Get your Presidential ad fix from Wal-Mart

Obama Wants 12 Million Illegals to Get Citizenship

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

By: David A. Patten

A Barack Obama administration would be a “nation killer” if Democrats attain a “supermajority” in the Senate, a leading conservative figure on immigration warned Tuesday.

Obama also has said he wants to make the 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. citizens as soon as he can — an amnesty program that would make them legally entitled to full government benefits, including Social Security and health care.

William Gheen, president of the Raleigh, N.C.-based Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), says Obama’s plan would make it politically impossible to secure America’s borders. He describes Obama and a new Democratic Congress as a “worst-case scenario” for border and immigration security.

“I would paint that scenario as a nation killer,” Gheen, a former campaign consultant and an outspoken advocate for stronger border control policies, tells Newsmax. “I would expect amnesty to pass within a year. That means in the next presidential election, you will have a new voting bloc of 15 million illegal aliens who turn into voters.

“And that voting bloc,” he says, “especially in the Southwest United States, would be enough to take full control of most city, state, and county governments, thus destroying any future hopes for immigration enforcement or border security.”

Although GOP nominee John McCain has rarely confronted Obama during the campaign over immigration — presumably to avoid alienating Hispanic voters — Obama’s record reflects a clear focus on expanding entitlements to undocumented workers.

As a state senator in Illinois, for example, Obama co-sponsored that state’s version of the DREAM Act, which allowed youngsters in the country illegally to receive in-state tuition. He later supported similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

During a September campaign swing, Obama told the North Carolina Public Radio station WUNC that the children of illegal immigrants should have an opportunity to attend community colleges.

“For us to deny them access to community college, even though they’ve never lived in Mexico, as least as far as they can tell, is to deny that this is how we’ve always built this country up,” Obama said.

According to the NewsObserver.com, the McCain campaign reacted to Obama’s remark by issuing the statement: “John McCain does not support amnesty or benefits for undocumented immigrants. He has consistently opposed giving amnesty or public benefits to undocumented immigrants.”

Obama, who tends to dismiss discussion of his pro-immigration positions as politically motivated “distractions,” has demonstrated no such reticence to expand entitlements for illegals. Specifically:

Obama’s plan for universal health care would include coverage for illegal immigrants, according to political strategist and Newsmax columnist Dick Morris. Morris has warned that covering illegals “adds dramatically” to the cost of universal health care.

In March, Obama voted to table a Senate amendment that would support the withdrawal of federal assistance “to sanctuary cities that ignore the immigration laws of the United States and create safe havens for illegal aliens and potential terrorists.” McCain did not cast a vote. 
cont.

Obama supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform legislation that was defeated in 2006. Since then, McCain has taken the position that securing the borders must precede immigration reform. Obama continues to support a process to “bring people out of the shadows” and eventually obtain legal status (at which point they would be eligible for the federally mandated benefits available to anyone, such as Social Security). Obama also calls for enhanced border security.

The Democratic candidate for president supports, in principle, providing state-funded welfare benefits to legal immigrants. While a state senator, Obama supported allocating state funds to provide Medicaid coverage to some legal immigrants, according to OnTheIssues.org.

Obama has supported increasing the number of work visas issued each year, such as the H1-B visa, especially for applicants with specialized skills. According to OnTheIssues.org, Obama co-sponsored, along with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a bill that would provide federal funding to help states provide health care and education to non-U.S. citizens.

Obama strongly supports encouraging American children to become bilingual and, at one point in the campaign, appeared to suggest it should be mandatory. In June, he voted against a Senate provision that would declare English the national language of the United States. McCain voted for it.

Edward I. Nelson, the chairman of the nonprofit U.S. Border Control organization, warns that “Welfare and in-state tuition are powerful inducements to illegal immigration, as are free medical benefits.”

Nelson says his organization has awarded both Obama and McCain an “F” on their immigration and border control policies.

Gheen says Obama and McCain both would ultimately favor amnesty for illegals, albeit differently.

“Obama would give in-state tuition and driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, then make them legal,” Gheen says. “McCain would make them legal, and then give them in-state tuition and driver’s licenses.”

Sounds like McCain is for America. Obama has an agenda. He should have voted yes for English as the offical language. That was a good deciding factor with that one. Down with Obama he needs a lesson in American pop culture.
As for McCain he needs to have a clear plan. An American plan with help from voting tax paying citizens. Whitehouse watch out .

Sounds like McCain is for America.

Do any of you McCain supporters know how he got the nickname Songbird McCain?

For America? I don’t think so!

