Scott Brown election certification delayed for Health Care Bill vote?, Nancy Pelosi swore in Bill Owens early, Niki Tsongas precedent, William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth, State Ethics Committee, MA Election statutes

138 responses to “Scott Brown election certification delayed for Health Care Bill vote?, Nancy Pelosi swore in Bill Owens early, Niki Tsongas precedent, William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth, State Ethics Committee, MA Election statutes”

1. jbjd | January 10, 2010 at 4:00 pm |

   (reposted from downstairs)
   #

   jbjd // January 10, 2010 at 3:47 pm

   When you look at polls, notice whether they interviewed all voters or likely voters; whether this is a one-shot poll or a rolling poll, taken over a few days, and look at those days; and consider the margin of error.

   News of the Boston Globe poll hit me as odd, as compared to, for example, the PPP poll; until I saw, the Globe poll ran from January 2-6 and has a margin of error of 4.2 whereas the PPP poll ran from January 7-9 and has a margin of error of 3.6. (They interviewed a larger sample.) http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MA_45398436.pdf
   http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/10/senate_poll_coakley_up_15_points/

   The Globe runs liberal and PPP is paid for by the D Corporation.

2. ahrcanum | January 10, 2010 at 4:03 pm |

   Even threats of lashes with a wet noodle don’t give Pelosi any fear of being mischievous.

3. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 4:07 pm |

   #

   Jacqlyn Smith // January 10, 2010 at 4:06 pm

   BTW Sue…I say bring Biden there all they want…he is such a moron….at this point NO ONE with an ounce of intelligence takes this guy seriously…..after all wasn’t he the one who was suppose to watch over the stimulus and make sure it got spent correctly……sending money to districts that don’t even exist isn’t watching over our money very well….the guy has NO credibility…..if I were CROAKley I would keep him and the FRAUD as far away as possible…..most people are fed up with these two JOKERS!!!!

4. Buraq '08 | January 10, 2010 at 4:08 pm |

   @ Jonah:

   From the previous thread:

   “Now I’m into genealogy. Are you 35 to 50 years old? Oh, and are you a man? Names aren’t always a good indicator of sex. I should know. I’m researching draft card info to compare with BO’s. Need to know if date of birth and place of birth is on draft cards.”

   Yes, I am a 38 year old white male, I was born in August of 1971.

5. Benaiah | January 10, 2010 at 4:08 pm |

   The “citizens’ militia” is “a safeguard against tyranny.”

   District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (U.S. 06/26/2008)

   [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

   [4] June 26, 2008

   [10] Held:

   [11] 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.

   [75] There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary — an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

   [80] Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,”b Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897), petitioners’ interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they [PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL MARXIST DEMOCRATS] believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8 — if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee — it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.*fn17 That is why the first Militia Act’s requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government’s Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521-525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in an
   organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart
   kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation.

   [82] Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
   followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the
   period between independence and the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Two of them — Pennsylvania and Vermont — clearly
   adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people
   have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state … .” §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3082, 3083 (emphasis added).
   In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization.
   See Vt. Const., ch. 1, §15, in 6 id., at 3741.
   [83] North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the
   State … .” Declaration of Rights §XVII, in id., at 2787, 2788. This could plausibly be read to support only a right to bear
   arms in a militia — but that is a peculiar way to make the point in a constitution that elsewhere repeatedly mentions the
   militia explicitly. See §§14, 18, 35, in 5 id., 2789, 2791, 2793. Many colonial statutes required individual arms-bearing for
   public-safety reasons — such as the 1770 Georgia law that “for the security and defence of this province from internal
   dangers and insurrections” required those men who qualified for militia duty individually “to carry fire arms” “to places of
   public worship.” 19 Colonial Records of the State of Georgia 137-139 (A. Candler ed. 1911 (pt. 2)) (emphasis added). That
   broad public-safety understanding was the connotation given to the North Carolina right by that State’s Supreme Court in
   1843. See State v. Huntly, 3 Ired. 418, 422-423.
   [84] The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution presented another variation on the theme: “The people have a right to keep and to bear
   arms for the common defence… .” Pt. First, Art. XVII, in 3 Thorpe 1888, 1892. Once again, if one gives narrow meaning to
   the phrase “common defence” this can be thought to limit the right to the bearing of arms in a state-organized military force.
   But once again the State’s highest court thought otherwise. Writing for the court in an 1825 libel case, Chief Justice Parker
   wrote: “The liberty of the press was to be unrestrained, but he who used it was to be responsible in cases of its abuse; like
   the right to keep fire arms, which does not protect him who uses them for annoyance or destruction.” Commonwealth v.
   Blanding, 20 Mass. 304, 313-314. The analogy makes no sense if firearms could not be used for any individual purpose at
   all. See also Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 244
   (1983) (19th-century courts never read “common defence” to limit the use of weapons to militia service).
   [85] We therefore believe that the most likely reading of all four of these pre-Second Amendment state constitutional provisions
   is that they secured an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes. Other States did not include rights to bear arms
   in their pre-1789 constitutions — although in Virginia a Second Amendment analogue was proposed (unsuccessfully) by
   Thomas Jefferson. (It read: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].”*fn18 1
   The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 344 (J. Boyd ed. 1950)).
   [86] Between 1789 and 1820, nine States adopted Second Amendment analogues. Four of them — Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and
   Missouri — referred to the right of the people to “bear arms in defence of themselves and the State.” See n. 8, supra. Another
   three States — Mississippi, Connecticut, and Alabama — used the even more individualistic phrasing that each citizen has the
   “right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.” See ibid. Finally, two States — Tennessee and Maine — used the
   “common defence” language of Massachusetts. See Tenn. Const., Art. XI, §26 (1796), in 6 Thorpe 3414, 3424; Me. Const.,
   Art. I, §16 (1819), in 3 id., at 1646, 1648. That of the nine state constitutional protections for the right to bear arms enacted
   immediately after 1789 at least seven unequivocally protected an individual citizen’s right to self-defense is strong evidence
   that that is how the founding generation conceived of the right. And with one possible exception that we discuss in Part
   II-D-2, 19th-century courts and commentators interpreted these state constitutional provisions to protect an individual right
   to use arms for self-defense. See n. 9, supra; Simpson v. State, 5 Yer. 356, 360 (Tenn. 1833).

6. Michelle | January 10, 2010 at 4:11 pm |

   kittycat77 // @ 3:17 pm
   I hope your sister-in-law is ok. I’m sure she will be contacting her insurance company re: broken windows after she cleans up the mess. She should take pictures too-insurance purposes. I would also check for structural cracks, lets hope that there aren’t any. Little settling cracks normal, but she should check for anything bigger.

7. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 4:12 pm |

   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Lets all send this to the MORON Schumer….this is what Mario says about it…..

   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   Hence, with Obama, as Senator Schumer so aptly stated, we are talking about “running for the Office of President which is such an important job.” As Senator Schumer again so correctly stated without qualification, “the need of the public to know supersedes” a Presidential candidate’s “right to privacy.” What I do not understand is why Senator Schumer sought to apply that standard to McCain but not to Obama? The double standard is also so much more blatant and shocking when we think that there was only a question of whether McCain should publicly release his medical records documenting his cancer where Obama has refused to release his records regarding his birth, education, work, and travel. Our political, media, and legal institutions’ handling of the Obama election has got to be the greatest violation of the American People’s Right to Know ever perpetrated upon them.

8. Margie | January 10, 2010 at 4:15 pm |

   tru tv ….conspiracy on now

9. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 4:15 pm |

   And how about the HYPOCRITE Dirty Harry….

   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   And here is what Mario says about the both of the HYPOCRITES…Schumer and Reid….

   Mario says:

   The question is why did both Senator Schumer and Reid not apply the same standard to Obama? When they were referring to the Office of President as applying to McCain, they emphasized the critical importance of that office. While they did not articulate it, their statement includes their unspoken belief that for the sake of national security all pertinent information about the person who is running for the Office of President must be made known to the public. They were concerned about national security when it came to McCain but they were not also so concerned when it came to Obama. Why did they not also press Obama for his pertinent information? Why did they not have the same national security concern for Obama as they did for McCain? Are we to conclude that when it came to their own Obama, the two Senators were ready, willing, and able to risk the safety of the American people and the future of the nation for the sake of party politics and winning an election?

