WOW!
It's safe to say that the book tour in Tulsa was unexpectedly overwhelming on behalf of Barnes and Noble. A line going down the sidewalk at 6:30 AM in the freezing cold weather, and hundreds more walking through the doors every 15 minutes.
The lines were long, the books were sold out, and the staff was requesting that customers recycle literature handed out at the door because they didn't have enough.
Lucky for them, Huck had over 1000 books on the bus, and other stores in the Tulsa area rushed their inventories to the sight to keep up with the demand.
I think it's safe to say that over 1200 came in before 8am. I'll find out the exact numbers and give you some more stats later after I call the BN manager and see what we see!
What does this mean? Sure, I saw many friends and supporters from the campaign. But as I talked with many in the long lines, there were lots of new Huckabee fans who did not support Mike in the GOP primary.
Most were evangelical Republicans with buyer's remorse from the failed McCain-Palin ticket, who find themselves longing for a new conservative champion.
On April 15th, 2011, I believe they will get their wish. Mike will announce his candidacy, along with a public rebuke of income and corporate taxation that is (and will increasingly be) choking the life out of the American economy.
He will again pledge to nail the "out of business" sign to the front door of the IRS and promise the implementation of the Fair Tax. And with it, a pledge of "vertical politics" that will add a fresh new flavor to the politiscape.
Will the GOP find it's self again with a return of the Ronald Reagan conservative message mixed with the Gingrich leap of new ideas to launch a solution oriented agenda? Or will we continue to cut each other up and allow the RINO to conquer a divided electorate, sending another moderate to the slaughter in the likes of John McCain, Bob Dole and Bush senior?
Only time will tell, but until then, HuckPAC Oklahoma will continue to retool and prepare for the future. HucksArmy will again relaunch an unprecedented internet campaign that rallies the conservative base. I hope you'll join us.
Mike Ford
HuckPAC Oklahoma
HucksArmy State Coordinator
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Obama Refuses to Prove He's a Citizen
This CONSERVATIVE ALERT is a special message from RightMarch.com
Obama Refuses to Prove He's a Citizen -- Help Spread the Word Before it's TOO LATE:
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rightmarch/?a=7
ALERT:
We don't usually do this, but today we're forwarding a CRITICAL message from our good friend, Janet Folger Porter, the host of the radio show Faith 2 Action.
Please read the message below, then TAKE ACTION by calling your Congressman at 202-224-3121, clicking here to donate to place these ads across the country, contacting the media, and forwarding this email to EVERYONE you know!
------ Forwarded Message ------
From: Janet Folger
Organization: Faith2Action
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008
Subject: the time for CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS is NOW
This may be the most important thing we can do in the next four years. Fight for freedom while we still have it. Please spread this message far and wide.
And remember, Goliath lost.
God bless you,
Janet
This is a WorldNetDaily article.
To view this item online, visit www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=81307
PLAY IT AGAIN, SAM
1 last chance to fight for our Constitution
Exclusive: Janet Porter urges Congress to probe Obama-citizenship controversy now
By Janet Porter
Former Deputy Attorney General Philip Berg filed a lawsuit addressing the citizenship status of Barack Obama before the Democratic National Convention and copied Democratic Chairman Howard Dean. It should have alerted them that there was a possible problem before they selected their nominee. But that problem was ignored. Other lawsuits filed before Nov. 4 were also ignored, placing us in what could be a constitutional crisis.
The good news is the real election hasn't taken place yet. The Electoral College doesn't meet until Dec. 15. That gives us less than a month to find the answers to the looming questions regarding whether Barack Obama meets the constitutional requirements for the office of president.
The courts don't seem to be in any hurry to take up their responsibility as guardians of the Constitution, so now Congress must step in. You see, members of Congress are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and when they vote in January to confirm (or reject) the vote of the Electoral College, they can't very well do that unless they know for certain that the basic constitutional requirements for office have been met.
An ad running this week in the Washington Times Weekly asks three questions America needs to know: "Was Barack Obama really born in Kenya ?" "Is he really a citizen of Indonesia ?" And, "Does the Constitution still matter?"
As I wrote about last week, there are many reasons to doubt whether Barack Obama meets the requirements for the office of president. First, there's that pesky tape from Sarah Obama, Barack's grandmother, where she says, "I was in the delivery room in ( Mom bosa) Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961." Secondly, there's the matter of U.S. law. If only one parent was an American citizen, as in Obama's case, the law at the time of Obama's birth required one parent to have been an American citizen for at least 10 years – five of which had to have happened after the age of 14. Since Obama's mother was only 18 at the time of Obama's birth, he would not qualify as an American citizen if his grandmother is right about him being born abroad.
Thirdly, there's no original birth certificate – just a "certification of live birth" posted on a website experts say is forged and altered. Fourthly, there's the issue of Indonesian citizenship, which is a prerequisite to attending school there. Add to that the fact that Obama's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, is listed as his father on his Indonesian school records. If he had U.S. citizenship, according to Indonesian law, he would have lost it when he attended school there or if he was adopted by his stepfather as his records indicate.
As the ad proclaims, "The Constitution matters" and is still worth defending. All we are asking is that Congress takes their oath to defend it seriously. If Obama can prove he meets the basic but essential constitutional requirements, fine, he'll serve legally.
But if he cannot provide simple proof, then he cannot. We're not asking for the world here, just the original birth certificate that each of us delivers when getting a passport, driver's license or Social Security card. If we can't tell the clerk at the post office to check out the digital photo of a certificate posted online, neither should the guy running for president. Members of Congress: If you have taken an oath to defend the Constitution, now's the time to keep it.
But I know the reasons for your hesitancy. I've faced them myself and have come to the conclusion that if one of our founders, Patrick Henry, could proclaim, "Give me liberty or give me death," we can face our fears and stand for the document they penned that outlines our God-given rights to freedom. What if we asked our Founding Fathers, many of whom lost everything in the battle for our nation, if they think the Constitution is still worth defending? They already answered that question with their lives.
But what about the objections?
"Obama won the popular election." So did Al Gore. But George W. Bush is still president. That's because the Electoral College decides – and in this case, it hasn't yet. In fact, the electors can't fulfill their solemn oath to uphold the Constitution unless they know the candidates meet the basic constitutional requirements for office.
"This should have happened long before now." That's true, but the cases filed before Nov. 4 were ignored by the courts, and the answers to these basic questions were never answered. There is still time for those answers since the real election has not yet happened.
"They'll be riots in the streets." This objection is much like the reaction of Kenya to Obama's candidate of choice, Raila Odinga, who incited violence and the burning of hundreds of churches (not a single mosque) when he lost the race. Obama raised a million dollars for this upstanding guy and assigned a Senate staffer to help him. To bring the violence to an end, the Kenyan government put Odinga – the guy who lost the election – in office to keep him from burning more churches. They failed the first rule of the playground: Confront the bully; don't appease him. Threats of violence must be met with fierce resistance, not appeasement.
"I better not be public on this because I'll become a target." News flash: If you believe in life, liberty and the family, you already are a target. The henchmen are selected; the gallows for our freedoms are already being built. And the only candidate in history to never move an inch to the center during the campaign has no intentions of changing his agenda of outlawing our viewpoint with the "unfairness doctrine," "thought crimes," "The Employment Non Discrimination Act" the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and all the rest. As I wrote about in my book, "The Criminalization of Christianity" (which will surely come true if we don't act now), "Never fail to do the right thing for fear that the opposition will attack you in response. The other side can and will attack you anyway, at a time of their own choosing rather than yours, regardless of whether you act."
"We'll just beat him in four years." In four years, we won't be able to recognize what's left of our country. And if you think taking on this issue right now is hard, try doing it when our radio airwaves are shut down and our freedoms are stripped from us, as he has promised to do. And with Obama's promise to pass the so-called Freedom of Choice Act as "the first thing" he does, you can say goodbye to the notion of protecting unborn children again – and goodbye to every law in all 50 states that notifies parents, keeps our tax dollars from footing the abortion bill and prevents even a single partial-birth abortion.
"They'll say I'm a 'racist' and call it 'sour grapes.'" Our Founding Fathers faced death, we face name-calling. Right now our U.S. soldiers are being shot at for the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. If the Constitution isn't worth undergoing some name calling, then the oath taken to defend it means nothing.
