Go Sarah...:)
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Arnold and Sly in the hospital together ....!
No, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone aren't shooting a scene for a movie about 60something former action stars who forge a friendship in a nursing home. The two happened to bump into each other in the hospital as they both got ready to have shoulder surgeries and Schwarzenegger decided to post this pic to his WhoSay page on Wednesday. "After all the action, stunts & physical abuse shooting The Expendables 2 and The Last Stand
Maybe they should stay a tad longer and get some Lipo and a face lift...lol
Four More Years of Obama and it will become Run-Dude-Run ...!
The GOP had better get their proverbial 'Stuff' together...lest we all will be running thru the Jungle! The Obama admin wants our heart,soul and minds..!
Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin discusses the denial of access to key witnesses.
Whichever GOP becomes the nominee...then wins the General election...first up on the agenda should be a Pardon for LTC Lakin and reinstatement to the Officer Corps in the Army.... Stat!
Reid blocks effort to repeal birth control rule, tells opponents to "calm down"
by Audrey Hudson
Senate Republicans on Thursday were blocked from offering legislation to repeal the Obama administration’s rule requiring religious organizations to provide free birth control through insurance coverage.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called the lawmakers’ efforts “senseless” and said they needed to “calm down” and wait until the controversial regulation is finalized before trying to stop it.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) tried to add an amendment that has bipartisan support to a transportation bill being debated on the floor, but Reid blocked the maneuver because he said the language was not germane to the legislation.
“I appreciate that the Republicans take every opportunity… to mess up a good piece of legislation,” Reid said.
“The rule hasn't even been finalized yet. Let's at least wait until there is a final rule. Everybody should calm down, let see what transpires,” Reid said.
“I’ve never seen anything like this before,” Reid said.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed that he had never seen anything like this before, but for a different reason.
“(Democrats) won’t allow those of us who were sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution to even offer an amendment that says we believe in our First Amendment right to religious freedom. I never thought I’d see the day,” McConnell responded.
“I’ve spent a lot of time in my life defending the First Amendment. But I never thought I’d see the day when the elected representatives of the people of this country would be blocked by a majority party in Congress to even express their support for it.”
Speaking to the Conservative Political Action Committee conference in Washington earlier in the day, McConnell vowed to “fight this attack on the fundamental right to religious freedom until the courts overturn it or we’ve got a president who will reverse it.”
The floor skirmish came as two key Democratic Senators publicly broke with the president to publicly oppose the rule, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida.
The White House said they would give religious institutions a year to comply with the rule, which Blunt said makes their actions “even more offensive.”
“The idea that you could change your religious beliefs in a year, or a lifetime, because some federal regulator says you need to, is unbelievably offensive in our country based on the principles that we hold most dear in the Constitution itself,” Blunt said.
Blunt said he was disappointed the Democratic leader blocked his amendment, but said this won’t be last time Republicans will try and move legislation on the floor to reverse the decision.
“I will be back,” Blunt said.
Senate Republicans on Thursday were blocked from offering legislation to repeal the Obama administration’s rule requiring religious organizations to provide free birth control through insurance coverage.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called the lawmakers’ efforts “senseless” and said they needed to “calm down” and wait until the controversial regulation is finalized before trying to stop it.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) tried to add an amendment that has bipartisan support to a transportation bill being debated on the floor, but Reid blocked the maneuver because he said the language was not germane to the legislation.
“I appreciate that the Republicans take every opportunity… to mess up a good piece of legislation,” Reid said.
“The rule hasn't even been finalized yet. Let's at least wait until there is a final rule. Everybody should calm down, let see what transpires,” Reid said.
“I’ve never seen anything like this before,” Reid said.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed that he had never seen anything like this before, but for a different reason.
“(Democrats) won’t allow those of us who were sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution to even offer an amendment that says we believe in our First Amendment right to religious freedom. I never thought I’d see the day,” McConnell responded.
“I’ve spent a lot of time in my life defending the First Amendment. But I never thought I’d see the day when the elected representatives of the people of this country would be blocked by a majority party in Congress to even express their support for it.”
Speaking to the Conservative Political Action Committee conference in Washington earlier in the day, McConnell vowed to “fight this attack on the fundamental right to religious freedom until the courts overturn it or we’ve got a president who will reverse it.”
The floor skirmish came as two key Democratic Senators publicly broke with the president to publicly oppose the rule, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida.
The White House said they would give religious institutions a year to comply with the rule, which Blunt said makes their actions “even more offensive.”
“The idea that you could change your religious beliefs in a year, or a lifetime, because some federal regulator says you need to, is unbelievably offensive in our country based on the principles that we hold most dear in the Constitution itself,” Blunt said.
Blunt said he was disappointed the Democratic leader blocked his amendment, but said this won’t be last time Republicans will try and move legislation on the floor to reverse the decision.
“I will be back,” Blunt said.
Napolitano Caught Hiring Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist, Giving Him Top-Secret Security Clearance
Janet Napolitano needs to be Impeached along with Eric Holder et al the whole Obama administration...
Pelosi May Have Broken the Law With Fundraising Comment on Capitol Hill
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said she she was willing to do anything to get Obamacare passed? Here’s a refresher:
You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.
Well, it could be that same approach to fundraising that now has her in hot water. According to CNN, the House Minority Leader may have broken the law when she solicited donations during a speech in the Capitol building.
At a Capitol Hill press conference Thursday, Pelosi was making the case for campaign finance reform and said Democrats will disclose donors to their political groups, even when the law doesn’t require it.
During her comments, she said “by the way we’re asking people to contribute to us if they want to elect more reformers to Congress so we can do away with super PACs – we can do away with secret contributions.”
read more: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cnn-pelosi-may-have-broken-the-law-with-fundraising-comment-on-capitol-hill/
You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.
Well, it could be that same approach to fundraising that now has her in hot water. According to CNN, the House Minority Leader may have broken the law when she solicited donations during a speech in the Capitol building.
At a Capitol Hill press conference Thursday, Pelosi was making the case for campaign finance reform and said Democrats will disclose donors to their political groups, even when the law doesn’t require it.
During her comments, she said “by the way we’re asking people to contribute to us if they want to elect more reformers to Congress so we can do away with super PACs – we can do away with secret contributions.”
Friday, February 10, 2012
Stare Decisis, Judge Malihi was wrong!
by Reginald Carl Jackman
Our U.S. Constitution refers to “natural born citizen” and “citizens of the United States”. Judge Malihi reiterated an Indiana Court decision stating that these two citizenship classes were equivalent. He was wrong!
