Factcheck.org link inside - Obama birth certificate - nothing wrong with reputable sources for your

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Either that or this is one heck of a fake, plus someone planted an announcement back in the 1961 Honolulu newspaper....

!!!!!

• Show us your birth certificate - shelly
  • Not worldnutdaily.com again! - Libby
  • Yawn....this story is getting as old as the whole - Obama birth certificate
  • Factcheck.org link inside - Obama birth certificate - nothing wrong with reputable sources for your - news, people! sm
    • Save your breath. People that believe - -LOL
    • How many times do we have to explain to you... - Factcheck.org is not a repubitable site
      • What exactly would it take to convince - you the BC was legit?
        • Certainly not the forged one they put up there - Factcheck.org is not a repubitable site
          • I am being totally serious. What would - convince you?
            • Okay, thought you were setting me up - see message - Factcheck.org is not a repubitable site
              • Thanks for answering. - In part because
  • The lack of one pretty much speaks for itself... - nm
  • Nothing will come of this. - sm
    • eligible, you mean? - oh the irony of this...
      • Can you say illiterate? LOL - sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

For those that feel strongly that Obama is ineligible to be the president due to unanswered questions regarding his birth certificate, there is something that you can do about it. 

The key here is that you need to be very proactive.  Posting about Obama's birth certificate on message boards, in emails and such will not result in him ultimately being unable to serve as president due to this very important issue. 

Many here have written extensively about this issue, and seem quite knowlegable regarding the actual facts surrounding his birth certificate, and the fact that he, in reality, is legally disqualifed from serving as president.

The many posters here who are deeply concerned about this issue, need to take thiings a step further than merely posting about this. 

Here is what you need to do.  Make an appointment to consult with an attorney and state your concerns to said attorney.  For a retainer fee the attorney will accept the case on your behalf.  Retainer fees are not that high, usually for a case such as this the retainer fee would run a couple of thousand dollars, plus whatever hourly fee the attorney charges.  The more people that take this proactive approach, the higher the likelihood that the case will be heard and ultimately Obama would be removed from office due to this birth certificate issue. 

In the event that the case is heard and dismissed, the next step is to file an appeal.  The retainer fees for an appeal run higher than the initial  retainer fee, however again it is not that expensive, with the ballpark figure of approximately $5,000.plus whatever hourly fee your attorney charges, and here again the more people that do this the higher the liklihood of Obama being removed from office due to this so very important issue.

On December 5, 2008, this issue will be addressed by the Supreme Court and likely there will be no furtherance on this. As many of you already know, a federal judge dismissed this very important case, and the Supreme Court is likely to follow suit in this coverup regarding Obama and his birth certificate.

I urge  all who post about this so often and feel very strongly about this issue to take action, retain an attorney and follow through with the case to its conclusion.  In the end, with your collective efforts and knowlege about the real issues regarding Obama and the birth certificate, you will have prevented, or caused the removal of, a person from serving in the highest office in the nation  who, in fact, is not legally qualified to serve in that capacity.  In doing this you will have performed the ultimate act of patriotism.

Sometimes in life you have to put your money where your mouth is, and this is one of those times. 

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/01/obama-birth-certificate-rears-its-ugly-head-again/

Now, if we can just all survive until January 20, 2008, without another war or false flag attack on our nation, there may be some hope for the future.  Until then, Bush is still President and still a very dangerous man.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/08/obama-birth-certificate-c_n_149229.html

As in the words of Archie Bunker from "All in the Family" to his TV wife Edith:  "Stifle yourself...geeeez".

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90125

this is an outrage.  citizens of this nation have demanded to see his birth records.  he answers to us and he refuses to be accountable to us.  i think that i should no longer be required to show mine.  if he has that right, why don't I? 

It's good to know this is still pending.