10. Michelle | January 10, 2010 at 4:17 pm |

    Very interesting-wouldn’t be the first time Mr. Bill spoke in code.
    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/
    Was Bill Clinton sending a message that Obama is not qualified under the Constitution?
    Posted on | January 10, 2010 | No Comments
    Been a while since I’ve seen this – but – was Bill Clinton telling the American people something about OBAMA’s qualification to be POTUS……we failed to listen…..here is his quote:
    In an interview that aired on ABC’s World News Tonight Bill Clinton denied that he is angry at Barack Obama, but offered very little in terms of an endorsement and enthusiasm for the Democratic nominee.
    Clinton denied that he is still angry, “I’m not, and I never was mad at Senator Obama. I think everybody’s got a right to run for president if he qualifies under the Constitution,

11. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 4:18 pm |

    OKAY….Patriots one and all….lets bombard Schumer and Reid with their own words and someone….Sue…..send these two videos to Scott Brown headquarters!!!!

12. Linda from NY | January 10, 2010 at 4:19 pm |

    Michelle:

    Bill Clinton knew pp was not qualified. When questioned about what he said, I recall he said something about telling us in January…guess that was nixed when pp stole the WH.

    Do you remember that “January” reference?

    Peace…Linda

13. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 4:20 pm |

    Schumer wants all POTUS to show medical records….where’s the FRAUD’S????

14. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 4:22 pm |

    Bill and Hillary both know that the FRAUD is ineligible and they did nothing……they are TRAITORS just as much as all of these other LIBERAL IDIOTS!!!

15. Michelle | January 10, 2010 at 4:22 pm |

    Jacqlyn Smith // January 10, 2010 at 4:15 pm
    Only Reid could talk about TOTAL TRANSPARENCY re: the Presidency, still nothing re: Obama. What a joke. To me total transparency means all the records, not some-all.

16. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 4:24 pm |

    #

    Michelle // January 10, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    Jacqlyn Smith // January 10, 2010 at 4:15 pm
    Only Reid could talk about TOTAL TRANSPARENCY re: the Presidency, still nothing re: Obama. What a joke. To me total transparency means all the records, not some-all.
    ***************************************

    Michelle….that is why I say….send these viral and lets call their offices and ask for the transparency just as they asked for John McCains!!!!

17. Benaiah | January 10, 2010 at 4:25 pm |

    The “citizens’ militia” is “a safeguard against tyranny.”

    District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (U.S. 06/26/2008)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [4] June 26, 2008

    [10] Held:

    [11] 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.

    [75] There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary — an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

    [80] Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,”b Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897), petitioners’ interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they [PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL MARXIST DEMOCRATS] believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8 — if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee — it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.*fn17 That is why the first Militia Act’s requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government’s Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521-525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation.

    [82] Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Two of them — Pennsylvania and Vermont — clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state … .” §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3082, 3083 (emphasis added). In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization. See Vt. Const., ch. 1, §15, in 6 id., at 3741.

    [83] North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State … .” Declaration of Rights §XVII, in id., at 2787, 2788. This could plausibly be read to support only a right to bear arms in a militia — but that is a peculiar way to make the point in a constitution that elsewhere repeatedly mentions the militia explicitly. See §§14, 18, 35, in 5 id., 2789, 2791, 2793. Many colonial statutes required individual arms-bearing for public-safety reasons — such as the 1770 Georgia law that “for the security and defence of this province from internal dangers and insurrections” required those men who qualified for militia duty individually “to carry fire arms” “to places of public worship.” 19 Colonial Records of the State of Georgia 137-139 (A. Candler ed. 1911 (pt. 2)) (emphasis added). That broad public-safety understanding was the connotation given to the North Carolina right by that State’s Supreme Court in 1843. See State v. Huntly, 3 Ired. 418, 422-423.

    [84] The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution presented another variation on the theme: “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence… .” Pt. First, Art. XVII, in 3 Thorpe 1888, 1892. Once again, if one gives narrow meaning to the phrase “common defence” this can be thought to limit the right to the bearing of arms in a state-organized military force. But once again the State’s highest court thought otherwise. Writing for the court in an 1825 libel case, Chief Justice Parker wrote: “The liberty of the press was to be unrestrained, but he who used it was to be responsible in cases of its abuse; like the right to keep fire arms, which does not protect him who uses them for annoyance or destruction.” Commonwealth v. Blanding, 20 Mass. 304, 313-314. The analogy makes no sense if firearms could not be used for any individual purpose at all. See also Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 244 (1983) (19th-century courts never read “common defence” to limit the use of weapons to militia service).

    [85] We therefore believe that the most likely reading of all four of these pre-Second Amendment state constitutional provisions is that they secured an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes. Other States did not include rights to bear arms in their pre-1789 constitutions — although in Virginia a Second Amendment analogue was proposed (unsuccessfully) by Thomas Jefferson. (It read: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].”*fn18 1 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 344 (J. Boyd ed. 1950)).

    [86] Between 1789 and 1820, nine States adopted Second Amendment analogues. Four of them — Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri — referred to the right of the people to “bear arms in defence of themselves and the State.” See n. 8, supra. Another three States — Mississippi, Connecticut, and Alabama — used the even more individualistic phrasing that each citizen has the “right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.” See ibid. Finally, two States — Tennessee and Maine — used the “common defence” language of Massachusetts. See Tenn. Const., Art. XI, §26 (1796), in 6 Thorpe 3414, 3424; Me. Const., Art. I, §16 (1819), in 3 id., at 1646, 1648. That of the nine state constitutional protections for the right to bear arms enacted immediately after 1789 at least seven unequivocally protected an individual citizen’s right to self-defense is strong evidence that that is how the founding generation conceived of the right. And with one possible exception that we discuss in Part II-D-2, 19th-century courts and commentators interpreted these state constitutional provisions to protect an individual right to use arms for self-defense. See n. 9, supra; Simpson v. State, 5 Yer. 356, 360 (Tenn. 1833).

18. Michelle | January 10, 2010 at 4:32 pm |

    All-don’t forget texasdarlin IS BACK.
    http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/
    Boston Globe/Univ. NH: Coakley Up by 15. Really?
    January 10, 2010 by texasdarlin
    © 2009 TexasDarlin/TDBlog
    Scott Brown has the momentum to win.
    If you believe The Survey Center at the University of New Hampshire, Martha Coakley enjoys a commanding lead in the Jan. 19 Massachusetts special election.

19. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 4:37 pm |

    Sue…I just sent Bill Parson…both of the youtube videos…more ammunition to confront the issue of the FRAUD in our house!!

20. Michelle | January 10, 2010 at 4:38 pm |

    http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/
    Why is PPP giving the Coakley campaign technical advice?]
    Here’s the reality: the Republicans and GOP leaning independents are going to come out and vote for Scott Brown. There’s no doubt about that. But there’s also a much larger pool of potential Democratic voters in the state. If Coakley can get them out, she wins. But this race is well past the stage where Democrats can take it for granted that will happen. It will be fascinating to see what happens the final ten days and we’ll do a second poll on the race next weekend.
    C’mon everyone! Get on the phones for Scott, and get those Republicans, independents, and fed-up Dems to the polls!

21. Patriot Dreamer | January 10, 2010 at 4:41 pm |

    jbjd // January 10, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    jbjd, you are exactly right. Also look to see if the poll is oversampling a particular group. For example, I’ve noticed that some polls oversample one political party or they ask questions in such a way as to lead people to answer in a particular preferred way. Sometimes polls are meant to *manipulate* public opinion.

    Poll manipulation fits right in with the recent post at HillBuzz:

    “An Open Letter to Scott Brown Supporters Regarding Eeyorism and Concern Trolls”

    http://hillbuzz.org/2010/01/09/an-open-letter-to-scott-brown-supporters-regarding-eeyorism-and-concern-trolls/

22. Michelle | January 10, 2010 at 4:51 pm |

    Sue K-this is your weather forecast Old Farmers Almanac for the election days.
    http://www.almanac.com/weather/longrange/region/us/1
    http://www.almanac.com/weather/longrange/region/us/2

23. observer | January 10, 2010 at 5:04 pm |

    Seen these videos yet??:

    http://www.davidhorowitztv.com/restorationweekend/rw2009/272-opening-breakfast

24. Jonah | January 10, 2010 at 5:05 pm |

    Buraq ’08,

    I don’t need to know the specifics about the birth date or birthplace. If you have a draft card, I need to know IF the information is listed on the draft card. It’s OK if you don’t want to respond.

    Just doing some research and so far I have had no responses from this site. Zilch. Nada. Zero.

25. Patriot Dreamer | January 10, 2010 at 5:06 pm |

    Boston Globe oversampled Democrats in its recent poll:

    be sure to read the comments:
    http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/10/boston-globe-poll-shows-dem-up

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/10/whats-up-with-the-mass-senate-polls/

26. Bankroller | January 10, 2010 at 5:09 pm |

    If anyone wants to contact Eleanor Nordyke, mother of the infamous “Nordyke Twins”, she is on facebook. Her profile indicates that she graduated from Stanford in 1950 and Punahou School in 1945.

