Friday, January 6, 2012


Published on on January 6, 2012

Printer-Friendly Version

According to the latest Rasmussen Poll, 21% -- more than one in five -- Democrats have abandoned the Party since Obama's election as president.  While most have become Independents, identification with the Republican Party has also risen not only since 2008 but also even since the GOP's 2010 victory.

Rasmussen, who tracks voters' party identification (self-described) every month, shows that Democratic Party identification, has dropped by eight points (or 21%) since Obama's election in November, 2008 while Republican Party identification has risen by three points over the same period.  Despite speculation in the liberal media that the Republicans in Congress have mishandled their mandate since winning the House in 2010, the Republican edge over the Democratic Party has grown from 1.3% in November of 2010 to 2.7% in December of 2011.

Changes in party identification are the most fundamental - and important - measure of political opinion in the country.  They are like tectonic plates that shift beneath the surface of the political earth, sending quakes through the system.  A shift of such an order of magnitude will rank high on the political Richter scale in 2012.

So dramatic a shift, totaling eleven points since Obama's election (Dems down by 8, Republicans up by 3) means that had Obama faced McCain in the current political environment, he would have won by five rather than losing by six.

But even that doesn't tell the story.  Surveys of Independents find that they have long since jumped from the Obama ship.  His job approval among Independents consistently ranks in the low 30s.  He cannot expect much relief from that corner.

All these stats point to a mammoth upset in the making in the 2012 election, sweeping Republicans into the White House and delivering control of the Senate by a good margin.  Already, Republicans are likely to take over Democratic seats in Virginia, Florida, Nebraska, Missouri, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  They may lose in Massachusetts and will probably hold on to their seats in Arizona and Nevada despite the retirement of their incumbents there.  That means a GOP dominated Senate by the margin 56-44.

If these data cause Republicans (hopefully wealthy ones) in Washington State, West Virginia, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Minnesota to consider entering U.S. Senate races against the Democratic incumbents in those states, it could cause the GOP to get sixty votes in the Senate.  The party identification data indicates that this goal is distinctly within reach if we get good candidates in a few more states.
Don't listen to the media induced pessimism.  A gigantic upset is in the making!

Cartoons Jan 7

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Cartoon Extra Jan 6

Obama's Cordray Appointment Mocks the Constitution

In 2008 candidate Sen. Barack Obama famously said: “This is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he is going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing and end run around Congress.”
Now, we find that not only was he kidding about signing statements – he recently used one to ignore about 20 provisions of the omnibus spending bill – but Obama also believes he can decide for himself that the Senate is in recess when it is not, overturn at least a hundred years of precedent, and bypass the Constitution’s advice and consent requirement.
Moreover, the president now considers it a political virtue that he is doing precisely what he criticized George Bush for doing: “make laws as he is going along.” Obama now says: “I refuse to take 'No' for an answer… when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”
If he were acting within the confines of the law and the Constitution, the argument might make sense.But Obama has now adopted a theory of executive power so expansive that a reporter at a recent press conference understandably asked whether the president believes we have a virtual monarchy, a president of unlimited powers subject only to periodic elections but not to the rule of law.
According to a 1993 brief from the Clinton Justice Department, Congress must remain adjourned for at least three days before the adjournment constitutes a “recess” for the purposes the recess appointment power.
The origin of this three day period is Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.”
In other words, the president can only recess appoint when the Senate has adjourned for more than three days, and the Senate cannot adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the House.
Speaker John Boehner has properly withheld that consent to prevent Obama from installing radical appointees into key positions.
There is recent precedent for this action and for its legitimacy.In fact, then-Obama Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote to the Supreme Court on April 26, 2010:“Although a President may fill such vacancies through the use of his recess appointment power … the Senate may act to foreclose this option by declining to recess for more than two or three days at a time over a lengthy period. For example, the Senate did not recess intrasession for more than three days at a time for over a year beginning in late 2007.”
Obama’s attempt to “recess appoint” Richard Cordray while the Senate is in pro forma session is especially galling in light of the history of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the broad powers that Cordray – if Obama’s sleight of hand is permitted by the courts – will wield over the United States economy.
The CFPB has the power to interfere with every consumer financial transaction in the economy. It is housed in the Federal Reserve and funded out of Fed operations, not congressional appropriations, avoiding effective congressional oversight.
All power is vested in one individual – now, presumably Cordray – with no board or commission.None of this was part of Elizabeth Warren’s original design, which included a five-member commission that was funded and overseen by Congress.Senate Republicans have correctly called for reforms to make the new agency accountable before confirming a nominee and allowing it to begin writing rules that could have a major negative impact on the economy.
Obama doesn’t care.He’s making is up as he goes along.What a difference four years makes.
Phil Kerpenis vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity and author of Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America – and How to Stop Him

Read more:

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Cartoon Extra Jan 5

New Sheriff in Washington ? I would vote for this Guy.