“I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who’s hitting you? It’s about time that the people of America realized what the Republicans have been doing to them.” - Harry Truman 1948

(We’re still wondering, Harry.)

Do any of you McCain supporters know how he got the nickname Songbird McCain?

Yet, another misinformation campaign brought to you by…

“My name’s Ken V and I approved this message”

ROBOCALL

“Hello, this is John McCain. My bombs were bigger than those of William Ayers and I killed more people than he did. I went to prison for what I was involved with and he didn’t. That makes him a terrorist and me a heroic figure of failed naval aviation. Cindy says to say ‘Hi!’ and if you have anything extra in your medicine cabinet please send it to the ranch in Sedona where we will be spending the rest of our lives. Thanks again for wasting your vote on me and supporting the Bush legacy of arrogance, economic collapse and murderous fraud. Have a nice day.”

“Take it from me John, the fat lady has already been singing you the squawking falsetto opera and you are apparently, understandably and egotistically deaf. But still you gotta blow mucho coin on the advertising crowd. Try and minimize the damage, I’ve been getting calls already. I’m blaming Bush for everything so your off the hook.”

McCain is heading towards 90-125 electoral votes. This election is over.

John McCain- I’m going home to the ranch in Sedona where Cindy can roll me a fat doobie.

McCain draws heat from vet group, Club for Growth
By Aaron Blake March 14, 2007

Excerpts include-

Meanwhile, a new “527” advocacy group, similar to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, has pledged to expose McCain as a communist apologist who turned his back on prisoners of war.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign had no comment on the new 527, known as “Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain.” It is founded by the same veterans who ran an Internet information campaign against Kerry in 2004, “Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry.”

Vietnam veterans Jerry Kiley and Ted Sampley filed with the IRS late last month and recently launched a website with the “express purpose of defeating John McCain.” In contrast to the 2004 election, the group plans to run ads on television and radio in addition to its Web-based approach.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mccain-draws-heat-from-vet-group-club-for-growth-2007-03-13.html

Alice Walton has begun to champion conservative candidates and causes. She was in the top 20 biggest contributors to right-wing “527” lobbying corporations. Her largest donation of $2.6 million went to Progress for America, which sponsored the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attack on candidate John Kerry and lobbied for the privatization of social security and repeal of the estate tax.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Has John McCain Blocked Info on MIAs? By Sydney H. Schanberg
This article appeared in the October 6, 2008 edition of The Nation.

September 17, 2008

John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn’t return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero people would logically imagine to be a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain’s role in it, even as McCain has made his military service and POW history the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War have also turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn’t talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.

The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a Special Forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington and even sworn testimony by two defense secretaries that “men were left behind.” This imposing body of evidence suggests that a large number--probably hundreds--of the US prisoners held in Vietnam were not returned when the peace treaty was signed in January 1973 and Hanoi released 591 men, among them Navy combat pilot John S. McCain.~~~~~~~~~~~the Nation,October,08~~~~NOTE: This is a SUPERB article,and well woth reading in its entirety.It is inconceivable that someone who was a POW themself would introduce legislation ,on multiple occasions, to close and deny access to info on POWs of ANY conflict,not just Vietnam.His record of voting AGAINST many veterans bills just makes me wonder,who and what is the REAL John McCain?

Bob Dole: Hear that your wife,Elizabeth is gonna lose,too.

Five Myths About John McCain : Rolling Stone : National Affairs DailyOct 3, 2008 ... John McCain: Make-Believe Maverick. • The Double-Talk Express ..... He calls himself a Maverick and if he knew anything about our country ...
www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2008/10/03/five-myths-about-john-mccain/ - 136k -
t r u t h o u t | Make-Believe MaverickOct 9, 2008 ... Make-Believe Maverick. Thursday 16 October 2008. » by: Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone. www.truthout.org/100508A - 133k -

another misinformation campaign...

I’ll take that as a ‘yes’, bb, you do know the origin of Songbird McCain.

“The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America.” Senator Jim Bunning, (R) Kentucky ~ NYT

WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD??*

SARAH PALIN: Before it got to the other side, I shot the chicken, cleaned and dressed it, and had chicken burgers for lunch.

BARACK OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a change! The chicken wanted change!

JOHN MC CAIN: My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.

HILLARY CLINTON: When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure right from Day One! that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn’t about me.

GEORGE W. BUSH: We don’t really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.

DICK CHENEY: Where’s my gun?

COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.

BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken. What is your definition of chicken?

AL GORE:  Republicans say I said I invented the chicken.  I never claimed to have invented the chicken.  What I said was that I took the lead in passing a law to protect the chicken’s right to cross the road.

JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken’s intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.

DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won’t realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the oth er side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he’s acting by not taking on his current problems before adding new problems.

OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I’m going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.

NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he’s guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.

PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.

MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer’s Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.

DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I’ve not been told.

ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.

GRANDPA: In my day we didn’t ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.

BARBARA WALTERS: Isn’t that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.

ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.

JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.

BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken 2008, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important docu ments, and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken 2008. This new platform is much more stable and will never crash or need to be rebooted.

ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?

COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?

Phoenix New Times Details McCain’s Rift with Veterans
by: Brandon Friedman
Wed Oct 22, 2008
I recently spoke to Amy Silverman of the Phoenix New Times about a piece she was working on about John McCain’s lack of support among veterans, mainly in Arizona.  While a lot of print media sources have recently come out criticizing McCain, few have actually taken the time to analyze his legislative record with regard to vets.  Fortunately, Silverman has now done just that.  Combing through McCain’s voting record and speaking to veterans from World War Two through Iraq, she lays it out in detail this week in an extensive piece.  Here’s an excerpt:

In the last few minutes of the first presidential debate, on September 26, John McCain made a statement that probably blew past most economy-obsessed Americans but stopped a lot of military veterans short.
Barack Obama had just remarked that he’s approached all the time by Iraq War veterans who say they can’t get help for post-traumatic stress disorder from the overwhelmed veterans administration, something Obama vows to improve. When it was his turn to reply, McCain seemed incensed that Obama would dare intrude on McCain’s turf as, perhaps, America’s most famous injured war vet.

“I know the veterans and I know them well,” he said, his voice shaky with emotion. “And I know that they know that I’ll take care of them. And I’ve been proud of their support and of their recognition of my service to the veterans. And I love them, and I’ll take care of them. And they know that I’ll take care of them.”

But he hasn’t. McCain’s had 25 years in Congress to help veterans, yet nearly all he’s done is talk about his own experiences as a prisoner of war - and push the country to go to war again.

Veterans groups are finally speaking out about their frustration with McCain, who rides on his reputation as a war veteran while sitting on a LONG record of opposing legislation that would benefit vets.

McCain’s campaign did NOT return a call for comment about the work he claims to have done on behalf of veterans, both regarding his voting record and his constituent-services operations. To be fair, it’s not that McCain has never cast a pro-veteran vote or helped a vet in need. But the overwhelming pattern of his actions is hypocritical: On the campaign trail, he pledges support. Listening to him, you’d think he’s been the veterans’ greatest champion. An examination of his record both in Washington, D.C., and Arizona just doesn’t bear that out.

Click on to the Phoenix New Times link ,and read the entire piece,over at www.vetvoice.com.The Vet Voice site is terrific,BTW.

r u a vet, ddrb?

Why is all of this going unnoticed by the media???? 

They send 1000 reporters to Alaska to dig up something

on Sarah palin and they have this right in front of their eyes!

From Dreams of My Father:

‘I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of

12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing

so I was ingratiating myself to whites.’

From Dreams of My Father :

‘I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense

of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.’

From Dreams of My Father:

‘There was something about him that

made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.’

From Dreams of My Father:

‘It remained necessary to prove which side

you were on, to show your loyalty to the

black masses, to strike out and name names.’

From Dreams of My Father:

‘I never emulate white men and brown men

whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was

into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa ,

that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself ,

the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.’

And FINALLY the Most Damning one of ALL of them!!!

From Audacity of Hope:

‘I will stand with the Muslims should

the political winds shift in an ugly direction.’

* If you have never forwarded an e-mail,

now is the time to Do so!!! We CANNOT have

someone with this type of mentality running

our GREAT nation!!  I don’t care whether

you’re a Democrat or a Conservative.

We CANNOT turn ourselves over to this

type of character in a President.

PLEASE help spread the word

RNC: Obama ‘Outside Law’ on Donors

Thursday, October 23, 2008

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

The Republican National Committee on Thursday supplemented its Oct. 6 complaint to the Federal Election Committee and — citing new revelations by Newsmax and other news organizations — called on the FEC to “immediately conduct a full audit” of the Obama campaign accounts.

The RNC complaint asserts that the Obama campaign had demonstrated a “lack of compliance with the law” because of its acceptance of prohibited donations from foreign nationals, excessive contributions from individuals, and donations from unknown sources.

At the same time, RNC officials said they recognize that the FEC has “no authority” to freeze campaign accounts or to take other actions that would actually prevent the Obama campaign from spending money illegally obtained from foreign nationals to influence the U.S. presidential election.

