Category Archives: Election 2010

US Chamber of Commerce, Obama, Chamber pledges to stop Obama agenda, Play big role in November elections, President Thomas Donohue, Health care legislation, Fiscal insolvency, Valerie Jarrett

“Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.”…George Bernard Shaw

Those who can’t do, won’t do, have never successfully run a business and hate business are part of the Obama Administration…Citizen Wells

 

From USA Today, January 12, 2010.

“U.S. Chamber pledges to stop Obama agenda, play big role in Nov. elections”

“U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue attacked President Obama’s domestic agenda Tuesday, criticizing Democratic efforts on climate change, health care and oversight of the nation’s financial system.

And he pledged to use the chamber’s might in November’s elections to take on the president’s allies in Congress.”

“The chamber will carry out “the largest, most aggressive” campaign in its 100-year history as it works to influence the outcome of mid-term congressional elections and stop legislation it views as harmful to the economy, he said. “As Americans choose a new House and senators this fall,” Donohue added, “the chamber will highlight lawmakers and candidates who support a pro-jobs agenda and hold accountable those who don’t.””

Read more:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2010/01/us-chamber-pledges-to-stop-obama-agenda-play-big-role-in-nov-elections.html

Apparently Obama and US Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue are not good buddies. Of course, the Obama Administration, a model of business acumen and job creation, has it’s answer to the US Chamber of Commerce in the Business Roundtable. Valerie Jarrett is the president’s liaison to the corporate world. You remember Jarrett.

“I was in the process of reporting more on Valerie Jarrett and her past ties to corruption in Chicago and I will do so. For now, Michelle Malkin does an excellent job in this video of exposing the truth about Obama and Jarrett and their motives for getting the Olympics for Chicago.”…Valerie Jarrett, corrupt slumlord Obama friend

From the LA Times, October 25, 2009.

“White House confronts the U.S. Chamber of Commerce”

“WASHINGTON — The Obama White House, stepping in where other Democrats feared to tread, has launched a potentially risky fight with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — attempting to bypass the nation’s most powerful business organization and develop independent ties to corporate America.

In recent weeks, President Obama, his Energy secretary and one of his other most senior advisors have begun criticizing the chamber publicly, casting it as a profligate lobbying organization at odds with its members in opposing the administration on such issues as consumer protection and climate change.

At the same time, the administration has been meeting privately with prominent corporate leaders — more than 60 of them since June — in an effort to develop its own pipeline to the business community.
The White House also has gone out of its way to cultivate another corporate group, the Business Roundtable, which is much smaller than the chamber but represents chief executives of many of the nation’s largest corporations.

“Our strategy is to reach out directly to the business community,” said Valerie Jarrett, the president’s liaison to the corporate world. “This is a shift. Previously, the chamber had served as the sole intermediary for business. That’s not our approach.”

Jarrett praised the Business Roundtable, saying that it brings member CEOs to White House meetings in addition to Washington lobbyists.

In an indirect dig at the chamber, Jarrett said the roundtable meetings were more substantive and valuable because they included not just a trade association leader but someone who actually runs a business.

The White House role in criticizing the chamber has, predictably, riled Republicans. But it also has made some Democrats nervous.”

Read more:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/25/nation/na-chamber25

Here are some exerpts from the speech of US Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue, January 12, 2010.

“Think for a moment about the nation’s job creators—the men and women who run our small and large businesses—as well as those who lead our universities, our health care facilities and the many other institutions that employ our workforce. If you were in their shoes today, would you jump quickly into new investments and hiring? Or would you wait for some clarity, and some common sense, to take hold first?

Most of these job creators would like nothing more than to keep their workers employed, create new jobs, and bring some hope and relief to families struggling without a paycheck. But when they look at what’s going on in Washington, in the states, and around the world, what do they see?

They see massive tax increases on the horizon—not just the expiration of the tax cuts passed over the last decade, but also hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes.

They see health care legislation that contains a burdensome mandate on employers and virtually no meaningful reforms to improve quality or control costs.

They see a climate change bill and potential EPA regulations that could significantly raise energy prices and impose new layers of bureaucracy on their organizations.