Dear Friend:

Today I announce my candidacy for the United States House of Representatives in Arizona's new 4th Congressional District.

As a first responder, I'm trained to run toward dangers that others run away from.  Right now, the biggest threats facing our country are from Washington. We have record debt and deficit spending, the biggest intergenerational theft in the history of the world.  We have a system that punishes job creators and leaves many millions unemployed.  We have an unsecured border that allows the drug cartels to operate freely in our country, and results in 400,000 illegal crossings into our state every year.

How have our leaders responded to these threats?  This Congress approved the largest debt ceiling increase in American history.  The administration transferred 2,000 high powered weapons to the most dangerous criminals in North America, punishing whistleblowers and rewarding those responsible for "Fast and Furious." Then they sued Arizona for doing the job they won't do. While Americans watch their savings disappear, we have credible allegations of insider trading by members of Congress.

It's time for a new Sheriff in Washington.  The American people are sounding a giant 911 call on Washington.  And I'm responding.

Are you with me?

Sheriff Paul Babeu

Lawmakers dispute Obama ballot eligibility


Lawmakers dispute Obama ballot eligibility

'This isn't partisan. This is a constitutional issue, pure and simple'

New Hampshire state capitol buildingNew Hampshire state capitol building
By Michael Carl
Several New Hampshire legislators declared at a press conference today that President Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States and that New Hampshire voters were defrauded by Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Coos, District 1, state Rep. Larry Rappaport told the crowd he has filed a petition asking New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney to investigate whether the Ballot Law Commission acted illegally by allowing Obama’s name on the New Hampshire ballot.
Rappaport said New Hampshire voters need a real and legitimate choice.
“We’re not in a position to rule on the petition, but we feel there needs to be an investigation. Consequently, we have asked the secretary of state, who referred us to the ballot law commission,” Rappaport said.
“The Ballot Law Commission held a hearing on November 18, and it refused to hear our request,” he continued. “We asked for a rehearing; it was denied. We asked for an override by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and it refused to hear our case. We went to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that’s where it stands now.”
As WND reported, a federal judge has ruled that President Obama must be “constitutionally eligible.”
“For the first time in dozens of court cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, a judge has ruled that Obama must, in order to be a candidate on the Georgia ballot for president in 2012, meet the constitutional demands for candidates for the office,” the report states.
Coos District 1 state Rep. Larry Rappaport
The legislator’s petition was denied by the Ballot Law Commission because the commission said it didn’t have the authority to rule on the issue, noting that it can only ensure the accuracy of the petitions and whether the document is accompanied by the filing fee.
Rappaport said the attorney general has standing to make a decision on Obama’s eligibility because ballot issues are state concerns. State Reps. Lucien Vita and Laurie Pettingill are part of the delegation pushing the review. They, too, agreed that ballot access is a state issue.
Belknap District 4 state Rep. Harry Accornero disputes the commission’s decision because he says it has made rulings on similar issues in the past.
“The Ballot Law Committee says it doesn’t have jurisdiction over this issue, but it does. It disqualified two other candidates for office because those candidates weren’t ‘natural born citizens,’” he said.
Accornero was referring to the 2007 case of Sal Mohamed and the 2011 case of Abdul Hassan, who were denied ballot access by the commission after it ruled that the two men were not “natural born citizens.”
Mohamed filed to run for president in 2007 and was denied New Hampshire ballot access that same year.
Hassan is a New York attorney, who, as a naturalized American citizen, attempted to gain ballot access in New Hampshire to run for president.
“So if it can make that ruling on those two men, it could have done the same for Obama,” Accornero noted.
He said the issue would be moot if the Democratic Party had properly examined Obama’s history.
“This whole thing never would have come up if the Democrats had vetted Obama properly,” he said, adding, “The spin on this is that this is a birther issue. The Democrats want to direct attention away from the issue to partisanship. This isn’t partisan. This is a constitutional issue, pure and simple.”
James Page, a member of the crowd, supports the petition. He said he was at the conference today to find out why the Ballot Law Commission evaded its responsibility.
“I want to find out why they said they didn’t have jurisdiction when in fact they did,” Page said. “They lied to the people saying they didn’t have the authority to do that. It’s a mess, and I want to know why these people refuse, and keep refusing to hear this case.”
He continued, “The point is that it doesn’t matter where he was born. The issue is that he’s not a ‘natural born citizen’ by the findings of the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court ruled in Minor v. Happersett that a person is a natural born citizen when he or she is born to two parents who are both U.S. citizens.
There has been no word on when a decision will be made on the petition.

