Oct 29 2008
Oct 29 2008
* * * This insightful essay comes from a U.S. officer serving in Iraq. I quite enjoyed it, and hope you all will as well. Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A. * * *
By CPT. Hunter Hawke
The upcoming election is extremely important to everyone, but perhaps especially to members of the military. Thus, as a member of the military, drawing on the sum of my experiences, please allow me to explain why I will be voting Republican.
Oct 29 2008
Looks friendly doesn't she....don't count on it.Oct 29 2008
Barack Obama, gunning for a national landslide, now leads in four states won by President Bush in 2004 and is essentially tied with John McCain in two other Republican red states, according to new AP-GfK battleground polling.The results help explain why the Democrat is pressing his money and manpower advantages in a slew of traditionally GOP states, hoping not just for a win but a transcendent victory that remakes the nation's political map. McCain is scrambling to defend states where he wouldn't even be campaigning if the race were closer.
Oct 29 2008
Oct 29 2008
Oct 29 2008
Calling all grassroots activists! Feel like cracking some leftwing nuts? Say, perhaps some ACORNS? If you do, then the Voter Integrity Project has a challenge for you.
Love liberty? How about fair and clean elections? Then document voter fraud, report on it, and win cool prizes! VIP is not only giving away cash prizes, but they’re also passing out some cool hardware to the top citizen journalists. Colorado is a battleground state this year, so we know that some people will be up to shenanigans. I’ll let VIP’s smoking hot director tell you the rest in their video, but remember: monitor, document, and report to prevent election fraud!
Oct 29 2008
Most of you are probably familiar with Jeff Foxworthy’s “You might be a redneck” routine.
But how many of you are conversant in the liberal media’s newest game: “You might be a racist”?
The Denver Post ran a front page story on Sunday entitled “Race issue could sway voters” with the obvious implication that anyone who doesn’t vote for Obama is a racist, possibly due to a mental defect caused by the amygdala.
Yes, the Post threw into the article poll results showing that 94 percent of respondents in a 2007 poll said that they would vote for a well-qualified nominee of their political party to be president if that nominee were black.
But they surround that information with quotes from people interviewed for the article such as “There's a small, small percentage of people in this country who won't vote for an African-American for president no matter what” and “They think, 'What's the use, they're not going to let a black man win anyway,'”
And the close the article with a remarkable statement from a black man who says he’d “probably still vote for” Obama even if Obama “didn’t have substance” because the voter had “been through segregation”.
In other words, the liberal media is saying that if you don’t vote for Obama, you don’t feel sufficiently guilty for slavery or Jim Crow or other such injustices even though the vast majority of us had nothing to do with Jim Crow (and obviously not with slavery.)
The Denver Post and the Obama campaign want you to believe that if you don’t vote for Obama, you might be a racist. So you should vote for Obama just to prove to yourself and your friends that you’re not a racist. In an election as close as this one may be in certain key states, even an argument as obviously outrageous as this one could sway enough votes to make a difference.
It’s not new, of course. Back in July, Obama played the race card by saying that he “doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.” In other words, if you vote for a white man, you might be a racist.
If you call Barack Obama a socialist, you might be a racist. It’s irrelevant that Barack Obama has consistently espoused socialist views throughout this decade.
It is one thing for the dominant liberal media to try to influence votes in this way, but it’s another thing entirely for our justice system to be corrupted by this “you might be a racist” thinking.
Yet that is just what seems to be happening. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department seems not to be investigating charges of widespread election fraud by ACORN, using the excuse that they don’t want to get into litigation so close to an election. Yet they are getting involved in plenty of other election litigation as you read these words…it’s just that that litigation benefits the Democrats.
ACORN is truly a cancer on our society, and Barack Obama and his campaign are deeply connected to the organization. But the Justice Department is caving in to political pressure from John Conyers (D-MI) to ignore the many thousands of fraudulent voter registrations brought in by ACORN. Democrats were outraged at the claimed politicization of the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales, and they had some legitimate reason to be. The Justice Department is supposed to be a non-partisan enforcer of Federal law. But it’s certainly not behaving that way, with the entrenched bureaucrats there doing everything they can to make sure they keep their jobs by remaining in the good graces of the likely incoming Democratic administration.
