So you'd believe Michael Savage (of all people) over a court of law?
Posted By: Oops on 2008-10-25
In Reply to: Where in the announcement does it say he was born in Hawaii... - sm
No offense, but using something that Michael Savage read isn't really proof of anything, but the fact that Michael Savage can form words and speak them.
There is a picture of the birth announcement (along with all kids of very level, logical information) here (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html).
But given the fact that (a) there was a birth announcement, (b) Obama has a valid birth certificate from the state of Hawaii (that I am SURE, if forged, would have been looked into by a number of people who have access to birth records in Hawaii), and (c) that a huge network of people would have had be a part of this vast conspiracy theory, from the moment Barack Obama was born, it's a pretty far-flung accusation and one that really just resembles clinging to insanity so as not to have to deal with a distasteful reality.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I am not a fan of Michael Savage...
but certainly don't think he should be banned from the U.S. As far as Britain, I really don't care who they ban. There is a reason we declared our independence--this is pretty much it. We certainly should not emulate them. As far as Michael Savage goes, I am very conservative and I listen to conservative talk radio. I turn it off when Savage comes on. It's a great place we live in where Michael Savage can be on the radio saying whatever he wants to say and I am free to turn it off.
Michael Savage interview
When you have time and want to listen it's an excellent interview. His interview is with Berg - a lifetime democrat/lifetime liberal
http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/2-news/43-phil-j-berg-on-michael-savage-audio
Once on that page there is a link to click to hear the show (the direct link was too long to post here)
P.S. - I just heard this on the show and it does bring up a question. Why isn't Obama bringing his wife and kids to visit his ailing grandmother. The one who raised him. Wouldn't he want his ailing grandmother to see his wife and kids? It does not make sense that these could be her last days why didn't he bring his wife and daughters.
it is a term that Michael Savage came up with. But then he may not be the only one. sm
Michael Savage uses the term in talking about people who follow in a group blindly, just like sheep in a flock. He uses it a lot when referring to people who don't think for themselves and just follow the crowd along repeating what the crowd wants them to. And he uses it as a bipartisan term.
Michael Savage -- Priceless...LOL (sm)
So, now Savage wants Hillary to help him get out of the British ban.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5326181/Shock-Jock-Michael-Savage-seeks-Hillary-Clintons-help-over-UK-ban.html
Now here's the funny part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CILylcOIQhg
I would bet that she hasn't returned his calls yet....ROFL.
Savage endorses McCain - Way to go Michael!
Way to go Michael Savage - way to go!
“You may say, oh, who listens to that guy Savage? What does an endorsement from him mean?
“It means more than you may imagine.
Savage said his endorsement means more than the backing of a dozen newspapers he mentioned, including the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, Chicago Tribune and New York Post, because his “daily circulation is larger than any one of these newspapers.
“I have millions of listeners,” he continued, “most of whom, by the way, are independents. In case you don’t know it, they’re not all conservatives. Most of my audience are independents and they have been waiting for some kind of a signal…
“I have put my own ego aside and I have to say what’s best for America.
“I’ll take my chances with the old war horse and even with Sarah Palin, who I’m not really a big fan of, by the way, over this naked Marxist revolutionary, because I don’t want to see what the next Pol Pot’s liable to do to the world.”
Link below
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/savage_endorses_mccain/2008/10/28/144993.html
Why did Michael Savage get banned?? I know the answer....
Because Michael Savage calls a spade a spade and a terrorist a terrorist. He has no use for the Muslim religion whether they are the rabid haters or the mealy-mouthed ones who say nothing. He denounces the so called "religion of peace" every chance he gets; and right so. He is allowed to have his opinions. You know exactly where he stands on a subject. THus, because Britain has caved in to the Muslims as far as sharia law, sharia financing, etc, they hate Michael Savage because he lets the Brits know what they have become and what will happen to them down the road. As a famous line in a movie went...."You can't handle the truth!!!!"
Michael Savage banned from Great Britian...(sm)
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/michael-savage-banned-from-great-britain
GOOD FOR THEM!!!! LOL. We need to do the same thing. I can think of 2 right off the top of my head. How about Hannity and O'Really?
Michael Savage, Mitch McConnell, Michelle Malkin...Seeing a trend here? sm
Let the conservatives quizz him because as long as the liberal press keeps giving "The Anointed One" a pass, then he will continue with his snake-oil statements. And he can't speak without a teleprompter. He stutters. From what I saw of the convention, Sarah Palin managed very well. But in the grand scheme of things....time will tell. However, I do not think the American people have that luxury any more.
How about Savage?
At least your post was a well-informed one, and you didn't stoop to the gutter to make your point.