Court in Georgia to rule on the Obama Birth Certificate.


Court: Obama must be ‘constitutionally’ eligible

Judge denies president's motion to dismiss challenge to 2012 candidacy

For the first time in dozens of court cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, a judge has ruled that Obama must, in order to be a candidate on the Georgia ballot for president in 2012, meet the constitutional demands for candidates for the office.
A hearing has been scheduled later this month for evidence on the issue that has plagued Obama and his presidency since long before he took office. At issue is the constitutional requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen.” Some allege he was not born in the U.S. as he has claimed and, therefore, is not eligible.
Others, including top constitutional expert Herb Titus, contend that the term “natural-born citizen,” which is not defined in the Constitution, would have been understood when the document was written to mean the offspring of two U.S. citizens. That argument is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision
Under that standard, Obama could not qualify, because his father, as identified on the “Certificate of Live Birth” image released by the White House, was a foreign national who came from Kenya to study in the U.S. and never was a citizen.
The ruling came today from Judge Michael W. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings.
In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
While Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had argued that the requirements didn’t apply to candidates for a presidential primary, the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.
“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.”
The decision from Malihi came as a result of a series of complaints that were consolidated by the court. They were brought against Obama’s inclusion on the 2012 election primary ballot by David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by attorney Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield.

Barack Obama
The judge’s decision was to refuse to dismiss the complaints, an action that had been sought by Obama. He also granted a motion to sever the cases, and he scheduled a hearing at 9 a.m. on Jan. 26 for the complaint brought by Weldon. Following immediately will be hearings for the cases brought by Swensson and Powell, and the issue raised by Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren and Roth will be third.
Malihi’s ruling said: “The court finds that defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona and New Hampshire as well.
Taitz told WND she will present the decision to a court in Hawaii, where she is arguing to have access to Obama’s original birth documentation as it exists in the state, which for many years allowed relatives of babies to simply make a statement and register a birth, even though the child may not have been born in Hawaii.
Irion had argued in his opposition to Obama’s demand to dismiss the concerns that, “The only fact relevant to this case is the fact that the defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen. This fact has been repeatedly documented and stated by the party opponent, defendant Obama. This fact is also evidenced by plaintiff’s exhibit 6, previously submitted with plaintiff’s pre-trial order, and apparently authenticated by defendant’s citation to this exhibit in defendant’s ‘Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute,’ number 7.
“The lengths to which the defendant goes in order to avoid the one relevant fact is telling. The defendant asks this court to interpret Georgia election code in a way that leaves the code in conflict with itself, goes against the plain language of the law, leaves the law without meaning, and conflicts with common sense. He then cites freedom-to-associate precedent to support an assertion that has never been supported by such precedent, and which would nullify election codes in several states. All of these arguments are futile attempts to distract from the undeniable conclusion: Barack Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president of the United States,” Irion wrote.
He continued, “It is true that some states lack election codes authorizing any state officials to screen candidate selections from political parties. In these states political parties have essentially unfettered authority to determine which candidates appear on ballots. However, these instances represent decisions of the states to not screen candidates. It is the states’ right to decide how to administer its elections. The fact that some states have decided to not protect their citizens from unqualified candidates does not mean that other states don’t have the right to screen candidates. It simply means that some states have left the screening to the political parties.
“Georgia has determined that it is in the best interest of its citizens to screen candidates prior to placement on the ballot.
“Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, the defendant can never be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, the defendant cannot meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office of president. See U.S. Const. Art. II Section 1.5 Georgia election code requires such a candidate to be stricken from any Georgia ballot.”
The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.
That case states:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Irion said the goal would be an injunction that would deprive Obama of Democratic Party certification.
“Without such certification from the party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election,” his organization said in an announcement when the cases were launched.
Liberty Legal said it is not addressing Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate.
“These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant,” the group said.
WND has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation into whether Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state’s election ballot in 2012. A full report is expected within weeks.
The White House in April released an image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama’s claim that he was born in the state. The White House has not addressed the questions raised by Obama’s father’s nationality. In addition, many computer, imaging, document and technology experts have stated the document image appears to be a forgery.
The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant:

Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.