"Somebody else will do it." They haven't. And time is running out.
"It's not my responsibility." The lower court in Philadelphia threw out Phil Berg's case (which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court) based not on the merits, but on the issue of "standing," and pointed to the need for Congress to act. If the questions of constitutionality are not met before Congress is called upon to uphold the vote of the Electoral College, they cannot fulfill their oath and duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. If we are willing to ignore the constitutional requirements for the highest office in our land, what else are we willing to forgo? That part about free speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion?
"We deserve what we got." That's true, so did the people of Nineveh who asked, "Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?" If you're unfamiliar with the story recorded in Jonah, God didn't give the Ninevites what they deserved; and even though the judgment was pronounced against them, when they fasted, prayed, sought God and turned from their wicked ways, God had mercy and spared them from judgment.
"It's impossible." With God, all things are possible. Eight years ago the election was called for Al Gore, and he never took office. If God is the same today as He was yesterday, He can still split the sea, raise the dead, stop the sun and reverse the results of the popular vote if the basic requirements of the Constitution are not met in the candidate.
"He's constitutionally qualified." Great. Then it won't be hard to prove it.
The Electoral College votes on Dec. 15 – we now have less than 30 days of freedom left. How will you spend it? Will you "safely" keep quiet about our nation's most important document, or will you step forward to defend it?
There's a replica of William Wallace's sword hanging on my wall. It reminds me of his words captured in the movie "Braveheart":
William Wallace: I am William Wallace. And I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You've come to fight as freemen, and freemen you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight?
Man: No … we will run … and we will live.
William Wallace: Aye. Fight and you may die. Run and you'll live – at least a while. And, dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!
Congress, you were elected for such a time as this. Don't miss your moment in history to defend the Constitution you were sworn to uphold. Not extreme. Not fringe. Just constitutional. A thorough investigation must be conducted to ensure the basic constitutional requirements for the office of president have been met. It is not just your right – it is your duty. And you have less than 30 days to act. You have the freedom right now that you will never have again. You can fight to defend the Constitution of the United States , or you can run. As William Wallace asked, the question is: Will you fight?
TAKE ACTION: Please take Janet's appeal to heart, and STAND UP for the U.S. Constitution. If we don't act NOW, we could be facing a constitutional crisis of epic proportions when the truth finally DOES come out.
We want to help in any way we can. Please Call your representatives in Congress at 202-224-3121 and ask them to hold immediate congressional hearings to investigate and ensure the basic constitutional requirements for the office of president have been met. And pleaseclick below NOW to make your best donation, which we will tag to contribute to Philip Berg's efforts to spread the TRUTH:
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rightmarch/?a=7
Sincerely,
William Greene, President
RightMarch.com
P.S.: For more information on Philip Berg's efforts, visit his website here -- and be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know, AND call on the media to report this constitutional crisis! Thank you!
Obama Refuses to Prove He's a Citizen -- Help Spread the Word Before it's TOO LATE:
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rightmarch/?a=7
ALERT:
We don't usually do this, but today we're forwarding a CRITICAL message from our good friend, Janet Folger Porter, the host of the radio show Faith 2 Action.
Please read the message below, then TAKE ACTION by calling your Congressman at 202-224-3121, clicking here to donate to place these ads across the country, contacting the media, and forwarding this email to EVERYONE you know!
------ Forwarded Message ------
From: Janet Folger
Organization: Faith2Action
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008
Subject: the time for CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS is NOW
This may be the most important thing we can do in the next four years. Fight for freedom while we still have it. Please spread this message far and wide.
And remember, Goliath lost.
God bless you,
Janet
This is a WorldNetDaily article.
To view this item online, visit www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=81307
PLAY IT AGAIN, SAM
1 last chance to fight for our Constitution
Exclusive: Janet Porter urges Congress to probe Obama-citizenship controversy now
By Janet Porter
Former Deputy Attorney General Philip Berg filed a lawsuit addressing the citizenship status of Barack Obama before the Democratic National Convention and copied Democratic Chairman Howard Dean. It should have alerted them that there was a possible problem before they selected their nominee. But that problem was ignored. Other lawsuits filed before Nov. 4 were also ignored, placing us in what could be a constitutional crisis.
The good news is the real election hasn't taken place yet. The Electoral College doesn't meet until Dec. 15. That gives us less than a month to find the answers to the looming questions regarding whether Barack Obama meets the constitutional requirements for the office of president.
The courts don't seem to be in any hurry to take up their responsibility as guardians of the Constitution, so now Congress must step in. You see, members of Congress are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and when they vote in January to confirm (or reject) the vote of the Electoral College, they can't very well do that unless they know for certain that the basic constitutional requirements for office have been met.
An ad running this week in the Washington Times Weekly asks three questions America needs to know: "Was Barack Obama really born in Kenya ?" "Is he really a citizen of Indonesia ?" And, "Does the Constitution still matter?"
As I wrote about last week, there are many reasons to doubt whether Barack Obama meets the requirements for the office of president. First, there's that pesky tape from Sarah Obama, Barack's grandmother, where she says, "I was in the delivery room in ( Mom bosa) Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961." Secondly, there's the matter of U.S. law. If only one parent was an American citizen, as in Obama's case, the law at the time of Obama's birth required one parent to have been an American citizen for at least 10 years – five of which had to have happened after the age of 14. Since Obama's mother was only 18 at the time of Obama's birth, he would not qualify as an American citizen if his grandmother is right about him being born abroad.
Thirdly, there's no original birth certificate – just a "certification of live birth" posted on a website experts say is forged and altered. Fourthly, there's the issue of Indonesian citizenship, which is a prerequisite to attending school there. Add to that the fact that Obama's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, is listed as his father on his Indonesian school records. If he had U.S. citizenship, according to Indonesian law, he would have lost it when he attended school there or if he was adopted by his stepfather as his records indicate.
As the ad proclaims, "The Constitution matters" and is still worth defending. All we are asking is that Congress takes their oath to defend it seriously. If Obama can prove he meets the basic but essential constitutional requirements, fine, he'll serve legally.
But if he cannot provide simple proof, then he cannot. We're not asking for the world here, just the original birth certificate that each of us delivers when getting a passport, driver's license or Social Security card. If we can't tell the clerk at the post office to check out the digital photo of a certificate posted online, neither should the guy running for president. Members of Congress: If you have taken an oath to defend the Constitution, now's the time to keep it.
But I know the reasons for your hesitancy. I've faced them myself and have come to the conclusion that if one of our founders, Patrick Henry, could proclaim, "Give me liberty or give me death," we can face our fears and stand for the document they penned that outlines our God-given rights to freedom. What if we asked our Founding Fathers, many of whom lost everything in the battle for our nation, if they think the Constitution is still worth defending? They already answered that question with their lives.
But what about the objections?
"Obama won the popular election." So did Al Gore. But George W. Bush is still president. That's because the Electoral College decides – and in this case, it hasn't yet. In fact, the electors can't fulfill their solemn oath to uphold the Constitution unless they know the candidates meet the basic constitutional requirements for office.
"This should have happened long before now." That's true, but the cases filed before Nov. 4 were ignored by the courts, and the answers to these basic questions were never answered. There is still time for those answers since the real election has not yet happened.
"They'll be riots in the streets." This objection is much like the reaction of Kenya to Obama's candidate of choice, Raila Odinga, who incited violence and the burning of hundreds of churches (not a single mosque) when he lost the race. Obama raised a million dollars for this upstanding guy and assigned a Senate staffer to help him. To bring the violence to an end, the Kenyan government put Odinga – the guy who lost the election – in office to keep him from burning more churches. They failed the first rule of the playground: Confront the bully; don't appease him. Threats of violence must be met with fierce resistance, not appeasement.
"I better not be public on this because I'll become a target." News flash: If you believe in life, liberty and the family, you already are a target. The henchmen are selected; the gallows for our freedoms are already being built. And the only candidate in history to never move an inch to the center during the campaign has no intentions of changing his agenda of outlawing our viewpoint with the "unfairness doctrine," "thought crimes," "The Employment Non Discrimination Act" the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and all the rest. As I wrote about in my book, "The Criminalization of Christianity" (which will surely come true if we don't act now), "Never fail to do the right thing for fear that the opposition will attack you in response. The other side can and will attack you anyway, at a time of their own choosing rather than yours, regardless of whether you act."
