Category Archives: democratic convention

Democratic convention

AL Supreme Court McInnish V Chapman, Justice Bolin concurrence opinion flawed, Status quo tradition and pass the buck, States control presidential election to electoral certification, Qualified candidates on ballot

AL Supreme Court McInnish V Chapman, Justice Bolin concurrence opinion flawed, Status quo tradition and pass the buck, States control presidential election to electoral certification, Qualified candidates on ballot

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

 

 

I still do not know how to take the concurrence opinion from Justice Bolin in the AL Supreme Court McInnish V Chapman decision.

It is still a bit surreal.

On the one hand, Justice Bolin agrees that the disired result is qualified candidates with any difficiencies discovered by the state. I.E. an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure. He also states that the Alabama legislature should pass laws to facilitate this.

On the other hand, he (in sync with most of the nation) passes the buck, abrogating the responsibility of the state of AL to place a qualified candidate on
the ballot. This is in direct contradiction to the US Constitution as well as federal and state election laws. This is well clarified by Chief Justice Moore.

Most law school graduates are intelligent and take a rigorous course of study.

Perhaps all do not take logic 101.
I will address the “High spots” of what Justice Bolin wrote and why I believe that he erred.

Justice Bolin:

“I respectfully disagree with Chief Justice Moore’s dissent to the extent that it concludes that the Secretary of State presently has an affirmative duty to
investigate the qualifications of a candidate for President of the United States of America before printing that candidate’s name on the general-election
ballot in this State. I fully agree with the desired result; however, I do not agree that Alabama presently has a defined means to obtain it.”

The following AL election statute seems clear to me.

“Section 17-13-6

Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots.

The name of no candidate shall be printed upon any official ballot used at any primary election unless such person is legally qualified to hold the office
for which he or she is a candidate and unless he or she is eligible to vote in the primary election in which he or she seeks to be a candidate and possesses
the political qualifications prescribed by the governing body of his or her political party.”

Justice Bolin:

“The evidence suggests that the Secretary of State had expressed to the plaintiffs and their representatives well prior to the primary and as early as February 2, 2012, that she had no duty to investigate the eligibility qualifications 3 of a presidential candidate. Barack Obama was nominated as
his party’s presidential candidate at the Democratic National Convention on September 5, 2012. For this election, ballots were required to be printed and delivered to the absentee election manager of each county by at least September 27, 2012. See § 17-11-12, Ala. Code 1975. The plaintiffs did not
file their petition challenging Barack Obama’s ballot access until October 11, 2012, approximately eight months after being apprised of the Secretary of State’s position that she had no affirmative duty to investigate and two weeks after the ballots were to be printed and delivered to the various
counties. The failure by the plaintiffs to at least file their petition challenging ballot access during the intervening time between Barack Obama’s nomination as his party’s presidential candidate and the time in which the ballots were due to be printed and delivered to the various counties constitutes, I believe, “inexcusable delay” on the part of the plaintiffs. The prejudice that would have ensued from such a late challenge, if successful, would have been
twofold: first, assuming it could have been accomplished from a practical standpoint, the reprinting and distribution of general-election ballots would have come, at that late date, at great financial cost to the State; and second, and just as important, the reprinted ballots would differ from absentee
ballots already sent to the members of our military and other citizens overseas. This would not be a proper way to conduct such an important election.”

Justice Bolin seems more concerned about a CYA for the Secretary of State than in upholding the constitution.

From the McInnish V Chapman Writ of Mandamus.

“13. On February 2,2072 Plaintiff MCINNISH, together with his attorney and others, visited the Office of the Secretaryo f State,a t which the Hon. Emily
Thompson,Deputy Secretaryo f State,speaking in the absence of and for the Secretary of State, s tated that her office would not investigate the legitimacy of
any candidate ,thus violating her duties under the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions.”

The AL Secretary of State’s office was forewarned.

If the AL Secretary of State had reacted in a responsible, constitutional way, minimally the Attorney General could have been consulted and simple steps
taken to remedy the situation. The plaintiffs were forced to file the Writ of Mandamus. The state of urgency was created by the state of AL. Justice Bolin
attempts to lay the blame on the plaintiffs.

None of the concerns Justice Bolin stated related to upholding the constitution.

“This would not be a proper way to conduct such an important election.”

What about the thousands of disenfranchised voters casting votes for a disqualified candidate?

Justice Bolin:

“Moving beyond the merits of the matter before us, and
with due regard to the vital importance to the citizenry of
the State of Alabama that the names of only properly qualified
candidates appear on a presidential-election ballot for
election to the highest office in our country, I write
specially to note the absence of a statutory framework that
imposes an affirmative duty upon the Secretary of State to
investigate claims such as the one asserted here, as well as
a procedure to adjudicate those claims. The right of a lawful
and proper potential candidate for President to have ballot
access must be tempered and balanced against a clear process
for removal of an unqualified candidate. Nothing in this
process should be left to guesswork, or, with all proper
respect, to unwritten policies of the Secretary of State, and
certainly not without a disqualified candidate having a clear
avenue for judicial review consistent with the time
constraints involved and due-process considerations.”

Nothing in this process should be left to guesswork ???

That is exactly the situation we had in 2008 and 2012. The states abrogating their responsibilities with the last check of checks and balances being the
certification of electoral votes by congress. Congress failed in their duty despite being notified.

Talk about guesswork!