The Framers, who wrote our Constitution (1787), said that a legitimate presidential candidate would have to be a “natural born citizen”, but they did not define that phrase. Vattel in his “The Law of Nations” provided a definition: Natural born citizens “are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” He continued with “as the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers.”
The Framers had also authorized Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. So in 1790 Congress passed a Naturalization Act specifying that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as “natural born citizens”. This clarified the definition of a “natural born citizen” as a child born to citizen parents without regard to place of birth.
Those who had supported our War of Independence were original citizens. And afterwards, to that number was added additional first citizens as recognized non-uniformly by the individual states. All these were “citizens of the United States”, but not “natural born citizens”. The children of these citizens were “natural born citizens”.
Again Congress used its naturalization authority to include a citizenship clause in The Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Act declared that people born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens. This provision was then reedited and upgraded into the 14th Amendment (1868). Thus, the Amendment created two avenues of naturalization: (1) children by birth when parents were subject to U.S. jurisdiction; and (2) adults by a naturalization process after having submitted to U.S. jurisdiction. These new 14th Amendment citizens were ordinary citizens, “citizens of the United States”, like our earlier first citizens before them. These new citizens did not have the status of “natural born citizens”, although their children would be “natural born citizens”.
Judge Malihi of Georgia in making his decision about Obama’s eligibility to the presidency based his decision on the results of a previous Indiana decision which in turn was predicated on the Wong Kim Ark case.
In Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese U.S. resident family gave birth to a child, and it was critically to be determined whether that child should be considered as a U.S. citizen. The court correctly decided he was a citizen. But in the process, the court made one error and a faux pas. By stare decisis (aka. scary decease-ed) these indiscretions led to a fatal error in the Indiana case and subsequently in Judge Malihi’s case.
The Wong Kim Ark error was that it gave primary credence to “English common law” rather than the “Law of Nations common law”. Regarding citizenship, the difference is that the English law bases citizenship on place of birth (jus soli, of the soil), whereas the Law of Nations law bases citizenship on family (jus sanguinis, of the blood). We have a mix: jus soli with regard to 14th Amendment birth naturalizations; but jus sanguinis with regard to natural born citizenship. This did not go unnoticed by the dissenters. “The dissenters argued that the history of U.S. citizenship law had broken with English common law tradition after independence—citing as an example the embracing in the U.S. of the right of expatriation (giving up of one’s native citizenship) and the rejection of the contrary British doctrine of perpetual allegiance.” (Wikipedia) In the War of 1812, America seamen were issued Semen’s Protection Certificates in order to try to protect them from British impressment because of suggested birth on British soil. This error did not affect the Wong outcome, but it was a wrong think that would carry forward.
The Wong Kim Ark faux pas was a good and technically correct statement in majority summary, but one which was stupidly misinterpreted by the Indiana court: “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, … if he hath issue here, that issue is a ‘natural-born subject’; and his child … If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” (Note: The British “natural-born subject” is not the same as our “natural born citizen”.) The Indiana court equated the ordinary citizen, a child born in the country, to a “natural born citizen”. But the summary states only that the quality of the child’s citizenship is every bit as good as that of the “natural born citizen”. It does not say that the child is a “natural born citizen”.
Thus we see how the Indiana court incorrectly came to the conclusion that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” And since Judge Malihi followed the Indiana court, he made the same mistake.
The presidential “natural born citizen” is not at all the same as a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States”. Any person whose parents are not U.S. citizens does not qualify as a “natural born citizen”, and hence, is not eligible to the office of the presidency of the United States.
Our U.S. Constitution refers to “natural born citizen” and “citizens of the United States”. Judge Malihi reiterated an Indiana Court decision stating that these two citizenship classes were equivalent. He was wrong!
The Framers, who wrote our Constitution (1787), said that a legitimate presidential candidate would have to be a “natural born citizen”, but they did not define that phrase. Vattel in his “The Law of Nations” provided a definition: Natural born citizens “are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” He continued with “as the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers.”
The Framers had also authorized Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. So in 1790 Congress passed a Naturalization Act specifying that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as “natural born citizens”. This clarified the definition of a “natural born citizen” as a child born to citizen parents without regard to place of birth.
Those who had supported our War of Independence were original citizens. And afterwards, to that number was added additional first citizens as recognized non-uniformly by the individual states. All these were “citizens of the United States”, but not “natural born citizens”. The children of these citizens were “natural born citizens”.
Again Congress used its naturalization authority to include a citizenship clause in The Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Act declared that people born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens. This provision was then reedited and upgraded into the 14th Amendment (1868). Thus, the Amendment created two avenues of naturalization: (1) children by birth when parents were subject to U.S. jurisdiction; and (2) adults by a naturalization process after having submitted to U.S. jurisdiction. These new 14th Amendment citizens were ordinary citizens, “citizens of the United States”, like our earlier first citizens before them. These new citizens did not have the status of “natural born citizens”, although their children would be “natural born citizens”.
Judge Malihi of Georgia in making his decision about Obama’s eligibility to the presidency based his decision on the results of a previous Indiana decision which in turn was predicated on the Wong Kim Ark case.
In Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese U.S. resident family gave birth to a child, and it was critically to be determined whether that child should be considered as a U.S. citizen. The court correctly decided he was a citizen. But in the process, the court made one error and a faux pas. By stare decisis (aka. scary decease-ed) these indiscretions led to a fatal error in the Indiana case and subsequently in Judge Malihi’s case.
The Wong Kim Ark error was that it gave primary credence to “English common law” rather than the “Law of Nations common law”. Regarding citizenship, the difference is that the English law bases citizenship on place of birth (jus soli, of the soil), whereas the Law of Nations law bases citizenship on family (jus sanguinis, of the blood). We have a mix: jus soli with regard to 14th Amendment birth naturalizations; but jus sanguinis with regard to natural born citizenship. This did not go unnoticed by the dissenters. “The dissenters argued that the history of U.S. citizenship law had broken with English common law tradition after independence—citing as an example the embracing in the U.S. of the right of expatriation (giving up of one’s native citizenship) and the rejection of the contrary British doctrine of perpetual allegiance.” (Wikipedia) In the War of 1812, America seamen were issued Semen’s Protection Certificates in order to try to protect them from British impressment because of suggested birth on British soil. This error did not affect the Wong outcome, but it was a wrong think that would carry forward.
The Wong Kim Ark faux pas was a good and technically correct statement in majority summary, but one which was stupidly misinterpreted by the Indiana court: “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, … if he hath issue here, that issue is a ‘natural-born subject’; and his child … If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” (Note: The British “natural-born subject” is not the same as our “natural born citizen”.) The Indiana court equated the ordinary citizen, a child born in the country, to a “natural born citizen”. But the summary states only that the quality of the child’s citizenship is every bit as good as that of the “natural born citizen”. It does not say that the child is a “natural born citizen”.