"We'll just beat him in four years." In four years, we won't be able to recognize what's left of our country. And if you think taking on this issue right now is hard, try doing it when our radio airwaves are shut down and our freedoms are stripped from us, as he has promised to do. And with Obama's promise to pass the so-called Freedom of Choice Act as "the first thing" he does, you can say goodbye to the notion of protecting unborn children again – and goodbye to every law in all 50 states that notifies parents, keeps our tax dollars from footing the abortion bill and prevents even a single partial-birth abortion.
"They'll say I'm a 'racist' and call it 'sour grapes.'" Our Founding Fathers faced death, we face name-calling. Right now our U.S. soldiers are being shot at for the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. If the Constitution isn't worth undergoing some name calling, then the oath taken to defend it means nothing.
"Somebody else will do it." They haven't. And time is running out.
"It's not my responsibility." The lower court in Philadelphia threw out Phil Berg's case (which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court) based not on the merits, but on the issue of "standing," and pointed to the need for Congress to act. If the questions of constitutionality are not met before Congress is called upon to uphold the vote of the Electoral College, they cannot fulfill their oath and duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. If we are willing to ignore the constitutional requirements for the highest office in our land, what else are we willing to forgo? That part about free speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion?
"We deserve what we got." That's true, so did the people of Nineveh who asked, "Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?" If you're unfamiliar with the story recorded in Jonah, God didn't give the Ninevites what they deserved; and even though the judgment was pronounced against them, when they fasted, prayed, sought God and turned from their wicked ways, God had mercy and spared them from judgment.
"It's impossible." With God, all things are possible. Eight years ago the election was called for Al Gore, and he never took office. If God is the same today as He was yesterday, He can still split the sea, raise the dead, stop the sun and reverse the results of the popular vote if the basic requirements of the Constitution are not met in the candidate.
"He's constitutionally qualified." Great. Then it won't be hard to prove it.
The Electoral College votes on Dec. 15 – we now have less than 30 days of freedom left. How will you spend it? Will you "safely" keep quiet about our nation's most important document, or will you step forward to defend it?
There's a replica of William Wallace's sword hanging on my wall. It reminds me of his words captured in the movie "Braveheart":
William Wallace: I am William Wallace. And I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You've come to fight as freemen, and freemen you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight?
Man: No … we will run … and we will live.
William Wallace: Aye. Fight and you may die. Run and you'll live – at least a while. And, dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!
Congress, you were elected for such a time as this. Don't miss your moment in history to defend the Constitution you were sworn to uphold. Not extreme. Not fringe. Just constitutional. A thorough investigation must be conducted to ensure the basic constitutional requirements for the office of president have been met. It is not just your right – it is your duty. And you have less than 30 days to act. You have the freedom right now that you will never have again. You can fight to defend the Constitution of the United States , or you can run. As William Wallace asked, the question is: Will you fight?
TAKE ACTION: Please take Janet's appeal to heart, and STAND UP for the U.S. Constitution. If we don't act NOW, we could be facing a constitutional crisis of epic proportions when the truth finally DOES come out.
We want to help in any way we can. Please Call your representatives in Congress at 202-224-3121 and ask them to hold immediate congressional hearings to investigate and ensure the basic constitutional requirements for the office of president have been met. And pleaseclick below NOW to make your best donation, which we will tag to contribute to Philip Berg's efforts to spread the TRUTH:
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rightmarch/?a=7
Sincerely,
William Greene, President
RightMarch.com
P.S.: For more information on Philip Berg's efforts, visit his website here -- and be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know, AND call on the media to report this constitutional crisis! Thank you!
The Constitution still matters
http://www.f2a.org/NewsStory.cfm?Story_ID=2545FAITH2ACTION
The Constitution still matters
Exclusive: Janet Porter lays out case Barack Obama isn't a natural-born citizen
By Janet Porter
"Therefore do not fear them, 'For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.'"
–Matthew 10:26
Hold on. Just a minute. Not only was there no landslide and no mandate, there was no election. The Electoral College doesn't even vote until Dec. 15. And there's one thing that may stand in their way from affirming last Tuesday's popular vote: the Constitution.
For the electors to uphold the Constitution that they're sworn to do with their upcoming vote, they must first know for sure that the candidates meet the basic constitutional requirements for the office of president. He must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and have at least 14 years of residency in these United States. That's not a lot to ask. Pretty basic, really.
And pretty easy. Either you are a natural born citizen or you aren't. Just deliver the original birth certificate and everyone can be on their way. That's just what Phillip J. Berg has asked the United States Supreme Court to do. And the Supreme Court has asked for a response from Barack Obama along with the Democratic National Committee and Federal Elections Commission. And they have until Dec. 1 to respond.
Surely a guy couldn't get this far without meeting the basic requirements, could he? Turns out … he could. Especially if the political party whose job it is to verify that their candidate is qualified has a conflict of interest – they want their guy to win.
That's why there's a clamor to see if those basic requirements are actually met.
Not extreme. Not fringe. Just constitutional. Obama says he's qualified? Phil Berg, multiple legal suits and growing number of Americans say: "Prove it."
Why is there any doubt?
Exhibit A: The Grandmother's tape
I was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.
– Obama's paternal grandmother
This is the link where Obama's grandmother says Barack Obama is a native Kenyan.
Here's the phone call where Obama's grandmother says Obama was born in Kenya.
While politicians are known for it, grandmothers seldom lie.
Exhibit B: No birth certificate
Experts have called the Certificate of Live Birth posted online a forgery. Phil Berg reported on my Faith2Action radio program yesterday, "It's clearly been altered," which invalidates it, according to the document itself. Berg added that there is no indication even on this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place. And it turns out that Hawaiian law at the time allowed people to register for this non-hospital short form certificate (without a doctor's signature) up to one year from the date of the child's birth.
Exhibit C: The matter of Indonesian citizenship
Only Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools at the time Barack Obama attended school in Indonesia where was registered as Barry Soetoro. His citizenship was listed as Indonesian and his religion as Islam. There was also no dual citizenship at the time.
If he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he would have forfeited any U.S. citizenship he may have had, just as when a child is adopted in America, he or she becomes an American.
Exhibit D: Travel to Pakistan
U.S. citizens were prohibited from traveling to Pakistan in 1981 when Barack Obama made his visit – likely with a passport other than a U.S. passport.
Exhibit E: Immigration back to the U.S.
According to Phillip Berg on my radio program yesterday, if Barack Obama went through immigration as he re-entered the United States, he would have become "naturalized," which also would not qualify him to become President. If he did not, said Berg, there is a likelihood that he is now an illegal alien – not even eligible to serve in the U.S. Senate. In fact, Berg suggested there has been no evidence that Barack Obama legally changed his name from Barry Soetoro.
In addition, according to U.S. law, from "Dec. 24, 1952, to Nov. 13, 1986," a U.S. natural-born citizen at the time of Obama's birth must be:
1. A natural-born citizen;
2. Born to two U.S. citizen parents; OR
3. If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.
Since Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 at the time of his birth, she failed to meet the legal requirements of U.S. residency for at least five years after the age of 16.
Here's the bottom line: either the Constitution matters or it doesn't. And if we're willing to ignore the constitutional requirements for the highest office in the land, what else are we willing to forgo? That part about free speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion? If we are willing to shred one part of the Constitution, brace yourself to lose the rest.
Matthew 10:26 said it best: "Therefore do not fear them, 'There is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.'" The question is whether it will come in time to avert a Constitutional crisis.
If you are a Democrat or Republican elector who cares about the Constitution even more than your party, please email me directly at jfolger@wnd.com. You are sworn to uphold the Constitution with your vote next month, and making sure the constitutional requirements are met is vital for you to uphold that oath.
Members of Congress also need to step up to the plate since they are the ones responsible to approve the vote of the Electoral College. They can be reached at: 202-224-3121. Seems to me a defender of the Constitution like Rep. Ron Paul would be a natural plaintiff in the case to verify that constitutional requirements have been met. Other members with courage to stand need to stand now or forever hold their peace.
Our Founding Fathers were right; the Constitution is still worth defending. Rise up and speak up while there is still time. Go Phil Berg's www.ObamaCrimes.com and join the fight to defend the Constitution. Please forward this to everyone on your e-mail lists.