The WSJ article notes campaign contributions to Obama by attorneys in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, including Mark Kappelhoff, the head of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division, giving Obama the maximum legal contribution (and also having contributed to John Kerry and the DNC in 2004.)
Lack of voter fraud enforcement is a big deal. As the WSJ notes, “Vote fraud is real and can affect elections. In 2001, the Palm Beach Post reported that more than 5,600 people who voted in Florida in the 2000 Presidential election had names and data that perfectly matched a statewide list of suspected felons who were barred from voting. Florida was decided by about 500 votes.”
This is far more serious than the obvious bias of the dominant liberal media which has already lost nearly as much credibility with voters as Congress has. This is about outright theft of elections. Liberals continue to cry that George Bush “stole” the election in Florida even though all recounts show that he won. Yet they are utterly silent when real and obvious fraud is occurring as long as they believe it might help their guy. The damage to our nation caused by this blind eye will be long-lasting. One might expect it to generally benefit the Democrats more than the Republicans, but that is hardly an excuse for Democrats to ignore attacks on the most fundamental aspects of our Republic.
Even most liberals probably don’t believe that George W. Bush stole an election; at least they probably don’t believe it anymore. But what’s happening with ACORN leaves open the real possibility of stolen elections, not just at the presidential level.
Unfortunately, it seems that if you investigate a crime whose primary beneficiary is the man who might become our first black president, you just might be a racist.
Oct 29 2008
Following up on my article from about two weeks ago regarding the lawsuit by Phillip Berg (which has since been dismissed on grounds that Berg lacks standing) claiming that Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" and therefore ineligible to be President of the United States.
A couple quick thoughts on the issue:
First, if Obama is not a natural born citizen, he's probably not a citizen at all. As I understand it, the case against his being a natural born citizen rests on the claim that he was born in Kenya. If true, his mother could not have transmitted citizenship to him because the father was not American and the mother was less than 19 years old at the time of Obama's birth. Again, if true, I believe Obama would have had to undergo some naturalization process to become an American citizen, which he probably didn't do if he was born outside the US.
Therefore, if Obama is not eligible to be president, he's also not eligible to be a senator, the qualifications for which include having been a citizen for at least nine years.
Second, in an interesting interview on the Mike Rosen show this morning, Judge Andrew Napolitano said that the standard procedure for proof of qualification for the presidency is for the candidate who wins the votes of the electoral college to provide proof of citizenship to the Clerk of the Senate.
Napolitano (at about 1/3 of the way through the radio hour) said that it's likely Obama would then show his passport...which we know he has...and that that would probably satisfy the Clerk of the Senate.
To question that would mean suggesting that Obama would either successfully have gotten a passport using fraudulent documents or that he somehow became a citizen through naturalization after a foreign birth, in which case proof of citizenship is not the same as proof of "natural born" citizenship. I would love to see a senator question the use of the passport of proof of qualification. It would be a riot to see Democrats react to charges of "he stole the election" given how much of that junk we had to hear from Democrats for most of this decade regarding George W Bush despite all evidence (including all Florida recounts) to the contrary.
Third, it is likely that if Obama was born in Kenya he would have then committed felonies in most or all states by placing his name on the ballots in those states. However, according to Mike Rosen's earlier guest, Bruce Fein, it's essentially impossible to prosecute a sitting president for a crime. (He could theoretically be prosecuted after his term in office if the statue of limitations hasn't expired.) Therefore, as Judge Napolitano said, it is likely that the only remedy to remove Obama if he were to win election and be sworn in before it being proven that he's not qualified would be impeachment...hardly likely in a Congress which will be as dominated by Democrats as the next Congress will be.
If you're interested in hearing me bring up these issues on the Mike Rosen show, you can listen starting about 1/5 of the way into this radio hour.
