for has one! From the Toledo Blade, "According to Lucas County Building Inspection records, A. W. Newell Corp. does maintain a state plumbing license, and one with the City of Toledo, but would not be allowed to work in Lucas County outside of Toledo without a county license." Does he even need one to OWN a plumbing company that EMPLOYS plumbers?   And again, how is this relevant to Obama's Socialism?

Finally, the thugs discover that Joe has a tax lien on about $1100 he owes in back taxes. Does this mean he's not credible to ask Obama a question on the impact of his tax policies? Does this have bearing on the fact that Obama's answers reveal him to be a Robin Hood Socialist bent on redistribution of wealth? It would seem that someone struggling to meet his CURRENT tax liability would be uniquely appropriate to question how Obama's policies might make matters worse!

You may have heard the phrase, "Don't kill the messenger."  This phrase is usually attributed to the ancient Greek and then later Roman custom of employing messengers to carry news throughout the empire. The law PROTECTED these messengers, and decreed that they should be allowed to pass unharmed as they carried out their duty, even if the recipients found the message distasteful.

Sadly, Obama and his minions DO try to destroy anyone who can bring a message critical or damaging to the campaign. Live long and prosper, Joe!

Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ayers Isn't The HALF Of It!

The Obama defenders are complaining that William Ayers’ radical bombings in the late 1960s and early 1970s are dismissible as "old news." They declare Obama's associations to be "irrelevant." (Somehow I'm prompted to wonder what they'd say if McCain were a friend of a 1940s Nazi prison camp guard.) Yet Obama's associations are relevant, as they are in fact current news, and they speak to his judgment, character and to his political proclivities and inclinations.  And we can never forget that a man is known by the company he keeps.
 
Here is a brief accounting of over a dozen of Obama’s long-time colleagues, associates and friends.
 
Khalid al-Mansour: the anti-Semite Black Nationalist racist who changed his name from Don Marshall and converted to Islam, was a patron of Obama’s and helped advance Obama’s candidacy to law school. He was instrumental in starting the violent Black Panthers group, reportedly became Kind Saud’s attorney and represents OPEC. No wonder Obama doesn't want to drill anywhere, although he changed that tune in last Tuesday's debate in an apparent attempt to drill for votes. 
 
As an article in FrontPageMag.com reported, And why is it that black racists such as al-Mansour constitute a significant proportion of these hate mongers? In large part, it is because blacks have been specifically and aggressively targeted for recruitment by leaders of the worldwide jihad, just as they were targeted for recruitment by the Communist Party USA in the 1920s. Black grievance, combined with the evangelism of the Nation of Islam over the last seventy years, has established an audience for the ideology of hate.”
 
It is notable that Khalid al-Mansour is an advisor and friend to Prince al-Walid bin Talal, the Saudi sheik to whom Mayor Rudy Giuliani returned a $10 million checkright after 9/11 because bin Talal stated that America brought the bloodthirsty attack on itself due to our foreign policy.
 
Rashid Khalidi: an enthusiastic supporter of the Palestinians, fervent critic of Israel (which he calls a destructive “racist” state), an admirer of suicide bombers and a driving force behind the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). This so-called pro-Palestinian “community organization” in Chicago is another beneficiary of the Obama-Ayers team at the Woods Fund. It promotes an agenda that would horrify Obama’s Jewish supporters and any normal person. In fact, both Sen. Obama and Mr. Ayers actually spoke at a testimonial dinner for Rashid Khalidi.
 
According to Jack Kelly in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “ ‘Khalidi and Obama lived in nearby faculty residential zones and the two families dined together a number of times," a source on the University of Chicago faculty told WorldNet Daily. "The Obamas even babysat the Khalidi children.”
 
Ingrid Mattson: President of the troubling Islamic Society of North America, a group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist trial, and a woman whom Obama invited to lead prayer at the Democrat Convention, which she did.
 
Frank Marshall Davis: another of Obama's mentors mentioned in his book, a well-known Stalinist Communist whose devotion to the Soviet Union and hatred for an America which he described as racist and imperialistic put him under FBI surveillance for at least 19 years. It is quite possible that Davis did more to shape Obama’s world view than many in his entourage.

Tony Rezko
: convicted felon of fraud and shady dealings, he and Obama were very close. Rezko helped get Obama a sweetheart mortgage, and he bundled tons of money for Obama’s campaign. Rezko bought property (under another sweetheart deal) to be Obama's neighbor. As of today, it appears Rezko is willing to talk to reduce his sentence.
 
William Ayers: Ayers is still today (this is not an “old news” story) an unrepentant terrorist.  He was quoted (coincidentally on September 11, 2001, in the New York Times) as being proud and unapologetic for the bombings of the Pentagon, the Capitol and the New York City Police where several police officers were murdered as a result. In fact, he stated that his only regret was that they hadn't done more.  For a smug thug like this, Sen. Obama – unbelievably – did the favor of writing a dust-jacket blurb forMr. Ayers' 2001 book, "Fugitive Days". 
 
Ayers and Obama served on the board of the Annenberg Foundation together, overseeing the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars. Currently, or rather, inexplicably, all the related records remain "unavailable."
 