“The system isn’t designed for actors who are going to ignore the law,” RNC chief legal counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax.

A Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign’s campaign finance disclosures found 60,000 donations in unrounded amounts that fundraising experts said clearly suggested were “foreign currency transactions” translated into U.S. dollars.

The Obama campaign claims that many of these donations were purchases of T-shirts form the Obama store. However, when asked by Newsmax to provide an accounting for receipts and expenditures of the Obama store, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt could only name a single supplier who sold merchandise worth less than $500,000, according to campaign records.

RNC chief counsel Sean Caircross commended Newsmax for reporting that helped to break open the secretive fundraising schemes used by the Obama campaign.

“The Newsmax articles constitute some of the exhibits to our original complaint,” he said. “We commend Newsmax and other media organizations who are doing a good job in looking into what seems to be a rather large issue for the Obama campaign.”

Reporting by Newsmax and others of fictitious donors such as “Family Guy” and “King Kong” made it “clear that the Obama For America campaign is operating outside of the law,” Cairncross said.

“The complete and total lack of any control mechanisms within the Obama campaign’s fundraising operation has undermined any confidence in their ability to curtail excessive, foreign, and fraudulent contributions and demands immediate attention from the Federal Election Commission (FEC),” he added.

The RNC now believes that the Obama campaign violated federal election law by “accepting contributions resulting from third party fraud, and possibly accepting contributions made in the name of another,” the complaint asserts.

Such contributions — made in the name of “Saddam Hussein,” “Osama bin Laden,” “OJ Simpson” and others — are the only violation of federal election law that carries a criminal penalty, RNC sources and outside campaign finance lawyers said.

While the Obama campaign has said repeatedly that they have procedures in place to screen out possible illegal donations, the spate of news reporting to the contrary shows that they have failed, the latest RNC complaint asserts.

“Developing a large donor base and raising enormous sums of money” — excuses commonly cited by the Obama campaign for the influx of illegal donations — “is not an excuse for ignoring the law.”

While the Obama campaign claims that it has “bent over backward” to root out illegal contributions, it has ignored contributions that were explicitly made by foreign nationals, the complaint says, citing an August 2008 report from the Associated Press.

The AP report identified Australian citizen Richard Watters, who contributed $1,000 to the Obama campaign via the Internet “by entering a fake U.S. passport number and checking a box stating that he was a U.S. citizen living abroad.”

In another case, a Canadian donor named Tom Sanderson gave $500 to the Obama campaign via the Internet, and included a note in one of the address fields stating, “I am not a (sic) American citizen!”

“From the moment it was made, the Sanderson contribution was clear on its face that it was coming to a foreign national,” the RNC complaint states.

Given that the Obama campaign couldn’t detect such an obvious violation of law, “it is unsurprising that (Obama for America) was also unable to detect contributions from unknown sources with blatantly fictitious names,” the complaint says.

The RNC complaint cites the “now infamous” cases of “Good Will” and “Doodad Pro,” which Newsmax helped to expose.

cont.

The New York Times exposed contributions from other fictitious donors such as “Test Person,” residing in “Some Place, Utah,” and “Jockim Alberton,” residing at a fictional address in Wilmington, Delaware. They also cited donors giving the names “Derty West” and “Derty Poiuuy,” both residing in “rewq, ME.”

The Los Angeles Times found a series of contributions from “Mong Kong” that gave a nonexistent address. The Obama campaign said they were unaware of the illegality of these contributions until the press reports appeared.

Other contributions were comprised of randomly selected letters. The Obama campaign took 37 separate donations of $10 each from “Jgtj Jfggijfgi,” $7,497.59 from “Dahsudhu Hdusahfd,” and $11,900 from “Uadhshgu Hduadh.”

The RNC says it believes that while some of the contributors using fictitious names may have done so “in order to remain anonymous… Many of them may have been using fictitious names to skirt the law,” since their contributions were “far more than the $4,300 legal limit.”

Not only has the Obama campaign “accepted contributions from unknown sources, but it also may have accepted contributions made in the name of another,” the RNC said.

“A Newsmax investigation reports the existence of a growing trend to purchase disposable “gift” credit cards to make donations,” the complaint says, citing a report that appeared earlier this week.

“These ‘gift’ credit cards can only be tracked by the numbers, so there is no way of knowing who made the contribution,” the complaint states.

A Newsmax informant said he had made a series of $5 donations in less than an hour, each time using “a different name and address, all of which were obviously fictitious and some even including foreign addresses,” the RNC complaint states.