Honor the constitution.

http://texashillblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/scotus-requires-obama-to-show-birth.html

I stated in a previos post a few days ago that BO birth certificate case would not be heard by the Supreme Court.   As many of you have said the judges and the Supreme Court are suppressing evidence as to the real situation that many of you do have extemsive, and true facts about.  Clearly from your in depth knowledge about this situation, a cover up is occurring, not only by the Federal courts, but by the Supreme Court as will.

As in my previous post I strongly suggest that with the real evidence that you posses, that you most simplyt take action now, and save this country, not only ultimately disallowing Obama to be president, but to ultimately perform the ultimate patriotic duty for yourselves, as well as performing the highest civic duty that you likely will ever do in your lifetimes.

There is another current legal case in the works regarding this serious situation. Thus far the costs for persuing this matter are over $30,000 dollars. This can be found by doing a Google search, donations are badly needed,  and if you people will make substantial donations regarding this, the higher the likelihood that the case will be placed in the hands of a federal judge.

The other possibility here is to start as a group, a collective case, pool your resourses to hire an attorney who speecialises in these matters, pay the retainer fees, the attorney's hourly fees regarding the case, and get the case filed in the Federal courts. The fees for doing this are not cheap, but you are MTs and make high paying salaries, so $20,000 to $30,000 should not be a problem here. Even the appeal process that is likely to occur is not out of your range as MTs, as it really only costs about double the amount of money to do so, as  again  the total expenses regarding filing an appeal would likely only be about $50,000 to $60,000 dollars,, and the beauty of the system is that if you are ultimately successful in winning the case, and you likely would be with the real facts at your disposal, the court costs are covered, and you would become true national hero's!!!!!

I don't understand that with the true information that you posses, why you are not persuing this instead of writing about on message boards.

With the true facts that you posses it is quite likely that you will ultimately win the case, would have completed the highest of civic duties, and will be held in the highest of esteem for finally exposing a person who has committed a terrible fraud, not only to the election process, but also to the federal judicial system, and ultimately going as far as perpetrating that fraud up to and inc;luding the Supreme Court.

I laud you in advance for having the fortitude for persuing this, and look forward to saluting you as well all of of the other American people, for performing the highest civic and patriotic duty that one ever could. It's people like you, that never give up, and get to the bottom of such an important situation. You are the true American heroes.

Is Barack Obama a U.S. citizen?"

Of course he is, dummy..

"But how do you know?"

Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website. Not to mention, the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . Also, factcheck.org (a non-partisan and highly credible political fact checking website) investigated it heavily and validated, beyond doubt, that the birth certificate he posted was real. Did I mention that if there were an actual conspiracy surrounding this...it would have to be 47 years in the making? That's right, read it and weep: his birth announcement was posted in a Hawaii newspaper way back in 1961! But if you're really not sure, just remember there have been court cases challenging his citizenship, and every one of them was laughed off the docket.

"That's all pretty compelling. But I got this email that said...."

The email you got is just a crazy, internet-born rumor. It's nothing but a desperate attempt to discredit him. Trust me.

"Yeah, I'm sure you're right...."


Sound familiar? I've personally had a similar conversation several times, but mine ends differently.


"Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website."

Really? Well humor me, because I think this is important enough for us to get our facts straight. So let's explore that. Hawaii doesn't issue "birth certificates". The state offers "Certificates of Live Birth" and "Certifications of Live Birth." What Barack Obama has posted on his website is a "Certification of Live Birth." So let's talk about the difference between the two documents. As you probably know, the document we commonly refer to as a "birth certificate" (more formally called a Certificate of Live Birth) is packed with detail. Detail like the hospital you were born in, the doctor who delivered you along with his/her signature, etc. It looks like a tax form with all the boxes and everything. The Certification of Live Birth is really just a snapshot of that. So which one is more credible? Which one does the state of Hawaii give the "last word" to? Based on information that existed long before this issue came up, let's take a look at one example of what the state of Hawaii has to say on it:

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." ( http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl ).

