quote Originally posted by avengador1: http://visiontoamerica.org/...n-for-president.html Sounds like election fraud perpetrated by the DNC to me.

This more sounds like typical use of propaganda rhetoric.

I'm a very conservative Republican.. but c'mon guys did you ever question G.W. Bush's citizenship? Did he give out documents to all states certifying himself? (To be clear, I actually don't know those answers, but I doubt they are anything except what I assume).

Obama is in office. Be thankful we only have 2 years left before we can kick him out. In the meantime, let's rally up the troops and get a Conservative President in office!

quote Originally posted by theBDub: This more sounds like typical use of propaganda rhetoric. I'm a very conservative Republican.. but c'mon guys did you ever question G.W. Bush's citizenship? Did he give out documents to all states certifying himself? (To be clear, I actually don't know those answers, but I doubt they are anything except what I assume). Obama is in office. Be thankful we only have 2 years left before we can kick him out. In the meantime, let's rally up the troops and get a Conservative President in office!

Yeah, His father, the OTHER President Bush, lied about him being a natural born US citizen--so did the National Guard, and he was never Governor of Texas--just an imposter.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Yeah, His father, the OTHER President Bush, lied about him being a natural born US citizen--so did the National Guard, and he was never Governor of Texas--just an imposter.

Lol I know! I know he's legit. That wasn't my point. Sorry if I seemed ignorant.

I guess my point doesn't make much sense but I just think it's useless to try and say BO isn't a citizen. You know, even if he wasn't, which I'm sure he is, it would be covered up so much NOBODY would EVER find out. So it's useless...

This has been said before, but it bears repeating:

Those who have nothing to hide hide nothing.

------------------
1986 SE 350 V8

For christ sake, don't you guys have anything real to talk about? Maybe talk about how you don't like his politics or something, but this birther **** is so unbelievably stupid. You look like a bunch of know nothing morons, and I know that I HAVE had real conversations here before. So you can't all be this stupid.

Remember this when the election comes in 2012. As I said over a year ago, it will be an issue right to to the polling booth for some and Obama should have addressed it completely a long time ago. Completely, as in either fully explaining why his records were sealed or unsealing them. That, would be to his advantage unless he has something to hide, which is really the question here. In a close election, it could very well be the difference between winning and losing, just as John Kerry lost a lot of votes by not completely and candidly answering his Vietnam service record. He blew it off as being a minor fringe issue of unimportantance, till it blew up in his face.
Yes, I believe Obama is qualified under the law, but I want to know why his records were sealed.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Remember this when the election comes in 2012. As I said over a year ago, it will be an issue right to to the polling booth for some and Obama should have addressed it completely a long time ago. Completely, as in either fully explaining why his records were sealed or unsealing them. That, would be to his advantage unless he has something to hide, which is really the question here. In a close election, it could very well be the difference between winning and losing, just as John Kerry lost a lot of votes by not completely and candidly answering his Vietnam service record. He blew it off as being a minor fringe issue of unimportantance, till it blew up in his face. Yes, I believe Obama is qualified under the law, but I want to know why his records were sealed.

John Kerry didn't lose! G.W. Bush cheated!!! I know it's true, I read it on the internet...

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: So you can't all be this stupid.

A lot of people voted for Obama, not just some members here.

quote Originally posted by newf: Never said any such thing. So now you are saying it's not OK to print a cartoon that satires or attacks a Political group? News to me.

newf,
It is always beneficial to get your thoughts is order. The Tea Party is NOT a political party. I will repeat what said, in case you have a short attention span. The Tea Party is NOT a poitical party! I do not understand why you are confused? The reason some people like the suggestion of a "party affiliation" is that they are desperately trying to draw a comparison to the mythical Dixie-crates (Democrates) of the South back in the late 40's and late 50's. You notice I did not mention the Republicans, becasue there is no affiliation.

Cordially,
Kevin

Personally, Obama's citizenship is a non-issue with me. The issue is the coverup. What are they hidding?

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Personally, Obama's citizenship is a non-issue with me. The issue is the coverup. What are they hidding?

If there is something we may never know.
One place where the guarded secret may lie is in "Grandma's Diaries".
May have been his mission to secure those when he departed from the campaign trail for the quick trip to Hawaii.

quote Originally posted by KidO: It's a joke, satire, get over it.

