I love this Picture!

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

Kanye West interrupts Taylor Swift’s speech.

Kanye West stirred quite a controversy when he interrupted Taylor Swift at the MTV Video Music Awards.

Now, an ABC spokesperson explains to POLITICO what happened:

“In the process of reporting on remarks by President Obama that were made during a CNBC interview, ABC News employees prematurely tweeted a portion of those remarks that turned out to be from an off-the-record portion of the interview. This was done before our editorial process had been completed. That was wrong. We apologize to the White House and CNBC and are taking steps to ensure that it will not happen again.”

The White House had no immediate comment.

— Josh Gerstein contributed to this report

Who is Barack Hussein Obama?

1. Occidental College records — Not released
2. Columbia College records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — “Not available”
4. Harvard College records — Not released
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Medical records — Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — Not available
8. Your Illinois State Senate records — Not available
9. Law practice client list — Not released
10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate — Not released
11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
12. Record of your baptism — Not available

Oh and one more thing, I can’t seem to find any articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago.

Can you explain that to me, Sir?

And that’s what the power-drunk “young pinkies from Harvard and Columbia” are doing in this political cartoon, originally published in the Chicago Tribune on April 21, 1934. (Click on the image to enlarge it.)

Ten months before that, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed legislation which would artificially inflate prices and wages. It was fear of decreasing prices and wages, blame for which was placed squarely on the shoulders of capitalism and the free market, which facilitated Roosevelt’s New Deal policies which, according to UCLA Econonics Department Vice Chair Lee Ohanian, “short-circuited the market’s self-correcting forces.”

In other words, said Ohanian and University of Pennsylvania economist Harold Cole, Roosevelt’s leadership at a time of economic crisis actually may have extended the Great Depression by seven years, an assessment which has since been clouded by the left’s revisionist history.

“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian back in August 2004. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”

The legislation signed by FDR in June of 1933, just ten months before the Chicago Tribune cartoon was run, was called the National Industrial Recovery Act. Fast-forward to 2009 and we have the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — essentially the same name, save for the word “industrial,” likely missing because it brings up the blood pressure of the global socialists masquerading as environmentalists on the left. Since Obama’s own ill-conceived stimulus policy was signed into law, we’ve seen the young pinkos in today’s federal government almost use the “Plan of Action for U.S.” in that Chicago Tribune cartoon as a checklist.

Spend! Spend! Spend! Despite decrying the $1.2 trillion deficit inherited from the similarly free market-averse Bush administration, President Obama and his Democrats spent at a rate of approximately $1 billion per hour for every hour of his first 50 days in office. At first, it was $787 for a so-called stimulus package. Then, it was $410 billion for an appropriations bill. Somewhere after that, I lost count; last I checked, we’re hovering at about $2.5 trillion, and that’s not even including the budget.

Bust the Government! It’s a record budget this year, right in there at about $3.65 trillion, accounting for a yearly $1.75 trillion budget deficit. Some are estimating that Barack Obama will add to the national debt more than has been added by every president from George Washington to George W. Bush . . . combined.

Blame the Capitalists for the Failure! My goodness, where to even begin? We’ve seen protesters load into chartered buses so as to protest in front of houses owned by AIG executives, and heard about how those same executives and their families have received death threats. We watched as the Obama administration instituted salary caps for executives whose companies accept federal bailout funds, and shook our heads as Barney Frank lobbied to extend those salary caps to all employees of such companies. And the list goes on and on.

Junk the Constitution and Declare a Dictatorship! Well, the dictatorship has not necessarily been declared yet, but we’ve certainly turned a blind eye to our Constitution. Among other examples of blatant disregard: Congress violated Article 1, Section 9 by passing ex post facto legislation which would apply a 90 percent punitive tax on executive bonuses such as those previously provided for specifically by Congress to AIG executives. And, of course, there’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner lobbying for unprecedented power and control over private organizations, allowing the federal government to buy and sell assets, a clear violation of the Takings Clause. At this point, hang up your fake parchment reproduction of our Constitution, close your eyes, and throw a dart — you’re likely to hit a clause or provision which has been, or will be, brushed aside by our president and his administration.

History, we’re seeing, is repeating itself.

“The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,” Cole, the Penn economist, said in 2004. “Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”

Today’s Capitol Hill is the very definition of government intervention, which oddly enough even Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned us about at the World Economic Forum in January.

“Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence is another possible mistake,” Putin said. “True, the state’s increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent.”

Greatest possible extent? A fortnight ago, the president of the United States essentially constructively terminated a private sector CEO, General Motors’ Rick Wagoner. I’d say our government is intervening a little bit.

Unfortunately, this administration and the Democrats currently holding power in our nation’s capital are ensuring that each and every American man, woman and child bear the consequences and burdens of leadership unable to learn the lessons from history which should have been learned long ago. This Chicago Tribune cartoon, in plain black-and-white, should make that fact painfully obvious. Spread the word.

by JEFF SCHREIBER, America’s Right

The United States Supreme Court fired the first warning shot over the bow of the U.S.S. Obama on January,7th 2009.
Although this was not a shot heard around the world, it should be. What am I talking about you ask? The controversy over whether President Elect Obama is a natural born citizen according to article II, section I of the United States Constitution. If you are unaware or haven’t heard there is a problem, blame the media. If you don’t know what the key issues are, then you are way behind the learning curve.

Let me get straight to the point, Dr. Orly Taitz filed suit with the U.S. Supreme Court, Lightfoot v. Bowen (www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm) on December,12th 2008. It was denied by Justice Kennedy and refiled with Chief Justice John Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts distributed it for conference and will be discussed January 23, 2008.

Why is this important?

There have been other cases filed with SCOTUS and three of them have been conferenced, then dismissed without comment, needless to say, IT IS NOT A NEW ISSUE before the court. The interesting thing about this is the Chief Justice himself has referred this case to be conferenced. I promise you, the Chief is not one who takes things lightly and when the Cheif speaks, everyone in the tribe better be listening.

As mentioned above this is not a new issue in front of the Court. To date the cases that have made it to conference by Leo Donofrio, Phillip Berg and Cort Wrotnowski have been dismissed by a legal term called standing or so it was assumed. Because the cases were dismissed without comment you are left to wonder the reason. However all of these cases are technically still alive. Phillip Berg has two scheduled for conference on January 9th and the 16th (www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm) The results for the one on the 9th were not in at the time of this post. The results should be available on Monday the 12th.

Here is how I view this situation.

I, like many others have been following this controversy since it started. Everyday it takes a new course and has so many twists and turns it becomes stranger everyday. I understand how people who voted for Obama think all of us have tin foil hats. Let me suggest that if this is how you feel, you must feel the same about some of the Justices of the Supreme Court. I believe the Supreme Court has been playing a game of chess and as any good chess player knows, the position and moves your opponent makes determines your strategy and movement. With the Chief Justice sending this case to be conferenced, I believe he is setting up his opponent to call, CHECK. We now know that Scalia, Thomas and Cheif Justice Roberts have recommended these cases for conference. If four of the nine justices believe this or any case has merit they can go to the next step and move to oral arguments.

Why is this my view?

It is no secret that President elect Obama has hired three law firms to defend these suits. The suits they are defending are based on his place of original birth or whether he had dual citizenship at birth. Obama has already answered the dual citizenship question on his own Fight the Smears website where he states his father( Obama Sr.) was a Kenyan and any children born to him at that time were governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 making Obama II a British National at the time of his birth, hence dual citizenship. The remaining question is, original place of birth. People who voted for President Elect Obama are quick to point out he was born in Hawaii and has a birth certficate to prove it. Again, if you haven’t been following this story you are behind the learning curve.

Allow me to share with you a court case that happened, Keyes v. Lingle back in early December. The case was dismissed on a technicality and not on content. However, the bigger story to this lawsuit is the fact that forensic document examiner, Sandra Ramsey Lines has documented in an affidavit the following. Keep in mind that Factcheck.org is an offshoot from the Annenberg Foundation and from 1995 the chairman of Annenberg Challenge was none else, but Mr. Barack Obama

Sandra Ramsey Lines :

I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.

Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the Certificate No. That number is a tracking number that would allow anyone to ask the question, “Does this number refer to the Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?” It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for oliterating it.