Thus we see how the Indiana court incorrectly came to the conclusion that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” And since Judge Malihi followed the Indiana court, he made the same mistake.
The presidential “natural born citizen” is not at all the same as a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States”. Any person whose parents are not U.S. citizens does not qualify as a “natural born citizen”, and hence, is not eligible to the office of the presidency of the United States.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
ALERT: Obama Invoked NDAA,
On Feb 05,2012 President Obama invoked the NDAA, which authorizes the use of military
force, and issued an executive order declaring the "threat" of Iran a
National Emergency.
Hmmm appears as if Obama is covering all bases in the event the electorate turns against him on his social agenda and executive orders...just start a War...akin to President William Jefferson Clintons Bosnia War..Wag the dog to take the heat off...It's not that this is not proper...it's just the timing which is of interest CPAC week-end anybody?
Hmmm appears as if Obama is covering all bases in the event the electorate turns against him on his social agenda and executive orders...just start a War...akin to President William Jefferson Clintons Bosnia War..Wag the dog to take the heat off...It's not that this is not proper...it's just the timing which is of interest CPAC week-end anybody?
Joe Arpaio Backed By ‘Tea Party’ Group
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio received
100,000 petition signatures from a “tea party” organization Wednesday
afternoon supporting Arpaio’s investigation of President Barack Obama
and denouncing the U.S. Department of Justice’s civil-rights
investigation of Arpaio.
Darla Dawald, national coordinator of
Grassfire Nation, said the petitions were meant to show support for
Arpaio and to force the Department of Justice to release the findings of
their investigation on Arpaio or stop altogether.
We have seen a tremendous amount of
Chicago-style bully tactics that have been used by the Department of
Justice and (Attorney General) Eric Holder’s office and we’re not happy
about what we are seeing,” Dawald said. “We are not happy that someone
such as Sheriff Joe, who does his best to protect this great state and
nation, is being subjected to these types of tactics.”
Dawald said the Department of Justice
investigation, which accused Arpaio’s office of systemic violations of
Latinos’ rights, is politically motivated and compared it to a “witch
hunt.” She said the group plans to bring the signatures from supporters
around the country to the Department of Justice and to members of
Congress next week.
Arpaio said the petition signatures were
unexpected and that he appreciated the support as a motivating factor to
continue working for citizens of Maricopa County.
Read More at AZ Central By Brennan Smith, azcentral.com
Georgia’s Obama Eligibility Decision: Legally Incorrect And Ethically Indefensible
On February 3rd a much anticipated decision was issued by
Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi, recommending that Secretary
of State Brian Kemp allow Barack Hussein Obama to appear on the state
ballot as a candidate for President.
Given previous rulings by Judge Malihi in the Obama case, many had assumed things might go badly for the acting president. Yet the judge’s 10 page decision could hardly have done more to accommodate defendant Obama and his attorney, especially in light of their having ignored court orders, subpoenas and the hearing itself.
And many of those who have reviewed Judge Malihi’s decision find it to be supported by neither fact nor law.
Of the statements made by the judge in his decision, the following are among the most objectionable to legal observers:
1.) “This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.” (page 3)
In actuality there was NO evidence “presented at the hearing,” in response to subpoenas or submitted pre-trial upon which Judge Malihi could base his decision, as Barack Obama provided nothing, either in documentary or verbal form. Yet Malihi states “the following FACTS are considered: 1.) Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2.) Mr. Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth…” (my caps) (page 6)
From what evidence placed in the court record did Malihi obtain these “facts?” No one seems to know.
2.) “The Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny [sic] persuasive.” (page 7)
Ankeny (misspelled throughout the decision by Malihi) was a 2009, Indiana case brought by two plaintiffs who claimed Obama was not qualified to be president on the same grounds as used by at least one plaintiff in the Georgia case—Obama was NOT a “natural born citizen” as required by Article ll, Section l of the US Constitution.
In deciding the case against the plaintiff Ankeny, the Indiana State Court made glaring errors both in statutory construction and by completely misinterpreting Minor v. Happersett, the 1875 Supreme Court case which defined “natural born citizen.” Yet in his own words, Judge Malihi finds the reasoning and decision of the Indiana state court “persuasive.”
3.) “For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.” (page 10)
“This Court CONSIDERED?” When all is said and done, courts don’t “consider” rulings or decisions, they MAKE them! Why did Judge Malihi not state that he FOUND Obama to have been born in the United States? Why does he simply “consider” it? Was this his way of protecting or excusing himself for the complete lack of evidence upon which this “consideration” was based?
And why does Malihi find it necessary to wield the Ankeny case before him like a sword? Could it be that, as he possessed no evidence upon which a decision could honestly be made, he was in desperate need of some “legal” excuse—ANY legal excuse– to provide grounds for his “consideration?”
Had it been honestly delivered, Michael Malihi’s “decision” should have been phrased in the following manner:
This Court considers it OK that Barack Obama be included on the Georgia presidential primary ballot because I’ve heard that a judge in an Indiana state court thinks it’s alright.
Over the next days, “Coach is Right” (and Western Journalism) will present specifics of Judge Malihi’s decision in order to determine its legal authority and susceptibility to successful appeal. And Attorney Mark Hatfield has already declared his intention to appeal.
Given previous rulings by Judge Malihi in the Obama case, many had assumed things might go badly for the acting president. Yet the judge’s 10 page decision could hardly have done more to accommodate defendant Obama and his attorney, especially in light of their having ignored court orders, subpoenas and the hearing itself.
And many of those who have reviewed Judge Malihi’s decision find it to be supported by neither fact nor law.
Of the statements made by the judge in his decision, the following are among the most objectionable to legal observers:
1.) “This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.” (page 3)
In actuality there was NO evidence “presented at the hearing,” in response to subpoenas or submitted pre-trial upon which Judge Malihi could base his decision, as Barack Obama provided nothing, either in documentary or verbal form. Yet Malihi states “the following FACTS are considered: 1.) Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2.) Mr. Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth…” (my caps) (page 6)
From what evidence placed in the court record did Malihi obtain these “facts?” No one seems to know.
2.) “The Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny [sic] persuasive.” (page 7)
Ankeny (misspelled throughout the decision by Malihi) was a 2009, Indiana case brought by two plaintiffs who claimed Obama was not qualified to be president on the same grounds as used by at least one plaintiff in the Georgia case—Obama was NOT a “natural born citizen” as required by Article ll, Section l of the US Constitution.