Justice Bolin:

“The general duties and scope of the Secretary of State’s
office are codified in § 36-14-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975.
Section 17-1-3, Ala. Code 1975, provides that the Secretary of
State is the chief elections official in the State and, as
such, shall provide uniform “guidance” for election
activities. It is, however, a nonjudicial office without
subpoena power or investigative authority or the personnel
necessary to undertake a duty to investigate a nonresident
candidate’s qualifications, even if such a duty could properly
be implied.”

What is his point? There were multiple avenues open to the Secretary of State. The AL Attorney General could have been queried and if necessary a
clarification from the courts. The Secretary of state “shall provide uniform ‘guidance'” and “Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots.” Do your job
and let others do theirs. The common sense analogy is from the business world. Managers are responsible but delegate or refer tasks to the appropriate
personnel.

Justice Bolin:

“These sections, when read together, require only that the
Secretary of State certify and include on the general-election
ballot those presidential candidates who have been nominated
by their respective parties following that party’s national
convention and who are otherwise qualified to hold the office
of President. However, nothing in the express wording of
these statutory provisions imposes upon the Secretary of State
the duty to affirmatively investigate the qualifications of a
1120465
11
presidential candidate. Consistent with this conclusion is
Op. Att’y Gen. No. 1998-00200 (August 12, 1998), which states:
“The Secretary of State does not have an
obligation to evaluate all of the qualifications of
the nominees of the political parties and
independent candidates for state offices prior to
certifying such nominees and candidates to the
probate judges pursuant to [§ 17-9-3, Ala. Code
1975]. If the Secretary of State has knowledge
gained from an official source arising from the
performance of duties prescribed by law, that a
candidate has not met a certifying qualification,
the Secretary of State should not certify the
candidate.””

Bingo!

“If the Secretary of State has knowledge gained from an official source arising from the performance of duties prescribed by law, that a candidate has not
met a certifying qualification, the Secretary of State should not certify the candidate.”

He just made my point!

Justice Bolin:

“Rather, the Secretary of State contends that the task of ensuring a candidate’s qualifications is left to the leadership of that candidate’s respective political party, a less than ideal procedure for all challengers because of its partisan nature. See generally Knight v. Gray, 420 So. 2d 247
(Ala. 1982) (holding that the Democratic Party had the authority to hear pre-primary challenges to the political or legal qualifications of its candidates).”

Here is the common thread with most states. Tradition within and without state laws wields more power than it should. State officials are used to getting
their cues from political parties. This is written into state laws. However, political parties have no particular consititutional power or responsibility.

Justice Bolin:

“Courts in other states have tended to agree that the investigation of eligibility requirements of a particular candidate is best left to the candidate’s political party. In Keyes v. Bowen, 189 Cal. App. 4th 647, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 207 (2010), the plaintiffs brought an action against California’s
Secretary of State and others, alleging that there was reasonable doubt that President Obama was a natural-born citizen, as is required to become President of the United States (U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1) and that the Secretary of State had a ministerial duty to verify that President Obama met the constitutional qualifications for office before certifying him for inclusion on the ballot. The trial court entered a judgment against the plaintiffs, concluding that the
Secretary of State was required to see that state election laws were enforced, but that the plaintiffs had failed to identify a state election law imposing a duty upon the Secretary of State to demand documentary proof of birthplace from presidential candidates. Id. The plaintiffs appealed.”

He quotes a CA ruling (speaks for itself).
2 wrongs don’t make a right.

Finally lucidity and responsibility.

Justice Bolin:

“Looking forward, I would respectfully call upon the legislature to provide legislation that imposes this duty upon the Secretary of State and to give that office the authority and tools necessary to compel the compliance by a candidate, and that candidate’s party, upon penalty of disqualification.”

“However, it should not be necessary to rely on a post-election Congressional remedy if it can be proven before the election that the candidate is not qualified. The Secretary of State should have the written mandate to determine requisite qualifications, and a disqualified candidate should have a defined path of expedited judicial review.”

“There are obvious reasons why such post-election challenges would be undesirable. As Rick Hasen has argued in Beyond the Margin of Litigation, pre-election litigation is generally preferable to post-election litigation. It is generally better to resolve disputes before an election, allowing problems to be avoided in advance rather than putting courts in the difficult position of cleaning up the mess afterwards. This is particularly true in the context of a challenge to a presidential candidate’s qualifications. In the event that a candidate is deemed ineligible, the party could still put up a substitute.
“Of course, it is up to states–and, in particular, to state legislatures–to define the rights and remedies available in cases where a presidential candidate is alleged to be ineligible. There is certainly no constitutional requirement that the state provide either a pre-election remedy
(such as denial of ballot access) or a post-election remedy (like an order invalidating election results) for such disputes. But there remains no
constitutional bar to such state-law remedies. In fact, such remedies would seem to fall squarely within what Article II contemplates in leaving it to
state legislatures to define the manner by which presidential electors are appointed.”

Alabama Supreme Court ruling.

https://acis.alabama.gov/displaydocs.cfm?no=565288&event=40Y0LG67K

Advertisements

John Kerry Obama Secretary of State nominee unfit for command, Rear Admiral Roy F Hoffman judgement truthfulness reliability loyalty and trust, Chicago Pay to play politics

John Kerry Obama Secretary of State nominee unfit for command, Rear Admiral Roy F Hoffman judgement truthfulness reliability loyalty and trust, Chicago Pay to play politics

“I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgement, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty, and trust–all absolute tenets of command.”…REAR ADMIRAL ROY F. HOFFMAN, USN (RETIRED)

“In his 2004 DNC speech Obama stated John Kerry will be sworn in as president, and John Edwards will be sworn in as vice president. Thank God that did not happen. We must not let John Kerry be confirmed as Secretary of State.”…Citizen Wells

Chicago Pay to play politics

Why Obama owes John Kerry

From Chicago Magazine June 2007.