The Constitution still matters
Exclusive: Janet Porter lays out case Barack Obama isn't a natural-born citizen
By Janet Porter
"Therefore do not fear them, 'For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.'"
–Matthew 10:26
Hold on. Just a minute. Not only was there no landslide and no mandate, there was no election. The Electoral College doesn't even vote until Dec. 15. And there's one thing that may stand in their way from affirming last Tuesday's popular vote: the Constitution.
For the electors to uphold the Constitution that they're sworn to do with their upcoming vote, they must first know for sure that the candidates meet the basic constitutional requirements for the office of president. He must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and have at least 14 years of residency in these United States. That's not a lot to ask. Pretty basic, really.
And pretty easy. Either you are a natural born citizen or you aren't. Just deliver the original birth certificate and everyone can be on their way. That's just what Phillip J. Berg has asked the United States Supreme Court to do. And the Supreme Court has asked for a response from Barack Obama along with the Democratic National Committee and Federal Elections Commission. And they have until Dec. 1 to respond.
Surely a guy couldn't get this far without meeting the basic requirements, could he? Turns out … he could. Especially if the political party whose job it is to verify that their candidate is qualified has a conflict of interest – they want their guy to win.
That's why there's a clamor to see if those basic requirements are actually met.
Not extreme. Not fringe. Just constitutional. Obama says he's qualified? Phil Berg, multiple legal suits and growing number of Americans say: "Prove it."
Why is there any doubt?
Exhibit A: The Grandmother's tape
I was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.
– Obama's paternal grandmother
This is the link where Obama's grandmother says Barack Obama is a native Kenyan.
Here's the phone call where Obama's grandmother says Obama was born in Kenya.
While politicians are known for it, grandmothers seldom lie.
Exhibit B: No birth certificate
Experts have called the Certificate of Live Birth posted online a forgery. Phil Berg reported on my Faith2Action radio program yesterday, "It's clearly been altered," which invalidates it, according to the document itself. Berg added that there is no indication even on this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place. And it turns out that Hawaiian law at the time allowed people to register for this non-hospital short form certificate (without a doctor's signature) up to one year from the date of the child's birth.
Exhibit C: The matter of Indonesian citizenship
Only Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools at the time Barack Obama attended school in Indonesia where was registered as Barry Soetoro. His citizenship was listed as Indonesian and his religion as Islam. There was also no dual citizenship at the time.
If he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he would have forfeited any U.S. citizenship he may have had, just as when a child is adopted in America, he or she becomes an American.
Exhibit D: Travel to Pakistan
U.S. citizens were prohibited from traveling to Pakistan in 1981 when Barack Obama made his visit – likely with a passport other than a U.S. passport.
Exhibit E: Immigration back to the U.S.
According to Phillip Berg on my radio program yesterday, if Barack Obama went through immigration as he re-entered the United States, he would have become "naturalized," which also would not qualify him to become President. If he did not, said Berg, there is a likelihood that he is now an illegal alien – not even eligible to serve in the U.S. Senate. In fact, Berg suggested there has been no evidence that Barack Obama legally changed his name from Barry Soetoro.
In addition, according to U.S. law, from "Dec. 24, 1952, to Nov. 13, 1986," a U.S. natural-born citizen at the time of Obama's birth must be:
1. A natural-born citizen;
2. Born to two U.S. citizen parents; OR
3. If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.
Since Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 at the time of his birth, she failed to meet the legal requirements of U.S. residency for at least five years after the age of 16.
Here's the bottom line: either the Constitution matters or it doesn't. And if we're willing to ignore the constitutional requirements for the highest office in the land, what else are we willing to forgo? That part about free speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion? If we are willing to shred one part of the Constitution, brace yourself to lose the rest.
Matthew 10:26 said it best: "Therefore do not fear them, 'There is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.'" The question is whether it will come in time to avert a Constitutional crisis.
If you are a Democrat or Republican elector who cares about the Constitution even more than your party, please email me directly at jfolger@wnd.com. You are sworn to uphold the Constitution with your vote next month, and making sure the constitutional requirements are met is vital for you to uphold that oath.
Members of Congress also need to step up to the plate since they are the ones responsible to approve the vote of the Electoral College. They can be reached at: 202-224-3121. Seems to me a defender of the Constitution like Rep. Ron Paul would be a natural plaintiff in the case to verify that constitutional requirements have been met. Other members with courage to stand need to stand now or forever hold their peace.
Our Founding Fathers were right; the Constitution is still worth defending. Rise up and speak up while there is still time. Go Phil Berg's www.ObamaCrimes.com and join the fight to defend the Constitution. Please forward this to everyone on your e-mail lists.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Was the Election God's Will?
An interesting perspective on the election...
by Rev. Ruth Schofield
BARACK OBAMA BECOMES THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT
We rejoice with our African-American friends that one of their own has made it to the top. Barack Obama is definitely a very talented and strong leader and we must now pray for him. (1 Timothy 2:1-3)
The new president will surely need our prayers because he and his administration face huge, serious challenges to the health of our nation and to peace in the world. No other government on earth has ever faced such insurmountable challenges in the history of the world that will require divine aid to overcome. This president must succeed so that America will succeed.
McCain and Palin fought hard losing by a 6% margin of the popular vote, which means that Obama will have to win the hearts of almost half of the public. Regardless of the campaign and media attacks against her, Sarah Palin still has the anointing of an Esther or a Deborah upon her life and she is destined to help bring reform to the nation. Keep her future in your prayers.
The financial crisis that broke out on Rosh Hashanah, on September 29, was one of the major factors leading to the victory of Obama.....62% of the voters said that the economy was the main issue.
Was the Election Result God's Will?
I concur with the Pro-Life leaders who believe the election result was NOT God's Will. America was offered a very clear choice between LIFE and DEATH…protecting the life of the unborn or choosing the Freedom of Choice Act which will provide unlimited restrictions on abortion, including infanticide.
"They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood." (Ps 106:37-38)
The majority of the American people voted for “change” over “principle.” The nation dismissed Barack Obama's background, associations, socialistic beliefs and practices.
The scriptures teach that it is righteousness which exalts a nation and that the nation is blessed whose God is the Lord.
Those who voted for money over morality, or better health insurance over the life of a baby, can expect to see God's judgment come upon the nation. Judgment is simply the absence of God’s protection and provision, caused by a rejection of His laws and ways. We have been experiencing forms of judgment in America for years, and I believe we have exhausted God's mercy and grace.
The day after the election, the Holy Spirit kept speaking to me that America rejected God and asked for a king. America has chosen a “Saul,” a man who has his own political agenda, rather than God's heart for the nation. (1 Samuel 8:5-7)
As for those who voted for “principle.” God will reward His people for their faithfulness. Everyone I know gave it their all! I traveled to numerous areas of the church to encourage the people to pray and vote. We blanketed the nation with a 24 hour PRAYER SURGE via satellite on October 24th. Numerous television stations across the nation contributed several hours of live prayer and some covered the entire 24 hours. Many thanks to: Son Broadcasting, Santa Fe, NM; Total Living Network, Chicago; Cornerstone, Pittsburgh; Daystar, TX; TV 38, El Paso; TV 52, Augusta, GA; TV 52, and Clearwater, FL.
The prayers of the righteous will avail. This is not a time for Christians to go into the bunkers in fear. This is not the time to wail over our retirement funds. This is a time to repent, to pray more, and give more. It's a time for Christians to lead, encourage, and minister to a faltering country in a faltering economy.
"I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. ( 2 Timothy 2:1-3)
HOW SHOULD WE PRAY?
Pray that Christians will have hope and joy instead of fear regarding the future!
We must not react with fear! Our trust must not be in any nation or human government, but only in the kingdom that can never be shaken!
"May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit." (Rom 15:13)
Pray that God will guide President Obama's decisions for His purposes!
"The nation will only be blessed if we ask God to ORCHESTRATE any "change."
The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases." (Proverbs 21:1)
Pray for America to continue its commitment to stand up and defend the nation of Israel. One major concern is that it will lead to a monumental change in U.S. foreign policy towards Israel. Senator Jessie Jackson said just a couple of weeks before the election that the most important change in the U.S. administration's policy under Barack Obama would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end. Obama has promised to attend a summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference within the first 100 days of his presidency.