In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness. In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all. [emphasis mine]

The importance of the the statement above is, the certificate posted online has the certificate number blacked out. At the bottom it clearly states that ANY ALTERATION INVALIDATES THIS CERTIFICATE. By blacking out this number he has created more questions than answers. The only question one needs to ask is why hire three law firms and spend untold amounts of money verses allowing the state of Hawaii to release the original vault certificate with the certification number. (SEE SPIFFIES COMMENT BELOW ON THIS ISSUE)

Lastly i would like to mention that some in the military are beginning to get involved. Phillip Berg, one of the attorneys mentioned above has now filed another case for a retired Colonel Gregory S. Hollister on December 30, 2008.
Dr. Orly Taitz has made reference she has another case ready to be filed on behalf of another group of military men and this letter was recently posted on her site: Drorly.blogspot.com

Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. David Earl- Graef

To All Americans,

This is not about sore losers, this is not about race. This about the
very foundations of our Nation. It is not about fear of change. I for one do not fear change but
only fear change that is not given the careful consideration our
founding fathers would have afforded it.

This is about America and the ability of our military to defend her and possibly much more. As a US military officer, I am just beginning myself to see the potential problems that may be
facing us. Before you discard any of this information please take the time to verify on OFFICIAL US Government sources such as the site for our United States Supreme Court.

FACT: Chief Justice John G. Roberts has agreed to hear Bowen vs
Lightfoot. A case challenging the constitutional qualifications of
Barak H. Obama aka Barry Soetoro to be POTUS. Check the court Docket.

http://orgin.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm

Comment- If the Chief Justice did not think we have a problem he would NOT distribute this case let alone give it to the full court to read. He does not want to look dumb or waste the time of the court after all he is the Chief.

FACT: Congress did not listen and hear this very loud signal he sent
to them yesterday but it rang a warning shot through many of the United States Armed Forces
more like a loud bomb. If I heard it, I KNOW the Joint Chiefs of the Military heard it.

Fact: Unfortunately you will have to take this as true on its
merits. But I assure you The Joint Chiefs as military officers take the
constitution very seriously.

FACT: If only ONE of the Joint Chiefs of Staff balks we lose an
entire arm of our military ! He can not nor will not give the order
to mobilize the forces if he has a reason to question the validity of that order. In
fact he himself is duty bound to not obey this if not given by a “legal” President or at a minimum is conflicted as to the right thing to do !! The Oath states he will obey the lawful orders of those above him not ANY order. Chief Justice Roberts has as much as told them by distributing this case we may have a constitutional problem with Obama. So at this very moment our Military leaders are likely conflicted. Not a good thing.

*****The words of JOE BIDEN. He warned of an international crisis
soon and implied it would be of immense proportion soon after Obama took office may . ****** Have you
already forgotten ????? Have you been distract by the economy. Did Biden know something ??? Has anybody bothered to ask him??

And he thinks Barak can handle it. Do you ??? Let Obam face down Putin without the Navy or maybe the
Air Force or maybe the Army or mayybe ALL of them to back him up. I suppose some of you out there
still believe in a Superman. Reality check. He was a comic book
character and Obama is not a Superman like some of you believe. He is not the messiah otherwise he would not be giving us doom and gloom for the economy. He would waive his hand and fix it. Please wake
up !!

We are not asking Obama for the moon only that he give us some
additional information to assure us he is who he says he is AND qualify under the Constitution and we in the military will do whatever he asks us to do to protect this country. This is what we do.

This is reasonable and prudent but Obama is refusing and fighting this with
everything and I mean everything in his power.

To my Fellow Officers and Enlisted who are required to lay their lives at the very feet of Liberty.

Do not despair but take good faith. Remember those who came before. He is not our President yet so you still have a right to raise concerns all the way to the Pentagon. Let the Officers in your command know that Justice Roberts has taken the first stand to insure the Constitution is followed. Let our Chief Justice know you support him and appreciate him for HIS courage valor to stand up for us. Call/ write your congressman. Pass this letter to every blog you can. Ask your family to do the same we are a mighty voice and it can be heard.

From: Newsvine.com

Dear Member of the U.S. Congress;

On January 8th, 2009, you will be meeting in a joint session of Congress in order to perform the final step of COUNTING and CONFIRMING the electoral votes for the President of the United States (POTUS).