27. Michelle | January 10, 2010 at 5:15 pm |

    Sue K some comments from Hillbuzz.
    As a registered voter, when I am asked if I intend to vote I say Yes, if I have to crawl to the polling place I will vote. I really have no excuse not to vote, I walk to my polling place, it’s not worth starting the car and it’s faster anyway. When I go to vote I think of all of our military who are working 24/7 in very less than ideal situations-I fell as if I owe the vote to them, even more than my little self.
    http://hillbuzz.org/2010/01/09/an-open-letter-to-scott-brown-supporters-regarding-eeyorism-and-concern-trolls/#comment-100454
    January 10, 2010 at 12:26 am
    Scott Brown is certainly more Kennedyesque than Coakley. I don’t think the Concerned Trolls and the rest of their Lib mob is going to do anything to depress the turnout for Brown. First of all Americans are sick to death of the Obamamedia and second we will never forget how the Dems treated their constituants at the Town Meetings. We were extremists, Nazis, looneys, etc. As a former Hill Precinct Captain I am so happy to see Dems and Republicans come together on this. They say cometh the hour cometh the man. Dear God if we ever needed a man for this hour its now.
    50. newyorkie Says:
    January 10, 2010 at 12:29 am
    Nothing will stop the Tea Partiers from voting. Not rain, snow, sleet or dark of night. They are pumped and so are the rest of us. Scott Brown I hug you in absentia.

28. ticktock | January 10, 2010 at 5:16 pm |

    Jonah, continuing from last thread. It’s easy for me to say cuz I don’t have ADHD, but I don’t think we need a cure. The world is blessed with ADHD people in it in unimaginable ways. And in my opinion they are much much smarter than the average bear. Not a reason for a cure IMO. Society has marked it as “less than perfect”…nonsense!

    I do see it in Glenn Beck. And I hope I haven’t started any untrue rumors about Sean…LOL. I think he just “feels” like it sometimes, but I don’t think he has it either. I just think he is a very driven and strung up person…seems to work 24/7. Very high energy…he says he can’t just “sit” at something for even a few moments without going crazy. He has to be moving. I think it’s just simply personality.

29. UpstateWarrior | January 10, 2010 at 5:20 pm |

30. ticktock | January 10, 2010 at 5:21 pm |

    In reference to the polling. Any former Republicans here know exactly what this is about. It’s been happening to Republicans FOREVER and day. It is all meant to discourage and demoralize. In fact, this is nothing! Compared to times in the past. This seems to be limited to just a few polls. This is very effective during nationwide elections in getting the West Coast to just stay home. So be prepared, everyone…it will get worse!

    So take heart…it’s just the same ol’ games. Don’t get discouraged…keep on movin’. 🙂

31. Pete | January 10, 2010 at 5:27 pm |

    Jonah // January 10, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    Don’t know where my selective service registration card is or I would answer your question.

    Pete

32. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 5:39 pm |

    Listening to observer’s videos…..David Horowitz calls the DemoCRAPS as two wings….the communist and the crooks…..the FRAUD is both!!! Pat Cadell calls them crazies and crooks….he says they have been hanging around for a while…..they get their money from George Soros and 4 people run the party, Soros, steven bing and sandlers and someone else I can’t remember…most with the SEIU and from California!!!

33. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 5:42 pm |

    Pat Cadell says follow the money!!! They first got SOS elected 5 are associated with ACORN….Minnesota got Franken because they had a SOS who is part of ACORN….Pat Cadell says his party left him and these people no longer represent the Democraps!!

34. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 5:47 pm |

    Read the entire post at……

    http://www.savewrko.com/2010/01/09/breaking-corporate-lobbyists-in-eleventh-hour-coakley-bailout/
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    BREAKING: CORPORATE LOBBYISTS IN ELEVENTH-HOUR COAKLEY BAILOUT

    As if Martha Coakley’s support from the corrupt establishment wasn’t already clear enough, now comes word that a coalition of sleazebag industry lobbyists have teamed up with Bay State Democrats for an eleventh-hour bailout of her faltering campaign.

    Many of those involved in this hastily-organized rescue attempt have no Bay State ties, their only allegiance is to piggish K Street – Beltway lobbying firms.

35. jc | January 10, 2010 at 5:52 pm |

    Michelle,
    That is the seminal article by Michael McAuliff where”Bill Clinton refused to say Barack Obama is ‘ready’ for White House that sealed the deal for me. When I read the last paragraph I know that Bill knew he did not qualify. Why else would Bill Clinton add, “who qualifies under the Constitution”, unless he was sending a message.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/08/04/2008-08-04_bill_clinton_refuses_to_say_barack_obama.html

    Jonah,
    Debbie Schussel has done all the foia stuff for the Obama’s selective service registration. She claims is a faked.

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/

36. kittycat77 | January 10, 2010 at 5:53 pm |

    Jonah,

    I asked my husband because he had to apply for the draft way back. He’s 57 now. And he no longer has his draft card and can’t remember.

    However, I was thinking about this, what if you find a veterans website and ask them. I’m curious to find out also. Please let us know what you find out. I’d be interested to know.

37. Buraq '08 | January 10, 2010 at 6:01 pm |

    Whoops, I posted this response in the wrong thread:

    @Jonah:

    Regarding my draft card, sadly I cannot remember if date of birth or place of birth appeared on the card, and I no longer have it as it was lost in Hurricane Katrina.

    I called my mom and asked her if she remembers, but she cannot recall either. She also cannot remember if it appears on my brother’s card, who is ten years younger than me. I wish that I could be more helpful.

38. Jonah | January 10, 2010 at 6:03 pm |

    ticktock // January 10, 2010 at 5:16 pm
    Jonah, continuing from last thread. It’s easy for me to say cuz I don’t have ADHD, but I don’t think we need a cure. The world is blessed with ADHD people in it in unimaginable ways. And in my opinion they are much much smarter than the average bear. Not a reason for a cure IMO. Society has marked it as “less than perfect”…nonsense!
    =========================

    You’re right. It is easy for you to say.

    I agree that many ADHD people are smarter than the average bear and many are very creative. They are the entrepreneurs, the small business owners, the risk takers, the descendants of the discontent who left their homeland to live in a better place. They can be the firemen and policemen and women and the military who protect us. The iron workers, the construction workers, the entertainers who were the class clowns in grades school and yes, I know a college economics professor whose mother came to our meeting in tears when he was a still high school student.

    But you didn’t answer the hundreds, no thousands of calls that I did in the 10 years I was associated with the support group. Consoling and advising the troubled parents, seeing the kids struggling and marriages fall apart. Knowing that most schools’ approach to teaching these kids is inadequate and downright destructive at times. Society’s view of ADHD people isn’t near as critical as the view they often have of themselves. Misplacing keys for the fiftieth time, forgetting important details, saying inappropriate things, losing job after job. Yes, it’s easy for you to say.

39. Patriot Dreamer | January 10, 2010 at 6:05 pm |

    “The Scariest Jobs Chart Ever”

    http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-the-scariest-jobs-chart-ever-2010-1

40. LM | January 10, 2010 at 6:06 pm |

    Wife of CIA Bomber: The war Against America Must Continue~ Video

    The wife of the triple agent who recently killed 7 CIA workers in Afghanistan has no problem showing her true hateful Islamic nature as well. Hopefully she will go to Afghanistan and one of our brave troop members will send her to Allah.

    Wife Says CIA Bomber Hated the U.S.

41. Rocknee | January 10, 2010 at 6:08 pm |

    Kittycat77,

    I’m retired from the military and seems like we turned them in when inducted and received the military id card. Anyway, dont have one, I’m 61.

42. Patriot Dreamer | January 10, 2010 at 6:11 pm |

    “Question of the Day: How do you spot a Concern Troll or Eeyore?”

    http://hillbuzz.org/2010/01/10/question-of-the-day-how-do-you-spot-a-concern-troll-or-eeyore/

43. Rocknee | January 10, 2010 at 6:12 pm |

    You know when the suicide bombers goes to be with allah and the 70 virgins. They are disappointed because they find out there aren’t 70 virgins, but 70 virginians

44. ticktock | January 10, 2010 at 6:13 pm |

    Ok, I hear what you’re saying, Jonah.

    I think sometimes we tend to think in our “own” terms and experiences. For example, I have child with Hypotonic CP. It’s more like Down Syndrome…low muscle tone and he is very mentally challenged.

    True, we’ve been to hell and back, but now, I wouldn’t change him for the world. I see him as perfect. So many times people say things, like wouldn’t it be nice if we could “fix” it. But now I don’t see anything to “fix”. He has so much more than the rest of us.

    But, it isn’t ADHD. My child is 12 and as calm and content as a snug bug in a rug. Always happy, always smiling. A truly soothing child to be around. Yes, I pull my hair out sometimes. But I don’t see that a fix is needed.

    But yes, if I were in your shoes and recieved those calls and dealt with all that…I’m sure I would feel the same way.