Pray that Barack Obama will serve God's purposes and that he will do God's will
as much as it is possible. “Many plans are in a man’s mind, but it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand.” (Proverbs 19:21)
A WAKEUP CALL FOR THE CHURCH!
While Republicans are working to get their act together for future elections, the Church must heed a message from this election. The Church's mission has not changed because of the election.
First: As Christians, our commitment to Jesus Christ must not waver. We must say like Joshua, "As for me and my household, we will stand for the Lord" no matter the COST!
Second: The Church needs a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers and in local congregations across America. The Church needs a REVIVAL OF FIRE!
A Church that is on FIRE is the only entity that will lead the nation into righteousness. God's glory in the midst of the people will make the whole nation a temple filled with His presence. The Lord Himself will be a wall of fire around it (Zech. 2:5). The presence and glory of God in the midst of His people is something the church must desire and seek above all else.
"By the blessing of the UPRIGHT the city is exalted. But it is overthrown by the mouth of the wicked" (Proverb 11:11). "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord (Psalm 33:12).
In Christ's Service,
Ruth
by Rev. Ruth Schofield
BARACK OBAMA BECOMES THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT
We rejoice with our African-American friends that one of their own has made it to the top. Barack Obama is definitely a very talented and strong leader and we must now pray for him. (1 Timothy 2:1-3)
The new president will surely need our prayers because he and his administration face huge, serious challenges to the health of our nation and to peace in the world. No other government on earth has ever faced such insurmountable challenges in the history of the world that will require divine aid to overcome. This president must succeed so that America will succeed.
McCain and Palin fought hard losing by a 6% margin of the popular vote, which means that Obama will have to win the hearts of almost half of the public. Regardless of the campaign and media attacks against her, Sarah Palin still has the anointing of an Esther or a Deborah upon her life and she is destined to help bring reform to the nation. Keep her future in your prayers.
The financial crisis that broke out on Rosh Hashanah, on September 29, was one of the major factors leading to the victory of Obama.....62% of the voters said that the economy was the main issue.
Was the Election Result God's Will?
I concur with the Pro-Life leaders who believe the election result was NOT God's Will. America was offered a very clear choice between LIFE and DEATH…protecting the life of the unborn or choosing the Freedom of Choice Act which will provide unlimited restrictions on abortion, including infanticide.
"They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood." (Ps 106:37-38)
The majority of the American people voted for “change” over “principle.” The nation dismissed Barack Obama's background, associations, socialistic beliefs and practices.
The scriptures teach that it is righteousness which exalts a nation and that the nation is blessed whose God is the Lord.
Those who voted for money over morality, or better health insurance over the life of a baby, can expect to see God's judgment come upon the nation. Judgment is simply the absence of God’s protection and provision, caused by a rejection of His laws and ways. We have been experiencing forms of judgment in America for years, and I believe we have exhausted God's mercy and grace.
The day after the election, the Holy Spirit kept speaking to me that America rejected God and asked for a king. America has chosen a “Saul,” a man who has his own political agenda, rather than God's heart for the nation. (1 Samuel 8:5-7)
As for those who voted for “principle.” God will reward His people for their faithfulness. Everyone I know gave it their all! I traveled to numerous areas of the church to encourage the people to pray and vote. We blanketed the nation with a 24 hour PRAYER SURGE via satellite on October 24th. Numerous television stations across the nation contributed several hours of live prayer and some covered the entire 24 hours. Many thanks to: Son Broadcasting, Santa Fe, NM; Total Living Network, Chicago; Cornerstone, Pittsburgh; Daystar, TX; TV 38, El Paso; TV 52, Augusta, GA; TV 52, and Clearwater, FL.
The prayers of the righteous will avail. This is not a time for Christians to go into the bunkers in fear. This is not the time to wail over our retirement funds. This is a time to repent, to pray more, and give more. It's a time for Christians to lead, encourage, and minister to a faltering country in a faltering economy.
"I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. ( 2 Timothy 2:1-3)
HOW SHOULD WE PRAY?
Pray that Christians will have hope and joy instead of fear regarding the future!
We must not react with fear! Our trust must not be in any nation or human government, but only in the kingdom that can never be shaken!
"May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit." (Rom 15:13)
Pray that God will guide President Obama's decisions for His purposes!
"The nation will only be blessed if we ask God to ORCHESTRATE any "change."
The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases." (Proverbs 21:1)
Pray for America to continue its commitment to stand up and defend the nation of Israel. One major concern is that it will lead to a monumental change in U.S. foreign policy towards Israel. Senator Jessie Jackson said just a couple of weeks before the election that the most important change in the U.S. administration's policy under Barack Obama would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end. Obama has promised to attend a summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference within the first 100 days of his presidency.
Pray that Barack Obama will serve God's purposes and that he will do God's will
as much as it is possible. “Many plans are in a man’s mind, but it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand.” (Proverbs 19:21)
A WAKEUP CALL FOR THE CHURCH!
While Republicans are working to get their act together for future elections, the Church must heed a message from this election. The Church's mission has not changed because of the election.
First: As Christians, our commitment to Jesus Christ must not waver. We must say like Joshua, "As for me and my household, we will stand for the Lord" no matter the COST!
Second: The Church needs a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers and in local congregations across America. The Church needs a REVIVAL OF FIRE!
A Church that is on FIRE is the only entity that will lead the nation into righteousness. God's glory in the midst of the people will make the whole nation a temple filled with His presence. The Lord Himself will be a wall of fire around it (Zech. 2:5). The presence and glory of God in the midst of His people is something the church must desire and seek above all else.
"By the blessing of the UPRIGHT the city is exalted. But it is overthrown by the mouth of the wicked" (Proverb 11:11). "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord (Psalm 33:12).
In Christ's Service,
Ruth
Saturday, November 15, 2008
"Economic Justice"
Someone sent me this a few days ago. I don't know who originally came up with it, but I like it a lot. Enjoy! - Mike Ford
Someone sent me this email entitled "Economic Justice". I think there's a brilliant strategy here for conservatives. I'll get to
that, but first read the letter:
Fellow Business Executives:
As the CFO of this business that employees 140 people,
resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama will be our next President, and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.
To compensate for these increases, I figure that the Clients will have to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8% but since we cannot increase our fees right now due to the dismal state of
our economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been eating at me for a while, as we believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who will have to go.
So, this is what I did. I strolled thru our parking lot and found 8 Obama bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these
folks will be the first to be laid off. I can't think of more fair way to approach this problem. These folks wanted change; I gave it to them.
If you have a better idea, let me know.
Sincerely,
The Management
All right, folks, let's get down to brass tacks. The main fight
between the left and the right is over WHO HAS THE RIGHT to "spread the wealth" around.
They think that the government has the right to take it, spend it, and give it to whom they will in order to equalize everybody's standard of living. Let's get beyond the obvious implication of vote buying, and get down to bare principles. We believe that "its our money, we earned it, and we have the right to spend it any way we want to. Charity comes from the heart of the individual, not under the threat of IRS confiscation." So, LET'S PUT OUR PRINCIPLES IN ACTION - with INTENT.
If you are a small business owner, take "The Management's" advice.
Include your vendors, customers and sub-contractors. Find conservatives business partners, especially those struggling to stay alive, and give them your business.
All of us are consumers, right? Politely engage the owners of every small business you frequent until you find out who voted for Obama. Boycott them. The money we would spend in the business of liberals will go for higher taxes, so let them replace it with new customers among the recipients of Obama's version of economic justice. You take your business to a conservative. Do it nicely. Quietly. Savor it. :-) I started with my favorite bagel/coffee shop which is owned by a nasty, nostril flaring uberliberal and took my business to a little hole in the wall cafe owned by an Iraq war vet.
Keep a list of businesses to boycott or frequent in your own neighborhoods. Share it with your conservative friends.
I'm going to start "Lizzie's List" right now
Finally, Google your friends, family and neighbors to see who donated to Obama's campaign. Instead of giving Christmas gifts,
make donations to pay down the national debt in their name. Remind
them of the source of your inspiration: Joe Biden, its the "patriotic thing" to do.
Here's the way I see this playing out. If the 55 million people who voted against Obama restrict doing business to strictly ith each
other, I guarantee you that the "Great Depression" the media is
forecasting will only affect HALF the country... One person, one dollar at a time, we can force these liberals to live with the
consequences of their choices.