They see financial services legislation moving forward that could choke off their access to capital at a time when lending is already very tight.

America’s job creators also see a renewed push by unions to pass card check and many other measures to control the workplace.

They see the trial bar working with their allies in Congress and with many state attorneys general to expand opportunities for new litigation.

They see the rise of trade isolationism at home and abroad that could threaten their export markets—and now, renewed fears about terrorism.

And our job creators see the federal government planning to expand the national debt by at least $9 trillion over the next decade—more debt than has been piled up in all previous years since George Washington. They see many states going broke as well. What will the impact be on their companies and employees?

These are the uncertainties that job creators are wrestling with—uncertainties that call into question how quick or strong our economic recovery will be. And no one is paying a higher price than the American worker.

Over seven million Americans have lost their jobs since the recession began. Ten percent of the workforce is unemployed—a number that soars beyond 17 percent when you add those who have stopped looking for jobs and the millions of part-time workers who want to work full-time.”

Read more:

http://www.uschamber.com/press/speeches/2010/100112_sab

By the way, the Chamber of Commerce of a major NC city, was my first business account assigned to me when I was young. It was a pleasure to present this article.

MA senate debate video, January 11, 2010, Scott Brown, Martha Coakley, Joseph L Kennedy, Youtube video, Cspan video

*** Update below  1:20 PM, EST ***

The MA senate debate between Scott Brown, Martha Coakley and  Joseph L Kennedy took place last night January 11, 2010 at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. Here is a Youtube video with portions of video from Fox 25, Boston and News 22, WWLP, Springfield, MA. Links to the complete videos are below.


http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/p…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgT_TS…

Cspan video.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/291174-1

This post will be updated later today.

***  Update  ***

The Boston Globe provided interactive comments during the debate.

At 7:02 PM poll results were presented

What candidate do you support?
Scott Brown (R)  

 
 ( 71% )
Martha Coakley (D)

 
 ( 25% )
Joseph L. Kennedy (I)

 
 ( 4% )

Comments

6:52
Andrew Phelps (WBUR): 

We’ll be watching and talking about the Senate debate, which starts at 7 p.m. sharp.

Monday January 11, 2010 6:52 Andrew Phelps (WBUR)
6:53
Andrew Phelps (WBUR): 

Our guest bloggers this evening are Renee Loth, columnist for The Boston Globe; Ralph Ranalli, WGBH’s “Greater Boston”; and Julie Mehegan, deputy editorial page editor of The Boston Herald.

Monday January 11, 2010 6:53 Andrew Phelps (WBUR)
6:53
Andrew Phelps (WBUR): 

The debate will be broadcast on television and radio stations throughout Massachusetts.

Monday January 11, 2010 6:53 Andrew Phelps (WBUR)
6:59
Julie Mehegan (Herald): 

Those who plan to vote but haven’t paid attention at all to this race will probably be tuning in tonight, and the candidates know it.  Big stakes.

Monday January 11, 2010 6:59 Julie Mehegan (Herald)
7:00
[Comment From BrianBrian: ] 

Brown is raising a lot more money than I thought he would today…

Monday January 11, 2010 7:00 Brian
7:00
[Comment From Allen GAllen G: ] 

Watching from Tennessee

Monday January 11, 2010 7:00 Allen G
7:01
[Comment From SteveSteve: ] 

Watching from northern Virginia.

Monday January 11, 2010 7:01 Steve
7:01
[Comment From ChristopherChristopher: ] 

Watching from Kalifornia

Monday January 11, 2010 7:01 Christopher
7:01
[Comment From Chris PChris P: ] 

Watching from Virginia (former Mass resident)

Monday January 11, 2010 7:01 Chris P
7:02
[Comment From mlsmls: ] 

logging in from texas…y’all hold the fate of our nation in your hand. do the right thing mass voters!

7:02
[Comment From LindaLinda: ] 

Watching from Florida…go Scott!

Monday January 11, 2010 7:02 Linda
7:02
Ralph Ranalli – WGBH: 

Complacency on the Democratic side will be the biggest enemy.