45. jbjd | January 10, 2010 at 6:17 pm |

    PD and Everyone,

    The choices in these polls were, registered as D, R, I, or Other. However, in MA, one category of “Other” is “Unenrolled.” Independents may vote only in elections; Unenrolled may vote in primaries, after declaring which ballot they want. (After a vote in the primary, the status of the Unenrolled voter remains Unenrolled.)

    The PPP poll specifically categorized Independent/Other as a single grouping. So, when they factored in the responses from Independents, this included Unenrolled. The Globe poll had a separate category for Other, which would include Unenrolled. Thus, when they only factored in the category of Independents, they missed Unenrolled.

    Looks like perhaps the Globe undercounted those independent minded voters who are registered as Unenrolled.

    (Links to separate polls previously provided; here is the link to the MA SoS.)

46. Don in California | January 10, 2010 at 6:17 pm |

    jc // January 10, 2010 at 5:52 pm
    —————————-
    I just reviewed the SSS form on Debbie Schussel’s website and I agree that something is very wrong with it. But, (officially) who cares?? I know we do, but no one will officially.

47. jbjd | January 10, 2010 at 6:18 pm |

    http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elespeif/us_senate_info.htm

    (Sorry; forgot to include link.)

48. venice | January 10, 2010 at 6:20 pm |

    Jonah,

    If I may add to the complexity of ADHD, it is a spectrum condition, its genetic coding for intelligence as it is formally tested, unrelated to the presence of ADHD. Therefore one can expect the full range of IQ.

    Those in the field characterize it as a neurocognitive style that carries some marked weaknesses but also some significant strengths. It is not by chance that some of the most brilliant minds in human history have been posthumously diagnosed with such.

    But yes, working memory difficulties, and cognitive impulsivity among other things pose a significant risk academically. The current educational system has been slow to respond. The consequences can be very significant over the lifespan if not identified early.

49. kittycat77 | January 10, 2010 at 6:25 pm |

    Rocknee,

    You may be right.

    My husband never went to Vietnam, but he did have to apply to the draft. After he applied in the 1970s when he was out of high school, then they stopped the war before he was called. And it was his turn to be called, then they stopped it.

50. twe | January 10, 2010 at 6:28 pm |

    Buraq & Jonah: Go here and it will show you many different draft cards. I guess it depends on the year that they were issued as to whether or not they showed the place of birth. I think they generally show the date of birth. Click on an image to enlarge it.

    http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=vietnam+war+draft+card&gbv=2&aq=4m&oq=Draft+card&aqi=g2g-m3

51. jbjd | January 10, 2010 at 6:33 pm |

    (I am answering questions over at td; I post my responses here, too.)

    The Globe poll asks (p.3), ‘Are you registered D, I, R, or something else?’ However, the poll answer categories to these questions are D, I/Unaffiliated, R, Other. This means, if you are Unenrolled, which is an actual category of voter registration in MA, you would answer “Other” when asked. As a result, when the answers are coded, the category that reads, I/Unaffiliated would only contain those people who answered “I” to the question, but not those people who answered “something else,” which would include all of those independent-minded people registered as “Unenrolled.”

    So, for example, if the poll says, 50% of Independents say they would vote for Brown; this number does not include all of those Unenrolled who would vote for Brown, too.

    At least, I think this could explain why the Globe poll is so off.

52. twe | January 10, 2010 at 6:35 pm |

    Jonah: Here is one that shows the date and place of birth…although it is torn up (click on it to enlarge once the image comes up):

    

53. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 6:36 pm |

    The quote of the week, but it certainly ranks higher than that. If it’s not the quote of the year, it’s a leading contender.

    “Frankly, I don’t know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I’m not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we’re number one. There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on ‘Macbeth’. The three of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of speech. You don’t know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words.”

    –columnist Burt Prelutsky

54. twe | January 10, 2010 at 6:37 pm |

    OT–Here’s Babe Ruth’s draft card!!

    

55. ticktock | January 10, 2010 at 6:38 pm |

    JS, LOL! That was rich!!

56. twe | January 10, 2010 at 6:39 pm |

    Another draft card with date and place of birth:

    

57. Jonah | January 10, 2010 at 6:41 pm |

    Pete and Buraq,

    Thanks for responding. It is interesting that most men no longer have their draft cards. I have found only a few men who do and they are all over 50 years old.

    JC.

    It is because of Debbie Schussel’s copy of Dr. Utopia’s draft card that I am asking this question. “Are the date of birth and place of birth on draft cards issued 1980 and after?”

    I have been intrigued ever since she posted the document on the internet. What is behind that blacked out section in the top right corner?

    I have viewed many WWII draft cards and they all contain place of birth. The few men over 50 years old who have responded, confirmed yes, there is a section for place of birth. In order for the place of birth to be designated on the draft card it had to first be on their Selective Service registration. RIGHT?

    Sooooooo. Getting back to Debbie’s document, we see Date of Birth , Gender and then a big black spot. Isn’t it logical that Place of Birth should be there? Is somebody hiding something?

    That’s why I’m asking 35 to 50 year old men, “Are the date of birth and place of birth on your draft card?”

    Maybe the government decided years ago that they no longer need to know where selective Service registrants were born. I may just be chasing a wild goose but I’m a curious sort and I would like to know.

58. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 6:53 pm |

    email from a friend!

    Sign in an INDIANA store front window…

    “WE WOULD RATHER DO BUSINESS WITH 1000 AL QAEDA TERRORISTS THAN WITH ONE SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER!”

    This sign was prominently displayed in the window of a business in Whiting, Indiana . You are probably outraged at the thought of such an inflammatory statement.

    However, we are a society which holds freedom of Speech as perhaps our greatest liberty.

    And after all, it is just a sign.

    You may ask what kind of business would dare post such a sign.

    Answer:

    “Owen’s Funeral Home”

    You gotta love it!!!

    God Bless America

59. kittycat77 | January 10, 2010 at 6:55 pm |

    “WE WOULD RATHER DO BUSINESS WITH 1000 AL QAEDA TERRORISTS THAN WITH ONE SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER!”

    There’s another way to look at it, though: 1,000 al-Qaeda terrorists could give then a whole lot more business like head-chopping, blowing themselves up, etc. So no wonder they would rather do that.

60. twe | January 10, 2010 at 7:01 pm |

    http://www.sss.gov/records.htm

61. twe | January 10, 2010 at 7:02 pm |

    Se:lective Service online registration verification:
    https://www.sss.gov/RegVer/wfVerification.aspx

62. Katie | January 10, 2010 at 7:03 pm |

    Another ‘unexpected’ heart attack. (As Scott Brown pulls ahead – a warning shot for Boehner???)

    Boehner chief of staff dies at 46

    Paula Nowakowski, the longtime chief of staff to House Republican Leader John Boehner, died suddenly Saturday night, according to the leader’s office. She was 46.

    “It is with profound sadness and shock that I announce the passing of Paula Nowakowski, my longtime chief of staff, trusted aide and friend, who died suddenly last night,” Boehner said in a statement early Sunday afternoon. “Words cannot adequately express the sorrow and disbelief I and every member of our team are grappling with today in the wake of this stunning news.”

    A Boehner aide said the cause was an apparent heart attack.

    Read more:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31327.html

63. Jonah | January 10, 2010 at 7:08 pm |

    venice // January 10, 2010 at 6:20 pm
    ============================

    You just said the same thing I did but I was ADHD friendly :- )

64. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 7:12 pm |

    I just heard Pat Cadell say that the reason Van Jones got into the White House is because they have suspended FBI background checks!!! If they didn’t NO ONE could be part of this administration….including the FRAUD!!! Face it….the FRAUD hates America and its citizens….just like the Islam Extremists!!!

65. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 7:13 pm |

    #

    kittycat77 // January 10, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    “WE WOULD RATHER DO BUSINESS WITH 1000 AL QAEDA TERRORISTS THAN WITH ONE SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER!”

    There’s another way to look at it, though: 1,000 al-Qaeda terrorists could give then a whole lot more business like head-chopping, blowing themselves up, etc. So no wonder they would rather do that.
    ******************************************

    Exactly Kittycat….that’s the jest of it!:)

66. twe | January 10, 2010 at 7:19 pm |

    Jonah: while you’re at it, why not look for Barry Soetoro’s selective service registration????

67. Jonah | January 10, 2010 at 7:21 pm |

    twe,

    WOW! You’re good at this!

    I’m going to copy and save all the draft cards you showed me but I still need post 1980 draft cards to see if they designate place of birth.

    I hope some of you will follow up on this site twe has linked to and let us know what you learn.

    Se:lective Service online registration verification:
    https://www.sss.gov/RegVer/wfVerification.aspx

68. Jonah | January 10, 2010 at 7:23 pm |

    twe,

    We do know Dr. Utopia’s Social security number. Now let’s see. Which one should we use.

69. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 7:28 pm |

    You can read this post and others at….

    http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Barack Obama’s Nationality

    Independent News is reporting that there have been rumbles of unrest around the world regarding Obama’s nationality since the day he stated he would run for the presidency. Now, after more than a year, the rumbles have turned into a full on eruption.

    The Barack Obama nationality scandal is refusing to burn itself out and seems to be gathering even more speed with Congressman Nathan Deal questioning the eligibility of Obama to hold the presidency. This is the first time in history that a serving president has been questioned about eligibility by a member of congress.

    Over the last week the Internet has been reporting this story with the blogosphere almost going into meltdown over the latest developments yet no mainstream media seem interested in the story that just won’t go away for Obama.

    Congressman Deal asked Obama to prove that he is legally entitled to hold the presidency electronically on December 1st 2009. This communication was confirmed received by Obama’s staff but has yet to be responded to.

    Even though Obama has already produced his short-form birth certificate in order to stop these questions, he has spent a large amount of taxpayers money (estimated to be more than two million dollars) ensuring that the long-form certificate is kept from the public — an action that has raised more than a few eyebrows along the way.

    Throughout the campaign trail and longer, Obama made promises of the most transparent administration than any other so why the need to hide a simple birth certificate? Many claim that the whole situation is a complete waste of time and distracting but supporters of the question refuse to stop asking more and more questions.

    It seems that the original question seems to have caused a stir not just in America but worldwide with thousands of people doing independent research in an attempt to get the facts out. The problem with independent research is that it is hard to verify where the alleged facts came from and when they are traced back its not unusual to find that it stemmed from opinion –except at The Obama File, of course, where everything is sourced and linked.

    With several birth certificates doing the rounds, many proven as hoaxes, the “official” birth certificate — which is not a birth certificate — in the Obama nationality scandal seems to prove that Obama was in fact a British Subject at birth. On the website dedicated to protecting Obama from smears, Fight The Smears, there is an electronic copy of the birth certificate showing that Obama was born a British Subject. There is also this statement: “Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

    Obama’s nationality scandal doesn’t seem to be going anywhere at the moment and even the secret service seem to be taking an interest in anyone questioning Obama’s nationality with visits being made for security reasons. Reported last week at the very liberal Mother Jones, more and more people who have raised issue are being visited by the secret service and being left feeling very intimidated.

    No matter what side of the fence you sit on this scandal seems set to stay around for a long time to come.

70. twe | January 10, 2010 at 7:28 pm |

    Katie–and I also noticed that Paula was a devoted Catholic

71. LM | January 10, 2010 at 7:29 pm |

    Real World DC (Health Care Remix)

    The true story… of 535 politicians…picked to live in two houses…work together and have their lives taped…to find out what happens…when Congress stops being polite…and starts secret, detailed negotiations on a sweeping, transformative health care reform bill…

    This is the real Real World DC.

72. LM | January 10, 2010 at 7:40 pm |

    Geithner Faces Possible Criminal Charges AIG Coverup

    Judge Andrew Napolitano weighs in on whether the treasury secretary can face criminal charges over his role in the AIG coverup

73. kittycat77 | January 10, 2010 at 7:44 pm |

    Jonah,

    I have a good friend whose husband died a couple of years ago from brain tumors. He was drafted, but she doesn’t have his draft card. I don’t guess that his discharge papers would work on this, right, which she’s going to look at?

    thanks

74. kittycat77 | January 10, 2010 at 7:51 pm |

    Jonah,

    My husband just said that he threw his away. He told me that if there was not any draft for him, there wouldn’t have been any reason for him to keep it.

    Sorry. I asked him again, and he told me that now he remembers.

75. twe | January 10, 2010 at 8:01 pm |

    This is OT, but it is powerful and very good (also humorous in places):

76. kittycat77 | January 10, 2010 at 8:03 pm |

    Jonah,

    What about a person’s original enlistment papers, my friend says her husband’s had his birth place on them? But in the meantime, she’s going to that link and put info into it about her husband who is deceased. He was in the Vietnam war.

77. venice | January 10, 2010 at 8:03 pm |

    Jonah,

    That’s give me a nice segue to another point that I was initially going to make. People with ADHD are often better attuned to others than most. It is one of their significant strengths and never to be undermined.

78. JJ | January 10, 2010 at 8:10 pm |

    I like that guys……..

    Democrats with a ‘C’……crazies, crooks, and communists!!!

79. Michelle | January 10, 2010 at 8:13 pm |

    Jacqlyn Smith @ 5:39 pm
    “the communist and the crooks…..the FRAUD is both!!! Pat Cadell calls them crazies and crooks”
    but Frank Nitti-Scarface Al Capone’s enforcer was admired too-hence the Mob connection.
    An interesting piece but a hard piece. I agreed with them on everything. They were also critical of the Republican party for putting up so little fight. I say if the Republicans are too squeamish to engage in a political battle, they need a wing of the party that will….no Republican Soros, that needs correcting too, since if Soros gets his way they won’t be billionaires anymore. I agree with the Great Awakening-the tea parties are proof of that, and they pointed out the Dems largest error-smashing too much down the American’s public throat, thereby alienating most of their base-over 65-women. Republicans can focus on that and pick-up a lot of support. Plus they have all of their Republicans, most of the independents and 60 per cent or more of Democrats who don’t want any part of their blood money bribes.

80. observer | January 10, 2010 at 8:23 pm |

    “Hume: Reid’s Remarks Amount to ‘Accusation of Racism Against the American People’”

    http://www.breitbart.tv/hume-reids-remarks-amount-to-accusation-of-racism-against-the-american-people/

81. kittycat77 | January 10, 2010 at 8:23 pm |

    Jonah, I’m just trying to help…

    Maybe this would be a place to ask since they are talking about it too!
    http://www.thetruckersreport.com/truckingindustryforum/politics/80779-obamas-draft-card-faked.html

82. Michelle | January 10, 2010 at 8:28 pm |

    jc @ 5:52
    the Constitution,” Clinton said. “I’d be the last person to begrudge anybody their ambition.”
    Shakespeare says on ambition.
    “Caesar told Anthony He has a lean and hungry look such men are dangerous”
    Cassius appears a little underfed these days. His “lean and hungry look” unsettles Julius Caesar, who prefers the company of fat, contented men—who wouldn’t bite the hand that feeds them. Cassius looks like he’s been up late nursing his envy, a situation that bodes ill for the dictator. Caesar’s intuition is accurate: Cassius will spearhead the plot to assassinate him . Marcus Antonius tries to soothe Caesar: “Fear him not, Caesar, he’s not dangerous,/ He is a noble Roman, and well given.” Ironically, the superstitious Caesar, who sees through Cassius’s noble exterior, will die, while the deluded Antony will survive to avenge him, and later to take power.
    Rome/South Side of Chicago same old corruption-murders-treachery-treason.

83. truthbetold11 | January 10, 2010 at 8:31 pm |

    Scott brown was at the patriots game today shaking hands. youtube scott brown at pats game. The radio sports station guys all were putting in plugs for him weei sports. This state wants a winner

84. Michelle | January 10, 2010 at 8:41 pm |

    Jacqlyn Smith @ 6:36 pm
    that was hysterical and yet so to the point.

85. SueK | January 10, 2010 at 8:44 pm |

    truthbetold11 // January 10, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    Great news, TBT! I’ll bet you wouldn’t find Maatha at a Pats game. Too bad they got blown out today….

    BTW, you probably already know this, but the Worcester Telegram and Gazette has endorsed Scott.

    Central MA is right on the money :).

86. kittycat77 | January 10, 2010 at 8:47 pm |

    “There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on ‘Macbeth’. The three of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of speech. You don’t know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words.”

    Maybe they need serious special ed classes made just for them. What a sicko Botox Nancy is. Can’t hardly stand to mention her name, period. Oh, just makes me want to hurl big time. And something tells me that I’m not the only one who feels this way.

87. Michelle | January 10, 2010 at 8:53 pm |

    Jacqlyn Smith @ 7:28 pm
    If you were the leader of a foreign nation (ally, enemy, lender) I think that you would be very interested in Obama’s lack of eligibility. Any treaty he signed-null and void. The Americans dump Obama-foreign country-you USA owe us money, the USA WE THE PEOPLE what money?-you made your deal with Obama not us-get it out of him. Most of the United States of America does not trust Obama, why should they? I’m sure that foreign nations are up on the latest developments, just wondering when USA is going to throw off the usurper.