As Benjamin Franklin once said
"Gentlemen, unless we hang together, we will most assuredly hang
separately".... and that is Economic Justice.
Someone sent me this email entitled "Economic Justice". I think there's a brilliant strategy here for conservatives. I'll get to
that, but first read the letter:
Fellow Business Executives:
As the CFO of this business that employees 140 people,
resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama will be our next President, and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.
To compensate for these increases, I figure that the Clients will have to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8% but since we cannot increase our fees right now due to the dismal state of
our economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been eating at me for a while, as we believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who will have to go.
So, this is what I did. I strolled thru our parking lot and found 8 Obama bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these
folks will be the first to be laid off. I can't think of more fair way to approach this problem. These folks wanted change; I gave it to them.
If you have a better idea, let me know.
Sincerely,
The Management
All right, folks, let's get down to brass tacks. The main fight
between the left and the right is over WHO HAS THE RIGHT to "spread the wealth" around.
They think that the government has the right to take it, spend it, and give it to whom they will in order to equalize everybody's standard of living. Let's get beyond the obvious implication of vote buying, and get down to bare principles. We believe that "its our money, we earned it, and we have the right to spend it any way we want to. Charity comes from the heart of the individual, not under the threat of IRS confiscation." So, LET'S PUT OUR PRINCIPLES IN ACTION - with INTENT.
If you are a small business owner, take "The Management's" advice.
Include your vendors, customers and sub-contractors. Find conservatives business partners, especially those struggling to stay alive, and give them your business.
All of us are consumers, right? Politely engage the owners of every small business you frequent until you find out who voted for Obama. Boycott them. The money we would spend in the business of liberals will go for higher taxes, so let them replace it with new customers among the recipients of Obama's version of economic justice. You take your business to a conservative. Do it nicely. Quietly. Savor it. :-) I started with my favorite bagel/coffee shop which is owned by a nasty, nostril flaring uberliberal and took my business to a little hole in the wall cafe owned by an Iraq war vet.
Keep a list of businesses to boycott or frequent in your own neighborhoods. Share it with your conservative friends.
I'm going to start "Lizzie's List" right now
Finally, Google your friends, family and neighbors to see who donated to Obama's campaign. Instead of giving Christmas gifts,
make donations to pay down the national debt in their name. Remind
them of the source of your inspiration: Joe Biden, its the "patriotic thing" to do.
Here's the way I see this playing out. If the 55 million people who voted against Obama restrict doing business to strictly ith each
other, I guarantee you that the "Great Depression" the media is
forecasting will only affect HALF the country... One person, one dollar at a time, we can force these liberals to live with the
consequences of their choices.
As Benjamin Franklin once said
"Gentlemen, unless we hang together, we will most assuredly hang
separately".... and that is Economic Justice.
Young voters not essential to Obama win
Analysis shatters exit-polling myth, but shows black voters were vital
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
msnbc.com
updated 3:17 a.m. CT, Fri., Nov. 7, 2008
NEW YORK — If as the saying goes, “victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan,” among the “fathers” claiming credit for Barack Obama’s triumph are different demographic groups and Democratic constituencies.
It was union members who helped make Obama president, says the AFL-CIO. It was young voters who lifted him to victory. Latinos were crucial. Single women were decisive.
But wait a minute — would Obama have won anyway without, for instance, younger voters?
AnaMaria Arumi, who directs the exit poll desk for NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo, has done the calculations based on the exit poll data and here is what she found:
On a state-by-state level, when she re-ran the numbers as if there were no voters under 30, the only states that would switch to Republican presidential candidate John McCain are Indiana and North Carolina.
Without younger voters, Obama would still have won the 270 electoral votes he needs to become the next president.
What if there were no Latino voters?
In a counter-factual world in which there were no Latino voters, both New Mexico and Indiana would have switched into the McCain column. But Obama would have still won the electoral vote.
However, Arumi said, in the make-believe world where no African-Americans voted, while Obama still would have won most of the states that he won, McCain would have been able to take the hotly contested states of Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
The 107 electoral votes from those states would have been enough to shift the map in McCain’s favor.
It matters that Arumi did her calculations on a state-by-state basis — because it is the electoral votes of individual states and the District of Columbia and not the national popular vote that makes a candidate president.
Nationally, Obama's widest margin was among voters under 30. He won two-thirds of such voters, according to exit poll interviews.
Young voters in Virginia vs. Oklahoma
A close examination of a specific battleground state such as Virginia shows that 60 percent of Virginia voters under the age of 30 said they cast their ballots for Obama.
But for a contrast, take a state where McCain did very well, such as Oklahoma. In the Sooner State, just as in Virginia, about one-fifth of the voters were under age 30. And McCain won 60 percent of them. Not surprisingly McCain carried Oklahoma by a big margin, 32 percentage points.
So just as important as the differences between younger and older voters was simply where the voter lived: young people in Oklahoma tended to vote for McCain; young people in Virginia did not.
The problem for McCain is that there simply weren’t enough young voters in other states who were like the young voters in Oklahoma.
And younger voters in a heavily Democratic state such as California were not decisive in the outcome, just as their older aunts and uncles in California were not either.
That is because Democratic presidential candidates win California by such huge margins that the outcome there was never in doubt. Strategists knew at the outset that they could move California’s 55 electoral votes to the Democratic column.
What do we really know about the votes?
It’s important to note that the discussion about the relative importance of one demographic group or another is based on exit poll interviews with voters.
No election official knows for certain how many people in Virginia under age 30 voted — or for whom they voted. Ballots are not marked by the voter's age or any other distinguishing factor.
Likewise no one really knows for certain how many black voters in Virginia voted for McCain and how many for Obama.
And there are almost no voting precincts in the United States where 100 percent of the voters are young or black or Jewish or gun owners or members of any other single group.
Traditional voting analyses examined voting precincts that were dominated by one ethnic or religious group: voters in a predominantly Jewish precinct in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn in the 1940 election, for instance.
More recently political scientists have examined exit poll data — samples of the electorate in a state or the entire country.
Of course, we still can look at a predominantly Latino or black congressional districts or counties. Census data can help us assess how black or Latino voters cast their ballots.
In Allendale County, South Carolina, for instance, Obama won 75 percent of the vote, making that his best county in a state he lost. That’s an actual vote count, not exit poll data.
According to the Census, 71 percent of Allendale County’s population is black. We can infer that most African-American voters in the county voted for Obama, but we still don’t know for certain how white and blacks voted in the county.
Nationally, the exit poll interviews indicated that:
61 percent of Obama's votes came from white voters; 90 percent of McCain's came from white voters.
23 percent of Obama's votes came from black voters; only one percent of McCain's came from African American voters.
Latino voters accounted for 11 percent of Obama's vote and six percent of McCain's.Twenty-three percent of the Obama voters were under age 30 but only 13 percent of McCain backers were.
Surge of young voters?NBC's Arumi said that while more people voted this time around than in 2004, that one age group did not turn out at a much higher rate than others did.
The purported “surge” of younger voters did happen, but it occurred at the same time as the number of voters of other ages also increased.
“Basically, the age distribution of voters looks the same as it did in 2004,” Arumi said.
In 2004, 9 percent of the electorate was aged 18-24; on Tuesday, the percentage grew by one point to 10 percent.
This single percentage point is pulled from the 40-49-year-old bracket.
The over-65 crowd remained the same: an estimated 16 percent of the electorate.
But what did shift is the vote preference of each group. Obama outperformed 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry with all age groups except seniors. His biggest gains were among those 25-29 years old.
© 2008 msnbc.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27582147/
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2008 MSNBC.com
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
msnbc.com
updated 3:17 a.m. CT, Fri., Nov. 7, 2008
NEW YORK — If as the saying goes, “victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan,” among the “fathers” claiming credit for Barack Obama’s triumph are different demographic groups and Democratic constituencies.
It was union members who helped make Obama president, says the AFL-CIO. It was young voters who lifted him to victory. Latinos were crucial. Single women were decisive.
But wait a minute — would Obama have won anyway without, for instance, younger voters?
AnaMaria Arumi, who directs the exit poll desk for NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo, has done the calculations based on the exit poll data and here is what she found:
On a state-by-state level, when she re-ran the numbers as if there were no voters under 30, the only states that would switch to Republican presidential candidate John McCain are Indiana and North Carolina.