“The Speech

When Barack Obama launched into his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he was still an obscure state senator from Illinois. By the
time he finished 17 minutes later, he had captured the nation’s attention and opened the way for a run at the presidency. A behind-the-scenes look at the
politicking, plotting, and preparation that went into Obama’s breakthrough moment”
“A star is born: Obama soaks up the cheers moments after finishing his keynote address. “His public image changed because of that speech,” says Illinois
senator Dick Durbin.

On Saturday, June 26, 2004, Barack Obama sat in a recording studio in Chicago to give his party’s response to President Bush’s weekly radio address. The
speech offered the new Democratic Senate candidate from Illinois one of his first big moments on the national stage. In his remarks-written entirely by his
longtime media adviser, David Axelrod, and by his chief press aide, Robert Gibbs-Obama criticized Bush on a litany of economic issues, from rising health-
care costs and unfair tax policies to job outsourcing. The eloquent and well-argued talk hit all the right Democratic buttons. And the radio waves showcased
Obama’s trademark baritone-deep in pitch, authoritative and reassuring in tone.

But Obama thought the address came off flat. Something was missing. “It was good, but it was nothing awe inspiring,” recalls Gibbs. “It was kind of obvious
that he was recording the words of somebody else.”
So it was not exactly a surprise when, one week later-after John Kerry’s campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, called Obama and told him that he had been
picked to deliver the Democratic National Convention’s keynote address-Obama gave his aides a firm directive: he would write the speech himself. “One thing
that he was very clear about telling us,” says Gibbs, “-and I think it was largely out of that experience of the weekly radio address-was he wanted to write
this speech and write it in a way that was personal.””

“The keynote speech that Barack Obama delivered on Tuesday, July 27, 2004, galvanized the delegates who packed Boston’s FleetCenter and electrified a
nationwide television audience. The 2,297 words uttered over 17 minutes changed Obama’s profile overnight and made him a household name. Before the speech,
the idea of Obama running for president in 2008 would have been laughable; he was a lowly state senator from Chicago’s Hyde Park, and while he stood a good
chance at winning his U.S. Senate race, he would enter that powerful body ranked 99th out of 100 in seniority. After the speech, observers from across the
political world hailed the address as an instant classic, and Obama was drawing comparisons (deservedly or not) to Martin Luther King Jr. and John F.
Kennedy.

None of this happened by chance. Obama’s selection as keynote speaker was carefully plotted by all sides for maximum effect, and the speech itself was no
outpouring of inspiration scribbled on the back of an envelope. Obama labored over it for weeks, harvesting lines that he had already tested on Illinois
crowds. He is said to have been furious when one of his best remarks was cut by Kerry’s speechwriters. And even after all the preparation, the editing and
vetting by aides to Obama and Kerry, and the three run-throughs at the convention, the speech almost didn’t take flight-on the dais, Obama was slow to hit
his stride. But once he got going, the speech-and his career-took off: “Without that Boston speech, there’s a question whether Barack would be running [for
president] today,” says his fellow senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin. “His public image changed because of that speech.” Valerie Jarrett, a veteran Chicago
politico and one of Obama’s longtime friends, puts it more succinctly: “It changed his life.””

“Who the Heck Is This Guy?” Obama admitted in interviews at the time that he was “totally surprised” by the speaking invitation. (Through his spokesman, he
declined to be interviewed for this story.) As he put it in his book The Audacity of Hope: “The process by which I was selected as the keynote speaker
remains something of a mystery to me.”

A closer look, however, reveals less mystery and more politics.”

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/June-2007/The-Speech/

Why John Kerry must not be Secretary of State

Unfit for Command

From Citizen Wells August 13, 2008.

John Kerry, who has about the least amount of credibility of anyone who has ever run for office, has started a new website, TruthFightsBack.com. Here is the statement from the Kerry site:

“Please give to support truthfightsback.com!

This effort to beat back rightwing smears and have an election based on reality and truth is completely in your hands. From the reporting and debunking of smears to the spreading of the truth, we are depending on you. And to make it all work, we need your financial support, both to develop the website further and to put more resources behind spreading the truth.

This is a project of John Kerry’s Campaign For Our Country, so please contribute to Campaign For Our Country to support truthfightsback.com!”

Jerome Corsi, PHD, has written a new book, “The Obama Nation.” Mr. Corsi, who coauthored “Unfit for Command,” a book about the reputation of John Kerry and the many lies he told, has exposed Obama for the deceitful fraud he is as well as his ties to corruption and left wing extremists. Anyone who has questioned Obama has received personal attacks and Jerome Corsi is no exception.

I have a copy of “Unfit for Command” as well as “The Obama Nation.” On the introduction page of “Unfit for Command” is the following quote. It speaks volumes about John Kerry and his credibility:

“I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgement, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty, and trust–all absolute tenets of command.”

REAR ADMIRAL ROY F. HOFFMAN, USN (RETIRED)

Commander of the Swift Boats in Vietnam, 1968-1969

Call sign “Latch”

I and other concerned citizens are not going to let the Obama camp, in league with John Kerry, attack Jerome Corsi or anyone else for revealing the truth about Obama.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/truthfightsbackcom-john-kerry-obama-truth-fights-back-more-obama-lies-more-kerry-lies-citizen-wells-reveals-kerry-lies-bloggers-fight-back/

From Citizen Wells August 14, 2008.

“I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgement, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty, and trust–all absolute tenets of command.”