In deciding the case against the plaintiff Ankeny, the Indiana State Court made glaring errors both in statutory construction and by completely misinterpreting Minor v. Happersett, the 1875 Supreme Court case which defined “natural born citizen.” Yet in his own words, Judge Malihi finds the reasoning and decision of the Indiana state court “persuasive.”
3.) “For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.” (page 10)
“This Court CONSIDERED?” When all is said and done, courts don’t “consider” rulings or decisions, they MAKE them! Why did Judge Malihi not state that he FOUND Obama to have been born in the United States? Why does he simply “consider” it? Was this his way of protecting or excusing himself for the complete lack of evidence upon which this “consideration” was based?
And why does Malihi find it necessary to wield the Ankeny case before him like a sword? Could it be that, as he possessed no evidence upon which a decision could honestly be made, he was in desperate need of some “legal” excuse—ANY legal excuse– to provide grounds for his “consideration?”
Had it been honestly delivered, Michael Malihi’s “decision” should have been phrased in the following manner:
This Court considers it OK that Barack Obama be included on the Georgia presidential primary ballot because I’ve heard that a judge in an Indiana state court thinks it’s alright.
Over the next days, “Coach is Right” (and Western Journalism) will present specifics of Judge Malihi’s decision in order to determine its legal authority and susceptibility to successful appeal. And Attorney Mark Hatfield has already declared his intention to appeal.
Elections Between One Candidate?
The first sentence reads:
Dear students,
On March 4, 2012 we will have elections for the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. .
Hmmm.
As of now, Putin is only the Prime Minister of Russia. He is one of the
candidates for President in the next elections. There are others as
well. The elections are about a month away.But the rector knows who the elections are for.
One of the FB comments in Russian under the photo said, with the typical dark humor born and refined in the years of Communism: “If you are electing another person, you are not voting in the same elections, apparently.”
Ha ha. Funny, right? These things happen in Russia. They know in advance who is going to win.
Not only in Russia. Here in the US too.
For example, Newsmax knew 2 days in advance that Romney will win the Nevada caucuses. The article was published online on February 2, and then pulled out quickly. Then it was republished 2 days later under a new date. Even with the changed date, the time of the article, 8:40pm in Florida (6:40pm in Nevada), makes it impossible for anyone to know if Romney won. (The first results started coming at 7pm.)
The article claims that the caucus in Nevada was “quiet.” But there was nothing quiet about it in reality. The article mentions nothing about the broadcasted vote count at the Adelson precinct in Clark County. While it says that Romney won (past tense), the article gives no specific numbers. Also, when it lists the number of delegates each of the candidates has so far, the number given to Ron Paul is 4. A very serious mistake. (Ron Paul won 7 delegates in Iowa, and 3 in New Hampshire.)
In reality, what Newsmax did was no different from the announcement of the Russian rector above: “In two days, the Nevada GOP will be voting for the candidate for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. If you are voting for another person, you are not participating in the same caucus.” Typical Communist tactics. Newsmax should change its name to News Marx.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Radio host unloads on Romney
by Joe Kovacs
Right-leaning radio host Mark Levin launched a scathing attack on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney today, labeling the former Massachusetts governor “sleazy” and “poisonous.”
On his Facebook page today, Levin tells Romney, “Conservatives have had enough of your sleazy campaign tactics.”
Levin pointed to a CNN report, which noted that in the wake of Rick Santorum’s three-state sweep yesterday in presidential primaries and caucuses, Romney would be taking a tougher approach with the former Pennsylvania senator, looking to paint him as a Washington insider.
Mark Levin’s ‘Ameritopia’ – $4.95 today only! Radio talker’s latest blockbuster exposes ‘The Unmaking of America’
“I think we’ll see differences in approach that will be explored. Rick Santorum … was fairly aggressive in his contrasts, and I think we’ll see differences,” Romney senior adviser Stuart Stevens said Tuesday night. “Look, I just don’t think it’s a time when people are looking to Washington to solve problems with Washington.”
Levin told Romney on Facebook, “Run on your record. Explain your conservative credentials. Tell us how you’ll save this country. If you have a core it is time to reveal it. But stop your poisonous attack dogs and ads. You’re just pissing us off!”
Right-leaning radio host Mark Levin launched a scathing attack on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney today, labeling the former Massachusetts governor “sleazy” and “poisonous.”
Levin pointed to a CNN report, which noted that in the wake of Rick Santorum’s three-state sweep yesterday in presidential primaries and caucuses, Romney would be taking a tougher approach with the former Pennsylvania senator, looking to paint him as a Washington insider.
Mark Levin’s ‘Ameritopia’ – $4.95 today only! Radio talker’s latest blockbuster exposes ‘The Unmaking of America’
“I think we’ll see differences in approach that will be explored. Rick Santorum … was fairly aggressive in his contrasts, and I think we’ll see differences,” Romney senior adviser Stuart Stevens said Tuesday night. “Look, I just don’t think it’s a time when people are looking to Washington to solve problems with Washington.”
Levin told Romney on Facebook, “Run on your record. Explain your conservative credentials. Tell us how you’ll save this country. If you have a core it is time to reveal it. But stop your poisonous attack dogs and ads. You’re just pissing us off!”
Sarah Palin calls rival 'knuckle-dragging Neanderthal'
This is way too funny!
The exchanges dominated the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual gathering of Republican conservatives in Washington.
This year's event offers a chance to hear most of the likely candidates, with the exception of Palin and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.
Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, hinted that Palin was not attending for financial reasons – she commands six-figure fees for making speeches but would not be paid by CPAC – and because she was too busy being a mother.
He said: "I have a feeling she has some demands on her time. And a lot of them have financial benefits attached to them. So I'm sure that she's doing what's best for her and her family."
Asked if he would have turned down the CPAC invitation, he said no. "I'm not the mother to all these kids. And I don't have other responsibilities, like she has, other opportunities that she has. Other business opportunities that may be in conflict with what she's been asked to do."
The sniping by Santorum is the second time recently that a Palin rival has criticised her. Another of the potential candidates, Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, said he would not have used a crosshairs image, as Palin had done, to target areas held by Democrats such as Gabrielle Giffords, the Democratic congresswoman shot in Tucson last month.
Palin has a huge following and, as the best-known of the candidates, her rivals know they must eat into her popularity.
Palin, speaking on Fox News, denied she was not attending because she is not being paid or because she was too tied up being a mother. "Just because I'm a mom that does not mean that I didn't want to be there," she said. "I'm the proud mother of five‚ my kids don't hold me back from attending a conference."
She described Santorum as uninformed, adding: "I will not call him the knuckle-dragging Neanderthal. I'll let his wife call him that instead."
Santorum later backtracked, saying he never meant to insult Palin but was just pointing out she is a busy person.