Without younger voters, Obama would still have won the 270 electoral votes he needs to become the next president.
What if there were no Latino voters?
In a counter-factual world in which there were no Latino voters, both New Mexico and Indiana would have switched into the McCain column. But Obama would have still won the electoral vote.
However, Arumi said, in the make-believe world where no African-Americans voted, while Obama still would have won most of the states that he won, McCain would have been able to take the hotly contested states of Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
The 107 electoral votes from those states would have been enough to shift the map in McCain’s favor.
It matters that Arumi did her calculations on a state-by-state basis — because it is the electoral votes of individual states and the District of Columbia and not the national popular vote that makes a candidate president.
Nationally, Obama's widest margin was among voters under 30. He won two-thirds of such voters, according to exit poll interviews.
Young voters in Virginia vs. Oklahoma
A close examination of a specific battleground state such as Virginia shows that 60 percent of Virginia voters under the age of 30 said they cast their ballots for Obama.
But for a contrast, take a state where McCain did very well, such as Oklahoma. In the Sooner State, just as in Virginia, about one-fifth of the voters were under age 30. And McCain won 60 percent of them. Not surprisingly McCain carried Oklahoma by a big margin, 32 percentage points.
So just as important as the differences between younger and older voters was simply where the voter lived: young people in Oklahoma tended to vote for McCain; young people in Virginia did not.
The problem for McCain is that there simply weren’t enough young voters in other states who were like the young voters in Oklahoma.
And younger voters in a heavily Democratic state such as California were not decisive in the outcome, just as their older aunts and uncles in California were not either.
That is because Democratic presidential candidates win California by such huge margins that the outcome there was never in doubt. Strategists knew at the outset that they could move California’s 55 electoral votes to the Democratic column.
What do we really know about the votes?
It’s important to note that the discussion about the relative importance of one demographic group or another is based on exit poll interviews with voters.
No election official knows for certain how many people in Virginia under age 30 voted — or for whom they voted. Ballots are not marked by the voter's age or any other distinguishing factor.
Likewise no one really knows for certain how many black voters in Virginia voted for McCain and how many for Obama.
And there are almost no voting precincts in the United States where 100 percent of the voters are young or black or Jewish or gun owners or members of any other single group.
Traditional voting analyses examined voting precincts that were dominated by one ethnic or religious group: voters in a predominantly Jewish precinct in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn in the 1940 election, for instance.
More recently political scientists have examined exit poll data — samples of the electorate in a state or the entire country.
Of course, we still can look at a predominantly Latino or black congressional districts or counties. Census data can help us assess how black or Latino voters cast their ballots.
In Allendale County, South Carolina, for instance, Obama won 75 percent of the vote, making that his best county in a state he lost. That’s an actual vote count, not exit poll data.
According to the Census, 71 percent of Allendale County’s population is black. We can infer that most African-American voters in the county voted for Obama, but we still don’t know for certain how white and blacks voted in the county.
Nationally, the exit poll interviews indicated that:
61 percent of Obama's votes came from white voters; 90 percent of McCain's came from white voters.
23 percent of Obama's votes came from black voters; only one percent of McCain's came from African American voters.
Latino voters accounted for 11 percent of Obama's vote and six percent of McCain's.Twenty-three percent of the Obama voters were under age 30 but only 13 percent of McCain backers were.
Surge of young voters?NBC's Arumi said that while more people voted this time around than in 2004, that one age group did not turn out at a much higher rate than others did.
The purported “surge” of younger voters did happen, but it occurred at the same time as the number of voters of other ages also increased.
“Basically, the age distribution of voters looks the same as it did in 2004,” Arumi said.
In 2004, 9 percent of the electorate was aged 18-24; on Tuesday, the percentage grew by one point to 10 percent.
This single percentage point is pulled from the 40-49-year-old bracket.
The over-65 crowd remained the same: an estimated 16 percent of the electorate.
But what did shift is the vote preference of each group. Obama outperformed 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry with all age groups except seniors. His biggest gains were among those 25-29 years old.
© 2008 msnbc.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27582147/
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2008 MSNBC.com
Obama Bought Election with $650 Million
jA Newsmax special report by Kenneth Timmerman finds that Barack Obama beat John McCain for one reason: he spent more. Obama raised a record-breaking $650 million. But now new questions have emerged about shadowy foreign donations in excess of $60 million. And Obama still has not released the names of donors who gave him almost $300 million.
Obama Fundraising Sealed Election Win
Wednesday, November 5, 2008 7:00 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign smashed all previous fundraising records, raking in more than an astounding $650 million from some 3 million donors and giving him a huge advantage over rival John McCain.
But questions abound regarding the legality of many of the donations that helped propel him to victory.
And one question is: Did Obama “buy” the election?
Obama’s fundraising haul was more than twice the amount Democrat John Kerry raised in 2004, and more than twice what George Bush and Al Gore combined brought in during the 2000 presidential campaign.
“Nobody could have imagined numbers like this or participation like this,” veteran fundraiser Alan Solomont told Bloomberg.com.
Obama’s fundraising effort was in high gear from the very start, bringing in $24.8 million for the primary during the first three months of 2007, compared to $19.1 million for Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
By the end of 2007, Obama had raised $102 million. He won the Iowa primary on Jan. 3, 2008, and raised another $36 million that month.
Almost half of Obama’s money came from people donating $200 or less, compared with 34 percent for McCain, Bloomberg reported.
Obama on two occasions promised to work with McCain on an agreement to accept public financing. McCain did accept public financing, limiting his ability to raise private donations, but in June Obama reneged on his vows, enabling him to raise unlimited amounts from donors.
The press by and large did not hold Obama accountable for the broken promises. But McCain sharply criticized him, saying: “Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn’t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn’t mean a thing.”
Obama’s fundraising “revolutionized the way presidential campaigns are financed and may kill the Watergate-era system of providing public money for the general election,” Bloomberg observed.
Free to raise unlimited funds, Obama’s campaign brought in at least $200 million in September and October, more than doubling the amount available to McCain.
Obama’s huge edge in finances enabled him to devote nearly three times as much as McCain to advertising, with the Democrat spending $21.5 million to McCain’s $7.5 million from Oct. 21 to Oct. 28 as Election Day neared.
On the day before the election, Obama ran 3,410 ads in seven competitive states, while McCain ran only 1,900.
Obama also far outspent McCain on staff salaries, helping him to open field offices and fund a get-out-the-vote effort.
But an investigation by Newsmax correspondent Kenneth R. Timmerman has uncovered numerous examples of questionable donations, including those originating from foreign sources in apparent violation of laws forbidding candidates from accepting foreign money.
On Sept. 29, Timmerman first disclosed that more than half of the $426.9 million Obama had raised at that point came from small donors whose names the Obama campaign would not disclose — making it impossible to verify that donors were not surpassing the $2,300 an individual can contribute to a candidate for the general election.
The Federal Election Commission cited a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Tex. A Newsmax analysis of the master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, totaling $17,375.
Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations. The donor listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.” Some of Doodad Pro’s donations were refunded by the campaign, but as of Sept. 20 more than $11,000 had not been returned.
Timmerman disclosed that the FEC compiled a database of potentially questionable overseas donations totaling $3.38 million. The funds came from such places as Abu Dhabi, Beijing, and Ethiopia.
In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a speech in which he claimed foreign nationals were contributing to Obama’s campaign.
Timmerman also reported that donors from the Gaza Strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through the purchase of Obama T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.
Timmerman published a new report on Oct. 8, disclosing that an investigation of Obama’s campaign finance reports turned up more than 2,000 cases in which individuals made donations far above the legal limit of $2,300 per election.
For example, in August the campaign filed a report listing a single donation from a Debra Myers in “Rancho Palos Verde, Calif.,” for $28,500, and a $28,500 contribution from a donor identified as Woodrow Myers Jr.
The Obama campaign said it had refunded both donations on Sept. 30, the day after Newsmax published Timmerman’s first report.
Timmerman followed up with a new report on Oct. 19, disclosing that more than 37,000 Obama donations appeared to be conversions of foreign currency, totaling as much as $63 million.
The red flag was the odd amounts donated by a number of suspected foreign donors. One contributor gave $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, and $118.15.