REAR ADMIRAL ROY F. HOFFMAN, USN (RETIRED)

Commander of the Swift Boats in Vietnam, 1968-1969

John Kerry meddling in foreign affairs (from “Unfit for Command):
“About one year earlier, two young Americans had also come to
Paris, presumably for their honeymoon: John Kerry, a young, clean
shaven Navy war veteran, accompanied by his new wife, the former
Julia Thorne, who could trace her lineage back to George Washington.
But honeymooning was not John Kerry’s only reason for traveling to
Paris. Kerry’s presidential campaign has now acknowledged that he
“talked privately with a leading Communist representative” there.

For decades, this meeting had been only a rumor. The rumor
stemmed from a comment Kerry made in the less publicized question
and answer segment of his April 22, 1971, testimony before the
Fulbright Committee: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both
delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic
of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.””

From the Petition to Impeach Senator Obama. Meddling in the affairs of Kenya and abuse of power:

Whereas: As a US Senator, Barack Obama violated the stated intention of
his 2006 Official Government Visa to Africa by publicly propagandizing
for his cousin, Railla Odinga against the US democratic ally of Kenya.
Whereas the stated “mission” of Senator Obama’s Official Visa, according
to the Kenya Office of Public Communications, was to “nurture relations
between the Continent and the United States” he, instead, made public
protest before Kenya citizens to rally against their leadership,
invoking a need for “Change!” and accusing this US allied nation of
“corruption.” In Official Protest of Mr. Obama’s passport abuse and
misconduct, Kenya’s government cited his “extremely disturbing
statements on issues which it is clear, he was very poorly informed, and
on which he chose to lecture the Government and the people of Kenya on
how to manage our country.” Whereas, furthermore, there is no public
record of any sanctions or reprimand by the US Congress of Senator
Obama’s passport violation or campaigning on foreign soil against a US
ally, history has since recorded the broadspread destruction of Kenya’s
economy and large scale loss of life as a result of the violence
instigated by Odinga’s ODM campaign there.”

View the complaint from the Kenyan Government here:

http://www.communication.go.ke/media.asp?id=284

Note that what was once considered to be a rumor about Kerry’s trip turned out to be true.

To John Kerry and the Truth Fights Back site.

The response from the Kenyan Government to Obama’s 2006 visit is not a rumor or a smear. It is what we commonly refer to as a fact.

John Kerry, do you have a response to these facts?

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/truth-fights-back-john-kerry-obama-communist-visits-aiding-and-abetting-the-enemy-abuse-of-power-logan-act/

Bishop E.W. Jackson Christians leave Democrat Party, Manipulated deceived and misled black community for a long time, Democrats only care about staying in power

Bishop E.W. Jackson Christians leave Democrat Party, Manipulated deceived and misled black community for a long time, Democrats only care about staying in power

After  breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!”…Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”…Barack Obama

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32

God bless Bishop E.W. Jackson.

From NE News Now.

“Calling on Christians to leave Democratic Party”

“A prominent black pastor, upset over the direction the Democrat Party has taken, is asking Christians to change political affiliations.

Bishop E.W. Jackson of S.T.A.N.D. (Staying True To America’s National Destiny) has launched a project called “Exodus Now,” which calls for a “mass exodus of Christians from the Democrat Part.”

“We believe that the Democrat Party has shown itself to be anti-Christian, anti-Bible, anti-family, anti-life and anti-God, and it’s time for Christians to come out,” Jackson explains. “We are focusing particularly — not exclusively, but particularly — on black Christians who in our view have been held captive by the Democrat Party with a tissue of lies.”

While S.T.A.N.D. is encouraging people to vote their conscience, the group’s founder asserts, “We have stayed away from either endorsing Mitt Romney or saying that this is a call to vote against President Obama and make it personal. But I will say this,” Jackson adds. “We’re calling people to come out of the Democrat Party and not support candidates who represent its values and the rebellion that it represents against God. That certainly would include President Barack Obama.”

Bishop Jackson notes that the Democrat Party has “manipulated, deceived and misled the black community” for a long time, and it’s time “to awaken them that they are being used in a power game by Democrats who could care less about the black community, only care about staying in power, and they will use the black community for as long as they will allow them to use them.””

http://onenewsnow.com//politics-govt/2012/09/24/calling-on-christians-to-leave-democratic-party

I have been saying this for years. The Democrats have been using blacks and others to stay in power. Barack Obama is the poster child for this bad behaviour.

From Citizen Wells, October 8, 2008 – Catholic Bishops report, 1997, ACORN corruption

“To be eligible to receive CHD funds, a program must be run by the poor, benefit the poor, and change social structures that harm the poor.” However, in light of the politically oriented thrust of ACORN’s activities, it is fair to ask whether the CHD subsidies to ACORN are advisable and commensurate with the purposes of CHD.”

“This commentary does not oppose CHD funding of genuine, grassroots community organizations, run and supported by individual members of a parish or diocese. There is potential value and virtue in the collective voice. However, when the CHD funds Alinsky-style, church-based community organizations as in the best interest of the poor and supports organizations which advance other agendas, it divests the poor of their right to an authentic voice. This process tends to treat the poor as exploited units of human capital, rather than as human beings created in the dignity of God’s image.”

Citizen Wells article

I attended a high school class reunion recently and one of the classmates I spoke with attends a large Baptist Church. He assured me that the majority of folks there were not Obama supporters. I said to him “I don’t see how anyone professing to be Christian can support Obama.”

From the Democrat Convention in Charlotte, NC.