So if the state of Hawaii itself doesn't accept "Certifications of Live Birth" as a last leg of verification, it's safe to say there's a pretty solid distinction we too can make when comparing a Certificate to a Certification. What Barack Obama posted, was a Certification. What people want to see, is the Certificate. When you say he "posted his birth certificate" on his website, the truth (painful as it may be to hear) is that he posted a much different document that if accurately described, would be a "birth certification" - which is far less credible and far easier to alter.

"That's pretty lean. It's not really a big deal to me because I know it's just a rumor. But still, if you're going to insist there's a question here, I have to tell you....the state of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . They have the 'Certificate' you're talking about, and they proved it was authentic. Are you saying they're in on this crazy conspiracy?"

I'm not saying they're involved in a conspiracy, or even that one exists. But I'm not sure you can honestly say you actually read that statement. Here, take a look:

Director of Health for the State of Hawaii , Chiyome Fukino: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i."

Now you tell me, where in that statement does it say anything about where he was born? Public officials are very careful when they release these statements. They carve their words out precisely and check and double check to make sure what they release is accurate and viable. I have to be honest, it wasn't until this statement came out that I became more concerned by the citizenship question. If you actually read it, it's plain to see that as it relates to his birth, the statement really only "proves" 3 things: 1) Barack Obama was born, 2) proof of that birth exists on paper, and 3) their office is in receipt of that paper. An official statement with a lot of affirmatives about requirements and procedures means nothing if they can't find the words, "originating from Hawaii " or "was born in Honolulu " or "as documented in the Certification he has already released". Now maybe it was an accident that Dr. Fukino was able to authenticate virtually every scrap of it's existence - except the part everyone is asking about. However, pressed on this, there has been ample opportunity for her to revise or expand her statement, and she still to this day has not done so.

"Wait a minute, Hank. Didn't factcheck.org already investigate this whole thing. You're just grasping at straws. What do you know, that they don't?!"

I guess the first thing I'd tell you is that, on this particular subject, factcheck has already missed a lot of "facts", and even created a few of their own. You know that statement we just read from Hawaii 's Director of Health? Well this is what factcheck had to say about it: "Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu " ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html ). Did you see that in the statement? I didn't. If this site's only claim is to report facts in a non-partisan manner, how much credibility can we really give them when they start making up their own, very partisan and very inaccurate facts? They also failed to make the distinction between the Certificate and the Certification. And to be fair, factcheck.org is a product of the Annenberg Foundation. You may remember, Barack Obama worked for Annenberg as a spoke in their umbrella. If you look at the actual facts, this is a slight conflict of interest on factcheck.org's part - which might help to explain their not having met their own obligation of getting the facts right. An accident on their part? Maybe. But they too have had plenty of time to correct it, but chose instead to close the book on this one...fabricated facts and all.

"Look....if there was any truth to this, it would have meant that Barack's parents and a Hawaiian newspaper were in on it too. And they were in on it 47 years ago! There's a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper for crying out loud."

Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you're bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn't have to be a "conspiracy" for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper.

"Hmm. Okay. Well newsflash Hank. This has already been challenged in court and the judges dismissed it as frivolous and ridiculous."

Actually, this has been heard in a handful of courts. The judges by-in-large dismissed the cases, you're right. But the majorative reason was not merit, but rather standing. "Standing", as an act of dismissal in the courts, is a technicality. The judges said that individual citizens did not have standing to ask that the Constitution be upheld. This raises a pretty clear question: If "We The People" don't have standing to ask that the contract we hold with our government be upheld (ie the Constitution), who does? There are several other cases still pending; at least 12 confirmed. One of those is actually active on the Supreme Court's docket, as we speak. Another has been brought in California by 2008 candidate for the Presidency, Alan Keyes...and several of California 's electors (members of the electoral college who will officially vote our President in on December 15, 2008).