Palin did not attend the CPAC conference last year either, after reportedly falling out with one of its senior officials.
But her non-appearance angered some of the attendees on Thursday, with some seeing it as a snub and others expressing indifference.
Jeff Jackson from Austin, Texas said: "I think it will damage her. She seems kind of flaky – on again, off again."
Her failure to turn up indicated she was not serious about seeking the nomination, he said.
Sarah Palin has sparked a feud with fellow republican Rick Santorum. Photograph: Spencer Weiner/AP
The contest for the Republican presidential nomination has ignited with a feud between potential rivals Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin, who described him as a "knuckle-dragging Neanderthal".The exchanges dominated the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual gathering of Republican conservatives in Washington.
This year's event offers a chance to hear most of the likely candidates, with the exception of Palin and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.
Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, hinted that Palin was not attending for financial reasons – she commands six-figure fees for making speeches but would not be paid by CPAC – and because she was too busy being a mother.
He said: "I have a feeling she has some demands on her time. And a lot of them have financial benefits attached to them. So I'm sure that she's doing what's best for her and her family."
Asked if he would have turned down the CPAC invitation, he said no. "I'm not the mother to all these kids. And I don't have other responsibilities, like she has, other opportunities that she has. Other business opportunities that may be in conflict with what she's been asked to do."
The sniping by Santorum is the second time recently that a Palin rival has criticised her. Another of the potential candidates, Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, said he would not have used a crosshairs image, as Palin had done, to target areas held by Democrats such as Gabrielle Giffords, the Democratic congresswoman shot in Tucson last month.
Palin has a huge following and, as the best-known of the candidates, her rivals know they must eat into her popularity.
Palin, speaking on Fox News, denied she was not attending because she is not being paid or because she was too tied up being a mother. "Just because I'm a mom that does not mean that I didn't want to be there," she said. "I'm the proud mother of five‚ my kids don't hold me back from attending a conference."
She described Santorum as uninformed, adding: "I will not call him the knuckle-dragging Neanderthal. I'll let his wife call him that instead."
Santorum later backtracked, saying he never meant to insult Palin but was just pointing out she is a busy person.
Palin did not attend the CPAC conference last year either, after reportedly falling out with one of its senior officials.
But her non-appearance angered some of the attendees on Thursday, with some seeing it as a snub and others expressing indifference.
Jeff Jackson from Austin, Texas said: "I think it will damage her. She seems kind of flaky – on again, off again."
Her failure to turn up indicated she was not serious about seeking the nomination, he said.
States Nullification Can Stop Unconstitutional Federal Laws
How many of you are familiar with the term ‘state nullification’?
Basically, state nullification is the power of the states to refuse to enact any federal law that is unconstitutional.
It is based upon the facts that the states existed prior to the Union, the people and not the government is sovereign. Since the people are the ones that are sovereign, they hold the power to restrain the federal government when it is determined that the federal government’s actions are dubious or unconstitutional.
The last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence states,
Basically, state nullification is the power of the states to refuse to enact any federal law that is unconstitutional.
It is based upon the facts that the states existed prior to the Union, the people and not the government is sovereign. Since the people are the ones that are sovereign, they hold the power to restrain the federal government when it is determined that the federal government’s actions are dubious or unconstitutional.
The last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence states,
Georgia eligibility challenge returns!
by Bob Unruh
'Judge Malihi's ruling is....contrary to the ruling of the US Supreme Court'
An administrative law judge in Georgia who held hearings on citizens’ complaints that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president and so shouldn’t be on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state failed to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent, according to one of the attorneys representing clients bringing the complaints.
Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp today adopted without elaboration the recommendation from Judge Michael Malihi, who concluded without evidence from Obama that he was born in Hawaii, which makes him native born, which is the same as the “natural born” required by the Constitution of presidents.
Appeals of the decision already are in the works, the attorneys say. One, J. Mark Hatfield, representing,
Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, told WND he had expected Kemp to rubber-stamp whatever Malihi wrote.
He did. His determination today, without mentioning any of the controversy or questions that remain, said he “formally adopts the initial decision of the ALJ.”
Hatfield said the good thing about the decision is that it came quickly, and the attorneys can escalate the arguments to the appellate level now well in advance of the March 6 Super Tuesday primaries, in which Georgia takes part.
He said he wrote to Kemp as the process was developing, outlining several failings on the part of the ALJ, and he confirmed some of those issues now are being prepared for presentation to the appellate level.
“I will be filing that on behalf of Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell just as soon as I can get it drafted,” he told WND.
Citizens raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.
read more: http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/georgia-eligibility-challenge-returns/
'Judge Malihi's ruling is....contrary to the ruling of the US Supreme Court'
An administrative law judge in Georgia who held hearings on citizens’ complaints that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president and so shouldn’t be on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state failed to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent, according to one of the attorneys representing clients bringing the complaints.
Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp today adopted without elaboration the recommendation from Judge Michael Malihi, who concluded without evidence from Obama that he was born in Hawaii, which makes him native born, which is the same as the “natural born” required by the Constitution of presidents.
Appeals of the decision already are in the works, the attorneys say. One, J. Mark Hatfield, representing,
Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, told WND he had expected Kemp to rubber-stamp whatever Malihi wrote.
He did. His determination today, without mentioning any of the controversy or questions that remain, said he “formally adopts the initial decision of the ALJ.”
Hatfield said the good thing about the decision is that it came quickly, and the attorneys can escalate the arguments to the appellate level now well in advance of the March 6 Super Tuesday primaries, in which Georgia takes part.
He said he wrote to Kemp as the process was developing, outlining several failings on the part of the ALJ, and he confirmed some of those issues now are being prepared for presentation to the appellate level.
“I will be filing that on behalf of Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell just as soon as I can get it drafted,” he told WND.
Citizens raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.
Shocker for GOP on Rubio eligibility
by Fritz Wenzel
Stunning number of Republicans believe he's not a natural-born citizen.
WASHINGTON – When it comes to the personal appeal of Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, there are few new faces on the national political scene with better skills. A Hispanic with a quick wit and a faster smile, he is a happy warrior who refuses to accept the liberal premise that government is the answer to all questions.
So, naturally, some Republicans have already put him on the short list for vice president in the 2012 election. Given the already large and growing political influence of Florida in presidential politics, this makes sense. But it turns out he has an eligibility problem not unlike that of Barack Obama.
The latest WND/Wenzel poll shows that Americans harbor serious doubts about Rubio on the ticket, which could shake GOP insiders to their core. Just 45 percent said they believe that, under the U.S. Constitution, a child born to parents who are not U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen of the United States. Such is the situation with Rubio. Another 43 percent said they believe someone in his situation is clearly not qualified for this reason, while 12 percent said they were unsure on the question.