Cartoons Extra for Jan 4

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Getting Married or need Advise... Here it is ?

    1.   HOW  DO YOU DECIDE WHOM TO    MARRY?    (written by kids)

You   got to find somebody who likes the same stuff. Like, if  you  like sports, she should like it that you like  sports, and she  should keep the chips and dip coming.    --   Alan, age 10

-No   person really decides before they grow up who they're  going to  marry. God decides it all way before, and you  get to find out  later who you're stuck with.  
--   Kristen, age  10

Twenty-three is the best age because you know  the person  FOREVER by then. 
--    Camille, age 10

   HOW CAN A  STRANGER TELL IF TWO PEOPLE ARE    MARRIED?    You   might have to guess, based on whether they seem to be  yelling  at the same kids.
--   Derrick, age  8

4.   WHAT DO  YOU THINK YOUR MOM AND DAD HAVE IN   COMMON?   Both   don't want any more kids.   
--   Lori,  age 8

-Dates are  for having fun, and people  should use  them to get to know each other. Even boys  have something to  say if you listen long enough.  
--   Lynnette, age  8     (isn't   she a treasure)

-On   the first date, they just tell each other lies and that   usually gets them interested enough to go for a second   date. 
--   Martin, age  10

6.   WHEN IS  IT OKAY TO KISS    SOMEONE?     -When   they're rich.  
--   Pam, age  7  

-The   law says you have to be eighteen, so I wouldn't want to  mess  with that.  -   - Curt, age   7
-The   rule goes like this: If you kiss someone, then you  should  marry them and have kids with them. It's the  right thing to  do.   
-   - Howard,  age 8

It's better for girls to be single but not for  boys. Boys  need someone to clean up after them. 
--   Anita, age 9    (bless you child )

   HOW  WOULD THE WORLD BE DIFFERENT IF PEOPLE   DIDN'T  GET  MARRIED?     There   sure would be a lot of kids to explain, wouldn't there? 
--   Kelvin, age 8    

And    the #1 Favorite is

   HOW  WOULD YOU MAKE A MARRIAGE    WORK?     Tell   your wife that she looks pretty, even if she looks like a dump  truck.
--   Ricky, age  10

Monday, January 2, 2012

All Time Low Approval of Congress - 5 %

Rasmussen Reports: 5% Think Congress Doing a Good Job: New Low

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just five percent (5%) of Likely Voters rate the job Congress is doing as good or excellent.  Sixty-eight percent (68%) view Congress’ job performance as poor.
More people believe that Elvis is still alive. Or as Mike Huckabee says, that places Congress' approval “just barely above a pedophile.”

Jokes aside the implications are enormous. In 2000, Republicans controlled the White House, the House and the Senate. Within eight years they lost them all. Why? Unpopular war? Economy? Sure, these played a role, but these cyclical items have come and gone throughout American history without overturning the power structure.

Where did Republicans go wrong?

I submit that Republicans in Congress planted the seeds of their own demise when they went along with President Bush's big-government spending (primarily because Bush had an 'R' behind his name). No Bureaucrat Left Behind. Prescription drug entitlement (the largest expansion of Medicare in the programs history). Bush spent twice as much as his predecessor and Republicans signed the checks.

Republicans may win the White House and the House and the Senate in 2012. We may have a President Romney or a President Gingrich and their histories show a willingness to embrace big-government ideas. Rank-and-file Republicans will be pressured into supporting their programs out of a sense of loyalty.

The Congressional Republicans better start bracing themselves now. In reality, if they support an expansion of government under a President Romney or a President Gingrich or anyone else, it will be a collective act of political suicide. Despite what Washington says, it will be an act of betrayal against the GOP because it will ultimately lead to another Democratic takeover.

And, most importantly, it will be an act of betrayal against the American people and our Constitution.


One sunny day in January, 2013, an old man approached the
White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue where
he'd been sitting on a park bench.

He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would
like to go in and meet with President Obama."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Obama is no longer President
and no longer resides here."

The old man said, "Okay," and walked away.The following day the same man approached the White House
and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."

The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Obama is no longer President and no longer

resides here."

The man thanked him and again just walked away.The third day the same man approached the White House
and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying, "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama
."The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked
at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Obama.
I've told you already that Mr. Obama is no longer the President and no longer
resides here. Don't you understand?"

The old man looked at the Marine and said,
"Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said,
"See you tomorrow, Sir.
Don't forget to vote!
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...