Just curious what you think about Savage, who now calls himself a "nationalist," as he thinks the conservative label got faded in the wash. He's no party hack, that's for sure. Actually, many libs listen to him for his stories alone, which aren't political. He just wrote a book called "Psychological Nudity." Big Al's Tuna is my favorite, but Dead Man's Pants is up there, too.
re: Savage et al
Don't let the fact that Michael Savage and other right-wing talk radio hosts criticize GWB make you think they lean left. Savage leans way, way right. He criticizes GWB because he thinks Bush isn't conservative enough, among other reasons.
There isn't much liberal or progressive talk radio with the exception of the Air America network and some syndicated liberal talk radio hosts like Bill Press and Stephanie Miller.
Also, if you hear conservatives complaining that Democrats want to restore the Fairness Doctrine, don't pay attention. It's not on the Democratic agenda, and no credible Democrat has any intention of trying to restore the Fairness Doctrine. Republicans are trying to create an issue where none exists. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo from California (of course) has indicated that she wants to try to restore the Fairness Doctrine, but if a bill actually gets sponsored and written, it will be assigned to committee and that'll be the end of it. Happens all the time with bills that have no chance of passing.
I supported Obama at first too. Now I'd have to agree with Savage 100%.
x
I do believe Savage in this case, cuz announcements in the paper are the same way in my local area..
Where did I say anything else, I was just commenting on the announcement in the paper. GEESH.
Yes, it is interesting. I would be willing to see it go to court...
if we explore the dual citizenship/multi-citizenship of Obama at the same time. How about you?
Supreme Court
I think a huge issue people may not realize is that within the next president's term, the probability is that THREE to SIX of the Supreme Court justices will be retiring.
The next president will be able to place a significant number of justices, and they will be in place until they retire or die.
That makes the presidential race all the more important.
I, for one, don't want Obama stacking the deck, so to speak, with people who share his 'you're not alive until I SAY you're alive' view of life.
For me, this was the most profound part of the article:
"For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her."
I saw an interview with a young woman once who had survived abortion, though it did leave her with lifelong disabilities. She would not have been alive at all if it weren't for a nurse pulling her out of the trash. That's as sorry a state of affairs as I can imagine.
Even if it is court ordered
By federal law, they cannot garnish someone's wages at maximum 65% and yes, child support is a garnishment. The judge can say all he wants and should put him in jail if he doesn't pay. I am totally behind you on this, but I have been there. I received checks for $15 for two weeks for years and that was 65% of his income. (The reason it was that low was because he decided to go back to school and his daddy supported him). The judge in our case also told him that he, by court order, still had to pay the full amount even though by FEDERAL law they could not garnish his wages more than 65%. Judge told him it was his responsibility to pay the difference no matter where it came from. Judge told him to get another job, borrow from his family, do what he had to do to get it paid.
Unfortunately in the state of Ohio (I lived in Michigan), you have to be like $25,000 behind before they would go after him and actually put a person in jail for child support. Enforcing child support laws is something they were very much in lack of when I went through the system.
He did get it paid up about 2 years ago. Took him over 10 years to do so. He has since passed away and I'd return all the money if it could bring him back for my kids.
I struggled for years with my kids on my own. We had a lot of mac and cheese and PBJs. There were many times I went hungry to feed my kids or to make sure I had gas in my tank to get to my job. But I made it. She can too. I know how hard it is and how frustrating the whole situation is. I was just trying to empathize with you and let you know there were others out there. The person you need to blame is the dad for not taking care of his children. It is wrong of him to keep creating more children when he can't take care of the ones that he has, but I am a firm believer that what you do will bite you back twice as hard at some point.
Remember that if he loses his security clearance and gets out of he military, jobs are even harder to come by that pay anything above minimum wage these days. They can hold his federal taxes only if he is holding a job that doesn't pay cash under the table. Holding a drivers license, most of the scum bags don't care. I was in a support group many years ago and ran into a lot of these situations. I've heard about what a lot of these irresponsible parents will do to get out of paying.
Best of luck to you and your daughter.
It already is going to Supreme Court -
I hope this time it wins.
Nowadays, anything that comes before a court
and with courts and lawyers (and hospital legal departments) deciding what probably ought to be private family matters, everything is up for political grabs. Then libs and conservatives can square off on opposite sides and make a media circus out of it.
It is unfortunate that husband and parents could not come to agreement on this matter. Were the parents just selfishly refusing to release their brain-dead daughter's soul, keeping it trapped in her deteriorating body; were they doing this out of love, to spite her husband? Or was her husband selfishly trying to get rid of an encumbrance in order to move on with his own life; was he doing it to spite the parents? Or was it more than a little of both?
Michael J. Fox. sm
I read that he did not take his medication deliberately so that people could see the full effects of his disease. That's just a tad manipulative, if you ask me. At any rate, I don't believe, and will never support, stem cell initiatives. There is much much more to these programs than is being presented to the public.
Michael J. Fox. sm
IT IS MANIPULATIVE. I believe capitals were warranted in this occasion and it IS about MJF and his ad. The MJF we have seen through the years is not the MJF in the video. I have seen it, have you? There is no guarantee that stem cell research will do anything for him. It is manipulative to the extreme. I believe Rush has apologized. But of course, the left never accepts apologies of any kind.