Asked specifically whether they would vote for any candidate for president who was not constitutionally eligible to serve, just 15 percent said they would go ahead and vote for such candidate, presumably because other factors would weigh more heavily in their minds. Another 64 percent said they could not vote for such a candidate, while 21 percent said they were unsure on the question. What this shows is that, should Rubio be elevated to the Republican ticket, he could actually be a drag rather than the asset most pundits perceived him to be. In other words, for all of his political appeal and skills, choosing Rubio to join the ticket could be political suicide.
Read about the newest attack on a former military doctor who was denied verification of Obama’s eligibility, as well as the latest developments in the Georgia hearing on Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.”
The new controversy over Rubio’s eligibility hit critical mass a week ago when WND Editor Joseph Farah dropped the bombshell observation that the Florida senator was not eligible to be vice president on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” during a segment of Florida primary election analysis.
read more: http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/shocker-for-gop-on-rubio-eligibility/
Stunning number of Republicans believe he's not a natural-born citizen.
WASHINGTON – When it comes to the personal appeal of Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, there are few new faces on the national political scene with better skills. A Hispanic with a quick wit and a faster smile, he is a happy warrior who refuses to accept the liberal premise that government is the answer to all questions.
So, naturally, some Republicans have already put him on the short list for vice president in the 2012 election. Given the already large and growing political influence of Florida in presidential politics, this makes sense. But it turns out he has an eligibility problem not unlike that of Barack Obama.
The latest WND/Wenzel poll shows that Americans harbor serious doubts about Rubio on the ticket, which could shake GOP insiders to their core. Just 45 percent said they believe that, under the U.S. Constitution, a child born to parents who are not U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen of the United States. Such is the situation with Rubio. Another 43 percent said they believe someone in his situation is clearly not qualified for this reason, while 12 percent said they were unsure on the question.
Asked specifically whether they would vote for any candidate for president who was not constitutionally eligible to serve, just 15 percent said they would go ahead and vote for such candidate, presumably because other factors would weigh more heavily in their minds. Another 64 percent said they could not vote for such a candidate, while 21 percent said they were unsure on the question. What this shows is that, should Rubio be elevated to the Republican ticket, he could actually be a drag rather than the asset most pundits perceived him to be. In other words, for all of his political appeal and skills, choosing Rubio to join the ticket could be political suicide.
Read about the newest attack on a former military doctor who was denied verification of Obama’s eligibility, as well as the latest developments in the Georgia hearing on Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.”
The new controversy over Rubio’s eligibility hit critical mass a week ago when WND Editor Joseph Farah dropped the bombshell observation that the Florida senator was not eligible to be vice president on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” during a segment of Florida primary election analysis.
States prepare brakes on citizen-detention option
by Bob Unruh
State and local officials in surging numbers are telling Washington they simply won’t cooperate with any plans to detain Americans the federal government may choose to describe as “belligerents.”
The issue centers on provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, signed by President Obama, for the indefinite and rights-free detention of those Washington cites as belligerents, whether American citizens or not.
WND reported when Rep. Daniel P. Gordon Jr. immediately drafted a resolution in the Rhode Island legislature to express opposition to the sections of the NDAA “that suspend habeas corpus and civil liberties.”
Now the Tenth Amendment Center confirms that the resistance to the federal bureaucracy is catching on.
The instruction manual on how to restore America to what it once was: “Taking America Back.” This package also includes the “Tea Party at Sea.”
“Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center say as many as 10 states will consider legislation or resolutions in response to the detention provisions in section 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA,” the organization is reporting. “Lawmakers in Rhode Island and Washington will likely introduce resolutions authored by the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition within the next week. Additionally, local governments, including Fremont County, Colo. and El Paso County, Colo., have passed resolution condemning the detention provisions.”
Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin commented that “federal politicians never seem to repeal federal law.”
“It’s going to take ‘We the People’ in our states to stand up and say, ‘No!’ to this unconstitutional monster,” he said
read more: http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/states-prepare-brakes-on-citizen-detention-option/
State and local officials in surging numbers are telling Washington they simply won’t cooperate with any plans to detain Americans the federal government may choose to describe as “belligerents.”
The issue centers on provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, signed by President Obama, for the indefinite and rights-free detention of those Washington cites as belligerents, whether American citizens or not.
WND reported when Rep. Daniel P. Gordon Jr. immediately drafted a resolution in the Rhode Island legislature to express opposition to the sections of the NDAA “that suspend habeas corpus and civil liberties.”
Now the Tenth Amendment Center confirms that the resistance to the federal bureaucracy is catching on.
The instruction manual on how to restore America to what it once was: “Taking America Back.” This package also includes the “Tea Party at Sea.”
“Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center say as many as 10 states will consider legislation or resolutions in response to the detention provisions in section 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA,” the organization is reporting. “Lawmakers in Rhode Island and Washington will likely introduce resolutions authored by the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition within the next week. Additionally, local governments, including Fremont County, Colo. and El Paso County, Colo., have passed resolution condemning the detention provisions.”
Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin commented that “federal politicians never seem to repeal federal law.”
“It’s going to take ‘We the People’ in our states to stand up and say, ‘No!’ to this unconstitutional monster,” he said
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Lt. Colonel Breaks Ranks, Says Army Painting False Picture of Afghanistan
A US Army officer has accused the American military of painting a
misleading picture of progress in the war in Afghanistan while glossing
over the Kabul government’s many failings.
Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis deliberately broke ranks with the official portrayal of the war after spending a year in the country, issuing a grim assessment and accusing his superiors of covering up the harsh realities that plague the mission.
“What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by US military leaders about conditions on the ground,” Davis wrote in an article published in Armed Forces Journal, a private newspaper not affiliated with the Pentagon.
“Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level,” he wrote under the headline, “Truth, Lies And Afghanistan: How military leaders have let us down.”
Local Afghan government officials are failing to serve the Afghan population and their security forces are reluctant to fight insurgents or are colluding with the Taliban, he wrote.
read more: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.956cc047c755305c8ad4580183554bcc.941&show_article=1
Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis deliberately broke ranks with the official portrayal of the war after spending a year in the country, issuing a grim assessment and accusing his superiors of covering up the harsh realities that plague the mission.
“What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by US military leaders about conditions on the ground,” Davis wrote in an article published in Armed Forces Journal, a private newspaper not affiliated with the Pentagon.
“Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level,” he wrote under the headline, “Truth, Lies And Afghanistan: How military leaders have let us down.”
Local Afghan government officials are failing to serve the Afghan population and their security forces are reluctant to fight insurgents or are colluding with the Taliban, he wrote.