During the Civil War, mountain men in NC, who were either Union supporters or not concerned with the war were conscripted by NC Democrats and forced to fight. That is why to this day, many of them are Republicans. My great great grandfather carried a minnie ball in his leg the rest of his life. I wonder if that is why my grandfather and father were Republicans.

And, of course, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

NC Obama Democrat party God country and common sense, Charlotte sells soul to devil?, Democrats destroy jobs and economy boo God and Jerusalem

NC Obama Democrat party God country and common sense, Charlotte sells soul to devil?, Democrats destroy jobs and economy boo God and Jerusalem

“Guilford (Large NC County) appears on it’s way to a third consecutive year with annual jobless rates in double digits. Economists say that likely hasn’t happened since the Great Depression.”…Greensboro News Record December 2, 2011

“Most college students are in the peak of health. Hence, covering their health care is usually a pretty easy thing to do. A number of colleges—particularly small, private liberal-arts institutions—offer their students what are called “limited-benefit” plans, which cover health expenses up to a defined cap, such as $10,000. Because expenses are capped, these plans are extremely inexpensive, with premiums ranging from $150-500 per year.

However, Obamacare prohibits capping insurance payouts, causing premiums to skyrocket. For 2013-2014, the law prohibits caps below $500,000 per year; after 2014, caps are banned entirely.”…Forbes June 5, 2012

“We tried our plan—and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.”…Barack Obama

My ancestral roots go back to the early 1700’s in NC and though my recent ones do not include participation in the NC Democrat Party, the old conservative Democrat Party of NC, which did not shun God, country and common sense, would have been easier to embrace.

This is not your father’s Democrat Party!

For example.

You have heard Barack and Michelle Obama and other democrats lie about job creation, inheriting a mess and blame George Bush.

The Democrats took control of both houses of congress in January 2007 and Obama took control of the White House in January 2009. A perfect storm of incompetence.

From the 2012 Democrat Platform.

“When President Obama took office, the economy was in the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression. His Recovery Act represented the largest education investment since President Johnson, the largest infrastructure investment since President Eisenhower, the single largest clean energy investment ever, and the broadest tax cut in American history. It helped keep teachers, police officers, nurses, and firefighters on the job. It ensured that as we re-built our country, we bought American-made iron, steel, and manufactured goods wherever feasible, consistent with our international obligations. It helped the President stop the bleeding and reverse the free fall.”

“We’ve come a long way since 2008. The President took office in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression; that month 800,000 Americans lost their jobs – more than in any single month in the previous 60 years. On Day One, he took immediate action to stop the free fall and put Americans back to work. In the midst of the crisis, President Obama knew what Democrats have always known: that American workers are tougher than tough times. Since early 2010, the private sector has created 4.5 million jobs, and American manufacturing is growing for the first time since the 1990s.”

Let’s examine for a moment a microcosm economy, Greensboro, NC, the third largest city in NC, the home of UNCG, where Michelle Obama recently bragged about jobs and what they had done for college students.

In January 2007, when the Democrats took control of congress, the unemployment rate was 4.6 to 5.2 percent (looks like somebody has been “tweaking” the numbers).

In December 2008, after 2 years of Democrat control, the rate was 8.2 percent. In January 2009, when Obama entered the White House, the rate was 9.6 percent. Did the rate jump actually jump 1.4 percent in one month (to maybe help Obama)? Since the Democrats were in control anyway, who cares.

The rate for July is listed at 10.2 percent.

So, with the efforts of the Democrats beginning in January 2007 and Obama working with them beginning in January 2009, the unemployment rate went from 4.8 – 5.2 percent to 10.2 percent.

That is certainly change!

From the 2012 Democrat Platform.

“These values are why we enacted historic health care reform that provides economic security for families and enacted sweeping financial reform legislation that will prevent the recklessness that cost so many their jobs, homes, and savings.”

“They’re why we helped American families who are working multiple jobs and struggling to pay the bills save a little extra money through tax cuts, lower health care costs, and affordable student loans.”

“We’ve already made historic progress. States have more flexibility to raise standards and reform schools, more students are receiving grants and scholarships, and young adults can stay on their parents’ health insurance plans as they finish their education and enter the workforce.”

From Citizen Wells September 4, 2012.

“I just spoke with a young man a few minutes ago who attends Greensboro College, a private college in NC. He mentioned that his health care costs had just almost doubled. Recently, reported here, was a report that the UNC system, NC public colleges, had almost doubled the health care costs for students and the reason was provisions in Obamacare.”

“Health Insurance Costs Skyrocket For College Students Due To ObamaCare”

“Can we stop calling ObamaCare the Affordable Care Act now?

A Young America’s Foundation activist forwarded an email from the Vice President for Finance at his school, Guilford College (Greensboro, NC), informing him that, “For the 2012-13 academic year, the annual cost of the student health insurance is increasing from $668 to $1,179. This insurance premium has been charged to your student account.”

Why the increase? “Our student health insurance policy premium has been substantially increased due to changes required by federal regulations issued on March 16, 2012 under the Affordable Care Act.”

“Student healthcare choice has been replaced with expensive ObamaCare mandates.”

“Registration cancellations rising at UNCG, A&T”

“UNCG about two weeks ago canceled the registrations of about 1,300 students because they had yet to pay their tuition bills — the highest number of cancellations since fall 2009, university officials said.””

“Amid chants of protest from about 100 students, the UNC Board of Governors this morning approved President Tom Ross’ proposal for tuition and
fee hikes over the next two years.”