I don't think too many grounded people could say, "I know the answer." For instance, I am not saying Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. I'm not saying he was born in Kenya . I'm not saying he renounced his U.S. citizenship when he moved to Indonesia and attended school there (a right reserved only to Indonesian citizens - in a country that didn't recognize any dual citizenship.) I'm not saying that due to his father's citizenship at a time when Kenya was still part of the British empire , Barack, as a son, was automatically and exclusively afforded British citizenship. I'm not saying the video footage of his Kenyan grandmother claiming to have been in the delivery room, in Kenya , when he was born, is necessarily "evidence." I'm also not saying he was born in Hawaii . What I'm saying is, none of us have these answers. I'm saying, there is an outstanding question here - that only Barack Obama can answer. And rather than answer it, having promised a new sense of transparency throughout his campaign, his course of action has been to spend time, money and the resources of at least 3 separate law firms....fighting to keep any and all documentation off the discovery table and out of the courtroom. It is a well known legal fact that if you have documentation/evidence that will help you - you are quick to produce it. If that documentation will hurt you, however, you fight to keep it out of court. Let's be fair. He was quick and happy to give documentation he claimed validated and authenticated his citizenship to a website - but is fighting to keep that same documentation out of the courts. If that document really does authenticate and validate everything, why not just hand it over? Why fight?

"Alright Hank. Well MY question is, if there was any validity to this, why isn't the media covering it?"

I have no idea.


As an Independent and initial Barack Obama supporter, I can safely say that contrary to what many think, asking these questions is not an attempt by Republicans to win a technicality-laden seat in the White House. Republicans lost. They were due the loss. Most know that. The seat will ultimately go to a Democrat. But if there is truth to Barack Obama not being able to formally prove his a) natural born, and/or b) properly maintained citizenship statuses - we as Americans must not gloss past it. If there is truth to it, this will represent the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and our most coveted process of democracy. If there is truth to it, this will demonstrate a wanton and relentless pursuit for power which left President-Elect Obama trapsing all over our Constitution - in pursuit of a position that ironically and foremost swears him to uphold and protect that same document.

There is much unanswered here. I know it is very embarassing for the Democratic party to have allowed what might be such an incredibly elementary oversight to occur - but nothing good that Barack Obama might do in the next 4-8 years, will be able to repair the damage done by setting a precedent that affords anyone in our Country the room and right to trample the contract "We The People" hold with our government, let alone a person who is asking to be our next President.

"Everyone will riot if they kick him out." We can't be intimidated by that. The people of our country elected a black man for the Presidency. Nothing can change that. If it turns out his entire campaign and effort were based on fraud, that reality is still 100% independent of the color-blind lenses our nation took to the polls. So if we bow down to the potential for race riots - recognizing that we did in fact (perhaps ignorantly relating to his eligibility) initially vote for him, we are only fostering a new evolution of racism that is nurtured by intimidation and complicit with failing to incite accountability over a man, people and process - simply based on color.

Very few people know any of this is even occurring. Those who do are greatly divided. Some are sure Barack Obama has acted fraudulently, some are sure he hasn't. Neither group can be sure of anything though, until Barack Obama himself answers the question for us. We all show our "birth certificates" (Certificates of Live Birth) several times over the course of our lives. Why should someone running for the Presidency be an exeption to that expectation, or even a more fiercely vetted recipient of it? More questionably, how can we as a government, media and nation - allow someone running for the Presidency to be an exception to that expectation?

The behavior, mostly (to my personal dismay) for his part, has only fueled speculation. Why factcheck.org? Why not a governing body like the Federal Election Commission, Board of Elections or even the DNC? When a governing body did finally inject itself in to this matter, why were they only able to do so vaguely...leaving the real question entirely untouched and unanswered? Why spend more than $800K fighting this in court, at a time when our nation is in economic crisis and that money could be better spent in far more charitable ways; when it could ultimately and universally be resolved for the small $12.00 fee required by Hawaii for a copy of the actual Certificate of Live Birth? In the spirit of transparency, why refuse to release this basic document for inspection? In the spirit of unity, why leave so many Americans alienated and debating the matter - when all most of them want is affirmation so that people on both sides of the debate can move to more healthy and productive lines of communication?

