August 12, 2009
A Tale of Two Guns At Obama's Town Hall
A protester on private property well outside the security perimeter established for Barack Obama's town hall meeting yesterday carried a pistol in an exposed "tactical" thigh rig hours before the President arrived in New Hampshire. He got quite a bit of attention for his rather foolish effort.
There was absolutely nothing illegal about his actions, much to the consternation of the media, but it was still a pointless bit of provocation. In addition to being armed, he was holding a sign that said "It's time to water the tree of Liberty," an obvious reference to the famous Thomas Jefferson quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."So who and what is William Kostric? The sign itself provides the first clue about what kind of person Kostric is and who he associates with, with the URL to restoretherepublic.com printed prominently at the bottom. The site clearly identifies itself as part of the fringe "free state" movement, and actively promotes various conspiracy theories... and of course, Ron Paul. A left-wing blog claims to have found his MySpace page, and it appears to confirm that Kostric is—well,—what most of us would call nuts. All that aside, like Gaius, I'm curious...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:33 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: David at August 12, 2009 01:56 PM (B9QvW)
Posted by: pacific_waters at August 12, 2009 02:05 PM (jettP)
He had a pocket knife in the building, right? Does that give a strong case of probable cause to search his vehicle - which it would seem he was far away from at the time???
If he were strapped with bombs about his person, OK. If he was smuggling in an AK-47, OK.
Even if he were arrested for having the pocket knife, OK --- once you are arrested, processing your vehicle is routine: they don't just leave the vehicle at the scene, and since they are in effect taking it into custody, they will inventory the contents as a matter of record keeping at least. Whatever they find illegal as they go through its contents is fair game in court.
But, searching his car without arresting him for having a pocket knife? I don't know about that one....I'd think a good lawyer in a liberal-friendly court might get that one tossed...
Posted by: usinkorea at August 12, 2009 02:09 PM (gf7Fp)
Yours is exactly the attitude that allowed a Marxist celebrity to become the president.
You insinuate that words on a sign and the fact that he had a gun indicate that he favors killing the leaders of our government in some maniacal coup. The quotation his sign refers to warns us simply that if we want to retain the liberties we've been given, we must be willing to fight for them.
Posted by: jq2122 at August 12, 2009 02:16 PM (SVZnQ)
The man may be a nut but he had every right to be there with the sign he was carrying.
I truly believe that one day the people will have to rise up and take their government back or they will lose all the freedoms guaranteed by God and our founders. It may not be in my lifetime but it will happen.
Posted by: TNHunter at August 12, 2009 03:12 PM (zSsxP)
The purpose is not to "provoke an emotional response." This is the act of a bully, the act of one who is not interested in participation, regardless of whatever civic duty calls them to do so.
The purpose is to convince your fellow citizens the justness of your cause, and gather support.
But it appears you would rather do it at gunpoint.
Posted by: James at August 12, 2009 03:36 PM (gS7nN)
Posted by: Steve at August 12, 2009 04:25 PM (yOpUh)
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at August 12, 2009 04:33 PM (oC8nQ)
Stick to the Consititution for enlightenment fellow Americans. Yes We Can
Posted by: Chuck at August 12, 2009 04:35 PM (T3Lqh)
Posted by: David at August 12, 2009 05:35 PM (JlB2o)
The reason he was searched inside the High School is that he supposedly entered the building without going through "security".
If he gave permission to have his truck searched is not stated in any news article. The local Sheriff recommended that he be released on his own recognizance.
One of his employees stated that he is just forgetful and made a mistake.
RE: Pistol Packing Patriot. He most likely had to buy another ear piece for his [whatever] because the one that came with it was a piece of crap and had to be replaced with a good one.
He was on private property with permission from the owners [a Church]. Did he want to make a statement? Evidently he is an "Open Carry" advocate, and there are thousands of them. They intend to make the public aware of their rights by demonstrating those rights. This is nothing new to many that live in states that allow open carry. In some states the weapon must be unloaded, and the authorities have the right to ask to verify that it is unloaded. But other than that, there is no problems with open carry in those states. Other states the pistol does not have to be unloaded, in some the pistol has to be registered or licensed.
It can be very confusing. Always know your state law and local laws. Some cities have their own rules and regs.
I know a few Ron Paul supporters and none of them are nuts or dangerous unless you screw with them.
Where I live it is not uncommon to see guns on people or in their vehicles. But be aware there are many more that you don't see, because they have concealed carry permits and yes that includes many, many women.
We take our rights seriously around here, but that doesn't make us radicals, it just makes us Texans.
And needless to say, we are proud of it.
Papa Ray
West Texas
Posted by: Papa Ray at August 12, 2009 07:54 PM (JpVJn)
Most of you seem to have forgotten Michelle's comment about the ear piece. It doesn't look like any ear piece for a MP3 player. It looks like something a Secret Service person would wear. I think it is a very good question like who is on the other end of Obamas Blackberry. Who else was on the earpiece? Friend of foe? Was this a set up? He seems the type that could easily be duped into a provocative act by others.
Posted by: Calvin at August 12, 2009 08:52 PM (f1SnB)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 13, 2009 12:55 AM (bhNGz)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 13, 2009 12:58 AM (bhNGz)
I'm about as mad as I can get with the how the media and leading Dems are demonizing the protesters, and I'm not against gun rights, but the guy was ignorant for doing what he did. He'll do more to harm his cause than help it.
As for the sign, he was clearly hinting at the need to wet some people to defend democracy every once in awhile, and since he brought and displayed the tool to carry out such an action, the Secret Service would have been brain dead not to respond to the guy.
We're not talking about an everyday situation here - regardless of who the president is and how much I disagree with him.
Posted by: usinkorea at August 13, 2009 02:39 AM (7VLo4)
Posted by James at August 12, 2009 03:36 PM
The gun was pointed at mother Earth-duh.
Posted by: Pinandpuller at August 13, 2009 06:17 AM (aRm4V)
I also thought that public nudity is not against the law there.
Posted by: Pinandpuller at August 13, 2009 06:20 AM (aRm4V)
I'm sure the former were a lot more worried about the ones they couldn't see.
Considering how the past two Dem presidents treated their SS it's a wonder anyone wants to sign up to be a meat shield.
Posted by: Pinandpuller at August 13, 2009 06:29 AM (aRm4V)
Posted by: Larry at August 13, 2009 11:00 AM (v9zij)
Not quite - After Obama won the Democratic nomination, some of the Clinton supporters outlined how he got there -the caucuses turned into "Get-in-their-faces" (Where have we heard this before) confrontations. You know - union intimidation tactics but directed at any caucus Dems not backing Obama.
Posted by: davod at August 13, 2009 11:32 AM (GUZAT)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 13, 2009 06:20 PM (OX5qU)
Do not assume that because your question is both logical and reasonable that the answer will be either, much less both.
Crazy is as crazy does and it is as likely that his earpiece was in contact with extraterrestrials as with any other potential co-conspirator(s).
Posted by: ThomasD at August 13, 2009 09:27 PM (jVrU7)
To do otherwise is tantamount to treason - for example, you may exercise your 'right to life' as granted in the Constitution, as much as you want. But to do so and then try on some religion, public speech, privacy, or self-protection - you are TOAST.
Posted by: Druid at August 13, 2009 11:26 PM (Gct7d)
NH's motto is "Live free or Die" and we still to some degree live by that.
Open carry is legal,
you need a permit for concealed,
you don't need to register handguns.
But this is New England not the Keys, so no public nudity.
Posted by: Bill in NH at August 16, 2009 05:57 PM (MFQJZ)
Posted by: TexasCowboy at August 18, 2009 04:50 PM (uDanc)
August 11, 2009
Was A Key Anti-Palin Blogger Hired to Attack Her By Progressives?
While there isn't a smoking gun as of yet, it is very hard to see where else this might lead.
I tend to like what I've seen of Sarah Palin as a person even if I've not agreed with every position she's held. Quite frankly, I don't understand why so many progressives (including most of the media) and RINOs attack her like she's such a threat to all they hold dear. If she really is the ditzy Caribou Barbie they constantly make her out to be, then why are they even bothering discussing her? The fact that they treat her like a lethal threat does more for her mystique than anything she's actually done, and I suspect it is going to eventually backfire and give her some sort of underdog status if they don't learn to control their attacks a bit better. I don't think that she's a great politician, but I do love the way she's a catalyst to bring out the crazies.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:41 PM | Comments (53) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
I've been wondering the exact same thing! When was the last time you ever saw the losing VP candidate get this kind of attention this long after the election?
She may not be that great a politician, but it is clear that the Democrats and Liberals see her as a threat! Anyone who can put the "fear of god" so to speak into the Loonie Left can't be all bad!
Posted by: Wolfman George at August 11, 2009 11:35 PM (1bi+u)
My buds and I have discussed this many times over the last few months. Here is what we came up with.
They love to beat down on her because she is:
1. Very pretty (sexy librarian image)
2. Is happily married (never divorced)
3. Didn't get an abortion (and never has had one)
4. Likes to keep her kids close (and not afraid of displays of public affection)
5. Talks like a "regular" (read hillbilly or white trash) person.
6. "Talks back" to almost anybody and everybody at any time. (you never can tell or know what she is going to say)
7. Is NOT a politician like others, so she must be something weird.
8. Calls a spade a spade and is proud of it.
9. Uses words that are rude and crude (to liberals anyway)
10. Cleaned up a cesspool of corruption in Alaska.
Which when you add all of the above together....
SCARES THE SHIT OUT OF THEM, because other than ridicule and smears they don't know how to handle her.
I heard one liberal say that she is like a loaded gun in the hands of an angry white trash slut. And he wasn't playing for a joke.
Papa Ray
West Texas
Posted by: Papa Ray at August 11, 2009 11:51 PM (JpVJn)
It's Republicans that have done more damage to her than anybody on the Left and the media has just gladly broadcast it. The Left just keep it in the spotlight. The slash and burn pieces from the McCain campaign, the scathing op/ed pieces from Gingrich and the likes, the way she was disrespected at the big NRCC fundraiser this year and every time she opens her mouth, some Republican is quick to come out and shove her foot in it. They are afraid she'll run in 2012. She'll never make is past the primaries and her base which is strong and loud, is not enough to win elections. Her strong and loud base will probably out of protest, refuse to vote and Obama will comfortably win re-election (and you think the Left are threatened by her...silly people). The Republicans just don't know what to do with her. They don't like her and yet, she's a necessary evil (for now). I think Palin has figured out that anything the Left says or does only strengthens her base and her resolve. It works to her advantage. It's the Republican attacks that she can't handle and the Moderates, Independents and Libertarians believe she's an idiot.
Put her in charge of the NRC and let here do the whole "grass roots" thingy (which she is awesome at) and lay the groundwork for a 2016 run. That's where she has the potential of being a seasoned, experienced and unbeatable candidate.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 12, 2009 12:16 AM (bhNGz)
Posted by: rrpjr at August 12, 2009 12:18 AM (b8DWF)
they created this political framework partially illustrated in Dan's piece. She respects the soldier, sailor, policeman, small businessman. She's prolife but by deed rather than just words. They had to hack her words with an editing cudgel
and have Tina Fey do a weak impression, to obscure
who she really was. The Romney crew has been undermining her at every turn, but cap n trade and now Obamacare, is really her fight. As she saids she doesn't need a title to affect change,
that has been always true, otherwise she couldn't
have pulled off such upsets. forcing the oil commission to clean up its act, fighting the establishment first to win the governor's race, than bringing a fair deal on the pipeline
Posted by: narciso at August 12, 2009 12:30 AM (8kQ8M)
Posted by: Jayne at August 12, 2009 12:46 AM (dwIL0)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 12, 2009 12:55 AM (bhNGz)
Of course she is a great politican. she posts a message on facebook on friday at about 4:00pm and the President of the USA is trying to discredit that message by tuesday. Show me another Politican with that "greatness"
And which policy is it you do not agree with? her stand on the 2nd amendment? her belief in smaller government? her documented stand on cutting spending? her policy on life issues? Just what policy do you find hard to accept?
Posted by: unseen at August 12, 2009 12:57 AM (aVGmX)
the left has no defense for the message of the founding fathers so anytime someone gets on the national stage and starts talking about Jefferson, Madison, washington et all the left paints those people as wackos, dumb idiots etc.
And until people wake up and defend the conservative voices from this assualt the left will continue to win.
Posted by: unseen at August 12, 2009 01:05 AM (aVGmX)
Posted by: nocoen at August 12, 2009 01:18 AM (4mcEG)
Today, there were an enormous amount of protesters out front of the venue where Obama gave his town hall meeting today. Under Bush, they never would've been allowed to stand out front. They would've been forced to stand in a parking lot 6 blocks away. I know...I was one of them. I'll take Obama's freedom any day over Bush's and Palin's. Name one freedom that has been taken away from you in the past 6 months. Name one!
But that's the great thing about freedom...you can run her and see how far you get.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 12, 2009 01:25 AM (bhNGz)
How much credibility do you think you have after making an idiotic assertion like this one? I mean, really, there's hyperbole and then there's just rank stupidity.
Posted by: ECM at August 12, 2009 01:48 AM (q3V+C)
thanks for proven my point. attack the messenger not the message. what possible point does my voting record have to do with my post? What freedom has obama taken away? how about the freedom to fail? from the banks to the autos. you can not have upward mobility in a society if you also do not have downward mobility.
Posted by: unseen at August 12, 2009 04:56 AM (aVGmX)
Post, and even PBS have made that possible again
by telling all the methods we've used. One could argue that the TARP which has put the banks and
the auto companies under government control is a restriction, but that's not a freedom we're likely to get back under this administration
Posted by: narciso at August 12, 2009 07:53 AM (eXdIs)
I'll say it again. This one is too stupid to talk to.
Posted by: Pablo at August 12, 2009 09:12 AM (yTndK)
Tell the nation not to listen to Rush Limbaugh and millions more people tuned in to find out why they shouldn't listen to him. Tell them not to listen to Sara Palin and they want to know why, so they go to her blog a conservative blogs.
The liberal's complaining is the best FREE advertisement the conservatives could have. People who haven't listened to Rush, or read Sara's and the conservative blogs are now doing it. The more listeners and viewers a person the more they are worth, so they get more money coming in. If Sara owns her own blog and has advertising on it, she is getting paid for each hit to her blog. Whoever owns it is making a bundle off of the hits. KEEP UP THE FREE ADVERTISEMENTS LIBERALS.
Posted by: Smorgasbord at August 12, 2009 01:42 PM (b88WB)
She says things that make sense but she says them in such a way as to drive Minitru and the rest of the Dem machine crazy so they blare her words out without changing them and they never, ever think of not repeating them (their favorite way to sideline conservatives, if nobody hears what you say, did you really say it?).
What other conservatives have that ability?
Posted by: Veeshir at August 12, 2009 02:03 PM (cQPkh)
I'm not knocking capitalism in general. I am saying that he has correctly stated a truth about our capitalist system. It's also a truth that we have never had, do not have, nor will we ever have a truly "free market" capitalist system in America. The government has always and will continue to play a role in "managing and regulating" commerce.
As for Palin, please, she doesn't need any help by "progressives" to attack her credibility. She needs only to continue speaking. Palin has a self-destruct mechanism built into her persona.
As for Nocoen's statement: "DEMOS WILL BE THROWN OUT ON THEIR A$$E$. But Repubs be wared, if you are elected you better deliver and cut gov programs, taxes, and reduce the deficits or there will be even worse retribution in 2012."
I have a question for you. IF the Democrats do lose their House and Senate majorities in 2010 (and they may very well do that because of arrogance and poorly communicating their agenda, I'm sorry to have to admit), and the Republicans do regain the majorities but fail to "cut gov programs, taxes, and reduce the deficits", PLEASE do enlighten us in regards to the "even worse retribution in 2012" that they would experience.
What new party will the voters choose to replace the Republicans in 2012, should they win in 2010 but not meet your expectactions? Or, are you implying that the Democrats would regain majorities in in 2012?
Posted by: Dude at August 12, 2009 02:16 PM (byA+E)
Posted by: RUFUS at August 12, 2009 03:30 PM (9BGzT)
Posted by RUFUS at August 12, 2009 03:30 PM
Ditto, you've nailed that one.
Posted by: Dude at August 12, 2009 05:28 PM (byA+E)
Posted by Dude at August 12, 2009 02:16 PM
this is not a bug of capitalism it is a feature. socialists do not understand that. It is the stick to the carrot. the chance for upward mobility makes you tak risks, to expand, to grow. the chance of downward mibility makes you take less risk. thus capitalism ensures by having both that a portion of the population will be risk takers and a portion of the population will not. Thus you have the possiblity of growth as well as steady secure foundation.
It is when the downward mobility is outlawed by government that those in power start taking on more risk which leads to systemic risk which brings the entire system down. If the CEO's of Goldman, chase AIG were allowed to fail and become beggers in the street a lesson would have been learned and capitalism would have been strengthen. As it is the downward mobility was stopped and capitalism was reduced and socialism was strengthened.
Socialism's answer to this lack of downward mobility is to attack all risk takers which ensures that upward mobility is also stopped which gives no mobility and a status quo of mind numbing poverty with elite rulers.
Posted by: unseen at August 12, 2009 10:24 PM (aVGmX)
His increase of the debt has taken away my future economic freedom but of course bush and Clinton also took that away. Just not as much and not as quick.
His healthcare proposal would take away my freedom of choice since it requires me to sign up for healthcare or be fined
His attacks on tax havens has taken away my freedom to conduct business overseas as forgien banks will no longer open accounts for Americians due to the IRS requirements.
His attacks on the Financal sector has taken away my freedom to take on risk which means I have less chance of upward mobility
His support of the freedom of choice act would take away the freedom of doctors to NOT perform abortions.
his support of Washington Dc and Chicago's tough firearm laws has taken away those citizens rights to defend themselves.
His support of the Bush era patriot act has taken away my freedom to be secure from unreasonable searches
His support of Unions over the bondholders in GM and chrsyler bankruptcy has put my private property rights in jepordy.
should I go on?
It seems to me that Obama is keeping all the wrong stuff that bush did and doubling down on even more statist crap.
Posted by: unseen at August 12, 2009 10:42 PM (aVGmX)
In other words, Dude, what good will it be to wait until we cannot use a gun, or keep a reasonable portion of our pay, or blog without being turned into the White House police? Lipshitz' question is not the correct question to be asking at this time. The question should be what freedoms do you think will be taken from you and why do you think that? Maybe a good dose of fear and skepticism would have helped other countries avoid loss of freedoms BEFORE THEY HAPPENED. You're really dumb.
Posted by: Jayne at August 12, 2009 11:25 PM (dwIL0)
The attack on tax havens is especially priceless. Tax evasion is a freedom now? But just not for Obama cabinet members right? Some view of freedom you got there Chavez.
I wouldn't dare call you a liar because that requires intelligence. You're just regurgitating talking points from those who think for you but at least your leaders gave you actual examples where this is true? Do you require points of actual honesty when you regurgitate these talking points? Hopefully? Please, could you provide those for me so I can be proven wrong by your superior mental prowess.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 13, 2009 12:45 AM (bhNGz)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 13, 2009 12:46 AM (bhNGz)
what is it with liberals attacking the messenger and not the message?
Do you deny that Obama sujpports the Freedom of choice bill making its way thru Congress that would require doctors to perform abortions regardless of their feelings on the subject? and may cause catholic hospitals to close their doors?
Do you deny that Obama supports the gun laws in chicago and Dc?
Do you deny that HR3200 makes it illegal to opt out of health isurnace?
Do you deny that Obama's Sec of tres is atm working to rewrite all rules of the finacial sector to "control risk"?
and you pt about it only being 6 months....is the entire problem. too much too fast and all in the wrong direction
as fas as tax heavens I think jasonpye.com lays it out pretty well here:
There is certainly a case to be made for tax havens, as explained by Daniel Mitchell and Richard Rahn. The main reason being that tax havens encourage competition, keeping tax rates low. By eliminating the competition, big-government types have no reason to keep confiscatory taxes low.
Targeting tax havens misses the point. If the "problem" is so rampant that you are taking action, maybe it is a sign that our tax system is burdensome and broken. Too bad we can't look in the mirror and see that we are the problem, not tax havens.
or if you need more info check out the cato foundation.
and of course Obama's action breaking contract law during the bankruptcy preceedings should worry every law adbiding citizen.
So yet to see you refute any of the above. you asked for freedoms Obama as taken away. I gave you plenty of examples yet you can not defend one of them. /instead you want to attack me. typical liberal
One final thought I have not even mentioned cap and trade which would give whole new meaning to the term command economy. And with all these arguments liberals wonder why people are angery enough to protest and boo thier congressman. See what you see is good we see as evil. I believe in individual freedom. you by your support of the liberals show you believe in central command and control government which leads to a LOSS of individual freedom. but don't debate that. attack the messenger yet again
Posted by: unseen at August 13, 2009 03:28 AM (aVGmX)
1) That means you'd have to re-legislate the Hyde act so the first one is a no-brainer. Secondly, Bush allocated $2.2 billion to Planned Parenthood. That's $2.2 billion worth of abortions. More tax payer dollars than any other President since abortion was legalized of either party. And your outrage was where? Easy enough...nowhere! You're a hypocrite on that one buddy as with most of your "buddies".
2) Not sure of gun laws in Chicago but the gun law in DC was overturned by SCOTUS so obviously he doesn't support a law that no longer exists. Helloooo?
3) There are about 4 versions of HR 3200 right now and it is not law as of yet (but rest assured, it will be). Billions of my tax dollars go for paying for the uninsured so ubetcha! I support it. That's not depriving me of a freedom, that's saving my tax cash (and I'm just loving my Obama tax cut right now).
4) After the financial meltdown we just had because deregulation turned Wall street into the Wild Wild West, there are people on BOTH sides of the aisle asking for that. Hellooooo???? You whine and snivel about Freddie Mac and Fannie May and NOW you suddenly don't want regulation? Pick an opinion and stick with it for more than 10 minutes will you.
Maybe you have a point about our tax system being burdensome and broken but the law is still the law and nobody should be allowed to break the law. Tax havens are post office boxes in third world countries where fat cats illegally stash there cash. Pretend they were Democrats, you'd respect the law then now wouldn't you.
And for the record, I disagree strongly with Cap and Trade. I believe it's a cumbersome and too expensive piece of garbage legislation. Our free market society is actually doing a by far better job with companies going green and companies racing ahead of the curve with green technology. Leave that be for a few years and see what progress is made than re-visit the issue if necessary.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 13, 2009 03:50 AM (bhNGz)
http://www.conservatives4palin.com/
The legislation either needs to be re-worded to where it clearly means what it is intended to mean or it should be eliminated all together.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 13, 2009 04:00 AM (bhNGz)
Thanks for your insight. As usual, it's a pleasure to discuss current events and issues with an intellectual giant such as yourself.
Posted by: Dude at August 13, 2009 09:44 AM (byA+E)
2) Obama supported the gun law in DC until it was overturned. He still supports the new Gun laws DC adopted after Keller to keep guns out of citizens hands thru forms and more forms.
Chicago has one of the toughest gun laws in the country and Obama is 100% in favor of those laws. Period.
3) there are not 4 versions of HR3200. there is one HR3200. Hr3200 was voted out of committee before recess. The other versions of healthcare reform are stuck in committee thus if a floor vote comes up in the House after recess HR3200 is the ONLY bill the house can vote on at this time. the others are still in committee and the prospects are not good that they will every see the light of day esp after the recent poll numbers. HR3200 is the ONLY bill the FULL HOUSE can legally vote on at this time and thus is the only bill that needs to be debated at this time.
4) the finacial meltdown was not caused by "the wild west actions" It was caused by federal programs that skewed the lenders to lend to people with risky credit, it was caused by FDIC which causes banks to seek risker investments to grap depsoits, it was caused by the implied government guarentee to backstop fannie and freddie, it was caused by a energy policy that the liberals have been pushing for 30 years that made gasoline go to $4.00/gal. It was caused by outsourcing which CLinton started with Nafta, Bush followed with free trade and WTO admission of CHina. It was caused by corruption within the fed government that sold tax breaks for companies to outsource jobs. Deregulation did not cause the meltdown and the only ones that are calling for more enforcement of the sector are the statists and those they were able to brain wash into believing that capitalism is bad. If real 1005 capitalism was ever given a chance in this country again the economic rebound would shock everyone.
5) when you fill out your tax returns do you not look for every legal deduction that you can get to lower your tax bill. Tax havens are not illegal per say. It depends on who uses them and why and with what money. For instance earnings outside the USa if brought into the US will be tax at US rates therefore companies creat tax shelters to keep those earnings offshore so they will not be taxed twice. That to me is sound business. would you pay taxes twice if you didn't have too.
the dems do tax aviodence at every oppurtunity. Kennedy's money, Kerry's money all in trusts that are not taxed. The assualt on tax havens is a sign of an out of control government. Usally the first sign of a country going into dictator/socialist mode is a flight of capital from that country. Obama is trying to nip that option in the bud.
while I don't believe in AGW and instead think the Sun and natural forces are at work just like they have been for millions of years I have no problems if companies trying to better their bottomline adopt green policies. My problem comes when the gov dictates it.
and for your next post if you listen to Palin without the MSM filter you will find Palin makes sense 90% of the time.
Posted by: unseen at August 13, 2009 11:37 AM (aVGmX)
The Hyde amendment covers all government programs but please, feel free to point out in the new legislation where it says elective abortions will be paid for. And the reason I bring up Bush is because you fake outrage over it now but were silent for eight years. Where was your outrage then. I love how most pro-lifers are actually pro-life when it suits there agenda. What about all those poor babies under the Bush regime? Well Bush is Conservative...screw them!
There are four different versions of HR3200 and there is no finalized bill yet. The recent pool numbers are not bad but not as good as they would've hoped. Too much confusion. Town hall meeting protests really in the end, don't matter. It's not like you people are going to vote for him if he changes his mind about it and quite honestly, he doesn't need your votes that he never had to begin with. The head count on the town hall meetings are not as impressive as you would like to believe. Not enough to win elections anyways.
The financial meltdown was caused by the elimination of the Glass/Steagall Act of 1933 which was enacted by Congress after the 1st wild wild west mentality crashed the market and sent the country into a depression. For 66 years...no problems. Also the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 which caused the massive merging of financial services companies for banking, investment, insurance and mortgage and subsequently caused the huge conglomerates to become "too big to fail". Evidently people never heard of the expression "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Apparently there's no money in it. It also doesn't help when financial experts and whistle blowers were sounding all the alarms about the impending doom and the SEC Chairman, Christopher "Heck-of-a-job-Brownie" Cox was completely negligent and incompetent on his job. Another outstanding contribution from the Bush Administration. This Liberal energy policy? I'm not sure what orifice you pulled that out of since there is no Liberal energy policy on Wall Street.
Tax deductions are legal. Taking profits made in America and stashing them in off shore accounts to avoid legally paying the taxes on them is illegal. Now if a company was doing this and the CEO was chosen for Obama's cabinet, well I'm sure you would know the law then now wouldn't you? What's the difference between ignorance and stupidity? Ignorance is CHOOSING to be stupid. My point is you didn't hesitate to point out Kennedy and Kerry money (without any proof as usual) so you are familiar with the law but only applying it to the Left while you continue to make excuses for yourselves. Gee, no wonder you lost the last two elections so bad. Google!
Have any idea how much the government "dictated" to us over the past eight years and if anybody cared about like you suddenly (and magically) cared about it? We we're moonbats (whatever the hell that is), terrorist sympathizers, nazi appeasers and the list goes on and on and on. The Constitution you suddenly care about even though I'm willing to bet you never even read it stood in the way of you and your ideology to do what you really wanted to do. If you could have done it, you would have burned the Constitution.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 13, 2009 07:06 PM (OX5qU)
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1094&type=6
If you want a "death panel", just go to Alaska. Thanks to former governor and now Alaska blogger, Sarah Palin...you have one!
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 13, 2009 08:21 PM (OX5qU)
Posted by: narciso at August 13, 2009 11:25 PM (8kQ8M)
"Death Panel" opponent Newt Gingrich and HIS secret Nazi death plot to murder old people:
http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcarerx/panelists/2009/07/right-gingrich.html
Carefully read the 2nd paragraph. Now I would never say Newt's a hypocrite. The former Republican Speaker of the House who on his spare time, led a crusade to crucify Clinton over his infidelity (along with Sanford, Ensign, Craig, Foley & Vitter). In his spare time between kinky sex sessions with is mistress while his wife was in the hospital battling cancer. Obvious question is obvious, did Newt's wife have a government run health care plan? I'd ask Newt but he probably doesn't know considering he was "busy".
Not enough: Check out our favorite talk show host, Rush Limbaugh. Rush will read copy from one of his biggest advertisers, Legalzoom.com. For a small fee, legalzoom.com will allow you to participate in the secret Nazi death plot to murder old people by purchasing and preparing a living will for yourself or a family member. To quote Rush Limbaugh: "It's the smart thing to do! Just do it! Legalzoom.com"
And then you can always stop in a talk to Michael Schiavo. He can discuss with you from now until doomsday about Socialist Big Government and Socialist Big Government ideologues intruding themselves into a personal family situation that quite frankly, is none of their damn business. He would probably get a kick out of the fact that suddenly, you give a crap. The Terri Schiavo bill or what was termed the "Palm Sunday Compromise" was the absolute most blatant Socialist attack on out Federalism in the past 50 years.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 14, 2009 01:06 AM (bhNGz)
you post is so full of holes i don't know where to begin. Bush was not conservative he was a liberal rep {i.e a campassionate conservative} You liberals wonder were all the outrage was? did you not see the elections of 2006 and 2008? the final aprroval numbers of Bush in the 20% range? How much more outrage do you want. Conservatives voted out the rep rinos and installed "blue dog dems" in their place. Conservatives left Bush years ago and only supported his handling of the iraq war at the end.
The finacial rules that were changed happened under Clinton not Bush thus if you say that was what was responsible for the finacial meltdown than I guess you should hold Clinton as the person to blame.
the hyde amendment is not a federal wise regulation. It covers medcaid only. That is why Planned parenthood can still get funding. freedom of choice bill that would require doctors to perfrom abortions is a different bill.
as far as Palin using her kids. I guess you are ok with people attacking Obama's kids since he used them on stage in photo ops during the campaign etc. He recently used his oldest in /russia after the disarmament talks making her wear a peace shirt. But go on about Palin using her kids please.
The death panel line was a classic. hit the mark
the White house is in panic mode. Polls are bad and getting worse for Obama, thankfully.
The liberal energy policy of last 30 years can be summed up as follows: fossial fuel bad. No drill, no dig, no burn. and that policy of attacking new devolpment of energy production from coal fired power plants, to oil rigs and nuclear production has caused this country to be at the mercy of the middle east and other exporting energy states. and had the direct result of $4.00/gal gas which led those living pay check to pay check to default on their loans and homes {suprime you know} which started a chain reaction as the house of cards of our fiat economy unraveled. If energy would have stayed low most people would have been able to make the payments but with an increase in fuel, food and interest rates the house of cards unravaled. the effort by the dems to get lenders to lend to deadbeats and the poor further weakend the economy when things went bad. You call that capitalism? that is not capitalism. that is government at its best.
I have read the declaration, the consitution, the federalist papers, etc many times. Have taken many courses in college with those documents as the basis of the course. And I will have to agree with Thomas Paine from Common sense government is a necassary evil. Those that can not understand that are doomed to live in a dictatorship and never experience the joys and yes hardships of freedom.
Profits in tax havens are usally profits earned OUTSIDE the USA and have already been taxed by that country. If those companies bring those profits back to the USa they are taxed again.
the rest of your rant is nonsense.
Posted by: unseen at August 14, 2009 01:17 AM (aVGmX)
Newt and all of congress has private insurance paid for with public money. they have 17 private insurance policies to choose from.
rush and legalzoom? seriously?
what part of private and public do you not understand? It is the right thing to do to protect yourself. It is not the right thing to do to have the "government" protect you. One is called individual freedom the other is called a dictatorship. In a free country people have the right not to fill out a will or a DNR etc.
Most of your posts seem to not understand this basic concept. Individual freedom vs governmental fiat.
The consitution says the government has /limted powers. That the states have the powers that were not granted to the fed gov and that the powers not granted by the people to the states nor the federal gov remain with the people. God gave us inalienable rights we gave the governments its limited powers. Get it. logic is hard for you it seems
Posted by: unseen at August 14, 2009 01:25 AM (aVGmX)
Does this mean that we should abolish the armed services, fire and police services, the FBI, CIA, EPA, SSA, EPA, Medicare, Homeland Security, etc., etc. etc.?
According to your logic, unseen, it would be the "right" thing to do. Granted, we'd have to amend the Constitution to abolish the armed services.
Hey, let's just get rid of all these foolish government services that offer us protection of one kind or another. Who needs a society, anyway?
Posted by: Dude at August 17, 2009 11:50 AM (byA+E)
SEIU Isn't the Only Union Trying to Control Health Care Town Halls
A family friend went to the SEANC-organized town hall in Greenville, NC last night. According to the local news, the union of state employees was there to support the President's health care plan, and it seemed a cut-and-dried and rather boring affair.
Reality, however was far different that the news account. Here is Walter's experience, in his own words.A SEANC member prison guard also attended the same contentious event, and posted a response online that confirmed the attempt by SEANC to shout down anyone with opposing viewpoints.
SEANC Meeting on Healthcare Reform August 10, 2009. I arrived at about 6:35 to a sparely filled auditorium. Eventually, about 100 people showed up. The room had several blue-shirted "bouncer" types standing around the walls. Several blue shirted people had cameras, still and video. There was an air of intimidation presented by the blue-shirted SEANC people. Two ECU Police officers stood in the back inconspicuously. We were approached by a well dressed man asking if we would be willing to sign a petition in support of the healthcare bill. We declined and the man immediately went to the back of the room and spoke with a blue-shirted man. He did not ask anyone else to sign the petition. I believe he was trying to find out our position on the issue. The meeting started on time and the panel members were well prepared and articulate. They presented a party line on the issues. Dr. Cook and Mr. Stone were especially factual about the problems. Ms. Keel had some impelling statistics reinforcing the need for change. I disagreed with her conclusions. Mr. Dana ??? was not as factual, but was a good panel member. He was too focused on his opinion that House Bill 3200 was the only solution. The moderator, Jean ???, was not effective. She seemed to lack a plan for fielding questions, was argumentative and interrupted frequently. She made people more frustrated and more intense. An effective moderator would have been more respectful and calming to the audience. She was biased toward opposing speakers and cut them off. She limited their time by signaling SEANC officials to take the mike from speakers. After each panel member spoke briefly the floor was open to the audience to make comments and ask questions. One small business man related his concerns about mandatory healthcare costs to him and asked questions. He got a few answers and some misstatements of fact. He got frustrated and somewhat intense. Several others made comments in opposition and asked questions that were not answered. The moderator asked for someone supporting the bill to speak! One did. One of the men who asked several questions became frustrated that those questions were not being answered and his concerns were not addressed. The moderator kept interrupting him and some in the audience talked him down. Eventually, a SEANC official asked him for the mike while the man was trying to express his concerns. After a second request for the mike, the SEANC official took the mike from him forcefully. A bit later it was my turn. As I was handed the mike I told the SEANC official he wasn't taking the mike from me until I was finished talking. He told me, "That guy will take it from you" and he pointed to the ECU Police officer standing in the back of the room. I felt like I was being threatened. However, I responded, "No, Sean won’t do that." Officer Scott is a friend and a man I respect. I stated my opposition to the bill while supporting the need for healthcare reform. My statements addressed:While I was talking several SEANC members behind me told me that this was their meeting, to sit down and stop talking. I am a SEANC member and have a right to speak. I am a US citizen with First Amendment rights. For most of my time talking several talked over me and I was interrupted by the moderator Jean ?? She responded to one of my questions about alternative healthcare plans and she said she did not know of any. To that I responded that she was uninformed. She asserted she was informed. I gave up and handed the mike to Dale. Throughout the meeting we were videotaped when speaking and many still photos were taken. As I left the building I was videotaped again. Who knows how these images will be used. It sure felt intimidating. After the meeting I spoke with Dale and we worked out our disagreement. He even called me today to apologize again and I apologized also. He invited me to a SEANC board meeting to present opposition views. I respect that willingness and openness.
- Speaker Pelosi's insinuation that those who oppose the House bill in Town Hall meeting are "Un- American" and that those of us who oppose the bill are not genuine. We are "Astro Turf."
- The pro bill supporters at the national level and local level demonizing those who oppose the bill as anti healthcare reform.
- The option of eliminating employer sponsored healthcare insurance and allowing free market options for all people.
SEANC didn't beat anyone down at this meeting, but they certainly didn't have any desire to hear opposing viewpoints, snatching the microphone away from SEANC members opposed to Obamacare and unwisely threatening to have police officers do their dirty work. Even in this union meeting, there was more opposition to Obamacare among the rank and file than acceptance. I wonder if Obamacare is as unpopular among the rank and file in other unions as well.
It turned out the last thing anyone organizing this event wanted to do was discuss anything. Basically they were there to pat themselves on the back and inform SEANC members that the organization was totally behind the health care bill. Anyone who was opposed too the bill that dared to speak was shouted down, cut short and in one instance the microphone was actually taken from someone. I walked in to work this morning and the first thing I did was to go to Admin and cancel my SEANC membership. If you do not support the health care bill, if you do not support your membership dues being used to support SEIU and possibly going to groups like ACORN then I encourage you to do the same if you were foolish enough as I was to join them in the first place.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:57 PM | Comments (53) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: 1903A3 at August 11, 2009 06:55 PM (67mli)
Posted by: RebeccaH at August 11, 2009 07:08 PM (JAQT9)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 11, 2009 07:12 PM (OX5qU)
He also said he felt like a lone voice crying in the wind. He was not a fan of Obamacare.
Too bad he hasn't seen this blog.
Posted by: Tennwriter at August 11, 2009 07:17 PM (eCyNZ)
I have great health insurance. I won't after I'm resourced out but that doesn't mean I want ObamaCare, God forbid. No one's telling me to take a suicide pill and live to do it again.
As for AARP, I qualified this year to be a member. I'm enjoying sending their SASE mailings back to them with P*SS OFF on them in red! Traitors.
Posted by: Peg C. at August 11, 2009 07:17 PM (cEAy0)
employers.
Posted by: PTL at August 11, 2009 07:31 PM (efVmq)
I agree with Peg...Unions suck! I hated it when unions were strong and the country didn't need bailouts or stimulus packages. I hated the fact that union made products made in the USA preventing retail outlets that offered Canadian Prescriptions, third world sweat shop clothing, Mexican electronics, Chinese merchandise and illegally picked produce and food supplies. You know...WALMARTS! Thank God union dissolving allowed such ethically outstanding retail outlets to operate freely in America while supporting the economy of every other country but ours. I hated how unions prevented us from being able to talk to customer service reps who'll will probably blow up one of our embassies someday. I don't need an English speaking representative.
My Dad was Roofers Union, my Mom was Teachers Union. They made good money and you know where they spent that money? Right here in America and not in freakin India, Singapore or Malaysia. No bailouts! No stimulus packages! We had the strongest economy in the world! Now...we're a freakin joke borrowing money on a daily basis from China and paying them back with an obnoxious trade deficit.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 11, 2009 07:36 PM (OX5qU)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 11, 2009 07:45 PM (OX5qU)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 11, 2009 08:21 PM (OX5qU)
Posted by: lipiwitz is paid goon at August 11, 2009 08:26 PM (0ZaIo)
I think both sides have taken essentially the same tactics. Labeling each other with invectives, giving their supporters a ‘playbook’, and attempting to use the media to their advantage. All of this is okay. It is okay because in America we have the right to freedom of speech, assembly and freedom of the press. These are rights that thousands have given their lives to protect. The debate on health care which consumes nearly a fifth of the national economy and involves everyone is something that we should openly debate and understand the intended and unintended consequences of before we change an entire system.
It is important to provide better access, bend the cost curve so that health care is affordable (and not just through shifting costs by taxing) as well as sustainable, and improving the quality of the care delivered.
We are a country that leads the world in health care innovation. We have to zealously protect that aspect. No other country in the world is positioned to take our place if we take our eye off this important work.
But above all democracy demands that citizens get involved and voice their opinions. Follow the healthcare debate and other important health care system issues at www.ilovebenefits.wordpress.com
Posted by: ilovebenefits at August 11, 2009 08:43 PM (j4Chy)
I'm paid? Where's my freakin' check?!?! Do I have benefits? lol
Glenn Beck lost two more advertisers today: Geico Insurance (gotta love the irony there) and Sargento Cheese. This on top of the three he already lost on Friday: Lawyers.com, Proctor & Gamble and Progressive Insurance (DOUBLE THE IRONY). Taking bets on when Fox fires him. I say within two weeks.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 11, 2009 08:53 PM (OX5qU)
Card-check.
Posted by: ic at August 11, 2009 09:05 PM (NM7Uv)
I suppose labeling (and projecting) people like me a "racist" is supposed to be a pathetic and truly amateur approach at trying to provoke but I got two big numbers for you: 2006 and 2008!!! What that boils down to is this: a majority of America would rather have a black person in the White House than any of you or anything you have to offer. Incredibly funny stuff right there' eh? AWWWWW...TOO SOON?
Call me a racist all you want while I laugh all the way to the bank (love that Obama tax cut)! I don't need to get paid for this. I would feel guilty getting paid for this entertainment.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 11, 2009 09:07 PM (OX5qU)
Oh, and I love benefits, too, I just objecttopayingforthebenefitsofothers.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at August 11, 2009 09:14 PM (290l2)
At home, we'd be calling him "Catfish" as in "all mouth and no brains."
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at August 11, 2009 09:17 PM (290l2)
As a North Carolina taxpayer, I am more than a little fried to hear SEANC complaining about health care and insurance. While a NC state employee may have to pay for his family's and spouse's health insurance, he or she has absolutely free health insurance. They contribute nothing! It gets even better for them. Depending upon when they were hired, they will have free health insurance upon retirement after as little as five years of service. They can whine all they want about pay and furloughs but when it comes to health insurance, they have it made.
Posted by: JR in WNC at August 11, 2009 09:39 PM (v9mJT)
These town hall meetings are a wonderful opportunity for the DHS to take inventory of those who have the potential to be threats to our national security. I hope they are taking advantage of it.
Record number of death threats to our democratically elected officials
Hanging democratically elected officials in effigy in the same manner as Hezbullah would in the streets of Lebanon.
TV personalities (Beck) enacting the assassination of a democratically elected official by "slipping poison in Pelosi's glass of wine".
Radio personalities inciting his listeners to "bring guns to the town hall meetings".
A dimwit at an Arizona town hall meeting actually dropping his gun on the floor. OOPSIE!
The rampant and over-the-top use of violence inciting symbolism such as Nazi symbols.
Tea party protesters at town hall meetings continuously approaching democratically elected officials in a threatening manner.
The constant invoking of the 2nd amendment as justification for treason and domestic terrorism.
The invoking of anarchy and anarchy inspiring rhetoric (Rise up! Take up Arms! etc) in refusing to accept the democratic electoral process and it's outcome.
Sociopath rhetoric designed to incite fear with such terms as "Death Panels", "Socialism", "Forced Euthanasia" etc.
Today, a member of America's lowest common denominator showed up today at Obama's town hall meeting sporting a gun strapped to his leg. It was within his legal right to have that legally purchased and legally licensed firearm and was allowed to keep it (so much for Obama's gun ban, eh). How can this dimwit feel secure and comfortable knowing that his 10 cent melon never left the cross hairs of a high-powered rifle with a highly skilled finger on the trigger? What a freakin' dolt! One wrong move from him or anybody standing next to him and closed casket funeral time. If he liked his gun so much, bury him with it! How stupid was that?
With people this stupid, unions know there is another "peace-keeping" presence at these town hall meetings. We don't need to be thugs. We don't want to get hit by a bullet meant for you.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 11, 2009 10:05 PM (OX5qU)
Posted by: TNHunter at August 11, 2009 10:54 PM (9kcpQ)
I hope they're taking advantage of the opportunity to realize how badly they're outnumbered.....
Posted by: SDN at August 11, 2009 11:04 PM (tJ5BO)
Posted by: TNHunter at August 11, 2009 11:17 PM (9kcpQ)
Posted by: Bill H. Doe at August 12, 2009 12:04 AM (dWXm7)
I bet that dimwit who brought his gun to the town hall today thought he was doing some fancy outnumberin' too. Betcha he thought he had some serious clankers. NO! He was a moron and the reason abortion is legal. The dudes standing next to him? Now THEY had some serious clankers! I wouldn't have been standing on the same block as that moron. God knows how many cross hairs he was in at all times and there was probably a predator that had his coordinates as well in case any of his buddies decided to grab the weapon from what was left of his dead carcass. We were seriously outnumbered by that missing rocket scientist huh? You gave us George W. Bush and now you're trying to give us Palin (who makse Bush look like a physics professor). I think we'll be alright.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 12, 2009 12:34 AM (bhNGz)
My dad was a truck driver in the 1950's, and a member of the Teamsters Union. He stood up one evening in a meeting very much like the one described here, and disagreed with the leadership's position. A couple of goons took him aside and explained to him that it would be VERY UNHEALTHY for him to keep speaking his mind. The next morning he quit his job, quit the union, and walked away from that entire industry. He spent the rest of his life in non-union career fields, and he made sure his kids did, too.
Jimmy Hoffa may (or may not) be dead, but his spirit lives on.
Unions killed the steel mills, the machine-tool industry, the auto makers, and the airlines (which would all be gone except for multiple bankruptcies). Unions gave us the Rust Belt;
non-union Silicon Valley gave us the Web.
If you were any good at what you do, Lipwitz, you'd be well paid. Only losers and second-raters want a union.
Posted by: SamA at August 12, 2009 12:40 AM (Ei+JJ)
Are you implying that a member of US Secret Service Agent was in attendence and was personally targeting the 10 cent melon of a citizen acting within the current law as it is written? That is pretty serious and I suggest you report what you saw to proper authorities as soon as possible.
Please give us the incidents where anyone has invoked the second amendment and has committed an act of treason or domestic terror at any town hall meeting? Please show us the truth of your statements?
I would have loved standing next to this person the entire time of this meeting so if a person of your caliber had attacked him I could get that on video tape to add to the collection of many others showing the who the real enemies of the state are.
Obama has said one thing and done another every since he took office and now his lies are catching up to him.Its a running joke that everytime he opens his mouth he is lying.America no longer believes him.Say what you mean and mean what you say.
When are people on the left going to realize that the real traitor is in the White House.He took more time to pick out a dog,why cant we have more time for debate for a massive bill costing our country billions of dollars and affecting all of us? Why are unions,who claim to have the poor and oppressed best interests at heart,now,not wanting a bill that cares for all Americans in the best possible way?
Unions say there are for the people. Why should your minority have a bigger say than the rest of the people? Do we not pay taxes just like union members do? Does all men are created equal not mean anything to you?
The statements you have made has shown us independents of what the left is really for and what your style of government is about and many of us dont like it.
Your unions are selling you a false bill of goods that will now cost you what your movement has wanted for some time.
If your leaders had not written such a pathetic bill then most of Amereica would have simply gone along with it.You are upset because they have read it themselves and have not depended on some reporter or talking head to tell them how to think. America is full of people that can think for ourselves when we have the means to get information.
The Internet has allowed citizens for the first time in history to see what the candidates are saying in my townhall and the one 200 miles away a week later. Both the "democrats and republicans" cant lie to us anymore without someone calling them on it. As a union supporter,dont you want to the truth to come out or are only interested in having it your way?
Not to bunch your panties any further,I know the second amendment makes the left mad,but when I am attacked I want to be able to proper protect myself as our forefathers envisioned it. Not like the unarmed black man that was assaulted in St. Louis. Why hasnt the NAACP and the ACLU not come to this mans defense? Was this not a hate crime?
If everyone at that meeting would have been properly carrying a weapon in the open then we all might acted a little better,now wouldnt we.
Posted by: 3DOGMAN at August 12, 2009 01:02 AM (15On4)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 12, 2009 01:03 AM (bhNGz)
And when it comes to the security of POTUS and an idiot who brings a loaded weapon to a function where he is, the US Secret Service is within it's legal rights to take all necessary actions to protect the POTUS. It is not illegal to have this idiot's 10 cent melon within the cross hairs at all times not only to monitor what this dimwit may do but also to monitor to another dimwit grabbed the gun from dimwit A and decided to do something with it.
I don't particularly care what you think. "Why should your minority have a bigger say than the rest of the people?" We're not the minority...you are! Elections matter! Elections have consequences! Your side and your leaders screwed things up horribly and the majority of America threw you out of office. YOU ARE THE MINORITY 3DOGMAN!!! Any questions, please review the elections final results from 2006 and 2008. We can listen to you whine, vent, bitch moan and groan but unfortunately for you, you're no longer part of the decision process because you're leaders screwed things up.
As far as "truth"...you wouldn't know the truth if you got boned by it. There was not much of any truth in your comments so please, your lecture on truth is laughable at best. Ya want truth? Go talk to all the Republicans and Conservatives that got fired in 2006 and 2008.
"report what you saw to the proper authorities then"...you can't be that dumb!
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 12, 2009 01:15 AM (bhNGz)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 12, 2009 01:51 AM (bhNGz)
Not since Bush left office, no.
Posted by: Steve at August 12, 2009 02:11 AM (b8wWy)
Posted by: Pablo at August 12, 2009 10:02 AM (yTndK)
Most union/state employees have self-insured plans that will not be affected by what Congress does.
Looks to me like all they're supporting is more revenue to the gov't and more power to unions.
Posted by: jeanneb at August 12, 2009 10:09 AM (fOTHR)
Posted by: TNHunter at August 12, 2009 11:14 AM (zSsxP)
A bit of fact-checking will go a long way to cover your a**, dummy. When your first salvo can be shot down this easily, the rest of your posts are a waste of time, even if they HAD a grain of truth buried in them somewhere.
Posted by: roxanned80 at August 12, 2009 11:56 AM (yoqre)
Van Jones is a founding board member of Color of Change (an extremist racial grievance group). Unfortunately, he is having success, but it's a shame, b/c it's just more liberal extremists lying. The article *with documentation* can be found at newsbusters.org
Again, I realize that certain trolls on here aren't interested in facts.
Posted by: ckdexterhaven at August 12, 2009 04:50 PM (0LUuq)
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/advocacy/health-system-reform.shtml
Surely, most of us have heard of the American Medical Association.
No big surprises in their stance. It is noteworthy that they say: "The status quo is unacceptable."
As for Lipiwitz, he's one of the more informed people who visit this forum. He actually does his research, as evidenced by his posts.
Like me, he's been accused of being a paid shill for one organization or another, as well as being called a host of slanderous names. Those of you who disagree with his positions should be able to defend YOUR positions without resorting to childish name calling. It's not that the name calling actually bothers me (I rather doubt that it bothers Lipiwitz, either. But, I can't speak for him). What it does do is reflect poorly on your ability to articulate your position, whatever it may be, in an effective manner.
Folks like Lipiwitz and myself don't need to be paid to voice our opinions. (But, if anyone wishes to send some money to me for doing so, hey, that's cool, too!)
Quick question for you all. What's the number of the Congressional district in which you live and what is your Congressman's name? Don't cheat and google it to find out. How many know the answer off the top of their head? Let's be honest!
Posted by: Dude at August 12, 2009 06:23 PM (byA+E)
Posted by: Dude at August 12, 2009 06:37 PM (byA+E)
I'd love to get paid Dude but now that my 401K and Pension accounts are getting back to the balances I had prior to hurricane Bush and combine that with the largest tax cut I've seen in 30 years thanks to Obama, I don't think I need the money anymore. Feels kind of nice doesn't it.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 13, 2009 12:50 AM (bhNGz)
Because, y'know, proggies laughing about protesters being beaten up is the height of intellectual rigor.
Oh, and Lip boy does his research? Are unions supposed to be above violence, or something? Just off the top of my head I remember reading about an old man who refused to join his local union despite constant threats. Before long a couple "union brothers" from his plant followed him home at midnight, hid in the bushes near his driveway, and drilled him with a high-powered rifle. And this was the late 80's - early 90's - not at the height of labor unrest in the 1870's-1890's etc. But not to worry - it's all for the "greater good", right? Somehow, bravely gunning down old men in the dead of night will ensure that we're all well paid, and that our jobs don't go to Asia or wherever.
Our thugggish trolls' reaction to such an incident today would probably fall into one of two categories:
1) The scumbag deserved it. Witness how on the other thread they make light of the black protester's beating.
2) It was a "false flag" op by the CIA/FBI to make unions "look bad". In other words, typical progglodyte conspiracy bilge.
Just stop and think of how these apologists are in awe of their Affirmative Action messiah. If 0bama really is the epitome of good and his opponents really are as evil as the libs make them out to be, political violence is not only acceptable but a moral duty.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at August 15, 2009 09:11 AM (6XMIC)
Chill, Hill
Project much?
Make sure to watch the video clip at the link to get a full appreciation of the venom Hillary directs at this poor student because of a botched translation. Yikes.
ABC News' Kirit Radia reports: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost her cool Monday after a Congolese student, speaking through a translator, asked her what "Mr. Clinton" thought about a Chinese trade deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. "You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?" Clinton replied, clearly irked by the thought of being her husband Bill's spokeswoman. "My husband is not secretary of state, I am," she replied. "If you want my opinion I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband." The only problem? Apparently the translator made a mistake and the student had wanted to know what President Obama thought of the deal.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Rick at August 11, 2009 02:27 PM (otXeW)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 11, 2009 04:44 PM (OX5qU)
Posted by: RebeccaH at August 11, 2009 07:11 PM (JAQT9)
Posted by: RebeccaH at August 11, 2009 07:13 PM (JAQT9)
Is it just me, or has she "porked" out on to many ribs and chops? I didn't even recognize her sitting there untill I heard that unmistakabe SHRILL voice.
Way to go Hillary!!!!
Posted by: slimedog at August 11, 2009 08:11 PM (Z21cb)
Posted by: RC at August 12, 2009 11:24 AM (YwrXo)
Posted by: PeterT at August 12, 2009 12:37 PM (4I9p+)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 13, 2009 04:09 AM (bhNGz)
August 10, 2009
Where is Kenneth Gladney's White House Invite?
So if a black Harvard professor gets arrested for being a jerk, it's worth a beer at the White House.
A different black man getting beat up by union thugs in St. Louis while handing out flags espousing liberty apparently isn't as important to the President.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:00 AM | Comments (47) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2009 12:17 PM (yTndK)
And to add insult to injury, we learn that this wounded warrior has no health insurance to pay his medical bills for him because he recently lost his job. What sort of society are we living in that allows men to walk around without insurance to protect them? If only there was a government program that mandated insurance for all, people like Kenneth would sleep easier at night knowing they are safer. We must not let Kenneth suffer in vain!
Posted by: scalefree at August 10, 2009 12:51 PM (gmiQZ)
If only there was a goverment program mandating that everyone be given a job, poor Kenneth would be safe! Clearly the National Democratic Socialist Party needs to pass such a measure forthwith! So we can all be SAFE!
Posted by: Steve at August 10, 2009 01:07 PM (NtyQN)
Translation - "it's not racism when the attacker is a white lefty and the attacked is a black conservative".
Gee, I'd never have noticed that the left was full of hypocrites if not for you.
Posted by: Steve at August 10, 2009 01:10 PM (NtyQN)
The government gives wealthy capitalists & large corporations massive tax breaks so they can use the money to create jobs for honest, hard-working citizens like you & me. Those of us with jobs get insurance to cover our healthcare expenses; those of us (like Kenneth) who haven't gotten one of those jobs yet & therefore rightfully have no insurance beg for donations to cover their costs from those of us with jobs. That's called the Invisible Hand of the Marketplace of Donors.
Kenneth is begging for your help. Please donate all you can afford to pay Kenneth's extensive medical bills. The Free Market System is depending on you!
Posted by: scalefree at August 10, 2009 01:21 PM (gmiQZ)
Your logic is inescapable; racism is obviously a significant factor in this assault. Take another look at the video; that guy in the SEIU shirt who's already on the ground at the start of it is black. It seems clear from the context that his friends are reacting to Kenneth pushing him down when they push him & he falls down. As you've already astutely noted, Kenneth is also black. We've been lectured & lectured by Conservatives on the subject of racism; if there's anything we've learned from that it's that blacks are the real racists, not whites. There is only one logical conclusion to all this: Kenneth Gladney is the real racist here.
Posted by: scalefree at August 10, 2009 01:41 PM (gmiQZ)
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2009 02:54 PM (yTndK)
Sweet. Totally quotable. I'll enjoy rubbing that in the faces of some Libs I know.
Posted by: brando at August 10, 2009 02:58 PM (IPGju)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at August 10, 2009 04:09 PM (MxQFN)
The main distinction that separates the two incidents you conflate is that the President had already too-eagerly inserted himself into the Boston situation and seemed to feel, for that reason, that he needed to be part of some kind of reconciliation or closure. Such is not the case with Gladney.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at August 10, 2009 04:33 PM (qSYS8)
Just make sure you get the full quote: "Conservatives say blacks are the real racists." Feel free to rub that in anybody's face you want.
Posted by: scalefree at August 10, 2009 08:07 PM (gmiQZ)
Obama is much more likely to say Gadney acted stupidly.
Posted by: Veeshir at August 10, 2009 09:36 PM (4zToD)
Posted by: scalefree at August 10, 2009 09:50 PM (gmiQZ)
Gladney has insurance. He's covered under his wife's plan. You can listen to him talk about the incident here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 10, 2009 10:48 PM (WjpSC)
You know, if Baracky's health care plan hadn't beat him up, he wouldn't have those bills to worry about. Good thing he's got insurance, isn't it? I hope his insurer isn't too evil.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2009 11:38 PM (yTndK)
Posted by: scalefree at August 10, 2009 11:59 PM (gmiQZ)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 11, 2009 01:10 AM (bhNGz)
And stop being a Racist. Seriously, stop it. It's not what a good person does. Be more like me. I allow it.
Lipiwitz, Scalefree, Doc Washboard in lockstep backing this madness? Where's Dude? Pro-Abortion, Birthers, and Proud Rasists? It's like the trifecta of Modern Liberalism. All you need is a Che shirt, a Westboro sign outside of Walter Reed, a Code Pink headdress, and you'll have the persona nailed.
Well, that and a Guy Fawkes costume.
Zing.
Posted by: brando at August 11, 2009 01:48 AM (LjEkE)
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/7C2B91CFCB7B4D398625760D0008E6EA?OpenDocument
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 11, 2009 01:51 AM (bhNGz)
He could make payment arrangements with the doctors until his lawsuit for the medical expenses is settled.
Posted by: Pinandpuller at August 11, 2009 05:28 AM (aRm4V)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 11, 2009 05:59 AM (bhNGz)
Posted by: Rick at August 11, 2009 08:09 AM (otXeW)
Lipiwitz, Scalefree, Doc Washboard in lockstep backing this madness?
Did you even read the title of the post? It is "Where is Kenneth Gladney's White House Invite?"
So my being okay with a person not getting invited to the White House for a friggin' beer is madness? Really? Madness?
It seems as if you have your Wingnut Hyperbole-Matic turned up to eleven.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at August 11, 2009 02:54 PM (qSYS8)
Doc Washboard, because if he gets hurt, he's not covered. White House probably doesn't want to assume the responsibility of an uninsured health care protester.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 11, 2009 04:39 PM (OX5qU)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 11, 2009 04:42 PM (OX5qU)
BTW, watch it, I'm not a Wingnut, but you are an self admitted Liberal. Just like the other jokers.
Posted by: brando at August 11, 2009 05:12 PM (IPGju)
heh. like they really matter in House decisions. But I am certain that RINO's, such as Dave Reichart, are seeing vocal opposition as well. It is just that, so far, the GOP reps don't behave as if protesters are nazis, the Klan, unAmerican, or whatever else is being spouted by the unhinged Dem leaders (and their enablers on JournoList).
Posted by: iconoclast at August 11, 2009 07:10 PM (FGCRY)
Posted by: RebeccaH at August 11, 2009 07:17 PM (JAQT9)
VIDEO: Architect of Democratic Health Care Plan States His Plan Is Designed to Eliminate Private Insurace
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:40 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Slow Job Growth and Inflation, but...
Those numbers will probably be good enough to enable President Obama to get re-elected, but his second term will be plagued by rising inflation, high interest rates, and unsustainable deficits, along with stubbornly high unemployment.
Posted by: Joe at August 10, 2009 10:43 AM (0Gde6)
When they are in the minority, they love to see the program of Saul Alinsky and the like put into play: A program that says anything goes - the end justifies the means - and specifically calls for things like lying to the masses and saying whatever you need to win them over.
The target is specifically the middle class majority, and in saying any means necessary is to be used, they show contempt for the people they are trying to win over. They aren't setting out to convince the common man, because they believe the common man is too stupid and easily manipulated to know what is good for him.
The same core disdain is visible in these nationalization pushes:
The liberal elites despise big business, but they also despise consumerism --- free markets...
Why? Again, because they believe the common man is too stupid to know what is good for him and the nation. Rather than let choice and competition in the market place function as checks-and-balances on big business, they want liberal elites in control of the government and the government in control of the markets, because they are the ones who understand what is best - not the masses. They don't trust consumerism -- where the people vote by what they choose to buy. They only trust the power of the government put in their own hands...
What they really favor is much like the champions of limited monarchy and beneficent neo-feudalism during the early period of the 19th Century when elites balked at the idea of democracy as being rule by the mob...
The only key difference is that they define aristocracy not by blood and birth but define it as being smart enough to have the right ideology - their own.
Posted by: usinkorea at August 11, 2009 02:33 AM (7jvwu)
I'm not "for" socialized medicine, but I do believe if O. had done this entirely differently he could have gotten what he wanted, in time (he's got FOUR YEARS, why must it be passed, in its entirety, RIGHT NOW?).
Like Hillary-care, this will crater and in all likelyhood will become, "The disaster known as Obama-care."
Posted by: DoorHold at August 16, 2009 12:40 PM (uaXaj)
Pelosi, Hoyer Decry First Amendment as "Un-American;" Are Dead-Silent on Democratic Violence
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) have their editorial posted this morning as Drudge promised. Pelosi and Hoyer lambasted grassroots protests at town hall health care meetings as "un-American." If one were capable of feeding a monster on hypocrisy, this editorial would satiate the beast from Cloverfield.
There is simply no need to go into detail about the kind of disruptive protests that Pelosi has directly praised coming from her fellow progressives in recent years. If you want or need those details, however—perhaps to help a friend with a convenient case of amnesia—some of my fellow bloggers have taken the time to do just that. I think what annoys me the most about this progressive Congress and President is the fact that they are quite supportive of fake grassroots (astroturf) efforts from groups they have organized and supported both vocally and financially (ACORN, MoveOn.org, ANSWER, Code Pink), but they then turn around and lash out at real grassroots efforts of self-organized local citizens that came together via blogs and Facebook pages. The simple face of the matter is that the progressives do not want dissent. They want obedience. As the President himself said last week, opponents of his plan should shut up so that he can pass the legislation he wants. Towards that end, Democrats aren't above calling in union muscle. They are more than willing to buy silence with pushes, punches, and kicks. The did so around the nation last week, and to the best I can determine, there has been precisely no condemnation from Democratic politicians for that orchestrated violence. Why would there be, when they ordered it? But these same spoiled children of the left have the temerity to cry out in anger when a frustrated protester suggests that future Democratic violence should be met with violence. You can't have it both ways, Democrats. Let citizens voice their opinions without attacking them, without demonizing them, without calling them evil or smearing them as part of some of a political machine. Perhaps if Madame Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer and the other progressive Democrats trying to ram this deeply-flawed bill down the throats of Americans were actually open to real debate on Capitol Hill, they wouldn't encounter so much vocal opposition in the rest of America.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:08 AM | Comments (65) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
The people disrupting the discussions have been lied to over and over. They are being inflamed and encouraged to act like at best morons at worst thugs and ignorant idiots--let's call them that!!
They bring their children dressed up in teeshirts picturing our president as Hitler. They urge the kids to shout along calling others "Nazis". I have watched video from many of these meetings and it sure looks UN-AMERICAN to me. It looks insane--but these people bear half the blame themselves. The issues they scream about are straight off Comedy Central.
They have been told about--death councils, private insurance made illegal, mandatory abortion, mandatory death counciling, canceling medicare, prescription drugs rationed, socialism, nazism and on and on...oh by the way the racist President is not really an American.
These are the lies propagated by the GOP and their front groups. They don't want any calm reading or discussion---that might show people that this bill is in America's best interest. The opposition wants this to go away without discussion. They want all these people to just go home divided with visions of mayhem to remember.
Just like the WMD's and Mushroom clouds of years just past--the GOP hopes Americans really are as stupid as they were before--believing Bush and Cheney.
I hope they wake up to their embarrassing behavior and search out the perpetrators of all the lies.
Posted by: jeff at August 10, 2009 11:31 AM (KDlNu)
Posted by: Krystal at August 10, 2009 11:51 AM (D2TAc)
Posted by: Krystal at August 10, 2009 11:52 AM (D2TAc)
The loons on the left's fall back position is always Alinsky Rule #13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Hence you see tha demonization of American citizens expressing their outrage over tyranny and the further loss of their freedom and liberties.
Posted by: GrayRider at August 10, 2009 11:57 AM (Bxx0u)
I don't know what lies you are talking about. I, along with many of the people from these town hall meetings, have read the bill. You think we are so stupid that we can't think for ourselves? Let me tell you the difference between a conservative and a liberal. A liberal waits for marching orders because he is accustomed to group think. A conservative will think for himself, right or wrong.
The Tea Party has no national leader. I am involved in our local Tea Party, and I have no idea who these people are from whom we are supposed to be taking marching orders. I read a lot about the issues and pass them on to my group. I never tell them what to think, but I inform them. It's up to them to do with it what they want.
As for wanting this issue to go away without discussion, excuse me but it's the Democrats who don't want any discussion.
They lie, sir, when they say that the bill will not raise taxes (see Section 421 on taxes on small business and Section 401 on taxes on the uninsured). They lie when they say that this bill will save $6 billion a year (see CBO). And they lie when they say you can keep your health insurance if you like it (see Section 141 and 142).
If anyone is laboring under a cloud of ignorance, it is not the people who ask questions and deride the politicians who lie to them. The politicians have not read this bill as well as we have, and it shows in their ignorant and untruthful answers.
So please stop the projection. Understand what the nature of conservatism is and you will see that we are nothing like you.
Posted by: Anna at August 10, 2009 12:02 PM (5XvRG)
Now the DNC is deploying AFL-CIO palookas while at the same time hypocritically dismissing Obamacare opponents as paid shills -even running TV ads to slander them- and delirious SanFranNan is seeing imaginary Swastikas.
This should make clear to anyone just what these power-drunk elitists think of your opinion.
Note that whenever Obama, Emanuel, or Gibbs are asked about why polls show SO many people oppose their misguided Cap-n-Trade and Obamacare proposals, they ALWAYS segue-right-into “we need to educate the public…”.
LOL- save your breath... Constitutionally-aware American patriots don’t take lectures from Marxists.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com
Posted by: Reaganite Republican at August 10, 2009 12:05 PM (vdbJV)
Posted by: Anna at August 10, 2009 12:08 PM (5XvRG)
The people disrupting the discussions have been lied to over and over. They are being inflamed and encouraged to act like at best morons at worst thugs and ignorant idiots--let's call them that!!
Yes, they have been lied to. Don't forget to include by the President, his apologists in the press, his administration and both houses of Congress. You confuse this as a GOP issue at your progressive peril. We are angry at ALL of the European traveling, big money spending and yes LYING politicians of both parties. We keep hearing that Obama is "personally" popular. His policies, not so much. The reason for this is that many Democrats will support him and the party no matter how huge the resulting disaster is. Look at all of the Democratically controlled entities in America to see their successes: public education, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia Washington D.C. New Jersey, California and Michigan to name a few. Add in the union run enterprises and we say NO! The reason Bush had such low popularity is because many Republicans saw his big spending "crossing the aisle" agreements with Democrats as bad for the country. Democrats are NEVER able to look past their own self interests. Fortunately, the so called independents are now seeing the results of unfettered Democratic rule. If you believe that Obama's "get in their face" and "bringing a knife to a gun fight" rhetoric is reasoned as he implores his "organized community" is statesman-like, then who is the moron?
Posted by: Batly at August 10, 2009 12:17 PM (p/aF6)
...They bring their children dressed up in teeshirts picturing our president as Hitler. They urge the kids to shout along calling others "Nazis". I have watched video from many of these meetings and it sure looks UN-AMERICAN to me.
Do you have links to those videos, jeff? I'd hate to think we're being lied to.
Now shut up and take your medicine. http://www.cagle.com/working/090804/kelley.jpg
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2009 12:23 PM (yTndK)
Posted by: capt joe at August 10, 2009 12:46 PM (GNlWW)
Yeah, the Democrats are all about "calm reading and discussion". That's why they keep ramming through bills without bothering to allow anybody to read them first. Or in some cases, without even bothering to WRITE them first.
But never mind those silly details! The Democrats party line is that their efforts to have "discussion" are being foiled by Republican "mobs" waving "Nazi symbols", and that is the line which their paid internet operatives will repeat, over and over, until they are given something else to say.
Posted by: Steve at August 10, 2009 01:17 PM (NtyQN)
Debate and dissent is as American as apple pie. Shutting down debate is un-American. Period. Everyone in the town halls should have the chance to converse with their congressman.
Posted by: Tim in SF at August 10, 2009 01:48 PM (3jlr5)
Unamerican, I'm not sure. I do know that the Gov't cannot make laws governing the "peacable" assembly of Americans, but can bring down the full might of the Law when these Americans decide to be unpeaceable.
Screaming protest, bullying, and threatening/committing acts of violence are not protected by the 1st Amendment. In fact, they are the trademark of The Brownshirts that helped Hitler rise to power.
Really, if Republicans want to bring moderate conservatives back into their party, they need to quit acting like idiots. Frankly, I might agree with all you have to say, but if you act like 10yo kids throwing temper tantrums, no one is going to even listen to a word you say - they will instanty dismiss you as ignorant.
Posted by: Terry at August 10, 2009 02:18 PM (wsEi2)
Posted by: ElBonn at August 10, 2009 02:37 PM (n0fBV)
Posted by: pjp at August 10, 2009 02:53 PM (6oj5l)
I'm not seeing a lot of that. True, there was this, but that sort of behavior isn't widespread.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2009 03:09 PM (yTndK)
WAKE UP AMERICA - one way to get their attention is at re-election time The first to go should be Pelosi followed by hoyer and Reed. Remember this is America, land of the FREE and we DO have the right to disagree with the White House and Congress.
Posted by: Barbara Zahnle at August 10, 2009 03:18 PM (cDjkb)
Screaming protest, bullying, and threatening/committing acts of violence are also the trademark of the Democratic Party, as anybody who was not sound asleep over the last eight years would know.
Posted by: Steve at August 10, 2009 03:46 PM (qklDa)
Why don't you bring your poor old granny and her iron lung into the mix while you're at it? Maybe a sick puppy?
Folks like you have set American debate and dialogue back at least a hundred years. I wouldn't be surprised if you start bringing your f7890ing guns to our Town Hall meetings.
Here's reality for you, but I know you are too frightened to check it out, so why bother....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/
Posted by: gustav at August 10, 2009 04:12 PM (DGZBc)
So, what you're saying, is that even though we could very well be 100% correct, you won't side with the angels because there might be a few people out there yelling--talk about ignorant and, additionally, disingenuous.
Posted by: ECM at August 10, 2009 04:12 PM (q3V+C)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at August 10, 2009 04:15 PM (MxQFN)
What Terry is trying to say here is that the tactics used by the libs during the past eight years are un-American. Thanks, Terry, for clearing that up.
Posted by: Swibbie at August 10, 2009 04:36 PM (v7P0O)
Right, the democrats screeching that they were living in a fascist dictatorship for the last eight years had no impact at all on "American debate and dialogue".
Pardon me if I laugh at your sudden faux interest in civil debate.
Posted by: Steve at August 10, 2009 04:46 PM (qklDa)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 10, 2009 04:47 PM (gAi9Z)
Ha ha ha. The same clowns who spent eight years insisting that it was un-American not to "question authority" are now taking their "reality" directly from the government.
Way to speak truth to power! I'm trying to imagine if, during the Bush years, I'd shown you a link to the White House web site as "proving" that Bush was right about something.
I'm trying, but failing.
Posted by: Steve at August 10, 2009 04:55 PM (qklDa)
In the same way, just because some who are protesting this Health Care Bill may or may not have gone off the deep end, that doesn't mean that the basic resistance to it is not fundamentally sound.
The Left will continue to try to paint this movement as "loony" and will likely (I think) break out the race card to see if that might help them... Do any of these tactics answer the protesters basic questions? No, not at all.
Posted by: Make Money with Hubpages at August 10, 2009 05:38 PM (6ZJih)
Posted by: metoyou at August 10, 2009 07:25 PM (a/MTL)
Please indulge me here for a moment. I was having a conversation with a friend today and he pointed out to me that when the Senate was investigating steroids in baseball they spent weeks on the investigation, paraded though dozens of experts and participants and stars, spent a lot of time and money investgating the issue and held numerous meetings - yet here we are dealing with 1/6th or more of the entire U.S. GDP and we are having it rammed down our throats without any discussion - WOW!!! Truely beyond comprehension.
Second indulgement - when I was young - 1950's - 1960's - I remember both houses doing indepth investigations into almost any major issue before the American people. I can't begin to tell you the time/effort/money put into the debates/meetings/investigations/testimony when President Johnson was developing that great socialist program called "The Great Society." Here we are 40+ years later and $TRILLIONS$ of your tax dollars wasted - again we are having health care change being demanded by Obama to be voted on blindly!!!!
Thanks for indulging me. We have no choice but to be successful in stopping/slowing what is happening at the hands of the demo/lefties.
Posted by: slimedog at August 10, 2009 07:49 PM (Z21cb)
Posted by: Patrick Henry at August 10, 2009 09:15 PM (yn+4Q)
EXACTLY!!!
Posted by: Stan Pakulla at August 10, 2009 09:26 PM (znU5L)
Posted by: al lyons at August 10, 2009 10:03 PM (u516f)
Posted by: charles schmitz at August 10, 2009 11:12 PM (Ty9Y8)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at August 11, 2009 02:40 AM (MxQFN)
Posted by: JosephineSouthern at August 11, 2009 03:17 AM (AKl3/)
Posted by: rjjrdq at August 11, 2009 09:29 AM (ppGwM)
"...bullying, and threatening/committing acts of violence are not protected by the 1st Amendment. In fact, they are the trademark of The Brownshirts that helped Hitler rise to power."
The bullying and violence so far has been from SEIU and Union thugs not the ObamaCare opponents. You're also an idiot if you think that this is a "Republican" thing, many people are more accurately labeled conservatives, independents, and even some of the more conservative Democrats are opposed to this travesty.
I'm opposed to this bill and as far as I'm concerned the Republicans don't really represent me. Most haven't since Reagan, but are more Democrat-Lite these days.
Posted by: Scott at August 11, 2009 11:09 AM (mqy6N)
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf
The bill itself, why don't you read it yourself rather than watch some "expert" tell you what it will or won't do. Oh I know...TLDR right?
Posted by: Scott at August 11, 2009 11:16 AM (mqy6N)
Posted by Scott at August 11, 2009 11:09 AM
In a sense, Scott is correct. There really isn't a national party that represents the far right wing or the far left wing of American Politics. Both the Republican and the Democrat (though perhaps to a bit lesser extent) parties are in the pockets of Big Business.
While it is true that there are some policy differences between the two parties, the leadership of both major parties realize that they can't appeal only to the extreme wings of their parties if they have any hope at all of winning national elections.
It's pretty much a dog and pony show. You folks who are on the far, far right, the so called "conservatives" who follow the teachings of Limbaugh, Colter, Beck, etc. will have to form a new party if you want someone who truly represents your views.
Posted by: Dude at August 11, 2009 02:45 PM (byA+E)
Posted by: Rick at August 11, 2009 04:46 PM (otXeW)
I think that many people on the far, far, far, far, left are disappointed with the Obama administration and his allies in Congress. That's also my observation from conversations with my "more" liberal friends.
Posted by: Dude at August 11, 2009 06:48 PM (byA+E)
August 08, 2009
How Much Op-Sec is Too Much?
Thoughts on the Marine Corps social media ban, at Pajamas Media.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:28 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
I see where you are with this, but it start to come into a question of First Amendment rights versus the Uniform Code of Military Justice and safety.. add to it the potpurii (sp) of new tech out there, and it gets sticky... I can understand (from a first person Been There Done That Had the Search) that the MEFs have been doing... the Corp. has been slowly expanding it's 'lockdown' of both the troops and even us scumbag contractors... (email me if you want intel on this)
I fully understand your position of "All or None" if I read your article correctly, but unfortunately, the situation on the ground, in light of recent tech advances, well, this eliminates the "PTB" to stop desemination of critical info, for good, or bad.
Specifically the ability of us and the troops to get a 'unlocked' quad band GSM Blackberry, and thereby circumvent any and all means of blocks allows you to access the web from any Iraqna, Zain IQ MCT or even AsiaCell network. Considering that the AAFES (Army / Airforce Forcible Extortion Service... my name for them) sells these phones, chips and others right on every major FOB and base, with no questons asked, as well as setting up available airtime for anyone who wants it, it renders the point of your article almost moot. It's just too damned easy.
Add in the "Jackal" and "Magic Island" wireless services provided to the troops IN THEIR ROOMS on major FOBs for a small fee, and it's a mindblower that you think they can stop it. Both Jackal and M.I. are in the 'profit margin' of AAFES and this will prevent any significant censure.
It makes good sense to keep it off of NIPR... do you know how much time I waste on that daily anyways?
Best Regards
Big Country @ Baghdadland
Posted by: Big Country at August 08, 2009 02:50 PM (H/RUP)
With imbeded reporters that hear what we are doing before we do, they do not need to check out Twitter to see where the next cordon and search is going to happen.
More feel good rules that really do not help anything.
Dang am I glad I got out.
Posted by: Matt at August 09, 2009 10:09 AM (54Fjx)
Oath Keepers
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.
Our motto is "Not on our watch!"
Posted by: M. Simon at August 09, 2009 06:57 PM (mMfHt)
Posted by: M. Simon at August 09, 2009 06:58 PM (mMfHt)
August 07, 2009
Truth Does Not Matter In The Health Care "Debate"
I'm not sure there are too many places you can turn this morning without hearing about the confrontations that have broken out at several "town hall" meetings about health care reform yesterday.
An Obama supporter brazenly stepped forth to rip the sign out of a protester's hands in Denver. Six people were arrested at the St. Louis event. A black man there was called a racial slur and assaulted severely enough by the mob that he required treatment in the emergency room at St. John's Mercy Medical Center. The injured man, Kenneth Gladney, a 38-year-old conservative from St. Louis, was handing out Gadsden flags to the crowd when attacked. At a similar event in Tampa, organizers apparently assaulted protesters in order to try to close the doors to a meeting there that the protesters were drowning out with chants. There were no arrests but the assault was captured on amateur video, and a series of photos shows a female supporter of Obamacare pushing the face of a protester. The woman and her husband has been tentatively identified as officers in a local Democratic organization. In these events, organized union labor (SEIU) appears to have been brought in by Democratic organizers to fill the halls with supporters to provide the appearance of local support for the health care bill that liberal Democrats are attempting to force through the House of Representatives. In both events, conservative protesters that have been assaulted, apparently without provocation. Perhaps the unions were there to provide "muscle" as well. And yet if you look to the media or the blogosphere or the government itself, you see a very well-coordinated message going out that "right wing mobs" are responsible for opposing a bill that a simple majority of the country opposes as the wrong solution to the problem. There has always been gamesmanship, bias, and even flat-out lying in American politics, but I've been simply amazed at the messaging orchestration between the media, left-wing activist groups, liberal bloggers, and senior Democratic Party politicians all the way up to and including the Senate Majority Leader, Speaker of the House, and the President of the United States himself. These socialists—let's call them what they are—are pushing hard for a version of health reform that a majority of Americans simple do not want. They are pushing for a complete gutting of our health care system, even though 74-percent of us rate our care as "good" or "excellent." They are pushing a plan that 50-percent of Americans believe will lead to a decline in the quality of their coverage, and that 78-percent know will lead to higher taxes on the middle class. Democrats in Congress can pass this legislation without a single Republican vote, just as they did the stimulus bill. They hold a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate, and have a President itching to sign the nationalization of health care into law. But the simple truth of the matter is that conservative and moderate Blue Dog Democrats know the stench of a rotten bill when they smell it. It is Blue Dog Democrats that have joined independents and Republicans in opposing a plan that the majority of the country does not expect to benefit anyone other than those who want to increase the size of government, and to insert the power of the government even further into your life. The radical left wing of the Democratic Party, their activist groups and their adoring co-conspirators in the media seem to be doing everything in their power to demonize and shout down the majority of Americans unhappy with their scheming. They've resorted to slander. They've resorted to libel. They've lied unabashedly and outrageously. And now it seems they've resorted to physical thuggery in an attempt to silence their opposition. I do not pretend to know how this is going to end, but the course that they are charting and precedent they are setting is not one that will likely end well.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:30 AM | Comments (135) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Kathy at August 07, 2009 11:33 AM (WyF1i)
This is getting very scary. What concerns me most is the possibility that this is actually the plan. By escalating the rhetoric and calling out the union thugs, it's almost as if this administration wants this to blow up. Is a declaration of martial law in our future?
Posted by: Diogenes online at August 07, 2009 11:37 AM (2MrBP)
Posted by: Mark Gibbons at August 07, 2009 11:45 AM (OwZKP)
Posted by: s jean at August 07, 2009 11:56 AM (YiW3a)
Posted by: Ron at August 07, 2009 11:56 AM (7HFCY)
Do not be afraid. Go and protest. Speak up. But stay in control. Let them be thuggish. Bring your video cameras. The people will see the truth. (they saw the truth in Gatesgate did they not?)
Posted by: Lily at August 07, 2009 12:03 PM (TJvOa)
Posted by: Don't be dumb at August 07, 2009 12:07 PM (AOVBU)
President Obama, my President and yours,and his allies in Congress, have done a very poor job of communicating the details of their proposals to the American People. I'm extremely disappointed in the way that they've handled this issue, to date.
Likewise, the Republicans and their allies in the for profit health care industry have done a disservice to the American People with their own hot air machine.
So, what we have before us now is not any kind of informed civil debate or discussion. We simply have angry mobs on both sides of the issue shouting at each other.
Health care reform IS going to occur in our nation. There are plenty of intelligent people in America who don't have a vested financial interest in the current unsustainable American Health Care Industry. We need civil meetings of minds, of everyday citizens, across this country to put forth and to discuss proposals. We need to hear from intelligent people in the business community and from the working class. We need to hear from people who have the best health care available in America at their disposal. Likewise, we need to hear from people who have been bankrupted because they cannot afford to pay their health care bills.
We also need the input of people who are in the Health Care Industry, from the bottom to the top.
We should also hear from both the providers and the citizens of other nations who currently have systems that incorporate public/private sector health care.
We need to get this right. It's not going to be perfect in the beginning. Not everyone is going to be pleased, regardless of what happens.
People on both sides of the issue can and do portray the other side as villains. What we've seen thus far are sound bites, politically charged accusations and outright lies from leaders on both sides of the issue.
Ask senior citizens, recipients of medicare, what THEY think and ask for their input.
In these proposed meetings, there need to be strict rules of order. And, there needs to be accountability.
Posted by: Dude at August 07, 2009 12:48 PM (byA+E)
Posted by: THIRDWAVEDAVE at August 07, 2009 12:52 PM (01CuS)
Everybody sing ...
Posted by: Neo at August 07, 2009 01:01 PM (5d1ix)
Posted by: Vincent at August 07, 2009 01:17 PM (KQtt3)
Reeks of elitism would be more accurate...
Posted by: Diogenes online at August 07, 2009 01:25 PM (2MrBP)
Posted by: Marianne7 at August 07, 2009 01:39 PM (GN0pG)
Ah, good ol' leftists: when you aren't begging the question, or engaging in ad hominem, a bit of non-sequitur carries the day.
But following on your 'logic' displayed here, I don't see any of the leaders of your "glorious movement" denouncing the thuggery at these events, period. Do not sit here and try to equate people angry with a policy prescription to people that would shut down those people with violence, you sycophantic asshole.
Posted by: ECM at August 07, 2009 01:43 PM (q3V+C)
Stop defending your commie party and treating the conservatives as equal in fault.
There are democrats & independents who are also complaining about this MYSTERY PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
This tyrant and his commie party OWN THE FAULT.
It is YOUR tyrant and his Gestapo party members, in purple shirts, provding the MUSCLE.
It is your purple shirt thugs putting people in the HOSPITAL.
It is your tyrant calling for THE CREATION OF A SECRET CITIZEN POLICE TO INFORM ON THOSE WHO SPEAK OUT & establishing a permanent database on the "dissidents."
Really, will you or one of the other liberal operatives on this blog, please show PROOF that those conservative speaking out at these townhall "meetings" are backed by medical insurance companies or republican political organizations?
can you please do that? cant you try to show some truth to THE LIE? huh?
this tyrant posts NO INFORMATION ABOUT HIS PLAN. The liberal members of congress DO NOT EVEN READ IT.
HE IS CAUSING AMERICAN CITIZENS TO BE WORRIED.
DONT YOU REALIZE THAT?
ESPECIALLY THE ELDERLY, ARE VERY WORRIED.
EVERYONE IS HEARING ABOUT THE HORROR STORIES OF OTHER SOCIALIST COUNTRIES, WHICH ARE TRUE.
Have you heard at all about the butchers in this administration who support population control & survival of those deemed by the government as fit?
They favor judging who is worthy for treatment or medication, and who is not.
THIS IS NOT MAKE-BELIEVE.
AND PEOPLE ARE SCREAMING OUT BECAUSE A COMPLIANT MSM INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA KEEPS SILENT AND ALLOWS THESE POPULATION CONTROL PROMOTERS TO GET AWAY WITH THIS. THE ELDERLY AND THE DIABLED, AS WELL AS OTHERS WHO DO NOT WANT THEIR MEDICAL INSURANCE AFFECTED, ARE TRYING TO GET THE WORD OUT TO THE REST OF THE PUBLIC.
And yet, the tyrant and his SS GENERAL AXELROD SAY "PUNCH BACK HARDER" ANYONE WHO PUBLICALLY SPEAKS OUT????
WHAT THE BLOODY F*CK IS THAT ABOUT?
The AFL-CIO is now offering MUSCLE to the tyrant.
The tyrant is meeting behind closed doors with democrat members, because the members are SCARED AND DONT KNOW WHAT TO SAY. THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT WHAT THEY ARE SELLING...AND THE SAME PEOPLE ARE MAD AS H+LL.
THIS TRYANT WILL PUSH THIS COUNTRY OVER THE BRINK.
HE, AND THOSE WHO DO NOT SPEAK OUT AGAINST HIM, WILL BOTH DO THAT.
enjoy the outcome. it will surely not be go over as a dud.
those who are being beaten up are not at fault. they are the victims. they are victims because they are exercising their 1st amendment rights. and the tyrant is upset that the masses do not want what he wants. period.
Posted by: lu-ee at August 07, 2009 01:46 PM (oogdQ)
We are stuck with a Black Panther in a business suit, who uses the techniques of Chavez, Castro and the rest to pacify the public.
Obama is a foreigner; whether or not he is foreign born aside, the point is he is a foreigner in the sense of worldview, his philosophy. He is anti-American and un-American.
This won't end well. We are in for "turbulent times" in the near future.
Posted by: rssg at August 07, 2009 01:59 PM (HH3AB)
Posted by: Bruce at August 07, 2009 02:27 PM (WDsp/)
Reduce all immigration (legal and illegal) for 5-10 years. That alone will greatly reduce healthcare costs.
Killing the unborn and euthanasia for the elderly is no solution.
Government doesn't work. What part of that do democrats and squishy moderate republicans fail to understand? You fools actually believe a bunch of lawyer/politicians, most of whom never worked a day in their lives', especially Barry al Hussein, is going to "fix" something?
Healthcare doesn't need "fixing". Our system is so good, many others around the world come here for treatment.
1) Create Health Savings Accounts - HSA's.
2) Give large tax deductions for building HSAs.
3) Deport illegal aliens, who consume big amounts of free healthcare and education.
4) Tell al Hussein, Botox Pelosi, the Chinless Harry Reid, Teddy "the swimmer" Kennedy, etc. to GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR LIVES!
Posted by: brucet at August 07, 2009 02:44 PM (HH3AB)
As a liberty minded conservative, I am against mandatory, 100% universal anything.
Furthermore, 100% of Americans have access to healthcare right now - it's called the Emergency Room.
Almost 90% of Americans have health insurance and 85% are satisfied with their health insurance.
Of the 45 million or so without insurance:
About 10 million already qualify for govt. health insurance programs.
About 15 million make more than 75k / year. They can afford it but choose not to buy it.
About 10-15 million are not Americans - they are illegal aliens, using fake or stolen ID's, committing social security fraud and getting free healthcare and education.
The Big Eared Chimp in Chief is now at a 49% approval rating. His poll numbers have sunk faster than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN MODERN TIMES.
Unemployment is rising.
We are in a no-growth economic policies because the Chimp doesn't want real growth, he wants A CENTRALLY PLANNED ECONOMY, where only certain companies and industries, that meet with his whacked out enviromental glo-baloney nonsense, are the firms that succeed.
Please Chimp. Please Congress. Pass government run healthcare, I'm pleading with you! I can't wait for the backlash to begin!
Posted by: rssg at August 07, 2009 02:48 PM (HH3AB)
the system is not that bad to cause such a revolution. the democrats are willing to ruin it for everyone else in order to cover the uninsured. THAT IS WRONG. as it is noone can be refused treatment.
so instead of dealing with an insurance company for your payments & coverage, the health-care change supporters would rather deal with federal govt bureacrats? utter insanity.
Those who are uninsured should simply be funded like food stamps and go get treatment. Just like the other govt. medical programs. But thats the joke in all this: the govt health programs are a joke and in debt, and now these jerks want to put all of us under a govt. medical plan.
criminal, destructive and communist.
why liberals dont see how dangerous this is and how it will cause the quality of care to go down is beyond me.
doctors, small business, elderly, the young, the disabled...alot of people do not want or need this kind of dangerous change.
even govt workers' health plans are privately based and make much more sense.
Posted by: lu-ee at August 07, 2009 02:50 PM (oogdQ)
Posted by: jdb at August 07, 2009 03:31 PM (LnUoW)
I lived in Canada for 5 years. I found not only their health care system, but just about everything else there to be superior to America (certainly the average Canadian is better informed and educated than the average American). I hope to be able to return there some day.
Oh, BTW, what is your point?
Posted by: WiseWhiteMan at August 07, 2009 03:31 PM (cIaDy)
Posted by: Irnhead at August 07, 2009 03:45 PM (zJjA4)
Furthermore, more and more Canadians are immgrating to the US and more and more simply come here for healthcare.
Rationed healthcare is the Canadian and British way. I have a good friend who was injured in Canada on vacation. Simple cut in his foot. Spent 9 hours in an ER with no air conditioning before being treated. And he says simply looking around at the medical technology reminded him of US healthcare 30 years ago.
There is practically nothing the federal government does well. How can it? How can lawyer/polticians, who have almost zero experience in anything practical, "fix" problems?
Of course, there is no real healthcare "crisis". It's a manufactured "crisis" to give politicians reason to grow government and thus grow their own personal political power.
Obamacare is already dead. Cap n Tax is soon to be dead. The Marxist in Chief has 3 1/2 years to go before he's gone. Like his mentor, Jimma Carter.
Posted by: rssg at August 07, 2009 03:55 PM (HH3AB)
Posted by: William Butler at August 07, 2009 04:22 PM (znAs1)
Posted by: Steve at August 07, 2009 04:32 PM (WaBU0)
The statistics clearly show Canadians live longer and are healthier. Just as they show older Americans got healthier after medical.
Posted by: karen at August 07, 2009 04:35 PM (WaBU0)
Posted by: William Butler at August 07, 2009 04:48 PM (znAs1)
I could continue, but I'm sure you get the drift.
Posted by: Rick at August 07, 2009 04:56 PM (FWmwx)
Your talking about Los Angeles. We are discussing health care in the cizilized world.
Posted by: RFYoung at August 07, 2009 05:08 PM (WqZCc)
Posted by: Rick at August 07, 2009 05:17 PM (FWmwx)
That is the political bloc that Obama has almost always manifested in his voting record, and certainly in his background. He is sympathetic to their goals and tactics. This man sees himself as a heroic revolutionary, all opposition are counter-revolutionaries to be destroyed.
Posted by: Mark Turner at August 07, 2009 06:55 PM (6fFkk)
With a population of approximately 305 million, attempting to implement government-subsidized healthcare guaranteeing universal insurance coverage in the US for all citizens, and apparently many illegal immigrants, is a recipe for serious trouble -- politically and financially. It is impractical and foolish, from my perspective, and given the government's record I am very suspicious of any assertions about "lowering costs", "maintaining and ensuring quality", "ensuring fairness and equity", "synergy and efficiency" and such platitudes. Furthermore, I have resided, over the past seven years, in two countries which have state-sponsored healthcare: Australia and Singapore. While their systems are adequate for basic healthcare needs, I certainly would not describe them as "better" than the US system, and not necessarily less expensive in local currency terms. So what I see happening in reality is that if such a system of universal coverage and government subsidy is introduced, my personal costs will increase at the expense of quality over time in the form of higher taxes, less efficient service, out of date treatments, etc. How is this better than what now exists?
Posted by: Mark Turner at August 07, 2009 07:10 PM (5Ty+W)
Anyone who willingly turns over more and more of their life, most of all their bodies to lawyer/politicians, especially a Big Eared Kenyan, whose only achievement in life is being a community agitator, deserves the low quality government healthcare they will receive.
If the government wants to reduce costs:
Simple: Reduce immigration (legal and illegal) for just 5 years and watch healthcare expenditures go down.
"Nuff said.
Posted by: rssg at August 07, 2009 07:57 PM (HH3AB)
Go back to Canada, Meh-hee-co, India, China, the Mohammedan Middle East and don't forget all those illegal aliens from Ireland too. Please leave!
We need to lower our population by about 25 million, so hop to it!
Posted by: rssg at August 07, 2009 08:37 PM (HH3AB)
Medicare: Funding exhausted by 2019, needs $27.8 trillion to remain solvent.
Medicaid: over budget despite reductions in payments.
Social Security: $3.7 trillion short of what will be needed over the next 75 years of the program.
Postal Service: $2 billion over budget.
Amtrak: Lost millions every year of operation.
Every. Year.
What makes you think government-run health care will be any different?
Posted by: Just Sayin' at August 07, 2009 09:19 PM (o2bVb)
Remember the Boy Scouts motto.
Posted by: Earlg at August 07, 2009 10:34 PM (A7J65)
Martial Law is, indeed, part of the plan - either in 2010 or 2012; I predict in 2012 when the great one knows its over for him. A manufactured crisis on our soil will bring him to claim a change in governance will only exacerbate the crisis - so no elections!
Posted by: Mike at August 07, 2009 10:38 PM (3ZoGW)
DISTURBING TO SAY THE LEAST.
....you would think if this "HEALTHCARE" bill was so straight-forward, honest & safe, the liberal democrat party wouldn't need to resort to these rent-a-thugs.
This is bill is meant to keep U.S. citizens H-E-A-L-T-H-Y and is for our own G-O-O-D. wink wink
READ 'EM & WEEP FOLKS. CHANGE YOU CAN DEPEND ON...as long as you goose-step to the proper machine messiah...no kidding.
This is the tyrant's future for the u.s.a. (video can be seen at link. If the vid has already been posted on this blog, sorry for the duplicate post):
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/eye_witness_to_st_louis_scuffl.asp
Eye Witness to St. Louis Scuffle: 'SEIU Representative Punched Him In the Face.' (Updated w Gladney Quotes)
Last night, as reports began to emerge of unrest at two big health care town halls in Tampa and St. Louis, a man on Twitter claiming to work with SEIU, claimed a handful of arrests in St. Louis had been Obamacare critics, and they'd been arrested for assaulting SEIU members. His report was dutifully repeated by liberals looking to paint the violence as caused by critics of the administration.
When I went looking for corroboration of his story, I found something quite different in this report from the Post-Dispatch:
Kenneth Gladney, 38, a conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with "Don't tread on me" printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room at St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was awaiting treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack.
"It just seems there's no freedom of speech without being attacked," he said.
Six people were arrested: "Two of the people were arrested on suspicion of assault, one of resisting arrest and three on suspicion of committing peace disturbances, police say."
Today, video emerged, which looked like it might have captured the alleged assault on Kenneth Gladney. It was taken by someone from a blog named Missourah, who was shooting the scenes of the Carnahan event all night:
I just got off the phone with David Brown, a friend of Gladney's who was an eye-witness to the event. A St. Louis attorney, he plans to represent Gladney in civil action against the SEIU members he claims assaulted him. Brown confirms that the video above is of the fight in question. Brown has also written a letter recounting the incident, reprinted at Hot Air.
"There's three independent witnesses that don't know Ken at all that are in the police report. I'm pretty sure that they corroborate each other's stories," Brown said.
This is his description of the incident:
"He was handing out flags to anybody who wanted them...The SEIU guy came up to him and said, "Why is an n-word like you handing out these flags?"
"Kenneth didn't say anything to the guy. Before Kenneth could even say anything or act in any way shape or form, the SEIU representative punched him in the face."
"He went to the ground. Subsequently, two other SEIU representatives or members, however you want to say it, jumped on top of him, yelled racial epithets at him...kicked him, punched him."
Brown said Gladney told him he was also kicked by a woman, but Brown didn't witness that part. Gladney then went to the hospital, Brown said.
"He sustained some injuries to his back, some bruising," he said.
Brown said a black male with an SEIU t-shirt and a white man in an SEIU t-shirt were both arrested on suspicion of assault, while another man left the scene before police got there. A woman was arrested in connection with the incident, but not for assault. Brown was not sure of the charge. The incident happened around 9 p.m., he said.
His account seems to match up with the Post-Dispatch report, and would account for three of the six arrests—two for assault, and one on lesser charges.
His account also seems to line up with parts of the video, which starts after the scuffle begins and includes Gladney himself and several witnesses claiming the SEIU guys attacked him. In the video, a black man in a tan polo shirt (Gladney) is clearly being picked up and pulled to the ground by a much larger white man wearing the signature purple SEIU t-shirt (:05).
Brown said he read on a liberal blog today that Gladney, who Brown says is well under six feet and weighs about 150 lbs., had attacked the SEIU guys, and they were simply defending themselves.
"He attacked three or four people? No. These guys were pretty big and burly," Brown said. "That's just impossible. That's just ludicrous."
A detailed write-up of everything I can make out in the video is below the fold.
Brown will be on Neil Cavuto's show at 4 p.m. today. Things will be clearer when there's a full police report available, but it doesn't look great for the SEIU guys that there are two of them to Gladney's one, that both of them are considerably larger than him, that Gladney's the one who ended up in the hospital, and that there are several people who don't seem to know him backing up Gladney on the video.
On Twitter last night, there was a clear effort from liberals to portray any scuffles from last night's town halls as the inevitable violent eruption of right-wing mob members, but it is interesting that there was no violence until the night liberal interest group HCAN and Dem members of Congress started calling in union members to "protect" them and host these events. It's also interesting that the only documented cases of violence thus far seem to be going one way. The Slapper, seen on Drudge and in these pictures (9-17), is local Tampa Democratic operative Karen Miracle.
That's not to say opponents of Obamacare were entirely without fault throughout the night, but thus far, there's much more evidence going the other way.
Write-up of the video below the fold.
Update: Gladney appeared on Neill Cavuto's show today, with David Brown. Some reports have called him a conservative activist, but both Brown and Gladney said he's not. Gladney, who is currently unemployed, was at the event to sell buttons and "Don't Tread on Me" flags to attendees.
"He said, 'What kind of n-word are you to be giving out this stuff?,' and he snatched the button board. I snatched the button board back and he proceeded to hit me in the face."
"They actually broke my glasses off of my face when they started beating me."
"I was just there to try to make an honest dollar and try to learn something about this type of gathering."
"I just don't think anyone should have to go through what I went through."
He also said he was not paid or asked to be at the event or to start any trouble.
In the video, a black man in a tan polo shirt (Gladney) is clearly being picked up and pulled to the ground by a much larger white man wearing the signature purple SEIU t-shirt (:05).
A black man and a white man, both wearing SEIU t-shirts walk away from the melee after other protesters bring attention to it, and call for police. The black SEIU member, rubbing his shoulder, says at one point, "He pushed me," as protesters accuse him of attacking the man in the tan shirt. The black SEIU guy sounds like he's looking for his "keys," but I can't be sure. In the background, the white SEIU guy is in a verbal argument with someone in a white polo who says, "You attacked him. You're going to jail!," which elicits and "F*** you" from the white SEIU guy.
When Gladney is brought back over to the scene, this time with an escort, he yells, "Where are my glasses?" at which point the black SEIU guy seems to hand something over to him, but it's obscured.
"What the hell is wrong with y'all?" Gladney exclaims. "Why'd you hit me? Did I bother you?" (0:43)
The camera then pans back to the man in the white polo and the white SEIU guy:
"You attacked that guy for nothing," says white polo.
"No, we didn't attack him for nothing," SEUI guy replied, adding something I can't understand. (:53)
As the camera pans back over to a bewildered Gladney and surrounding witnesses, you can hear White Polo say, "Two of you attacked that poor guy."
SEIU: "No, we didn't."
White Polo: "Yeah, you did!"
SEIU: "He attacked America!" (1:01)
At around 1:25, the person filming asks Gladney what happened.
Gladney: "That guy attacked me."
Cameraman: "Which guy?"
Gladney: "The black guy, there."
Cameraman: "Why?"
Gladney: "I don't know. I was standing there, you saw me. You saw me, I'm standing here selling my flags."
He flags down a cop car, at which point the rest of the video is of police cuffing a protesting white woman (not sure what her role was) and the white SEIU guy, who protests that he didn't attack Gladney; he was simply removing him from his fellow SEIU member. The police are also detaining White Polo, but don't cuff him or anything in the video.
Posted at The Weekly Standard by Mary Katharine Ham on August 7, 2009 03:00 PM
Posted by: lu-ee at August 08, 2009 12:03 AM (4BPHJ)
Posted by: Ken Hahn at August 08, 2009 12:57 AM (H1LFJ)
The course they are charting? Don't you mean "we"? There is more than enough blame for both sides on this disaster. And trust me...it will end in some sort of disaster.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 08, 2009 01:19 AM (bhNGz)
I'll start at the bottom of your list and work up.
Amtrak: It isn't designed to make a profit. It was established as a public service. It's funded by both ticket sales and governement funds. It's purpose is to ensure that American rail transportation didn't completely disappear as a transportation option. After a massive drop off of riders in the early 2000s there was concern that Amtrak's days were numbered. That situation turned around in 2008 as fuel prices skyrocketed and the economy nose dived. Ridership boosted significantly. Amtrak is considered by many to be an asset to our nation. I certainly do. My prediction is that passenger rail travel will continue to grow in our nation.
Postal Service: Article One, Section 8 of the US Constitution, among other powers granted to Congress, empowers Congress to "Establish Post Offices and Post Roads".
The forerunner to our present USPS was created by Ben Franklin by decree of Congress in 1775.
The US Postal Service is also not designed or structured to "turn a profit". The goal is for it to be as self sufficient as possible while ensuring that a first class letter can be mailed from, for example, Arab, Alabama to Beulah, North Dakota for the same price as a letter mailed from NYC to LA. Of course, package delivery, too, is an important service offered by the USPS. Americans depend on the postal service, we use it and it's a great asset to our nation. It will continue to be so.
Social Security: This very important government program has been robbed by both political parties for decades. Regardless of which party has been in power, Congress has "borrowed" money from the SS trust fund and spent it in the general fund. Yes, it's in a mess. Nevertheless, the American People will demand that Social Security continue to be a part of our society. It's here to stay. And, I haven't heard much lately about any new push to 'privitaze" social security.
Medicare and Medicaid: These are great programs with big problems.
Much can be done to eliminate some of the high costs associated with these programs. The first thing that comes to my mind is the elimination of the rule in the Medicare drug coverage bill that makes it illegal for Congress to negotiate lower prices for the drugs that the US government buys from the pharacutical industry and provides to recipients of these programs. It's absolutely shameful and disgraceful that Congress was influenced by the pharacutical industry to include such an anti-capitalist provision into that law. That's a simple fix.
Can you imagine a business who has a customer who wishes to purchase widgets, in several colors and shapes, to supply 40 million of their customers. The customer, of course, is going to want to get the best price possible on such a large order. The widget supplier, of course, is going to negotiate with widget manufacturers to get the best possible price. That's capitalism. And that's good.
Substitute the federal government for the customer and substitute widgets for medication. The government should be able to negotiate for lower prices. That's the American way for goodness sakes! That's just one example. There are many more.
On a recent visit to my doctor we discussed at length the current state of health care in America. He's a small town Family Practioner with a booming practice. He told me that 30% of his patients are private pay, meaning no insurance. 20% are patients with insurance, either privately paid by the patients or employer paid. A full 50% of his practice are medicare and medicaid patients. Many docs and patients throughout America most certainly don't want to send an end to these programs.
Posted by: Dude at August 08, 2009 01:37 AM (byA+E)
"Don't fire unless fired upon, but if SEIU wants a war, let it begin here."
What Captain Parker would say today.
Posted by: SDN at August 08, 2009 07:29 AM (KrlaU)
Posted by: SDN at August 08, 2009 07:31 AM (KrlaU)
What's you position on Medicare & Medicaid underpaying providers 20%-30% and having that underpayment cost shifted to the private health insurance companies like they do now? Under this Health Bill the Government Option was intended to cheat the same way. It's been changed, but it doesn't take a rocket sceintist to understand once in place they will revert to cheating by cost shifting.
You state Medicare & Medicaid are great programs with big problems, just wait until they have no one to cost shift their underpayments too. Then what happens? When the Democrats finally get their Single Payer, the only way they can reduce the inflation of health care costs is by rationing like all the other countries with government run health care do. That is what these protesters see and that is one of the reasons they are angry.
Posted by: Rick at August 08, 2009 10:00 AM (FWmwx)
During our conversation over lunch I asked him, "What's health care like in England for average citizen?". He replied that it's fine, looking a bit baffled that I'd ask such a question. I then asked him how long does it take to get treated for an emergency medical condition. His reply, "Immediately, of course", now looking at me as if I were a dunce for asking that question. I then began to explain to him the rumors here in America about the rationing of health care and the poor quality of health care in Great Britain and throughout the industrialized nations of the EU. His response was ....that's rubbish!
I specifically asked him about specialist surgical procedures. He informed me that one might have to wait 4 months to have a knee replacement done. But, if one doesn't want to wait, they go to France and get it done immediately. For Free?...I asked. He said, well, it's not free, of course, we pay it for it with our taxes and everyone gets good medical care.
Once, as I was traveling across Canada back in my younger days, I had an emergency medical situation. I was treated immediately with high quality care at a very reasonable price. I was billed, of course, for the treatment because I'm not a Canadian citizen.
SDN: No, I didn't ask my doc that question. But, I did ask him if he could survive without medicare and medicaid. Absolutely not, he told me.
Rick: Most doctors and other medical providers that I know, and I know several, are in favor of what many people call "socialized medicine" but which they refer to as universal coverage. They do have concerns about its implementation and they want to be sure that they get a fair shake and that their input is considered in the debate. All of them have told me that there is much bureaucratic waste in the system, as well as over pricing in the drug and medical equipment industry, which adds appx. 30% to the cost of medical care in our nation. All of them have told me this in our discussions.
Posted by: Dude at August 08, 2009 10:49 AM (byA+E)
Dude, I asked you 2 specific questions and it is telling that you answered none.
Posted by: Rick at August 08, 2009 11:01 AM (FWmwx)
I don't know the answers to your two specific questions, thus, I did not respond. I'll try to get myself a bit more of an education on those issues so that I can answer those questions in an informed manner, rather than shooting from the hip.
Please repeat the questions in the most simple and direct manner possible. Thank you.
Posted by: Dude at August 08, 2009 11:19 AM (byA+E)
Question 1: What's your position on Medicare & Medicaid underpaying providers 20%-30% and having that underpayment cost shifted to the private health insurance companies like they do now?
Question 2: You state Medicare & Medicaid are great programs with big problems, just wait until they have no one to cost shift their underpayments too. Then what happens?
PS: None of this "cutting waste & fraud" as an answer as that one has been worn out.
Posted by: Rick at August 08, 2009 11:57 AM (FWmwx)
I can tell you this right now: "cutting waste & fraud" is far from being worn out. In fact, those problems are just beginning to be addressed.
Surely you've read about the recent major arrests in several US cities in response to massive medicare and medicaid fraud, to the tune of Billions of dollars.
More later. Saturday afternoon chores are calling!
Posted by: Dude at August 08, 2009 02:13 PM (byA+E)
Posted by: twolaneflash at August 08, 2009 02:22 PM (svkhS)
"Dude" ommitted to mention that he lives in Cuba.
Posted by: Steve at August 08, 2009 03:01 PM (RwRu1)
Wonderful! So I suppose Americans will be able to go to Canada to get their operations done promptly!. I'm sold!
Posted by: Steve at August 08, 2009 03:03 PM (RwRu1)
And before someone quotes "provide for the general welfare," sure, Congress can do that, but if only if it is specifically allowed in the previously mentioned Section.
Posted by: Mark at August 08, 2009 05:12 PM (T/+xI)
Posted by: ckdexterhaven at August 08, 2009 05:33 PM (0LUuq)
My Doctor supports this legislation but with serious reservations. Tort reform should be more of a factor. Doctors have to pay obnoxious amounts of money for insurance policies to protect themselves from lawsuits, mostly frivolous. Someone brought up cost shifting, another concern. Usually all physicians and health care providers accept Medicare's allowable payment for procedures and it's guaranteed money. Physicians are guaranteed to get paid with government run health care plans which is usually not the case with insurance companies and the uninsured. Government run health care plans equal guaranteed payment. Health care providers lose a fortune in unpaid insurance claims and/or providing health care to the uninsured and combine that with ever increasing premiums for their own liability insurance policies, they have no choice but to raise their costs way above Medicare's allowable payments. This bankrupts their patients and is currently bankrupting health care centers and providers across America.
Another concern of his is the whole "Socialized" health care view which is incredibly stupid and magnanimously misinformed. A Socialized health care system similar to what you would find in Europe or Canada is the Veterans Administration, a government run health care plan and currently the highest rated health care in the country. We should all be so lucky to have access to that gold-plated health care but it would cost trillions to convert the whole country to that. Veterans and their families have been lobbying Congress for decades to allow families of the veterans to have access to that superior quality health care. His concern is how a government option would compete effectively with the insurance conglomerate. The insurance companies that currently are spending enough money on this campaign against this legislation to provide affordable health insurance to Mom and Pop businesses in this country who normally cannot afford the obnoxious costs of policies. That's half the battle right there. Health care providers see uninsured all the time from people who are employed with small businesses and the owners can't afford policies. That's a freakin' shame right there. If the insurance companies were to take a more pro-active approach to this, the legislation would be nowhere as big as it is now.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 08, 2009 09:35 PM (OX5qU)
If you care to provide links to non-biased information in regards to the situation that you describe, I'll read the information. Thank you.
Twolaneflash: Please provide a link to the statistical data to which you refer in your claim that:
"When you take murder and auto-accidents out of the equation (which have nothing to do with healthcare quality), Americans have the longest life span in the world."
Of course, doctors, nurses, and technologists deliver healthcare. And your point is.....what??
I have no doubt that American pharmaceutical companies bring the majority of the world's new drugs to market. Often the initial research involved in developing a new drug is done at tax supported universities.
It's also worth noting that another financial burden on the pharmaceutical companies is the cost of advertising their new drugs. In some cases, advertising costs are nearly twice the cost of research for a new drug. I'm not talking about advertising the drugs to licensed physicians. I'm talking about advertising and promoting "prescription" medication directly to the general public. Pill pushers.
Steve: ......"Dude" ommitted to mention that he lives in Cuba."
Steve neglected to mention that he makes false and ignorant assumptions in his feeble attempt to be clever.
Mark:......."And before someone quotes "provide for the general welfare," sure, Congress can do that, but if only if it is specifically allowed in the previously mentioned Section."
Oh, really? Are you at liberty to share with us specific SCOTUS rulings that support your claim? If I'm correctly undertanding your post, you're implying that Congress would be Constitutionally prohibited from enacting a national healthcare program.
Your interpretation of the Constitution, like mine, makes for great discussions but carries no weight of law. According to you interpretation, (again, if I'm understanding you correctly), such institutions as the Social Security Administration, the EPA....you get the idea, are unconstitutional.
Yes, please do provide to us some SCOTUS rulings that support your interpretation of Article 1, Section 8.
Ckdexterhaven: To satisfy your curiousity, I don't have any bumper stickers at all on my truck......I don't have a car. I do have a Christian fish front license plate. We aren't required to have a state issued front plate on our personal cars in my state.
Thank you, pal, for the sound advice to question those who have authority over me. I've made it a practice in my life to do just that very thing. That's good, solid, common sense advice. I hope that you're doing the same thing in your life.
Best Wishes to All,
Dude
Posted by: Dude at August 08, 2009 10:28 PM (byA+E)
When Obama was elected many of us knew what the future would bring. We had done our home work on Obama and his friends and what history we could determine about him and the environment he was raised in. We knew that he was first, a crooked politician, second, a closet communist and third, a hater of whites.
A true Chicago Thug.
I've lived my life under many rules, the main one was to treat others as I would like to be treated. Another is that prior planning prevents piss poor performance. Now everyone should understand that the democrats don't believe in treating others well, except for a select few, but they do believe in planning. They have been planning this, including selecting Obama for many years. All well hidden, financed and carried out.
And the execution of their plan has just begun.
This Republic was not only hoodwinked, but is now being raped and the American people are the only ones that can stop it. The first step in doing this is unfolding now. Getting the average American's attention. This step will most likely take several more months. It will depend on how arrogant and how unthinking the democrats and Obama's handlers become. They have made some serious errors but will need to make many more before millions of Americans will come to the same conclusions that many of us already have.
The next step hopefully will be that our votes can correct the situation. But be warned, we have already seen how the democrats and their groups like Acorn and others can manipulate elections. It will be even worse in the coming elections because they have strengthened their positions and power.
If we fail to expunge them because of tainted elections and thuggery the next step will be horrible. But it is what the 2nd amendment was put in place for. It is the fail-safe amendment. When all else fails our founders knew that an armed populace would be our last resort to restore freedom and preserve our Republic.
Everyone needs to consider this and to make up their own minds about how they feel about this Republic and for which it stands.
Papa Ray
West Texas
Posted by: Papa Ray at August 08, 2009 10:32 PM (JpVJn)
A majority of America did their homework on Obama and didn't come to the same conclusion as you my friend. Maybe if we had some of those KKK pamphlets you used to do your homework with, we may all be more on the same page as you. Or perhaps you're right and the country would be in a much better place with more George W. Bushes and the Neo-cons back in control. They did such an outstanding job driving this country straight into a ditch that maybe a nice cliff would be a better choice for them with your vote.
Your 2nd amendment is an option for you in your treasonous conduct of refusing to respect our Country's democratically elected officials and process but keep in mind, you're not the only one with guns and your severely outnumbered. I'm sure your collection of firearms will be most effective against the fleet of Blackhawks strafing your house into oblivion at the hands of a Democratically elected Commander In Chief in control of the World's most powerful military. Let us now how that works out for ya buddy.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 09, 2009 12:07 AM (bhNGz)
In case you hadn't noticed, this particular thread is addressing the Health Care Debate. You can, of course, post anything that you wish as long as CY doesn't mind.
Have you noticed that frequently a thread that is addressing a specific issue will devolve into posts that simply reflect the outer fringes of American Politics, with the same old talking points of either the far right or the far left?
I suppose one could make a connection between universal health care and an "uprising" of armed people who foolishly think that......oh, never mind. I can tell you who the losers would be in your worst case scenario.
Just take a deep breath, calm down and wait for a few more election cycles. Eventually, your team will be in power again.
Posted by: Dude at August 09, 2009 12:14 AM (byA+E)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 09, 2009 12:23 AM (bhNGz)
Obama has made it clear he has no intention of touching the 2nd amendment and told the most Liberal of Dems that he would veto any such ban. What I want to know is do we still have a Patriot Act or not and if so, why isn't it being used?
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 09, 2009 12:39 AM (bhNGz)
Right, because moonbats such as you were ALL ABOUT respecting our countrys democratically elected officials between 2000 and 2008.
I'm sure you always meant "Chimpy McHitlerburton, the Emperor in Thief" in the most respectful way possible.
Posted by: Steve at August 09, 2009 01:29 AM (O4nWG)
This chimpy mc hitler thingy? I have no idea what you're talking about. Not my fault you voted for the worst President in our Country's history. Next time, pick a better President.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 09, 2009 03:44 AM (bhNGz)
Posted by: emdfl at August 09, 2009 05:04 AM (B+qrE)
Barrack HUSSEIN Obama
He's Arab
He's a Muslim
He likes to pal around with terrorists
"I mean, who IS Barrack HUSSEIN Obama?"
He don't like white people
He loves white women
He's a Liberal
No...He's a Socialist
No...He's a Communist
No...He's a Nazi
HE'S ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!
He's a racist
He's THE JOKER
He wants to take away all our guns
He wants to pay for abortions (never mind the $2.2 billion Bush gave to Planned Parenthood. Outrage? No? Awful lot of abortions? Ya sure?)
He wants to kill all the old people
He wants to lock up the Conservatives
He wants to censor us
He's invoking marshal law
He wants to send you all to FEMA camps
He's destroying the Constitution
He's a thug
He's a hoodlum
He hates Jews
He loves Muslims
He's in bed with terrorists
He's not aggressive
He's too aggressive
He's an illegal alien
He's Hitler
He's Stalin
He's the Anti-Christ
He's carrying out our "Final Solution"
He's forming a death panel
We need to rise up
Arm yourselves
We need a revolution
Take back our country
Go get your guns
Buy as many guns as you can
Bring your guns to town hall meetings
Bring your guns to Washington
We don't have enough guns
We need more guns
We have a militia
We need a militia
We have sleeper cells through out our country
He's taking away our freedom
He's destroying capitalism
He hates puppies
Glenn Beck slipped poison in Nancy Pelosi's wine glass effectively enacting her assassination on national TV.
Now you keep droning this crap daily to that one man sitting at home in his living room. He's disillusioned, not too bright, angry for many reasons, hates minorities, can't find a job, can't support his family or maybe can't get a family. He has right-wing views but doesn't know where the line is drawn. He has guns. He has beliefs and with this constantly droning rhetoric, he has purpose. If he succeeds, he's a hero saving America from Evil. If he fails, he's martyr and an inspiration for the next gunman. Limbaugh, Malkin, Beck, Hannity, Palin and the likes know this and are constantly speaking to them with enough purpose to inspire but not too much to be implicated. Constantly saying "DO IT! DO IT! DO IT!" without actually saying it. And none of you would have a problem with it now would you?
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 09, 2009 06:06 AM (bhNGz)
Posted by: Pinandpuller at August 09, 2009 06:15 AM (aRm4V)
Posted by: Pinandpuller at August 09, 2009 06:19 AM (aRm4V)
Some reading for your edification regarding cost shifting provider underpayments by government programs to the private insurance companies as follows:
Managed Care Magazine - December 2006
Cost Shifting in Health Care: Separating Evidence from Rhetoric by Michael A. Morrisey (Hardcover)
Quality of Care and cost-shifting in the for-profit hospitals by James R. Seldon & Wahhab Khandker
Health Care Reform or Redistribution of Cost by Paulo J. Reyes (Paperback)
One can state anything on Blogs, so don't come back with "my doctors said this etc".
Posted by: Rick at August 09, 2009 08:30 AM (FWmwx)
Thanks for providing the "links" for which I asked. There's plenty of peer reviewed, scholarly work available on the net on a wide range of topics. I will google the books and authors that you mention. I may even see if my local, small town library can get them for me. But, I ain't gonna buy the books.
I love it how you frequently end your posts in our debates by telling me such things as....."don't come back with......or "none of this...as an answer".
You want me to read your authors of choice while implying, and in some cases saying straight out, that you think that I'm untruthful. Do you actually believe that words printed on paper between the covers of a book are likely to be somehow more truthful than words printed in an electronic medium? You know as well as I do that there's fact and fiction in both media.
I'll do the research and I'll do so with an open mind. I read information from both sides of an issue. Then, it's my job to distinguish fact from fiction. When I honestly don't know the answer to questions, such as you've asked, I'm gonna look for the truth. I'm not gonna look for evidence that supports only my gut instincts or my own, possibly wrong, preconceived notions.
For example, here's one side of the story as presented by Dr. David Himmelstein,
Associate Professor of Medicine at
Harvard Medical School. I don't know about you but I would consider Dr. Himmelstein's medical credentials worthy of at least reading or listening to his point of view on the topic of a single payer system:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch2.html
I'll keep reading, Rick. I'm looking for the TRUTH in this debate, which does seem to be sorely lacking in the pablum that's fed to us by the special interest groups on BOTH sides of this issue. What about you, Rick, are you looking for the TRUTH?
Posted by: Dude at August 09, 2009 09:26 AM (byA+E)
MAN VS. MUTT. by Theodore Dalrymple on who gets the better treatment and what that means for U.S. health-care reform.
It appears in the last section (Weekend Journal) of Saturday/Sunday, August 8-9th Wall Street Journal.
Posted by: Rick at August 09, 2009 10:11 AM (FWmwx)
You've nailed 'em, the racist crowd. I've been thinking the exact same thing. They simply don't have the intestinal fortitude to call Obama what they really want to call him. Well said.
That's not to say, nor were you saying, that all who disagree with his policies are racists. It's easy for anyone with even moderate intelligence to distinguish between the two.
Again, you hit the nail on the head.
Posted by: Dude at August 09, 2009 10:22 AM (byA+E)
What has me concerned, and should have the government deeply concerned, is that these protestors are not of the usual dim-witted type. This crowd appears to be the type that pay the government bills.
Posted by: Rick at August 09, 2009 11:14 AM (FWmwx)
It's easy to distinguish between those people and the people who only wish to shout and scream to vent their anger; people from both the right and left.
The issue: I've noticed some very viral comments from people who are racists and filled with hatred toward people who are of a different skin color or who have different political opinions than theirs. I've noticed the same sort of viral comments displayed on extreme left wing blogs, too; though they aren't prone to be as racist, in general. Frequently, this group of people will warn us of "Big Brother" watching over our shoulders all the time. While I have no doubt that the government does have their eyes open for people who may obviously be a threat to society, it's also noteworthy that there are privately funded organizations that do a great job of identifying "hate groups" and abusive police powers in our country.
Two that come to mind are the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Though I do not always agree with the positions that they may support, I recognize the positive contribution that they have made to our our society over the years, and continue to make.
So, to all of you racists and haters out there who are hoping for a violent "revolution", you can be sure that you ARE being watched. When you "cross the line", there are people much smarter than you or me who are prepared to sue your pants off of you in our court system. They have a pretty good success rate, too.
"Big Brother" is the least of your concerns. It's the people who work selflessly to ensure that Big Brother doesn't get out of line and to ensure that you don't get out of line.
It's probably a good idea for you to keep that in mind as we discuss health care and other issues in our nation, on public internet forums.
Regards,
Dude
Posted by: Dude at August 09, 2009 11:33 AM (byA+E)
Posted by: Rick at August 09, 2009 11:51 AM (FWmwx)
Re: The original post. I have yet to hear anywhere else that the ruckus at townhall meetings may not be solely due to conservatives riled up by outside sources. It's ALWAYS conservatives riled up by outside sources, nothing else is ever said. I knew from the start that liberals riled up by outside sources has been so common, for decades, that's not even a story any more, plus, of course, the MSM isn't going to mention it in ANY case. I'm grateful to hear about it here. Thanks.
I'll leave the debate over nationalized healthcare to others, but for the record, I'm against it.
Posted by: DoorHold at August 09, 2009 12:29 PM (8G+lr)
The most notable difference in the disgraceful treatment being displayed for the Obama Presidency is the blatant racism of some people who simply can't stand the thought of a black man being POTUS. But, I don't think that those folks are anywhere near a majority of the people who disagree with him. In fact, I think and hope that the racists are a dying sub-species of Homo Sapiens.I think that most people who disagree with Obama do so because of policy differences, not racism.
I didn't much care for the Bush/Cheney administration. Still don't. One positive thing that I can say about Bush is that he wasn't/isn't a racist. He is an elitist, but not a racist. As much as I disliked many of his policies, I respected that part of his personality and character that rejected racism.
Obama, in my opinion, is neither an elitist nor a racist, in spite of internet rumors that claim otherwise. I do regard Obama as an activist for people of color and us everyday "white folks", too.
Some people mistakenly characterize Obama as racist because he has spent much of his life being an advocate for minorities, seeking to correct centuries of injustice and create a level playing field for all Americans.
I'm not certain what this post of mine has to do with health care. However, I AM going to get my flu shot this year if that counts for anything! And, since I'm now past the age of 55, I get priority should there be a shortage of the vaccine!
Posted by: Dude at August 09, 2009 01:43 PM (byA+E)
"I hope, with all this controversy, we get a fair amount of time to hear about the exact consequences of any reforms. It APPEARS that isn't the intent of the reformers, rather they want this rammed through ASAP. If that's not their intent they are, at least, guilty of poor communication."
....unfortunately is true, especially the part of the reformers being guilty of poor communication. Sad, but true.
The same is true of the opposition. I find it to be very difficult to understand the TRUTH in this whole reform/anti-reform debate. It makes my head hurt. Help! I need a doctor. Please call 911.
Posted by: Dude at August 09, 2009 01:55 PM (byA+E)
No. The opposition isn't in an all fired rush to pass a monstrously huge piece of legislation that no one but the CBO has read, which is especially relevant given what they've had to say about it. Perhaps a long look and a healthy debate would be prudent here. Maybe then, if ObamaCare is the right thing to do, you'll win the debate and you'll sell the public on it. Is public confidence more or less important than trying to bulk up Obama's deadline chops?
Posted by: Pablo at August 09, 2009 02:13 PM (yTndK)
Which is EXACTLY what I have advocated from the very beginning of this thread, which can be confirmed by reading my first post.
Furthermore, I have not condemned the opposition for opposing the "rush to pass this legislation". In fact, you and I are in agreement that a long healthy debate is needed.
What I condemn from the opposition are those who are in a rush to oppose this proposed legislation from a purely ideological point of view, regardless of what may be learned in the much needed, long, healthy debate. We'll no more learn the truth from that group of people than we will from those who are in such a rush to pass the legislation.
These are two separate issues: Opposing the rush to pass the legislation is one issue. Opposing any legislation at all on ideological grounds is another issue.
Posted by: Dude at August 09, 2009 03:47 PM (byA+E)
The reason they wanted to rush this disaster was the hope no one would read it until after it became law.
Remember Rahm's maxim, "never waste a crisis".
Posted by: Rick at August 09, 2009 03:48 PM (FWmwx)
As soon as we have a black man as president we can test your suppositions. Is a guy with a white mom black? I know Michael Jackson showed us that race and gender are somewhat pliabe but really- isn't that "one drop" thing kinda racist?
Posted by: Pinandpuller at August 09, 2009 03:49 PM (aRm4V)
Pinandpuller, Yes, a person who is half black and half white has been and is still considered, by the vast majority of people of all races, to be a black person in our American culture. If that's a racist attitude, and it may very well be, it has a long history.
Regardless of racial classifications we all share one thing in common; The Human Race.
Posted by: Dude at August 09, 2009 04:14 PM (byA+E)
And we share the characteristic that some people think they know what's best for others-Like Andrea Mitchell for instance.
Posted by: Pinandpuller at August 09, 2009 04:17 PM (aRm4V)
I'll continue to cry while reading.
Posted by: Rick at August 09, 2009 04:18 PM (FWmwx)
Posted by: Rick at August 09, 2009 04:27 PM (FWmwx)
I'll will gladly admit that there were far left looneys who mentioned the "assassination" word when it came to Bush and they were WRONG!!! Liberals didn't want to assassinate him, they wanted to impeach him. They didn't want him dead, they wanted him to just go away...farther! And here's the difference between whats said now and whats said then...THE LIBERALS WERE RIGHT!!!
The Bush administration and the Republican controlled Congress drove our country straight into a ditch and America turned to a black man to clean up the mess because the majority of America doesn't trust any of you with anything more important than a freakin radio show. That's gotta rub your rhubarb..."thug thizzle"!
Obama and the Democrats are doing everything humanly possible to salvage capitalism from the destruction of the Bush administration. You all ought to be thanking them instead of throwing thumb-sucking tantrums about ideology that caused the "thug thizzle" to get elected in the first place.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 09, 2009 05:00 PM (OX5qU)
Posted by: Rick at August 09, 2009 05:18 PM (FWmwx)
The saddest part of that to me is that most people just don't care to educate themselves. I'm not talking about politics here, I'm talking about the basics of government. Laziness plus ignorance = potential disaster.
One thing is for certain, in my opinion: Politicians of both major parties and special interests of all stripes are counting on that ignorance. They don't want an informed electorate.
Posted by: Dude at August 09, 2009 05:21 PM (byA+E)
There are ideological arguments to be made on both sides, and those who hold ideological positions are entitled to them. They're all part of the debate. There are currently 3 things hindering debate:
1. Barack Obama, who just wants this done in a hurry, because otherwise nothing gets done in this town. Also, people should get out of the way and not do a lot of talking because he's got to clean up their mess. In other words, "Shut up, we're in a hurry."
2. The Democrat Party, which is demonizing any dissent and mischaracterizing it as nothing but nefariously manufactured faux outrage. In other words, "Shut up. You're not even real."
3. People who scream so much no one can get their ideas across at all. Fortunately, we're seeing very little of that. Even when union thugs are smacking people around, we can still hear what they're saying.
I'm not the least bit surprised that people are pissed off.
Posted by: Pablo at August 09, 2009 05:23 PM (yTndK)
The sad thing is not one single elected official is in charge of the Republican party. Not one! Not Boehner, not Sessions, not Steele, not even Palin. The party has been hijacked by the biggest right-wing extremists in this country. Limbaugh, Malkin, Beck, Hannity, Morris and their acolytes and they have alienated themselves down to nothing left but a smoldering nub. They lost the Latino vote with this "lynch mob" mentality towards illegal immigration and the Sotomayor process was enlightening to Latinos I'm sure. I'm sure people of the Jewish faith just love these extremists corrupting their families pain and suffering at the hands of the worst regime of the past century by tossing around the word "Nazis" for political purposes. They didn't appreciate it when Liberals did it and that was nowhere near as bad as the discourse happening now.
Dems need to just ram this baby through in September and stop with this bi-partisan nonsense. This may help Republicans gain back a few seats in 2010, so be it. For now, we don't need them and they shouldn't matter. They're in the pockets of the people causing the problems to begin with and using the most horrible scare tactics on the elderly ever witnessed in this country. Obama needs a long, televised town hall meeting to take and answer questions. Instead of union people, let the rent-a-mobs deal with the Secret Service. They can stand outside and be thankful for it. If it was Bush, they'd be forced to stand in a parking lot 6 blocks away.
Let reasonable people who oppose the legislation have their say but if they choose to constantly scream, interrupt, be obnoxious and rude for the sole purpose of infringing on the 1st amendment rights of the others there to ask questions and participate in the discussion, out you go.
Clearly define what's at stake and most importantly, dispel with these gestapo scare tactics being used on the elderly by assuring them there is no death panel or forced euthanasia and a government run health care plan won't effect their medicare, a government run health care plan. Also bring in a buttload of vets so they can talk about their government run health care plan which currently is the highest rate health care in America. Let these right-wingers call THEM Nazis.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 09, 2009 05:50 PM (OX5qU)
Thanks for that admission, Lipiwitz. But I have a question for you. If what you say is true, why can't The Won get it done? This was supposed to be on his desk by now, according to him.
Thing is, this is about all of us and our health care. This is not red vs. blue and there's a lot of blue that you're losing. Just look at the polling.
Elections do matter, but the last one doesn't matter nearly as much as the next one. That's always true. It's the nature of politics. The last election may have given you power, but the next one decides whether you'll keep it.
Posted by: Pablo at August 09, 2009 06:38 PM (yTndK)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at August 09, 2009 07:00 PM (MxQFN)
.... "We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred"......
It's a great speech. The full text of the speech can be read here:
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od2ndst.html
Many of the points made in that speech are as relevant today as they were in 1936.
Posted by: Dude at August 09, 2009 07:30 PM (byA+E)
Posted by: Neo at August 09, 2009 07:58 PM (5d1ix)
I hope this isn't one of them.
And, finally, they sought peace with other Nations--peace in a world of unrest. The Nation knows that I hate war, and I know that the Nation hates war.
I submit to you a record of peace; and on that record a well-founded expectation for future peace--peace for the individual, peace for the community, peace for the Nation, and peace with the world.
That could get messy.
Posted by: Pablo at August 09, 2009 08:10 PM (yTndK)
Posted by: Dude at August 09, 2009 08:59 PM (byA+E)
go f*cking figure Dud.
Dud (Dude) you are so full of corn-fed chicago-mafia manure I don't know where to start.
...not just is Obama funded by millions from the Chicago political mafia, but he is also funded by such mega-billion dollar-receiving-organizations such as Planned Parenthood, International. really...
Dud, you are such a delusional liberal commie and your latest posts show you to be possibly insane. Really, I wonder if liberals even know what is reality from make-believe anymore.
You ACTUALLY think the Oba-messiah is the second-coming of FDR as well as a poor Abbie Lincoln of the late 20th/early 21st century.
Its astonishing how disconnected from reality YOU TRULY ARE.
Rant all you want fool, I can see straight thru your bull-twinkies. complete chicago garbage.
Sure, some republican politicians are backed by money too, and get caught & face the consequences. Why do you think so many conservatives didnt vote in the last election cycle? They were fed up with lack of transparency. At least the conservative voters put their votes where their mouth was. The only reason the dems have succeeded is conservatives are fed up with their liberal-leaning, corporate-funded politicians in the republican party.
But the Oba-messiah is NO DIFFERENT. THE OBA-MESSIAH RAN ON TRANSPARENCY. Democrats SCREAM THEY ARE FOR THE LITTLE GUY, THE BLUE COLLAR GUY, and dumb democrats BELIEVE & VOT FOR THEM!!!! SIMPLY AMAZING!!!!
also, do you think the AFL-CIO IS NOT LIKE A BIG CORPORATION? THAT IT DOESNT HAVE MILLIONS TO BACK CANDIDATES TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS, VOTES, AND LAWS? AND WHAT ABOUT TRIAL LAWYERS WHO FUNNEL(ED) MILLIONS TO OBAMA? AND THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WHO ARE MEETING WITH OBAMA TO CUT DEALS TO THEIR ADVANTAGE IN THIS HEALTH SCARE MESS?
-------------------------------------------------
...even Rich proves the lie. The Oba-messiah simply has his OWN billionaire clubbers THAT HE, THE ONE, AND THE OTHER BIG-NAME DEMOCRATS WANT TO PLEASE & ARE IN BED WITH.
To quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09rich.html?_r=1
"But the Democratic members of Congress those hecklers assailed can hardly claim the moral high ground. Their ties to health care interests are merely more discreet and insidious. As Congressional Quarterly reported last week, industry groups contributed almost $1.8 million in the first six months of 2009 alone to the 18 House members of both parties supervising health care reform, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer among them."
"The making of legislative sausage is never pretty. The White House has to give to get. But the cynicism being whipped up among voters is justified. Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose chief presidential campaign strategist unapologetically did double duty as a high-powered corporate flack, Obama promised change we could actually believe in."
"His first questionable post-victory step was to assemble an old boys’ club of Robert Rubin protégés and Goldman-Citi alumni as the White House economic team, including a Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who failed in his watchdog role at the New York Fed as Wall Street’s latest bubble first inflated and then burst. The questions about Geithner’s role in adjudicating the subsequent bailouts aren’t going away, and neither is the angry public sense that the fix is still in. We just learned that nine of those bailed-out banks — which in total received $175 billion of taxpayers’ money, but as yet have repaid only $50 billion — are awarding a total of $32.6 billion in bonuses for 2009."
"It’s in this context that Obama can’t afford a defeat on health care. A bill will pass in a Democrat-controlled Congress. What matters is what’s in it. The final result will be a CAT scan of those powerful Washington interests he campaigned against, revealing which have been removed from the body politic (or at least reduced) and which continue to metastasize. The Wall Street regulatory reform package Obama pushes through, or doesn’t, may render even more of a verdict on his success in changing the system he sought the White House to reform."
"The best political news for the president remains the Republicans. It’s a measure of how out of touch G.O.P. leaders like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are that they keep trying to scare voters by calling Obama a socialist. They have it backward. The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy."
-------------------------------------------------
Dude, eat chicago crap & spin.
i am so sick of your diatribes. because you are on a crusade to promote lies. you have simply no conscience, you post whatever you want, and then make completely false comparisons and/or relationships. truly am "mate."
YOU DO NOT CARE ABUT THIS COUNTRY OR THE TRUTH.
ITS VERY TOUGH TO DEBATE WITH LIARS SUCH AS YOURSELF WHO ARE IN LOVE WITH A MIRAGE, AND SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT. and you can try and shift the argument AGAIN, and talk about "false" birth documents, but you know what, NONE OF THE BIRTHER ISSUES ARE GOING AWAY. MANY PEOPLE FIND THE OBA-MESSIAH A COMPLETE FAKE AND A BIG PHONEY.
Whether its the bail-outs, clinkers, cars, health care, abortion, gay rights, climate control, or birth-certificates, THIS FRAUDULENT RULER IS A LIAR, AND HE WAS BROUGHT TO POWER ON LIES WITH THE SUPPORT OF OTHER, WEALTHY & POWERFUL DEMOCRAT LIBERAL COMMIE LIARS.
"cheers" and knock yourself writing a response to my charges against your corrupt, fraudulent, and tyrannical "president" and his, and YOUR, thug liberal democrat "party."
as usual you will lie in your response(s). go figure. I AM SURE YOU WIL POST FACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT FRANK RICH IS A PAID CORPORATE CONSERVATIVE. hmmm >>??>?
Posted by: lu-ee at August 09, 2009 10:16 PM (4BPHJ)
There is always room for the debate but most of the people debating on the right are using stupid and completely misinformed arguments because they get all their information from Right wing commentators, Right wing personalities and Right wing sources of information and you gobble up all the disinformation as gospel. Death panels? Are you truly that freakin stupid? According to Palin, YES you are. Are you smart enough to be insulted by that? Nope...must be true!
Why are rational thinking and intelligent people on either side of the aisle going to waste their time on this? How do you debate or discuss intelligently with people who assume our President is an illegal alien despite being shown a legally recognized document? There just isn't enough weed! Read Lu-ee's comment. How do we discuss important things with people that set in their ways with the most absurd nonsense imaginable? Paranoid delusions such as that can't be reasoned with and people like Limbaugh, Malkin, Beck are banking on it. The hell with them!!! When Republicans clean out the extremist crap from their backyards and win back some of the millions of rational thinking Republicans that have been forced out of the party, then they can probably win a few elections and begin to participate.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 09, 2009 10:36 PM (OX5qU)
oh doll-face...guess what???
....YOU POSTED NO RESPONSE TO FRANK RICH. YOU FRAUD. LIPS-WITCH. YOU ARE A FRAUD, A LIAR, A BIG FAT COMMIE JOKE. JUST LIKE YOUR SAVIOUR, THE ILLEGAL, THE OBA-MESSIAH.
LIPS-WITCH, I SEE YOU KNOW HOW TO PRACTICE TYPICAL THUG POLITICS CHICAGO STYLE. JUST LIKE YOU CROOKS ARE DOING TO THOSE SPEAKING OUT AT THE TOWN-HALLS: YOU HIRE RENT-A-THUGS AND THEN GANG UP ON THEM AND PUT THEM IN A HOSPITAL. ASS-H*LES.
TOO BAD MORE PEOPLE ARE LISTENING TO LIMBAUGH & PALIN RIGHT NOW THEN YOU THUGS & THE FRAUD, THE ONE, THE TYRANT, THE FRAUD & USURPER OF THE WHITE HOUSE. Its the limbaughs & palins saying to get rid of the old boys club not the commie dems like emmanual, axelrod or the Oba-messiah.
OH AN LIPS-WITCH...YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO LOSE A TON OF SEATS IN 2010. dems poll numbers are free-falling in many races right now, including in NJ, a dem stronghold. But you thugs practically all got arrested with one republican, so it doesnt surprise me that the republicans are on the verge of a 1994 take-over. ITS COMING LIBS. WE ARE COMING TO TAKE OVER AGAIN. hahahahahah
"..mine eyes have seen the coming of the lord..."
"...his truth is marching on...."
hahahahah oh hahahahah
....now when do the other 2 of you COMMIE DEM LOSERS jump in..in 3, 2, 1???
so...are they coming or not lips-witch? ...
Posted by: lu-ee at August 09, 2009 11:08 PM (4BPHJ)
Finally, we agree on something. Hard to believe isn't it?! I, too, read the Frank Rich column today. It was spot on the money, too.
I'm much too tired and sleepy to respond to your typical, rambling, incoherent and inconsistent bovine scat. Not to worry, God willing I'll be back tomorrow to suffer through your latest bits of wisdom and respond accordingly.
You may go back under your rock now. Until next time, have a wonderful evening.
Your Friend,
Dude
Posted by: Dude at August 09, 2009 11:41 PM (byA+E)
Both dumb and dishonest. No wonder you're a liberal.
Posted by: Steve at August 10, 2009 01:42 AM (eM+xj)
Typical libs.
If I call the lying pice of s*** in the white house a lying pos, it's not because he IS a lying pos, it's because I'M A RACIST. oooookay.
As for the demcraps and their helpful union thugs, all they need is their brown shirts and Sam Brown belts and the SA will be alive and well again. (Only problems is that this time there are a lot more of us than there are of them, and a lot of us have permits)
Must be tough to be so stupid as to not realize that fascism and communism are really just two sides of the same coin. And that coin has been held by the party of fdr for a long time.
Posted by: emdfl at August 10, 2009 04:38 AM (B+qrE)
re black man cleaning up messes
You're thinking of Sanford and Son if I'm not mistaken.
Posted by: Pinandpuller at August 10, 2009 05:07 AM (aRm4V)
Posted by: Pinandpuller at August 10, 2009 05:19 AM (aRm4V)
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2009 07:23 AM (yTndK)
Posted by Lipiwitz at August 9, 2009 10:36 PM"
This is so true. The Republican Party leadership, what's left of it and such as it is, knows this very well.
Posted by: Dude at August 10, 2009 09:26 AM (byA+E)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 10, 2009 10:15 AM (OX5qU)
The thing that has been proved here is that you are, quite simply, too stupid to talk to. Deal with it.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2009 11:56 AM (yTndK)
http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107498/health-care-six-money-wasting-problems.html?mod=insurance-health
Posted by: Dude at August 10, 2009 04:48 PM (byA+E)
..SO NOW the left wing decides to question the Oba-messiah's "record".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/10/our-fuzzy-president-is-ab_n_255524.html
oh, i love this post, from former Washington Post columnist and poster child of the "progressive" lefty blogosphere, Dan Froomkin, whose online scribble reads as follows:
"What's amazing is that more than six months into a presidency that Obama vowed would be the most transparent in history, we still know so little about some basic things like how he makes up his mind and who influences him the most."
AND THIS ANALYTICAL GEM THAT SECONDS THE FRANK RICH COLUMN:
"Does Obama have the ability to stand up to corporate interests? There's scant evidence of that so far. Indeed, most notably in the course of the financial industry bailout, he deferred to them quite spectacularly. And it's not just corporate interests, either. There's something about the military/national security complex that seems to set Obama back on his heels on such issues as dealing with Guantanamo detainees, coming clean about the Bush administration's torture legacy or "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
"Yes, despite an occasional commitment to open government, the White House remains largely a black box. We know some of the inputs - including a surprising number of health industry titans and veritable parade of other CEOs. By contrast, the "voice of the people" seems to be expressed mostly by the ten miserable letters from ordinary Americans that Obama reads every day. Doesn't exactly seem like an even match."
POCKET CHANGE YOU CAN COUNT ON...NOT BEING THERE.
...as I have been consistently saying all along: the liberal commies and their Oba-messiah, The One True Fez Prez, ARE ALL LIARS.
Lying about bail outs...
lying about cap & tax...
lying about place of birth...
lying about the supposed birth certificate...
lying about his citizenship...
lying about health care...
AND LYING ABOUT NO NEW TAXES FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.
LIARS ONE AND ALL, LYING ALL AROUND.
....and the clocks keep ticking....hahahahah we should have a beautiful 2010 election season folks.
...and lips-witch (aka lipiwitz) & dud (aka dude) are proven delusional liars day by day...tisk tisk tisk...
jump in...the water is warm for cookin libs & commies.
cheers....and someone bring the salt & pepper please
Posted by: lu-ee at August 11, 2009 11:53 AM (oogdQ)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
"danger will robinson...danger"
for Tuesday, Aug 11, 09:
...Poll shows that 30% of voters "strongly approve" the way that Obama is performing....
Poll further shows 37% "strongly disapprove" Obama's performance...
...AND 45% give the Fraud good or excellent marks for leadership...
...which is equivalent to a minus seven (-7) rating...
oh well...
AND THIS F*CKIN GEM OF A POLL:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
"Support for Republican congressional candidates has risen to its highest level in recent years, giving the GOP a five-point lead over Democrats in the latest Congressional Ballot and stretching the out-of-power party's lead to six weeks in a row."
"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent."
..AND I AM SURE ITS ALL MAKE-BELIEVE IN THE EYES OF THE LIBERAL COMMUNISTS IN THIS COUNTRY who support the Oba-messiah tyrant. Pretty soon the FEZ PEZ PREZ will start acting like the other tin-horn dictator twins known as "CASTRO & CHAVEZ."
"cheers" to all the lib commie zombies stumbling around in the dark...
Posted by: lu-ee at August 11, 2009 01:54 PM (oogdQ)
Posted by: Dude at August 12, 2009 12:03 AM (byA+E)
...oh and the latest stats are just incredible...and they are provided by a liberal pollster:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/08/13/nate-silver-sees-major-gains-for-gop-in-2010.html
cheers...truly...
Posted by: lu-ee at August 13, 2009 10:04 PM (Xf0DE)
August 06, 2009
Confirmed: Left Wing Blogger Created Obama's (Fake) Birth Certificate
So really, who is stoking the so-called "birther" movement?
Democratic officials and left wing bloggers like to pretend that the issue is a creation of Republicans, even though the claim that Obama was not born in the United States can be definitively traced back to Hillary Clinton-supporting Democratic blogs. Now, a left wing blogger has come forth to claim responsibility for creating the birth certificate published on WorldNetDaily that created such buzz early in the week, even though it was decried as a fake almost immediately.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:07 PM | Comments (70) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 06, 2009 04:59 PM (OX5qU)
Posted by: sitnam at August 06, 2009 05:02 PM (GvuUF)
All we want is to see the real one, plus many other things he's still hiding like his law school grades, papers, etc. etc.
Punkers have merely succeeded in proving that they're liars which we already know.
Your big accomplishment is to prove that forgeries are possible, and that YOU are the ones willing. And you are proud of your ability to lie. Amazing.
Posted by: Bill Smith at August 06, 2009 05:50 PM (cKwIn)
Now Libs get caught lying, and they gloat about their lack of integrity. They got caught and are proud.
I love it. That's not sarcasm. I actually do love this. I can now honestly report that Liberals are birthers.
Posted by: brando at August 06, 2009 05:55 PM (IPGju)
What was it that Ann Coulter said, you're all a bunch of "cranks"?
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 06, 2009 06:12 PM (OX5qU)
Lipiwitz, CY isn't a 9/11 truther, or a Birth Truther, or a Waco Truther, or a Moon Truther, or a WMD Truther. You might want to watch the slander. That moonbat stuff isn't what he's about.
I'm also none of those things, and you slandered me when you said 'all'. I'll let you come clean (with me at least), if you ask nicely. Don't end up like Dude and the Libs.
Don't claim I wasn't fair or trying to help you.
Posted by: brando at August 06, 2009 07:17 PM (LjEkE)
Posted by: Steve M. at August 06, 2009 07:22 PM (Rywie)
Posted by: Dude at August 06, 2009 07:52 PM (byA+E)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 06, 2009 08:53 PM (OX5qU)
Most conservative blogs don't allow dissenting views ? What sort of nonsense are you smoking ?
I see dissenting views on Malkin, Powerline, Red State, TownHall to name a few ... if you want to get banned just try and get harsh with LGF or Daily Kos ...
jeff carlson
www.harlemghost.blogspot.com
Posted by: Jeff Carlson at August 06, 2009 09:10 PM (hYYqD)
wow dude get a grip & get a life.
really...you take criticism of yout Oba-messiah way too seriously.
To feed your curiosity: NO, I still don't consider it a fake and it still doens't change anything in my opinion.
Your Oba-messiah is a commie fraud and I do not recognize him as POTUS. Especially since his KGB is hiring citizen cops to keep a database on those who disagree with him.
Also, your Oba-messiah poll numbers keep descending. Try these on for size:
"After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's"
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/08/06/after-6-months-more-view-obamas-presidency-as-a-failure-than-bushs/
"August 6, 2009 - Obama's Approval Drops To 50 Percent, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Half Say President Acted 'Stupidly' In Race Dispute"
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1361
"cheers" & spin on that info a while.
I can see I am on your mind alot lips-witch by your blirting out my name at the least sign of birther controversy.
i really got on your skin & I am pleased.
Oh and just remember...as YOUR SAVIOR, the Oba-messiah, crashes & burns, YOU VOTED FOR HIM...and so you will have to ask yourself:
Will you give over to His database those who are against His policies?
Will you become a KGB agent for the ?
Some real NICE life choices you have there.
Posted by: lu-ee at August 06, 2009 09:16 PM (4BPHJ)
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at August 06, 2009 09:31 PM (nuJg4)
I hope it happens before he and the Dems totally ruins this country.
I saw this crap coming a few years ago and moved to the country. We live on a Farm to Market road, in a lot of trees and Texas jungle (totally invisible from the road). We are in for some bad years ahead, and I am almost ready.
God keep us all.
Posted by: Marc at August 06, 2009 10:11 PM (Zoziv)
MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?
OGOMBE: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born.
MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?
OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.
MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.
OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.
MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.
OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 06, 2009 10:20 PM (WjpSC)
Please note Brando's MO in his posts; I imagine that you already have. This is typical of him. I've read and re-read your posts and his in this thread.
You'll notice that he attributes things to you that you didn't say, or even imply. Then, he will feign to be offended and accuse you of slander (or some other trumped up charge) and offer you an opportunity to apologize to him for things that you didn't say! Oh, he also points out that he's giving you this opportunity to "come clean" out of a sense of fairness on his part.
He accuses you of slandering CY and himself because you used the word "all" when referring to the Birthers. He misconstrues that to accuse you of referring to all people who visit this forum, even if they're not a Birther.
Anyone who has spent even a little bit of time here and who actually reads the posts would understand very well that CY is not a Birther, as you and I well know. Furthermore, most reasonable people would easily understand that you did not accuse him of being a Birther. Nor, did you accuse anyone of being a Birther. You simply quoted or paraphrased a quote by Ann What's Her Name where SHE implied that all the Birthers are a bunch of cranks.
I forgive him for his false accusations. It's possible that he can't help it.
Posted by: Dude at August 06, 2009 11:41 PM (byA+E)
Posted by: JosephineSouthern at August 06, 2009 11:49 PM (AKl3/)
Like Lipiwitz, I, too, wondered if you still considered the BC in question to be a real government document. I figured that you did. Thanks for confirming.
I suppose if one is grasping for straws, as you are, the link that you provided to the recent poll concerning the 6 month approval rating would be encouraging to folks who dislike our President.
I don't know of a single person who views President Obama as their Savior. I certainly don't and none of my friends who voted for him consider him to be that. We simply think of him as the President of the United States who is attempting to initiate a different direction for our nation. We don't consider him to be perfect, either. Like all of us, he has his faults.
The Savior moniker is something cooked up by angry people and then picked up by people who can't think for themselves. It's fine to disagree with him. That's your right. Nevertheless it's silly and untrue to characterize his supporters as people who consider him him to be the Messiah or the Savior. From my point of view, it's blasphemy.
Again, I hope that you're well. Take care.
Posted by: Dude at August 07, 2009 12:21 AM (byA+E)
People like you act like they've just awakened from a nap to walk in on a football game and start supposing what happened to make the score.
Go back to sleep Dude.
Posted by: torabora at August 07, 2009 12:33 AM (dgvJN)
I implore those on the right who really care about the Constitution to know that this is a losing argument but that WE can take back that House and depose Pelosi and SNATCH that gavel out of that bitches hand and end the Presidency of the tool in chief!
Posted by: Jaded at August 07, 2009 12:59 AM (1I7uq)
"Le what? Legit!" -- Johnny Dangerously (awesome movie)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 07, 2009 01:03 AM (bhNGz)
The blame will fall on those responsible, organized angry anarchist mobs of people who aren't interested in a debate at all. They're only interested in shouting down people who do want a discussion.
Political dissent is one thing. That's a good thing. The mobs are more about political descent. They are the ones who will be going down the tubes. Let 'em eat fish heads.
Posted by: Dude at August 07, 2009 01:12 AM (byA+E)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 07, 2009 01:50 AM (bhNGz)
He said "all". No implication. My MO is to be a good person. It's not my fault it stays relevant. I'm not angry at you. I'm just using you as a good example of wrongness, and contrasting that with myself. You make it real easy for me to stay on my high horse. I gave you your chance, but you lost, so just drop it. You're suspect.
I will address one other point that you got wrong. I've personally met Liberals who literally believe that Obama is God incarnate. Not as a metaphor. Not as hyperbole. Just because you pretend that those people don't exist, doesn't make it so. They exist. In large numbers, they claim. It's the same Liberal who told me about her state mandated abortion ideas, that you were so fond of. Creepifying. Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.
I've also had someone tell me that they think of Al Gore as Jesus. Just weird.
Now on to Lipiwitz.
I think I'm being more than fair. You know that CY's not a Birther, and yet you gloat against his position. You know I'm not a Birther, and yet you flatly state that all the people here are cranks for being against the wacky Truther garbage d'jour. How did CY get punked? He was on top of it the whole time.
Then Dude promises on your behalf. (read this part carefully) "Nor, did you accuse anyone of being a Birther."
Really? You didn't call anyone a birther? Really? Not even the people who've been posting here who are actually Birthers?
You go from calling everyone a birther, all the way to the other end of the spectrum, of (Dude says) calling nobody a birther.
So which is it? It can be either, neither, but not both. (Psst. The answer's neither.)
I'm totally for healthy debate. The bare minimum of debate is the ability to tell (and hear) the truth. What I'm saying is that you might want to use more qualifying words. Well, come clean first, then do better. I'm actually trying to reach out and help you.
I don't know if a time limit would help. A day or so, I suppose.
Posted by: brando at August 07, 2009 02:08 AM (LjEkE)
Brando, I believe the term I used was "all birthers are a bunch of cranks" in quoting Ann Coulter who said "all birthers are a bunch of cranks". I don't think I need too much help there. I read my post. I didn't say everyone is a birther but I did use the term "all birthers" as in referring strictly to the birthers and not generalizing everybody as a birther and subsequently, everyone is a crank by Ann Coulter's standards. Does that make sense?
YOU on the other hand said this: "I can now honestly report that Liberals are birthers". O'rly? Can you name one liberal who is a birther? One liberal who believes in this birth certificate nonsense? Can you name one liberal who has made the statement that Obama is not a US citizen? Can you name one liberal who doesn't accept the document with the state seal that is legally acceptable as proof of citizenship by the US State Department? After all, you are somebody who doesn't appreciate slander. Personally I believe that even if he was born in Kenya, liberals still would've voted for him. Couldn't possibly do worse than the last president. AWWWW...TOO SOON?
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 07, 2009 03:02 AM (bhNGz)
"Make that a Democrat for 56 years until this last election when the bottom of the Democrat barrel rose to the top and reared it's ugly, sexist, demented and as you exhibited yourself, deceptive head. Will never ever vote for a Democrat again as long as I live. The party of Scoop Jackson is dead! Your gloating for what you did is an example of how low the party's values have sunk. Only stupid people find your exploit mentionable. Since your the one tooting your horn that makes you stupid too. But hey, look on the bright side, stupid people don't know they are stupid. Guess you can live with yourself and rationalize your behavior for a long time to come."
Posted by: Dave at August 07, 2009 04:22 AM (nWGqk)
this isnt over until Your Savior, the Oba-messiah, is sent off his throne.
and yes Dude, I do think you practice blasphemy. so there, what of it? You are a pathetically sad case to stand by what will be the most horrific "presidency" in this great countries history.
I asked both of you if you would be part of the the Oba-messiah's citizen snitch program, His KGB database of dissenters, and i also posted current polls that show this imposture is in free-fall, and you both shrug your shoulders & ignore.
YOU BOTH DONT CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO EXERCISE THEIR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AND NOW HAVE TO FEAR THEIR GOVT WILL "RETALIATE" AGAINST THEM & THAT UNIONS WHO BACK THE FRAUD WILL BEAT THEM UP. ISNT IT AMAZING THAT A WORD LIKE "DISSIDENT," A WORD USUALLY USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH COMMUNISM & THE USSR, IS NOW GOING TO BE PART OF THE USA VOCABULARY IN REGARDS TO AMERICANS WHO EXERCISE THEIR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AGAINST THIS COMMIE USURPER.
SIMPLY ASTONISHING.
hence your cult-like adoration of YOUR messianic presidential candidate, the commie, the moron's moron, THE OBA-MESSIAH.
since its your shoe, wear it, eat it & crap it.
want some hot sauce for that stinker?
how does it feel to take the greatest nation on earth & flush it down the toilet of communism?
cheers suckers.
yes, really.
Posted by: lu-ee at August 07, 2009 05:55 AM (4BPHJ)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 07, 2009 06:00 AM (bhNGz)
...again I am on your mind. I just luv it when you feel the need to call my name.
...and again, YOU seem like you are a prime candidate for a Oba-messiah citizen KGB snitch.
Nice.
WILL YOU OR WONT YOU SNITCH ON FELLOW USA CITIZENS WHO EXERCISE THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS & SPEAK OUT AGAINST YOUR FRAUDULENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE & AGAINST HIS COMMIE POLICIES?
i see you are a coward as well as a commie and ignored this question twice.
...your typical of a commie cult-follower zombie.
...but you will not get away with it that easy.
Oh and if this supposed "revolution" supposedly "happened" why post against me at all, or even have me on your mind?
why are you so "worried" about WHAT I HAVE TO SAY? hmmm...
hey lips-witch? all I hear are the crickets in that vacant cavern of your's.
you know, the cavern thats supposed to contain a brain? dont you? huh?
why so concerned?
...are you a goverment snitch or are you not?
..come-on fiddo lips-witch, your Master, the Oba-messiah, is calling you to do his will.
"..here fiddo...come and fetch it..."
Posted by: lu-ee at August 07, 2009 08:30 AM (oogdQ)
I find it astonishing that that anyone with 10th grade reading skills (as you obviously possess, as evidenced by your ability to write well, albeit untruthfully) would conclude from our posts that either I, myself, or Lipiwitz has accused CY of a being a birther.
Perhaps a course in reading comprehension skills would help you to be able to compose more intelligent and truthful responses in debates.
Then again, perhaps not. I think that you know exactly what you're doing. Fortunately, most people on both sides of an issue are able to distinguish fact from fiction in regards to what someone else has written by simply "reading" the words. You're a "case study", Brando.
Posted by: Dude at August 07, 2009 09:35 AM (byA+E)
Oh and Lippy...
It looks even more patriotic Democrats want to know "what is he hiding?"
hahaha
http://digg.com/politics/Bill_would_force_Obama_to_reveal_birth_documents
in addition to the possible refiling of the liberal forgery document.
this is getting too easy.
...the more you and your commie henchmen go after Dr. Taitz, especially be calling her "mentally unstable" or "crazy," the more folks wonder, "why put the burden of proof on her" and "attack her character?"
I notice many of those who are scared of what could happen to the Oba--messiah are using the same tactics as 20th century communist & totalitarian govts used against dissidents in their countries who spoke out against their tyrannical regimes: they attacked the dissidents' mental stability. They tried to question if the dissidents were sane, you know, by releasing to the state-run media statements like, "they are crazy and dont know what they are talking about."
Well, Dr. Taitz is the FIRE to the STRAWMEN who are protecting the hidden past of this commie fraud known as THE ONE. AND THEY ARE ALL C-O-W-A-R-D-S WHO HAVE NO COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO HER ACCUSATION EXCEPT TO CALL HER "CRAZY."
ITS THE FRAUD, THE OBA-MESSIAH, WHO IS ACTING CRAZY BY NOT RELEASING BIRTH & CITIZENSHIP DOCUMENTS THAT HE & HIS LIBERAL COMMIES BACKERS WANTED MCCAIN TO RELEASE IN 08(...and McCain, in fact, COMPLIED!).
"cheers" lips-witch. Your supposed "revolution" is a boat filling up with the waters of its corruption, anarchy, sins and injustices. The ones that created it in the first place.
The Spirit of '76 is far from done & dusted lips-witch, my commie friend.
...i think it will be you & your commie followers who will need a bridge to Havana once YOUR commie liberal crime is exposed for what it really is covering up: tyranny, plain & simple, in black & white.
Posted by: lu-ee at August 07, 2009 09:38 AM (oogdQ)
In answer to your question, no, I wouldn't report anyone for exercising their First Amendment right to disagree with our politcal leaders, not even in your alternate, fictional version of reality.
In your case, I must confess, I would be tempted to report YOU to the proper local authorities who may be able to offer help to you for your psychiatric condition. To clarify, I would only do that if your delusions began to exhibit threats of personal bodily harm to others. As long as you're spouting your harmless nonsense, no, I wouldn't report you to anyone.
In fact, there would be no need to "turn you in". With every post that you make you make mental condition perfectly clear to anyone who reads them, right here on a public forum on the good 'ol world wide web!
Posted by: Dude at August 07, 2009 09:51 AM (byA+E)
Lipiwitz, that's not what you said the first time. Are you calibrating your words better? Couching it in different terms or something? One Liberal is all you need in order to repent?
Um, the Liberal who faked the birth document. The guy we're talking about.
And the hoards, who are thrilled about how that represents their group. Did you even read it that thread, it's pretty emblamatic? Liberals also say that 96% of Americans are Liberal (and Libs aren't dumb). If you find their/your numbers wrong, then take it up with them/yourself.
"Al Gore isn't Jesus? lol" - I'm not sure where you're going with that, but my position is that Al Gore is not Jesus. I've been told that I'm all alone in my belief, but there it is.
I think what you're doing is projection. Liberals are Birthers, but understand that it's insane and sneer-worthy, so they project it onto others. Not all Birthers are Liberals, but all Liberals are Birthers.
Sort of how Liberals are for the draft. I've met many Libs who are very vocal for conscription, yet know that it's slavery, and deep down know that it's wrong. When pressed they say that they're for the Draft to show how against it they are. You guys have weird inside out logic. It's not wrong to quote em.
Now you're claiming that these hundreds of millions of Liberals are merely pretending to be Birthers to demonstrate that they really aren't Birthers? Maybe be carefull what you pretend to be, because at the end of the day, you are what you say and do.
Posted by: brando at August 07, 2009 09:55 AM (IPGju)
Now, there's a real piece of cake for you to chew on. I had to read that several times to be sure that my glasses were clean.
Posted by: Dude at August 07, 2009 11:40 AM (byA+E)
the snitch program has made news from coast to coast, thru-out the net.
but I see you have selective memory. or is it "selective eyesight"?
And you say I am "crazy" ?
You see I dont think you are crazy. I think you are dangerous.
I also see you are willing to become a spy.
cheers & so sad for you and enjoy your new job as a govt pundit, judging who is fit, and not fit, to practice free speech.
remember: "the revolution eats its children" and you are such a naive, albeit dangerous, person.
kinda like a child in a way.
Posted by: lu-ee at August 07, 2009 02:08 PM (oogdQ)
PLAIN & SIMPLE SOLUTION TO ME.
CHEERS
Posted by: lu-ee at August 07, 2009 02:54 PM (oogdQ)
Posted by: Jaded at August 07, 2009 05:08 PM (1I7uq)
See the unemployment numbers today? Went down a little. Looks like the clean up of your mess is starting to work. I like my 401k and pension balances getting back to the pre-Republicans drove it all into a ditch levels. Hard for Americans to forget that.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 08, 2009 12:33 AM (bhNGz)
The sad thing and it is truly sad, is there is not one single elected Republican in charge of the party right now. Not one! The party had been hijacked by Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Michelle Malkin and their acolytes and they are destroying the party like a stage 4 cancer.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 08, 2009 12:39 AM (bhNGz)
I ALSO FORWARDED YOUR WONDERFUL WORK TO THE FBI !!!
Posted by: Mike Fuller at August 08, 2009 02:18 AM (Q1LO4)
OBAMA IS IMPLODING MORE AND MORE EVERY SINGLE DAY !
i LOVE IT. WE DON'T NEED TO TRY AND GET HIM, JUST SIT BACK AND WATCH. HE'S DOING IT HIMSELF !
lol
Posted by: Mike Fuller at August 08, 2009 02:21 AM (Q1LO4)
So Mr. Fuller, how did that whole "sit back and watch" thing go for ya? lol
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 08, 2009 03:36 AM (bhNGz)
Posted by: twolaneflashf at August 08, 2009 02:49 PM (svkhS)
Posted by: Trisha at August 08, 2009 03:09 PM (GbOES)
Repeating that doesn't make it any more true than it was the last time. The legal standard of documentary proof has been met and exceeded. that's just a fact. Another fact is that Orly Taitz and Friends have done an outstanding job of making Obama critics look like a bunch of lunatics.
Don't be a part of the problem, be part of the solution.
Posted by: Pablo at August 09, 2009 11:07 AM (yTndK)
That's awfully funny coming from an O-bot.
Posted by: Pablo at August 09, 2009 11:08 AM (yTndK)
Regardless of where he was born, he is not eligible because of dual citizenships. The multiple birth certificates could coincide with other accusations too numberous to deal with here; hopefully the eligibility will be cleared without getting into intentions of his mother. Perhaps having a child of a nation gave rights and privilege to the parents. She and her husband met as students in a class on Russia. Frank Marshall Davis was at least friends of the family, at most, some say B. Obama's father or mentor in his book.
The stated goal of Communism is peace; but their ways produce deception, oppression and death. There is a better way to achieve peace and redistribute the wealth that will not anger or take from the people. It is in the word of God and is the only way to escape our destruction at our own hands with pollution and war or at the hands of a politician using psychopolitics. You will see why Barack Obama is pressing for the health reform bill.
Google Psychopolitics, Testimony of Kenneth Goff: Here we were trained in all phases of warfare, both psychological and physical, for the destruction of the Capitalistic society and Christian civilization. In one portion of our studies we went thoroughly into the matter of psychopolitics. This was the art of capturing the minds of a nation through brainwashing and fake mental health -- the subjecting of whole nations of people to the rule of the Kremlin by capturing their minds. .. . (Drugs were to be used to affect mass population problems.) Also see: (link not allowed here) Google: "The Saviet Art of Brain Washing" for Kenneth Goff's testimony and Editorial Note:
An Address By Lavrent Pavlovich Beria
(A famous address)
Bill Maher dialogue: “Birthers Must Be Stopped." Let the president stop them by releasing his school, health, passport and original Hawaii birth records.. Ridicule is a Communist tactic “when the sane are made to appear insane and the insane act as the world’s psychiatrists…” a quote from Mind-Washing in America by one of the leading American authorities on all aspects of the Communist conspiracy, former Senator Jack Tenney. He speaks of “the efforts of a small .. fraction of society to brainwash the overwhelming majority of its citizens…” Barack Obama is showing himself in his actions. Truth and justice win over lies and deception.
http://rightsoup.com/right-sightings-20/
Link: Video: Obama’s Communist Influences: Youtube
I sent an email to President Obama & US Attorney in DC, CD Phillips on 7-30-09. The president is a 15 year citizen of Indonesia and should not be making decisions for America.
Subject: Authority to investigate Barack Obama
& Quo Warranto in Donofrio
Same authority to investigate terrorists in America
114 Char. Twitter:
Sharing “Questions E-mailed to President Obama & US Attorney DC, CD Phillips 7-30-09” http://www.divine-way.com
(Quo Warranto-Wikipedia: Quo warranto today
In the United States today, quo warranto usually arises in a civil case as a plaintiff's claim (and thus a "cause of action" instead of a writ) that some governmental or corporate official was not validly elected to that office or is wrongfully exercising powers beyond (or ultra vires) those authorized by statute or by the corporation's charter.)
. There is more than enough information, even at http://obama-birth-cert-forged-sss-impeach.blogspot.com and http://www.divine-way.com/forgery_evidences_sss_reg_colb_birth_cert_for_obama_impeachment.html
to get access to his full birth certificate, college and passport records.
While we still have freedom, be sure to see all sides of the argument before being used against those seeking only to see records that should not be hidden.
Marie Devine
http://www.divine-way.com
Posted by: Marie Devine at August 09, 2009 11:41 AM (lo9FM)
Could you please share with us a link to any SCOTUS ruling that supports your statement: "Regardless of where he was born, he is not eligible because of dual citizenships."
To the best of my knowledge, though I may be mistaken, this particular issue of dual citizenship, even if Obama IS a dual citizen of the US and some other country, has never been addressed in any ruling by the SCOTUS. It most certainly isn't clear in the Constitution that your statement is, in fact, true.
I do wish that the Framers had been more precise in their wording of the Constitution so that the phrase "natural born citizen" would be perfectly clear to anyone who reads the Constitution. Unfortunately, they didn't do that. Thus, it has been left up to our Federal Court system to define the phrase.
As someone else has previously posted, the dual citizenship issue for the presidency is pretty much uncharted territory in our nation's history.
One can be both a natural born citizen and hold a dual citizenship status, as the SCOTUS has clearly ruled. They have yet to address that status as a condition of the presidency.
"Ridicule is a Communist tactic “when the sane are made to appear insane and the insane act as the world’s psychiatrists…”
While this statement is true of Communism, it's also true of most any political ideology, including but not limited to, Capitalism, Democracy, Socialism, etc. etc. That's just the way it IS and that's why it's so very important to have an informed electorate. It's our responsibility, the electorate, to make sure that we are informed.
Posted by: Dude at August 09, 2009 01:04 PM (byA+E)
Posted by: Neo at August 09, 2009 07:59 PM (5d1ix)
Posted by: Dude at August 10, 2009 04:51 PM (byA+E)
The real thing you should (have been) be up in arms about is the way in which Bush beat Gore. Where were you all when those shenanigans were going on? That was the real tradgedy. It's going to take generations to undo those eight years. Why aren't you guys investigating the fabricated documents which led us into a horrific wasteful war that cost so many lives and so much good will and so much money? WMDs? Come on - they never found any NOT EVEN ONE. You would think that if they could have found EVEN ONE it would have legitimized the whole thing. But they couldn't. So we go to war in Iraq for no reason, will be paying the price for generations, and here you guys are- I don't even know what to call this misguided effort.
Enjoy yourselves- I suppose at least it keeps you from doing other worse things.
Posted by: Dan at August 12, 2009 03:40 PM (ch34h)
The Nation Claims Blackwater's Founder Prince Committed Murder... with This?
Jeremy Scahill reports in a stunning article in The Nation that Blackwater founder Eric Prince committed murder to cover up a multitude of crimes committed by his companies. Scahill relies heavily on the allegations from two "John Doe" declarations. Doe #1 is reputedly a former Marine that worked for Blackwater as a security contractor, but the most damning claims from Doe #2,who claims to have been a Blackwater executive for four years.
The problem is, his most damning testimony hinges upon claims that don't even make sense. If you're going to allege weapon smuggling,try something that sounds more credible than imaginary weapons, such as "sawed-off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers," or non-existent exploding bullets.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:04 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: ECM at August 06, 2009 02:16 PM (q3V+C)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 06, 2009 06:20 PM (OX5qU)
Jeff Carlson
www.harlemghost.blogspot.com
Posted by: Jeff Carlson at August 06, 2009 09:04 PM (hYYqD)
A machine gun is by definition a full auto assault rifle or crew served weapon.
The AR-15 (for example) is a semiauto rifle that fires one shot per trigger pull. I know, because I own and shoot one.
There are Exploding bullets, but try to find any in calibers less than 20 MM. Not a shoulder fired round for sure...recoil would kill you.
Posted by: Marc at August 06, 2009 09:44 PM (Zoziv)
The Nation magazine are writing articles based on sworn testimony and statements of testimony provided by the 2 "John Does" and therefore not subject to libel laws. If the 2 "John Does" are providing false testimony to the Justice Department than they will face felony charges of perjury or providing false testimony.
Your average "John Doe" does not walk into the Justice Department and provide such damning testimony under false pretenses. These are some humdinger charges being alleged and warrant a serious investigation. A previous raid onto the Blackwater compound has already yielded a cache of illegal firearms so there is a history of this kind of conduct and much worse.
What angers me is why is this company still on the government payroll?
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 07, 2009 12:54 AM (bhNGz)
Add a suppressor (there is no such thing as a silencer and actual operators know this and use the correct terminology) and the amount of gas required to operate the system is also upset, the result again being a single shot 25 pound gun. It should also be remembered that there is no market for suppressors for machine guns (as opposed to specialized submachine guns such as the H&K MP5SD) because such weapons are not suitable for suppressor use; it's just not the way they're designed because it's not the way they are employed.
Also, in order for a suppressor to be even marginally effective, ammunition of greatly reduced power must be used in order to keep the bullets from breaking the sound barrier. This not only reduces the range and power of the ammunition to the point that a machine gun would be utterly useless for its intended military purpose, but again, even if one was foolish enough to cobble a suppressor onto a given machine gun, the gas pressure issues would, once again, produce the world's most difficult to use single shot firearm.
While it would be theoretically possible to construct a suppressed machine gun with a short barrel and semi-automatic action (ignoring the fact that this alone would render the machine gun a very complex semi-automatic rifle firing from an open bolt which would make it almost impossible to shoot accurately), it would have none of the advantages of a machinegun, and none of the advantages of a suppressed weapon because it would be useless in the roles for which both types of weapons are employed, to say nothing of the fact that its ammunition would be inferior in every respect to that of common assault rifles, and even some pistols.
Posted by: MikeMcDaniel at August 07, 2009 01:42 AM (lFTHa)
And maybe they are still on the government payroll because:
1. They do the job better and cheaper then the competition.
2. They haven't done anything illegal in spite of the fantasies/wishes of the lefties picking their teeth with obie's pubic hairs.
Posted by: emdfl at August 07, 2009 09:24 AM (B+qrE)
The raid was because the local Sheriff's Dept. kept their SWAT/ERT weapons there because they did not have a proper armory of their own to secure the weapons.
Yes, it was more than likely technically illegal, but it most certainly wasn't weapons smuggling, as all guns were registered to the Department, and all were accounted for.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 07, 2009 09:30 AM (gAi9Z)
Please go to my blog, http://www.garybaumgarten.com to join in the conversation then.
Thanks,
Gary
Posted by: Gary Baumgarten at August 07, 2009 03:10 PM (Kscw9)
I say let the Justice Department do there job. These are some serious and I mean SERIOUS claims being made by people who were on the inside and worked for them. Undoubtedly, these claims deserve an investigation.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 08, 2009 12:27 AM (bhNGz)
Posted by: Zara at August 08, 2009 03:01 PM (ccaCa)
Deranged Pelosi: Healthcare Protestors are "Carrying Swastikas"
Fresh off of orchestrated attempts by the Democratic party and liberal blogs to smear anti-Obamacare protesters as part of a paid-for astroturfing effort (you know, like ACORN and MoveOn), the queen of San Francisco now one-ups herself with claims that those protesters are carrying swastikas to townhall meetings:
Let this be a warning to you all: too much botox can eventually lead to brain death.
Interviewer: Do you think there's legitimate grassroot opposition going on here? Pelosi: I think they're Astroturf... You be the judge. They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:02 AM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Rick at August 06, 2009 09:25 AM (FWmwx)
Posted by: Penfold at August 06, 2009 09:28 AM (lF2Kk)
Posted by: Joe at August 06, 2009 10:35 AM (0Gde6)
Posted by: Papa Swamp at August 06, 2009 10:42 AM (efHrL)
Posted by: Chris at August 06, 2009 10:53 AM (/Wxc7)
Posted by: Mister P at August 06, 2009 10:55 AM (LPuF8)
So come to Miami, and we will for sure give you something to write home about!!
Posted by: Myop at August 06, 2009 11:03 AM (J0u1s)
Posted by: Sterling at August 06, 2009 11:06 AM (+86uO)
Unfortunately vintage Nazi stuff is way too expensive for my budget.
Posted by: Joe at August 06, 2009 11:42 AM (0Gde6)
Posted by: Mick Kraut at August 06, 2009 11:51 AM (dqvRJ)
http://www.chancechambers.com/BushSwastika.jpg
Posted by: Bri at August 06, 2009 12:18 PM (ykOvo)
JC
Posted by: joe cassidy at August 06, 2009 12:52 PM (nQHpj)
Posted by: Honda at August 06, 2009 01:18 PM (ladck)
You've never been to SF have you?
I think we need to send Chuck Norris to these townhalls.
I'm quite certain that nobody is going to interfere with his 1st Amendment rights?
Posted by: Honda at August 06, 2009 01:21 PM (ladck)
If we continue in the same direction, we'll all be wearing swastikas and jackboots.
Except for the czars and ACORN. I fully expect them to be wearing SS black.
Posted by: Joseph Brown at August 06, 2009 01:24 PM (lTx3h)
Posted by: scalefree at August 06, 2009 01:36 PM (gmiQZ)
Somehow I don't see that as the defining ideology of a grassroots effort opposing the government takeover of healthcare.
And, how is anybody to know if this one sign carrier wasn't a plant?
The solution at this point is pretty clear: Re-elect nobody in 2010, send a message to an out of control congress.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at August 06, 2009 02:39 PM (Fnr44)
If the left wants to make hay out of that then fine, go right ahead. The right has a long way to go in catching up to the hatred and fascistic behavior exhibited by the left from 11/2000 to 1/20/2009. Until the right begins to cast a shadow on the sheer volume of bile churned up by the left I think it would be best for the left to shut up and take their medicine since as you have been telling us for a long time, "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - unless of course you didnt ever truly believe that...hmmmm.
Of course the better course would be for the left to admit and realize that these protests are real and genuine and simply listen to what the protesters are saying. It may make for a better solution for everyone, assuming that is what Obama is after...
Posted by: Mick Kraut at August 06, 2009 02:51 PM (dqvRJ)
Posted by: scalefree at August 06, 2009 02:57 PM (gmiQZ)
You have no idea what the definition of Fascism is. You should stop using that word until you've done some studying to understand what it actually means.
Posted by: scalefree at August 06, 2009 03:02 PM (gmiQZ)
Oh, I do know and understand, I have actually done some studying too...
"Fascism is a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement. In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism. This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labor."
Whoa that sure sounds like Obama and his flock in many respects doesnt it?
Take some time and read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg.
"using inflammatory symbols like Nazi SS's and hanged effigies of your opponents isn't part of legitimate dialogue."
You mean unless directed at Bush right? Because I dont seem to recall any voices of outrage or disapproval from the left at the numerous pictures, effigies and assassination fantasies ginned up regarding Bush. That was rational behavior? That was legitimate dialogue?
Again, you have a long wait before anything coming from the right comes close to the crap you people dished out for 8 YEARS. Dont sit and try to preach some type of civility argument now, you willing let that genie out of the bottle.
Posted by: Mick Kraut at August 06, 2009 03:42 PM (dqvRJ)
What you see here is an example of what happens when ANY entity is run by committee. We've known that as a society for a long time.
Our governance model is a “herding cats” governance model, where we let people and the entities they form have the freedom to do most of what they consider to be in their best interests, and we hope that it will also be in society's best interests.
Sometimes that works for us, and other times it doesn't. It will never yield consistency in approach, effort, and results. For us to think so is delusional in nature.
We (as a nation) lack the ability to rally around anything, unless it is perceived as An imminent threat to virtually all of us, and that's not going to happen often. And so we become self-absorbed in thinking about our own personal, close to home minutiae.
There are some positive and negative ramifications associated with ANY alternate approach we might pursue, and the yelling and screaming will always loud and raucous.
As George Will often says, there is the "inertia" which is Washington. There is also the "inertia" which is the U.S. and its constituent parts.
Although this approach has served us well for most of the last 110 years, from a theoretical perspective, one has to wonder how long we can govern ourselves using the "herding cats” governance model, in light of our increase in size and complexity of our citizens.
If the US were run like a business, then every single day, its management team would assess whether its goals are being attained, bust their butts to achieve those goals, ensure that it was getting the maximum value and productivity out of those working for it, and make on the dime changes to most effectively and efficiently reach those goals. In other words, be nimble.
This country is not nimble, and can not be.
I’m not advocating a particular change, either left or right; just the recognition that EVERY governance model has its limitations, and this one is no different. However, for us to think that we can continue to use it and not have negative periods and poor, inappropriate responses to problems, is not reasonable. A country needs to know its limitations.
Posted by: Reggie Greene / The Logistician at August 06, 2009 04:04 PM (mlcYN)
You're moving the goalposts. Either you're being dishonest with me or you're a sloppy thinker. You said Fascism is something the Left did during the Bush years, not that it's something Obama's done over the last 6 months. Whichever it is, sloppy or dishonest, I won't go chasing after your ever-shifting positions. You need to go back & rewrite your comment so it supports the claim you originally made.
Posted by: scalefree at August 06, 2009 05:06 PM (gmiQZ)
http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/9101/cornyn-sessions-republicans-stoke-fear-anger-on-health-care
Wrong again as always.
Posted by: salvage at August 07, 2009 08:30 AM (DEOQe)
Good grief... how desperate are you to defend Pelosi's obvious hyperbole?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 07, 2009 09:11 AM (gAi9Z)
Let me say that again. You called your opponents Nazis. You lose.
Posted by: scalefree at August 07, 2009 12:34 PM (gmiQZ)
My Congressman is Scared of His Constituents
According to TPMDC, my congressman, Brad Miller, won't be meeting with his constituents in any large-scale meetings over the August break because he has received threatening phone calls over his support for a dangerously flawed Obamacare bill. His office says that another reason he won't be having a townhall is because of the "fake grass roots" that have dominated other events around the country.
I don't get involved in protests or meetings, but I do live here, and I do keep my eyes open. There is nothing at all fake about the widespread and growing bipartisan opposition in this area to this healthcare bill, even if Miller's office and other Democrats would like pretend are the handiwork that the same Republican operatives that botched the 2008 elections so badly. Uh, no. Brad will presumably spend August quaking in his loafers behind locked doors, counting down the days until he can flee back to D.C., away from his angry constituents.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:09 AM | Comments (55) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Subotai Bahadur
Posted by: Subotai Bahadur at August 06, 2009 01:42 AM (M6ho2)
Posted by: scalefree at August 06, 2009 02:44 AM (gmiQZ)
Face your constituents. Demonstrate that you've read the applicable bill, and then stand up for it. And be prepared to respond to the obvious and overwhelming criticisms.
Posted by: BuckeyeSam at August 06, 2009 06:44 AM (gxlpn)
Posted by: ckdexterhaven at August 06, 2009 07:03 AM (0LUuq)
Posted by: Dan at August 06, 2009 07:33 AM (KNY8p)
That's OK - we'll all remember that next year.
Posted by: neomom at August 06, 2009 07:55 AM (PiO8s)
Death threats are taken very seriously by law enforcement, especially more than one. In this age of caller ID, cell phones, etc., proof of death threats would be very easy to provide, yet where is the proof? So, crawl back under your bridge. This congressman is just like the others - claiming fake grassroots so they don't have to face the music. Here's a novel idea - let's assume his false premise and say every single person attending a town hall was brought there by an insurance company, *but* they all live in his district. It's still a representation of constituents, right? Regardless of how or why they are there, they are represented by him and deserve an audience.
Posted by: Ted at August 06, 2009 08:04 AM (jtNG+)
Posted by: Dennis D at August 06, 2009 08:34 AM (EbvWp)
Posted by: scalefree at August 06, 2009 09:05 AM (gmiQZ)
Posted by: Eagle1 at August 06, 2009 09:28 AM (GAe67)
When they say these LIES I would also hope that the people of his district make him prove it!
Posted by: Jaded at August 06, 2009 09:38 AM (1I7uq)
Posted by: scalefree at August 06, 2009 09:59 AM (gmiQZ)
Posted by: ckdexterhaven at August 06, 2009 10:11 AM (0LUuq)
Posted by: Larry in Franklinton at August 06, 2009 11:20 AM (v9zij)
Democrats AND Republicans need to promote this concept, both the representatives and the citizens.
Leaders who are sponsoring health care reform need to be informed enough to answer questions thoroughly and honestly. Citizens who attend public meetings need to be educated and informed in order to ask the right questions. These meetings should not be a propaganda machine for either side of the issue.
Sadly, this isn't likely to happen. There is too much secrecy involved in the details of the reform proposals. It also doesn't help that two thirds of the population is so ignorant of our system of government that they can't name the 3 branches of the Federal Government.
Shouting doesn't mean that people are informed. It just means that they're mad. Frequently, they don't even know "what" they're mad about.
Posted by: Dude at August 06, 2009 01:12 PM (byA+E)
The people are informed; it's the Congressweasels who are not. And they don't care to be, ala Conyers, who believes the bills are so long and complex that days and teams of lawyers would be needed to read what they supposedly "write".
If you've watched any of the videos that have already gone viral, you'd know the people shouting down the lies and the propaganda know exactly what's going on - and they're sick of having the Looters piss on their shoes and tell 'em it's raining.
None of this is about "healthcare"; it's about a link in the chain of controlling people.
Wise up.
Posted by: Cindi at August 06, 2009 01:42 PM (/8Bs3)
...
Capitol Police have the number, I expect we'll hear about an arrest in due time.
Posted by: scalefree at August 6, 2009 09:05 AM
That's not what I would call proof, moron. How about I tell you that I received a call from Steven Spielberg asking me to be in the movie E.T. - is that enough proof for you? I guarantee you nothing comes from this supposed claim of a death threat.
Posted by: Ted at August 06, 2009 01:47 PM (jtNG+)
Brad Miller (D) 214,829 66%
Vernon Robinson (R) 109,247 34%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25362802/
During that election Congressman Miller raised $948,618 for his election campaign while his opponent raise a mere $40,847.
During the 2006 election Miller raised $1,771,007 and spent $1,754,817 while his opponent, Vernon Robinson, raised $2,049,621 and spent $2,207,519. Nevertheless, Congressman Miller was re-elected in 2006 by and overwhelming majority:
Miller: 98,540 63.71%
Robinson 56,120 36.29%
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/elections.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00025093&type=I
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G06/NC.phtml
I doubt that Congressman Miller is "quaking in his loafers". My guess is that he's enjoying his vacation and is probably not interested in engaging in shouting matches with an angry mob of uninformed citizens who don't understand the concept of civil discourse.
But, I could be wrong.
Posted by: Dude at August 06, 2009 02:12 PM (byA+E)
The citizens have a responsibility, too. Your reply to my post is a perfect example of the ignorance on the part of citizens to which I refer.
Thank you very much, but, I'm not in the least bit interested in watching viral propaganda videos showing angry people engaging in shouting and screaming. I've seen a few, enough to know that they're disgusting.
Posted by: Dude at August 06, 2009 02:27 PM (byA+E)
On WPTF (the local Raleigh station) at the top of the hour break (2pm), his spokeswoman characterized us as "against health care reform." I'm against the socialization of my country. He's already mortgaged my children's future, he should have to look into their innocent faces.
Posted by: ckdexterhaven at August 06, 2009 02:28 PM (0LUuq)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Listen, Dood; I read your post and I comprehend just fine.
The viral videos you've so fastidiously avoided, and mischaracterized as propaganda, feature citizen speakers who are in control of the facts, and themselves; it's not abuse they're shouting, it's the truth.
But keep your statist head in the sand...or wherever else you keep it.
We, The People, Are Coming.
Posted by: Cindi at August 06, 2009 03:07 PM (/8Bs3)
Sorry for the multiple posts.
Posted by: ckdexterhaven at August 06, 2009 03:31 PM (0LUuq)
Bingo. You got it. "A Republic, if you can keep it." We couldn't.
Oh, 233 years is a pretty good run.
But now it's time for Hope.
And Change.
I don't know who the "rightful owners" of this once-great Nation are -- but they sure as hell aren't the voters.
Posted by: Jim at August 06, 2009 04:38 PM (qMzg5)
Truth? In the viral videos? Perhaps a grain of truth can be gleaned, here and there, from a few of them. Here's your ticket on the clue bus, lady; shouting a thing doesn't make it TRUTH.
I have no doubt that many of the "citizen speakers" of which you speak are in control of the facts. And, like many politicians and paid pundits, they will often manipulate the facts to suit their agenda.
Truth? You don't want to know the Truth.
Jim, What makes you think that the Republic is finished? Of course, it's changing. It's been changing since day one. Change is the one constant that you can be sure will always be with us, or any other culture for that matter.
This once Great Nation is still a Great Nation. The voters spoke in 2008. They will speak again in 2010 and in 2012. It'll be interesting to see how they speak.
Posted by: Dude at August 06, 2009 06:26 PM (byA+E)
You're getting a taste of your own medicine, liberally dosed with a real-time understanding of the POS bill takeover of medicine in this country and suddenly shouting is what gets your shorts in a wad?
You are not The People; you're the Looters.
Dood, you and yours? You're done.
And now, I'm done with you and your whining.
Posted by: Cindi at August 06, 2009 06:39 PM (/8Bs3)
I've never expected civilized political discourse from the fringes of the far right or the far left.
No lies or mischaracterizations are necessary to demonize the far right. That's self evident.
What you refer to as whining is in fact observation.
I shall miss you terribly.
Posted by: Dude at August 06, 2009 07:37 PM (byA+E)
Posted by: scalefree at August 06, 2009 07:56 PM (gmiQZ)
Posted by: Marc at August 06, 2009 09:09 PM (Zoziv)
As the building filled to capacity, angry protesters stuck outside began to scream, yell, and chant. At one point, those trying to get inside began banging on windows as Tampa Police officers quickly spread out guarding all entrances.
Posted by: scalefree at August 06, 2009 09:12 PM (gmiQZ)
O.B.A.M.A.= One Bad Ass Mistake America !
Posted by: unclefuzzy at August 06, 2009 09:12 PM (kAUEj)
Posted by: Dude at August 07, 2009 12:39 AM (byA+E)
Who's to say the violent protesters weren't liberal plants either?
In 2002, I went to a speech George Bush had for a local congressman running for re-election. I brought my then 8 y/o son. The liberal "anti war crowd- not peaceniks", were so violent it was frightening.
Posted by: ckdexterhaven at August 07, 2009 06:06 AM (0LUuq)
It's always Liberal Plants that are responsible for everything that goes wrong in your world, isn't it? Hundreds of Liberal Plants were shipped in to bang on the doors & windows, chant & scream nonsense & make the poor, honest, polite Conservative citizens look bad.
Posted by: scalefree at August 07, 2009 12:45 PM (gmiQZ)
It's always Liberal Plants that are responsible for everything that goes wrong in your world, isn't it? Hundreds of Liberal Plants were shipped in to bang on the doors & windows, chant & scream nonsense & make the poor, honest, polite Conservative citizens look bad.
Barack Obama is your President. Grow up & accept it.
Posted by: scalefree at August 07, 2009 12:46 PM (gmiQZ)
Posted by: scalefree at August 07, 2009 02:26 PM (gmiQZ)
Posted by: scalefree at August 07, 2009 02:57 PM (gmiQZ)
At the Brad Miller protest, the pro-Healthcare crowd could only get 10 people to show up. 10 vs 685.
Posted by: Logan at August 08, 2009 10:57 AM (xW2sg)
August 05, 2009
How You, Too, Can Meet a Member of the Secret Service
As John Hawkins notes over at Right Wing News, the Obama Joker poster meme is spreading like wildfire, and variations are being posted across the country, with people hoping to cash in with tee shirts, bumper stickers, and even ties.
Knowing the universal desire to turn a quick buck, I imagine that it won't be too long before someone comes up with the idea to PhotoShop President Obama as other movie villains. Just be care which villain you decide to use. While Two-Face is a logic choice (and an extension of the Batman-related theme), other selections might just earn you a visit from people who don't smile much.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:04 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Jeff at August 05, 2009 11:48 AM (zGCLY)
For the record, that is Colin Farrell as the assassin Bullseye from the movie version of Daredevil.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 05, 2009 12:41 PM (gAi9Z)
The Joker had at least 2 different stories about how he was cut up. Obama has a few of his own made up stories about his life. His first job out of Columbia for example. He's always talking about deciding not to go work on Wall Street but choose to head to Chicago and become a "Community Organizer". The truth is he did go work for a second rate Wall Street business for over a year. Even when he admits to the job in one of his books he sexed it up to look like some sort of wheeler dealer consulting job with a private office and meetings with japanese financiers. The truth was he edited a portion of a newsletter in a cubicle.
Posted by: Jeff Carlson at August 05, 2009 01:32 PM (hYYqD)
I think this one is safe: only a handful of unfortunates have seen this movie so it'd be a waste of time for anyone to go there.
Posted by: ECM at August 05, 2009 02:03 PM (q3V+C)
Nah. He was...ya know, smart.
BTW, If y'all haven't seen this, it's hilarious.
Apologies if somebody linked to it earlier.
Posted by: Lamontyoubigdummy at August 05, 2009 03:00 PM (xK9k/)
Posted by: Russ at August 05, 2009 03:02 PM (8VePI)
Posted by: Dude at August 05, 2009 05:05 PM (byA+E)
Ha! An actor I don't like in a movie I had no desire to see. Did not Daredevil have that other lack of talent, Ben Affleck, in the lead?
Posted by: zhombre at August 05, 2009 07:26 PM (1JF+C)
Posted by: Wallace at August 06, 2009 12:23 AM (k4+U/)
Posted by: scalefree at August 06, 2009 01:50 AM (gmiQZ)
Hmmmmmmm...Is there a movie out there where the villain WON?!?!?
Can't be Darth Vader because Cheney took that title comfortably.
A movie where the villain WON...AND...AND...a majority of the population were happy about it!
Good luck with that.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 06, 2009 05:54 AM (bhNGz)
Shock: Pennsylvania Gym Shooter A Sexually Frustrated Loser
Last night a 48-year-old man walked into a class full of women at a gym, cut off the light, and started shooting. When it was over, at least three women were dead and up to 15 were injured. The shooter, George Sodini, killed himself after his rampage.
ABC News has excerpts from his web site, http://georgesodini.com (now offline), where he reveals that he had not had sex in nearly 20 years, was a racist, had issues with his family members, and had a very warped understanding of religion. I'll try not to politicize this too much. It's a senseless, vindictive act of a person suicidally unhappy with his own life and who selfishly wanted to hurt as many other people as possible before he ended it. George Sodini committed this horrific crime with the hope of going to Heaven when it was over. I strongly suspect he's not happy with where he most likely ended up.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:15 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Billiam at August 05, 2009 10:43 AM (CVHGZ)
My prayers are with the victim's families and the survivors. It's unfortunate that there was no law-abiding armed citizen on hand to put a quick stop to Sodini's rampage.
Posted by: Just Sayin' at August 05, 2009 02:03 PM (o2bVb)
Except, perhaps, the women he dated, whose internal radars apparently led them to decide again becoming involved with the man.
Posted by: MrSpkr at August 05, 2009 07:14 PM (bkUsA)
August 04, 2009
Unhinged, or a Terror Suspect
A 53-year-old Quogue, NY woman has been charged with third degree trespassing—not exactly national news.
That she was arrested while snapping pictures at the perimeter of an Air National base and was found armed with a shotgun, semi-automatic Bushmaster XM15 (and M4-style carbine) and over 500 rounds of ammunition is something that should be getting this story quite a bit more attention that it has so far. The end of the story seems to hint that authorities think she might have psychiatric problems, but that doesn't mean she was any less of a potential threat.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:00 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Orly Taitz Has Lost Her Mind... and Her Remaining Credibility
Anyone as obsessed as anti-Obama lawyer Orly Taitz is tough to view as anything as a hardcore partisan, even thought the softest lens.
Now Taitz, who foisted upon us the most recent faked Obama birth certificate, is trying to play the victim:As noted by Salon, nobody debated when Kenya became independent; what we disputed—and disputed here—was the absolute fact that the nation was the Dominion of Kenya when the document claims to have been was produced, and the document claims it was the Republic of Kenya, which it did not become until ten months later. As for Bomford... see what the man has to say for himself. Hardly created to debunk Taitz, the middle-aged Australian who's birth certificate was copied to create the forgery is quite amused by the attention. There are 27 million Americans on anti-depressants. And at least one of those needs her dosage adjusted.
1. Kenya became an independant country in 1963, not 1964. The seal of Kenya was correct. 2. More then one person had certified copies of this document. 3. the document was not issued at birth, but rather was a certified copy obatained [sic] in1964, when Kenya became independent 4. The documents from that time would not show Zanzibar, but rather Kenya 5. Bomford report was created to try to discredit my efforts 6.lastly, I am not supposed to waste my time and money on this issue, Obama us the one who is supposed to provide evidence of legitimacy 7. Kenyan BC provides more info than the piece of garbage Obama posted on the n et [sic], which doesn't have the name of the hospital, name of the doctor or signatures. 8. Chioumi Fukino and Obama and all their Nazi Brown Shirts in the main stream media need to give it a rest and provide an original hospital BC and the corresponding big thick hospital Birthing file from the Kapiolani hospital. If they don't have such a file, all of them need to resign immediately or they will be prosecuted for massive fraud and treason to this Nation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:10 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
The mirror image of, say, Cynthia McKinney, who has deserted the Democrats and gone rogue.
In that mindspace, the goal is the Truth, which is some Big Secret, and the enemies are everywhere, not on one side or the other.
Posted by: Rich Rostrom at August 04, 2009 07:48 PM (WQAV6)
Obama has gone to great lengths to sequester most of his past records. That, in addition to falsehoods in his books indicate Obama is a phony, a manufactured person. The mainstream media has gone out of its way to obscure and lay a blanket over Obama’s past. Yet, we know even the most intimate details of Sarah Palin. Does anyone else see anything odd here?
Obama is a manufactured president. Manufactured by the left, sold to the press and adopted by the Democrat party. Obama has lied about who he was and continues to lie about who he is. He states blatant lies about his legislation. One only has to listen to what he says about the current Health Care Bill to realize that.
More and more American people are seeing they have been sold a bill of false goods. There are many things people should know about who this Hope ‘n Change figurine is besides, with certainty, where he was born. Had the Media been doing its job, we would have had an actual informed and open election in 2008.
Posted by: zeezil at August 04, 2009 08:01 PM (VRY/o)
Can you please show me one piece of government paper with the designation "Dominion of Kenya" even on it? The movement for a republic of Kenya started in 1957.
Do you honestly believe that Obama has not been acting very strange by not allowing all of the personal documents, from his long form live birth certificate to his kindergarten and college registration paperwork, to be reviewed by the press & the public?
...you are really playing the liberal shill in all of this.
...what this woman has done has not hurt the conservative cause one iota.
The liberals & the Oba-messiah are free-falling right now.
This woman's well-meaning attack simply is one attack in many against this fraudulent and communistic "presidency."
...even Huffington Post op-ed posters are saying "what is there to hide" and for this supposed "administration" to please post ALL the FACTUAL intel the Oba-messiah has.
...so why play the heavy against birthers?
The birthers are 1000x more sincere than any truthers, who even doubted when Bin Laden himself said he carried out the 9/11 attacks.
It is really sad that you do not question what the Oba-messiah is hiding, especially when the Oba-messiah does not release the same kind of info that McCain was pressured & required to release when HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT.
WHERE WERE YOU IN THAT BATTLE?
Please, I hope conservatives are not offended. I will support the Confederate Yankee and all those who are against this lawyer & the birthers. WE ARE UNITED IN OUR OPPOSITION AGAINST THE Oba-messiah.
I do not see this as a need to wipe out other conservatives who disagree with ME. Which is A SIMILAR the tactic of the communists & liberals, in order to gain THEIR UNITED objective, of electing & protecting the Oba-messiah. The "night of the long-knives" does not need to EVER happen. Use Reagan as an example.
I am taking you to task, Confederate Yankee, just like you are questioning not just the integrity but sanity of this conservative lawyer. I hate & despise it when any conservative & independent implies or actually states she or the birthers are crazy.
From the liberal side of the fence, YOU, and all of the other conservative & independent pundits & bloggers, WILL ALWAYS LOOK CRAZY.
If you would simply point your fire AGAINST THOSE WHO THINK ALL CONSERVATIVES & OTHERS WHO DISAGREE WITH THE OBA-MESSIAH, ARE RADICAL, and if you would stop playing the heavy, MAYBE you would report on why this fraudulent "administration" refuses to release any detailed & complete citizenship data, educational and health information, which McCain released in totum.
cheers & good luck with your witch hunt.
I am sure the "other side" is cheering for you.
Posted by: lu-ee at August 04, 2009 08:23 PM (4BPHJ)
OK.
...now for the libs to jump in, MOUTHS FIRST, such as dude, lipswitch & that supposed expatkenyan liberal commie, in order to protect to th Oba-messiah & his defenders' "integrity." (sic)
....10, 9, 8, 7...6..5.....4.....3, 2...1... incoming....DUCK DUCK GOOSE....
Posted by: lu-ee at August 04, 2009 08:32 PM (4BPHJ)
As for Confederate Yankee, more often than not he and I disagree on most political topics. Nevertheless, we sometimes find common ground. But, when we don't have the same opinion, we don't resort to shouting matches and name calling.
His "conservative" credentials are well established. On the issue of the birthers, he, too, has called for Obama to release the original so called long form BC. In fact, he does so on this very page in a separate thread.
You are mistaken when you say that "...what this woman has done has not hurt the conservative cause one iota."
Now, it may be true that she speaks for you. Believe it or not, she doesn't speak for many "conservatives". I know this to be a fact. Many of my friends and most of my family members are "conservative" republicans.
CY and other "conservatives" who have a grasp of the issues aren't rejecting or attacking "conservatism" when they reject the many fallacies of the so called "birthers", such as the recent document in question. No, he and they are actually trying to help the cause of "conservatism".
Sorry to break the bad news to you pal, but it's you and other people who post the type of rubbish that you attempt to pass off as political discourse in regards to the BC issue who are actually doing harm to "the cause".
Your Liberal Friend,
Dude
Posted by: Dude at August 04, 2009 10:34 PM (byA+E)
Posted by: Sterling at August 04, 2009 10:42 PM (+86uO)
Posted by: birther at August 05, 2009 12:08 AM (T9lTG)
Posted by: John Ruberry at August 05, 2009 12:26 AM (l69UF)
May want to get a clue Lu-ee:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122003/Political-Party-Affiliation-States-Blue-Red-Far.aspx
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 05, 2009 12:35 AM (bhNGz)
I am sure the "other side" is cheering for you.
Posted by lu-ee at August 4, 2009 08:23 PM
lu-ee
I think that the other side is cheering for you. In fact, I wouldn't put it past some political operatives to have created that forgery on their own just to have an opportunity to prominently feature right-wing conspiracy believers such as yourself and Orly.
There are more than enough reasons to dislike Obama's policies without having to resort to claims he was born in Kenya. There are more than enough reasons to suspect Obama's truthfulness regarding his past without having to suppose a vast conspiracy back in the 1960's to hide his true country of birth.
We need to focus on Obama's dishonesty regarding taxes, the war, health care, transparency, corruption, etc., etc. I would much rather see people go after Obama on the Walpin firing than waste time on Birther nonsense.
And you know what? Just suppose Obama was born in Kenya, but a vast array of people have conspired to hide that fact from us. Just how do you think Obama will be forced out of office? Do you really think he will just leave on his own? Do you really think that a Congress full of Democrats would even consider for a picosecond impeaching Obama?
So please give up on condemning our own. Go ahead with enough of the Birther accusations to force the long form out of him. As CY has already pointed out, there probably is something on the long form that tarnishes the image of The Won (maybe he had 6 toes?). But stop with the purity tests and focus your efforts on the real enemy. Not CY
Posted by: iconoclast at August 05, 2009 12:58 AM (O8ebz)
What CY could do is point out her errors on the one hand, but on the other he could point out that the Salon piece he's linking to contains an outrageous lie. The details on that lie are at my name's link.
Why isn't this site pointing out that Salon outrageously lied? Why isn't this site trying to force Salon to print a correction?
Posted by: The details at August 05, 2009 02:40 PM (OLX6B)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 05, 2009 05:41 PM (OX5qU)
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at August 05, 2009 08:49 PM (1Hyas)
The left has its fair share of idiots too but there is a far wider tolerance of dissent and acceptance that no two people think exactly alike on all issues.
Whoever faked the birth certificate (supposedly a "liberal"), it was a stupid move since the last thing we need right now is more incitement.
iconoclast is correct - the righteous fanatics (such as lu-ee, birthers and others) are being cheered by "the other side" because it is driving independents and moderate conservatives away from the right.
Posted by: kenyanexpat at August 07, 2009 07:01 PM (osDyR)
FISA Evidence Key Against North Carolina Jihadis
WRAL reports that the Willow Springs, NC men seven men arrested on terrorism charges have a court date this morning. The most interesting part of the story—which mainly recycles previously known information and expected security precautions—is what the key evidence against the men seems to be.
Nothing like burying the lede:It would be very interesting to know if the FISA evidence to be used in trial was done through the old/new FISA procedure, or through the streamlined program started by the Bush Administration that got lefties in such a huff. As Boyd has possibly been under surveillance for years, it is quite possible that both could have been used. Will Eric Holder's Justice Department prosecute using ideologically "bad" evidence? You bet they will.
The charges against Daniel Boyd, the alleged ringleader of the operation, and the other suspects refer to buying guns and training in military tactics – acts that by themselves aren't criminal – as well as raising money and traveling abroad. Kieran Shanahan, a Raleigh lawyer and former federal prosecutor,said electronic surveillance will play a key role in the case. The U.S. Attorney's Office already has filed notices that it plans to use evidence gathered through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act against each defendant. FISA sets out how intelligence on foreign agents in the U.S., including suspected terrorists, can be gathered.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:39 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Rick at August 04, 2009 11:48 PM (zY4/j)
Posted by: Federale at August 05, 2009 10:39 AM (UQeEa)
The Obligatory "Obama As Joker" Reaction

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Joe at August 04, 2009 12:16 AM (0Gde6)
Posted by: Joe at August 04, 2009 12:19 AM (0Gde6)
From Alinsky:
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
Posted by: iconoclast at August 04, 2009 02:43 AM (BK/bU)
http://tiny.cc/vRXHj
Posted by: robogal at August 04, 2009 03:02 AM (fZIe3)
Posted by: MikeM at August 04, 2009 08:07 AM (30CMs)
Get over it. You won, and part of winning is having the opposition point out your faults, errors, and outright stupidity.
Welcome to the world libtards.
Posted by: CWO4 at August 04, 2009 08:21 AM (NwXdJ)
Well, yes, truthfulness does go beyond spoofery.
Posted by: pst314 at August 04, 2009 08:55 AM (OA547)
Posted by: Snicker at August 04, 2009 09:20 AM (kfmYS)
Posted by: lu-ee at August 04, 2009 10:21 AM (oogdQ)
Posted by: Scott at August 04, 2009 10:34 AM (mqy6N)
From a HotAir Joker thread:
The poster fits perfectly … from the Dark Knight:
“Do I really look like a man with a plan, Harvey? I don’t have a plan. The mob has plans, the cops have plans. you know what I am, Harvey? I’m a dog chasing cars. I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I caught one. I just DO things. I’m a wrench in the gears. I HATE plans. Yours, theirs, everyone’s. Maroni has plans, Gordon has plans. Schemers trying to control their worlds. I am not a schemer. I show schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are. So when I say that what happened to you and your girlfriend wasn’t personal, you know I’M telling the truth”*Gives Dent Gun*”It’s a schemer who put you where you are. You were a schemer. You had plans. Look where it got you. I just did what I do best-I took your plan and turned it on itself. Look what I have done to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple bullets. Nobody panics when the expected people got killed. Nobody panics when things go according to plan, even if the plans are horrifying. If I tell the press that tomorrow a gangbanger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will get blown up, nobody panics. But when I say one little old mayor will die, everyone loses their minds!! Introduce a little anarchy, you upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I AM AN AGENT OF CHAOS. And you know the thing about chaos, Harvey. It’s fair.”
IrishSamurai on August 3, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Note the last two words of dialogue!
Again from the previous Joker thread:
…Anyway, if you want to understand it - Read this article: Chaos theory and Batman: Part III, in Psychology Today From last year.
From the article:
“The Joker’s chaos does not seem to be chaos, as in “Chaos Theory,” or “Deterministic Chaos.” He is related, perhaps, but the Joker is something bigger. He is more like what some refer to as a “Blue Sky Catastrophe,” (see Guastello’s 2002 book for more on this topic) which is a force that hits an attractor at a vulnerable spot and obliterates it. The Joker is the power of demolition, rather than deterministic chaos. Joker says in the film that he needs The Batman. This is because the Joker’s purpose, paradoxically, is to destroy purpose, to turn all of us from complex yet integrated heroes into empty vessels ruled by chance, like Two Face.”
Does that help?
batterup on August 3, 2009 at 7:49 PM
The poster works at the gut level. "Why so socialist?" is a take on "Why so serious?". If you haven't seen and connected with "The Dark Knight" and understand its relationship to George Bush, you're late to the party. Rather than trying to analyze and intellectualize, understand this: Results trump words. Just as Orwell pointed out that the pacifists of his day were objectively fascist, so Obama is objectively a force of destructive chaos.
Posted by: Jack Okie at August 04, 2009 12:47 PM (a+Q5X)
BTW, I think I've got it now: the opposite of "Marxist" is "racist".
Posted by: Jim at August 04, 2009 07:25 PM (K5Tle)
Posted by: Georg Felis at August 04, 2009 11:17 PM (i5bRG)
Posted by: Jeff at August 05, 2009 07:17 PM (gFn1G)
Me thinks the current joker's backers have a thin skin.
Posted by: Bob at August 08, 2009 05:32 PM (99UUc)
And I agree, there IS no connection between socialism and The Joker, but there need not be for the poster to make a point. Characaturing O. as Stalin or Mao might have been more ACCURATE, but The Joker is a more current and therefore possibly more recognizable image.
It seems to have achieved its goal and has become a part of our culture to boot.
Posted by: DoorHold at August 09, 2009 12:51 PM (8G+lr)
August 02, 2009
Another (Faked) Obama Birth Certificate Found
Free Republic is going absolutely bonkers over a document claiming to be an official copy of his Kenyan Birth Certificate, posted at World Net Daily.
It's a poor forgery. If you look at the document and scroll down to the bottom, you will see on the left side the reputed embossed official seal, and under it, "Office of the Principal Registrar, Coast Province, Republic of Kenya." Directly to the right of that seal is the issue date of the document, the "17th day of February, 1964." The was no Republic of Kenya in February of 1964. From December 12, 1963 to December 12, 1964, the Dominion of Kenya existed under Queen Elizabeth, with Governor General Malcolm MacDonald in charge. The Republic of Kenya did not exist when this document was supposed to be issued. Details, details... Update: Some in the comments are still attempting to argue that the certificate might be legitimate because the link's above to Wikipedia aren't good sources. That's fine with me. Here's what the Encyclopedia Britannica had to say about the creation of the post-colonial government of Kenya:Just as I said, the nation ceased to be a British colony on December 12, 1963. A year later, on December 12, 1964, it became the Republic of Kenya. Any document released in February of 1964, 10 months before the Kenyan government decided to call it a republic, is a fake. The Definitive Evidence: From the Parliament of Kenya's official web site:
A coalition government of the two parties was formed in 1962, and after elections in May 1963 Kenyatta became prime minister under a constitution that gave Kenya self-government. Following further discussions in London, Kenya became fully independent on Dec. 12, 1963. A year later, when Kenya became a republic (with Kenyatta as its first president and Oginga Odinga as vice president), most KADU members had transferred their allegiance to KANU, and KADU ceased to exist.
Again, establishes beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Dominion of Kenya was established in 1963... unless you think they Keyan government doesn't know their own history.
Uhuru Day
The interim period of Internal Self-government, did not witness any major constitutional changes. The constitutional provisions finalized in February, 1963 remained virtually the same.At midnight on December 11, 1963 , Kenya regained Independence from the United Kingdom. Kenya remained a dominion within the British Commonwealth , with a Governor-General representing Her Majesty locally and a Government headed by a Prime Minister.
And there is more, again from the official web site of the Kenyan Parliament:
Read that last line one more time. The document is a fake, kids. Give. It. Up. Stick-A-fork-In_It Update: Via the Washington Independent, strong evidence that the original "Kenyan" birth certificate forgery is based upon an Australian BC of David Jeffrey Bomford.
The composition to the Legislature and the framework of the Government at Independence remained in place until the first anniversary. Arising from close negotiations between the Government and the Opposition, a merger of all the parties represented in the House, under the Kenya African National Union - K.A.N.U. and under the leadership of Mzee Jomo Kenyatta was concluded and took effect on December 12, 1964 with the voluntary dissolution of the Kenya African Democratic Union - K.A.D.U. and the African Peoples Party - A.P.P. This merger meant an unanticipated de facto one party status. On December 12, 1964 , Kenya declared herself a Sovereign Republic within the Commonwealth.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:07 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
The lack of provenance of the document, and the way it is turning up just now is more suspicious.
Posted by: John at August 02, 2009 08:33 PM (AhqW9)
I'm still not going to get my questions answered!
What to do about the fact that the State of Hawaii has certified that he was born there?
What to do about the fact that the Congress has certified that he is qualified to serve and was elected?
He was installed as President of the United States. What do we do about the fact that the Constitution provides only one way to get rid of a sitting President (impeachment and conviction) and the language on provides for two more which are serious crimes?
Guess I'll go back to searching for pictures of the Mr. And Mrs. Palin wherein they do NOT look like they are on their way to bed, or just recently departed same.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at August 02, 2009 08:38 PM (OmeRL)
Please name a single verified example of such prudence by goobermint officials.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at August 02, 2009 08:41 PM (OmeRL)
Posted by: Steve J. at August 02, 2009 08:46 PM (HrzT6)
Posted by: zeezi. at August 02, 2009 08:58 PM (VRY/o)
Posted by: Papa Swamp at August 02, 2009 09:04 PM (efHrL)
Mr. Obama, et al, have offered a simple and obvious Burden of Proof Fallacy in support of their claims and then followed it up with Appeals
to Ridicule, to Popularity, to Authority and to False Dilemma/False Choice. ("Believe me or
else you're a nutjob!") In view of the lack of presentation of an original document, there can only be one rational conclusion: An original document does not exist, or if it does actually exists, it contains information that disproves the assertions made by Mr. Obama, the claimant.
At the moment, there is more proof for the existence of UFO's, remote viewing and psychic phenomena than there is for an original document of Obama's birth certificate. 'I saw it! It really, really exists!" or "John Doe has a picture of a certifed copy stating that it exists, so it must be true!" is not an original document.
In view of the objective evidence, it is a very sane and rational question to ask.
Where is the - original - birth certificate?
Please note: You are now openly promoting
intolerance (hatred and possibly evenn violence) against approximately 40 million American adults of every race and religion who simply disagree with you.
s.
Warren "Bones" Bonesteel
Author and Researcher
Sgt USMC 1976-1983
55 Crestview Drive
Rapid City, SD 57701
(605) 348-2830
wrsteel@blackhawke.net
=====
refer:
Clearing the Smoke on Obama's Eligibility:
An Intelligence Investigator's June 10 Report
=====
Natural Born Citizen defined same way seven times:
Senators Introduce Resolution To Make Clear Senate's Position On Candidate's
Status. WASHINGTON (Thursday, April 10, 200
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at August 02, 2009 09:09 PM (jkj01)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya
Posted by: zeezil at August 02, 2009 09:10 PM (VRY/o)
What he/she is attesting to is the 1961 birth record.
Posted by: JohnFLob at August 02, 2009 09:32 PM (7R0dI)
There was an interesting email roomor (intentional misspelling for the filter) going around recently claiming that Obama was going to take away the Superbowl trophy from the team that won it this year and give it to the team that had lost the most games last season, in a sense of "fairness". this document was presented as if it came from ESPN, complete with their logo. Upon close examination, as in right at the top of the article, it was dated, if I remember correctly, March 32, 2009!
My friend who sent it to me(and called me on the phone even before I read the email) was really upset that Obama was going to do this dastardly deed. The person who had sent it to him was even more upset than my friend. Long story short, my friend called the corporate office of The Pittsburgh Steelers, the winning team, to verify that this rumor was, well, just that: a rumor. They assured him that it was.
He was then able to convince his friend, who had sent him the email to begin with, by pointing out the date on the article and telling him of his phone call to the Steelers office, that the whole mess was just another internet rumor. His friend, an active duty Miami police officer, was finally convinced that you can't believe everything that you read on the internet!
Posted by: Dude at August 02, 2009 09:33 PM (byA+E)
Posted by: Cymraeg at August 02, 2009 09:54 PM (wBAlq)
If they made this up, it'd be an easy fact to check. A basic fact to check. Therefore, if they did start issuing certs pre-December 1864, then either that person is going to HUGE HUGE lengths to pull of the forgery or it is valid.
Posted by: Timothy at August 02, 2009 09:58 PM (V1a3z)
The owner of this forum is most certainly NOT:
".....openly promoting intolerance (hatred and possibly even violence) against approximately 40 million American adults of every race and religion....."
If you were a regular visitor to this forum you would be aware that this topic has been discussed at length in several separate threads, with opinions offered and discussed at length, often very heatedly, by people on both sides of this issue.
While it is notable that you are able to label some of the different types of fallacies used in argumentation, it is disappointing that you then proceed to use several fallacies as you present your argument.
Your post is akin to the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: Dude at August 02, 2009 09:58 PM (byA+E)
Despite British hopes of handing power to "moderate" African rivals, it was the Kenya African National Union (KANU) of Jomo Kenyatta that formed a government shortly before Kenya became independent on 12 December 1963.
... After Kenya's independence on December 12, 1963 ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya
BBC:
After independence from Britain in 1963, politics was dominated by the charismatic Jomo Kenyatta.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1024563.stm
CONFEDERATE YANKEE APPEARS TO BE WRONG.
THE DOC MIGHT BE REAL!
Posted by: reliapundit at August 02, 2009 09:58 PM (jS/T2)
Posted by: Jaded at August 02, 2009 10:02 PM (1I7uq)
Posted by: Armitage at August 02, 2009 10:12 PM (tO7WO)
Posted by: George at August 02, 2009 10:14 PM (WA19M)
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Republic+of+Kenya
"The 1963 constitution, amended in 1964, 1969, 1982, and 1992, provides for..."
I am still skeptical of this new document, but I think I will reserve judgement for a bit...
Posted by: scp at August 02, 2009 10:24 PM (DFFkd)
He was born with dual nationality...that is a disqualifier.
I can not believe he got elected. But I can't believe San Fran Nan either. The country has been in deep trouble before and because of this, it is again.
Posted by: torabora at August 02, 2009 10:27 PM (XwPjS)
Note that our goal as Americans should be to uncover the truth about Pres. Obama's birthplace, whether it was Honolulu or Mombasa.
Posted by: El Dorko at August 02, 2009 10:37 PM (PS9th)
Posted by: Dude at August 02, 2009 10:37 PM (byA+E)
Posted by: Karen Schell at August 02, 2009 10:47 PM (JD1qx)
What happens to Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation as Supreme Court Justice if the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” Presidential eligibility requirement is subsequently determined applicable to Barack Obama on the basis of Article 2’s exclusion of dual citizenship birth (doesn’t matter whether Obama born in Hawaii since his dad was British citizen at the time)? It would seem prudent, if not dereliction of Constitutional duty in not so doing, for the United States Senate to defer voting on Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation at the very least until there is determination, now imminent, on standing in Kerchner v. Congress (USDC NJ) on that precise issue (Congressional failure to take up the raised and known constitutional ineligibility question prior to declaring a Presidential winner in the vote of the electoral college). For the full Senate now to proceed to vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor (an otherwise lifetime appointment) before then, would be a knowing and very substantial exacerbation of any inherent Constitutional crisis — compounding the previous Congressional dereliction. That is, the Executive Branch, as well as conceivably all actions of a Congress under a President determined ineligible, would leave the Supreme Court as an essential unfettered remaining Branch of the Federal Government, that is unfettered so long as Mr. Obama’s appointment to the Court is not yet confirmed by the Senate.
Will not one Senator, let alone Republican Senator, raise this issue on the Senate floor? The nation is watching.
Posted by: Jack at August 02, 2009 11:01 PM (5MSHI)
Posted by: Armitage at August 02, 2009 11:04 PM (tO7WO)
To my thinking the "certificate #" was the wink,wink tipoff.
The number: 47O44 - Obama's age 47, the capital "O" (not a 0 - zero) and he is President number 44.
Got to give credit to the maker of this pownage, though. Funny stuff.
Posted by: Karen Schell at August 02, 2009 11:22 PM (JD1qx)
"Government
Type: Republic.
Independence: December 12, 1963.
Constitution: 1963.
The first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council took place in 1957. Kenya became independent on December 12, 1963, and the next year joined the Commonwealth. Jomo Kenyatta, an ethnic Kikuyu and head of the Kenya African National Union (KANU), became Kenya's first President. The minority party, Kenya African Democratic Union (KADU), representing a coalition of small ethnic groups that had feared dominance by larger ones, dissolved itself in 1964 and joined KANU."
Indeed, if you check out this copy of the Constitution which has all of the revisions through 2008 noted along with the date of the particular revision, it seems to fly in the face of the wikipedia citation
But then we all know how steadfast and reliable Wikipedia is...
So it seems that there is a chance that the document is legitimate. I think that we should leave it to the courts to decide; I'm certain they'll call for verification by both comparison and through the cited record numbers on the document...
I think a wait and see outlook is in order. And, as I've said all along, If this gets Obama to finally releaze the long form Hawaiian BC along with his other buried academic and legislative records then the trouble will have been worth it...
Best Wishes
Posted by: Bob Reed at August 02, 2009 11:23 PM (cslgb)
Thus an official document dated prior to 12 December 1964 CANNOT be that of the Republic of Kenya.
Posted by: Armitage at August 02, 2009 11:28 PM (tO7WO)
"Article 2’s exclusion of dual citizenship birth"
I've just read Article II. I can't seem to find that clause to which you refer.
Furthermore, I can't seem to find anywhere in the Constitution or in any still standing SCOTUS ruling that a child born on American soil to non-citizen parents is disqualified from natural born citizen status, with a few exceptions, none of which would apply to President Obama's situation.
Posted by: Dude at August 02, 2009 11:33 PM (byA+E)
Posted by: free man at August 03, 2009 12:06 AM (JIo08)
Oops! Where'd that December 12, 1964 date come from CY? Looks like that was from Wikipedia, which, as we all know, is the authoritative reference these days.
Posted by: Ward at August 03, 2009 12:23 AM (aWX0k)
It has their amateurish fingerprints all over it.
Posted by: democratsarefascists at August 03, 2009 12:57 AM (SnAmS)
Obviously, somebody has gotten to her and forced her to keep quiet! Anyway, even if this document is not precisely, exactly 100% factual, that in no way impeaches the underlying narrative. Wasn't it Evan Thomas who set us all straight on the relation of facts to narrative? The latter trumps the former every time.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at August 03, 2009 01:08 AM (Vcyz0)
Thank you for being forthright about this "document." It doesn't really benefit any of us, on either side, to waste time on things like this, and I appreciate it when people go to some effort to spend their time on something that has some relevance.
I am definitely on the other side of the political fence from you, but I think there is a place in our political discourse for anyone who makes an effort to stick to reality.
Posted by: Green Eagle at August 03, 2009 02:54 AM (IwQs2)
Feb 17, 1964 ... copy of Obama birth registration is sent out
March 1964...divorce becomes final
it does not take too much intelligence to know that a US court of law would need proof of the birth father of the perported child for custody purposes, especially since Obama Sr was not present for the divorce and had not responded to the initial court requests.
It is all documented and the date of Feb 1964 fits perfectly into the timeline of Ann's court filings
Posted by: Linda at August 03, 2009 03:11 AM (JLtz4)
Posted by: Dude at August 2, 2009 10:37 PM"
"Article II, Section 1, Clause 5...No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...."
The clause was recommended by the subsequent first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, and approved by the Founding Fathers and Congress for the specific purpose of excluding anyone born with an allegiance to a foreign sovereign from serving as Commander-in-Chief of the United States. The intended purpose as expressed by John Jay and others was consistent with the requirement for citizen fathers and/or citizen parents as described in Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19 and centuries of various preceding French and other Continetal laws and customs at least as far back as the Roman Republic.
Contrary English-British common-law precedents did not apply in post-Revolutionary United States with respect to citizenship, as plainly evidenced by the individual states adopting citizenship statutes in substitution for the preceding and intensely reviled and rejected British common-law regardig citizenship.
The definition provided by Vattel was subsequently affirmed by a number of Federal court cases and Supreme Court decision/s, including Minor v. Happersett 1874.
Persons having foreign citizenship at birth or dual citizenship at birth cannot and do not qualify as the Constitutional "natural born citizen" lacking any "natural born" condition of foreign allegiance at birth.
Posted by: Mike Bravo at August 03, 2009 05:05 AM (/6sEp)
Posted by: Riddick at August 03, 2009 06:17 AM (qslFD)
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8BkTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rZYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6977,2513545&dq=kenya+republic
The document is a fake.
Posted by: Bilby at August 03, 2009 06:48 AM (lpsvZ)
"Kenya will become a republic Dec. 12, a year after obtaining independence from Great Britain, Prime Minister Jomo Kenyatta announced in parliament Friday."
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/477496382.html?dids=477496382:477496382&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Aug+15%2C+1964&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Kenya+Republic+Set+for+Dec.+12&pqatl=google
Posted by: Bilby at August 03, 2009 06:55 AM (lpsvZ)
WE NEED ONE OF OUR OWN KIND IN THE WHITE HOUSE!
Methinks that "Free Man" is actually a prisoner of his own racist mindset.
Obama is a human being and a natural-born citizen of the United States. He IS of "our own kind".
Posted by: jasperjava at August 03, 2009 07:01 AM (j7aSP)
The case that you cited, Minor v. Happersett (1874), has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. It most certainly does nothing to clarify the term "natural born citizen". Nothing.
You go on to say: "Contrary English-British common-law precedents did not apply in post-Revolutionary United States with respect to citizenship, as plainly evidenced by the individual states adopting citizenship statutes in substitution for the preceding and intensely reviled and rejected British common-law regardig citizenship."
The current law of the land in regards to defining the term "natural born citizen" was decided in the 6-2 majority opinion of the SCOTUS in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (189
Contrary to your assertion, and that of Vattel, "that English-British common-law precedents did not apply in post-Revolutionary United States with respect to citizenship", The Wong Kim Ark Opinion ruled otherwise. The Court clearly ruled that birth on US soil = natural born citizen.
That decision and the definition that came from it was further enhanced by later Supreme Court cases:
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
If a person DOES meet the natural born citizen qualification at birth (as Obama does), there is no Constitutional prohibition or SCOTUS ruling, to date, that has ruled that someone who IS a natural born citizen of the US, and is also or has been a dual citizen, cannot or does not qualify for the office of POTUS.
Posted by: Dude at August 03, 2009 08:46 AM (byA+E)
"To Date" Because no one has had the audacity to try it. You forget the vetting John McCain went through when he was running for President,and he was born on a U.S. Military Base Hospital in Panama. The LEFT tried to claim that made him ineligible to run for President, typical double standard.
Posted by: keyboardjockey at August 03, 2009 09:04 AM (ldrkp)
He was born with dual nationality...that is a disqualifier.
Posted by: torabora at August 2, 2009 10:27 PM
Apparently the US Congress disagrees with you.
Posted by: Barry Goldwater at August 03, 2009 09:15 AM (96Pku)
to discover if the particular item you mention makes it a forgery, just find some other authentic kenyan bc of that time period and see what they call it.
duh!!!!!
Posted by: yo at August 03, 2009 09:19 AM (qfOmZ)
Posted by: Kansasguy at August 03, 2009 09:26 AM (oSTl0)
Posted by: Artie at August 03, 2009 09:49 AM (DoOZx)
Seems the country of Kenya would call you a liar.
www information go ke
Maybe you ought to check your facts instead of regurgitating garbage. And allow URL's
Posted by: Steve Angell at August 03, 2009 09:52 AM (G5vAR)
Posted by: Steve Angell at August 03, 2009 09:54 AM (G5vAR)
Where is the proof that Obama is a "natural born citizen"? If Obama is for change and open government, why isn't he offering proof that he is a "natural born citizen" and not just an American citizen? All we've seen is a questionable short-form birth certificate which does not prove that he is a natural born citizen.
Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, that does not automatically mean that he is a natural born citizen. Article II of our Constitution requires that a president be a natural born citizen. "Natural born Citizen" status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. Obama Senior was not a US citizen.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html
In fact, FighttheSmears/Factcheck admits that Obama was/is also a British subject--meaning that Obama fails the natural born citizen requirement of the US Constitution.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_29.html
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/the-relevant-obama-admission/
P.S. If the short-form Hawaii birth certificate that Obama has posted is an authentic copy of the 1961 original, then why does it use an ethnic category that was not officially allowed in 1961??
http://rightsidenews.com/200908025783/editorial/obamas-father-qafricanq-in-a-1961-world-of-qnegroq.html
Posted by: AustinGuy at August 03, 2009 09:56 AM (CrJ7h)
The musings about when exactly Kenya became a republic establish nothing more than that the country was in transition at the time (as was Hawaii). What this means at the local government level ... who the heck knows!
I am sure its not the first priority of incoming governments to attend to the bureau of vital statistics.
The debunkers are as tin-foil as the birthers are being made out to be.
On the other hand, this paper denotes the actual page of an actual register with the names of 3 officials that could be corroborated. Take a look at that instead of playing gotcha with wikipedia opinions about Kenyan statehood.
Posted by: gregf at August 03, 2009 09:58 AM (ZG5ky)
Let me type this sl-o-w-l-y so that you might be able to follow along.
On December 12, 1963, the colony of Kenya achieved independence. The transitional governor during this time period was Malcolm MacDonald. The country was known during this time period as the Dominion of Kenya.
Exactly one year later, on December 12, 1964, the Kenyan government voted to become the Republic of Kenya.
Therefore, any document—such as this fake birth certificate—that was created prior to December 12, 1964 is a fake.
Good grief.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 03, 2009 09:59 AM (gAi9Z)
The constitution written in 63 refers to them as The Republic of Kenya ...
http://www.constitutionnet.org/files/Kenyan%20constitution%20amended%202008.pdf
Posted by: thislandismyland at August 03, 2009 10:24 AM (KUrFb)
Posted by: debra at August 03, 2009 10:38 AM (Cm/2S)
Yes, I saw that. Somebody elsewhere pointed to another document from these same people which didn't use the word "republic" but that document was titled "Subsidiary Legislation 1963". It fleshes out the things in the Constitution which are said to depend on legislation.
As far as I can see, the Constitution of 1963 refers to Kenya as the "Republic of Kenya".
I need to look at the articles referenced by others here as to what actually happened in Dec of 1964 but I'm wondering if they basically were saying that the construction of the republic as an administrative form of government was complete.
World Net Daily said they have documents from the time period to compare with and the document seems consistent with those, but we don't know whether the documents they compared with were in the period between Dec of 1963 and Dec of 1964. I guess we'll have to wait on that.
But it seems to me that there's no denying that their Constitution itself said in 1963 that they were the "Republic of Kenya".
Is someone claiming that the 1963 Constitution siad something else, and if so, on the basis of what documentation?
Posted by: Nellie at August 03, 2009 10:47 AM (Z+/I8)
Posted by: Stinky Whizzleteeth at August 03, 2009 10:52 AM (1ODE6)
But again, seems to me that the 1963 Constitution says it's the Republic of Kenya.
I'll look some more to try to see exactly what happened in Dec 1964.
Posted by: Nellie at August 03, 2009 10:55 AM (Z+/I8)
That's what World Net Daily says they've done. They say it matches up.
Looking on Free Republic, people discussed the type fonts and whether they were done on a manual typewriter, the EF Lavender name, the use of initials, the presence of staple vs pin marks in the corner, the status of Mombasa in 1963, etc
Those things seem to line up in astounding accuracy if this is a forgery that screws up "The Republic of Kenya". If the whole basis for calling it a forgery is the "Republic of Kenya", which doesn't seem to be an inaccuracy after all, in light of their 1963 Constitution calling themselves that, then I don't think it could be called a "poor forgery" at all. Too much showing up accurate that would have required a lot of knowledge of minute details.
Again, we'll have to see what World Net Daily comes up with as comparison documents. I don't think this can be dismissed as a forgery so quickly though.
Posted by: Nellie at August 03, 2009 11:02 AM (Z+/I8)
Posted by: Patti at August 03, 2009 11:06 AM (4y/tN)
Get over it, people. You're barking at the moon.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph at August 03, 2009 11:07 AM (WLpLA)
http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1692638.html it says "After 68 years of British colonial rule, Kenya became independent in 1963 as a Republic within the British Commonwealth. Under Jomo Kenyatta, a Kenyan nationalist who had been imprisoned by the British, Prime Minister in 1963 and President 1964-1978, Kenya became reasonably stable politically."
Seems like the difference in 1964 was the switch from prime minister to president.
If somebody finds something about an actual declaration of becoming a republic that's something different than the requirement of having a president being fulfilled, please post it. Thanks!
Posted by: Nellie at August 03, 2009 11:12 AM (Z+/I8)
C'mon, Confed. Yankee: At least join the call for the documents! It's the only right thing to do at this point. The birthers are only asking for the proof that Obama has yet to show us. (The fact that Congress declared him eligible for the presidency is easily explained b/c Congress was controlled by the Democrats, who also refused to investigate legitimate claims of voter fraud by ALCORN.) So just produce the documents, Mr. Obama, if you have them (or has it taken this long to forge them?).
Posted by: Sterling at August 03, 2009 11:30 AM (+86uO)
If you still think this faked birth certificate has even the faintest hope of being legitimate... well, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 03, 2009 11:36 AM (gAi9Z)
Posted by: Nellie at August 03, 2009 11:37 AM (Z+/I8)
Obama has already shown legal proof. You just don't want to accept it. That's your problem, not his and not mine.
I don't like the guy. I think he's dangerous. I think he has done and will continue to do things that will hurt our lovely little country. He even forced me to vote for John McCain, and I'll never forgive him for that. But he won. He's the President. Deal. With. It. Take the congress away from him in 2010 and the WH in 2012. But stop the lunacy, because voters tend not to listen to lunatics.
Posted by: Pablo at August 03, 2009 11:40 AM (yTndK)
Coincidence? LOL.
http://thepage.time.com/details-of-clintons-africa-trip/
Posted by: Jim at August 03, 2009 11:45 AM (J5nO3)
- filed by the mother and/or grandparents (since the mother was not 21). One does not have to be born in a hospital. However, one would want to record the birth information.
The only proof they would have to give is the new born baby and they swear that the baby was born in Hawaii. (Unless the baby is born in a hospital or delivered by a doctor, the only proof of birth is the parents and the baby. The baby could have been born on a beach in Hawaii for all we know.
By seeing the original Hawaiian documents one would see this.
The other reason for hiding the originals is that it would show that Barry Obama should really be called Barry Soetero (adopted by Lolo Soetero from Indonesia) and the only way to called Barry Obama again is to legally change his name.
Posted by: Jim at August 03, 2009 11:53 AM (J5nO3)
Posted by: Greg at August 03, 2009 12:01 PM (pw+LD)
Posted by: Petra at August 03, 2009 12:06 PM (jM81W)
Let me help you with that. Published on April 11th, 1961 on Page 4 near top center of the page. Missouri Chillicothe Constitution Tribune in pdf format. The usage of 'Republic of Kenya' seems common place way before December of 1964.
PDF of the newspaper.
http://chillicothe.newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewer.aspx?___=114412159&src=browse
Posted by: Devon at August 03, 2009 12:07 PM (nq3/8)
Posted by: Greg at August 03, 2009 12:19 PM (pw+LD)
Got to weed out my list of must read blogs and find some that are talking about what is going on behind this birther smoke screen.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at August 03, 2009 12:21 PM (OmeRL)
Posted by: eddie at August 03, 2009 12:26 PM (cqtVQ)
Got to weed out my list of must read blogs and find some that are talking about what is going on behind this birther smoke screen.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at August 3, 2009 12:21 PM
OBOT DRONE ALERT!!!!
Posted by: Sally at August 03, 2009 12:37 PM (pw+LD)
What did Kenya call itself between declaring independence and becoming a Republic a year later? An Intelligent, objective and honest person would research this issue before declaring this document fake.
Further this document was purportedly issued in 1964 after Kenya became a Republic. Why would it then not refer to Kenya as a republic?
Unlike Obama's COLB this document contains information that will enable someone interested in the truth to prove its validity or otherwise.
What's fake here is Bob Owens' pretension at intelligent commentary.
Posted by: Terry Gain at August 03, 2009 12:38 PM (BKb8l)
Every source cited positively states that from December 12 1963 to December 12, 1964, the nation was called the Dominion of Kenya. That is not even in dispute, at least not by anyone with a middling degree of intelligence.
Further, December (when Kenya became a republic)is ten months after February (when the fake doc was said to have been issued), unless in Terryland the calendars run in reverse.
Any you question my commentary?
Good grief.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 03, 2009 12:44 PM (gAi9Z)
Posted by: Jose at August 03, 2009 12:46 PM (ogezK)
Since Sgt. Bonesteel was kind enough to actually list the fallacies he identified, perhaps you would want to do the same.
re U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
Wong has been criticized as one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS. Here is an analysis.
http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html
Nonetheless, until supplanted by a later ruling, it is the lodestar for "natural born citizen". Note: Does anyone else reading through U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v. Elg think the authors ar rather sloppy with the use of "native born citizen" and "natural born citizen"?
If the folks on this thread were instead members of a detective squad on a case, puzzling through the evidence, and lack thereof, there would probably be the same hypotheses, wild-a$$ guesses and head-scratching as we see here. After all, haven't we all been coached for years in "brainstorming" and "thinking outside the box"? But I doubt we would see anything like the sneers and vitriol we see on this thread. Why is that, do you suppose? Because the detectives are supposed to pursue the truth, and we are not? How many of us feel it our duty as citizens to seek the truth, wherever it leads, to meet our responsibilities?
Thank you Sgt. Bonesteel for framing the situation so well. Rather than speculate on the validity of the copy of the Kenyan birth certificate, why don't we see if we can find an actual Kenyan birth certificate from the same time and compare it to the copy? It might also be helpful to see whether Kenya began referring to itself at the beginning to the transition, in 1963, or at the end, in 1964. Let's deal in facts, not speculation.
Posted by: Jack Okie at August 03, 2009 12:46 PM (a+Q5X)
It also points to why the people who have been scamming fake birth certificates this past month looking like the Obamaniacs assaulting Lawrence Sinclair, were probably low level plants to guard against this very document which has been picked up on tapped phone and email communications from it's surfacing.
All of this brings a conclusion this is Barack Obama's Waterloo.
agtG 246
PS: Is it not interesting that the residency of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama is Wichita, Kansas. That might be another Madelyn Dunham story.
Verify the Registrar and signature and let the good times roll".
http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-i-can-tell-you-about-kenyan-obama.html
Posted by: Greg at August 03, 2009 12:49 PM (pw+LD)
Title Kenya Citizenship Act, Cap 170
OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
I....................................do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Republic of Kenya and that I will support and uphold the Constitution of Kenya as by law established.
SO HELP ME GOD
[link to www.unhcr.org]
Posted by: Angie at August 03, 2009 12:52 PM (xHFi3)
To bad your OPINION does not square with reality. 2 newspaper articles from 1963 using the term Republic Of Kenya. Guess their reporters had below middling intelligence right?
Pay attention and look at these links.
Here are more newspaper editions from November 15, 1963 referencing the country as The Republic Of Kenya......... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2306755/posts?q=1&;page=551
http://chillicothe.newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewer.aspx?___=114412159&src=browse
Is this where you dismiss the information because it was found on The Free Republic website?
Posted by: Greg at August 03, 2009 12:56 PM (pw+LD)
Current law seems to require a voluntary renunciation of U.S. citizenship once the person reaches majority; absent such positive action, U.S. citizenship is retained.
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html
Not to pick on lawyers, and with all due respect:
In the bad old days of programming, a program whose active code hopped all over the place and was hard to debug was called "spaghetti code". I've been programming for almost 40 years and I have never encountered as much "spaghetti code" as in the Supreme Court cases I have been trying to wade through. No wonder we need so many lawyers.
Posted by: Jack Okie at August 03, 2009 12:56 PM (a+Q5X)
The above sentence in my previous post is wrong.
Posted by: Terry at August 03, 2009 12:58 PM (BKb8l)
Posted by: Nellie at August 03, 2009 01:01 PM (Z+/I8)
...
Any you question my commentary?
Yes I question the commentary and bona fides of anyone who comes to conclusions without investigating the facts. You have an agenda.
If you wanted to know the truth you would be demanding Obama release his original LFBC.
How did Kenya record birth registrations between December 1963 when it declared independence and December 1964 when it officially became a republic. Produce a birth certificate that says Dominion of Kenya.
I have an open mind as to where Obama was born. Until the matter is investigated this is the only rational position.
Posted by: Terry at August 03, 2009 01:13 PM (BKb8l)
Why would I care?
I've provided a link to the official Kenyan Parliament, where they say that their nation became a Republic on December 12, 1964.
Everything else is a moot point.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 03, 2009 01:17 PM (gAi9Z)
In the end, we won't know if this is genuine unless and until it is authenticated by the Brits or Kenyans, although we could make a pretty good judgment on it if other docs from that transitional time period arise which either have or don't have "Republic of Kenya" on them.
Posted by: Nellie at August 03, 2009 01:18 PM (Z+/I8)
America was still The United States of America as per the Declaration of Independence of 1776 even though her first form of government was a CONFEDERACY under the Articles of Confederacy. What would birth certificates say during that interim period - United States of America, the American Confederacy, The Republic of the United States of America? What?
It doesn't matter what they say about the status or name 10 years later, with the benefit of hindsight. What would show up on a birth certificate is what they called themselves THEN.
And Kenya's Constitution of 1963 seems to show that they called themselves "The Republic of Kenya" - even if that was not what they technically were. So what would they put on their certificates?
The only way we can know is by seeing their certificates. That's what we're waiting on. That, or else the verification of this particular document.
Posted by: Nellie at August 03, 2009 01:25 PM (Z+/I8)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
Daily Appointments Schedule
Monday, August 3, 2009
10:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton holds a Secure Video Conference on Iran.
(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)
11:15 a.m. Secretary Clinton holds a bilateral meeting with His Excellency Nasser Judeh, Foreign Minister of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)
11:45 a.m. Secretary Clinton holds a joint press availability with His Excellency Nasser Judeh, Foreign Minister of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)
Pre-set time for cameras:10:30 a.m. from the 23rd Street entrance
Final access time for all press: 11:00 a.m. from the 23rd Street entrance
PM depart Andrews Air Force Base en route to Nairobi, Kenya
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/appt/2009appt/august/126832.htm
Posted by: Greg at August 03, 2009 01:34 PM (pw+LD)
Wow! So if the official, certified to be original, Kenyan documents between 1963 and December 12, 1964 carried the words "Republic of Kenya", you would consider that a moot point?
Like so much in this mess, I have no idea what the documents carried. That's why I'm going to try to scare up a few.
Posted by: Jack Okie at August 03, 2009 01:36 PM (a+Q5X)
Whats he hiding?
Posted by: Buffoon at August 03, 2009 01:39 PM (ZrLLL)
Here is the real issue everyone. I am one to say that Obama was born in Hawaii. The Africa thing is a diversion. Either way, it forces Obama to release his sealed long-form birth certificate. It was sealed because he was adopted by Soetero and became a citizen of Indonesia. THAT record is real and indisputeable people. Did he ever travel as an Indonesian to Pakisatan? Did he apply to college or law school as a foreign student? THIS is what we should be asking!
Posted by: Jose at August 03, 2009 01:52 PM (ogezK)
Posted by: Greg at August 03, 2009 01:57 PM (pw+LD)
Obviously you don't care. But I do, because what the government of Kenya called itself in that interim period is what is being argued over.
The best I can tell, this was never "argued over" until August 2, 2009, and only after it was pointed out that the date discrepancy torpedoed yet another hoped-for bit of evidence of a conspiracy theory.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 03, 2009 02:24 PM (gAi9Z)
It's not torpedoed until we know how Kenya identified itself on birth certicates in 1964. You jump to conclusions rather than investigate. You have an agenda.
What's feeding the conspiracy is Obama's refusal to release his LFBC and the refusal of the MSM to investigate. The kind of sloppy analysis produced here is unpersuasive.
Posted by: Terry Gain at August 03, 2009 03:44 PM (RSm0A)
As they say on Law and Order, you are arguing facts not in evidence. Unless you can produce a valid Kenyan Birth Certificate from the time in question with wording different from "Republic of Kenya", you are just speculating. Only real documents from the period will tell us what the Kenyan authorities chose to put on their documents.
I will say this: If I were the bureaucrat who had to order all the blank government documents, knowing the 1963 Kenyan Constitution contained this text:
"3. This Constitution is the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya and shall have the force of law throughout Kenya and, subject to section 47, if any other law is inconsistent with this Constitution, this Constitutional shall prevail and the other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. "
I would hesitate to order a pile of documents with the word "Dominion" on them that would shortly have to be thrown away.
Further, from the very Encyclopedia Britannica article you reference:
"Kenya became fully independent on Dec. 12, 1963".
So Kenya was "fully independent" and yet "the Dominion of Kenya existed under Queen Elizabeth, with Governor General Malcolm MacDonald in charge." So what was the Kenyan Prime Minister, chopped liver? You are asserting that Kenya could not be a republic and still be a dominion. I direct you to the Dominion of Canada, which also has a constitution and is a parliamentary democracy and at the same time a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state. Canada likewise has a governor general, who is the Queen's representative in Canada. Members of the Canadian Senate are formally appointed by the Governor General, after selection by the Prime Minister. In the recent past the use of "dominion" has ceased, and Canada refers to itself mainly as just "Canada". So I think you overestimate the scope of Governor General Malcolm MacDonald.
Posted by: Jack Okie at August 03, 2009 03:58 PM (a+Q5X)
WTF are you so scared of? really...
at WND the rest of the article reads:
Last week, a counterfeit document purporting to be Obama's Kenyan birth certificate made the rounds of the Internet, but was quickly determined to be fraudulent. The new document released by Taitz bears none of the obvious traits of a hoax.
One of the issues Taitz must deal with will be the authentication of the document. Critics immediately jumped on the Feb. 17, 1964, date for the document, explaining that the "republic" of Kenya wasn't assembled until in December of that year.
Media Matters wrote, "Sorry, WorldNetDaily: Kenya wasn't a republic until Dec. 1964."
But Kenya's official independence was in 1963, and any number of labels could have been applied to government documents during that time period.
At Ameriborn Constitution News, the researcher noted that the independence process for the nation actually started taking as early as 1957, when there were the first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council.
"Kenya became an Independent Republic, December 12, 1963, which gives more [credibility] that this is a true document," the website stated.
The 1963 independence is corroborated by several other information sources, including the online African History.
Even the People Daily news agency cited, on Dec. 12, 2005, the "42nd independence anniversary" in Nairobi. "The country gained independence from Britain on Dec. 12, 1963," the report said.
An online copy of the Kenya Constitution, "adopted in 1963, amended in 1999," states: "CHAPTER I - THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA, Article 1, Kenya is a sovereign Republic. Article 1A, The Republic of Kenya shall be a multiparty democratic state…"
It was in November 1964 when the region voluntarily became a one-party state, according to an online source.
The region including Mombasa originally was dealt with as a separate independence movement, but it almost immediately became part of Kenya when the sultan of Zanzibar ceded the "coastal strip" to Kenya, according to sources.
Taitz told WND that the document came from an anonymous source who doesn't want his name known because "he's afraid for his life."
Taitz's motion, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, requests the purported evidence of Obama's birth – both the alleged birth certificate and foreign records not yet obtained – be preserved from destruction, asks for permission to legally request documents from Kenya and seeks a subpoena for deposition from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
PLEASE POST ALL OF THE SIDES OF THIS ISSUE.
cheers.
Posted by: lu-ee at August 03, 2009 04:00 PM (oogdQ)
"Publication Date 12 December 1963
Title Kenya Citizenship Act, Cap 170
OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
I....................................do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Republic of Kenya and that I will support and uphold the Constitution of Kenya as by law established.
SO HELP ME GOD
[link to www.unhcr.org]"
Posted by: Greg at August 03, 2009 06:02 PM (pw+LD)
Posted by: Jim at August 03, 2009 06:33 PM (mf/Fj)
A snippet:
"It would appear to the undersigned counsel that either 28 U.S.C. §1781(a)(2) or 28 U.S.C. §1782(b)(2) or some combination of these statutory authorizations outlines the procedures by which to transmit letters rogatory and other requests to the proper authorities abroad in Kenya and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
For two classes of evidence at issue here, namely all requests for relevant passport materials and other documents existing within the United States of America, as well as all requests to be made through diplomatic channels to foreign tribunals, Defendant HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON is the Secretary of State of the United States of America, and accordingly, Secretary Clinton is the first and primary proper target of letters rogatory to be submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1781(a)(2).
FIRST, Plaintiffs pray that this court authorize Plaintiffs to issue a special subpoena for deposition duces tecum to Secretary HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON be cited to appear within 21 days pursuant to (or in the letter and spirit of) Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (even though this action has been filed and served, many months will pass before the Rule 26(f) Conference can be held to plan for discovery among the parties). The purpose of Rule 27, even though designed for pre-filing discovery, is fulfilled and relevant here, in that some (above-noted) hearsay evidence exists that an individual involved in the examination of passport files at the United States Department of State relating to and involving certain 2008 Presidential candidates may have been killed in relation to such inquiry. Last year it was announced by former secretary of State Candoleeza Rice that there was tampering with the passport records of three major presidential candidates and it was investigated by the inspector general. Lt. Querl Harris was one of the suspects in passport tampering scandal. Washington post has announced that he was cooperating with the FBI and shortly thereafter he was found dead, shot in the head, sitting in his parked car. This case remains open and unresolved. Under such circumstances, “perpetuation of evidence” becomes a more and more significant and time-sensitive issue.
SECOND, Plaintiffs pray that this court will send a request for letters rogatory pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1781(a)(2) to Defendant HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and other relevant officers in the United States Department of State to issue and transmit letters rogatory through proper diplomatic channels to the following foreign offices of public record and vital statistics:"
From HERE
Interesting yes, that Clinton is on her way to Kenya, but far more interesting is that Obama has already been there. Think he might have already cooked the books? They love him there and would most likely not having a problem with losing or changing something.
Papa Ray
West Texas
Posted by: Papa Ray at August 03, 2009 06:43 PM (JpVJn)
http://markthispage.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-do-i-get-information-about-barack.html
Posted by: sri at August 03, 2009 06:50 PM (f6rEV)
Talk about gullible!
Posted by: kenyanexpat at August 03, 2009 07:29 PM (osDyR)
Talk about gullible!
Posted by: kenyanexpat at August 03, 2009 07:29 PM (osDyR)
kenyanexpat posted, "the top line (7s. 6d.) proves it. Kenya has never used pence. The currency was the East Africa shilling and was divided into 100 cents, not pence. I still have some! The Kenyan shilling, introduced in 1964 (and still in use), also uses cents."
YES KENYA DID USE PENCE.
Talk about gullible! so you mean to tell me that no pence were in circulation before 1964, which was standard currency, along with pounds & shillings, in countries of the ex-British Empire? Shillings WERE DIVIDED INTO 5 NEW PENCE AND 12 OLD PENCE PRIOR TO 1971 IN EAST AFRICA! AND PENCE & CENTS IS JUST BLOODY SEMANTICS AND YOU ALSO KNOW THAT!
Kenya used the old South African shillings “s” and pence “d” until 1966 when they changed to Kenyan currency...
The British way of writing money was L1 2s 6d for One pound 2 shillings and 6 pence.
(The pound sign had a stroke or two through it)
...hence the 7s 6d on the certificate equates to 7 shillings 6 pence.
you sir are a FRAUD unless you also happen to have a 1963/64 Kenyan live birth BC.
cheers.
Posted by: lu-ee at August 03, 2009 08:22 PM (a8drf)
Bingo!!! That's the current law.
Jack Okie said: "Wong has been criticized as one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS"
That may very well be true in the opinion of many people. However, the only opinion that counts, from a legal stand point are SCOTUS opinions.
Often in these conversations we need to clarify the question: Are we discussing what we WANT the law to be or are we discussing what the law IS.
The Wong Kim Ark decision is the current law of the land. It's fine to disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, and it makes for interesting discussions. I disagree with many of them myself. But, that doesn't mean that my opinion, nor any other person's opinion has any weight whatsoever on the law.
It is what it is. Unless and until Wong is overruled by a future SCOTUS ruling or a future Constitutional Amendment overrules it, the Wong Kim Ark "opinion" is the only opinion that carries any legal weight on this topic. That opinion makes it perfectly clear, like it or not, that the citizenship status of one's parents have no bearing on the natural born citizen status of a person born on American Soil.
Posted by: Dude at August 03, 2009 08:46 PM (byA+E)
I am British and lived in Kenya as a child during the Mau Mau uprising and am rather familiar with pounds, shilling and pence and the equivalency to shillings. The currency in general circulation is irrelevant - the official currency was the East African Shilling which contained 100 cents. No Kenyan goverment document, including postage or revenue stamps EVER showed pence: it has ALWAYS been rupees and cents or shillings and cents. Pounds were officially used for a time for high demoninations, but not after about 1960, but pence has NEVER been used offically. And Kenya never used South African currency either - I suggest you brush up on your colonial Afican history.
So unless you can provide documentary evidence to the contrary, I suggest you are the fraud and moron.
This birth certificate is a fake, mark
Posted by: kenyanexpat at August 03, 2009 08:47 PM (osDyR)
SO I TAKE IT YOU NEVER SAW A KENYAN LB BC BEFORE 1964 THEN? SO HOW CAN I TAKE YOU AS EVEN BEING CLOSE TO HONEST?
I HAVE THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS PROOF AND YOU HAVE WHAT? come on pal, put up or just rely on your name-calling and trying to show us how supposedly colonial you are.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE? SHOW SOMETHING TO DISPROVE THIS DOCUMENT, NOT YOUR SNOBBISH BULL-CRAP ATTITUDE.
YOU SAY YOU KNOW ALL ABOUT THIS CURRENCY AND YET YOU SHOW NOT ONCE OUNCE OF PROOF. I FOUND OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION THAT DISPROVED YOU. YOUR OWN WORDS PROVED ME CORRECT. YOU ADMITTED PENCE WAS USED BEFORE 1964. AND YET I AM SUPPOSED TO TAKE YOUR WORD NOT ON ANY "OFFICIAL" DOCUMENTS. SHAME ON YOU.
YOU ARE THE MORON, FRAUD AND YOU HAVE NOTHING.
SHOW ME YOUR OWN PRE-1964 BC AND I WILL BELIEVE YOU. UNTIL THEN YOU ARE JUST A PHONY IN MY EYES.
cheers & try again.
Posted by: lu-ee at August 03, 2009 09:11 PM (a8drf)
Posted by: Dude at August 03, 2009 10:19 PM (byA+E)
No need to shout (unless you feel threatened). Please re-read my post - I emphatically stated that pence has NEVER been used to denote currency/price/payment in Kenya on any official document. Repeat - NEVER, not before or after 1964. Therefore, I do not need anything else to demonstrate that the piece of paper you are touting is a fabrication (that appears to look remarkably like a doctored South Australian birth certificate from that period). Unfortunately, the person who concocted this made a basic incorrect assumption that all colonies used British currency. I am inclined to think this whole thing is a spoof that seems to have suckered you and others into grasping onto something you so desperately want to be true.
Why not you find real sources of information rather than regurgitating nonsense from right wing web sites. The Library of Congress has copies of most major Kenyan newspapers from the early 1960's. I suggest you take some time to visit and review the 1963/1964 editions (including goverment notices) and see if you can find anything that uses pence.
If Obama were born in Kenya (though Mombasa was in Zanzibar in 1961), it is extremely likely that his birth would have been registered with the US Consul as was common practise for anyone with foreign parentage during colonial times. This was almost certainly not done.
Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant - a bit of actual research will show what I am stating to be self evident.
Posted by: kenyanexpat at August 03, 2009 10:29 PM (osDyR)
I see dud your side is really "performing well" lately. Have anything "new" to add to the debate? hows your carpal tunnel syndrome going? If you get commie health-care I am sure you will get all the pain-killers you need.
BTW, liberal feet are also getting mighty big lately. Surprised they can even fit into regular-size shoes. Even Reid has gotten the "birth issue" put into the Congressional Record. comeuppance is a-coming for the liberals.
cheers dud...try again with some real IDEAS.
Posted by: lu-ee at August 03, 2009 11:05 PM (a8drf)
You really have nothing but hyperbole and insults don't you? Face it, you simply cannot deal with the fact that an uppity black got elected by a majority of all Americans - including whites. Welcome to the 21st century!
Posted by: kenyanexpat at August 03, 2009 11:23 PM (osDyR)
Or was Bomford in on the coverup as well?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 03, 2009 11:44 PM (WjpSC)
why dont YOU post some information? I have seen a 1964 Kenyan BC. You seemed to NOT have seen any.
You are "assuming", for the exact same reason you condemn the "forger" of the Kenyan BC.
You assume that a REAL 1964 Kenyan BC is set up like another British Commonwealth BC, yet you say the "forgery" is based of a South Australian BC, which IS ALSO PART OF THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH. SO WHICH IS IT?
I WRITE IN LARGE LETTERS BECAUSE I AM DEALING WITH DENSE INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT WANT TO SEE THINGS IN BLACK & WHITE, but in gray.
Oh and I dont feel threatened.
I believe you and those who are on Obama's side in this issue feel threatened because it MIGHT BE TRUE. You are acting on the exact same reasons & emotions that caused him to be falsely elected & NOT properly investigated: YOU FEEL SORRY FOR HIM.
OH f'n well. your problem not mine.
...so much for this supposed presidency, "famously" built on "FULL DISCLOSURE".
...ya know what is so gosh-darn awful & frustrating about this mess? I have seen Sen. John McCain's live BC...and he LOST THE ELECTION.
go f'n figure.
...here is a good book on early 20th century Kenya and it discusses its currency. It doesnt talk about the cost of govt. docs, but it does talk about currency up til 1923 in Kenya, and pence is used in the context of goods purchased.
Why pence wouldnt be used on newspapers or gov docs seems a bit strange to me, especially since it was so widely in circulation.
YOU do a search in the book in the link I have sent you, and see how pence is mentioned, and then you try to still say it wasnt used in an "official" capacity by the government. And yet it was used to determine the Kenya's currency strength as well as used by other British Empire inhabitants, visitors, or newly arrived immigrants?
Struggle for Kenya: The Loss and Reassertion of Imperial Initiative, 1912-1923 by Robert M. Maxon (who is renowned for his research on Kenya. YOU LOOK HIM UP.)
http://books.google.com/books?id=BqWshUWJBikC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=Indian+rupee+had+been+valued+at+one+shilling+and+four+pence+kenyan&source=bl&ots=dXtOqwb6A4&sig=toChKlxNVTBMfE9RVH04KUx8MDI&hl=en&ei=qax3SpvRBcPHtgfHhdiWCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#
NOW I HAVE POSTED MY RESEARCH WHY DONT YOU POST YOURS???
cheers mate.
Posted by: lu-ee at August 03, 2009 11:53 PM (a8drf)
...you only base your posts on fantasy and not reality.
Sadly, it is the Oba-messiah and YOU who are the racists.
Its Oba-messiah who went to a preacher who preached hatred against the jews & against european-americans. It was Oba-messiah who was friends wih a domestic terrorist, whose wife bombed innocent civilians & law-enforcement.
IT WAS THE PRIESTS & SISTERS OF MY RELIGION WHO STRUGGLED FOR THE FREEDOM & COMPLETE EDUCATION OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, AND MARCHED WITH THEM DOWN SOUTH & AT NOTRE DAME FOR FULL CIVIL RIGHTS, AND IT WAS KENNEDY WHO DIED WORKING FOR THEIR FULL FREEDOMS, AND IT WAS YOU, YOU BLOODY COLONIAL BASTARD WHO TREATED THE AFRICANS LIKE ANIMALS. I SEE YOU HAVE DEFENDED THIS IMPOSTER, THIS FALSE PROPHET, BECAUSE YOU SUFFER FROM COLONIAL GUILT.
YOUR SIN NOT MINE.
now read my last email and YOU POST SOME BACK-UP.
As of right now, YOU ARE STILL A FRAUD AND RACIST IN MY BOOK.
...and your use of the term "uppity" is pathetically laughable. I see you are looking at your own conscience & actions to come up with that line. How originally of you after coming on this thread as if we all should bow to you because you are a supposed "expat".
"cheers mate"
PS ya know confederate yankee, why dont you stop exposing the actual forgery and try to "debunk" the real Kenyan live birth BC, which no one has been able to do, and was submitted to a federal court for scrutiny?
This lawyer isnt just posting on the internet some photo-shopped piece of garbage but submitting for FULL legal review this piece of evidence, in full VIEW of the PUBLIC & the GOVERNMENT.
Thats more than what can be said about anyone seeing the Hawaiian long form live birth BC of this imposter, the Oba-messiah & the actions of the fraudulent commie shadow government he has fabricated.
At least McCain showed his long form live birth BC when he was questioned about it during the '08 election.
ya know what I mean champ?
cheers
Posted by: lu-ee at August 04, 2009 12:17 AM (a8drf)
hmmm?
how do we know that the "de-bunker" isnt creating a "forged forgery" to cast doubt on the real Kenyan BC?
just saying. photo-shopping can cut both ways.
careful what you wish for folks. you may be surprised what you find.
cheers
Posted by: lu-ee at August 04, 2009 12:25 AM (a8drf)
Firstly, your reference is from 1923!!! Secondly, did you actually read the Maxon book you quote - or at least the part that is visible on amazon.com? It does absolutely nothing to contradict my statements - in fact it supports them. Kenya went from rupees & cents to (briefly) florins & cents and finally to shillings & cents which remains the status quo. Sterling was never the official currency and never "widely in circulation" as you claim. The reference to sterling in the excerpt you mention deals with a proposal to introduce sterling - this was never enacted.
For your information, in the early 20th century, Sterling was used as world currency standard just as the US dollar has been in recent years.
What reference do you cite for your previous assertion that South Africa currency was ever used?
Want a concise official history on Kenyan currency? Try their central bank: http://www.centralbank.go.ke/Currency/CurrencyHistory.aspx
You are correct in one respect - I "DO NOT WANT TO SEE THINGS IN BLACK AND WHITE". I am not a racist.
You are an un-American anachronism and are living the history that will prove it. I do not expect to change your mind one iota - fortunately the majority of the population is more sensible. I have conservative Republican friends who detest Obama, but they all think you are part of the lunatic fringe and that the GOP is doomed unless it can rid itself of your ilk and return to intellectual honesty and solid policy based arguments. Oh, and people like Palin scare the beejesus out of them too!
Posted by: kenyanexpat at August 04, 2009 01:15 AM (osDyR)
Bloody Colonial Bastard here - I like that. Coming from you it is a badge of honour!
You seem unduly upset that all someone who lived there a long time ago did was point out that no Kenyan goverment document would ever have used shillings and pence when shillings and cents was the only official currency. Whoever produced this birth certificate overlooked a fact that is easily verifiable with a bit of research.
But since it undermines your nirvana, you go a bit spare!
Posted by: kenyanexpat at August 04, 2009 01:30 AM (osDyR)
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 04, 2009 10:34 AM (OX5qU)
SMOKING GUN ALERT: 9/11 Truther produces stick of dynamite found at ground zero with state seal on it from 2001 from the city of New Amsterdam. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barrack Obama flew all the planes on the morning of 9/11 AND he killed Elvis.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 04, 2009 10:39 AM (OX5qU)
kenyanexpat,
why are you such a liar as well as a racist colonialist? really.
were you born this way or did you have an accident when young?
I posted facts and you just spout off.
I will not take your word for anything.
You show NOTHING.
THE BC IS STILL NOT "DEBUNKED."
I AM UPSET AT Y-O-U.
I gave you the link for GOOGLE BOOKS NOT AMAZON.COM YOU PATHETIC RACIST LIAR!
IT ALLOWS YOU TO SEARCH THE BOOK BY TYPING "PENCE" IN THE KEY WORD SEARCH.
PENCE IS DISCUSSED ON PAGES 182, 201, 205, and 241.
THERE IS A HISTORY OF PENCE BEING USED IN KENYA UP UNTIL THE 1960S!
here LIAR, HERE IT IS AGAIN:
http://books.google.com/books?id=BqWshUWJBikC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=Indian+rupee+had+been+valued+at+one+shilling+and+four+pence+kenyan&source=bl&
...and this book was published in 1993 and is of the years 1919-1923, as well as discussing past & future histories for context.
WHAT IS SO F'N WRONG WITH THAT? DID YOU SEARCH OR READ ANY OF IT? BY YOUR COMMENTS I THINK NOT!
THE YEARS 1919-1923 ARE KEY TO WHAT CAME AFTERWARDS!
The rest of the century is based off of the economic decisions of that era. WHY DONT YOU PROVE ME OTHERWISE? HMM? WHY DONT YOU?!
Also your link is for currency TODAY IN KENYA...
....NOT IN THE LATE 1950S & EARLY 1960S, which is the BLOODY ERA WE ARE DISCUSSING, ISNT IT?!!!
WTF?
YOU ARE SO FULL OF LIES.
KEY SENTENCE(S) LIAR:
NAIL #1: "A central body known as the East African Currency Board was then established to oversee the issuance of currency in the region."
NAIL #2: "Denominations have progressively changed since then. CURRENT (MY BLOODY F'N EMPHASIS) denominations of banknotes and coins in circulation are as follows:- Coins – 5cent, 10 cent, 50 cent, 1 shilling, 5 shilling, 10 shilling, 20 shilling and 40 shilling Notes – 50 shilling, 100 shilling, 200 shilling, 500 shilling and 1,000 shilling. More details on the History of Kenyan Currency can be found by contacting the Bank."
NAIL #3: "Denominations have progressively changed since then."
NAIL #4: "Current denominations of banknotes and coins in circulation are..."
...AND PENCE WAS ALSO A STANDARD OF CURRENCY BEFORE 1966. YOUR LINK PROVES NOTHING EXCEPT WHAT IS BEING USED "NOW."
MY BOOK QUOTES SHOW THAT PENCE WAS ALSO USED IN CIRCULATION IN KENYA PRIOR TO 1966.
..AND FROM WIKI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Currency_Board
NAIL #5: "East African Currency Board
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The East African Currency Board (EACB) supplied and oversaw the currency of British colonies in East Africa from 1919 to 1966. It was established after Britain took control of mainland Tanzania from Germany at the end of World War I, and originally oversaw the territories of Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania (excluding Zanzibar). Zanibar joined the currency area in 1936. For most of its existence, its main function was to maintain the local shilling at par with the shilling in the United Kingdom. This was done by ensuring that the local currency was adequately backed by sterling securities. It operated out of premises at 4 Millbank, London SW1. The Board was replaced by the independent central banks of Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania in 1966."
NAIL #6: "The East African Currency Board (EACB) supplied and oversaw the currency of British colonies in East Africa from 1919 to 1966."
LUCKY NAIL #7: KEY PHRASES BUSTER: "This was done by ensuring that the local currency was adequately backed by sterling securities." i.e. Sterling i.e. shillings, PENCE! ...as stated in my book by MAXON ON THE PAGES I PROVIDED!
sooooo....would you like a wooden or metal coffin? or do you prefer cremation, since you are from a 20th century brit colony??? WE AIM TO P-L-E-A-S-E buster.
AND YES, THIS, AS WELL AS OTHER ISSUES, CAN BE READ AS EITHER "BLACK OR WHITE" I.E. "CUT & DRY."
...BUT SINCE YOU WERE BRED IN AN BACKWARDS-ASS & DISCRIMINATORY COLONY, I AM SORRY YOU CAN ONLY UNDERSTAND THAT PHRASE IN TERMS OF "THE COLOR OF A HUMAN BEINGS SKIN."
...if you only understanding people by the color of their skin, THATS YOUR PROBLEM & SIN NOT MINE.
so sad for you "mate."
"cheers"
Posted by: lu-ee at August 04, 2009 11:25 AM (oogdQ)
"either put up or shut up" pal.
NOBODY has debunked the copy shown on WND.
NOBODY.
cheers "mate."
Posted by: lu-ee at August 04, 2009 11:30 AM (oogdQ)
The birth certificate number is 47-O44 as in the 47 year old, 44th President. That alone should be a dead giveaway to us smart folk. Ya got a lot of nails but aren't building anything solid buddy. But hey, bright shiny baubles keep you busy.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 04, 2009 11:41 AM (OX5qU)
Two can play this game Lipi.
now...lets start with a friendly opening sentence: "oh yeah I am sure you are 100% correct Lipi."
...and yet the Oba-messiah is anointed "48" today.
not too good of timing if this crypto-forger released this doc so close to the One's August 4 b-day. No?
...so how about the "0" is the 47-044? does that stand for:
"0-bama" ???
where do you guys get this stuff? ...from a box of cereal maybe? i suppose next you are going to point out all of the "hidden meaning" on a dollar bill. oi vey...
NEXT!
oh...i almost forgot..."cheers" sport!
Posted by: lu-ee at August 04, 2009 12:05 PM (oogdQ)
It's not a game Lu-ee. It's just endless entertainment.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 04, 2009 12:10 PM (OX5qU)
Such seems to be the case with lu-ee. Note the screaming, name calling, etc.
Lipiwitz has it nailed.........endless entertainment when debating someone like lu-ee who is oblivious to the obvious. Unfortunately, it isn't what most folks would consider to be genuine political discourse.
It's a very interesting observation of how the human mind functions in some people. Sad, but true.
Posted by: Dude at August 04, 2009 12:40 PM (byA+E)
Pg. 182: is simply talking about exchange rates and confirms that the local currency was rupees and cents.
Pg. 241: Northey is reporting back to his masters in London and explaining prices in currency terms that are familiar to the people back home.
Pg. 201: Again, the reference to pence is the exchange rates to the florin.
Pg. 205: As I mentioned previously, there was a proposal (the "currency scheme" referred to) to replace local currency with sterling. It was rejected and the compromise was adjusting the florin exchange rate (discussed on pg. 201). Ex pats were always concerned about exchange rates. If they were using sterling on a day to day basis, there would never have been any issue. It is precisely because local currency had to be used inside the country that exchange rates were a major issue for the colonial administration.
Did you actually read the entire page of the Bank of Kenya's currency history before quoting from the last part that deals with post-1964?
Here are some coin collector links showing Kenya currency:
http://worldcoingallery.com/countries/Eafrica.php (the currency in use at the time in question).
http://worldcoingallery.com/countries/Kenya.php
Sterling was never legal tender inside Kenya any time during its history, and if we had tried to pay the local workers in UK shillings and pence, there would have been a riot. Likewise, I would have been somewhat disappointed if my weekly pocket money had been given to me in a form that I could not easily purchase gobstoppers with! Governments do not insert someone elses currency on their official documents.
As far as you nails are concerned, I fear they are in your coffin since not one of them refutes my assertion in any way, shape or form.
Either you have a reading comprehension problem or are simply pig ignorant. Regardless, you are a simple shill for the birthers. Anyone following this thread can look up their own references and judge for themselves.
Posted by: kenyanexpat at August 04, 2009 01:16 PM (osDyR)
BTW: Colonies such as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa all used pounds, shillings and pence as their local currency at some stage. However, even though they generally remained at par with sterling, the currency was locally issued. British notes or coins were not local legal tender in any of these in the post WWII era.
The creators of this birth certificate obviously made a very simply mistake - quite common unless you actually experienced the colonies.
Posted by: kenyanexpat at August 04, 2009 01:54 PM (osDyR)
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2646009.htm
Of course, I suppose the Austrialians are also Obamabots?
(lu-ee: "Drat, foiled again! Methinks I should shout a bit louder until these Obamanations see things my way.")
Posted by: kenyanexpat at August 04, 2009 03:13 PM (osDyR)
TO REPOST: BECAUSE I AM RIGHT AND YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN ME WRONG:
"East African Currency Board
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
"The East African Currency Board (EACB) supplied and oversaw the currency of British colonies in East Africa from 1919 to 1966. It was established after Britain took control of mainland Tanzania from Germany at the end of World War I, and originally oversaw the territories of Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania (excluding Zanzibar). Zanibar joined the currency area in 1936. For most of its existence, its main function was to maintain the local shilling at par with the shilling in the United Kingdom. This was done by ensuring that the local currency was adequately backed by sterling securities. It operated out of premises at 4 Millbank, London SW1. The Board was replaced by the independent central banks of Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania in 1966."
NAIL #6: "The East African Currency Board (EACB) supplied and oversaw the currency of British colonies in East Africa from 1919 to 1966."
LUCKY NAIL #7: KEY PHRASES BUSTER: "This was done by ensuring that the local currency was adequately backed by sterling securities." i.e. Sterling i.e. shillings, PENCE! ...as stated in my book by MAXON ON THE PAGES I PROVIDED!
PENCE WAS USED IN KENYA. YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE SELECTIVE MEMORY.
...and yet you still havent produced a KENYAN birth certificate from a country YOU SUPPOSEDLY LIVED IN.
Oh and if you are going to "quote me" why not try something i really said, such as "you are a fraud & a racist."
...now close your coffin and stay dead. ya damn zombie...and move over to make room for two more liberal commie bastard zombies, the insane #1 and crazy #2, dud and Lips_switch.
"cheers mate."
PS
kenyanexpat wrote:
"Of course, I suppose the Austrialians are also Obamabots?"
Yes they are.
Lips_switch (aka "Lipiwitz") wrote:
"It's not a game Lu-ee. It's just endless entertainment."
yes, its an "entertaining game" and the winner holds the stake of the world, principly the USA, in the veracity of his answers. To me its deadly serious, just like it is for YOUR LEADER, THE ONE, THE ANOINTED, THE OBA-MESSIAH.
dud (aka "dude")wrote:
"Such seems to be the case with lu-ee. Note the screaming, name calling, etc. Lipiwitz has it nailed.........endless entertainment when debating someone like lu-ee who is oblivious to the obvious. Unfortunately, it isn't what most folks would consider to be genuine political discourse."
...and yet dud takes part in disingenuous political discourse, name-calling & race-baiting, as well as fantasy political movements such as marxism & supporting the usurper, the Oba-messiah.
sounds to me that dud is a CLASSIC CASE OF PERSON WHO IS A LEGEND...IN HIS OWN MIND. Dud is more like "the pot calling the kettle hot" then the ELITE political pundit HE THINKS HE IS.
"cheers" liars, con-artists, racists, and liberals. As we debate, it is another bad week for the left-wing commie liberals, as their "supposed" presidential leader goes down in the polls ever further.
xoxoxoxoxo
Posted by: lu-ee at August 04, 2009 04:46 PM (oogdQ)
You keep regurgitating the same thing which does nothing to invalidate my point at all! Read the context instead of selectively picking up on phrases that appear to support you. The entire British empire used sterling securities to back up their local currencies. Like the gold standard that Britain drifted in and out of during the 20th century. This has nothing to do with currency in use in any part of the commonwealth. The EACB only ever issued East African shilling ands cents. I never claimed to have been born in Kenya - I was not. I merely point out that, despite your rantings to the contrary, you will never find an offical Kenyan document that used pence as the fee.
You obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about - as demonstrated by your reliance on a misreading of both Maxon and wikipedia (which also incorrectly refers to Tanzania. It was the Mandated Territory of Tanganyika, formerly German East Africa, back then)!
Strange how us rascists are the ones supporting the Black guy and you are the one desperately clutching at any straw to delegitimize him. You are a pathetic traitor to this great country. If "liberal" is the epithet to describe someone who does not share your values, then I am sure many of us are happy to be liberals.
Posted by: kenyanexpat at August 04, 2009 05:26 PM (osDyR)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akA7XABFTuSs
ya know extint_kenyan (AKA kenyanexpat), at least I dont vote for someone based on a guilty liberal conscience, such as yours, and the color of someone's skin, such as if a presidential candidate is black.
I vote based on ideas & associations.
The Oba-messiah has been associated with communists & radicals all his life.
The Oba-messiah's ideas are in line with communism & radicalism. These communists & radicalis are of all colors & creeds.
Therefore, no matter if the Oba-messiah was white, browm, or black, he would never get my vote...even if he was a descendent of good 'ol Georgie Washington.
That is more than i can say what motivates your brand of racism, fraud, & bigotry.
"cheers" fool. enjoy the down-fall of your god, the Oba-messiah. I for one am over-joyed to see it happening.
...inch by inch the usurper falls by a thousand cuts, along with his rabid & blind followers.
Posted by: lu-ee at August 06, 2009 09:06 AM (oogdQ)
Posted by: Dude at August 06, 2009 01:28 PM (byA+E)
So having lost the fake birth certificate debate, you are now left with nothing but name calling?
I too vote based on ideas and associations. I am proud to be a radical and yes, I have consorted with commies, anarchists, muslims, jews, christians, criminals, Republicans and general scumbags. This has allowed me to make an educated decision as to who I associate with. As pointed out by Dude, if it were not for radicals, the USA would not exist. In fact, without radicals, humans would still be living in the dark ages - though somehow through this social evolution you remain at the bottom of the food chain. Oh right, you probably don't believe in evolution either - which can only mean your god willed you there (probably for some misdemeanor in a previous incarnation).
This country overwhelmingly elected Obama as its leader, for better or for worse. The fact that you cannot accept the will of the majority of the people who bothered to vote says a tremendous amount about your personal honesty, morality, character and patriotism.
Hey, look on the bright side - Obama may well be the antichrist. That means the rapture is much closer - isn't that what y'all are waiting for? Good fortune for us too - we'll be rid of you! Purgatory will be a peaceful change.
Posted by: kenyanexpat at August 06, 2009 07:32 PM (osDyR)
key lie you posted is the term "overwhelmingly".
you are definitely getting desperate now, because the more I disbelieve & speak out against you & your beloved tyrant, the more hyperbole you are using. how f*kin well. your problem NOT MINE.
we shall see. the jury is still out on if he is even president or not.
"rapture" ? what are you talking about? I am not an evangelical you dope.
know your enemy loser. I gave away my background 10 posts ago. try again.
also, as I said in another thread. A patriotic democrat represenative from Hawaii is introducing legislation into Congress, also calling on the Oba-messiah, Your Commie Savior, to turn over all documents proving his citizenship & birth.
oh f*kin well. I guess everyone is concerned now.
Your just too radical to even give two sh*ts..
but others do. again, your loss.
cheers.
now for Dud,
as far as GW being a radical, prove it? democracy in the USA was based on hundreds of years of greco-roman and western european politcal evolution. It took a war pushed on the colonial inhabitants because of injustice & murder.
Your beloved current crop of 21 century liberal commie democrat politicians are tyrants who base their thug rule on lies, fraud, corruption, and erroding the Bill of Rights & Declar. of Independence. Those same documents were founded upon the core principles of the British Magna Carta. ya know?
As we speak the tyrant, and his Star Chamber, is collecting data on dissenters to his way of thought, and sending out purple shirts to beat those who also disagree with their thinking. Just dont think GW would agree with that.
you are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, but your side are radicals anyway. They work on chaos, and rules mean nothing, just how to bend & break those rules.
nice mafia you in bed with.
cheers. or more like "screams"
Posted by: lu-ee at August 07, 2009 02:36 PM (oogdQ)
Processing 0.1, elapsed 0.3326 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2463 seconds, 625 records returned.
Page size 569 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.