Supreme Court Ruling.
I almost fainted when I read ***Supreme Court Finds Bush Overstepped his Authority** in relation to the military tribunals. This being a very conservative court with 2 Bush appointees I have just felt that whatever was on the table would have a conservative outcome. I am shocked. What does anyone else think?
That's right, ignore a court document....
denial, denial, denial. You care nothing about the truth. I don't even know if you recognize it anymore. Pathetic. Cannot let go of prejudice long enough to see the truth when it is in plain black and white, and resort to snide remarks when you cannot effectively debate. But there is no debate here...CBS on the one hand said she was covert, and filed a brief in court stating the opposite. They have a history of lying to suit their agenda. And you are right there with them. I know you are not ignorant...I know you know that a court document is not cooked. The only impression one can glean from that is that you know they are lying, but you don't care.
And how does that speak to character?
No court has recognized any imperative
cetificate of live birth which has been provided, recognized and accepted on numberous occasions.
1. Andy Martin (Hawaii) Petition 29414 - denied.
2. David Neal request (Ohio) - denied.
3. Cort Wrotnowski (Connecticut) - denied.
4. Steven Marquis (Washington) - denied.
5. Leo Donofrio (New Jersey) - denied.
6. Phillip Berg (Pennsylvania) - denied.
7. Rev Tom Terry (Georgia) - denied.
Courts don't agree with you. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. How many more times will it take to get this through your thick skulls?
Supreme court lost their
credibility in the Bush/Gore recount.
Aw, too bad. But, now Michael Jackson...
...is in the Middle East doing consulting about theme parks??? Did I hear that right, what's up with that?
Michael Rupert.
THE INCOMING REPRESENTATIVE FROM GEORGIA'S 4th congressional district is the outspoken Cynthia McKinney. She is a Democrat, she is 49 years old, and she has held the job before. She held it for a decade, in fact, from 1992, when she became the first black woman elected to Congress from Georgia, to 2002--when, she says, the hostile corporate media, allied with Republicans, repeated falsehoods about her, distorted her positions, and drove her from my seat.
That is McKinney's explanation for her 2002 primary defeat, and she is sticking to it. But there are other explanations. Her father, Georgia state legislator Billy McKinney, shared his version with an Atlanta television reporter on August 19, 2002, the night before she lost. The reporter had asked Billy McKinney about his daughter's use of a years-old, moth-balled endorsement from former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young. Such endorsements were worthless, the elder McKinney replied, because Jews have bought everybody. Jews. In case the reporter didn't understand, he spelled the word: J-E-W-S. (A few weeks later, in a runoff against a political neophyte, Billy McKinney became a former Georgia state legislator.)
The actual reason why Cynthia McKinney left Congress in 2002 was that, for once, she couldn't outrun her mouth. She had walked along the cutting edge of progressive politics for years--appearing with Louis Farrakhan, calling globalization a cruel hoax, advocating for Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe--but then, in a March 25, 2002, interview on KPFA Pacifica radio, she suddenly fell off.
We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11, McKinney said that day. What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide? McKinney thought she knew the answer. What is undeniable, she explained, is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11th.
It was all downhill from there. On April 12, 2002, a synopsis of the interview appeared in the Washington Post. Democrats began distancing themselves from McKinney. She released a statement admitting she was not aware of any evidence proving President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9/11, but a complete investigation might reveal that to be the case. Then again, it might not. For that matter, McKinney might have had no idea what she was talking about.
Appearing in print just months after the September 11 attacks, McKinney's charges couldn't be excused. Nor could her list of campaign donors, which included both terrorist sympathizers like Abdurahman Alamoudi, the former executive director of the American Muslim Council, and apparent actual terrorists like former college professor Sami Al-Arian. Nor could her October 12, 2001, letter to Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, in which she rebuked New York mayor Rudy Giuliani for returning the prince's post-9/11 gift of $10 million and urged bin Talal to donate the funds to charities outside the mayor's control, especially those that dealt with poor blacks who sleep on the street in the shadows of our nation's Capitol. Giuliani had returned the Saudi's money because it came with the implicit condition that America address some of the issues that led to such a criminal [9/11] attack, among them its policies in the Middle East, where our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek. To Giuliani, such a statement made excuses for terrorism. This wasn't a problem for McKinney.
And why should it have been? Her bent for conspiracy theories and racebaiting had never cost her politically. When she said in 1996 that we need to get the government out of the drug business, she was not talking about a possible prescription drug benefit. Whether it was the time she told USA Today that My impression of modern-day black Republicans is they have to pass a litmus test in which all black blood is extracted, or the time she accused Al Gore of having a low Negro tolerance level, she emerged unscathed from the ensuing kerfuffles. Facing a tough race in 1996, McKinney said Georgia Republicans like her opponent John Mitnick were neo-Confederates remaindered from Civil War days. Amazingly, McKinney ignored the fact that Mitnick was Jewish.