Among the fictitious donors were “Daffy Duck,” “Bart Simpson,” and “Raela Odinga.”

In addition, the RNC cited several media reports that said both personal and corporate credit cards had been charged with unauthorized contributions to the Obama campaign.

Ms. Patricia Phillips, a Virginia resident who also is a candidate for the State Senate, discovered a $5 charge on her corporate credit card statement for a contribution to the Obama campaign.

“Ms. Phillip’s situation is troublesome for two primary reasons,” the RNC complaint states. “First, OFA accepted a contribution from a corporate credit card,” which is illegal. “Second, OFA accepted a contribution that was fraudulently made.”

The Washington Post uncovered that donation, as well as a $2,300 contribution made to OFA that was charged to the credit card of Steve and Rachel Larman of Missouri without the couple’s knowledge.

As Republicans, they were surprised to receive their credit card statement and discover the donation to the Obama campaign.

The RNC complaint noted that, by all appearances, the Obama campaign had disabled standard security features on its fundraising website.

“For example, online merchants usually match the cardholders’ provided name and address to the credit card number to protect against fraud,” the RNC noted. But “given the high number of fictitious contributor names linked to credit card contributions, OFA appears not to be consistently following this practice.”

Even more troubling than these cases appearing in the Obama campaign’s itemized contributions is the $270 million that the campaign has taken from undisclosed sources.

“The RNC believes that widespread illegalities may exist among these un-itemized contributions and requests that the Commission immediately investigate both itemized and un-itemized contributions in both the OFA primary and general election periods to ensure a fair and open election.

“The American people deserve to know the origin of the over $600 million that may help elect a President of the United States,” the complaint concludes.

Obama: Most Secretive Democratic Candidate Ever

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

By: David A. Patten

Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign says his campaign will bring a new level of honesty and transparency to the White House. Obama proudly touts that he and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, passed a law requiring more transparency via a public database of all federal spending.

But when it comes to offering the public documents about his own public and private activities, Obama’s record for openness gets an “F” grade.

During the heated Democratic primary, Obama complained of the Bush White House being “one of the most secretive administrations in our history” and chided Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.

Ironically, Obama, just days away from possibly being elected president, continues to stonewall a growing chorus of information requests for documents about his legislative, personal health, education, financing, and background—leaving many voters to cast ballots based on incomplete information.

And serious questions about his past continue to swirl as Election Day looms, fueled in part by his own campaign’s refusal to make relevant documents available.

And the press, usually banging at the door for candidates to make “full disclosure” is strangely quiet about Obama’s stonewalling.

A Newsmax survey of key Obama aspects of Obama’s public and private life continued to be shielded from the public.

Among the examples:

Obama has released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hands, released what he said was his complete medical file totaling more than 1500 pages. After criticism on the matter, last week the Obama campaign also released some routine lab-test results and electrocardiograms for Obama. All test results appeared normal, but many details about his health remain a mystery.

Obama has refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois, and has been unable to produce correspondence, such as letters from lobbyists and other correspondence from his days in the Illinois state senate. There are also no appointment calendars available of his official activities. “It could have been thrown out,” Obama said while on the campaign trail during the Democratic primary. “I haven’t been in the state Senate now for quite some time.”

Obama has not released his client list as an attorney or his billing records. Obama has maintained that he only performed a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June. But he has not released billing records that would prove this assertion.

Obama won’t release his college records from Occidental College where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia.

Obama’s campaign refuses to give Columbia University, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Such transcripts would list the courses Obama took, and his grades. President George W. Bush, and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry, all released their college transcripts. (McCain has refused to release his Naval Academy transcript.)

Obama’s college dissertation has simply disappeared from Columbia Universities archives. In July, in response to a flurry of requests to review Obama’s senior thesis at the Ivy League school, reportedly titled “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told NBC News “We do not have a copy of the course paper you requested and neither does Columbia University.”

The senator has not agreed to the release of his application to the Illinois state bar, which would clear up intermittent allegations that his application to the bar may have been inaccurate.

Jim Geraghty of the National Review has written extensively about Obama’s unwillingness to release records related to clients he represented while he was an attorney with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill, and Gallard. Obama was required to list his clients during his years in the Illinois senate. “Obama listed every client of the firm,” Geraghty reported, making it impossible to discern which clients he represented.

Obama has never released records from his time at Harvard Law School.

Obama also has not disclosed the names of small donors giving $200 or less to his campaign. An exception to the finance-reporting laws exempts the campaign from reporting those who donate less than $200, but that law never envisioned the more than $300 million that has been raised by Obama in small amounts. The Republican National Committee has released its small donors, as well as McCain’s, on a public database.