“The cost of health insurance will climb from a range of $61 to $77 monthly to a range of $118 to $133 monthly, according to a memo sent from UNC President Tom Ross to the UNC Board of Governors. On an annual basis, most students will pay about $500 to $700 more in 2012-13, depending on the campus.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/dnc-convention-september-4-2012-obama-cares-with-obamacare-obamacare-doubles-nc-college-student-health-care-in-2012-lies-lies-more-obama-lies/

It gets worse folks.

From Forbes June 5, 2012.

“Obamacare Increases Costs of College Health Plans by as Much as 1,112%”

“Last March, I wrote a detailed pieceon why Obamacare will dramatically increase the cost of insurance for young people. Yesterday, Louise Radnofsky of theWall Street Journal reported that some colleges are dropping their student health plans for the new academic year, because the new law increases the cost of those plans by as much as 1,112 percent. And no, that’s not a typo.

Most college students are in the peak of health. Hence, covering their health care is usually a pretty easy thing to do. A number of colleges—particularly small, private liberal-arts institutions—offer their students what are called “limited-benefit” plans, which cover health expenses up to a defined cap, such as $10,000. Because expenses are capped, these plans are extremely inexpensive, with premiums ranging from $150-500 per year.

However, Obamacare prohibits capping insurance payouts, causing premiums to skyrocket. For 2013-2014, the law prohibits caps below $500,000 per year; after 2014, caps are banned entirely.”

“Lenoir-Rhyne University in Hickory, N.C. paid $245 per student per year for 2011-2012. Next year, they’ll have to pay $2,507 to meet the law’s requirements.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/06/05/obamacare-increases-costs-of-college-health-plans-by-as-much-as-1112/

The folks in Charlotte have been celebrating the success of the convention.

There are a lot of good people there. I hope that they have retained enough religious convictions and common sense to not be blinded by the light. The false light. And not to sell their souls to the devil….again.

Obama speech in Charlotte, NC September 6, 2012, Blagojevich appeal delayed like arrest in 2008, Tony Rezko behind bars, Obama Rezko pay to play politics not forgotten

Obama speech in Charlotte, NC September 6, 2012, Blagojevich appeal delayed like arrest in 2008, Tony Rezko behind bars, Obama Rezko pay to play politics not forgotten

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

“Why did the Rezkos pay asking price for the lot adjacent to the Obama mansion, a lot which was subsequently valued 20 percent less?…Citizen Wells

“Why did Mutual Bank fire whistleblower Kenneth J Connor after he challenged the appraisal on the land purchased by Rita Rezko, just prior to the land sale to Obama?”…Citizen Wells

Before presenting the facts about the Obama Rezko lot purchase, I am waiting on clarification from a participant in this transaction. But since Barack Obama is speaking in my home state tonight in Charlotte, confidant once again that Rod Blagojevich is out of the limelight with his appeal delayed, just like his arrest was delayed in 2008, and Tony Rezko is behind bars, I just want to let Obama know that his ties to Rezko and Chicago pay to play politics are not forgotten.

Here is a good article from WND dated April 20, 2011.

“HOW CONVICTED FELON HELPED OBAMA BUY HOME”

“In the 2008 presidential campaign, now-convicted felon Tony Rezko’s role in helping Barack and Michelle Obama purchase their dream home at 5046 S. Greenwood Ave. in Chicago’s Hyde Park area created a scandal that threatened to derail Obama’s presidential hopes.

As the elements of the scandal emerged, Obama went into overdrive, holding extensive interview meetings with the staffs of Chicago’s two major newspapers, with his supporters rebutting and attacking critics and justifying Obama’s decisions.

The deal

Here are the key points in how Obama wanted to represent the home purchase once the criticism began:

  • When a prestige house across the street from Tony Rezko’s came on the market at 5046 S. Greenwood, Rezko must have thought it was just perfect for Barack and Michelle Obama and their two daughters. Rezko found the house for Obama. Salon.com reported that Donna Schwan of MetroPro Realty, the real estate agent who listed the property, recalled that the deal started when Rezko expressed interest in the listing,according to the Chicago Tribune.
  • The house was evidently perfect, a 96-year-old, multi-story, 6,400-square-foot, brick Georgian Revival home with four fireplaces, six bedrooms, six bathrooms, glass-door bookcases fashioned from Honduran mahogany, and a wine cellar large enough to store 1,000 bottles, the Tribune reported. The house was situated on a large double corner lot, with the vacant lot adjoining the home at the street corner. With a foot-tall concrete barrier and a wrought iron fence surrounding the property, there was no access to the vacant lot, except through Obama’s driveway.The neighborhood was in Kenwood, a South Side oasis of pricey homes attractive to the University of Chicago professors who liked to live close to work. The property would be a nice step-up for the Obama family seeking to move from the small Hyde Park condo the couple bought in 1993 for $277,500, where they lived in the eight years Obama was state senator, to a prestige home suitable for the family of a U.S. senator, the Boston Globe reported.The problem was that the doctor and his wife who owned the property, Fredrick E. Wondisford and Sally R. Radovick, wanted to sell the vacant lot and the house at the same time, even though the two properties were separately listed. Also, while the sellers wanted to find a buyer as quickly as possible, they did not want to close the deal until June 2005.
  • The list price just for the home was $1.95 million, outside the reach of the Obama family, even with Obama’s re-issued 1995 autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” hitting bestseller lists, his U.S. Senate salary of $157,082, and Michelle’s 2005 income of $317,000 at the University of Chicago Hospitals, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported.
  • Rezko came up with a solution. His wife Rita bought the vacant lot at the full asking price, permitting Obama and Michelle to negotiate buying the house for $1.65 million, a discount of $300,000 from the asking price.
  • Rita Rezko closed on the vacant lot the same day the Obamas closed on the house, paying $625,000 for the vacant lot.