Her father did not. Over and over again, Billy McKinney called Mitnick a racist Jew. As Slate's Chris Suellentrop noticed, when the New York Times asked Billy McKinney to elaborate on his comments, he simply repeated that Mitnick is a racist Jew, that's what he is, isn't he? The controversy over Billy McKinney's comments lasted weeks. Disgraced, he resigned from his daughter's campaign. That year, Cynthia McKinney won 58 percent of the vote.
In 2002, though, thanks to McKinney's interview with Pacifica radio, the tiny streams of anti-McKinney criticism that had been collecting in pools for years turned into a flood. The September 11 attacks were vibrant and terrifying memories when McKinney accused the president of profiting from them. Remember, too, that when McKinney accused the president of being a calculating war profiteer, his approval rating was over 75 percent.
But times change. Two years later, McKinney is still her old self, while the world has become a lot more accommodating to loony theories about President Bush. Apparently her own district is no exception. The 4th District this year was an open seat; Denise Majette, who defeated McKinney in 2002, decided to run for the Senate instead, but McKinney still faced five opponents in last summer's Democratic primary and dispatched them all without a runoff. And while she avoided making any controversial statements, and politely deflected criticism of things she had said in the past, her conspiracism and racialism were still there beneath the surface.
Occasionally they would bubble up. McKinney is defensive about the Pacifica interview, and there are links on her campaign website to two articles by the left-wing BBC journalist Greg Palast that attempt to absolve her of conspiracy-mongering. One of these articles is entitled The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney. The other is entitled Re-lynching Cynthia McKinney. Palast writes that McKinney has never actually said President Bush had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks. Which is true. She hasn't. She's just implied it repeatedly.
What's striking about McKinney's website is that, even as it attempts to debunk a variety of misinformation about her, it also takes great pains to claim vindication for that same misinformation. There is a link, for example, to Exposed: The Carlyle Group, a 48-minute documentary that purports to reveal the depth of corruption and deceit within the highest ranks of our government. There is a link to an article in the South DeKalb County CrossRoads News entitled Where is Cynthia McKinney During 9/11 Hearings? in which the author describes being enraged that McKinney was not included in the public hearings of the 9/11 Commission, since she was the only elected official who had the guts to bring President Bush's war profiting scheme to the light.
A few links more, and you wind up at McKinney's speech Democracy Is Under Attack--Let's take it Back. The speech is a sort of lodestone for McKinniacs. It is a rambling series of remarks delivered at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem in July 2003. It is an angry speech. I can't be calm when I drive through sections of Atlanta that look more like Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, than America, McKinney explains. Yet the speech is notable mainly for the way in which it references McKinney's conspiracy theorist guru, a man named Michael Ruppert.
Michael Ruppert is a former LAPD detective who is best known for his theories on CIA drug trafficking. Those theories--namely, that the CIA was behind the crack cocaine epidemic in America's inner cities--briefly made headlines in mainstream newspapers in 1996, and Ruppert is hoping for a sequel. Since 9/11, he has toured the country discussing how the Bush administration, Enron, Israeli intelligence, the Pakistani ISI, the Saudis, and Osama bin Laden were behind the terrorist attacks. Ruppert's theories are lucrative. Chip Berlet, who studies conspiracism as a senior analyst at Public Research Associates, a progressive group, told me that Ruppert speaks regularly to sold-out crowds.
As you may know, I'm involved with Mike Ruppert of From the Wilderness, McKinney says in her Democracy Is Under Attack speech. From the Wilderness is the title of Ruppert's newsletter and website. McKinney probably got the idea that the USS Abraham Lincoln was really in San Diego harbor when Bush landed on it in May 2003 from Ruppert. So, too, her idea that Bush and his friends stood to profit from the 9/11 attacks, which she expands upon in another manifesto, the March 2002 Thoughts on Our War Against Terrorism:
Former President Bush sits on the board of the Carlyle Group. The Los Angeles Times reports that on a single day last month, Carlyle earned $237 million selling shares in United Defense Industries, the Army's fifth-largest contractor. The stock offering was well timed: Carlyle officials say they decided to take the company public only after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Such ideas figure prominently in The Truth and Lies of 9/11, a videotaped lecture that Ruppert delivered at Portland State University on November 28, 2001. The lecture is 135 minutes long. It feels much longer. In it, Ruppert talks about the CIA, the Bush administration, the Carlyle Group, UNOCAL oil pipelines in Afghanistan, the Mossad, and--go figure--orange juice. The bottom line is that the Bush administration knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and allowed them to happen for profit. Also, the world financial system is on the brink of collapse.