Interestingly, the Annenberg Foundation runs the "Factcheck.org" site that Obama uses as his only source of "facts" on his "fight the smears" website. Why or how factcheck.org is given any mainstream media credibility as a fact source is laughable. The mainstream press should be ashamed of itself for using them.
 
Saved from jail, unfortunately, by legal technicalities, Ayers is married to Bernardine Dohrn, another Weathermen terrorist once on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List, who did serve time for refusing to testify about the death of other Weathermen when a bomb they were building blew up prematurely.  J. Edgar Hoover called her ''the most dangerous woman in America'' and ''la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left.''
 
Bernardine Dohrn, who in the 80’s worked at the same time with Michelle Obama for the Chicago law firm Sidley Austin,was also a fan of Charles Manson:
 
At a 1969 "War Council" in Flint, Michigan, Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman "fork salute," she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: "Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!" The "War Council" ended with a formal declaration of war against "AmeriKKKa," always spelled with three K's to signify the United States' allegedly ineradicable white racism.
 
ACORN: An organization so fraught with voter fraud they should be closed down and indicted under RICO. Where you're never too dead to vote twice. Ever wonder what a "community organizer" is?  Think ACORN.  For whom was Obama a "constitutional lawyer"? ACORN.  Currently, numerous ACORN offices are being raided by the FBI and investigated for ongoing and major voter fraud.
 
Fannie/Freddie: Obama was the number two campaign contribution recipient from Freddie and Fannie execs, behind Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd. And bear in mind, those are numbers compiled over nine years. Obama has been a senator only for four of those years and raked in almost as much dough as Dodd did in all nine years.
 
Franklin Raines/Jim Johnson: Former heads of Fannie Mae, both men were removed for impropriety. Both made tens of millions of dollars from their time at the helm, helping to pilot the economy onto the rocks. Are there two people more responsible for the current economic mess? Besides Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, they may have had more to do with creating the problem than anyone else... and they're in Obama's inner circle giving economic advice; Jim Johnson was actually chosen to vet Obama's VP Pick.
 
Rev. Wright and  Father Pfleger: radical, fervently anti-American, and anti-Semitic. The Rev. Louis Farrakhan, also an anti-Semite and black racist, was recently honored by Rev. Wright for “Lifetime Achievement”. And Obama called them mentors, friends and/or spiritual advisors. What did he learn from them over the decades of their association? And why did he not reject their views until it was politically expedient for him to do so?
 
Michelle Obama:  Mrs. Obama seems to hold radical separatist views consistent with a 20-year attendance and tutelage under Rev. Wright. Her college thesis was on assimilation vs. "the black culture,” and she was openly dismayed that so many blacks were choosing to assimilate into the American melting-pot culture. She also stated on the campaign trail that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country.  This, from a possible First Lady of the land.
 
From anti-American at best, to virulently anti-American and criminal anti-American at worst, this is the rag-tag crowd with whom Obama has chosen to build his career and personal relationships for the past few decades. That such a person – and crowd - could end up holding the fate and deepest secrets of our most precious jewel, America, in their hands – as well as all our futures - is deeply troubling, to say the least, and it would be an unspeakable tragedy if it were to transpire. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ADVISORY; Political Storm Obama

ADVISORY: Political Storm Obama

 

Disclaimer: This piece is political humor and parody. (I don’t want any misunderstandings like the New Yorker recently experienced!)
 
Dateline: July 2008
 
The National Climate Agency has been tracking a new political storm which is rapidly becoming so powerful it threatens to change the landscape of the entire nation! Political Storm Obama is predicted by some to make landfall in November, triggering potential landslides. Some are calling this a history maker.
 
First, some background on this gathering storm:
 
Political Storm Obama first formed off Africa as a minor depression.  This is the first time such a storm originated from there. Then it loitered as it did some organizing before rapidly moving to the left of the Congressional Isle.
 
There, it spun aimlessly for a time – gaining strength and drifting ever further left.
 
Recently Obama’s track has become more difficult to predict, as it seems to zig and zag randomly left and right… even paying a visit to the Middle East.
 
Fortunately, not too much damage was done there. Some fear a return visit – but strangely, others would welcome one, saying Obama might help their efforts to scour the eastern Mediterranean coast of what they classify as pollutants.
 
But for now, Obama continues its leftward path toward Washington, and if predictions hold and Obama continues on its present track, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will take a direct hit on January 20. Damage is expected to be severe.
 
Despite coming ashore in the Nation’s Capitol – risk assessments are indicating widespread danger to refineries, offshore oil rigs in the Gulf, Nuclear Power Plants nationwide, and coal mines ranging from West Virginia to Wyoming! This storm threatens our very way of life and could return us to the days of beeswax candles and buggy whips if it unleashes its full fury! Healthcare providers are anticipating being taxed beyond their limits. Utilities are also nervous about their ability to continue to provide adequate service.
 
Citizens are urged to prepare by stocking up on non-perishable food, firewood, and antidepressants. They may need to hunker down for an extended period.
 
Some contrarian forecasters did try to offer an alternative, more optimistic scenario: that Obama would run out of steam before coming ashore. This scenario is generally ridiculed by the mainstream.
 
All agree, however, that while Obama’s track may waffle a bit, a real turn to the right is virtually impossible.
 
Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman
 

Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »