HOW BIG IS WAL*MART?
1 . At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day.
2 . This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.
4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.
5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private employer.
6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the World
7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.
8. During this same period, 31 Supermarket chains sought bankruptcy (including Winn-Dixie). 9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.
10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.
11. This year, 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is approximately6.5 billion.)
12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart
13. Let Wal-Mart bail out Wall Street
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Supreme Court Reviewing Obama's Citizenship
CHICAGO — The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's election.
The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer's supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation's highest court.
The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells.
Legal experts say the appeal has little chance of succeeding, despite appearing on the court's schedule. Legal records show it is only the tip of an iceberg of nationwide efforts seeking to derail Obama's election over accusations that he either wasn't born a U.S. citizen or that he later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia.
The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a "natural-born" U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.
Among those filing lawsuits is Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes' suit seeks to halt certification of votes in California. Another suit by a Kentucky man seeks to have a federal judge review Obama's original birth certificate, which Hawaiian officials say is locked in a state vault.
Other suits have been filed by Andy Martin, whose case was dismissed in Hawaii, and by an Ohio man whose case also was dismissed. Five more suits, all later dismissed, were filed in Hawaii by a person who is currently suing the "Peoples Association of Human, Animals Conceived God/s and Religions, John McCain (and) USA Govt." The plaintiff previously sought to sue Wikipedia and "All News Media."
The most famous case questioning Obama's citizenship was filed in Pennsylvania in August on behalf of Philip J. Berg and sought to enjoin the Democratic National Committee from nominating Obama. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the case. Earlier, a federal judge rejected it for "lack of standing" — ruling that Berg had no legal right to sue. In cases like this, judges sometimes believe the matter is best left to political institutions, such as the Electoral College or Congress, said legal scholar Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles.
The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was distributed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said.
Many petitioners seeking stays of pending events have their cases distributed to the full court, he said. Of those, Volokh found that 782 were denied in the last eight years while just 60 were heard — and not all of those ultimately were successful.
The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer's supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation's highest court.
The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells.
Legal experts say the appeal has little chance of succeeding, despite appearing on the court's schedule. Legal records show it is only the tip of an iceberg of nationwide efforts seeking to derail Obama's election over accusations that he either wasn't born a U.S. citizen or that he later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia.
The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a "natural-born" U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.
Among those filing lawsuits is Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes' suit seeks to halt certification of votes in California. Another suit by a Kentucky man seeks to have a federal judge review Obama's original birth certificate, which Hawaiian officials say is locked in a state vault.
Other suits have been filed by Andy Martin, whose case was dismissed in Hawaii, and by an Ohio man whose case also was dismissed. Five more suits, all later dismissed, were filed in Hawaii by a person who is currently suing the "Peoples Association of Human, Animals Conceived God/s and Religions, John McCain (and) USA Govt." The plaintiff previously sought to sue Wikipedia and "All News Media."
The most famous case questioning Obama's citizenship was filed in Pennsylvania in August on behalf of Philip J. Berg and sought to enjoin the Democratic National Committee from nominating Obama. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the case. Earlier, a federal judge rejected it for "lack of standing" — ruling that Berg had no legal right to sue. In cases like this, judges sometimes believe the matter is best left to political institutions, such as the Electoral College or Congress, said legal scholar Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles.
The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was distributed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said.
Many petitioners seeking stays of pending events have their cases distributed to the full court, he said. Of those, Volokh found that 782 were denied in the last eight years while just 60 were heard — and not all of those ultimately were successful.
Just Say No
To our Oklahoma Delegation:
Please do not bail out the Big Three auto makers. The United Auto Workers have not made any serious concessions. To be paid $168,000 a year, to screw bolts onto a part using an air driven-socket wrench is ridiculous ! I taught engineering at the University of Oklahoma for over forty years and never came close to making that kind of money.
Let them file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. If they don't survive, then Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes etc will provide us with all the American made cars that we need at a cheaper price.
It will be much cheaper for us to pay unemployment insurance to these guys than to increase our debt by 25-125 billion dollars. We survived the death of Studebaker and Hudson auto companies, and we can survive the death of GM, etc.
We don't need to pile on more debt to our kids and grandkids.
It's time to say NO to Bailouts. They have not worked! We are turning our country into a socialist state.The pursuit of Happiness is available to individuals,but the government cannot guarantee Happiness.
Thank You,
Prof. Edward F Blick
Norman, OK
Please do not bail out the Big Three auto makers. The United Auto Workers have not made any serious concessions. To be paid $168,000 a year, to screw bolts onto a part using an air driven-socket wrench is ridiculous ! I taught engineering at the University of Oklahoma for over forty years and never came close to making that kind of money.
Let them file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. If they don't survive, then Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes etc will provide us with all the American made cars that we need at a cheaper price.
It will be much cheaper for us to pay unemployment insurance to these guys than to increase our debt by 25-125 billion dollars. We survived the death of Studebaker and Hudson auto companies, and we can survive the death of GM, etc.
We don't need to pile on more debt to our kids and grandkids.
It's time to say NO to Bailouts. They have not worked! We are turning our country into a socialist state.The pursuit of Happiness is available to individuals,but the government cannot guarantee Happiness.
Thank You,
Prof. Edward F Blick
Norman, OK
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Sheriff Lester Picks Burnett
Sheriff-elect Joe Lester selected Rhett Burnett as his new Under Sheriff today. Sheriff Lester could not have picked a better person for the job. Rhett has been with District Attorney's office for the past 15 years and he is widely regarded as one of the state's top investigators.
Bob
Bob
Full Page Ad In Chicago Paper Challanges Obama
Filed Under:eBarack Obama, 2008 President, Obama Administration
The election may be over, but not the controversy.Just when you thought the flap over the genuineness of Barack Obama's birth certificate was all said and done, in comes the We The People Foundation. The group purchases a full-page ad in The Chicago Tribune - the newspaper of the president-elect's hometown - today and Wednesday, called "Open Letter to Mr. Obama." It's described by the foundation as a "formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the 'natural born citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States of America." Click here to view the ad."Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8," the foundation says. PolitiFact has said it has no reason to doubt the authenticity of the document.Among other complaints, the foundation charges:-that the Obama campaign posted on the Internet an "unsigned, forged and thoroughly discredited, computer-generated birth form created in 2007"-the Hawaii Dept of Health won't confirm Obama's assertion that you were born in Hawaii (the director of Hawaii's Department of Health on Oct. 31 personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.)-there are legal affidavits stating Obama was actually born in Kenya-Obama's grandmother is recorded on tape saying she attended your birth in Kenya.-In 1965, Obama's mother legally relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S. citizenship she and her son had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian citizen.We the People is in the process of choosing the forensic scientists who would travel to Hawaii to examine Obama's original birth certificate, if Obama directs Hawaiian officials to provide it. The group estimates costs will be about $20,000 to successfully complete the task, and they need money. Any donors out there?The birth certificate issue is like this annoying itch that just won't go away. During the campaign, the Obama camp tried to stamp out the rumors by posting information - and the birth certificate - on its Fight the Smears site. But that apparently hasn't stopped the rumor mill.A Kentucky truck driver last week filed a demand that Obama prove he is a natural-born U.S. citizen. Daniel John Essek, 47, wants the former Illinois senator to provide a copy of his birth certificate to a federal judge in London for verification."I may very well be chasing windmills thinking they're monsters," Essek told the Lexington Herald-Leader.A Pennsylvania judge threw out a pre-election court challenge to the citizenship issue, saying its arguments were frivolous. Other similar lawsuits have also been filed.Right Side News on Sunday so graciously pointed out that "Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the childs birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. The parents would be issued a Certification of Live Birth. This is not proof of where the child was born. It only proves that the parents claimed Hawaii as their main place of residence for the prior year."This Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court judges will conference. It's expected the question of whether Obama is actually eligible to become the next president will come up. If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case, brought by Leo C. Donofrio against the New Jersey secretary of state, oral argument may be scheduled. You know the Internet is going to be abuzz with activity surrounding Friday's conference. We'll try to sift through the sludge and bring you the facts.UPDATE: Here's my Q&A with We The People Foundation Chairman Bob Schulz:Q.) Why don't you believe that the Hawaiian authorities have vouched for the authenticity of the birth certificate filed with that state for President-elect Obama? The state's Department of Health director on Oct. 31 released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.A.) Yes, Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they possess Obama's original birth certificate, however in their official press release they fail to state it is an original birth certificate from Hawaii.In fact, under Hawaiian law, a foreign born child can be registered as a naturalized (but not "natural born") U.S. citizen following application of the parents, (See, Hawaiian law provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. ). Such persons would be eligible to receive a "Certification of Live Birth" from the state, such as the document Obama has proffered. "Naturalized" citizens, such as the Governor of California, cannot hold the office of President.This of course, does not resolve the thornier issue as to the content of Obama's birth document. Specifically the stated "place of birth" may not in fact reflect the physical location of Obama's birth (as evidenced by the "original" certificate of Live Birth claimed to be in the possession of Hawaii officials), but rather the local Hawaii residency of the U.S. parent claimed in a birth registration application such as that provided by HRS 338-17.8 (See above). In any event the document is simply a computer-created document based upon the entries in a computer database, which may have been conceivably tampered with at some point.Hawaii law also provides for "amending" birth certificates. From the official web page: "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."In short, the document proffered by Obama does not contain all the information needed to conclusively verify that he is legally eligible to hold the Office of President.Additionally, beyond their refusal to minimally confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii, state officials also refuse to comment on the authenticity of Obama's birth document.All these questions could be resolved by Obama by simply providing access to his original birth certificate.Q.) What reputable sources have discredited the birth certificate already produced by Obama?A.) Attorney Phil Berg states in his lawsuit against Obama, "...three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive Forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama's campaign website."He has not publicly identified his sources but one of them is reported to be a reputable professional forensics expert going under the pseudonym "Polarik" for his family's protection. His latest comprehensive report concluding Obama's document is a forgery can be found here. He has also posted a short YouTube video.Q.) How much did you pay for these 2 full-page ads (on Dec. 1 and 3)?A.) Tens of thousands of dollars. It was a negotiated amount.Q.) What sort of reaction have you received so far to the ads?A.) We have experienced significant media interest from primarily talk shows and newspapers, including some well-known media entities. We have hoped that our ads would spur public debate on this topic and hopefully, this may have begun.In the end, there is no practical reason why Obama refuses to produce his original birth certificate. He is seeking the Office of President and has a duty to provide evidence that he meets the explicit requirements established by the Constitution.
The election may be over, but not the controversy.Just when you thought the flap over the genuineness of Barack Obama's birth certificate was all said and done, in comes the We The People Foundation. The group purchases a full-page ad in The Chicago Tribune - the newspaper of the president-elect's hometown - today and Wednesday, called "Open Letter to Mr. Obama." It's described by the foundation as a "formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the 'natural born citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States of America." Click here to view the ad."Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8," the foundation says. PolitiFact has said it has no reason to doubt the authenticity of the document.Among other complaints, the foundation charges:-that the Obama campaign posted on the Internet an "unsigned, forged and thoroughly discredited, computer-generated birth form created in 2007"-the Hawaii Dept of Health won't confirm Obama's assertion that you were born in Hawaii (the director of Hawaii's Department of Health on Oct. 31 personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.)-there are legal affidavits stating Obama was actually born in Kenya-Obama's grandmother is recorded on tape saying she attended your birth in Kenya.-In 1965, Obama's mother legally relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S. citizenship she and her son had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian citizen.We the People is in the process of choosing the forensic scientists who would travel to Hawaii to examine Obama's original birth certificate, if Obama directs Hawaiian officials to provide it. The group estimates costs will be about $20,000 to successfully complete the task, and they need money. Any donors out there?The birth certificate issue is like this annoying itch that just won't go away. During the campaign, the Obama camp tried to stamp out the rumors by posting information - and the birth certificate - on its Fight the Smears site. But that apparently hasn't stopped the rumor mill.A Kentucky truck driver last week filed a demand that Obama prove he is a natural-born U.S. citizen. Daniel John Essek, 47, wants the former Illinois senator to provide a copy of his birth certificate to a federal judge in London for verification."I may very well be chasing windmills thinking they're monsters," Essek told the Lexington Herald-Leader.A Pennsylvania judge threw out a pre-election court challenge to the citizenship issue, saying its arguments were frivolous. Other similar lawsuits have also been filed.Right Side News on Sunday so graciously pointed out that "Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the childs birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. The parents would be issued a Certification of Live Birth. This is not proof of where the child was born. It only proves that the parents claimed Hawaii as their main place of residence for the prior year."This Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court judges will conference. It's expected the question of whether Obama is actually eligible to become the next president will come up. If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case, brought by Leo C. Donofrio against the New Jersey secretary of state, oral argument may be scheduled. You know the Internet is going to be abuzz with activity surrounding Friday's conference. We'll try to sift through the sludge and bring you the facts.UPDATE: Here's my Q&A with We The People Foundation Chairman Bob Schulz:Q.) Why don't you believe that the Hawaiian authorities have vouched for the authenticity of the birth certificate filed with that state for President-elect Obama? The state's Department of Health director on Oct. 31 released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.A.) Yes, Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they possess Obama's original birth certificate, however in their official press release they fail to state it is an original birth certificate from Hawaii.In fact, under Hawaiian law, a foreign born child can be registered as a naturalized (but not "natural born") U.S. citizen following application of the parents, (See, Hawaiian law provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. ). Such persons would be eligible to receive a "Certification of Live Birth" from the state, such as the document Obama has proffered. "Naturalized" citizens, such as the Governor of California, cannot hold the office of President.This of course, does not resolve the thornier issue as to the content of Obama's birth document. Specifically the stated "place of birth" may not in fact reflect the physical location of Obama's birth (as evidenced by the "original" certificate of Live Birth claimed to be in the possession of Hawaii officials), but rather the local Hawaii residency of the U.S. parent claimed in a birth registration application such as that provided by HRS 338-17.8 (See above). In any event the document is simply a computer-created document based upon the entries in a computer database, which may have been conceivably tampered with at some point.Hawaii law also provides for "amending" birth certificates. From the official web page: "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."In short, the document proffered by Obama does not contain all the information needed to conclusively verify that he is legally eligible to hold the Office of President.Additionally, beyond their refusal to minimally confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii, state officials also refuse to comment on the authenticity of Obama's birth document.All these questions could be resolved by Obama by simply providing access to his original birth certificate.Q.) What reputable sources have discredited the birth certificate already produced by Obama?A.) Attorney Phil Berg states in his lawsuit against Obama, "...three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive Forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama's campaign website."He has not publicly identified his sources but one of them is reported to be a reputable professional forensics expert going under the pseudonym "Polarik" for his family's protection. His latest comprehensive report concluding Obama's document is a forgery can be found here. He has also posted a short YouTube video.Q.) How much did you pay for these 2 full-page ads (on Dec. 1 and 3)?A.) Tens of thousands of dollars. It was a negotiated amount.Q.) What sort of reaction have you received so far to the ads?A.) We have experienced significant media interest from primarily talk shows and newspapers, including some well-known media entities. We have hoped that our ads would spur public debate on this topic and hopefully, this may have begun.In the end, there is no practical reason why Obama refuses to produce his original birth certificate. He is seeking the Office of President and has a duty to provide evidence that he meets the explicit requirements established by the Constitution.