In its apocalyptic overtones, in its internationalist plot, in its view that apparent enemies are secretly collaborating, Ruppert's The Truth and Lies of 9/11 is a textbook conspiracy theory. It is also a vehicle for Cynthia McKinney. She utters the penultimate line, and it's a doozy. The American people, she says, might have a criminal syndicate running their government.
It's a sinkhole, said Chip Berlet, when I first asked him about these conspiracy theories. He sounded a note of regret about McKinney. A lot of McKinney's complaints about the government are standard progressive fare.
But which ones? Her conspiracy theories, or her hard-left politics? In truth, the line between the two is increasingly difficult to discern. I bought my copy of The Truth and Lies of 9/11 last June, at the Take Back America conference for progressive and Democratic activists in Washington, D.C. In a ballroom nearby, in earshot of the bookstand where Ruppert's video was being sold, Hillary Clinton and George Soros delivered keynote speeches. A few weeks after the conference, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which glibly hints at possible government foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks, was screened for the Senate Democratic caucus at the Uptown Theater in Washington. The film received a standing ovation.
Maybe all of this helps explain why Cynthia McKinney got her seat back. Maybe when McKinney shared her disturbing theories about President Bush in 2002, she was not so much falling off the edge of progressive politics as anticipating it. And she shows no signs of slowing down. I will probably get in trouble for what I've said to you tonight, McKinney told her audience at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in 2003. But it won't be the first time I get in trouble for telling the truth. And I'll continue to tell the truth. As I have said before, I won't sit down and I won't shut up. Too bad.
She gets by with it the same way Michael Moore gets by with it...
he has said some pretty hateful things himself. And here is a pretty hateful personal attack from AL Franken: *I said that Sean Hannity took residence up
Newt Gingrich's butt from 94 to 98. I got
that from British intelligence. It turns out
he only took up residence in 95* but you did not see that reported in the media with conservatives running backward and screeching. That is a hateful tasteless personal attack. Here is another: Republicans are shameless d**ks. No, that's not fair. Republican politicians are shameless d**ks. Lovely, eh? And another one: Minnesota Republican Norman Coleman is one of the administration's leading butt boys. Classless, tasteless.
So you see what I am saying...the left accepts crap from Al Franken but will not accept crap from Ann Coulter. Crap is crap in my opinion.
I think Michael Moore
is a brave patriot, but that would feed into the conspiracy theory. I would be happy with any of recognized Sunday interview programs to start with.
Michael Moore
I've seen some of his movies, not all. I happen to also agree with his documentary on 9/11. There is evil afoot in our government and it's been going on for a very long time. Neither party is exempt from blame which is why I am independent. I would vote for (and have done so)a republican in a New York minute if I felt they had the best agenda for REAL change. I will admit that I probably lean more toward Democrats than Republicans as I feel they get their riches more from the middle class (i.e. labor) and the Republicans get their's from big business but please do not get busy calling me a DEMOCRAT!!!!! I have a brain that I use for reasoning and I don't support EITHER party as a whole.
Actually....Michael Moore did just that...
in his move. He went around the world and asked about healthcare. He also took Americans who could not afford medications here in the US to other countries with universal health care and guess what? They were actually treated! You might want to go to Blockbuster and check that one out....LOL.
Michael Steele. I really like this guy.
nm
Michael Steele....(sm)
As noted by someone on SNL (I think).....You do know it doesn't work with just any black guy? ROFL.
Michael Jackson did it
practically overnight!
No offense, but I seriously doubt she will prove it in a court of law. sm
She is entitled to her belief system, but I don't agree with anything she has to say. We will have to wait and see.
The Supreme Court won't stop him for much longer.
Thate 5-3 decision would have been a 5-4 decision, had Roberts not recused himself from ruling due to his prior ruling in the case at a lower court.
Alito and Roberts are Bush loyalists who will vote in his favor every time. Same with Scalia and Thomas.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, is 86. This means there is a very good chance that Bush will have the opportunity to appoint a third Supreme Court Justice, thus negatively tipping and fixing the scales of justice for decades to come, long after Bush is gone. Some radical right-wingers (including Ann Coulter) have publicly called for the assassination of a Supreme Court Justice, and Pat Robertson has been *praying* for another Bush appointment. If/when that happens, freedom as we know it in the United States will be gone for generations.
In the meantime, the current Supreme Court ruling won't mean much. They're already talking about creating a law to make Bush's tactics legal.
Not that even THAT would matter much. Bush hasn't agreed with Congress' laws 750 times since he's been in office, and he's issued *signing statements* allowing him to ignore the law.
He apparently views himself as having expanded Presidential powers in a time of war. Maybe that's a large part of the true reason we're at war with Iraq.
"...go to court AGAINST a Christian who wants to wear a cross"
nm
Actually, it was the Ohio State Supreme court, not...
the Supreme Court of the United States. That was then appealed to the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, who upheld the state supreme court ruling.
I guess that puts you and Sarah on about the same footing as far as the Supreme court?
Just asking.
It is still on the docket slated for a court date
--
At least she isnt fighting the court by refusing
nm
Please give us a link for the court's not agreeing...
The Supreme Court first has to decide whether to rule...sm
on the case. They do not hear every case presented to them. They are very likely to send it back to the lower court if they think it is frivolous.
if it were a "Dead Horse" the Supreme Court ...sm
would not be still considering it further, which they are. Perhaps that should be your first dose of reality.
Duo take Obama birth challenge to Court
Wow, I believe we have some sore losers!
From NBC’s Pete Williams
When the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court meet on Dec. 5th, in their regular private conference to decide which cases to hear, two lawsuits that have captivated a segment of the blogosphere will be up for discussion.
Both urge the court to consider claims that President-elect Obama is not qualified to be president, because he is not a natural-born American citizen.
Persistent concerns about the qualifications of both major party candidates rank among the oddest aspects of 2008's historic campaign.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen" is eligible to be president. John McCain's status was questioned because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and various theories have been advanced to cast doubt on Obama's.
Lawsuits over the inclusion of their names on state general-election ballots popped up around the country and were quickly dispensed with by local courts. But two challengers have pursued their cases to the Supreme Court.
Pennsylvania lawyer Philip Berg claims that the circumstances of Obama's birth are vague and that he may have been born in Kenya. Obama's mother, Berg asserts, later flew to Hawaii to register the birth.
Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey lawyer, contends that election officials in his state failed to ensure that only legally qualified candidates were placed on the ballot. Obama may have been born in the United States, Donofrio argues, but "natural born" status depends on both parents being American citizens. Obama's father was Kenyan.
The justices are unlikely to take up these cases for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the invitation to overturn the results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted for Obama. An equally high hurdle is the issue of whether Berg or Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the Constitution.
In dismissing Berg's complaint, a federal judge in Pennsylvania found that he failed to meet the basic test required for sustaining a lawsuit, because he couldn't show how the inclusion of Obama's name on the ballot would cause him -- apart from others -- some particular harm. Berg's stake, the judge said, "is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters."
Other courts presented with similar challenges have reached the same conclusion, ruling that there is no general legal right to sue over the Constitution's eligibility requirements. Federal courts typically reject claims of legal standing based simply on a litigant's status as a voter or taxpayer.
The Obama campaign had hoped to end the controversy last spring by releasing his actual Hawaii birth certificate. But that prompted further questions about its authenticity, which were compounded when state authorities in Hawaii said they could not vouch for it, because they were constrained by the privacy laws.
Then, on Oct. 31st, the director of Hawaii's Department of Health issued a statement, proclaiming that he had personally seen and verified that the state has "Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record," which shows that he was born there.
You're right about the Supreme Court decision,...
but I have to wonder if it's just a nice little motto, why do so many who seek to remove anything even appearing religious from the government or anything to do with the government still look at that dollar with In God We Trust and scream separation of church and state? If there's no religious meaning anymore, why the arguments?
JMHO, there is still religious meaning to those who are religious and everyone except the Supreme Court knows that. I agree that religion doesn't belong in the government, but only in the sense that government shouldn't be involved in matters of religion, such as where we can pray, whether or not I can say Merry Christmas without offending anyone, what church I can attend, or which God I pray to.
More Czars than Russia...or The King and his Court.
The disturbing thing about these "czars" is that they are not answerable to anyone other than Obama himself, and yet are positioned to usurp some of the powers of the Congress, who did not approve their appointments.
You're looking at a man who is concentrating power in his own hands and setting up a banana-republic type of dictatorship.
We already have a census czar. The logical next step is an "elections czar" - whose position will be justified on the basis of "problems" in past elections. He will "help" us "get it right" this time.
When you see that, folks, the end is near.
and don't forget Michael Moore!
Michael Moore Message
My response:
I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand. Gee thanks, Mike, but I am not in a funk. I know in whom I believe and it is not a political party and not you. As to things left undone...yer pal Bill left many things undone also...terrorists running amuck free to plot and plan 9-11 because he was too busy in the cigar bidness with Monica Lewinsky to react decisively to them, too busy lying to a grand jury, too busy obstructing justice, too busy taking care of Vince Foster (though I believe Hillary had more to do with that than Bill did)....as AG said: pot, kettle, pot kettle.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you. Oh, yeah, you cannot imagine how jazzed we are that YOU and the Democrats are in charge now. Whoopeee. ROFL. You value us as fellow Americans? What a load of hooey. Oh I know what you plan to do TO us...I believe it is calling hosing. For us? Nada.
Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:
Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you unpatriotic simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us. You should look up respect in your Funk and Wagnall's, Mikey. You have never shown it...how could you? You have no clue what respect means. You were called unpatriotic because it is unpatriotic to criticize publicly your country and its leadership in a time of war. Look up patriotic in your Funk and Wagnall's.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be different or immoral. Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift. Umm, down there where you say you will respect (again, you need to look that one up!) our beliefs...well this one flies in the face of that. But...oh....your moral compass went wonky years ago. Might want to look up morality while you are in the dictionary. Look, Mike....what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is up to them, but do not expect us to agree that it is right and it is not wrong, because we are not going to do it. If they are sure they are right, they should not need our blessing. I am not telling them that they cannot do it...I am telling them I will not, cannot condone it. Period, end of sentence. What next? Stealing will be okay because you have not and and you want to have? And then what?
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you. Oh, that's rich, coming from you. The tax and spend group. You want to spend our grandchildren's money on programs that keep people enslaved to your philosophy so they will keep voting for you. You actually think we don't know that?
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie. You are so full of it, Mikey. When are you going to stop beating that dead horse?
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too. And when the quality of that care tanks and it takes months and years to get treatment, if America is so deluded as to go down that road...you with all the bucks will be fine. These poor and downtrodden you want to champion will get the short end of the stick...you know it and I know it, trouble is, THEY don't know it. You have got the wool pulled snugly down around their toes. Shame on you.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water. Yeah, yeah, yeah. What do you drive? How many times a month do you fly? How much have you PERSONALLY done about any of those things? Gimme a break.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you. HA! That is the biggest lie of all. It was when your boys were in charge that terrorism escalated to unimaginable heights. Your boy Bill could have put bin Laden in the slammer BEFORE 3000 people were killed. You protect us??? The fox is in the hen house, Mikey. You couldn't protect a flea in Fort Knox.
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived. Thanks for nothing! Flying a plane into a building and killing 3000 was terrible, but you are condoning mass murder on a grand scale of the most innocent among us. Millions. What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Morally bankrupt. That aptly describes the liberal view espoused here.
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours. Thank you but no thank you. I will protect my own children. I wouldn't trust you to protect a gerbil.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too. Then why do you and your ilk keep going to Canada to do your movies, etc., where you don't have to pay American Union wages and can do it cheaper? You are so full of crap. Don't know how you are still able to talk.
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. We do put them into practice. You hate it when we do, when we call wrong, wrong. Like abortion...like same sex marriage....like.....you are the most intolerant of the intolerant. Why people cannot see through your facade is beyond me. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs (Blessed are the poor, seeking to keep them poor and under your thumb is not helping the poor) Blessed are the peacemakers (we do believe in peace, but we do not believe in letting those who DO NOT come here and kill us), Love your enemies (when you get that one down pat, call me), It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (yep, if you worship money above God, it is, hellooo Mike) brothers of mine, you did for me.(sorry, but hearing you quote scripture is really hard for me when I know you don't believe a word of it...and these are not RADICAL beliefs. Chopping off your head if you don't agree is radical, you goof. Saying convert or we will kill you is radical. We just call what is wrong wrong. We agree to disagree). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world. You would not know a good example if it bit you on your rather large rear end. I believe you are wrong about God blessing everyone. Yes, he does not want even one to perish, that is why Christians try to get the word out. We would like everyone to have eternal life. EVERYONE. But we don't chop off dissenters' heads. It is a free choice, Mikey. You come to Him or you don't. YOUR choice. Not MINE. Which is probably what chaps you so much. Because you are so fond of telling people what they should do, and to do it YOUR way. Look up intolerance while you are in your F&W. Fits the liberal view much more than the conservative view.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition. We will not tolerate corrupt politicians. Oh, boy, that is rich!! I can hardly type through tears of hysterical laughter. Bill - felony perjury and obstruction of justice; Bill and Hill...convicted of several things back in home state...and still have yet to explain dead Vince Foster--- Murtha, unindicted co-conspirator--Harry Reid, all kinds of shady deals....pullleezzzzeeee. Pot kettle pot kettle.
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.
Wow, I bet you had to grit your teeth while you wrote that one. But I see through ya, Mikey. You are going to try the get more bees with honey because your true colors during the last Presidential election didn't work, did they big guy? You are so transparent. Just wish those who hang on your every word realized it. You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you upside your rather large head.
Ya know, Mikey, conservatives don't hate liberals. We don't hate you. We are afraid for them and you and afraid for ourselves with you in control..but we don't hate you. I pray for them. I pray for you. I hope one day the light will really come on and you will know the truth. I pray it happens before you take us all down with you. I pray it happens before the radical Muslims start blowing up children in our malls, when cars are no longer safe and we do not feel safe even in our homes. I sincerely pray that it happens before that. Yes, we should all sink or swim as one, but if we hold onto the guidebook, the Bible, as one, our chances are much greater to swim.
God bless!
Observer
Signed,
Michael Moore
Michael Moore a patriot? sm
in WHAT alternate universe? Investigate? He wouldn't know a true investigation if it bit him on his very large butt. During the last election when he called Americans in general and Democrats in particular stupid...well I guess he loves the country but holds the people in contempt...particularly liberals as that is what he said...a patriot? Well the founding fathers would spin in their graves on that one. LOL...omg. Michael Moore a patriot. LOL.