Monday January 11, 2010 7:02 Ralph Ranalli – WGBH
7:02
[Comment From JoannaJoanna: ] 

Watching from Jacksonville, FL Go SCOTT

Monday January 11, 2010 7:02 Joanna
7:02
[Comment From AndrewAndrew: ] 

watching from Pennsylvania! Go Brown!!!!

Monday January 11, 2010 7:02 Andrew
7:02
[Comment From Jo ElizabethJo Elizabeth: ] 

Go Scott Brown!!!!!! Florida support 110%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read all comments:

Scott Brown, Martha Coakley, Joseph Kennedy debate, January 11, 2010, MA Senate debate, Boston.com

From Boston.com, January 11, 2010.

Debate begins at 7:00PM EST 

 

“The US Senate debate

The US Senate candidates from Massachusetts: Democrat Martha Coakley, Republican Scott Brown, and Independent Joseph L. Kennedy, are facing off in a final debate tonight. Watch and discuss as the debate unfolds live.”

Thanks to Phil of the Right Side of Life.

http://www.therightsideoflife.com

Scott Brown MA senate race, Massachusetts Senate Mystery: Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley, WSJ, Boston Globe poll, Ted Kennedy’s senate seat, likely voters, race is closing, Wall Street Journal January 11, 2010

From the Wall Street Journal, January 11, 2010.

“Massachusetts Senate Mystery: Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley – WSJ.com”

“Turnout for special elections is notoriously hard to predict, especially for a Massachusetts race in the dead of winter. ”

“People trying to follow the suddenly hot Massachusetts race to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s senate seat can be excused if they’re getting poll whiplash. On Saturday, the Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling announced a startling survey of 744 likely voters that found Republican Scott Brown taking a 48% to 47% lead over Democrat Martha Coakley. “The Massachusetts Senate race is shaping up as a potential disaster for Democrats,” said Dean Debnam, president of PPP.

The next day, the Boston Globe displayed its own poll of 554 people, showing Ms. Coakley with a comfortable 15-point lead. “If there was ever a time for a Republican to win here, now is the time,” Andrew Smith, the director of the polling firm used by the Globe, reported. “The problem is you’ve got a special election and a relatively unknown Republican going up against a well-liked Democrat.””

“No one knows exactly who will turn out on January 19. But the evidence suggests the race is closing. In three polls taken before the December primary that made Ms. Coakley her party’s nominee, she had an average 29-point lead over Mr. Brown. In three surveys taken over the last ten days or so, her lead has shrunk to an average of eight points. Ms. Coakley is ahead, but Mr. Brown is making a late surge. He can only hope it isn’t stopped because previously apathetic Democrats respond to the polls by deciding to drag themselves out to vote.”

Read more:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652442227001988.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

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

Scott Brown’s election certification will be delayed to allow temporary Senator Paul Kirk to vote for the Health Care Bill. Sound familiar? Nancy Pelosi did just the opposite in November 2009, to allow just elected Representative Bill Owens to vote for the House version of the Health Care Bill.

Reported here yesterday, January 9, 2010.
“From The Boston Herald, January 9, 2010.
“Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform”
“It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform – and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.
The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.”
MA Democrats will delay Scott Brown’s certification

Nancy Pelosi chicanery from November 12, 2009

“John Charlton of The Post & Email just brought a breaking story to our attention.

“It looks increasingly that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her zeal to get the Health Care Federalization Bill passed, may have sworn in an unelected candidate for the NY-23 Congressional District, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and New York State laws.

As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State of New York has not certified the election, in which Dough Hoffman and Bill Owens vied in a special election, nearly head to head, after Scozzafava retired in humiliation, having lost the support of conservatives in her district.”
“It turns out that Pelosi’s swearing-in of Owens had the political effect of garnering the addition Republican vote, of Cao, in the vote for the Health Care Bill, which passed narrowly, 220-215.  The election fraud therefore puts in doubt the legitimacy of that vote also.””
Nancy Pelosi swears in Bill Owens before he is certified

On November 19, 2009 we learn of election night irregularities and voting machine viruses

“We already knew there were election night irregularities in the New York District 23 congressional race between Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens and that Nancy Pelosi prematurely certified Owens as the winner. Now we find out that some of the voting machines had computer viruses.

From The Gouverneur Times, November 19, 2009.

“VIRUS in the VOTING MACHINES: Tainted Results in NY-23″””
New York voting machines had viruses

The Democrats have a history of using the voting process not as it was intended, to echo the will of the people, but to further their own agenda.

From CBS News, October 17, 2007.
“Niki Tsongas Wins U.S. House Race”
“Tsongas said Wednesday that she expected to be sworn in on Thursday, and was eager to participate in the House vote scheduled for that day to override President Bush’s veto of expanded funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance program.”

Read more:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/17/politics/main3376886.shtml?source=related_story
From Fox News, October 18, 2007.
“Massachusetts Democrat Niki Tsongas Sworn In as Congresswoman”
“Shortly after being sworn in to the seat her late husband Paul Tsongas held in the 1970s, she joined her Massachusetts colleagues in voting to override President Bush’s veto of a bill that would have expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The effort failed by 13 votes.”

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303180,00.html

Here is a recent letter addressed to John Kerry, Niki Tsongas and Paul Kirk.

“Are Massachusetts Democrats planning to obstruct the voice of the people?

To:
Sen. John Kerry
Rep. Niki Tsongas
Sen. Paul Kirk

January 9, 2010

I read in today’s Boston Herald that the Massachusetts Democrat organization is now planning to delay the certification of the January 19th election to keep Scott Brown out of the Senate until a health reform bill can be rushed through Congress.

This is unacceptable and I hope that you will take a strong stand AGAINST it.

When Sen Brown wins the election, the people will have spoken, and their voice must be heard, not stifled underneath layers of obstruction.

Rep Tsongas was voting in Washington ONE DAY after winning her special election.

So why is Massachusetts Sec. of State Galvin’s office saying that they will not certify the Jan 19 election for 10 days because that is the rule for ALL special elections?

This is CLEARLY NOT TRUE.”

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=4500181596

From the Massachusetts Election Statutes

“PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VIII. ELECTIONS”

“CHAPTER 50. GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO PRIMARIES, CAUCUSES AND ELECTIONS
DETERMINATION OF RESULTS
Chapter 50: Section 2. Results of election; determination
Section 2. In elections, the person receiving the highest number of votes for an office shall be deemed and declared to be elected to such office; and if two or more are to be elected to the same office, the several persons, to the number to be chosen to such office, receiving the highest number of votes, shall be deemed and declared to be elected; but persons receiving the same number of votes shall not be deemed to be elected if thereby a greater number would be elected than are to be chosen. Except as otherwise provided, this section shall apply to all nominations and elections by ballot at primaries or caucuses. Nothing herein shall derogate from the provisions of chapter fifty-four A.”

“CHAPTER 56. VIOLATIONS OF ELECTION LAWS
PENALTIES ON OFFICERS FOR OFFENCES IN THE CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES, CAUCUSES, CONVENTIONS AND ELECTIONS
Chapter 56: Section 12. Misconduct of officers; failure to perform duties
Section 12. An officer of a primary, caucus or convention who knowingly makes any false count of ballots or votes, or makes a false statement or declaration of the result of a ballot or vote, or knowingly refuses to receive any ballot offered by a person qualified to vote at such primary, caucus or convention, or wilfully alters, defaces or destroys any ballot cast, or voting list used thereat, before the requirements of law have been complied with, or refuses or wilfully fails to receive any written request made as thereby required, or refuses or wilfully fails to perform any duty or obligation imposed thereby shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months.”

Election Day Legal Summary by William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth

“Counting Votes
The process of counting the ballots differs depending on the type of voting equipment used. However, the basic requirements are the same. The clerk must record the final register number on the ballot box. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.). A count must be made of the voters on both the check in and check out lists, and the voting lists must thereafter be sealed in an envelope. Id.; see also G. L. c. 54, § 107 (1998 ed.) (procedure for sealing voting lists and ballots; applicable to all of the materials required to be sealed as indicated below). The escrow ballots must be counted, placed in an envelope, the number placed on the outside of the envelope, and the envelope must then be sealed. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.).
The election officers shall canvass and count the ballots if paper ballots are used, and otherwise, the election officers shall read the vote totals from the counting device after the polls close, either by a printer mechanism or otherwise. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.). The ballots not able to be read by the machines must be hand counted. Id. Election officers may not hold a pen or any other kind of marking device during the counting of the ballots, except for the person actually recorded the votes. G. L. c. 54, § 80 (1998 ed.). Furthermore, such election officials may only use red pencils or red ink to record or tabulate votes. Id. For the purpose of ascertaining the results of a state election, city election, or a town election where official ballots are used, or of question submitted to the voters, the election officials must use the blank forms and apparatus provided by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. G. L. c. 54, § 104 (1998 ed.).
The unused and spoiled ballots must also be counted, placed in a container under seal, and the clerk must record the numbers. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.). The counted ballots are placed into a designated container, which is then sealed a certificate is affixed thereto stating that only ballots cast and no other ballots are contained therein. Id. The total tally sheets are placed in an envelope, sealed, and the warden and clerk also sign the outside of the envelope. Id. In communities using a central tabulation facility, the ballots will then be transported thereto, and then transmitted to the city or town clerk who must retain them in a secure location. G. L. c. 54, § 105A (1998 ed.). In all other communities, the sealed envelopes and containers will be returned directly to the city or town clerk who must retain them in a secure location. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.).”

http://www.medford.org/Pages/MedfordMA_BComm/ELECTIONSummary.pdf

From the MA State Ethics Committee

“Section 23 contains standards of conduct applicable to all public employees.” 
 
“Political Activity
Section 23(b)(2) provides that a public employee may not use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions of substantial value for himself or others.  This prohibition has been applied by the Commission to restrict a number of political activities involving, for example, campaign use of public resources, campaigning on the job, and certain types of solicitation and fundraising.”

“Section 23(b)(3)  Appearances of a Conflict of Interest”
“Section 23(b)(3) prohibits a public employee from knowingly, or with reason to know, engaging in conduct which would cause a reasonable person to conclude that any person or entity can improperly influence the employee or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, or position of any person.
For example, issues may arise under this section if a matter involving a non-immediate family relative, a close friend or business associate, or a civic organization in which a public employee is a member comes before the public employee in his official capacity, even if the public employee is not otherwise required to abstain under G.L. c. 268A, sections 6, 13 or 19.  The public employee’s private relationship with such an individual or organization creates an impression that he could be biased in his official actions as a result of the private relationship.”

“Supplemental provisions; standards of conduct.”
“Section 23. (a) In addition to the other provisions of this chapter, and in supplement thereto, standards of conduct, as hereinafter set forth, are hereby established for all state, county and municipal employees.”
“(3) act in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person. It shall be unreasonable to so conclude if such officer or employee has disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a conclusion;”

 http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ethhomepage&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Ieth
William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth, is responsible for elections

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/Ele/elespeif/senatorincongressma.htm

Given the MA statutes, state ethics laws and the precedent of swearing in Representative Niki Tsongas one day after the election, the Democrats have a major problem trying to perpetrate another illegal act, especially after they have advertised it ahead of time. 

Scott Brown, election certification delayed, Paul Kirk, Deval Patrick, MA, Health care bill, Ted Kennedy, Sean Hannity, Fox, Senator, Senate election, Boston Herald, Democrat Party chicanery

The Scott Brown senate race against MA Attorney General Martha Coakley is tight and MA and national Democrats such as Harry Reid are beginning to sweat. Paul Kirk, the temporary senator who replaced Ted Kennedy, has stated he will vote for the Health Care Bill. I have stated on numerous occasions that I can not comprehend how any concerned, informed and patriotic American can support the modern day Democrat Party. The following report is one of many examples of why I hold this belief.
From The Boston Herald, January 9, 2010.
“Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform”
“It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform – and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.