Santorum Demands Obama Apology for Leaking Israeli Attack Plans
President Obama should apologize to the American people for revealing
that Israel is planning an attack on Iran’s nuclear capability this
spring, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum declared Friday
in Fulton.
In a campaign rally appearance that attracted about 800 at William Woods University, Santorum drew loud applause from supporters in the nearly full Cutlip Auditorium when he declared President Obama “is the most anti-Israel and anti-Western president when it comes to the Middle East of any president in the history of our country.”
“What President Obama did is most reprehensible,” Santorum said. “He should apologize to the people in this room. He should apologize to the American people for the comments he made. He should be saying, ‘We will stand with you Israel. We will make sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, which is by the way the policy of this country, and we will work with you to make sure that this happens.’
read more: http://www.newstribune.com/news/2012/feb/04/santorum-asks-obama-apology/
In a campaign rally appearance that attracted about 800 at William Woods University, Santorum drew loud applause from supporters in the nearly full Cutlip Auditorium when he declared President Obama “is the most anti-Israel and anti-Western president when it comes to the Middle East of any president in the history of our country.”
“What President Obama did is most reprehensible,” Santorum said. “He should apologize to the people in this room. He should apologize to the American people for the comments he made. He should be saying, ‘We will stand with you Israel. We will make sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, which is by the way the policy of this country, and we will work with you to make sure that this happens.’
Monday, February 6, 2012
This election cycle is full of thunder...*yikes*
Yes indeed thunder rolls... lightening strikes here and there and everywhere...sure will be glad when it's over... providing we get a real conservative in the WH 2013 I say Newt/West 2012!
Obama Cuts Hazard Pay for Soldiers Serving in Harm’s Way
They will now only get the $7.50 daily proration for the individual days they are actually serving in harm’s way instead of for the whole month. (DOD)
Barack Obama cut pay for military men and women serving in harm’s way starting this month.
The Army Times reported:
Starting this month, some troops will begin receiving less Imminent Danger Pay when a new policy takes effect that will prorate the standard $225 monthly IDP stipend.
Under the new policy, troops will be paid only for the actual days they spend in the danger pay location, defense officials said Thursday.
Under the previous policy, troops who spent any portion of the month in a danger pay location received danger pay for the entire month.
The proration amounts to $7.50 per day. So, for example, if a service member spends only 7 days of the month in Afghanistan, he or she will have only $52.50 in Imminent Danger Pay added to their paycheck.
Romney is GOP holdout on personhood pledge
By Jack Minor
A leader in the pro-life community says he doubts former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s pro-life credentials, because the candidate for the GOP nomination for president never has stopped flip-flopping on the issue.
While campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney said he would “preserve and protect” a woman’s right to choose.
He later said his views had changed, and Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, a nationwide network of conservative pastors from all Christian traditions, endorsed him, saying, “When I asked Gov. Romney pointedly about his personal view on abortion, he told me he believes every intentional abortion is an immoral end to a human life. He is clearly pro-life.”
Columnist Ann Coulter has vigorously defended Romney’s pro-life conversion. In a recent column, Coulter said, “Romney changed his mind on abortion – not when it was politically advantageous, but when it mattered. As governor of liberal, pro-choice Massachusetts, he vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill and ‘worked closely’ with Massachusetts Citizens for Life.”
But despite these assurances, Keith Mason, president of Personhood USA, has said he believes Romney wants to have the best of both worlds in order to win the moderate vote.
The personhood movement is based on a statement in the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion throughout America. Prior to the decision, abortion had been a state issue.
Writing for the majority in Roe vs. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun said the case would collapse if “the fetus is a person,” as the unborn’s “right to life would then be guaranteed by the Constitution.”
The personhood movement is an attempt to have the unborn child declared a person and thus entitled to protection under the 14th Amendment.
Personhood USA has asked the candidates of both parties to sign a “Personhood Pledge” which states in part, “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.’”
To date Romney and Barack Obama are the only candidates that have not signed the pledge.
Romney also has refused to attend three pro-life events where candidates were questioned about their position.
Read More: http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/romney-is-gop-holdout-on-personhood-pledge/
A leader in the pro-life community says he doubts former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s pro-life credentials, because the candidate for the GOP nomination for president never has stopped flip-flopping on the issue.
While campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney said he would “preserve and protect” a woman’s right to choose.
He later said his views had changed, and Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, a nationwide network of conservative pastors from all Christian traditions, endorsed him, saying, “When I asked Gov. Romney pointedly about his personal view on abortion, he told me he believes every intentional abortion is an immoral end to a human life. He is clearly pro-life.”
Columnist Ann Coulter has vigorously defended Romney’s pro-life conversion. In a recent column, Coulter said, “Romney changed his mind on abortion – not when it was politically advantageous, but when it mattered. As governor of liberal, pro-choice Massachusetts, he vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill and ‘worked closely’ with Massachusetts Citizens for Life.”
But despite these assurances, Keith Mason, president of Personhood USA, has said he believes Romney wants to have the best of both worlds in order to win the moderate vote.
The personhood movement is based on a statement in the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion throughout America. Prior to the decision, abortion had been a state issue.
Writing for the majority in Roe vs. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun said the case would collapse if “the fetus is a person,” as the unborn’s “right to life would then be guaranteed by the Constitution.”
The personhood movement is an attempt to have the unborn child declared a person and thus entitled to protection under the 14th Amendment.
Personhood USA has asked the candidates of both parties to sign a “Personhood Pledge” which states in part, “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.’”
To date Romney and Barack Obama are the only candidates that have not signed the pledge.
Romney also has refused to attend three pro-life events where candidates were questioned about their position.
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
by Reza Kahlili
The Iranian government, through a website proxy, has laid out the legal and religious justification for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of its people.
The doctrine includes wiping out Israeli assets and Jewish people worldwide.
Calling Israel a danger to Islam, the conservative website Alef, with ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a ‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”
The article, written by Alireza Forghani, a conservative analyst and a strategy specialist in Khamenei’s camp, now is being run on most state-owned conservative sites, including the Revolutionary Guards’ Fars News Agency, showing that the regime endorses this doctrine.
Because Israel is going to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran is justified in launching a pre-emptive, cataclysmic attack against the Jewish state, the doctrine argues.
On Friday, in a major speech at prayers, Khamenei announced that Iran will support any nation or group that attacks the “cancerous tumor” of Israel. Though his statement was seen by some in the West as fluff, there is substance behind it.