88. jbjd | January 10, 2010 at 9:10 pm |

    I posted an article on my blog, explaining (I think) the disparity between the Boston Globe and the PPP polls for Brown v. Coakley.
    http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/brown-v-coakley-lies-damned-lies-and-statistics/

89. Jonah | January 10, 2010 at 9:29 pm |

    kittycat77 // January 10, 2010 at 8:23 pm
    Jonah, I’m just trying to help…
    Maybe this would be a place to ask since they are talking about it too!
    http://www.thetruckersreport.com/truckingindustryforum/politics/80779-obamas-draft-card-faked.html
    ==========================
    kittycat,

    Discharge enlistment papers won’t help because we need to make a comparison to the same document posted on Debbie Schlussel’s site. I looked at the link you posted. Interesting. Thanks for helping. All of the people here are great!

90. Jonah | January 10, 2010 at 9:48 pm |

    venice // January 10, 2010 at 8:03 pm
    Jonah,
    That’s give me a nice segue to another point that I was initially going to make. People with ADHD are often better attuned to others than most. It is one of their significant strengths and never to be undermined.
    ===============================
    Au contraire. In my experiences, many ADHD people lack social skills and often speak inappropriately. There are always exceptions.

    Glenn for instance, appears to be an avid reader. That’s very unusual for ADHDers. Most hate to read, have difficulty concentrating which leads to difficulties in school. Many times they can’t get the homework turned in, even if they did it, but they pass the tests.

91. venice | January 10, 2010 at 10:25 pm |

    Jonah,

    You are right, but here’s the key point. Because of their sensitivity, inappropriate child rearing, much like inappropriate educational methods lead to great frustration and eventually lead to poor social skills and unihibited coping styles, like speaking inappropriately. In later life this can be complicated by drug and alcohol abuse. This is of course only a general statement. It is indeed a very complex condition, because the range of its expression can be broad.

92. j.b. | January 10, 2010 at 10:40 pm |

    Glenn also recently admitted he; very often, “glosses” over words.
    And “speed reads”.

93. ticktock | January 10, 2010 at 10:50 pm |

    Everyone, Here is a great video series. The woman spewing lies at the beginning is being corrected by the maker of this video.

    My son had to watch “the woman spewing lies” at school. Please please please send this out, to especially the young people in your lives. They WILL recognize this and understand this. And they’ve never been more willing to listen to the other side until now.

    This is the first of a series of 4.

94. magna carta | January 10, 2010 at 10:58 pm |

    Posted this over at Boston.com

    noislamocommie wrote:
    Let’s hope curling iron Coakley loses and the health care bill killed. This is the most unethical and disgusting cabal of Jacobins that have no respect for process,rule of law or the voice of the people.I hope we survive this bleak era.

    For the virtuous Scott :
    Isaiah 43,verses 18-19
    “Forget the former things;do not dwell on the past.
    See,I am doing a new thing!
    Now it springs up; you do not perceive it?
    I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland.”
    1/10/2010 10:55 PM EST

95. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 10:58 pm |

    Michelle // January 10, 2010 at 8:13 pm

    Jacqlyn Smith @ 5:39 pm
    “the communist and the crooks…..the FRAUD is both!!! Pat Cadell calls them crazies and crooks”
    but Frank Nitti-Scarface Al Capone’s enforcer was admired too-hence the Mob connection.

    ******************************************

    Michelle….It is very important that these videos go viral so that other DemoCRAPS see what their party has turned into…..Conservatives can no longer sit back and be NICE….the gloves have to come off or we will lose everything….if we haven’t already!!

96. SueK | January 10, 2010 at 11:08 pm |

    magna carta // January 10, 2010 at 10:58 pm

    I saw you, Magna…good on ya!

    Remember that 1/11 is Scott’s ‘money bomb.’ I’ll be sending a little extra (property tax be damned-this is more important!).

97. Jacqlyn Smith | January 10, 2010 at 11:31 pm |

    Now here’s a man who knows what he is talking about……
    By Dr. Alan Keyes…read entire post at….

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121267

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Alan Keyes Glenn Beck: Sometimes it’s better to be silent

98. ticktock | January 10, 2010 at 11:36 pm |

    JS, Absolutely. We cannot tolerate the Republicans sitting back and taking it anymore like a bunch of pansies. Here’s Klavan’s update on the culture of “shut up”. Republicans had better start doing what they shoulda done all along and instead of putting their tail between their legs get back in their faces and defend their POV! Of course ppl will believe the liberals if they’re the only ones talking!

    Wake up Republican Pols!!!

99. ticktock | January 10, 2010 at 11:36 pm |

    oopsy daisy…here it is…

    http://www.pjtv.com/

100. John Charlton | January 10, 2010 at 11:54 pm |

     Here’s the evidence that the Hawaii govt is covering for Obama’s forged COLB, and knows it.

     http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/10/red-flags-overlooked/

101. Don in California | January 11, 2010 at 12:04 am |

     Did anyone see the fox special on obama tonight?

102. Jacqlyn Smith | January 11, 2010 at 12:04 am |

     The GOP is in for a rude awakening….we don’t want their insider BS anymore…..that is why “we the people” are supporting an outsider by the name of Palin…..these guys deserve to get their clocks cleaned if they don’t wake up soon!!!

     Read entire article at…..

     http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/01/gop_insiders_so.php

     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     GOP Insiders Sour On Palin
     January 7, 2010 4:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (137) |

     A poll of GOP insiders suggests that ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has little support among the party’s professional class — and maybe that’s just how she wants it.

103. Don in California | January 11, 2010 at 12:13 am |

     GOP Insiders Sour On Palin
     January 7, 2010 4:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (137) |

     A poll of GOP insiders suggests that ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has little support among the party’s professional class — and maybe that’s just how she wants it.
     ———————-
     How many insiders are there and don’t they only have one vote each? I know I will vote for Palin no matter which party she runs on.

104. Jacqlyn Smith | January 11, 2010 at 12:17 am |

     #

     Don in California // January 11, 2010 at 12:04 am

     Did anyone see the fox special on obama tonight?
     *******************************************

     Didn’t know one was on!

105. Jacqlyn Smith | January 11, 2010 at 12:19 am |

     John Charlton // January 10, 2010 at 11:54 pm

     Here’s the evidence that the Hawaii govt is covering for Obama’s forged COLB, and knows it.

     &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

     John….Great information….now what do we do…..have you given this to Brietbart or even Bob Campbell at the American Grand Jury….this is more evidence for the juries he is in the process of forming now!!!!

106. Don in California | January 11, 2010 at 12:36 am |

     Jacqlyn Smith // January 11, 2010 at 12:17 am

     #

     Don in California // January 11, 2010 at 12:04 am

     Did anyone see the fox special on obama tonight?
     *******************************************

     Didn’t know one was on!
     _________________-
     I received an e-mail saying there was going to be a special on at 9:00PM tonight. I was at church and didn’t see if it was on or not.

107. Jacqlyn Smith | January 11, 2010 at 12:45 am |

     #

     Don in California // January 11, 2010 at 12:36 am

     Jacqlyn Smith // January 11, 2010 at 12:17 am

     #

     Don in California // January 11, 2010 at 12:04 am

     Did anyone see the fox special on obama tonight?
     *******************************************

     Didn’t know one was on!
     _________________-
     I received an e-mail saying there was going to be a special on at 9:00PM tonight. I was at church and didn’t see if it was on or not.
     (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

     Don…it may be the same one that has been circulating for months……Hannity had a special on the FRAUD several months back….it was just a culmination of things he has said about the FRAUD from the get go….like his associations with Wright and Ayers!!

108. Don in California | January 11, 2010 at 1:09 am |

     Jacqlyn Smith // January 11, 2010 at 12:45 am
     ______________________
     Thanks, I didn’t know. I’m kinda slow in my old age. lol

109. Benaiah | January 11, 2010 at 1:22 am |

     Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: A Safeguard Against Tyranny

     It follows that if “the concern of the founding generation” was “to assure the existence of a ‘citizens militia’ as a safeguard against tyranny”, then the founding generation would have had the same concern of safeguarding the citizens from tyranny when they drafted the eligibility requirements for the “office of the President”. Thus, only “natural born citizens” are “eligible to the office of President”. As a safeguard against tyranny, “natural born citizens” are those “children born in [the] country of parents who were its citizens”.

     Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural-born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.

     Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

     “ ‘No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President’… 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.”

     District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (U.S. 06/26/2008)

     [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

     [10] Held:

     [11] 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.

     [12] (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

     [13] (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.

     [14] (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.

     [80] Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897), petitioners’ interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8 — if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee — it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.*fn17 That is why the first Militia Act’s requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government’s Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521-525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation.