At a business forum in Boston Friday, interim Sen. Paul Kirk predicted that Congress would pass a health-care reform bill this month.

“We want to get this resolved before President Obama’s State of the Union address in early to mid-February,” Kirk told reporters at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast.

The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.”

“But if Brown wins, the entire national health-care reform debate may hinge on when he takes over as senator. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the bill.

The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election.”

“Friday, Brown, who has been closing the gap with Coakley in polls and fund raising, blasted the political double standard.

“This is a stunning admission by Paul Kirk and the Beacon Hill political machine,” said Brown in a statement. “Paul Kirk appears to be suggesting that he, Deval Patrick, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid intend to stall the election certification until the health care bill is rammed through Congress, even if that means defying the will of the people of Massachusetts. As we’ve already seen from the backroom deals and kickbacks cut by the Democrats in Washington, they intend to do anything and everything to pass their controversial health care plan. But threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level. Martha Coakley should immediately disavow this threat from one of her campaign’s leading supporters.””

Read more:

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/view.bg?articleid=1224249
Scott Brown was interviewed by Sean Hannity on Fox, January 8, 2010.

Look for more articles about this Democrat Party chicanery and Scott Brown soon.

Obama, January 2, 2010, Obama guilty, High crimes and misdemeanors, Treason, Kirk Lippold, Corruption ties, Middle east ties, Muslim ties, Obama avoids birth certificate and college records issue

Watch the following video of retired Commander Kirk Lippold chastising Obama.

Now ask yourself, are you surprised that Obama is being criticized.

Straight from the US Constitution requirement that the president be a natural born citizen and per the 20th amendment, that the president be qualified at the time of inauguration, Obama is not president and therefore not Commander in Chief.

Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records.

Obama is embedded in Chicago and Illinois corruption just as deep as Rod Blagojevich. Furthermore, many of Obama’s business and political associates and donors come from or are strongly tied to the Middle East and even tied to Saddam Hussein.

Obama lived in Indonesia, became part of a Muslim family and studied Islam.

Obama has ignored much advice from his own hand picked general and has made the CIA his whipping boy.

Obama is giving constitutional rights, reserved for US Citizens to Muslim terrorists.

Obama is planning to close Gitmo and bring enemy combatant, Muslim terrorists to this country for trial.

Obama, by treating enemy terrorists as common criminals, is stripping our military and other protective agencies of the ability to interrogate our enemy and effectively empowering the enemy to continue with more plans to attack us.

Can any intelligent, informed, concerned, patriotic American explain to me why Barack Obama should not be immediately arrested for treason, high crimes and misdemeanors or one of many other applicable reasons ?

Barack Obama, Commander in chief?, US Constitution, Oath of office, US Military, ZachJonesIsHome, Tortured Duty & Tortured Mission, Military service, Natural born citizen issue will not go away

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.”
US Military officer’s oath of office

 
Officers in the service of the United States are
bound by this oath to disobey any order that
violates the Constitution of the United States.

From the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.

“or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until
a President shall have qualified;”

I never refer to Barack Obama as president. The 20th Amendment to the US Constitution reveals why.

Zach, the name I use for the owner of the Zach Jones Is Home blog, has been a patriot blogger for almost two years, in the struggle to expose the truth about Barack Obama and to save this country. I have had many phone and email discussions with Zach. He has been an invaluable contributor to this blog and to the combined efforts of citizen journalists. In the article below provided by Zach today, January 1, 2010, Zach writes of his and his family’s military service. I would like to thank Zach, his family and all of those who have served this country in the military. I would also like to thank Zach for his efforts to reveal the truth about Obama and to take back this country. 

From Zach Jones Is Home, January 1, 2010.

“American Soldiers – Tortured Duty & Tortured Mission – The Whys and Whats Becoming Harder to Answer?”