On several occasions, the Obama campaign has offered to provide additional information to reporters if they have specific questions or issues. And in some cases, it has done so.

cont.

When Internet rumors began to fly that perhaps Obama was born outside the United States, for example, the campaign released images of a birth certificate that verified his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. When that led to suggestions the birth certificate had been altered, the campaign again responded, allowing reporters to examine the actual birth certificate, complete with raised seal. (In late July, according to FactCheck.org, a researcher uncovered an announcement of Obama’s birth in the August 13, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser).

Such instances of cooperation pale, however, compared to the many unanswered questions surrounding Obama, such as the financing of his education, and requests for the complete release of all donors to his campaign.

Of course, candidates are often reticent to disclose any information that opposition researchers could use against them.

But Politico.com notes that the Obama’s failure to share documents is “part of his campaign’s broader pattern of rarely volunteering information or documents about the candidate, even when relatively innocuous.”

The hue and cry from the media for disclosure usually forces candidates to release sought after documents. But the press has largely acquiesced to Obama’s stonewalling.

GREAT READ

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.’I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’’Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too.
It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got’ ‘That’s true!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’’Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of Economics University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Larry in USN WWII (Ret)

Thanks for the chicken cut and post. It is nice to read something that is interesting.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse

R E M E M B E R
J A C K S O N V I L L E
T E X A S
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse

Larry,

“For those who understand, no explanation is needed.For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.”

I understand, but I’m afraid many of the others will say, I don’t understand what men drinking in a bar has to do with taxes!!

Some alcoholics are worse than others. They drink themselves into a illustrative stupor and then try to explain income economics and taxes while blaming women for being raped or victims for being robbed.

“The more you explain it, the more I don’t understand it.”
Mark Twain

ABOUT THE STOCK MARKET……..

Once upon a time in a place overrun with monkeys, a man
appeared and announced to the villagers that he would buy monkeys for $10 each. The villagers, seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest, and started catching them.

The man bought thousands at $10 and as supply started to
diminish, they became harder to catch, so the villagers stopped their effort. The man then announced that he would now pay $20 for each one.

This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started catching monkeys again. But soon the supply diminished even further and they were ever harder to catch, so people started going back to their farms and forgot about monkey catching. The man increased his price to $25 each and the supply of monkeys became so sparse that it was an effort to even see a monkey, much less catch one.

The man now announced that he would buy monkeys for $50! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would now buy on his behalf.

While the man was away the assistant told the villagers.
‘Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has bought. I will sell them to you at $35 each and when the man returns from the city, you can sell them to him for $50 each.’

The villagers rounded up all their savings and bought all the monkeys. They never saw the man or his assistant again and once again there were monkeys everywhere.
Now you have a better understanding of how the stock market works.

There is an old Polish proverb that says ‘A man and his assistant who buy monkeys, will pay for expensive beer at Bushco’s Limbaugh Bar and complaint lounge.’

Once again Larry has my scroll wheel smokin’! One of the things people are fed up with about Republicans is their need to befowl their surroundings. Hello! Larry! This is an anti Wal-Mart site, not an anti Obama site. Enough is enough!

Besides, some far better hate mongers than you are spinning this crap and getting no traction. Wake up, Larry, the Atwater/Rove politics of division no longer work.

Live Better In Cheap Underwear

Once again Larry has my scroll wheel smokin’! One of the things people are fed up with about Republicans is their need to befowl their surroundings. Hello! Larry! This is an anti Wal-Mart site, not an anti Obama site. Enough is enough!

Didn’t ‘Lar once say he was not too terribly fond of Wal-Mart?

Sounds like your kind of fella to me, Kenbo…

Sounds like your kind of fella to me...

Your inability to correctly process sensory input is a ‘given’ in these parts, bb. I only wonder if you have misread Larry or me or both?

It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear. ~ Frank Luntz

bbrd,

“This is an anti Wal-Mart site, not an anti Obama site. Enough is enough!” ~ Ken V.

Notice how Ken gets upset with Larry’s anti-Obama posts, but has NO problem with ddrb’s 3 to 1 anti-McCain posts?

RDS,

There is an old Polish proverb that says ‘A just King that governs his critics well, will also let them drive their own ambulances and hearses into each other.’

Ken gets upset with Larry’s anti-Obama posts...

It’s not the substance of Larry’s posts, its the VOLUME. The people aren’t buying his tired old crap anyway. I piss on your sinking boat, Larry.