Republican Rejected, But Not Conservative Values
This is a very interesting article. I hope you will take the time to read it.
Bob
Republicans Rejected, But Not Conservative Values
By Warren Cole SmithEvangelical News PressNovember 26, 2008
The Republicans took a beating on Nov. 4. There can be no doubt about that. Barack Obama won the presidency, and the Democrats gained seats in both the House and the Senate.
But was the election a disaster? Hardly. As political strategist Karl Rove said, “In a year when all currents were running against Republicans and our campaign was lackluster and erratic, Barack Obama received only 3.1 points more than Al Gore in 2000 and only 4.6 more than John Kerry in 2004.”
Rove is right: this wasn’t a landslide. If you look at a map of the nation “colored in” by county, you’ll still see a lot more red than blue. And if you drill down, while Republicans might be wringing their hands, this social conservative finds much to like about this election. Here are a few lessons from the 2008 election that bode well for the future.
Culture Still Matters. Marriage amendments won California, Arizona, and Florida - and they won against overwhelming odds. California is the largest and one of the most liberal states in the nation, and the campaign against Proposition 8, the pro-marriage amendment, was extraordinarily well-funded. Yet it carried 52 percent of the vote, and 70 percent of African-Americans voted for it. Even Barack Obama is against gay marriage. This is a winning issue for social conservatives.
Moderate Republicans Were (Properly) Chastened. There has been some astonishment outside of North Carolina that “even Elizabeth Dole” got beat. But the truth is that she has been the very archetype of what has gone wrong with the Republican Party. Her departure may have cost the Republicans a seat in the Senate, but it is a welcome purging. And she is just one of many wishy-washy moderates among the Republican leadership who have been replaced by solid “movement conservatives” such as Indiana’s Mike Pence. Pence and his conservative friends know the Republicans can’t win by being faux-Democrats. Expect to see a clearly articulated and politically sophisticated conservatism come from them in the months and years ahead.
A Deep Bench Emerges. With “old line” candidates such as John McCain and Rudy Giuliani headed for the showers, a strong bench is headed for the field - and they’re all pro-family, pro-life, limited-government, pro-defense conservatives. Governors Sarah Palin (Alaska), Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), and Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota) have long been mentioned as possible candidates. But now a new name moves to the top tier. South Carolina’s Mark Sanford was elected chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association, leapfrogging the aforementioned governors onto a highly visible platform. Sanford has long had the ideas; indeed, he may be the most intellectually vigorous politician in America today. He’s also got the best resume of the crowd: service in Congress, two terms as governor, and he’s a reserve officer in the U.S. Air Force. Look for him to be mentioned more and more as a possibility for president in the months ahead.
Are there still problems? As Sarah Palin would say, “You betcha.” Obama has promised to undo years of grass-roots legislative work on the life issue by signing the misnamed Freedom of Choice Act. It’s likely that he will have the chance to appoint at least two Supreme Court justices. The only good news there is that Obama appointments will likely replace liberals, thereby not changing the balance of the court. But judicial appointments at lower levels will likely have an impact on the judicial system of America for many years. And there are other concerns. Conservatives have to learn how to talk with African-Americans and Hispanics, who share many of our values, but who feel (sometimes justifiably, and sometimes not) they have been made scapegoats of Republican demagoguery.
But let me reiterate: things could be and have been much, much worse for conservatives in America. In fact, I would say that the “conservative” brand is in much better shape than either the “liberal” or “Republican” brand. So now is not the time to give up. It is the time to dig in. America’s and conservatism’s greatest victories are not behind us, but before us.
Warren Cole Smith is a North Carolina resident and the editor and publisher of Evangelical Press News Service.
Bob
Republicans Rejected, But Not Conservative Values
By Warren Cole SmithEvangelical News PressNovember 26, 2008
The Republicans took a beating on Nov. 4. There can be no doubt about that. Barack Obama won the presidency, and the Democrats gained seats in both the House and the Senate.
But was the election a disaster? Hardly. As political strategist Karl Rove said, “In a year when all currents were running against Republicans and our campaign was lackluster and erratic, Barack Obama received only 3.1 points more than Al Gore in 2000 and only 4.6 more than John Kerry in 2004.”
Rove is right: this wasn’t a landslide. If you look at a map of the nation “colored in” by county, you’ll still see a lot more red than blue. And if you drill down, while Republicans might be wringing their hands, this social conservative finds much to like about this election. Here are a few lessons from the 2008 election that bode well for the future.
Culture Still Matters. Marriage amendments won California, Arizona, and Florida - and they won against overwhelming odds. California is the largest and one of the most liberal states in the nation, and the campaign against Proposition 8, the pro-marriage amendment, was extraordinarily well-funded. Yet it carried 52 percent of the vote, and 70 percent of African-Americans voted for it. Even Barack Obama is against gay marriage. This is a winning issue for social conservatives.
Moderate Republicans Were (Properly) Chastened. There has been some astonishment outside of North Carolina that “even Elizabeth Dole” got beat. But the truth is that she has been the very archetype of what has gone wrong with the Republican Party. Her departure may have cost the Republicans a seat in the Senate, but it is a welcome purging. And she is just one of many wishy-washy moderates among the Republican leadership who have been replaced by solid “movement conservatives” such as Indiana’s Mike Pence. Pence and his conservative friends know the Republicans can’t win by being faux-Democrats. Expect to see a clearly articulated and politically sophisticated conservatism come from them in the months and years ahead.
A Deep Bench Emerges. With “old line” candidates such as John McCain and Rudy Giuliani headed for the showers, a strong bench is headed for the field - and they’re all pro-family, pro-life, limited-government, pro-defense conservatives. Governors Sarah Palin (Alaska), Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), and Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota) have long been mentioned as possible candidates. But now a new name moves to the top tier. South Carolina’s Mark Sanford was elected chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association, leapfrogging the aforementioned governors onto a highly visible platform. Sanford has long had the ideas; indeed, he may be the most intellectually vigorous politician in America today. He’s also got the best resume of the crowd: service in Congress, two terms as governor, and he’s a reserve officer in the U.S. Air Force. Look for him to be mentioned more and more as a possibility for president in the months ahead.
Are there still problems? As Sarah Palin would say, “You betcha.” Obama has promised to undo years of grass-roots legislative work on the life issue by signing the misnamed Freedom of Choice Act. It’s likely that he will have the chance to appoint at least two Supreme Court justices. The only good news there is that Obama appointments will likely replace liberals, thereby not changing the balance of the court. But judicial appointments at lower levels will likely have an impact on the judicial system of America for many years. And there are other concerns. Conservatives have to learn how to talk with African-Americans and Hispanics, who share many of our values, but who feel (sometimes justifiably, and sometimes not) they have been made scapegoats of Republican demagoguery.
But let me reiterate: things could be and have been much, much worse for conservatives in America. In fact, I would say that the “conservative” brand is in much better shape than either the “liberal” or “Republican” brand. So now is not the time to give up. It is the time to dig in. America’s and conservatism’s greatest victories are not behind us, but before us.
Warren Cole Smith is a North Carolina resident and the editor and publisher of Evangelical Press News Service.
WorldNet Daily Calls Obama A Fake
OBAMA WATCH CENTRALImaging guru: 'Certification' of birth time, location is fake'It would be hard to perform as president from behind jail cell door at Leavenworth'
Posted: December 01, 200810:20 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A guru on the "Certification of Live Birth" Barack Obama's campaign posted online to rebut charges he is ineligible to be president due to the Constitution's "natural born citizen" requirement says it's a fake, and further, that such fraud is criminal.
The Obama campaign has told WND such allegations are "garbage," but Dr. Ron Polarik, who holds a Ph.D. in instructional media specializing in computer technology such as printers, scanners and digital imaging, disagrees. His analyses have been posted online in a YouTube video, which also is embedded here:
He explained to WND his four months of research on the images, including nearly 1,000 test images using actual scans and photographs of real certifcates, reveal there are several "giveaways" on the image itself. For example, the document has gray and white between the lettering, not green pixels as the rest of the background document, suggesting someone cut-and-pasted or typed new information that was embedded on top of the background.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. and thus a "natural born American" as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND's petition demanding the release of his birth certificate.
Also, Polarik said although the Obama form has a border and seal from 2008, it purportedly was obtained in 2007. He said the seal does not match seals on other documents from 2007, but does match those from 2008. His full report is posted at Polarik.blogtownhall.com.
In Polarik's view, there has to be a significant reason for a political candidate and campaign to go to such lengths.
"Obviously, there's something very critical to hide, or they wouldn't have spent the million dollars in legal fees to prevent the release of his original birth certificate," Polarik told WND.
"There's absolutely something to hide," he said. "If he was born in Hawaii they would have had a luau that would be continuing today.
"Not that the people who voted for him would care," he said, "but they used this forged document to convince the American voters.
"It's a scary thought to have someone who essentially begins his presidency as a criminal," he said, because the use of a faked document as identification is, in fact, a crime, he noted.
"It would be hard to perform as president from behind jail cell door at Leavenworth," he said.
The video has Polarik's face and voice disguised and he confirmed in talking with WND that he's using an assumed name because of the threats he's reported receiving.
Polarik said the issue of the birth location is a "chink" in Obama's armor, but the Democrat also has declined to release information about his college years, about his selective service and about his passports, including on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan two decades ago when it was illegal to go there as a U.S. citizen.
Polarik describes his findings and conclusions on the video.
WND columnist Janet Porter has written extensively about the birth certification issue.
"Look, we're not asking for the world here. Neither is the Constitution. Some pretty basic requirements like being 35 years old, having 14 years residency in the United States, and being a natural born citizen. When Senator John McCain was questioned about it, he showed his birth certificate without hesitating. When Barack Obama was asked by courts including the U.S. Supreme Court, he ducked and hid behind the right to privacy," she writes.
"Ironically, when Obama was running for the State Senate, he won by disqualifying every candidate who ran against him in the primary, including a guy who had been through a nasty and salacious divorce. Even though he had a small child who could be hurt by the information being made public, a court decided that the public's right to know; outweighed this poor fella's right to privacy, and he backed out. Obama clings to the 'right to privacy' regarding his own qualifications, just not his opponents."
She also noted the issue won't go away, and recommended a visit to ObamaForgery.com to review what's happening.
"These are the facts," she wrote. "The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen. Obama's grandmother said she was there when Barack was born in Kenya. Obama refuses to release his original birth certificate. Instead of a birth certificate, Obama's campaign posted a certification given to those born abroad. Experts have called even that document an 'obvious forgery.'"
"Our Constitution still matters," she said.
Her group, Faith2Action, is working on funding for the purchase of time for a new television ad on the issue.
In the Philadelphia Bulletin, constitutional lawyer Edwin Vieira said a multitude of problems could result.
"Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Vieira told the newspaper. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath.
"He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on executive duty and done various things," said Vieira. "The people that he's put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped."
"Let's say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam," he told the newspaper. "What's the nation's reaction to that? What's going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it."
He continued, "[The birth certificate], in theory, should be there. What if it isn't? Who knows, aside from Mr. Obama? Does Russian intelligence know it isn't there? Does Chinese intelligence know it isn't there? Does the CIA know that it isn't there? Who is in a position to blackmail this fellow?"
Vieira expressed confidence Obama eventually will be forced to produce documentation.
"Let's assume that an Obama administration passes some of these controversial pieces of legislation he has been promising to go for, like the FOCA (Freedom of Choice) Act," he told the newspaper. "I would assume that some of those surely will have some severe civil or criminal penalties attached to them for violation. You are now the criminal defendant under this statute, which was passed by an Obama Congress and signed by President Obama. Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right and I have never heard this challenged, to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. And you can subpoena them duces tecum, meaning 'you shall bring with you the documents.'"
WND founder and editor Joseph Farah has launched a program to allow concerned voters to express their desire directly to the U.S. Supreme Court for the issue to be resolved.
A conference among the justices is scheduled Friday on a New England challenge to Obama's eligibility.
"The case is brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the New Jersey secretary of state, and questions whether Obama is a 'natural-born citizen' as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution," Farah reported.
"It would seem a simple matter to resolve," he said. "Barack Obama could have put this issue to rest long ago by producing a complete birth certificate from Hawaii. Instead, he has chosen to stonewall the matter, citing a website post of what can only be characterized as a partial representation of a birth certificate – one that has been criticized as a forgery.
"Meanwhile, some of Obama's own Kenyan relatives claim to have been present at his birth in Mombasa. This controversy, which some have dismissed as frivolous, is as serious as the literal meaning of the Constitution itself."
The nation's Electoral College, the process through which Obama is to be formally voted as the next president, will meet Dec. 15, and his inaugural is scheduled Jan. 20.
Meanwhile, more than 125,000 have signed WND's petition seeking full disclosure of Obama's information.
The petition cites the U.S. Constitution's requirement that no one can be sworn into office as president without being a natural born citizen. It also asserts there are questions about Obama's reported Hawaii birth, that the Democrat has refused repeated calls to document his birth, that activist judges have declined to require him to shed light on the issue and that Hawaii – at the time of Obama's birth – allowed parents whose children were born in other locations to register the birth there.
WND's petition is available online, and more information is available at this link.
Posted: December 01, 200810:20 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A guru on the "Certification of Live Birth" Barack Obama's campaign posted online to rebut charges he is ineligible to be president due to the Constitution's "natural born citizen" requirement says it's a fake, and further, that such fraud is criminal.
The Obama campaign has told WND such allegations are "garbage," but Dr. Ron Polarik, who holds a Ph.D. in instructional media specializing in computer technology such as printers, scanners and digital imaging, disagrees. His analyses have been posted online in a YouTube video, which also is embedded here:
He explained to WND his four months of research on the images, including nearly 1,000 test images using actual scans and photographs of real certifcates, reveal there are several "giveaways" on the image itself. For example, the document has gray and white between the lettering, not green pixels as the rest of the background document, suggesting someone cut-and-pasted or typed new information that was embedded on top of the background.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. and thus a "natural born American" as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND's petition demanding the release of his birth certificate.
Also, Polarik said although the Obama form has a border and seal from 2008, it purportedly was obtained in 2007. He said the seal does not match seals on other documents from 2007, but does match those from 2008. His full report is posted at Polarik.blogtownhall.com.
In Polarik's view, there has to be a significant reason for a political candidate and campaign to go to such lengths.
"Obviously, there's something very critical to hide, or they wouldn't have spent the million dollars in legal fees to prevent the release of his original birth certificate," Polarik told WND.
"There's absolutely something to hide," he said. "If he was born in Hawaii they would have had a luau that would be continuing today.
"Not that the people who voted for him would care," he said, "but they used this forged document to convince the American voters.
"It's a scary thought to have someone who essentially begins his presidency as a criminal," he said, because the use of a faked document as identification is, in fact, a crime, he noted.
"It would be hard to perform as president from behind jail cell door at Leavenworth," he said.
The video has Polarik's face and voice disguised and he confirmed in talking with WND that he's using an assumed name because of the threats he's reported receiving.
Polarik said the issue of the birth location is a "chink" in Obama's armor, but the Democrat also has declined to release information about his college years, about his selective service and about his passports, including on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan two decades ago when it was illegal to go there as a U.S. citizen.
Polarik describes his findings and conclusions on the video.
WND columnist Janet Porter has written extensively about the birth certification issue.
"Look, we're not asking for the world here. Neither is the Constitution. Some pretty basic requirements like being 35 years old, having 14 years residency in the United States, and being a natural born citizen. When Senator John McCain was questioned about it, he showed his birth certificate without hesitating. When Barack Obama was asked by courts including the U.S. Supreme Court, he ducked and hid behind the right to privacy," she writes.
"Ironically, when Obama was running for the State Senate, he won by disqualifying every candidate who ran against him in the primary, including a guy who had been through a nasty and salacious divorce. Even though he had a small child who could be hurt by the information being made public, a court decided that the public's right to know; outweighed this poor fella's right to privacy, and he backed out. Obama clings to the 'right to privacy' regarding his own qualifications, just not his opponents."
She also noted the issue won't go away, and recommended a visit to ObamaForgery.com to review what's happening.
"These are the facts," she wrote. "The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen. Obama's grandmother said she was there when Barack was born in Kenya. Obama refuses to release his original birth certificate. Instead of a birth certificate, Obama's campaign posted a certification given to those born abroad. Experts have called even that document an 'obvious forgery.'"
"Our Constitution still matters," she said.
Her group, Faith2Action, is working on funding for the purchase of time for a new television ad on the issue.
In the Philadelphia Bulletin, constitutional lawyer Edwin Vieira said a multitude of problems could result.
"Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Vieira told the newspaper. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath.
"He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on executive duty and done various things," said Vieira. "The people that he's put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped."
"Let's say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam," he told the newspaper. "What's the nation's reaction to that? What's going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it."
He continued, "[The birth certificate], in theory, should be there. What if it isn't? Who knows, aside from Mr. Obama? Does Russian intelligence know it isn't there? Does Chinese intelligence know it isn't there? Does the CIA know that it isn't there? Who is in a position to blackmail this fellow?"
Vieira expressed confidence Obama eventually will be forced to produce documentation.
"Let's assume that an Obama administration passes some of these controversial pieces of legislation he has been promising to go for, like the FOCA (Freedom of Choice) Act," he told the newspaper. "I would assume that some of those surely will have some severe civil or criminal penalties attached to them for violation. You are now the criminal defendant under this statute, which was passed by an Obama Congress and signed by President Obama. Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right and I have never heard this challenged, to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. And you can subpoena them duces tecum, meaning 'you shall bring with you the documents.'"
WND founder and editor Joseph Farah has launched a program to allow concerned voters to express their desire directly to the U.S. Supreme Court for the issue to be resolved.
A conference among the justices is scheduled Friday on a New England challenge to Obama's eligibility.
"The case is brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the New Jersey secretary of state, and questions whether Obama is a 'natural-born citizen' as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution," Farah reported.
"It would seem a simple matter to resolve," he said. "Barack Obama could have put this issue to rest long ago by producing a complete birth certificate from Hawaii. Instead, he has chosen to stonewall the matter, citing a website post of what can only be characterized as a partial representation of a birth certificate – one that has been criticized as a forgery.
"Meanwhile, some of Obama's own Kenyan relatives claim to have been present at his birth in Mombasa. This controversy, which some have dismissed as frivolous, is as serious as the literal meaning of the Constitution itself."
The nation's Electoral College, the process through which Obama is to be formally voted as the next president, will meet Dec. 15, and his inaugural is scheduled Jan. 20.
Meanwhile, more than 125,000 have signed WND's petition seeking full disclosure of Obama's information.
The petition cites the U.S. Constitution's requirement that no one can be sworn into office as president without being a natural born citizen. It also asserts there are questions about Obama's reported Hawaii birth, that the Democrat has refused repeated calls to document his birth, that activist judges have declined to require him to shed light on the issue and that Hawaii – at the time of Obama's birth – allowed parents whose children were born in other locations to register the birth there.
WND's petition is available online, and more information is available at this link.
Monday, December 1, 2008
They Are Coming For Your Gun
This is being introduced in each state
starting with California, New York, Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland, Indiana, Tennessee, and Washington.
"No later than January 1, 2011,
all non coded ammunition for the calibers listed in this act,
whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets,
shall be disposed."
Do not let these types of so-called laws be passed!
They are coming for your guns.
Now they will find the unregistered ones via registered ammo.
All tyrants use the registration records
to confiscate guns from potential resistors.
Also, if someone steals your ammo and commits a crime, they will come to the one who has it registered.
Many law-abiding people who have guns but do not have Drivers license or government issued ID
cannot buy ammunition.
I do not have a Driver's license nor a government issued ID.
Nor do I want one or be forced to have one
By 2011, it will be a crime to have
Non coded ammunition in your possession
When fines are collected,
where does the money go?
Yes, you are right!...To build a bigger empire.
They are also taxing ammo
at the rate of 5 cents for each round.
Do not let it happen
5 cents today could be $1.00 per round tomorrow
Creates the Ammunition Accountability Act. Provides that all firearm ammunition manufactured or sold in the State of Illinois on or after January 1, 2010 shall be coded by the manufacturer. Provides that effective January 1, 2010, all firearm ammunition used within the State of Illinois shall be coded by the manufacturer. Provides that on or after January 1, 2010, a person in possession of non-coded ammunition that was manufactured prior to January 1, 2010, may transfer the same only to an heir, to an individual residing in another state maintaining the ammunition in another state, or to a federally licensed firearms dealer. Provides that the Department of State Police shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining an Ammunition Coding System Database (ACSD) containing specified information. Establishes penalties and exemptions.
The "coding" is applied to the base of the bullet (where it's apparently supposed to hold together through firing and impact, in order to identify the ammunition. Now these bills (or this bill, really) exempt shotgun ammunition (which makes sense--the idea of encoding the hundreds of .08" diameter pellets in a round of #9 shot is obviously ridiculous), and muzzle-loader ammunition.
The other two bills, HB 4269 and HB 4349 are both called the "Regulated Firearms Encoded Ammunition Act," and although somewhat different from the first two bills, appear to be identical to each other. Here's the summary of these bills:
Creates the Regulated Firearms Encoded Ammunition Act and amends the State Finance Act. Provides that a manufacturer of ammunition for handguns and certain specified assault weapons sold in this State after January 1, 2009 must encode the ammunition in such a manner that the Director of State Police establishes. Provides that ammunition contained in one ammunition box may not be labeled with the same serial number as the ammunition contained in any other ammunition box from the same manufacturer. Provides that on or before January 1, 2011, an owner of ammunition for use in a regulated firearm that is not encoded by the manufacturer shall dispose of the ammunition. Provides that beginning on January 1, 2009, the Director of State Police shall establish and maintain an encoded ammunition database. Creates the Ammunition Accountability Fund as a special fund in the State treasury. Provides that subject to appropriation, the Department of State Police may use moneys from the Fund to establish and maintain the encoded ammunition database. Provides that beginning January 1, 2009, each person selling encoded ammunition at retail in this State shall collect from retail customers a fee of $0.05 for each round that is sold and delivered in this State. Establishes civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Regulated Firearms Encoded Ammunition Act. Effective January 1, 2009.
These bills are apparently intended to mollify hunters, by "only" going after ammunition intended for handguns and so-called "assault weapons." This, of course, is ridiculous, as handguns have been built in nearly every caliber that rifles have, including the terrifying, airline-busting .50 BMG "weapon of war" (that's sarcasm, if you're wondering) and the .600 Nitro Express elephant gun cartridge. Additionally, "assault weapons" aren't chambered in special "assault weapon" calibers (although that little fact is conveniently ignored by the folks pushing bans of "high-powered assault weapons"), so there is no such thing as a special category of "'assault weapon' ammunition." In fact, the bill defines "assault weapon" by type, and among the designated "assault weapons" are several 12 gauge shotguns, meaning that, unlike the other bills, these two will apply to 12 gauge shotgun ammunition (.410 shotgun shells would also be affected, because the Taurus "Judge" means that .410 shells are "handgun ammunition"). Hunters take note.
Both types of bill have the program administered by the Illinois State Police--an organization that in it's zeal for citizen disarmament, has no compunction about breaking the law.
I mention banning ammunition, because although the bills won't explicitly do that, the enormous costs of tooling up to manufacture such ammunition will basically make it impractical for ammunition manufacturers to comply, meaning they'll simply have to stop selling ammunition in Illinois. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) has more on that, from when they were fighting such legislation in California (before California went the "microstamping" route, instead). If manufacturers (and retailers) would continue to serve the Illinois market, the cost of ammunition for the consumer would be prohibitive (even without the nickel per round tax imposed by the second set of bills).
By the way, neither bill mentions provisions for an exemption for hand loaders.
Illinois has apparently gotten tired of the slow progress of a relentless "slippery slope" procession of draconian laws, and has decided to push the state off a "teflon cliff."
starting with California, New York, Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland, Indiana, Tennessee, and Washington.
"No later than January 1, 2011,
all non coded ammunition for the calibers listed in this act,
whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets,
shall be disposed."
Do not let these types of so-called laws be passed!
They are coming for your guns.
Now they will find the unregistered ones via registered ammo.
All tyrants use the registration records
to confiscate guns from potential resistors.
Also, if someone steals your ammo and commits a crime, they will come to the one who has it registered.
Many law-abiding people who have guns but do not have Drivers license or government issued ID
cannot buy ammunition.
I do not have a Driver's license nor a government issued ID.
Nor do I want one or be forced to have one
By 2011, it will be a crime to have
Non coded ammunition in your possession
When fines are collected,
where does the money go?
Yes, you are right!...To build a bigger empire.
They are also taxing ammo
at the rate of 5 cents for each round.
Do not let it happen
5 cents today could be $1.00 per round tomorrow
Creates the Ammunition Accountability Act. Provides that all firearm ammunition manufactured or sold in the State of Illinois on or after January 1, 2010 shall be coded by the manufacturer. Provides that effective January 1, 2010, all firearm ammunition used within the State of Illinois shall be coded by the manufacturer. Provides that on or after January 1, 2010, a person in possession of non-coded ammunition that was manufactured prior to January 1, 2010, may transfer the same only to an heir, to an individual residing in another state maintaining the ammunition in another state, or to a federally licensed firearms dealer. Provides that the Department of State Police shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining an Ammunition Coding System Database (ACSD) containing specified information. Establishes penalties and exemptions.
The "coding" is applied to the base of the bullet (where it's apparently supposed to hold together through firing and impact, in order to identify the ammunition. Now these bills (or this bill, really) exempt shotgun ammunition (which makes sense--the idea of encoding the hundreds of .08" diameter pellets in a round of #9 shot is obviously ridiculous), and muzzle-loader ammunition.
The other two bills, HB 4269 and HB 4349 are both called the "Regulated Firearms Encoded Ammunition Act," and although somewhat different from the first two bills, appear to be identical to each other. Here's the summary of these bills:
Creates the Regulated Firearms Encoded Ammunition Act and amends the State Finance Act. Provides that a manufacturer of ammunition for handguns and certain specified assault weapons sold in this State after January 1, 2009 must encode the ammunition in such a manner that the Director of State Police establishes. Provides that ammunition contained in one ammunition box may not be labeled with the same serial number as the ammunition contained in any other ammunition box from the same manufacturer. Provides that on or before January 1, 2011, an owner of ammunition for use in a regulated firearm that is not encoded by the manufacturer shall dispose of the ammunition. Provides that beginning on January 1, 2009, the Director of State Police shall establish and maintain an encoded ammunition database. Creates the Ammunition Accountability Fund as a special fund in the State treasury. Provides that subject to appropriation, the Department of State Police may use moneys from the Fund to establish and maintain the encoded ammunition database. Provides that beginning January 1, 2009, each person selling encoded ammunition at retail in this State shall collect from retail customers a fee of $0.05 for each round that is sold and delivered in this State. Establishes civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Regulated Firearms Encoded Ammunition Act. Effective January 1, 2009.
These bills are apparently intended to mollify hunters, by "only" going after ammunition intended for handguns and so-called "assault weapons." This, of course, is ridiculous, as handguns have been built in nearly every caliber that rifles have, including the terrifying, airline-busting .50 BMG "weapon of war" (that's sarcasm, if you're wondering) and the .600 Nitro Express elephant gun cartridge. Additionally, "assault weapons" aren't chambered in special "assault weapon" calibers (although that little fact is conveniently ignored by the folks pushing bans of "high-powered assault weapons"), so there is no such thing as a special category of "'assault weapon' ammunition." In fact, the bill defines "assault weapon" by type, and among the designated "assault weapons" are several 12 gauge shotguns, meaning that, unlike the other bills, these two will apply to 12 gauge shotgun ammunition (.410 shotgun shells would also be affected, because the Taurus "Judge" means that .410 shells are "handgun ammunition"). Hunters take note.
Both types of bill have the program administered by the Illinois State Police--an organization that in it's zeal for citizen disarmament, has no compunction about breaking the law.
I mention banning ammunition, because although the bills won't explicitly do that, the enormous costs of tooling up to manufacture such ammunition will basically make it impractical for ammunition manufacturers to comply, meaning they'll simply have to stop selling ammunition in Illinois. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) has more on that, from when they were fighting such legislation in California (before California went the "microstamping" route, instead). If manufacturers (and retailers) would continue to serve the Illinois market, the cost of ammunition for the consumer would be prohibitive (even without the nickel per round tax imposed by the second set of bills).
By the way, neither bill mentions provisions for an exemption for hand loaders.
Illinois has apparently gotten tired of the slow progress of a relentless "slippery slope" procession of draconian laws, and has decided to push the state off a "teflon cliff."
Dick Morris Reports "Obama's Fund Raising"
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN Published on the DickMorris.com on December 1, 2008
Myths in politics take on a life of their own and the Obama campaign has been quick to cloak its incredible electoral success with a new coat of mythology. Two fantasies, in particular, pervade the amazing triumph of the Obama candidacy: That young people propelled him to victory by finally voting in large numbers and that small donors financed his campaign.
Were either myth a reality, it would be big news. Ever since the voting age was dropped to 18, politicians have been waiting for young voters to rock the system. But turnout among the young has been consistently and disappointingly low. From the manifest enthusiasm for Obama on campuses and the mammoth crowds of young admirers he generated, it appeared that the moment for the young had finally come. In the primaries and caucuses, young people flocked to Obama's bandwagon, often supplying his top heavy margins of victory in caucus states that propelled him to victory over Hillary.
But on Election Day, it did not happen. The Fox News/Opinion Data exit polling showed that the vote cast by people under thirty held steady at 11% of the total, the same level the organization's 2004 exit polls had found. Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International found a higher proportion of the vote cast by 18-29 year olds -- 18% -- but, by the same methodology, the firm found the 2004 voter base was 17% composed of people in that age cohort. Whether the young cast 11% or 18% of the vote in 2008 makes little difference. The fact is that neither polling firm found any real increase from the levels they found four years ago.
The myth of the small donor is even more important. Most political observers did not attack Obama for his breaking of his pledge to accept public financing because of our belief that he was funding his campaign by a massive outpouring of small donations. We felt that he was single-handedly accomplishing campaign finance reform and did not mind that he opted out of the public system. Indeed, we cheered as he amassed a $600 million war chest as it signified the clout of the small donor and showed the vulnerability of the old fat cat/PAC network that others used to raise money.But we were fooled by Obama's propaganda. In a story by Fred Lucas, CNSNews reports that the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) found that only 26% of the donors to Obama's campaign gave $200 or less, compared to 25% for President Bush's campaign in 2004. How did Obama fund his campaign? The old fashioned way, from fat cats. CFI found that he got 80% more money from large donors (over $1,000) than from those who gave less than $200.Obama did benefit from small donors slightly more than other campaigns, but not enough to make the historic statement it appeared at the time that was taking place. CFI notes that 47% of Obama's total fund raising came from large donors, compared to 60% for McCain, 60% for Bush in 2004, and 56% for John Kerry. This trend represents a movement in the right direction, but hardly the revolution that has been mythologized.These revealing stats are more than a footnote to history. They represent the denouement of a carefully cultivated myth. Obama sold America on the idea that his campaign was animated by hordes of small donors who we're attracted online. It now appears that this line was nothing more than a convenient smoke screen to mask his dependence on the traditional forces that have always funded presidential campaigns. And it puts into a new perspective the massive amount Obama raised and his brazen reversal of his public pledge to accept the limits imposed by public financing of campaigns.Now that we know that Obama funded his campaign the old way - from rich people and special interests - it is reprehensible that he did so to the tune of over $600 million. When it looked like he was using the money of small donors to buy the election, it was excusable. But we were fooled.
Myths in politics take on a life of their own and the Obama campaign has been quick to cloak its incredible electoral success with a new coat of mythology. Two fantasies, in particular, pervade the amazing triumph of the Obama candidacy: That young people propelled him to victory by finally voting in large numbers and that small donors financed his campaign.
Were either myth a reality, it would be big news. Ever since the voting age was dropped to 18, politicians have been waiting for young voters to rock the system. But turnout among the young has been consistently and disappointingly low. From the manifest enthusiasm for Obama on campuses and the mammoth crowds of young admirers he generated, it appeared that the moment for the young had finally come. In the primaries and caucuses, young people flocked to Obama's bandwagon, often supplying his top heavy margins of victory in caucus states that propelled him to victory over Hillary.
But on Election Day, it did not happen. The Fox News/Opinion Data exit polling showed that the vote cast by people under thirty held steady at 11% of the total, the same level the organization's 2004 exit polls had found. Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International found a higher proportion of the vote cast by 18-29 year olds -- 18% -- but, by the same methodology, the firm found the 2004 voter base was 17% composed of people in that age cohort. Whether the young cast 11% or 18% of the vote in 2008 makes little difference. The fact is that neither polling firm found any real increase from the levels they found four years ago.
The myth of the small donor is even more important. Most political observers did not attack Obama for his breaking of his pledge to accept public financing because of our belief that he was funding his campaign by a massive outpouring of small donations. We felt that he was single-handedly accomplishing campaign finance reform and did not mind that he opted out of the public system. Indeed, we cheered as he amassed a $600 million war chest as it signified the clout of the small donor and showed the vulnerability of the old fat cat/PAC network that others used to raise money.But we were fooled by Obama's propaganda. In a story by Fred Lucas, CNSNews reports that the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) found that only 26% of the donors to Obama's campaign gave $200 or less, compared to 25% for President Bush's campaign in 2004. How did Obama fund his campaign? The old fashioned way, from fat cats. CFI found that he got 80% more money from large donors (over $1,000) than from those who gave less than $200.Obama did benefit from small donors slightly more than other campaigns, but not enough to make the historic statement it appeared at the time that was taking place. CFI notes that 47% of Obama's total fund raising came from large donors, compared to 60% for McCain, 60% for Bush in 2004, and 56% for John Kerry. This trend represents a movement in the right direction, but hardly the revolution that has been mythologized.These revealing stats are more than a footnote to history. They represent the denouement of a carefully cultivated myth. Obama sold America on the idea that his campaign was animated by hordes of small donors who we're attracted online. It now appears that this line was nothing more than a convenient smoke screen to mask his dependence on the traditional forces that have always funded presidential campaigns. And it puts into a new perspective the massive amount Obama raised and his brazen reversal of his public pledge to accept the limits imposed by public financing of campaigns.Now that we know that Obama funded his campaign the old way - from rich people and special interests - it is reprehensible that he did so to the tune of over $600 million. When it looked like he was using the money of small donors to buy the election, it was excusable. But we were fooled.
McGuigan Speaks Out About James Bond
ENT Bond review 11-26
In new Bond film, Daniel Craig is superb as 007
By Patrick B. McGuigan
Sentinel Managing Editor
Daniel Craig may be the best James Bond ever. He certainly qualifies as the actor who has most thoroughly confounded critics who thought a blond and blue-eyed fellow known previously for artsy films and stage acting could never pass muster as Ian Fleming’s edgy, hard-drinking and frequent smoking master spy.
Frequent smoking has left the series, but edgy and hard drinking remain. Craig’s performance in the 2006 film, “Casino Royale,” blew most away most critics. With “Quantum of Solace,” a solid sequel story that begins just minutes after conclusion of the last film, Craig secures his place in the Bond pantheon alongside the original and still most popular 007, Sean Connery.
Speaking of Connery, there is a brief hotel lobby scene in “Quantum”where Craig’s character checks on a message, then retrieves a briefcase belonging to someone else, a crucial moment in the plot development. Before and after an exchange between Craig’s character and a girl at the desk, the camera provides brief glimpses of a fellow reading in an easy chair near the front desk.
I was certain it was Sean Connery. A note posted on The City Sentinel’s MySpace page, Tulsa Today’s website and Norman activist Bobby Cleveland’s blogsite brought a flurry of responses. Most agreed with me, but an impressive minority report it is Michael G. Wilson, producer of the film who has popped up (Hitchcock-like) in the last few installments. The latter group is no doubt correct, but see for yourself. The moment referenced is about a half-hour into the film.
It would help, but is not essential, to have seen the last installment before going to this one. The essentials of that story are: Bond falls in love. The object of his affections dies in a way that makes him believe he was betrayed. He was not, and thereby lies this tale.
This is a story about revenge, regret, sorrow, heartbreak and the call of duty in a world gone mad. Evil men and their minions pose as caring environmental stewards, yet still have allies among world leaders and intelligence agents when all the duplicity and deceit of the group known as “Quantum” (long-time Bond fans, think: Spectre) is understood. While certainly a brilliant action film with lots of explosives and several brutal fights, this is nonetheless a Bond story for those with literate tastes and an appreciation for compelling character portrayals.
A few critics have said this is the least subtle Bond ever filmed. I must have seen a different motion picture. Craig pours spectacular and believable emotion into a glance, a stare, a gulp of liquor, a kiss for a woman he never beds, and a flurry of eloquence in tribute after learning of the death of a woman he did.
The supporting cast is uniformly superb, but special praise goes to Olga Kurylenko as the Bolivian agent who becomes Bond’s friend, Mathieu Amalric as retired agent Rene Mathis, whose departure from the series is masterfully handled, and Jeffrey Wright as American agent and Bond friend Felix Leiter. The bad guys might be the film’s relative weakness, but one that is not disabling.
For this reviewer, this excellent movie is not quite the equal of its immediate predecessor, but my wife liked it better for both the abundance of action and Bond’s believable vulnerability and understated grief.
The film includes a poignant exchange between Craig’s Bond and the incomparable Judi Dench’s M, director of the British secret service. Their emotional back story in the “Casino” and “Quantum” gives meaning to her words, like mother to son: “I want you back.” He replies, “I never left.”
That’s good news from Bond, James Bond.
In new Bond film, Daniel Craig is superb as 007
By Patrick B. McGuigan
Sentinel Managing Editor
Daniel Craig may be the best James Bond ever. He certainly qualifies as the actor who has most thoroughly confounded critics who thought a blond and blue-eyed fellow known previously for artsy films and stage acting could never pass muster as Ian Fleming’s edgy, hard-drinking and frequent smoking master spy.
Frequent smoking has left the series, but edgy and hard drinking remain. Craig’s performance in the 2006 film, “Casino Royale,” blew most away most critics. With “Quantum of Solace,” a solid sequel story that begins just minutes after conclusion of the last film, Craig secures his place in the Bond pantheon alongside the original and still most popular 007, Sean Connery.
Speaking of Connery, there is a brief hotel lobby scene in “Quantum”where Craig’s character checks on a message, then retrieves a briefcase belonging to someone else, a crucial moment in the plot development. Before and after an exchange between Craig’s character and a girl at the desk, the camera provides brief glimpses of a fellow reading in an easy chair near the front desk.
I was certain it was Sean Connery. A note posted on The City Sentinel’s MySpace page, Tulsa Today’s website and Norman activist Bobby Cleveland’s blogsite brought a flurry of responses. Most agreed with me, but an impressive minority report it is Michael G. Wilson, producer of the film who has popped up (Hitchcock-like) in the last few installments. The latter group is no doubt correct, but see for yourself. The moment referenced is about a half-hour into the film.
It would help, but is not essential, to have seen the last installment before going to this one. The essentials of that story are: Bond falls in love. The object of his affections dies in a way that makes him believe he was betrayed. He was not, and thereby lies this tale.
This is a story about revenge, regret, sorrow, heartbreak and the call of duty in a world gone mad. Evil men and their minions pose as caring environmental stewards, yet still have allies among world leaders and intelligence agents when all the duplicity and deceit of the group known as “Quantum” (long-time Bond fans, think: Spectre) is understood. While certainly a brilliant action film with lots of explosives and several brutal fights, this is nonetheless a Bond story for those with literate tastes and an appreciation for compelling character portrayals.
A few critics have said this is the least subtle Bond ever filmed. I must have seen a different motion picture. Craig pours spectacular and believable emotion into a glance, a stare, a gulp of liquor, a kiss for a woman he never beds, and a flurry of eloquence in tribute after learning of the death of a woman he did.
The supporting cast is uniformly superb, but special praise goes to Olga Kurylenko as the Bolivian agent who becomes Bond’s friend, Mathieu Amalric as retired agent Rene Mathis, whose departure from the series is masterfully handled, and Jeffrey Wright as American agent and Bond friend Felix Leiter. The bad guys might be the film’s relative weakness, but one that is not disabling.
For this reviewer, this excellent movie is not quite the equal of its immediate predecessor, but my wife liked it better for both the abundance of action and Bond’s believable vulnerability and understated grief.
The film includes a poignant exchange between Craig’s Bond and the incomparable Judi Dench’s M, director of the British secret service. Their emotional back story in the “Casino” and “Quantum” gives meaning to her words, like mother to son: “I want you back.” He replies, “I never left.”
That’s good news from Bond, James Bond.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
77% Want Pledge At School
The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag is an oath of loyalty to the country. It is recited at many public events. US Congressional sessions open with the recitation of the Pledge.
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of U.S. voters say school children should say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at school, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Just 13% say they should not, and nine percent (9%) are undecided.
Eighty-two percent (82%) say the words “under God” should remain in the Pledge as well. Fourteen percent (14%) think the phrase should be dropped from the Pledge, and just four percent (4%) have no opinion.
Voters are closely divided over whether students should be able to opt out of saying the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. Forty-four percent (44%) say they should be allowed to do so, but 47% disagree. Nine percent (9%) are not sure.
Support for saying the Pledge is slightly higher than in a survey for July 4 this year in which 75% of voters said they were proud of American history and nearly as many said the world would be a better place if more countries were like ours.
Men and women are in near agreement on saying the Pledge every day. Eighty-four percent (84%) of African-American voters think school children should say the Pledge daily, compared to 77% of whites.
While 91% of Republicans and 75% of unaffiliated voters say students should say the Pledge every morning, just 67% of Democrats agree. Half of Democrats (50%) say children should be able to opt out of saying the Pledge, but 58% of GOP voters say they should not be able to do so. Unaffiliateds oppose opting out by a six-point margin.
The phrase “under God” which was added to the Pledge in 1954 has been challenged in the courts in recent years, prompting Congress to consider legislation making use of the phrase mandatory under law. The legal challenges have been unsuccessful to date.
Ninety-three percent (93%) of Republicans, 80% of unaffiliated voters and 74% of Democrats say “under God” should not be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Even those who characterize themselves as politically liberal support the phrase by a two-to-one margin.
Again, support is stronger among African-Americans (92%) than among whites (82%).
Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters also say people are too worried about being politically correct these days. Only 19% disagree, with nine percent (9%) undecided.
Eighty-one percent (81%) of conservatives and 73% of moderates say there is too much concern about political correctness, but just 56% of liberals agree. Seventy-six percent (76%) of white voters share this view, compared to 59% of African-Americans.
Forty-six percent (46%) of voters say the United States is truly the land of liberty and justice for all, but 42% disagree. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. These findings are virtually identical to those in July.
Most men believe America is a land of liberty and justice for all, but a plurality of women (45%) disagree.
While 62% of Republicans say the country is fair to all, 53% of Democrats say it is not. Unaffiliated voters are closely divided on the question, giving a slight edge to the more positive view.
Whites by a 49% to 40% margin say the United States is a country with liberty and justice for all. But just 20% of black voters agree. Sixty percent (60%) of blacks say America is not fair to all.
Two days after Barack Obama became the first African-American to be voted into the White House, the percentage of black voters who viewed American society as fair and decent jumped 18 points to 42%. Just a month earlier, only 24% of black voters viewed U.S. society as fair and decent.
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of U.S. voters say school children should say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at school, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Just 13% say they should not, and nine percent (9%) are undecided.
Eighty-two percent (82%) say the words “under God” should remain in the Pledge as well. Fourteen percent (14%) think the phrase should be dropped from the Pledge, and just four percent (4%) have no opinion.
Voters are closely divided over whether students should be able to opt out of saying the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. Forty-four percent (44%) say they should be allowed to do so, but 47% disagree. Nine percent (9%) are not sure.
Support for saying the Pledge is slightly higher than in a survey for July 4 this year in which 75% of voters said they were proud of American history and nearly as many said the world would be a better place if more countries were like ours.
Men and women are in near agreement on saying the Pledge every day. Eighty-four percent (84%) of African-American voters think school children should say the Pledge daily, compared to 77% of whites.
While 91% of Republicans and 75% of unaffiliated voters say students should say the Pledge every morning, just 67% of Democrats agree. Half of Democrats (50%) say children should be able to opt out of saying the Pledge, but 58% of GOP voters say they should not be able to do so. Unaffiliateds oppose opting out by a six-point margin.
The phrase “under God” which was added to the Pledge in 1954 has been challenged in the courts in recent years, prompting Congress to consider legislation making use of the phrase mandatory under law. The legal challenges have been unsuccessful to date.
Ninety-three percent (93%) of Republicans, 80% of unaffiliated voters and 74% of Democrats say “under God” should not be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Even those who characterize themselves as politically liberal support the phrase by a two-to-one margin.
Again, support is stronger among African-Americans (92%) than among whites (82%).
Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters also say people are too worried about being politically correct these days. Only 19% disagree, with nine percent (9%) undecided.
Eighty-one percent (81%) of conservatives and 73% of moderates say there is too much concern about political correctness, but just 56% of liberals agree. Seventy-six percent (76%) of white voters share this view, compared to 59% of African-Americans.
Forty-six percent (46%) of voters say the United States is truly the land of liberty and justice for all, but 42% disagree. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. These findings are virtually identical to those in July.
Most men believe America is a land of liberty and justice for all, but a plurality of women (45%) disagree.
While 62% of Republicans say the country is fair to all, 53% of Democrats say it is not. Unaffiliated voters are closely divided on the question, giving a slight edge to the more positive view.
Whites by a 49% to 40% margin say the United States is a country with liberty and justice for all. But just 20% of black voters agree. Sixty percent (60%) of blacks say America is not fair to all.
Two days after Barack Obama became the first African-American to be voted into the White House, the percentage of black voters who viewed American society as fair and decent jumped 18 points to 42%. Just a month earlier, only 24% of black voters viewed U.S. society as fair and decent.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Wal Mart Employee Trampled
Detectives said a 34-year-old Walmart employee died when a throng of shoppers entering the store on Green Acres Road knocked him to the ground.
The victim was taken to an area hospital where he was pronounced dead just after 6 a.m., police said. A medical examiner will determine the cause of death.
In addition, a 28-year-old pregnant woman was taken to a nearby hospital for observation. Three other shoppers suffered minor injuries and were taken to area hospitals.
Police said the cause of the emergency wasn’t necessarily shoppers pushing and shoving to get into the shopping center. A woman who works at the mall said someone had a heart attack outside the Walmart and insists the raucous wasn't a result of shoppers trampling over each other to get inside.
Walmart released the following statement:
"The safety and security of our customers and associates is our top priority.
"A tragic situation occurred this morning prior to opening at our Valley Stream, N.Y., location. We are saddened to report that a gentleman who was working for a temporary agency on our behalf died at the store and a few of our customers were injured. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families at this difficult time. At this point, facts are still being assembled and we are working closely with the Nassau County Police as they investigate what occurred.
"As there is still an ongoing investigation, any further comment would be best served coming from them."
Police are investigating.
The victim was taken to an area hospital where he was pronounced dead just after 6 a.m., police said. A medical examiner will determine the cause of death.
In addition, a 28-year-old pregnant woman was taken to a nearby hospital for observation. Three other shoppers suffered minor injuries and were taken to area hospitals.
Police said the cause of the emergency wasn’t necessarily shoppers pushing and shoving to get into the shopping center. A woman who works at the mall said someone had a heart attack outside the Walmart and insists the raucous wasn't a result of shoppers trampling over each other to get inside.
Walmart released the following statement:
"The safety and security of our customers and associates is our top priority.
"A tragic situation occurred this morning prior to opening at our Valley Stream, N.Y., location. We are saddened to report that a gentleman who was working for a temporary agency on our behalf died at the store and a few of our customers were injured. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families at this difficult time. At this point, facts are still being assembled and we are working closely with the Nassau County Police as they investigate what occurred.
"As there is still an ongoing investigation, any further comment would be best served coming from them."
Police are investigating.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Email From Thad Concerning Obama's Birth Certificate
Received this email today from Thad.
As for these calls for an investigation of Obama's birth certificate. It AINT GONNA HAPPEN! Those Republicans who keep talking about his birth certificate are beginning to look as bad as the gays out in California who are trying to stop Proposition 8 AFTER the people decided in favor of it.
We lost the Presidential election. We have another chance in 4 years. In the meantime, get over it and criticize Obama when his policies fail.
Where was all of this passion during the campaign? Why didn't these people help us nominate a better candidate?
I'm tired of hearing about this birth certificate nonsense. Can't we talk about something more relevant?
Thad Balkman
As for these calls for an investigation of Obama's birth certificate. It AINT GONNA HAPPEN! Those Republicans who keep talking about his birth certificate are beginning to look as bad as the gays out in California who are trying to stop Proposition 8 AFTER the people decided in favor of it.
We lost the Presidential election. We have another chance in 4 years. In the meantime, get over it and criticize Obama when his policies fail.
Where was all of this passion during the campaign? Why didn't these people help us nominate a better candidate?
I'm tired of hearing about this birth certificate nonsense. Can't we talk about something more relevant?
Thad Balkman
Bullet Serialization
Update on Bullet Serialization
During the past week the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) -- the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry -- has received inquires concerning state legislation that would require the serialization of ammunition on a mass production basis.
Bullet serialization -- the process by which each individual round of ammunition is identified and marked with a laser engraved serial number -- is not feasible from a practical standpoint and any legislation mandating such action could rightfully be considered a de facto ban on ammunition.
While legislation has been introduced in more than 20 states, NSSF has successfully defeated all of these bills. NSSF will continue to closely monitor state or federal legislation to require bullet serialization and will continue to issue Legislative Alerts to industry members and Second Amendment advocates in those states when bills are introduced or scheduled for a hearing or vote.
Demonstrating the effectiveness of the NSSF Legislative Alert system, several bullet serialization bill sponsors withdrew their bills immediately following public outcry stemming from the NSSF alerts -- in the case of Kentucky, this was within 48 hours of the bill's introduction.
During the past week the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) -- the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry -- has received inquires concerning state legislation that would require the serialization of ammunition on a mass production basis.
Bullet serialization -- the process by which each individual round of ammunition is identified and marked with a laser engraved serial number -- is not feasible from a practical standpoint and any legislation mandating such action could rightfully be considered a de facto ban on ammunition.
While legislation has been introduced in more than 20 states, NSSF has successfully defeated all of these bills. NSSF will continue to closely monitor state or federal legislation to require bullet serialization and will continue to issue Legislative Alerts to industry members and Second Amendment advocates in those states when bills are introduced or scheduled for a hearing or vote.
Demonstrating the effectiveness of the NSSF Legislative Alert system, several bullet serialization bill sponsors withdrew their bills immediately following public outcry stemming from the NSSF alerts -- in the case of Kentucky, this was within 48 hours of the bill's introduction.
Elector And Obama "Get Over It"
Barbara and I, along with Rod and his family, are spending the Thanksgiving holiday skiing in Breckenridge. On the drive to Breckenridge, Barbara and I were talking about the letters that I have received concerning Obama's birth certificate. We also discussed the many e- mails that I have received as well. Barbara's comment was "some Republicans are acting like sore losers. "We lost..so get over it!" Well maybe, just maybe, Barbara has a point.
The fact is everyone remotely close to politics has known about Obama's birth certificate problem going back to the days when he ran for the Senate.
The RNC was aware of the issue. Even the Clinton's were aware; McCain was aware. So why now are some people making such a big deal out of the birth certificate.
We need to stop acting like Democrats and face the facts. Obama won, so we need to get over it! Look at the gays in California. They lost at the ballot box on Prop 8 yet they are trying to over turn the will of the people by taking the issue to the courts. Remember when Bush beat Gore, the Dems went to the courts and tried to over turn the will of the people. So we need to come to the realization that the will of the people has spoken. Don't get me wrong, I do not support Obama. In fact, I believe he raised millions of dollars illegally.
The bottom line is the majority do not care if he cheated; they do not care if his birth certificate is fake. We need to spend our time and energy promoting the Republican agenda and we should not allow anyone to tell us that we need to move from our conservative values. We need to make sure our elected officials get back to less spending, no bailouts, support of our religious beliefs, supporting the 2nd Amendment, and opposing same-sex marriage. Moving to the left is not what we need!
Bob
Bob,
I believed Richard Nixon when he said "I am not a crook." I believed William Jefferson Clinton when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Miss Lewinsky." This time I ain't gonna believe until the FEC and the Supremes review the documentation and vetting of the President-Elect. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. We have a Constitution - we do not make up the rules as we go.
The fact is everyone remotely close to politics has known about Obama's birth certificate problem going back to the days when he ran for the Senate.
The RNC was aware of the issue. Even the Clinton's were aware; McCain was aware. So why now are some people making such a big deal out of the birth certificate.
We need to stop acting like Democrats and face the facts. Obama won, so we need to get over it! Look at the gays in California. They lost at the ballot box on Prop 8 yet they are trying to over turn the will of the people by taking the issue to the courts. Remember when Bush beat Gore, the Dems went to the courts and tried to over turn the will of the people. So we need to come to the realization that the will of the people has spoken. Don't get me wrong, I do not support Obama. In fact, I believe he raised millions of dollars illegally.
The bottom line is the majority do not care if he cheated; they do not care if his birth certificate is fake. We need to spend our time and energy promoting the Republican agenda and we should not allow anyone to tell us that we need to move from our conservative values. We need to make sure our elected officials get back to less spending, no bailouts, support of our religious beliefs, supporting the 2nd Amendment, and opposing same-sex marriage. Moving to the left is not what we need!
Bob
Bob,
I believed Richard Nixon when he said "I am not a crook." I believed William Jefferson Clinton when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Miss Lewinsky." This time I ain't gonna believe until the FEC and the Supremes review the documentation and vetting of the President-Elect. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. We have a Constitution - we do not make up the rules as we go.
Democracy loses if Prop. 8 is overruled
Wall Street Journal
Democracy loses if Prop. 8 is overruled.
• By WILLIAM MCGURN
If it walks like a culture war, squawks like a culture war, and has all the ugliness of a culture war, surely it is a culture war -- right?
AP
Maybe not. It's true that we've seen some wild things in the days since California voters approved Proposition 8 -- a measure on the state ballot prohibiting same-sex marriage. We've had the burning of the Book of Mormon. The mailing of envelopes filled with white powder to Mormon temples. And activists marching on Mormon churches with signs and shouts of "hate" and "bigot" directed at anyone who might have a difference of opinion.
In modern America, of course, these acts all come under the banner of "tolerance." And it's interesting that all those so outraged by the alleged disrespect toward the Quran shown by Guantanamo prison guards (the most sensational report was later retracted by Newsweek) appear unperturbed by the ugliness directed against our Mormon brothers and sisters. The temptation can be to saddle up the horse and ride out to take one's assigned place in the Great American Culture War.
Except for one little thing. What we have in America is less a culture war than a constitutional war. And if we could just straighten out the latter, we'd go a long way toward diffusing the former.
That much has become clearer in the wake of last week's decision by the California Supreme Court to review the legality of Proposition 8. In California, gay Americans have marriage in all but name -- which many Americans might think a pretty reasonable compromise. But courts tend to think in absolutes -- and when they intervene, woe unto the losing side.
The great achievement of our system was to create a political order where these great moral disputes, as a matter of policy, are left to the people -- with allowance for differences according to region and locale. Moral agents have a role to play, generally by shaping the larger culture in which these decisions are framed and debated. But the outcome is left to the people acting through their elected representatives, a process that inevitably involves compromise, trade-offs and messy accommodations.
These political accommodations can be thought illogical
Maybe not. It's true that we've seen some wild things in the days since California voters approved Proposition 8 -- a measure on the state ballot prohibiting same-sex marriage. We've had the burning of the Book of Mormon. The mailing of envelopes filled with white powder to Mormon temples. And activists marching on Mormon churches with signs and shouts of "hate" and "bigot" directed at anyone who might have a difference of opinion.
In modern America, of course, these acts all come under the banner of "tolerance." And it's interesting that all those so outraged by the alleged disrespect toward the Quran shown by Guantanamo prison guards (the most sensational report was later retracted by Newsweek) appear unperturbed by the ugliness directed against our Mormon brothers and sisters. The temptation can be to saddle up the horse and ride out to take one's assigned place in the Great American Culture War.
Except for one little thing. What we have in America is less a culture war than a constitutional war. And if we could just straighten out the latter, we'd go a long way toward diffusing the former.
That much has become clearer in the wake of last week's decision by the California Supreme Court to review the legality of Proposition 8. In California, gay Americans have marriage in all but name -- which many Americans might think a pretty reasonable compromise. But courts tend to think in absolutes -- and when they intervene, woe unto the losing side.
The great achievement of our system was to create a political order where these great moral disputes, as a matter of policy, are left to the people -- with allowance for differences according to region and locale. Moral agents have a role to play, generally by shaping the larger culture in which these decisions are framed and debated. But the outcome is left to the people acting through their elected representatives, a process that inevitably involves compromise, trade-offs and messy accommodations.
For more information concerning this article go to http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122757137423754669-lMyQjAxMDI4MjI3NTUyNzUxWj.html
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Facts Concerning Obama's Birth Certificate
Posted: November 02, 2008
9:21 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
HONOLULU – Even though Hawaii officials now claim to have verified the authenticity of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate – in hopes of ending widespread speculation and even multiple lawsuits challenging the Democrat candidate's constitutional qualification to be president – it turns out there is still reason for serious questioning.
In fact, there is considerable evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the candidate and his campaign have maintained.
As WND reported from Honolulu last week, Gov. Linda Lingle instructed the Hawaii Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to Obama's original birth certificate. Lingle's letter to WND made clear that the original doctor-generated and hospital-released birth certificate on file with the state's health department would be released to the press if Obama so requested – but to date the candidate has made no such request.
The governor's communication with WND also left ambiguous whether the Obama birth certificate on file with the Department of Health was originally generated by a Hawaii doctor after giving birth to Obama in Hawaii, or generated in Kenya and subsequently registered by the Obama family in Hawaii.
On April 5, WND conducted a telephone interview from New Jersey to Kenya with Sayid Obama, brother of Barack Obama senior and the uncle of Sen. Barack Obama. The interview is reported in the book "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality" on pages 21-25, 26-28, 29, 30, 34 and 103.
In the interview, Sayid acknowledged he was not sure whether his brother, Barack Obama senior, practiced Islam or whether Barack Obama junior was born in Kenya or in Hawaii.
He did remember distinctly that Obama junior had visited Africa in 1987, then a second time in 1992 when Obama junior traveled to Kenya with his wife-to-be Michelle; and a third time, as a U.S. senator, when Obama returned with Michelle in 2006.
9:21 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
HONOLULU – Even though Hawaii officials now claim to have verified the authenticity of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate – in hopes of ending widespread speculation and even multiple lawsuits challenging the Democrat candidate's constitutional qualification to be president – it turns out there is still reason for serious questioning.
In fact, there is considerable evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the candidate and his campaign have maintained.
As WND reported from Honolulu last week, Gov. Linda Lingle instructed the Hawaii Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to Obama's original birth certificate. Lingle's letter to WND made clear that the original doctor-generated and hospital-released birth certificate on file with the state's health department would be released to the press if Obama so requested – but to date the candidate has made no such request.
The governor's communication with WND also left ambiguous whether the Obama birth certificate on file with the Department of Health was originally generated by a Hawaii doctor after giving birth to Obama in Hawaii, or generated in Kenya and subsequently registered by the Obama family in Hawaii.
On April 5, WND conducted a telephone interview from New Jersey to Kenya with Sayid Obama, brother of Barack Obama senior and the uncle of Sen. Barack Obama. The interview is reported in the book "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality" on pages 21-25, 26-28, 29, 30, 34 and 103.
In the interview, Sayid acknowledged he was not sure whether his brother, Barack Obama senior, practiced Islam or whether Barack Obama junior was born in Kenya or in Hawaii.
He did remember distinctly that Obama junior had visited Africa in 1987, then a second time in 1992 when Obama junior traveled to Kenya with his wife-to-be Michelle; and a third time, as a U.S. senator, when Obama returned with Michelle in 2006.
Obama's Birth Certificate And Letter To Washington
Below is a letter that one of Oklahoma's Elector's sent to our US Senator and Congressman. Obama and his birth certificate issue is not going away.
Bob
Your Letter to Congress
Virginia, thanks for taking action on behalf of The People's Voice. Your emails are on the way to Capitol Hill.
An individual copy of your letter will be sent to each official:
November 25, 2008
Dear Representative Sullivan,
Dear Senator Coburn,
Dear Senator Inhofe,
WE THE ELECTORS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DEMAND A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION INTO CANDIDATE CITIZENSHIP STATUS
Fellow Patriots, The Constitution's 20th amendment calls out this interim period following November 4th as the proper time to vet any questions about the candidate's qualifications.
Questions about qualifications as to being Natural Born and 35 years of age are not about policies nor politics, they are fundamental. It cannot be overlooked by reason of popularity or special dispensation. It goes to the root of rule by law and cuts to a core demand laid down by our founding fathers and is enshrined in statutes that set the standard; the minimum standard that must be met to hold the office of President.
Numerous lawsuits have been filed to force Mr. Obama to release public access to his certified birth, immigration and passport records but to date he has managed to keep them sealed from public view.
This is no trivial matter as the civil transfer of power and even the subordinate position of the military depends on the presumption of legitimacy. We cannot leave this cloud of illegitimacy hanging over the Presidency.
This issue has not been answered and no court has yet reviewed the merits of the arguments; only the "legal standing" of the individuals asking. However, we the electors and the candidates, do have "standing". No Patriot, Democrat, Republican or Independent can turn a blind eye to the constitution.
For the sake of the validity of the new Presidency, we Electors demand that Congress and the Senate conduct an open, transparent, bipartisan investigation whose results would be available prior to the casting of Electoral Ballots in December and be also be publicly available to answer any possible challenge as the 20th amendment allows on January 6th.
We implore all members of Congress to set aside partisan feelings and hold up the constitution as the supreme law of the land and to vet the credentials of any and all candidates and to do so plainly and with due diligence.
We the people and specifically - we the constitutionally prescribed electors - have a right to this. Realistically, it is not difficult for congress to access any birth, immigration, passport or adoption record. They need only subpoena these records and lay the cards on the table.
We the people ask no more. We the electors demand no less!
Sincerely,
Mrs. Virginia Chrisco
8217 East 56th Place
Tulsa, OK 74145
Bob
Your Letter to Congress
Virginia, thanks for taking action on behalf of The People's Voice. Your emails are on the way to Capitol Hill.
An individual copy of your letter will be sent to each official:
November 25, 2008
Dear Representative Sullivan,
Dear Senator Coburn,
Dear Senator Inhofe,
WE THE ELECTORS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DEMAND A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION INTO CANDIDATE CITIZENSHIP STATUS
Fellow Patriots, The Constitution's 20th amendment calls out this interim period following November 4th as the proper time to vet any questions about the candidate's qualifications.
Questions about qualifications as to being Natural Born and 35 years of age are not about policies nor politics, they are fundamental. It cannot be overlooked by reason of popularity or special dispensation. It goes to the root of rule by law and cuts to a core demand laid down by our founding fathers and is enshrined in statutes that set the standard; the minimum standard that must be met to hold the office of President.
Numerous lawsuits have been filed to force Mr. Obama to release public access to his certified birth, immigration and passport records but to date he has managed to keep them sealed from public view.
This is no trivial matter as the civil transfer of power and even the subordinate position of the military depends on the presumption of legitimacy. We cannot leave this cloud of illegitimacy hanging over the Presidency.
This issue has not been answered and no court has yet reviewed the merits of the arguments; only the "legal standing" of the individuals asking. However, we the electors and the candidates, do have "standing". No Patriot, Democrat, Republican or Independent can turn a blind eye to the constitution.
For the sake of the validity of the new Presidency, we Electors demand that Congress and the Senate conduct an open, transparent, bipartisan investigation whose results would be available prior to the casting of Electoral Ballots in December and be also be publicly available to answer any possible challenge as the 20th amendment allows on January 6th.
We implore all members of Congress to set aside partisan feelings and hold up the constitution as the supreme law of the land and to vet the credentials of any and all candidates and to do so plainly and with due diligence.
We the people and specifically - we the constitutionally prescribed electors - have a right to this. Realistically, it is not difficult for congress to access any birth, immigration, passport or adoption record. They need only subpoena these records and lay the cards on the table.
We the people ask no more. We the electors demand no less!
Sincerely,
Mrs. Virginia Chrisco
8217 East 56th Place
Tulsa, OK 74145
Obama's Birth Certificate
The internet is busy with chatter concerning the phoney birth Certificate Obama produced. Why does Obama refuse to provide his original birth certificate?
Below is one of the many emails that I have received.
Bob
Dear Friends,
The message below is from a lady that I am personally acquainted with and she is one great lady.
If you are concerned about where our country is headed under Obama, please take the time to read the following message from Bunny Chambers. Bunny works with Eagle Forum and is the former Oklahoma National Republican Committeewoman. She is also a member of the 2008 Electoral College.
If you already receive messages from Bunny, please excuse me for sending this message again.
Dawn Case
Woodward, OK
--------------------------
Friends:
There must be something to hide if BHO won?t release proof, if he has it, that he is a natural born US citizen. He isn?t officially elected until the Electoral College meets on December 15th. I am a member of the 2008 Electoral College. I can?t believe that this is actually happening right before our eyes. We must do something! I?ve worked over 30 years to protect our US Constitution and now it seems that it will have been all for naught.
It seems that Polarik is telling the truth. Please read this entire report. About midway through is an Executive Summary. Also, at the end of the article is the URL that I suggest you go to and read the rest of Polarik?s Report.
Please share with me any ideas you have. The RIGHT thing MUST be done, regardless of consequences. There is silence on this. And, why? Well?.Polarik acknowledges that he has ?endured constant harassment by my critics.?
I don?t really know what to do except to inform as many of you as possible about the ?cover-up,? ?conspiracy,? or whatever it is. Go to World Net Daily (www.wnd.com) to read more about this issue. If the Supreme Court does nothing, we?ll know there?s more to this than we can imagine.
I think we must all demand that BH Obama release the proof that he is a natural born US citizen. If 56 million McCain voters make this demand, perhaps something will be done.
Bunny {Chambers}
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy
Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud
By Ron Polarik, PhD
Forward
The following report is the culmination of over four months of intensive, empirical research whose sole purpose has been to determine if the images and photographs posted on the Internet are true reproductions of a genuine document purported to be Obama's original birth certificate. The idea for the research actually began from the time when the first image was posted on June 12 to the Daily Kos blog. I don't recall on which website I actually saw the story (most likely World Net Daily), but the news had gone viral basically from the moment that it hit the Internet.
Before seeing the image, I had no idea that Barack Obama's birthplace was in question, or that his status as a natural-born US citizen had never been proven. Like millions of other Americans, I believed the story he told about being born in Hawaii to an American Mother (and a U.S. citizen) and an African Father (a Kenyan national attending college on a student visa). I had no idea that this issue would mushroom and take on a life of its own. What I did know, however, was that from the first time I saw the Daily Kos image, or what I now call, "Obama's bogus birth certificate," that something was just not right about it. As someone who has scanned hundreds of thousands of documents in his lifetime, I had a hard time accepting that this was an original scan image made from an original paper document. As Fate would have it, right then, on June 13, I was looking at the conclusive evidence that the text on this image had been graphically altered, or "manufactured," as my first blog post would claim.
From that point onward, I had no inkling of what was to come. I had no idea that I would wind up being the only person on the Planet (at that time) to have spotted the anomalies that I knew were the by-products of intentional, graphic alteration, and to go on record as stating that the Daily Kos image was a fake. I was also not prepared for what came along with this knowledge, for what I had to endure for making it public. Basically, I had painted a big bullseye on my chest and my research findings, and the critics were now coming out of the virtual woodwork taking shots at me personally, and my research, secondly. I had started a new online game called, "Let's pile on Polarik," and every little error I made was magnified into a major transgression. Yet, the crux of my contention was never successfully refuted.
Now, if I had to do it all over again, I probably would not have done it at all, knowing that I'd be spending the next four months conducting further research and compiling evidence on not just the COLB image, but also the digital photographs that were to follow two months later. The personal costs to me were enormous, and I will not elucidate on them (but for those who know me, they also know what were those costs). What began as sort of a curiosity turned into my personal quest for the "Holy Grail," so to speak. I was guided only by the need to uncover the truth, and by the constant harassment by my critics. Had they left me alone from the beginning, I probably would not be writing this report today.
I debated, long and hard, about the title of my report. Aside from it being catchy, I ran the danger of being lumped into a group of false conspiracy theorists, and brushed aside as an idiot wearing a "tinfoil hat." (Actually, that's already happened, many times over). Perhaps there are a lot of false conspiracies, including some really outlandish ones, but there would not be laws on the books, both at a state level and a federal level, that specifically mention the act of conspiracy when the purpose of that conspiracy is to either engage in illegal activity, engage in a cover-up of that illegal activity, or interfering with the investigation of that illegal activity. Conspiracy can involve all of these. Yet, somehow, the word, "Conspiracy," has become a pejorative for "nutty theories from the fringe," as if there has never been a real "conspiracy."
Do you remember, or ever hear about, the "Watergate Conspiracy?" Do you remember, or ever hear about, what happened to President Richard Nixon as a result?
I would tell all of you who think that "conspiracies" are a joke and that the people who claim to have found them are "idiots wearing tinfoil hats," to just ask an FBI agent what he or she thinks about "conspiracy." Or, go ahead and ask a federal judge what he or she thinks about "conspiracy."
"Conspiracy" is no laughing matter, ladies and gentlemen, and neither is "document fraud," as in creating and passing a counterfeit birth certificate.
I should now alert you to the fact that I have been using the phrase, "Bogus birth certificate," as a euphemism for "Counterfeit birth certificate," which is defined as, "A copy or imitation of a state-issued birth certificate that is intended to be taken as authentic and genuine in order to deceive another."
Sound familiar? According to Authenticate-360:
"Birth certificates are generally used as ?breeder? documents to gain other identity documents and to perpetuate fraud. But unlike Social Security cards, birth certificates are issued by hundreds, if not thousands, of entities, with little regard to consistency or security. An accurately forged birth certificate is a dangerous document, allowing the bearer significant access to everything from driver?s licenses to passports...The increasing availability and affordability of high-quality digital scanners and copiers is a constant threat to the authenticity of government issued documents."
There are current Federal laws in place that prohibit the use of false identity documents, such as a birth certificate, and they are spelled out in Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 1028, Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information. In particular, there are specific paragraphs that relate to the use of a false identification document:
"The term "false identification document" means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of
individuals that - (A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization."
What you are about to read in this report are well-documented facts arising from evidence collected over a period of four months and subjected to intense scrutiny and empirical evaluation. Given the overriding fact that the individual whose identity document is in question, has repeatedly failed to provide a genuine identity document, the charge that this individual, along with other individuals, did conspire to proffer in its place, a false identification document, is hereby levied by the American people, by way of one of its citizens. To summarize the seriousness of these actions and this charge, and to the importance of what is contained within this report:
"There is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the COLB image created and distributed by Obama's campaign to the Daily Kos, Annenberg's Factcheck, and the St. Pete Times, Politifact, is, unquestionably, a false identification document. Furthermore, there is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the photos taken by Annenberg's Factcheck, in collusion with the Obama campaign, are themselves, false identification documents, having been made from the same false identification document image, as well as from additional false identification documents created for the same purpose; namely, to proffer these false identification documents as true reproductions of a genuine, Hawaii-issued and certified, "Certification of Live Birth" document, and thereby, intentionally deceive the American public into believing that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thereby, fully qualified to become their President."
I never imagined that my studies would amount to this. I thought, like most Americans, that maybe the information was accurate even though the document image was fake. I thought, like most Americans, that Obama would simply present a copy of his real, original birth certificate, and that would be that. Yet, here we are, more than twenty months after Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency, and nearly three weeks after the election, and Obama still refuses to show his real birth certificate!
Sadly, mainstream media have totally ignored this inconvenient truth and are not even been willing to even look at this birth certificate issue. They are all still in-the-tank with Obama, but even more so now that he is in line to be President. They all bought into the lies and fraudulent documents proffered up as evidence on Obama's qualifications. They have been too quick to label as "trash" or "garbage" any legitimate questions asked about Obama's real birth certificate. Even thigh-ranking governmental officials in the state of Hawaii where Obama was allegedly born, won't reveal what's on Obama's original birth certificate. All they have said is that they have it. They have not said (1) where Obama was born. (2) when Obama was born, or (30 even to whom Obama was born.
The answer to "What's on Barack Obama's real, original birth certificate" ranks right up there with some of the great mysteries of our time -- and that is really hard to swallow. That a man, with a dubious background, has been elected to the highest office of the greatest superpower in the world without ever having to prove who he says he is! That is not "nutty," that's just plain insane!
With all that said, and without further ado, I present to you my final and complete report on Barack Obama's bogus birth certificate, The Born Conspiracy.
------------------------------------------------------------------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since the beginning of Barack Hussein Obama?s Presidential campaign on February 11, 2007, there had been numerous rumors regarding Obama?s citizenship status. Several reporters had asked for a copy of Obama?s birth certificate, however, all requests were subsequently denied.
On or about June 12, 2008, the Daily Kos blog, a pro-Obama website, received an image from the Obama Campaign that they claimed was a scanned copy of Obama?s ?original birth certificate,?. Before this document image was cropped to 2427 x 2369 pixels, it measured 2550 x 3300 pixels, or 8 1/2? x 11? when printed.
Also, on or about June 12, 2008, the Obama Campaign posted a smaller copy of the same cropped image, measuring 1000 x 1024 pixels:
?You may have recently heard right-wing smears questioning Barack Obama's birth certificate and citizenship. These assertions are completely false and designed to play into the worst kind of stereotypes. You can see Barack Obama's birth certificate for yourself and help push back with the truth...?
The very next day, which was on or about June 13, 2008, Obama?s Campaign replaced the first document image they posted with a smaller copy which they posted to a new website, ?Fight The Smears? (fightthesmears.com). The smaller image was disproportionately reduced to 585 x 575 pixels, which was almost half the size of the original posted image, and one-third of its quality.
Also, on or about June 13, Politifact.org, a supposedly nonpartisan, fact checking website that is unquestionably pro-Obama, published a copy of the same image as that posted on the Daily Kos, but was also disproportionately reduced it to 811 x 786 pixels, or 1/3 of its size and 1/6 of its image quality.
On or about June 16, 2008, Factcheck.org, a pro-Obama fact checking website ,posted a full-sized image copy of same document image that appeared on the Daily Kos. Factcheck?s image copy was identical to the Daily Kos image copy before that image was cropped. Factcheck.org is owned by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania; a center run by Obama supporters and funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Factcheck.org made the following statement to explain how they received their image copy:
"Bloggers raised questions based on the absence of evidence, specifically the lack of a publicly available copy of a birth certificate and the supposed secrecy surrounding it". According to FactCheck, Tommy Vietor at the Obama campaign sent a message to them and "other reporters" saying, "I know there have been some rumors spreading about Obama?s citizenship, so I wanted to make sure you all had a copy of his birth certificate."
I first noticed that the image posted to the Daily Kos and purported to be the ?original birth certificate? of Barack H. Obama, did not look like a regular birth certificate. This image was made only from the front side of a COLB: no copy of the reverse side of this COLB has ever been made, :birth certificate? document was ever scanned, a side that contains all of the official certification instruments, such as the official Hawaiian Seal, State Registrar?s signature, and date stamp of when the document was printed.
To validate my findings that the text in this COLB document image was the result of graphic alternations, and not a result of any printer or scanner artifacts, I made over 700 test scans and images using an actual paper COLB and different scanners that were subjected to different combinations of scanning and image parameters. I was finally able to replicate the Kos image so closely that other image experts thought it was the same Kos image, and not my ?clone.?
From this date forward, when I first discovered the evidence of tampering, and regardless of the unfamiliar format of the COLB and the questionable information it contained, I collected a great deal of additional evidence, that the scanned image alleged to be a true copy of Obama?s original COLB was forged, and that this altered image of an official state-issued document is nothing less than a false identification document as defined by Chapter 18, Section 1028 of the United States Code.
All of my findings pertaining to a single source image and the four copies made from of it that are still posted on the four (4) websites, DAILYKOS.COM, FIGHTTHESMEARS.COM, FACTCHECK.ORG, and POLITIFACT.COM, as referred to and described above, are outlined in my Final Report
On August 21, slightly more than two months after the publication of the image on the Daily Kos and Obama's website, Factcheck published their story about nine photos they claimed were allegedly taken of Obama's "real" COLB at his campaign headquarters ? the same COLB used to make the document image they posted on June 16.
There was no longer any question in my mind that the COLB image Factcheck posted is a forgery and that Obama's real COLB, as proffered by Factcheck, is a nonexistent document. However, Factcheck created a conundrum for me: if the image Factcheck posted is a forgery of a nonexistent document image, then how can any genuine photos be made of it? The answer had to be that both the image and the photos were forgeries.
I have thoroughly examined the photographs that FactCheck published, and have subsequently found clear and irrefutable evidence of tampering with both the alleged COLB objects photographed and with the photos themselves. One of those COLB objects was, in fact, a printout of a forged document image with the Seal superimposed onto it for the final pictures.
FactCheck?s photos reveal both the absence of known, relevant features found on genuine COLBs along with the presence of illogical and impossible features that would never be found on a real 2007 COLB. Specifically, on the COLB objects photographed, the security border closely matches the border found on a real 2007 COLB. However, both the embossed Seal and the State Registrar?s Signature stamp do not match the same elements found on a real 2007 COLB, but perfectly match those found on a real 2008 COLB; or, in other words, something that would never happen in real life.
Hawaii made three important changes to their COLBs from 2007 to 2008, including the use of a larger certificate layout, a new security border, and, much to the chagrin of Factcheck and the Obama Campaign, a new Seal and Signature stamp that can now be stamped on a COLB by a machine.
With my experience and specialization in document imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB images posted by Obama to his campaign website, fightthesmears.com, to the dailykos.com, a pro-Obama blog, to FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, image forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these images were digitally scanned from Obama?s genuine, ?original? birth certificate.
With my experience and specialization in photography and digital imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB photographs posted by FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, photographic forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these digital photographs were taken of Obama?s genuine, ?original? birth certificate.
See rest of the document here:
Click here: Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2136816/posts?page=1
Below is one of the many emails that I have received.
Bob
Dear Friends,
The message below is from a lady that I am personally acquainted with and she is one great lady.
If you are concerned about where our country is headed under Obama, please take the time to read the following message from Bunny Chambers. Bunny works with Eagle Forum and is the former Oklahoma National Republican Committeewoman. She is also a member of the 2008 Electoral College.