It was opinionated that he had left this door open prior to the election, so that those who opposed him would be led down a blind and pointless alley. The general election is over though. And still, he offers nothing to end the speculation.

By the time I am done with the conversation I outlined above, those I am speaking with inevitably return to what I have typically found to be their first and last refutation....

"He must have been properly vetted. Right....?"

I don't know. And without support for that contention coming directly from the Federal Election Commission, the Board of Elections or (ideally) Barack Obama himself, neither does anyone else.

"This is ridiculous" doesn't count as a refutation. Simply, answer the question with the simple documentation that is being asked of you in double digit numbers of court rooms across the country, including the Supreme Court. It may go away. It may be dismissed again based on standing. But President-Elect Obama's refusal to quell what have become very real questions about this, will only serve to leave many good Americans who hope to vigorously support their President...with far too much doubt to be able to do so. Production of a Certificate of Live Birth is a very small price to pay for unity.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-156768

I believe we would be better off in the long run not to let government tinker around in our free market system.  Now that they have a foothold, we will never get them out.  They will infest everything from here on out.  I apologize in advance for being so windy with this post, but this is something I feel strongly about. 

I read a LOT of books and a lot of internet material.  I stay away from the mainstream media because it is so biased and trivial that I become annoyed and scream at the TV. Once in a while I’m exposed to it accidentally and this only confirms my opinion.

I can’t link you to the source of my New Deal information.  My most recent reading on this topic is:  New Deal or Raw Deal?  By Burton  Folsom.  You’ll have to hit the library.  And reading this is truly ‘déjà view all over again.’ 

All of the programs that FDR tried willy-nilly over his 12 years (3 terms)  had noble stated purposes, and very bad unintended consequences.  You cannot adjust a single item in our social and monetary system without it causing a cascade of effects.  (And by the way, FDR was the only president to serve three terms, at the end of which is own party introduced a bill to limit presidential terms to two!) 

In the earlier post I mentioned the NRA (National Recovery Act) which set wages and prices in an attempt to ‘put more money in the pocket of the working man.’  There were higher minimum wages legally mandated for workers in various industries and higher prices set for goods to support those higher wages.  The result was that smaller family-owned businesses which had competed on a local level with larger companies through lower prices could no longer do this.  Their workers were willing to stay at lower wages to remain in their small towns with these small companies, but that became illegal – treasonous, even.  Raising wages and prices made it impossible for the smaller companies to compete against national companies with their purchasing power and distribution systems. Defying the mandates sent men to jail.  Businesses closed.  Workers were put out of work, and had to move to large cities for jobs, or go on government relief. Wham!  A generation of nomads and dependents. 

To benefit female workers in Washington, DC, a minimum monthly salary was legislated, but it applied only to women.  The result of this was that women lost their jobs to men who were willing to work for the lower wage.  It was now illegal to pay these women their former lower salaries.  Women were put out of work, another unintended consequence.

Tariffs on imports resulted in a drop in our export business.  Then we had too much farm product being grown, not enough being sold, and prices dropping like a stone. 

The AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act) was designed to support crop prices and curb overproduction.  Since we had begun taxing imports, fewer countries were buying our exports, so our farm products were rotting in the silos.  The government had to destroy tons of it.  So farm subsidies were instituted:  If a farmer had 1000 acres, he might be offered money to take 10% of that out of production.  The choice of which part of his land to designate as out of production was up to him.  Most farms have wooded areas or poorly drained areas, etc.  So the farmer would choose his poorest acreage - that had never grown a crop. Then he would take the subsidy money and buy fertilizer or use it to irrigate other poorly producing acreage.  He would then start producing the crops that the government was guaranteeing good prices for (corn, wheat, cotton) and stop producing his other crops.  Suddenly, production of corn, cotton and wheat went up, not down.  And now we actually had to import some of the products which our farmers were no longer growing.  The consequences were the exact opposite of the intent.    

I won’t repeat all the information about the income tax.  Let me just say that it is happening all over again, only FDR’s top rate was 79%, and the Obama administration wants 90% of the AGI bonuses, a cap on executive salaries.  What’s next?

Excise taxes:  Lets tax alcohol more, or  tobacco, widgets, or electricity and gasoline to make everyone be “greener.”  Taxing us for actual miles driven in our cars, what a great idea!  It will be feasible as soon as everyone has a GPS tracker.  I’ve heard ideas floating around about taxing internet usage, if they can figure a way to measure it

The WPA (Works Progress Administration) was another way to funnel money to supporters of the administration.  If you could bring in the votes, you got to administer WPA funds in proportion to your usefulness.  And in turn you could dole out  jobs to those who were useful to you.  This is in large part how FDR managed to get himself elected to three terms despite an unemployment rate around 20%.  He controlled  the money and the jobs.  He had the ability to squeeze money out of any segment of society he chose.  What terrible  power to put in the wrong hands.  Hiring and firing of WPA workers were cyclical, adding workers in the months before an election, dumping them shortly after, year after year, and it seems nobody caught on.  They just agreed to vote whichever way would guarantee them a little work.  And those who could not get work had to turn to the government for relief. 

The ERA (Emergency Relief Act) supported by the new higher taxes had the unintended consequence of  choking off the charitable contributions which had always gone to help the poor.  A business owner being taxed at 79% is not feeling very charitable.  So the government got to take this over, and become everyone’s benefactor. And these funds were given to governors to administer.  Naturally, those states with the right sort of governor and constituency got the lion’s share of ‘relief.’  Both the WPA and the ERA were political patronage systems pure and simple.

And let’s not forget the voter fraud in FDR’s elections.  Precincts recorded as 100% for FDR, when republicans in the precinct swore they had voted against him.  Precincts recording more votes than registered voters living there.  Seems they had an Acorn equivalent even then. 

Someone on this board asked what possible purpose this administration could have for bringing down the wealthy.  The answers should be obvious.  Power.  Envy.  Covetousness.  Revenge.  And that favorite word of the new administration:  Greed.  Got news, though, if you try to take away from me something I have worked for and earned, you are the greedy one, not I.

To some, life is a zero-sum game.  The amount of ‘stuff’ available to them is directly reduced by the amount I have. Therefore, I must give them half to level the playing field; maybe a little more than half to make up for the sins of my father and grandfather.  It’s like a pie with only so many slices, and they deserve exactly what I have; it’s only fair.  But life in America has never been that way.  For centuries people have arrived here with nothing but the clothes on their back, taken a menial job, struggled, scrimped, persevered, and ended up owning the company.  Others, who were born and raised here, feel they just can’t catch a break and wait passively for somebody else to give them the advantages they feel others have deprived them of. 

So when I see this administration starting to take over businesses,  cap salaries,  tax ‘excess’ profits, legislate personal behavior, and all of the other intrusions that are yet to be disclosed, I am severely creeped out.  The un-level playing field is exactly what caused the striving and competition and sparked all the energy and invention this country is known for.  Smooth the playing field, give everybody a trophy, and a B on their report card, and I’m not sure what we end up with, but it sure as hades (oh, for the love of pete, the language police won't let me use the other H word)  won’t be America. 

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.  Ben Franklin

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1107-20.htm

Please see the below link for the previous time this was brought up.

convinces me.  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ (No link, copy and paste)

Here's one example:

"Opinion of U.S. from abroad plummets under President Bush"

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/poll-europe-cri.html

We will not stop until the truth comes out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJc6uczdhE0

http://texasfred.net/tags/anchor-babies

I couldn't possibly agree more.  Going to bed now.

Ok, I knew I hated politics - actually I don't hate politics, just certain people in politics...this article goes to show why the Clintons are a disgrace to the democratic party.  Someone needs to slap Bill upside the head and say get with the program or get out...we don't want your kind here (this is an article coming out of UK - and they love him there).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2211812/Bill-Clinton-says-Barack-Obama-must-'kiss-my-ass'-for-his-support.html

Click below

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27012038