Anyone want to bet on Democratic increases in the House and Senate?

Live Better In Cheap Underwear

I piss on you! Colon Kissing Ken!
Cant take the truth, Huh. Heres some more!

Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate Lawsuit

Friday, October 24, 2008

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

A Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that Barack Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” of the United States took an unusual twist this week, after a federally mandated deadline requiring Obama’s lawyers to produce a “vault” copy of his birth certificate expired with no response from Obama or his lawyers.

The lawsuit, filed by former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip J. Berg — a self-avowed supporter of Hillary Clinton — alleges that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus “ineligible” to run for president of the United States. It demands that Obama’s lawyers produce a copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Berg’s suit and allegations have set off a wave of Internet buzz and rumors, though Obama could easily have put the matter to rest by providing the federal court with the basic documentation proving he is eligible to take the oath of a president. But Obama has apparently decided to deny the court and the public that documentation.

The Constitution provides that any U.S. citizen is eligible to become president if the person is 35 years of age or older and is a natural-born citizen; that is, born in the territorial United States.

By failing to respond to the Request for Admissions and Request for the Production of Documents within 30 days, Obama has “admitted” that he was born in Kenya, Berg stated this week in new court filings.

Berg released a long list of “admissions” he submitted to Obama’s lawyers on Sept. 15, and asked that they produce documents relating to Obama’s place of birth and citizenship.

Instead of responding, lawyers for Obama and the DNC asked the court to dismiss the case. But Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued no ruling in the case that would have given Obama’s lawyers more time.

“There are lots of legal ways to stonewall,” a well-placed Republican attorney told Newsmax, who was not authorized to comment officially on the case. “But failing to respond is not one of them.”

“The first thing they teach you in law school,” he added, “is don’t put a complaint like this in a drawer. That’s how a nuisance case can become a problem.”

The 30-day deadline for defendants to comply with a discovery request is set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.

“It all comes down to the fact that there’s nothing from the other side,” Berg said after he filed a motion on Thursday for summary judgment.

“The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. [Obama] admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States.”

The Moral Decay of Our Society can be directly linked to the LIBERAL DEMOCRAT and Their Self Centered Indulgence!

Sounds like a definition of the Ken V.- type.

Anyone want to guess how many intoxicated people were served at Ken V’s bar, who then got in a motor vehicle and drove on a public street or highway?

Here’s an idea from a Liberal Democrat waste of skin!

Speaking of such- I’ve seen the same type of rhetoric from Ken V. followed by a repetitious quote. Enough is enough!

Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. In other words
> tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. This woman is a
> nut case! You aren’t going to believe this.
>
> Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market
> profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true
> - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed
> Minorities!
>
> This woman is frightening.
> She quotes...’ We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income,
> (didn’t Marx say so mething like this), in our country and at the same time
> limiting the amount the rich can invest.’ (I am not rich, are you?)
>
> When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:
> ‘We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and
> minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants
> in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed
> minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to
> guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as
> ‘Americans’.’ (Read that quote again and again and let it sink in. ‘Lower
> your retirement; give it to others who have not worked as you have for it’.

As usual, Larry, you’re just a little confused. I never owned a bar. That was RDS.

The Moral Decay of Our Society...

You folks had enough of the ‘moral’ leadership we’ve been getting under Bush and his gang of thugs? We can all pray on our way to the poor house.

The Conservative movement along with the Republican party are morally and fiscally bankrupt.

The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return. ~ Gore Vidal

P.S.

In other words
> tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement.

All those that “made” anything on their investments, please raise your hand. In case you hadn’t heard, Larry, the market has lost over $3 TRILLION! If we don’t tax someone how are we going to keep the fat cats fat?

If there has been one uninterrupted trend of the past century, it has been the steady socialization of risk—especially financial risk. ~ Wall Street Journal

Larry,

Ken V. said he owned a resturant!! 
“I used to own a restaurant in a college town. All my waitresses were visually appealing co-eds. In the immortal words of Oscar Wilde, “I can resist anything but temptation”.

Ken V in Texas
Saturday, May 03 at 04:04 PM”

“Like I said, it was a college town, so, yes, they “were allowed to set their own schedules”. My better waitresses made in excess of $25 per hour. No bennies.

Ken V in Texas
Sunday, May 04 at 05:38 AM”

But, you know what waitresses make, most of their money comes in TIPS and Ken admits the waitresses had NO benefits!!  And, then Ken has the nerve to complain about what Wal-Mart pays and what their benefit package is!!

And, Ken, I never owned a bar, either!!