“Both actions would be clear violations of Senate ethics rules baring the granting or asking of favors,”wrote John Fund in the Wall Street Journal.

The Boston Globe reported Obama asked Rezko’s advice in negotiating the deal – after all, Rezko was supposedly experienced with real estate, having negotiated so many low-income housing deals in Chicago – and Obama toured the house with Rezko before making an offer.

The Boston Globe also reported real estate agent Schwan’s recollection that the Obamas may not have made the highest bid, but the willingness of the Obamas and Rita Rezko to close in June was decisive.

This detail shows the importance of Rezko to the ability of the Obamas to buy their dream house. Had Rita Rezko not been willing to buy the vacant lot in June, “the deal was off.”

Obamas buy slice of vacant lot

After the Obamas moved in, the senator and his wife decided they wanted to buy a slice of the vacant lot.

The Boston Globe reported an independent appraisal of the entire vacant lot parcel was worth about $500,000, about $125,000 less than Rita had paid for it. The Obamas wanted to buy one-sixth of the vacant lot, to create a yard next to the house.

The appraisal said the strip Obama wanted to buy was worth only $40,500, because it was not suitable for building. Still, in January 2006, the Obamas paid Rita Rezko $104,500 for the one-sixth strip, a proportionate share of what Rita had paid for the entire vacant lot. Rita built a fence to separate out the rest of the vacant lot, and the deal was closed.

Obama hired an attorney and architect to design a wrought iron fence on the new property line, including the one-sixth of the vacant lot bought from Rita. Rezko agreed to pay the $14,000 cost of building the fence, and Obama agreed to pay his landscaper to mow Rita’s vacant lot for her, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Enter Michael J. Sreenan

Then, when Tony Rezko was indicted, Rita Rezko sold the vacant lot, evidently needing the funds.

The Chicago Tribune reported land records in the Cook County Recorder of Deeds database showed Rita sold the “garden lot” on Dec. 28, 2006, to a company owned by former Rezko business attorney Michael J. Sreenan that planned to develop housing on the lot.

Rita sold the remaining five-sixths of the vacant lot for $575,000, netting an estimated $54,500 from the sale. A spokesman for Obama said the senator was aware development was planned on the lot but denied he knew any of the details.

Following the sale of the lot, the blog Rezko Watch reported that following Obama’s marathon sessions with the Chicago Sun-Times and Tribune on March 14, 2008, Obama released a new list of Rezko-related campaign contributors whose money had been released to charity.

On the list was a $2,000 donation Michael Sreenan made to Obama on June 30, 2003.

Then Politico.com reported Sreenan made five other contributions totaling $3,500 to Obama on the same days other Rezko associates and employees contributed often matching sums.

Sreenan’s first contribution on record was a $1,000 check reported on the same March 2000 day that five other Rezko employees contributed a like sum. Evidently, Obama donated all these Rezko contributions to charity.

Then, in an article entitled “Obama is one lucky fellow,” Rezko Watch reported the Obamas had little to fear that Sreenan would actually construct any condos on the lot Sreenan bought from Rita Rezko.

According to Rezko Watch, Alderman Toni Preckwinkle has rejected plans from a prospective buyer who wanted to build a single-family home on the lot adjoining the Obama home, as well as a developer’s plans to put condos up there.

Preckwinkle declared that any home built on that land would have to be compatible with the neighborhood’s mansions.

Preckwinkle, Rezko Watch noted, is not only the Democratic Committeeman of the 4th Ward, but she is a known Obama supporter. The Chicago Sun-Times has reported Rezko was conveniently the long-time head of Preckwinkle’s campaign-finance committee. Six of Rezko’s problem housing projects are in Preckwinkle’s 4th Ward.

A ‘bonehead’ deal

After a year of taking heat in the local Chicago media over the Rezko scandal, Obama finally decided to face the music, coming into the offices of the Chicago Sun-Times on March 14, 2008, and the offices of the Chicago Tribune the same day, to give a lengthy opening statement and answer questions from the newspapers’ editorial staff and investigative reporters.

The Sun-Times bluntly asked Obama, “Why didn’t alarm bells go off when you agreed to buy a 10-foot-wide strip of property to buffer your home at the same time reports were coming out that [Rezko] was being investigated for alleged illegal influence-peddling?”

Obama answered, “Probably because I had known him for a long time, and he had acted in an above-board manner with me, and I considered him a friend. In retrospect it should have, so this was a mistake on my part.”

The newspaper pressed, reminding Obama that he had spoken a lot about judgment in his presidential campaign, asking if the decision to purchase the 10-foot-wide strip from Rezko was a judgment issue.

Obama repeated that the decision was a mistake, adding for emphasis, “I said it was a bonehead move. I think it is further evidence I am not perfect.” The comment “bonehead move” stuck and was repeated widely in the media after the interview.

In his prepared statement, Obama told the Sun-Times that Michelle fell in love with the house. The next day, in his prepared statement to the Tribune, Obama explained, “Michelle calls me and says, “I’m in, I love this house, but it’s more than we were talking about paying for, but I really think it’s a great house, you should go take a look at it.”

When the Tribune grilled Obama about whether he and Rezko had coordinated their bids so Obama could afford to buy the home at a discounted price, Obama admitted he and Rezko had toured the home together before making offers.

Obama denies wrongdoing

Obama told the Tribune he had a written statement from the sellers, saying “at no time did they ever consider the lot in relation to the price of the house, that they did not offer a discount on the house, that there was no contingency with respect to our house purchase relative to the lot.”