110. Linda from NY | January 11, 2010 at 7:47 am |

     MoneyBomb (Scott Brown)

     http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2425615/posts

111. Linda from NY | January 11, 2010 at 8:01 am |

     Scott Brown vs. Harry Reid

     http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2010/01/11/scott-brown-vs-harry-reid/

112. Linda from NY | January 11, 2010 at 8:06 am |

     More expense we cannot afford…

     The Obama-Era EPA Grew a Tooth

     http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2010/01/10/has-the-obama-era-epa-grown-a-tooth/#more-40359

113. Starla | January 11, 2010 at 8:28 am |

     Brothers And Sisters In GOD ALMIGHTY -THE MOST HOLY TRINITY, In The Holy Name Of LORD JESUS CHRIST EMANNUEL(GOD WITH US), The One & Only Messiah and Savior Of Humanity:

     Here is an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT post Dr. Taitz posted at her web site:

     “Obama’s Selective Service is registered under the state of CO number 042-68-4425, which was issued in CO to individual born in 1890. Any US atty. or ATTY. gen, who knew about this should be reported to his state bar and Public Integrity Unit of Dep of Justice for criminal investigation”

     Posted on | January 11, 2010 |

     Orly,

     I don’t know if you saw this or not, or even if it is true. I tried this months ago, but was denied access to the Selective Service site because
     I am out of country. You may want to try this yourself. If it is true, then it is documented (not just info pulled from a database which could be wrong) proof that he used the Conn. SS number. From here on in that should be the only one you should concentrate on. The fact that he used a Conn issued number when he never lived there in his life (plus the fact that if he filed for the Sel Service, it was when he was 18, and up to that point he only lived in Indonesia and Hawaii – never setting foot on the mainland)

     Here is the link and the post:

     http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2425019/posts

     Post number 111

     “That social security number 042-68-4425 I just filled in on the Selective Service Registration site: I used the last name Obama, rather than Soetoro. His date of birth was August 4 1961. Under Soetoro, there was no match. Under Obama, it did give me the match and produced the registration number 61-1125539-1.
     I’m sure you know all this.”

     ####

114. LM | January 11, 2010 at 8:39 am |

     You decide

     Are Democrats Practicing a Double Standard on Racism?

     http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/11/decideare-democrats-practicing-double-standard-racism/

115. Linda from NY | January 11, 2010 at 8:42 am |

     Maddie: This one’s for you!

     Hillary accused Obama of cheating in primaries

     http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/hillary_accused_obama_of_cheat.html

116. Linda from NY | January 11, 2010 at 8:47 am |

     Failing to Connect the Plots

     http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/failing_to_connect_the_plots.html

     Gee…is that what happened?

117. Linda from NY | January 11, 2010 at 8:48 am |

     Merry Christmas from the World of Islam

     http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/merry_christmas_from_the_world.html

118. Linda from NY | January 11, 2010 at 8:51 am |

     Obama Aids the Enemy He Will Not Name

     By Pamela Geller

     http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/obama_aids_the_enemy_he_will_n_1.html

119. Linda from NY | January 11, 2010 at 8:52 am |

     Eric Holder, Dems Turn Their Bigoted Eyes to You

     http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/eric_holder_dems_turn_their_bi.html

120. ms. helga | January 11, 2010 at 9:00 am |

     A Wonderful And Timely Story

     CONSTITUTION ISLAND & “JESUS LOVES ME”

     Several years ago I was sitting around thinking of my youth and all of a sudden the song “Jesus Loves Me” came into my head. I always loved this song in Sunday School and through the years I suddenly notice I didn’t hear it anymore. I went to the computer and googled up “Jesus Loves Me” and it came up with the writer being Anna B. Warner. I did a wikipedia on her and got the Constitution Island Ass’n. Here is the story –

     The Life of Anna Warner

     In 1944, John Hersey wrote an article for The New Yorker entitled “Survival.” This was the story, told to him by John F. Kennedy, concerning the rescue of Kennedy and his crew after their PT boat was destroyed in the Solomons. After being stranded several days on an island, Kennedy and his men were discovered by two natives Through the efforts of these natives, who led a rescue boat to the island, the men were saved. Hersey concludes his dramatic account with this anecdote: “Johnston (one of the rescued men) retired topside and sat with his arms around a couple of roly poly, mission-trained natives. And in the fresh breeze on the way home they sang together a hymn all three happened to know:

     “Jesus loves me, this I know,
     For the Bible tells me so:
     Little ones to Him belong.
     They are weak,
     but He is strong.
     Yes, Jesus loves me;
     yes, Jesus loves me . . . . ”

     To Hersey’s readers, in the midst of World War II, these well-known words with their simple expression of faith must have had a special meaning. This familiar hymn, carried all over the world by nineteenth century missionaries, has long been a part of the Christian education of many children. The simple words and lilting tune are easily learned and thus make it a great favorite in Sunday school classes for young children. No doubt, it was this same simplicity that made it so popular with the missionaries for, apparently, once learned, it is never forgotten. Therefore, it is not so surprising that it should pop up as a common bond between the American sailors and the Solomon Island natives.

     Jesus Loves Me first appeared in a novel, Say and Seal, published in 1860.

     The book was co-authored by Susan and Anna Warner, and the hymn itself was written by Anna. In Say and Seal the hymn was sung to a little boy who was very ill by his beloved school teacher and friend. The child-like faith expressed in the words were inspired by Anna’s own profound faith in God. The two Warner sisters were writers who enjoyed great popularity during the latter half of the nineteenth century. Today their books are unread and out of print, but the two women, themselves, are not forgotten.

     Susan and Anna Warner are the only civilians buried in the military cemetery at West Point. Their life long home on Constitution Island, directly across the river from West Point is maintained as a museum. The story of how this all came about is a charming vignette in the long history of the United States Military Academy.

     The year following the purchase of the island, Mr. Warner suffered severe financial losses in the “Panic of 1837″. In 1838 the beautiful town house was sold and the family moved to Constitution Island. Here, Anna wrote, they would “live out our lives, fighting the fight, wrestling with sorrow, gathering up the joy—”. She concluded: “How little discernment a buyer has at first as to the capabilities of his new purchase! For what “palace” could ever have been as dear to us as our old Revolutionary nondescript house?”

     Anna was thirteen years old and Susan eighteen when they came to the island to live. Young Anna, as she roamed the island, picking wild flowers, exploring the sites of old Revolutionary forts and rowing on the river, barely realized the financial difficulties of her father. Shortly after their move to Constitution Island, Mr. Warner became involved in lengthy litigation with his neighbors on the east bank over his property rights; a litigation which he finally lost. he next decade saw the little family reduced to desperation and faced with eviction; their beloved island property in the hands of a receiver.

     Here is a follow up
     Miss Warner’s Boys

     In 1875 the opportunity came for Susan and Anna Warner to communicate their faith to the cadets at West Point. At the request of several cadets, Susan began a Bible class for them on Sunday afternoons in the Cadet Chapel. Anna tells us:, “The first day, there was a very large gathering, curiosity helping on the numbers. After that, it varied from week to week, as must be always, I suppose; especially among Cadets, where guard duty sometimes interferes; and where Sunday is the free day for seeing friends.”

     “At home, in the summer, they met in our tent near the house, the forage caps tossed out upon the grass; the gray figures in all sorts of positions in and out of the tent”.

     Following is a vivid account of these classes written by a former cadet and published in 1925 by Olivia Phelps Stokes in her biography of the sisters.

     “The visits to Constitution Island were regarded as a great privilege, for not only did they make a break in the severe routine of the daily life but they enabled the boys to roam further a field than was possible at the Academy, where the restrictions of the cadet limits were pretty irksome to boys accustomed to the free run of the town or country. So the privilege of going to Constitution Island as one of “Miss Warner’s boys” was eagerly sought and highly prized. Every Sunday afternoon during the summer encampment the sisters would send their elderly man of all work after the favored ones. He pulled the old flat-bottomed boat across the river to the West Point dock, where the boys with the coveted permits were wailing for him. Usually the trip back was accompanied with more or less excitement, for the boat was always loaded to the last inch of its carrying capacity.

     Miss Susan Warner awaited her guests in the orchard. She always sat in the same big chair supported by many cushions. She was a frail little woman with a long face deeply lined with thought and care, lighted with large, dark very brilliant eyes. As she sat in her chair with the boys in a semi-circle around her on the grass she looked like a print from Godey’s Lady’s Book of half a century before. She always wore silk dresses of a small flowered pattern, made with voluminous skirts of wonderful stiffness, and rustle, and small close fitting bodices. A rich Paisley shawl was always around her shoulders and a broad black velvet ribbon was bound around her hair, which was only slightly gray.