MIchael Moore should be grateful
to live in America - a place where he can get rich off of blasting everything that is American. I believe everyone has a right to thier opinion, but to honestly say that one party is responsible for the way the economy is going right now is reprehensible.
You really think that it's the government's fault about the housing crisis? Sure, they set the plans in motion (plans that were started by the Clinton administration so that lower income people could get a home loan - Bush's mistake was to keep those plans going - this crisis has been coming on for a long time and everyone ignored it), but what about the people that actually went ahead and got those loans, knowing full well that they wouldn't be able to carry that mortgage out?
We all need to stop pointing the fingers at Washington and take a little of the responsibility ourselves. We're a nation that became very comfortable in our easy lifestyle and the more we could get, the more we would take. Now we want our government to give us more?
Left to his own devices, Michael Moore would probably declare himself dictator and rename our country Mooreland or something crazy like that. Gotta disagree with you on this one, gourdpainter; check out some of his movies and articles and I think you may find that you agree with him maybe 32%.
Michael Steele, chairman of Rep.
Michael Steele, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, has asked the entire staff to resign, FOX News has confirmed.
The move signals Steele's plan to reshape the party, which was trounced at the polls in 2006 and 2008.
As a black man from Maryland, a traditionally Democratic state, Steele has already brought a new face to the party.
The RNC has about 100 staff members, many of whom have been told that their last day on the job will be Feb. 15, a Republican source told Politico, which reported the story Thursday morning.
Some aides may stay on, the source said, but several senior aides who were expecting the changes voluntarily submitted their resignations soon after Steele's election last week.
President Obama's new team made a similar request at the Democratic National Committee.
Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor, won the chairmanship last Friday. In his first speech as chairman, he pledged to bring change in an effort to re-establish the GOP presence in the Northeast and win elections in regions across the country.
"It's time for something completely different, and we're gonna bring it to them," he said in his acceptance speech. "Get ready, baby. It's time to turn it on."
Michael Steele..Does he even know what he believes? (sm)
By Philip Klein on 3.11.09 @ 10:15PM
In 1983, Woody Allen made the mockumentary film Zelig about a man who longs for approval so badly that he changes to fit the people who are surrounding him. The movie may as well have been written about Michael Steele, who continues to tie himself in knots as part of his effort to reach out to moderates.
Steele already has been ridiculed by all sides of the political spectrum for blasting Rush Limbaugh on CNN only to apologize when he received blowback. But now, via Matt Lewis, I see he told GQ that he believes abortion is an individual choice. Here's the portion of the interview:
How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.
Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.
So basically, in an effort to seem more inclusive, Steele tried to appropriate the language of the left by saying life is a choice, but then he allowed himself to be backed into a corner in which he said that women have the right to choose abortion -- by definition, a pro-choice postion. Perhaps realizing what he had just said, Steele then tried to add nuance to his point:
Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.
Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.
Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!
So, after getting boxed in, he suddenly shifts from "individual choice" meaning "women have the right to choose an abortion" to it meaning that states have an "individual choice" about whether or not to permit women to exercise choice. Liz Mair, charitably, thinks that Steele was trying to express the pro-choice, anti-Roe, position but that he just was clumsy about it. Even if that were the case, however, it wouldn't be consistent with other recent statements he made on the subject.
In December, when he was under fire during the RNC race for being a member of Christine Todd Whitman's moderate Republican Leadership Council, he portrayed himself as emphatically pro-life to CBN's David Brody, barbing, "I was a monk for goodness sakes ok?" Appearing on Fox News Sunday after his election to serve as RNC chair, Steele declared, "I'm a pro-life Roman Catholic conservative, always have been."
In a debate moderated by Tim Russert during the 2006 U.S. Senate race in Maryland, Steele was all over the place on Roe. Check out the following exchange:
MR. RUSSERT: Would, would you encourage — would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?
LT. GOV. STEELE: I think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken a position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that’s ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We’re seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?
LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.
MR. RUSSERT: But what’s your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?
LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. Wade is a, is a matter that
should’ve been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.
MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?
LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.
Huh?
The problem with Steele's defenders is that they like the idea of Steele -- i.e., the idea that Steele is going to reach out to moderates. But the reality of Steele is quite different. He is proving himself to be a shape shifter who is trying to please everybody, but in the end delivering a completely muddled message. Ultimately no pro-choice independent or Democrat is going to be more inclined to become a Republican as a result of that GQ interview, because Steele comes off like a bumbling clown who is trying to have it both ways. The mere fact that we have to have a whole debate over what he means demonstrates that he's doing a terrible job at communicating. And lest we forget, communication was supposed to be his strong suit.
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/11/michael-zelig-steele
Michael Moore is disgusting any way you look
nm
|