If you already receive messages from Bunny, please excuse me for sending this message again.
Dawn Case
Woodward, OK
--------------------------
Friends:
There must be something to hide if BHO won?t release proof, if he has it, that he is a natural born US citizen. He isn?t officially elected until the Electoral College meets on December 15th. I am a member of the 2008 Electoral College. I can?t believe that this is actually happening right before our eyes. We must do something! I?ve worked over 30 years to protect our US Constitution and now it seems that it will have been all for naught.
It seems that Polarik is telling the truth. Please read this entire report. About midway through is an Executive Summary. Also, at the end of the article is the URL that I suggest you go to and read the rest of Polarik?s Report.
Please share with me any ideas you have. The RIGHT thing MUST be done, regardless of consequences. There is silence on this. And, why? Well?.Polarik acknowledges that he has ?endured constant harassment by my critics.?
I don?t really know what to do except to inform as many of you as possible about the ?cover-up,? ?conspiracy,? or whatever it is. Go to World Net Daily (www.wnd.com) to read more about this issue. If the Supreme Court does nothing, we?ll know there?s more to this than we can imagine.
I think we must all demand that BH Obama release the proof that he is a natural born US citizen. If 56 million McCain voters make this demand, perhaps something will be done.
Bunny {Chambers}
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy
Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud
By Ron Polarik, PhD
Forward
The following report is the culmination of over four months of intensive, empirical research whose sole purpose has been to determine if the images and photographs posted on the Internet are true reproductions of a genuine document purported to be Obama's original birth certificate. The idea for the research actually began from the time when the first image was posted on June 12 to the Daily Kos blog. I don't recall on which website I actually saw the story (most likely World Net Daily), but the news had gone viral basically from the moment that it hit the Internet.
Before seeing the image, I had no idea that Barack Obama's birthplace was in question, or that his status as a natural-born US citizen had never been proven. Like millions of other Americans, I believed the story he told about being born in Hawaii to an American Mother (and a U.S. citizen) and an African Father (a Kenyan national attending college on a student visa). I had no idea that this issue would mushroom and take on a life of its own. What I did know, however, was that from the first time I saw the Daily Kos image, or what I now call, "Obama's bogus birth certificate," that something was just not right about it. As someone who has scanned hundreds of thousands of documents in his lifetime, I had a hard time accepting that this was an original scan image made from an original paper document. As Fate would have it, right then, on June 13, I was looking at the conclusive evidence that the text on this image had been graphically altered, or "manufactured," as my first blog post would claim.
From that point onward, I had no inkling of what was to come. I had no idea that I would wind up being the only person on the Planet (at that time) to have spotted the anomalies that I knew were the by-products of intentional, graphic alteration, and to go on record as stating that the Daily Kos image was a fake. I was also not prepared for what came along with this knowledge, for what I had to endure for making it public. Basically, I had painted a big bullseye on my chest and my research findings, and the critics were now coming out of the virtual woodwork taking shots at me personally, and my research, secondly. I had started a new online game called, "Let's pile on Polarik," and every little error I made was magnified into a major transgression. Yet, the crux of my contention was never successfully refuted.
Now, if I had to do it all over again, I probably would not have done it at all, knowing that I'd be spending the next four months conducting further research and compiling evidence on not just the COLB image, but also the digital photographs that were to follow two months later. The personal costs to me were enormous, and I will not elucidate on them (but for those who know me, they also know what were those costs). What began as sort of a curiosity turned into my personal quest for the "Holy Grail," so to speak. I was guided only by the need to uncover the truth, and by the constant harassment by my critics. Had they left me alone from the beginning, I probably would not be writing this report today.
I debated, long and hard, about the title of my report. Aside from it being catchy, I ran the danger of being lumped into a group of false conspiracy theorists, and brushed aside as an idiot wearing a "tinfoil hat." (Actually, that's already happened, many times over). Perhaps there are a lot of false conspiracies, including some really outlandish ones, but there would not be laws on the books, both at a state level and a federal level, that specifically mention the act of conspiracy when the purpose of that conspiracy is to either engage in illegal activity, engage in a cover-up of that illegal activity, or interfering with the investigation of that illegal activity. Conspiracy can involve all of these. Yet, somehow, the word, "Conspiracy," has become a pejorative for "nutty theories from the fringe," as if there has never been a real "conspiracy."
Do you remember, or ever hear about, the "Watergate Conspiracy?" Do you remember, or ever hear about, what happened to President Richard Nixon as a result?
I would tell all of you who think that "conspiracies" are a joke and that the people who claim to have found them are "idiots wearing tinfoil hats," to just ask an FBI agent what he or she thinks about "conspiracy." Or, go ahead and ask a federal judge what he or she thinks about "conspiracy."
"Conspiracy" is no laughing matter, ladies and gentlemen, and neither is "document fraud," as in creating and passing a counterfeit birth certificate.
I should now alert you to the fact that I have been using the phrase, "Bogus birth certificate," as a euphemism for "Counterfeit birth certificate," which is defined as, "A copy or imitation of a state-issued birth certificate that is intended to be taken as authentic and genuine in order to deceive another."
Sound familiar? According to Authenticate-360:
"Birth certificates are generally used as ?breeder? documents to gain other identity documents and to perpetuate fraud. But unlike Social Security cards, birth certificates are issued by hundreds, if not thousands, of entities, with little regard to consistency or security. An accurately forged birth certificate is a dangerous document, allowing the bearer significant access to everything from driver?s licenses to passports...The increasing availability and affordability of high-quality digital scanners and copiers is a constant threat to the authenticity of government issued documents."
There are current Federal laws in place that prohibit the use of false identity documents, such as a birth certificate, and they are spelled out in Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 1028, Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information. In particular, there are specific paragraphs that relate to the use of a false identification document:
"The term "false identification document" means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of
individuals that - (A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization."
What you are about to read in this report are well-documented facts arising from evidence collected over a period of four months and subjected to intense scrutiny and empirical evaluation. Given the overriding fact that the individual whose identity document is in question, has repeatedly failed to provide a genuine identity document, the charge that this individual, along with other individuals, did conspire to proffer in its place, a false identification document, is hereby levied by the American people, by way of one of its citizens. To summarize the seriousness of these actions and this charge, and to the importance of what is contained within this report:
"There is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the COLB image created and distributed by Obama's campaign to the Daily Kos, Annenberg's Factcheck, and the St. Pete Times, Politifact, is, unquestionably, a false identification document. Furthermore, there is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the photos taken by Annenberg's Factcheck, in collusion with the Obama campaign, are themselves, false identification documents, having been made from the same false identification document image, as well as from additional false identification documents created for the same purpose; namely, to proffer these false identification documents as true reproductions of a genuine, Hawaii-issued and certified, "Certification of Live Birth" document, and thereby, intentionally deceive the American public into believing that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thereby, fully qualified to become their President."
I never imagined that my studies would amount to this. I thought, like most Americans, that maybe the information was accurate even though the document image was fake. I thought, like most Americans, that Obama would simply present a copy of his real, original birth certificate, and that would be that. Yet, here we are, more than twenty months after Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency, and nearly three weeks after the election, and Obama still refuses to show his real birth certificate!
Sadly, mainstream media have totally ignored this inconvenient truth and are not even been willing to even look at this birth certificate issue. They are all still in-the-tank with Obama, but even more so now that he is in line to be President. They all bought into the lies and fraudulent documents proffered up as evidence on Obama's qualifications. They have been too quick to label as "trash" or "garbage" any legitimate questions asked about Obama's real birth certificate. Even thigh-ranking governmental officials in the state of Hawaii where Obama was allegedly born, won't reveal what's on Obama's original birth certificate. All they have said is that they have it. They have not said (1) where Obama was born. (2) when Obama was born, or (30 even to whom Obama was born.
The answer to "What's on Barack Obama's real, original birth certificate" ranks right up there with some of the great mysteries of our time -- and that is really hard to swallow. That a man, with a dubious background, has been elected to the highest office of the greatest superpower in the world without ever having to prove who he says he is! That is not "nutty," that's just plain insane!
With all that said, and without further ado, I present to you my final and complete report on Barack Obama's bogus birth certificate, The Born Conspiracy.
------------------------------------------------------------------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since the beginning of Barack Hussein Obama?s Presidential campaign on February 11, 2007, there had been numerous rumors regarding Obama?s citizenship status. Several reporters had asked for a copy of Obama?s birth certificate, however, all requests were subsequently denied.
On or about June 12, 2008, the Daily Kos blog, a pro-Obama website, received an image from the Obama Campaign that they claimed was a scanned copy of Obama?s ?original birth certificate,?. Before this document image was cropped to 2427 x 2369 pixels, it measured 2550 x 3300 pixels, or 8 1/2? x 11? when printed.
Also, on or about June 12, 2008, the Obama Campaign posted a smaller copy of the same cropped image, measuring 1000 x 1024 pixels:
?You may have recently heard right-wing smears questioning Barack Obama's birth certificate and citizenship. These assertions are completely false and designed to play into the worst kind of stereotypes. You can see Barack Obama's birth certificate for yourself and help push back with the truth...?
The very next day, which was on or about June 13, 2008, Obama?s Campaign replaced the first document image they posted with a smaller copy which they posted to a new website, ?Fight The Smears? (fightthesmears.com). The smaller image was disproportionately reduced to 585 x 575 pixels, which was almost half the size of the original posted image, and one-third of its quality.
Also, on or about June 13, Politifact.org, a supposedly nonpartisan, fact checking website that is unquestionably pro-Obama, published a copy of the same image as that posted on the Daily Kos, but was also disproportionately reduced it to 811 x 786 pixels, or 1/3 of its size and 1/6 of its image quality.
On or about June 16, 2008, Factcheck.org, a pro-Obama fact checking website ,posted a full-sized image copy of same document image that appeared on the Daily Kos. Factcheck?s image copy was identical to the Daily Kos image copy before that image was cropped. Factcheck.org is owned by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania; a center run by Obama supporters and funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Factcheck.org made the following statement to explain how they received their image copy:
"Bloggers raised questions based on the absence of evidence, specifically the lack of a publicly available copy of a birth certificate and the supposed secrecy surrounding it". According to FactCheck, Tommy Vietor at the Obama campaign sent a message to them and "other reporters" saying, "I know there have been some rumors spreading about Obama?s citizenship, so I wanted to make sure you all had a copy of his birth certificate."
I first noticed that the image posted to the Daily Kos and purported to be the ?original birth certificate? of Barack H. Obama, did not look like a regular birth certificate. This image was made only from the front side of a COLB: no copy of the reverse side of this COLB has ever been made, :birth certificate? document was ever scanned, a side that contains all of the official certification instruments, such as the official Hawaiian Seal, State Registrar?s signature, and date stamp of when the document was printed.
To validate my findings that the text in this COLB document image was the result of graphic alternations, and not a result of any printer or scanner artifacts, I made over 700 test scans and images using an actual paper COLB and different scanners that were subjected to different combinations of scanning and image parameters. I was finally able to replicate the Kos image so closely that other image experts thought it was the same Kos image, and not my ?clone.?
From this date forward, when I first discovered the evidence of tampering, and regardless of the unfamiliar format of the COLB and the questionable information it contained, I collected a great deal of additional evidence, that the scanned image alleged to be a true copy of Obama?s original COLB was forged, and that this altered image of an official state-issued document is nothing less than a false identification document as defined by Chapter 18, Section 1028 of the United States Code.
All of my findings pertaining to a single source image and the four copies made from of it that are still posted on the four (4) websites, DAILYKOS.COM, FIGHTTHESMEARS.COM, FACTCHECK.ORG, and POLITIFACT.COM, as referred to and described above, are outlined in my Final Report
On August 21, slightly more than two months after the publication of the image on the Daily Kos and Obama's website, Factcheck published their story about nine photos they claimed were allegedly taken of Obama's "real" COLB at his campaign headquarters ? the same COLB used to make the document image they posted on June 16.
There was no longer any question in my mind that the COLB image Factcheck posted is a forgery and that Obama's real COLB, as proffered by Factcheck, is a nonexistent document. However, Factcheck created a conundrum for me: if the image Factcheck posted is a forgery of a nonexistent document image, then how can any genuine photos be made of it? The answer had to be that both the image and the photos were forgeries.
I have thoroughly examined the photographs that FactCheck published, and have subsequently found clear and irrefutable evidence of tampering with both the alleged COLB objects photographed and with the photos themselves. One of those COLB objects was, in fact, a printout of a forged document image with the Seal superimposed onto it for the final pictures.
FactCheck?s photos reveal both the absence of known, relevant features found on genuine COLBs along with the presence of illogical and impossible features that would never be found on a real 2007 COLB. Specifically, on the COLB objects photographed, the security border closely matches the border found on a real 2007 COLB. However, both the embossed Seal and the State Registrar?s Signature stamp do not match the same elements found on a real 2007 COLB, but perfectly match those found on a real 2008 COLB; or, in other words, something that would never happen in real life.
Hawaii made three important changes to their COLBs from 2007 to 2008, including the use of a larger certificate layout, a new security border, and, much to the chagrin of Factcheck and the Obama Campaign, a new Seal and Signature stamp that can now be stamped on a COLB by a machine.
With my experience and specialization in document imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB images posted by Obama to his campaign website, fightthesmears.com, to the dailykos.com, a pro-Obama blog, to FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, image forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these images were digitally scanned from Obama?s genuine, ?original? birth certificate.
With my experience and specialization in photography and digital imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB photographs posted by FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, photographic forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these digital photographs were taken of Obama?s genuine, ?original? birth certificate.
See rest of the document here:
Click here: Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2136816/posts?page=1
Monday, November 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