This urgent letter is a request by your (and Mr. Obama’s) employers, We The People, for you to submit an OBJECTION to those votes being counted due to the Constitutional INELIGIBILITY of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to serve as POTUS:

1. No proof that he was born on U.S. sovereign territory, as required by Article II of the U.S. Constitution (the posting of his forged & fraudulent Certification of Live Birth (C.O.L.B.) only proves fraud – and that he’s INELIGIBLE;

2. No proof that he ever applied for U.S. citizenship, when reaching the age of majority, following his years as a citizen of Indonesia (this would make him ‘naturalized’, and therefore INELIGIBLE);

3. No proof that he was born of two parents of U.S. citizenship, with both owing allegiance to and being under the jurisdiction of the U.S., as required by law and/or the Constitution, in order to be a ‘natural-born citizen’. (actually he has freely admitted the opposite to be true, and therefore INELIGIBLE);

4. No proof that he was authorized, as a ‘natural-born U.S. citizen’ with a U.S. Passport, to travel to Pakistan in 1981 (he could not by law), or that he re-applied for ‘naturalized’ U.S. citizenship on his return, which would also make him INELIGIBLE;

5. No certified proof that he registered for the draft/Selective Service between the ages of 18 and 26, as required by law, thereby rendering him ineligible, by law, for employment in the Executive Branch of our government, and therefore INELIGIBLE for POTUS. (NOTE: over a year of multiple FOIA requests produced a forged and blatantly fraudulent Selective Service Registration form that should be cause for indictments and arrests);

6. No proof that he is, in fact, not an illegal alien, and therefore subject to the same penalties that would befall all illegal aliens in his situation. Therefore, INELIGIBLE;

Constructive Knowledge would inform and confirm to all who have examined the facts of this collossal fraud being perpetrated upon We The People of America (see www.DrOrly.Blogspot.com – ‘Open Letter to C.J. Roberts’) that confirming the electoral votes and thereby furthering the act of installing Mr. Obama as POTUS could possibly be construed as failure to honor one’s oath of office.

Therefore, we are calling on you, as a member of Congress, sworn to uphold, protect, and defend that Constitution, to OBJECT to the counting and confirmation of those electoral votes until proof of his eligibility or ineligibility can be determined, and to call for indictments in regard to any and all alleged violations of U.S. laws and one’s sworn oath.

Please let us know if you intend to stand with We The People in this epic battle to defend and preserve our Constitution. Our Nation can survive four years of any President. It cannot survive without a Constitution.

Sincerely;

We The People of the United States of America

(from America’s Right)

US Supreme Court Decisions Could be Imminent
According to the Docket No. 08-570 at the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Election Commission yesterday filed a waiver of its right to respond to attorney Philip Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed on October 31 and currently pending before the Court.

Contrary to Internet rumor that Justice Souter had ordered Barack Obama to provide the vault copy of his birth certificate, the Court merely set December 1, 2008 as the date by which the respondents–Obama, the Democratic National Committee and Federal Election Commission–were to respond to Berg’s petition if they chose to do so at all. Yesterday’s filing, which appeared on the docket this afternoon, shows that the respondents have waived their right to respond.

It also suggests that a decision on Berg’s petition could be imminent.

There are a number of reasons why the respondents here would choose not to respond. First, because the Court only grants between 70 and 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions it receives every year, perhaps they just liked their odds of Berg’s petition getting denied. Second, because they have made arguments as to Berg’s lack of standing several times at the district court level and beyond, perhaps they felt as though any arguments had already been made and were available on the record. Or, perhaps the waiver shows that the FEC and other respondents do not take seriously the allegations put forth by Berg, and did not wish to legitimize the claims with a response.

Another thing which is not completely clear is whether the FEC is filing for itself or on behalf of all respondents. On the docket, the FEC’s attorney is noted as being the attorney for all respondents; on yesterday’s docket entry, it states that the waiver was filed by “respondents Federal Election Commission, et al.” As it were, the FEC’s attorney, Gregory Garre, is with the Solicitor General’s office, and does not represent Obama or the DNC. While attorneys acting on behalf of a group of defendants or respondents is not necessarily rare, the difference here is the involvement of the Solicitor General’s office, a federal office.

This distinction is not lost on Philip Berg.

“If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I’m surprised,” Berg said. “I’m surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn’t seem to exist.”

“However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion,” he said, noting that the attorney from the Solicitor General’s office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.

Indeed, neither the DNC nor the president-elect are, for now, federal respondents, though Obama’s status as Illinois senator–a position from which he resigned this past weekend–could place him under the representational umbrella of the Justice Department.