     After each of the boys had read a Bible verse. Miss Warner, choosing her subject from some New Testament text, talked to them for perhaps half an hour until her enthusiasm and interest had obviously almost exhausted her small strength. Her English was the best and purest I have ever heard, and as she went on and her interest grew her eyes shone, like stars and her voice became rich and warm. There was never any cant or sectarianism, and she always gave to the boys the brightest and most optimistic side of the faith she loved so well. When she had finished and lay back pale and weary against her cushions her sister. Miss Anna, came down from the house with the rare treat of the whole week, tea and homemade ginger-bread. After that the two sisters and the boys talked over the things of the world that seemed so far from that peaceful quiet orchard. The boys confided their aims and ambitions, and the sisters in the simplest, most unostentatious way sought to implant right ideals and principles. Miss Warner never forgot any of her boys, and up to the time of her death kept up a correspondence with many of them. This correspondence must have been voluminous, for it embraced men in every branch of the service, and included alike distinguished officers and cadets who had failed. . . “

     After the death of Susan Warner in 1885, Anna continued the Bible classes for cadets. Each week Buckner, her “elderly man of all work” would row her over to West Point to teach her Cadet Bible Class. She always brought with her individual nosegays of flowers from her garden to brighten up their rooms. Even though she often remained on the island up through early December, she never failed to meet her class. One time, in late November, this intrepid lady records that she started out, with Buckner rowing the boat, but was forced to turn back midway in the river because of storm and wind. So the classes continued up until the time of Anna Warner’s death in 1915.

     DO YOU THINK THEY TEACH SUNDAY SCHOOL THERE TODAY?

     http://www.constitutionisland.org/wp/?page_id=26

     http://www.constitutionisland.org/wp/?page_id=28

121. ms. helga | January 11, 2010 at 9:14 am |

     More on Constitution Island –

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Island

122. Jacqlyn Smith | January 11, 2010 at 9:33 am |

     Good Morning all…..have you all seen the latest post at…….

     http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

     Take a look….it shows the FRAUD and Mrs. FRAUD saluting with the left hand…..WTH????

123. magna carta | January 11, 2010 at 9:33 am |

     Yes Sue…we will send $$ today.
     I know Scott does not want to campaign negatively against Martha but the more I have heard about her miscarriages of justice and stance on late-term abortion…
     HOW ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH CAN THIS LADY HAVE ANY CONCERN FOR HUMANITY PERIOD?
     I will post on her exposing her wherever I can …
     SHE MAKES ME SICK!

124. Jacqlyn Smith | January 11, 2010 at 9:46 am |

     Read the entire post at…

     http://americasright.com/?p=2149
     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Dirty Tricks Didn’t Die With Kennedy

     January 11, 2010 by Jeff Schreiber
     Filed under Featured Commentary

     Leave a Comment

     Could it be possible that Ted Kennedy has brought about more dirty tricks and dirty politics in death than he did in life?

     Back in 2004, when Teddy was still the “liberal lion” of the U.S. Senate and when his colleague in Massachusetts, John Kerry, looked likely to prevail over incumbent George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election, Kennedy petitioned the Massachusetts state legislature to change the succession rule from gubernatorial appointment to a special election so as to keep the appointment of Kerry’s replacement out of the manicured hands of then Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican.

125. Carol | January 11, 2010 at 9:50 am |

     Regarding Hilary’s suspicion that BO had imported supporters (Iowa) from outside the state (article today in American Thinker), I talked with a person that was working a flight to (Germany, I believe) back before the election….where it appeared a huge group had been returning from “helping” with the election. Just thought I would mention it…..

126. bob strauss | January 11, 2010 at 9:53 am |

     CW, check out Linda’s comment at TRSOL 1/11/10@1:53am.

     At the bottom of her comment she refers to past efforts to change the requirements for being president in an amendment that has been held in committee for 35yrs.

127. Jacqlyn Smith | January 11, 2010 at 9:57 am |

     Read the entire article at…..

     http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2010/01/04/daily29.html

     Just think of all the money being wasted to debate this immoral and unconstitutional bill the Demo CRAPS are trying to cram down our throats….all at tax payer expense…..kill the bill and fire all of these idiots!!!
     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott warns senators about health care bill
     Dallas Business Journal

     Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has sent letters to U.S. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and John Cornyn, R-Texas, challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. House of Representatives’ health care bill.

     The bill — H.R. 3590 — is also known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

     Abbot in his letter questions the so-called “Nebraska Compromise” that allowed Nebraska to be exempted from Medicaid expense increases in exchange for the vote of a representative from the state.

128. Jacqlyn Smith | January 11, 2010 at 9:59 am |

     #

     bob strauss // January 11, 2010 at 9:53 am

     CW, check out Linda’s comment at TRSOL 1/11/10@1:53am.

     At the bottom of her comment she refers to past efforts to change the requirements for being president in an amendment that has been held in committee for 35yrs.
     ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

     Bob….the DemoCRAPS got tired of waiting and took matters into their own hands….they all know about it and they all should be tried as traitors and imprisoned!!

129. bob strauss | January 11, 2010 at 10:05 am |

     JS, of course they would place their left hand over their heart, they are “leftists”.

130. bob strauss | January 11, 2010 at 10:11 am |

     JS, maybe we can find, in government records the text of the proposed amendment Linda cited and post it for all to read. Defeat them with their own words.

131. bob strauss | January 11, 2010 at 10:14 am |

     Just heard on FOX news, All week long, Judge Napalatono (sp) is going to cover the Constitution and how we are losing our rights.

132. Jacqlyn Smith | January 11, 2010 at 10:29 am |

     Go to…..

     http://americangrandjury.org/

     read the entire post there!

     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Orly Taitz – Defendents oppose transfer of case
     January 11th, 2010

     It is my best guess that Obama’s attorneys figured that once Judge Carter dismissed it was over… far from it! Orly has come back with a strong offense. For sure the Justice Department (Obama, et al) is doing its best to stop Judge Carter from approving the transfer to Judge Lamberth in Washington DC. Orly filed a nice response to their opposition.

     Below are some highlighted excerpts from the filing:

133. Linda from NY | January 11, 2010 at 10:33 am |

     New England Patriots Game

134. Linda from NY | January 11, 2010 at 10:38 am |

     1-10-10 Washington Post on Scott Brown

     http://www.brownforussenate.com/news/01-10-10/1-10-10-washington-post-scott-brown

     “In Case You Missed It…

     Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker today profiles Scott Brown’s race for U.S. Senate.

     “Something has happened the past couple of months. State Sen. Scott Brown, a relative pauper when it comes to political spending, has been closing in. While Coakley has been drumming her fingers until fate gets on with it, Brown has been standing on street corners, holding up signs, delivering posters and putting 200,000 miles on his pickup truck…Who the heck is Scott Brown? Start with this: He’s Joe Six-Pack with a law degree and 30 years in the National Guard.” (Washington Post, 1/10/10)

     Click here to read the full article, “A Republican Senate Upset in Massachusetts?” “

135. Linda from NY | January 11, 2010 at 11:34 am |

     Enjoy!

     http://unclejayexplains.com/2010/01/10/uncle-jay-explains-jan-11-2010/

136. Paul Burke | January 11, 2010 at 11:58 am |

     The MIDDLE CLASS should NOT be paying for this – more money needs to STAY in OUR paychecks so we can save, invest or spend to help bring the economy back. If these political weaklings tax our employee based healthcare to pay for this bill – that means a tax on the Middle Class and I will be furious.

     Allegations of price-fixing, bid-rigging, exclusive sales contracts, local price cutting to freeze out competitors, and the dividing up of markets need to be fully explored through subpoenas and depositions (a law suit by all 50 States and joined by the Feds) so we can get rid of our dysfunctional corporate health care system that’s choking the economy to death.

     Federal workers and retirees can select plans at a cost range from $100 dollars a month for the cheapest individual coverage to $500 dollars for the most expensive family plan. That plan should be available to EVERYONE.

     I’m voting “MY” pocket book – I want lower premiums and less money taken out of my paycheck – if they want to help spur on the economy they will make sure this happens for the majority.

     The bottom line is that 90% of the wealth concentrated in 1% of the population is no way to run a country, but a heck of a way to establish a royalty ruling class. Yacht sales can not sustain 350 million people.

     I’m for the public option, competition and a level playing field or break up the big insurers like we did AT&T.

     A slavish focus on profit margin might be good for the individual or a business, but it is one helluva lousy way to “govern” a Country. The GOP being a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporate America has a hard time with that concept.

     Paul Burke
     Author-Journey Home

137. citizenwells | January 11, 2010 at 12:29 pm |

     Paul Burke.
     Class envy does not work.
     And speaking of working, to receive a “benefit”, the benefit should be earned.
     Big insurance companies are also not the problem.
     Big government is.
     Nice try with the GOP.
     Obama’s recorded contributors tell the tale.
     #1 lawyers and law firms.
     He is in bed with drug cos.

138. Pingback: Paul Kirk can’t vote after Tuesday, Health Care Bill, MA election law, Qualification not certification, Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, US Constitution, Kirk temporary MA Senator, Republican attorneys « Citizen Wells

Leave a Reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