Iran’s Defense Ministry announced this weekend that it test-fired an advanced two-stage, solid-fuel ballistic missile and boasted about successfully putting a new satellite into orbit, reminding the West that its engineers have mastered the technology for intercontinental ballistic missiles even as the Islamic state pushes its nuclear weapons program.
The commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig. Gen. Seyyed Mehdi Farahi, stated in August that the Safir missile, which is capable of transporting a satellite into space, can easily be launched parallel to the earth’s orbit, which will transform it into an intercontinental ballistic missile. Western analysts didn’t believe this would happen until 2015. Historically, orbiting a satellite is the criterion for crediting a nation with ICBM capability.
Forghani details the Islamic duty of jihad as laid out in the Quran for the sake of Allah and states that “primary jihad,” according to some Shiite jurists, can only occur when the Hidden Imam, the Shiites’ 12th Imam Mahdi, returns. Shiites believe Mahdi’’s return will usher in Armageddon.
In the absence of the hidden Imam, Forghani says, “defensive jihad” could certainly take place when Islam is threatened, and Muslims must defend Islam and kill their enemies. To justify such action, Alef quotes the Shiites’ first imam, Ali, who stated “Waging war against the enemies with whom war is inevitable and there is a strong possibility that in near future they will attack Muslims is a must and the duty of Muslims.”
The article then quotes the Quran (Albaghara 2:191-193): “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers] … and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”
It is the duty for all Muslims to participate in this defensive jihad, Forghani says. A fatwa by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini made it clear that any political domination by infidels over Muslims authorizes Muslims to defend Islam by all means. Iran now has the ICBM means to deliver destruction on Israel and soon will have nuclear warheads for those missiles.
Cont reading: http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/
The Iranian government, through a website proxy, has laid out the legal and religious justification for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of its people.
The doctrine includes wiping out Israeli assets and Jewish people worldwide.
Calling Israel a danger to Islam, the conservative website Alef, with ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a ‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”
The article, written by Alireza Forghani, a conservative analyst and a strategy specialist in Khamenei’s camp, now is being run on most state-owned conservative sites, including the Revolutionary Guards’ Fars News Agency, showing that the regime endorses this doctrine.
Because Israel is going to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran is justified in launching a pre-emptive, cataclysmic attack against the Jewish state, the doctrine argues.
On Friday, in a major speech at prayers, Khamenei announced that Iran will support any nation or group that attacks the “cancerous tumor” of Israel. Though his statement was seen by some in the West as fluff, there is substance behind it.
Iran’s Defense Ministry announced this weekend that it test-fired an advanced two-stage, solid-fuel ballistic missile and boasted about successfully putting a new satellite into orbit, reminding the West that its engineers have mastered the technology for intercontinental ballistic missiles even as the Islamic state pushes its nuclear weapons program.
The commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig. Gen. Seyyed Mehdi Farahi, stated in August that the Safir missile, which is capable of transporting a satellite into space, can easily be launched parallel to the earth’s orbit, which will transform it into an intercontinental ballistic missile. Western analysts didn’t believe this would happen until 2015. Historically, orbiting a satellite is the criterion for crediting a nation with ICBM capability.
Forghani details the Islamic duty of jihad as laid out in the Quran for the sake of Allah and states that “primary jihad,” according to some Shiite jurists, can only occur when the Hidden Imam, the Shiites’ 12th Imam Mahdi, returns. Shiites believe Mahdi’’s return will usher in Armageddon.
In the absence of the hidden Imam, Forghani says, “defensive jihad” could certainly take place when Islam is threatened, and Muslims must defend Islam and kill their enemies. To justify such action, Alef quotes the Shiites’ first imam, Ali, who stated “Waging war against the enemies with whom war is inevitable and there is a strong possibility that in near future they will attack Muslims is a must and the duty of Muslims.”
The article then quotes the Quran (Albaghara 2:191-193): “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers] … and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”
It is the duty for all Muslims to participate in this defensive jihad, Forghani says. A fatwa by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini made it clear that any political domination by infidels over Muslims authorizes Muslims to defend Islam by all means. Iran now has the ICBM means to deliver destruction on Israel and soon will have nuclear warheads for those missiles.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Minor v. Happersett
Sorry folks no Obama,Rubio or Jindhal..SCOTUS was quite clear on the subject Minor v. Happersett 1875 note the use of the plural both 'Parents"
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of
the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by
naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it
provides [n6]
that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the
United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be
eligible to the office of President," [n7]
and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of
naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by
naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall
be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain
that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born
in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon
their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born
citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities
go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction
without reference to the citizenship of their [p168]
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the
first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these
doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all
children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves
citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when
used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included
in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the
last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs
proceeds upon that idea.
Read the entire decision: > http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
Christian women report being assaulted after arrests
by Michael Carl
BOSTON – Saudi Arabian authorities are adding sexual assault to their routine for processing prisoners when they are Christian women, according to a new report that is imploring the international community to pressure the restrictive Islamic nation on basic human rights.
International Christian Concern’s Jonathan Racho says the 35 women prisoners were arrested for meeting for a prayer time, and they are reporting that they were molested.
“The female prisoners have told us about how they were sexually harassed. When the Saudis arrested them, they knew the Ethiopians were Christians,” Racho said.
“They took off the women’s clothes and touched them. When the strip searching was going on, the officers were touching the women,” Racho said.
Racho adds that some of the details are graphic.
“They were using gloves to strip search and they were putting their fingers into their genitals,” Racho said.
“This is a very, very serious accusation of harassment and we want the international community to look into this,” Racho said. “The Saudis have to stop harassing these Christians.”
Read More: http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/christian-women-report-being-assaulted-after-arrests/
BOSTON – Saudi Arabian authorities are adding sexual assault to their routine for processing prisoners when they are Christian women, according to a new report that is imploring the international community to pressure the restrictive Islamic nation on basic human rights.
International Christian Concern’s Jonathan Racho says the 35 women prisoners were arrested for meeting for a prayer time, and they are reporting that they were molested.
“The female prisoners have told us about how they were sexually harassed. When the Saudis arrested them, they knew the Ethiopians were Christians,” Racho said.
“They took off the women’s clothes and touched them. When the strip searching was going on, the officers were touching the women,” Racho said.
Racho adds that some of the details are graphic.
“They were using gloves to strip search and they were putting their fingers into their genitals,” Racho said.
“This is a very, very serious accusation of harassment and we want the international community to look into this,” Racho said. “The Saudis have to stop harassing these Christians.”
Our Judicial System is Coming Undone...!
In light of all the decisions coming out of Local,State and Yes even the SCOTUS addressing the eligibility of Barack Obama and other issues covered under the US Constitution...one must conclude that our Judicial system is indeed 'Coming Undone'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)