While outright collusion could be a stretch, if indeed the FEC’s attorney is acting on behalf of all respondents and not just the FEC, there certainly is the appearance of coordination. Regardless of the veracity of the allegations put forth against Barack Obama, for the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General of the United States to be facilitating a defense which is calculated to shield from disclosure, rather than compel disclosure, of manifestly relevant and critical information bearing directly upon not just the qualifications but the very constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama — the word “unorthodox” comes to mind. As does “shameful.” And yet, in these post-election times, especially considering the FEC’s decision not to audit Obama’s $600 million take during his campaign (at least $63 million of which was from undisclosed sources), this appears to be the new standard in post-election times.

Either way, Berg says that he is hopeful that the Court will “do the right thing,” and ensure that “the American public is provided with the opportunity to know that the person leading the United States of America is eligible, under our Constitution, to do so.”

As for New Jersey firebrand and attorney Leo Donofrio, his application for an emergency stay was denied by Justice Souter, Donofrio was able to refile and resubmit it to the Justice of his choosing, and properly did so. Today, the docket for his action shows that after being put before Justice Clarence Thomas, the application will be discussed by the Court in a December 5, 2008 conference.

Normally, during their term, the Supreme Court Justices conference on Wednesday (typically, but not always) and review the various petitions and applications before them, deciding which of the many such proceedings should be heard by the Court. I suspect that we could soon see a similar entry on the docket for Berg’s case as well.

Now, this does not mean that the Court has decided to hear either of these matters and, in fact, is fairly typical when it comes to the process. Still, for those hoping to have these cases heard on their merits, for those who feel these issues are more about the United States Constitution than Barack Obama, this is a step in the right direction.

Certainly, the proceedings moving along normally is positive with regard to publicity for Donofrio and Berg as well. Just yesterday, news of Alan Keyes’ suit in California reached the Drudge Report, so the questions surrounding this aspect of Obama’s candidacy are seemingly beginning to see the light of day.

ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports:

Florida Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings pointed to Sarah Palin on Wednesday to rally Jews to Obama.

“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” said Hastings. “Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.”

Hastings, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, made his comments in Washington, D.C., while participating in a panel discussion sponsored by the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Asked what the congressman meant, Hastings spokesman David Goldenberg told ABC News that he was trying to argue that Palin is an “extremely conservative woman who is out of touch with mainstream America.”

After saying that Palin “don’t care too much” about Jews and blacks, Hastings argued that African Americans and Jews should come together behind Obama because there are many issues on which they agree.

“Just like Jews, blacks care about affordable health care, energy independence, and the separation of church and state,” said Hastings. “And just like blacks, Jews care about equal pay for equal work, investment in alternative energy, and a woman’s right to choose.”

Asked about the Hastings criticism, Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said, “We’re taking a pass.”

The Florida GOP responded to Wednesday’s panel discussion by calling on Obama to repudiate Hastings.

“Unless Senator Obama and the Florida Democrat Party believes that ‘anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks,’ both Obama and the FDP should immediately refute this ridiculous and divisive statement.”

When contacted by ABC News on Thursday afternoon, the Obama campaign had no response to the Florida GOP.

Why does it matter if Obama slipped and mentioned his Muslim faith?

Why?  Because for a long time he has denied being Muslim.  For a long time he has claimed he was Christian.

This is quite a slip of the tongue.  I find it quite difficult that someone os his professed stature could make such a slip.  Slip up on many other issues, but your faith?  Or maybe it was not a slip?

Just last week the DNC and Obama were served with legal papers that stated that he was not a citizen.  The claim stated that we have no authoritative records to prove his citizenship, only his word.  His word?

How can we trust a man who “slips” when mentioning his faith?  How can we trust a man who has alegiances with known American born terrorists? How can we trust a man who claims he sat in church for 20 years and never heard his pastor make racist remarks or talk about how bad America is?  How can we trust a man who receives campaign contributions from Middle East terrorist nations, claims he sent the money back but they deny it?

How can we trust this man?

The reality is, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama is swindling America.  The Democrats have decided that thi sman of unknown origin is the new messiah.  In almost like a new cult, his followers flock around this man who can speak well, looks good in a suit and stands for change – but what change?  They are blinded by the theatrics, they are swayed by false truths and are leading America into disaster without knowing it.

The Democrats want the White House so badly, they would have nominated Satan himself if they could have – and maybe they have!

Check out The Toungue Slips!

Hear it for yoruself and then ask yourself if this is a “normal” slip of the tongue.

Think America – think hard!