“They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.
On Oct. 21, Timmerman revealed that the Obama campaign had accepted contributions from donors identifying themselves as King Kong, Daffy Duck, and Bart Simpson — without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors.
An individual using the name “O.J. Simpson” donated to the campaign on Oct. 14, giving his occupation as “convict.” The campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note.
Other donors with clearly fictitious names include “Dertey Poiiuy,” “Mong Kong,” “Fornari USA,” and “jkbkj Hbkjb.”
Timmerman reported on Oct. 29: “A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship.
“Some of these ‘red flag’ donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.”
Frederick W. Rustmann Jr., the former CIA operations officer, told Newsmax: “Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors. Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.”
The conservative Heritage Foundation has taken the first step in what could be an in-depth investigation of Obama’s fundraising efforts, demanding that the FEC audit the Obama campaign.
The foundation issued a release on Tuesday declaring: “No doubt there is great ‘cause’ to be concerned about Obama’s fundraising effort.”
The foundation also pointed to a test by the independent National Journal to determine the veracity of allegations that the Democrat’s online fundraising system literally was designed to facilitate fraud.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Obama Fundraising Sealed Election Win
Wednesday, November 5, 2008 7:00 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign smashed all previous fundraising records, raking in more than an astounding $650 million from some 3 million donors and giving him a huge advantage over rival John McCain.
But questions abound regarding the legality of many of the donations that helped propel him to victory.
And one question is: Did Obama “buy” the election?
Obama’s fundraising haul was more than twice the amount Democrat John Kerry raised in 2004, and more than twice what George Bush and Al Gore combined brought in during the 2000 presidential campaign.
“Nobody could have imagined numbers like this or participation like this,” veteran fundraiser Alan Solomont told Bloomberg.com.
Obama’s fundraising effort was in high gear from the very start, bringing in $24.8 million for the primary during the first three months of 2007, compared to $19.1 million for Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
By the end of 2007, Obama had raised $102 million. He won the Iowa primary on Jan. 3, 2008, and raised another $36 million that month.
Almost half of Obama’s money came from people donating $200 or less, compared with 34 percent for McCain, Bloomberg reported.
Obama on two occasions promised to work with McCain on an agreement to accept public financing. McCain did accept public financing, limiting his ability to raise private donations, but in June Obama reneged on his vows, enabling him to raise unlimited amounts from donors.
The press by and large did not hold Obama accountable for the broken promises. But McCain sharply criticized him, saying: “Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn’t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn’t mean a thing.”
Obama’s fundraising “revolutionized the way presidential campaigns are financed and may kill the Watergate-era system of providing public money for the general election,” Bloomberg observed.
Free to raise unlimited funds, Obama’s campaign brought in at least $200 million in September and October, more than doubling the amount available to McCain.
Obama’s huge edge in finances enabled him to devote nearly three times as much as McCain to advertising, with the Democrat spending $21.5 million to McCain’s $7.5 million from Oct. 21 to Oct. 28 as Election Day neared.
On the day before the election, Obama ran 3,410 ads in seven competitive states, while McCain ran only 1,900.
Obama also far outspent McCain on staff salaries, helping him to open field offices and fund a get-out-the-vote effort.
But an investigation by Newsmax correspondent Kenneth R. Timmerman has uncovered numerous examples of questionable donations, including those originating from foreign sources in apparent violation of laws forbidding candidates from accepting foreign money.
On Sept. 29, Timmerman first disclosed that more than half of the $426.9 million Obama had raised at that point came from small donors whose names the Obama campaign would not disclose — making it impossible to verify that donors were not surpassing the $2,300 an individual can contribute to a candidate for the general election.
The Federal Election Commission cited a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Tex. A Newsmax analysis of the master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, totaling $17,375.
Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations. The donor listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.” Some of Doodad Pro’s donations were refunded by the campaign, but as of Sept. 20 more than $11,000 had not been returned.
Timmerman disclosed that the FEC compiled a database of potentially questionable overseas donations totaling $3.38 million. The funds came from such places as Abu Dhabi, Beijing, and Ethiopia.
In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a speech in which he claimed foreign nationals were contributing to Obama’s campaign.
Timmerman also reported that donors from the Gaza Strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through the purchase of Obama T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.
Timmerman published a new report on Oct. 8, disclosing that an investigation of Obama’s campaign finance reports turned up more than 2,000 cases in which individuals made donations far above the legal limit of $2,300 per election.
For example, in August the campaign filed a report listing a single donation from a Debra Myers in “Rancho Palos Verde, Calif.,” for $28,500, and a $28,500 contribution from a donor identified as Woodrow Myers Jr.
The Obama campaign said it had refunded both donations on Sept. 30, the day after Newsmax published Timmerman’s first report.
Timmerman followed up with a new report on Oct. 19, disclosing that more than 37,000 Obama donations appeared to be conversions of foreign currency, totaling as much as $63 million.
The red flag was the odd amounts donated by a number of suspected foreign donors. One contributor gave $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, and $118.15.
“They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.
On Oct. 21, Timmerman revealed that the Obama campaign had accepted contributions from donors identifying themselves as King Kong, Daffy Duck, and Bart Simpson — without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors.
An individual using the name “O.J. Simpson” donated to the campaign on Oct. 14, giving his occupation as “convict.” The campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note.
Other donors with clearly fictitious names include “Dertey Poiiuy,” “Mong Kong,” “Fornari USA,” and “jkbkj Hbkjb.”
Timmerman reported on Oct. 29: “A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship.
“Some of these ‘red flag’ donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.”
Frederick W. Rustmann Jr., the former CIA operations officer, told Newsmax: “Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors. Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.”
The conservative Heritage Foundation has taken the first step in what could be an in-depth investigation of Obama’s fundraising efforts, demanding that the FEC audit the Obama campaign.
The foundation issued a release on Tuesday declaring: “No doubt there is great ‘cause’ to be concerned about Obama’s fundraising effort.”
The foundation also pointed to a test by the independent National Journal to determine the veracity of allegations that the Democrat’s online fundraising system literally was designed to facilitate fraud.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Watch Out For Leftist Retirement Agenda
Here is an article about an alarming proposed retirement plan overhaul.
This proposal is being considered currently by the House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support.
Click Here to view more info on this socialist overhaul.
Her plan is not elective, like 401(k) and similar retirement plans. Her plan would tax in full current retirement accounts. Then everyone would "trade" the current balance in their 401k account, after taxes are paid on it, for a government "guaranteed retirement account". There would be no tax deduction to the employee (or self-employed). There would be mandatory contributions required of every employee of 5% of their earnings. The government, i.e. social security administration, would run the plan. The government would pay 3% earnings on the balance of each person's account annually.
The payout at retirement would be in the form of an annuity for life, no lump sum payments. No emergency withdrawals to buy a house or pay for college or pay emergency bills. No loans. Not elective, mandatory. No choices.
It would take trillions out of the stock market immediately and give it to the US government in the form of taxes on retirement account balances and the "trade" of the remainder account for a government "guaranteed retirement account".
Sounds like a mandatory 5% increase to the current 7.65% we pay in social security and Medicare taxes today. Looks like a disguised increase in the social security system which would not have the same restrictions on Congress dipping into those funds on deposit with the Government.
This proposal is being considered currently by the House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support.
Click Here to view more info on this socialist overhaul.
Her plan is not elective, like 401(k) and similar retirement plans. Her plan would tax in full current retirement accounts. Then everyone would "trade" the current balance in their 401k account, after taxes are paid on it, for a government "guaranteed retirement account". There would be no tax deduction to the employee (or self-employed). There would be mandatory contributions required of every employee of 5% of their earnings. The government, i.e. social security administration, would run the plan. The government would pay 3% earnings on the balance of each person's account annually.
The payout at retirement would be in the form of an annuity for life, no lump sum payments. No emergency withdrawals to buy a house or pay for college or pay emergency bills. No loans. Not elective, mandatory. No choices.
It would take trillions out of the stock market immediately and give it to the US government in the form of taxes on retirement account balances and the "trade" of the remainder account for a government "guaranteed retirement account".
Sounds like a mandatory 5% increase to the current 7.65% we pay in social security and Medicare taxes today. Looks like a disguised increase in the social security system which would not have the same restrictions on Congress dipping into those funds on deposit with the Government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