Your inability to correctly process sensory input is a ‘given’ in these parts, bb.

And your inability to seperate reality from the fantasy world of your youth is a waste of KB.

Speaking of such- I’ve seen the same type of rhetoric from Ken V. followed by a repetitious quote. Enough is enough!

Now, that’s something we all can agree on!

Ken admits the waitresses had NO benefits!!

The only benefit I claim for the waitresses that worked for me was the opportunity to make huge tips. How’s the tips working at Wal-Mart?

Now, that’s something we all can agree on!

That, boys and girls, is a classic example of rhetorical over-reach.

Live Better In Cheap Underwear

I agree with pissing on Larry’s sinking boat.

Ken V,

“The only benefit I claim for the waitresses that worked for me was the opportunity to make huge tips. How’s the tips working at Wal-Mart?”

And, just HOW did you claim they would make HUGE tips?  Aren’t tips at the discretion of the customer?  The point is, it didn’t cost YOU ‘living wages’ for your employees, they had to depend on the customers generosity!!  As Wal-Mart pays hourly wages, the employees don’t have to depend on customers for TIPS, they know what they will make, every hour they work!!

“My better waitresses made in excess of $25 per hour.”

And, what did your NO SO BETTER waitresses make?

“All my waitresses were visually appealing co-eds.”

How much of their TIPS, depended on their being ‘visually appealing’?  And, if a NOT SO ATTRACTIVE woman came for a job, would you have hired her or did she have to be ‘visually appealing’ to get a job?

And, what did your NO SO BETTER waitresses make?

15%. If a waitress couldn’t make 15% of her sales total in tips, she had the choice of a non-waiting job (kitchen) or hitting the bricks.

...did she have to be ‘visually appealing’ to get a job?

Yup.

Ken V,

“...did she have to be ‘visually appealing’ to get a job?

Yup.”

Thought so!!  Bet you would yell to high heaven if Wal-Mart only employed ‘visually appealing’ people, that would be claimed as being discriminatory!!

I would think that having a smart, kind, witty man like Ken as a boss would be a benefit in and of itself!They might actually have looked FORWARD to going to work,and have a better frame of mind -as a result-for dealing with a demanding public.Food servers get a LOT of flack thrown at them,God bless ‘em.

BTW, good looks may have gotten their” foot in the door”,but their abilty to perform with the public is ultimately what kept them there...or didn’t.I think Sarah Palin would have been a good choice-she looks good,but can BS even better!She would have made a LOT of tips.

ddrb,

“I would think that having a smart, kind, witty man like Ken as a boss would be a benefit in and of itself!”

Yeah, but would YOU have even ‘qualified’ for a job at Ken’s restaurant, or would you have had to stay in the KITCHEN?  Too bad, no matter how ‘good’ a job they could have done, ‘ugly’ women wouldn’t even get hired there and given a chance to show what they could do!!  I would think that being a woman, you would find it just wrong to hire a woman based on solely on their ‘Looks’!!

“Food servers get a LOT of flack thrown at them.”

Not so much with ‘great looking’ co-eds, especially if they wear ‘skimpy’ uniforms!!

Bet you would yell to high heaven...

Call! Name the stakes.

Are you denouncing Hooters’ business model, RDS?

For an all-or-nothing guy like you, RDS, this may come as a surprise but being ‘visually appealing’ and being a good waitress are not mutually exclusive. Or are you of the school that attractive women are incompetent? Do you like blond jokes?

Besides, as I wrote before the cutoff was not how they looked but if they were able to generate 15% of their sales in tips.

Live Better In Cheap Underwear

Ken V,

“Are you denouncing Hooters’ business model, RDS?”

No, I think any business has the right to form their own ‘business model’, even yours!!  It is YOU who is denoucing Wal-Mart’s business model!!

“this may come as a surprise but being ‘visually appealing’ and being a good waitress are not mutually exclusive. Or are you of the school that attractive women are incompetent?”

I never said that, competence can come in many different packages, it is YOU that decided that people who weren’t ‘visually attractive’ weren’t worthy of a job in your establishment!!

“Besides, as I wrote before the cutoff was not how they looked but if they were able to generate 15% of their sales in tips.”

I would think it would be better to judge a person on ‘How many sales they generated (ie: repeat business), rather than how much they made in tips”, in other words, under your criteria, a waitress could have 1 - $20.00 sale and generate a $3.00 tip (15%) and you would keep her on, and another one could have 50 - $20.00 sales and generate an average (10%)in tips and she would “Hit the bricks”, but, maybe that’s why you are no longer in the business!!