The transcript of the question-and-answer session clearly shows the Tribune staff had a hard time believing Obama. Yet, Obama persisted, denying he coordinated the purchase with Rezko.

Obama insisted he believed Rezko bought the vacant lot because Rezko thought it was a good business decision to develop it.

Obama could offer no explanation of why Rita Rezko bought the vacant lot, instead of her husband, and he complained that the sellers were private people who objected to reporters intruding into their lives with hostile questions.

The Tribune asked directly, “The issue of judgment is one of the keystones of your campaign right now. How should Americans look at this series of events that you’ve just laid out?”

Obama answered, “I think that the way they should view it is that I made a mistake in not seeing the potential conflicts of interest or appearances of impropriety.”

Still, he insisted, “They should see somebody who was not engaged in any wrongdoing, who did not in any way betray the public trust, who has maintained consistently high ethical standards and who they can trust.”

In his account of the interview, Tribune reporter David Jackson noted that the question-and-answer session was the first time Obama disclosed he and Rezko had toured the Kenwood home together.

“In his first accounts of the purchase, Obama did not divulge that tour,” Jackson wrote. “He said Friday that he simply didn’t feel the information was salient and insisted the tour didn’t mean he and Rezko coordinated their purchases.”

“Obama: I trusted Rezko,” was the way Jackson’s story was titled.”

http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/289529/

Democrat convention September 5, 2012, Speakers reveal Democrat priorities, Pro attorneys, Pro unions, Anti God, Anti American, Social safety net not jobs

Democrat convention September 5, 2012, Speakers reveal Democrat priorities, Pro attorneys, Pro unions, Anti God, Anti American, Social safety net not jobs

“Too many middle-class families who have fallen on hard times are still struggling,”…Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Sept. 4, 2012

“With a 63.7% labor force participation, “conditions in the labor market are considerably worse than indicated” in July’s report”…economist Joshua Shapiro, WSJ August 3, 2012

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

The Obamas always reveal their agenda. Hopefully enough people are really listening this time.

From the Washington Times September 4, 2012.

“First lady Michelle Obama pleaded with voters Tuesday to reward her husband with re-election, telling delegates at the Democrats’ convention that President Obama comes from humble beginnings but was able to reach the White House by taking advantage of the same kind of social safety net he defends on the campaign trail.

Democrats convened their nominating convention with a mix of sharp barbs against Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his personal wealth, and a defense of Mr. Obama’s first-term record on everything from health care to gay rights.

Seeking to unify Democrats and win over independents with the inspirational story that powered Mr. Obama to an historic election in 2008, Mrs. Obama told delegates her husband is still pushing for the vision voters embraced four years ago.

She said also the president’s push for government programs is personal because they are the foundation he himself used to climb to the White House.

“He believes that when you’ve worked hard, and done well, and walked through that doorway of opportunity, you do not slam it shut behind you — you reach back and you give other folks the same chances that helped you succeed,” she said, her pointedly personal appeal winning chants of “Four more years” from the frenetic crowd.”

“Mr. Romney is running on a message of cutting spending and lowering government regulations, arguing that smaller government will unleash the private sector to create jobs, which will create economic security for everyone.

But Mr. Obama argues a stronger safety net will provide more even opportunities for everyone.”

“Democrats pointed to a series of laws he’s signed, including health care and the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which overturned a Supreme Court decision and made it easier for women to sue over pay discrimination.

“It says something about his priorities that the first bill he would put his name on, has my name on it too,” Ms. Ledbetter said in addressing the convention.

She also challenged Mr. Romney to take a stand on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would open up still more opportunities to sue over pay discrimination.”

“Democrats shied away from the federal budget during their opening session, instead focusing on social issues such as abortion and women’s and minority rights.

In opening the convention on Tuesday, delegates voted by voice to adopt their platform, becoming the first major political party to specifically endorse same-sex marriage as an option. The platform also defends labor unions and demands a higher minimum wage; calls for stricter gun control laws; and lays out a plan to grant illegal immigrants a full path to citizenship.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/4/first-lady-michelle-obama-hails-husband-dnc/?page=all#pagebreak

As expected, they used the benevolent sounding phrase “Social safety net.” The Democrats are big on that and they should be. They are great job destroyers. However most of us want a safety net to be just that. Something to catch any of us if an exception occurs, not a substitute for jobs.

From Forbes September 4, 2012.

“Food-Stamp Use Climbs To Record, Reviving Campaign Issue”
“Food-stamp use reached a record 46.7 million in June, the government said, as Democrats prepare to nominate President Barack Obama for a second term with the economy as a chief issue in the campaign.

Participation was up 0.4 percent from May and 3.3 percent higher than a year earlier and has remained greater than 46 million all year as the unemployment rate stayed higher than 8 percent. New jobless numbers will be released Sept. 7.

“Unemployment is stubbornly stuck,” making it difficult to significantly reduce the number of food-stamp recipients, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview last month.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-04/food-stamp-use-climbed-to-record-46-7-million-in-june-u-s-says.html

Obama and the Democrats are in bed with law firms and attorneys. That is why these statements were made.

“Democrats pointed to a series of laws he’s signed, including health care and the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which overturned a Supreme Court decision and made it easier for women to sue over pay discrimination.

“It says something about his priorities that the first bill he would put his name on, has my name on it too,” Ms. Ledbetter said in addressing the convention.

She also challenged Mr. Romney to take a stand on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would open up still more opportunities to sue over pay discrimination.”

This is also why there is no tort reform in Obamacare.