“Families that honor military service are spread all across this nation.  I grew up in one. Even as a teenager in the sixties, I remember knowing that freedom wasn’t free.  My father had served in Patton’s 3rd Army, fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and served as a guard at the Nuremberg War Trials. How could I not know the price of freedom? WWII, now that was a just war.  Everyone knew it.  Everyone knew the war had to be won at all costs because failure clearly meant tyranny and death for an entire people, the Jewish people. Everyone knew, even the media knew the Whys and Whats.  Why they were fighting? What they were fighting for? They knew the cost of winning and losing! And,  victory wasn’t a dirty word.

However, my brother and I served in the United States Navy during a time in America’s history dominated by numbing callousness, selfishness, and indifference.  The loss of the Vietnam War brought about by the media and endless protests of duplicitous, naïve dreamers and schemers; the festering pain of Watergate continuously exploited by politicians in D.C., the good but lackluster caretaker President Ford portrayed as a bumbling stumbling fool on Saturday Night Live, the My Lai massacre and Lt. Calley’s conviction not quite distant enough to avoid its stench, and a war/corruption weary people’s vote for change promised by Jimmy Carter all marked this period.  Amazingly, like today, Carter’s change didn’t live up to expectations. Instead it brought gas lines, high inflation, 20+ percent interest rates and high unemployment – despair.”

“It was a perfect storm that had brought us Carter Presidency.  And with it’s battered and bruised image, the United States military seemed to have a hell of time riding out that storm until President Reagan could put his hands to the reigns. Reagan’s zero-tolerance drug testing came along after I got out and things started turning around rather quickly according to my brother.  I believe the foundation that President Reagan built (or rebuilt) continues to serve soldiers today and will not be easily surrendered by the military leadership.”

“See no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil is not a command structure that serves the military or the individual soldier well.  Neither is going with the flow.

But it’s the military leadership, the career guys and gals, who have a shot at controlling or changing the flow. Yes, sometimes they fail, but it’s their job to address the issues. It’s especially egregious when they, like politicians, just won’t see or acknowledge that something is becoming a problem – when they don’t want to get ‘their’ hands dirty or risk jeopardizing ‘their’ career paths.  Two words – Ft. Hood.

And so I come to write this conflicted accolade to today’s American Soldier.”

“Soldiers serving in the first few years after 9/11 must have had an incredible sense of the Whys and Whats that carried them through each and every day.”

“Today, we have Obama in the Oval Office and a Democratic controlled Congress (dominated by the radical left since 2006) and they are galloping as fast as they can towards creating a socialist system that would make Vladimir Ilyich Lenin proud. If you look past the rhetoric you easily see that they are attempting to create larger and larger voting blocks that are wholly dependent on the federal government, hands out, afraid to question anything, afraid to vote for anyone calling for personal responsibility. Having a nation of sheeple, like birds at a bird feeder, is not good for the country or our future. Look at the recent action Obama took diminishing our American sovereignty on Dec. 17. Constitution be damned.  Does anyone really think the Second Amendment is safe?”

“I use the phrase “defending freedom overseas” instead of “around the world” because, as much as I love them, I’m not sure they are defending our freedoms at home.  I can’t really blame the enlisted soldier because when I was in the military, I didn’t have time to keep up with what politicians at home were attempting to do to us. I basically thought politicians were all self-serving pieces of crap and the voting process would weed them out.  Unfortunately, that’s not the case today. (The statement that politicians “were all self-serving pieces of crap” is still accurate, but the vote might not be able to undo the damage they are doing to our freedoms and the Constitution.)

And the military leadership continues to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and ignore “the flow” that’s becoming more and more turbulent.

(And the American soldier is expected to accept “the flow” as he or she finds it?)”

“All of these illustrate situations where officers up the chain of command, including the “Commander In Chief”, appear ready to shirk their duty to the Constitution and America Soldiers under their command so they can protect their relatively trivial career ambitions and/or pursue their personal political agendas.

This is when it becomes hard to answer the Whats and Whys.  What does support and defend the Constitution mean?  Who are the enemies of the United States?  Why am I defending something that seems optional for my superior officers?   What is really important to the chain of command – advancement, career or the Oath? Who are the Oathkeepers? Why should I obey my superior officers when they choose to ignore parts of the Constitution? What’s the point? What am I doing that protects the Constitution and the Freedoms of my family and friends?”

“The duty – I think of this as the soldier doing his or her best to live up to the oath they took when they enlisted.  Basically the duty is to support, protect and defend the Constitution and the freedoms/protections flowing from it to each and every citizen.”

“The “natural born citizen” issue will not go away and I’m sure it’s on the minds of many in the military; it affects morale, re-enlistment decisions, and how many traditional military supporters view the institution.  It’s similar to how the epidemic of drug use in the 70’s military effected civilians & soldiers who knew about the problem and cared about what it said about the institution.”

“To the American Soldier – Thank you for your service and sacrifices for this country.

I am truly sorry to be in the position of having to speak so bluntly about an institution that I love.”

Read the rest of this great article from a friend, soldier and patriot:

http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/american-soldiers-tortured-duty-tortured-mission-the-whys-and-whats-becoming-harder-to-answer-the-bopac-report/

Happy New Year, January 1, 2010, God bless America, 2010 elections, Take back America

Thanks to all of you who read and contributed to the Citizen Wells blog over the past year. This blog is truly a group effort of Americans and concerned citizens from other countries who care about the future of this country. We must continue to fight to take this country back in 2010. The upcoming elections will be a turning point in the history of America. We are fighting for the survival of this country and the future of generations to come. The “Greatest Generation” worked hard and fought a war to save not only this country but the entire world. Using their steadfast attitudes, perserverance and patriotism as a compass, we must rise to the occasion and continue their work. Once again, not only the fate of America, but also that of the world, hangs in the balance.

Wells

William M. Daley, Democrat party, Obama approval rating, Listen to American people, Alabama Representative Parker Griffith, Washington Post warning, Far left agenda

A warning to the Democrat Party from the Washington Post (hardly a conservative rag) to listen to the American public and embrace centrist viewpoints.

“Keep the Big Tent big”

“The announcement by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith that he is switching to the Republican Party is just the latest warning sign that the Democratic Party — my lifelong political home — has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.
Rep. Griffith’s decision makes him the fifth centrist Democrat to either switch parties or announce plans to retire rather than stand for reelection in 2010. These announcements are a sharp reversal from the progress the Democratic Party made starting in 2006 and continuing in 2008, when it reestablished itself as the nation’s majority party for the first time in more than a decade. That success happened for one major reason: Democrats made inroads in geographies and constituencies that had trended Republican since the 1960s. In these two elections, a majority of independents and a sizable number of moderate Republicans joined the traditional Democratic base to sweep Democrats to commanding majorities in Congress and to bring Barack Obama to the White House.
These independents and Republicans supported Democrats based on a message indicating that the party would be a true Big Tent — that we would welcome a diversity of views even on tough issues such as abortion, gun rights and the role of government in the economy.
This call was answered not just by voters but by a surge of smart, talented candidates who came forward to run and win under the Democratic banner in districts dominated by Republicans for a generation. These centrists swelled the party’s ranks in Congress and contributed to Obama’s victories in states such as Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and other Republican bastions.
But now they face a grim political fate. On the one hand, centrist Democrats are being vilified by left-wing bloggers, pundits and partisan news outlets for not being sufficiently liberal, “true” Democrats. On the other, Republicans are pounding them for their association with a party that seems to be advancing an agenda far to the left of most voters.

The political dangers of this situation could not be clearer.
Witness the losses in New Jersey and Virginia in this year’s off-year elections. In those gubernatorial contests, the margin of victory was provided to Republicans by independents — many of whom had voted for Obama. Just one year later, they had crossed back to the Republicans by 2-to-1 margins.
Witness the drumbeat of ominous poll results. Obama’s approval rating has fallen below 49 percent overall and is even lower — 41 percent — among independents. On the question of which party is best suited to manage the economy, there has been a 30-point swing toward Republicans since November 2008, according to Ipsos. Gallup’s generic congressional ballot shows Republicans leading Democrats. There is not a hint of silver lining in these numbers. They are the quantitative expression of the swing bloc of American politics slipping away.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122302439_pf.html