It is the HEIGHT of HILARITY to compare a PEACEFUL group of people who congregate openly in broad daylight and have not demonstrated ANY racial overtones to this cartoon which portrays

all white people (best I can tell in a cartoon world) meeting in an isolated area in the dark burning a cross.


Now you tell us all what the HUMOR in being compared to violent racist KKK klansmen is. That's a knee slapper, for sure.

Oh, or are people being overly sensitive in being upset to be compared to a violent racist group for daring to be involved in peaceful political process?


Which would be bad enough. But then you drop it in a thread about whether Obama met the qualifications for president.
Well, that isn't a tea party issue that I have heard of. So there is no reason to drop in in this thread due to that.

So what is it? Is it because Obama is half black and tea party people are like the KKK?

THAT is the problem with you putting it in this thread. It isn't because cartoons are used by children. It isn't related to educational achievement. It isn't because it is a political cartoon attacking citizens.

It is because the cartoon in itself is SUCH a distortion of reality and such a GROSSLY ERRONEOUS mischaracterization of people that it

A. isn't funny to compare peaceful people to a violent racist group and
B. grossly fails at parody because it is so off base and
C. bears ZERO relation to the topic at hand.


I don't know you yet so I'm not going to make any negative assumptions at all about you as a person. And I don't mean this in an attacking way. If I have a major beef with anyone, it is with the absolute idiot Bennett of the Chattanooga Times Free Press. But I did want you and others to get to see what the real objection was regarding this cartoon in this thread.

quote Originally posted by kevin: newf, It is always beneficial to get your thoughts is order. The Tea Party is NOT a political party. I will repeat what said, in case you have a short attention span. The Tea Party is NOT a poitical party! I do not understand why you are confused? The reason some people like the suggestion of a "party affiliation" is that they are desperately trying to draw a comparison to the mythical Dixie-crates (Democrates) of the South back in the late 40's and late 50's. You notice I did not mention the Republicans, becasue there is no affiliation. Cordially, Kevin

My post said Political Group.

The Tea Party is not a political party? They are running candidates in elections and are distancing themselves from Democrats and Republicans arent they??

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 09-29-2010).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: For christ sake, don't you guys have anything real to talk about? Maybe talk about how you don't like his politics or something, but this birther **** is so unbelievably stupid. You look like a bunch of know nothing morons, and I know that I HAVE had real conversations here before. So you can't all be this stupid.

quote Originally posted by madcurl:

Quoted for Nov 2012.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-29-2010).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Quted for Nov 2012.

Spell check?

Wow!
Thank you--I guess I've been reading way too many of your posts--I'm starting to spell just like you.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Wow! Thank you--I guess I've been reading way too many of your posts--I'm starting to spell just like you.

No thank you, but if you want more "proof" I have more. Hehehe.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: For christ sake, don't you guys have anything real to talk about? Maybe talk about how you don't like his politics or something, but this birther **** is so unbelievably stupid. You look like a bunch of know nothing morons, and I know that I HAVE had real conversations here before. So you can't all be this stupid.

For me I don't really care to go over such depressing things like trillions of new debt that your and my offspring will have to put back.
A health care bill that most didn't want that was shoved down our throats.
An economy that in all of his wisdom is way beyond his comprehension.
Oh now see what you made me do, now I am all depressed.
Now back to the fun stuff.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: I don't know you yet so I'm not going to make any negative assumptions at all about you as a person. And I don't mean this in an attacking way. If I have a major beef with anyone, it is with the absolute idiot Bennett of the Chattanooga Times Free Press. But I did want you and others to get to see what the real objection was regarding this cartoon in this thread.

Your objection is noted. I agree, the Tea Party protests have been peaceful, but the association of the Tea Parties with the Birthers is not irrelevant. As an example, take the decision to have Joseph Farah speak at the First National Tea Party Convention in Nashville on the 6th of February 2010. Although not all Tea Partiers agree with Mr. Farah's position on the topic, he has made his voice heard at Tea Party events. Are Tea Partiers racist? I am pretty sure that the majority of them are not, but racist Tea Partiers do exist, and they have brought a negative light to the group as a whole.

Is a satirical political cartoon offensive to some? Of course it is. Typically, that is the point of the cartoon. Are cartoons, or signs at Tea Party events depicting the image of President Obama in Nazi garb with a Hitler mustache offensive to some? Of course they are, that is their point. They incite feelings in people. To some it may be humor, to others it might be disgust. Would you be willing to judge a picture of Obama with a Hitler Mustache with your same criteria?

I have said it before. I agree with the points of the Tea Party that are for Smaller Government, and Fiscal Responsibility. Unfortunately, the group has picked up some "fringe issues" that make me cringe. We can have a great government if we pick the right people, not just different ones!

quote Originally posted by KidO: Is a satirical political cartoon offensive to some? Of course it is. Typically, that is the point of the cartoon. Are cartoons, or signs at Tea Party events depicting the image of President Obama in Nazi garb with a Hitler mustache offensive to some? Of course they are, that is their point. They incite feelings in people. To some it may be humor, to others it might be disgust. Would you be willing to judge a picture of Obama with a Hitler Mustache with your same criteria?

I do believe there is a different criteria when it comes to politicians currently in or running, but we are maybe in a new age.
Obama singling out one news source for ridicule does set new standard for a president, at least the US variety.
Maybe Pure Unamerican, but we are maybe in a new age.

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 09-29-2010).]

Apparently this is still important to some people. They are going all the way to the supreme court to force the issue.
http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...E.view&pageId=210521

quote A new court filing that returns the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to the U.S. Supreme Court warns that unless the judiciary makes a definitive decision in the dispute, it will be the same as allowing the political interests in the United States to amend the U.S. Constitution at will. A petition for writ of certiorari has been filed with the high court in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold the dismissal of a case brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelsen Jr. Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, the House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors." See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery! The trial court rejected the case based on issues of "standing" and never addressed the core issues presented. The appellate court did the same. Now Apuzzo has escalated the issue to the highest court in the land, suggesting that "the constitutional issue … cannot be decided by the political parties and a voting majority. Our nation is ultimately guided by the Constitution and the rule of law, not by majority rule. Allowing the political parties and the voting majorities to decide constitutional issues would be tantamount to amending the Constitution without going through the amendment process prescribed by Article V of the Constitution and abandoning the basic principles of republican government." In an announcement about the filing, Apuzzo said Obama not only has not proven, as required under the Constitution, his status as a "natural born citizen," but "he has hidden all his early life records including his original long-form birth certificate, early school records, college records, travel and passport records needed to prove he is even a born citizen of the United States." His case argues, essentially, that even if Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, he still fails to reach the Constitution's mandated eligibility requirement. And it could be even worse. "Putative President, Barack Hussein Obama … has not yet conclusively proven that he was born in the United States … His father was never a United States citizen nor was he even a permanent resident … They both became Kenyan citizens when Kenya got its independence in 1963 … Obama's relationship to his Indonesian stepfather and move to Indonesia when he was a child … and his travels to Pakistan in 1981, also raise doubts," the petition explains. "If Obama was not born in the United States, there exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien," it states. Mario Apuzzo "Obama was born a British subject/citizen to a British subject/citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and never intended to be one. Obama's father was never even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent legal resident. Obama's father was a foreign national sojourning in the USA to attend college. Obama is still a British subject/citizen to this day because he has never renounced that citizenship. According to this lawsuit, Obama was born a dual-citizen with dual allegiance and loyalty and is therefore not constitutionally eligible to be the president and commander-in-chief of our military," Kerchner explained. "The founders of our country and framers of our Constitution required the president to have unity of citizenship and sole natural allegiance to the USA from the moment of birth, which Obama does not and cannot have. This was a national security issue to the founders and framers," he said. Besides Obama's British citizenship, which "converted to Kenyan citizenship at age 2," Kerchner writes, "Obama was also an Indonesian citizen as a youth when he was adopted or acknowledged by his Indonesian stepfather when he married his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham." The lawsuit simply seeks a trial on the merits "to determine the true facts of Obama's legal identity and exact citizenship status and to require Obama to prove to the courts that he is eligible for the federal office he sits in per our Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which states: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law by Emer de Vattel, published in 1758 and "used by … the Continental Congress during the formation of our country…" defines natural born citizen as "a person born in the country to two parents who are both citizens of the country." That phrase was left undefined in the Constitution, and Apuzzo argues only the judiciary can fully define it now. "If neither Congress nor the Executive branches of government will give the petitioners that protection to which the Constitution entitles them, they should have access to the courts to be able to protect and vindicate their own rights to that protection," he wrote in the petition. "This right to access to the courts is more critical when both the executive and legislature are acting in concert to deprive the petitioners of their right to this protection. Since Obama has already been sworn in, it could be argued that only Congress has jurisdiction over the question of whether he is a 'natural born citizen.' But what happens when Congress also refuses to perform its constitutional duty … to make sure that only a 'natural born citizen' is given the great and singular powers of the office of president and commander in chief of the military? "Surely the Constitution would not leave someone like the petitioners without any remedy to protect the same rights which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution recognize as their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property," the petition states. The petition explains the nation's Founders required the "natural born citizen" status "to provide a 'strong check' on foreign influence making its way into our government and specifically in the office of president and commander in chief of the military." Apuzzo continues, "Whether he is legitimate is also vital in maintaining the proper chain of command in our military and in giving legality to all military orders … Since the president signs all acts passed by Congress into law, it is vitally important that the president be legitimately in power so as to give those laws domestic and international legality." And the polls are no legitimate remedy, he suggested. "The rule of law does not allow that the will of the people or the popular vote should determine the meaning of the 'natural born citizen' clause and that Congress should defer to that will on such vital constitutional questions." And the plaintiffs have standing because, "the threat to petitioners' life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property is actual and concrete rather than merely conjectural or hypothetical. The Declaration of Independence recognizes these rights as 'unalienable' and as having been endowed upon an individual by his or her 'Creator.' The Constitution recognizes these rights not as being abstract or theoretical rights but rather as concrete and real and needing protection from government abuses." WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records. The Supreme Court previously has rejected out of hand a series of filings regarding Obama's eligibility, but most of them were filed under an "emergency" procedure that approached the high court before having worked their way through the trial court and appellate court processes. There was no immediate word whether the Supreme Court would accept the Kerchner case. The petition also seeks the recusal of justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who have been appointed by Obama, as having potential conflicts since Obama's eligibility ultimately could impact their own jobs. Justice Clarence Thomas, in an appearance before Congress, previously said the court has been "evading" the Obama eligibility issue:

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: So you can't all be this stupid.

Why not, Con? Your side does it all the time. In fact, you appear to revel in it.

I wonder what the implications will be if Obama is found to have been ineligible to be our president. That will certainly be a shocker to us and our election system.

quote Originally posted by newf: My post said Political Group. The Tea Party is not a political party? They are running candidates in elections and are distancing themselves from Democrats and Republicans arent they??

No, they are not a political party.
No, they are not running candidates in any election.

edit for clarification: The term "Tea Party" is taken from an American historical event known as the "Boston Tea Party" in which Bostonians raided a British Ship delivering tea to the American Colonies. The raiders threw the Tea into the harbor as a protest to the tea tax imposed on them by the British Crown.

The modern "Tea Party" is just a movement of like minded Americans who oppose excessive taxation. It is not a political party.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 10-04-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: No, they are not a political party. No, they are not running candidates in any election.

Agreed. At present, the Tea Party is an ideological offshoot of the GOP and, as such, are slating candidates to run under the Republican banner. Perhaps, at some time in the future, they will prove sufficiently viable to offer a third alternative to our present two-party system....but not now.

Someone is trying to force this issue legally.
The doctor, the president and the birth certificate
http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...E.view&pageId=211589

quote What's wrong with the following picture? A decorated Army flight surgeon, after 18 years of service including year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan, now risks his career and faces almost certain court-martial and imprisonment. Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin claims there's a serious conflict between adhering to his military oath and obeying deployment orders coming down the existing chain of command with Barack Obama at the top – since the president's constitutional eligibility to be commander in chief has never been documented. Although some scoff, Lakin is acting "exactly" as "proper training dictates," confirms retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a Fox News military analyst who served as vice commander in chief of USAF forces in Europe. Likewise, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, agrees Lakin "has every right to question the lawfulness of the orders of the commander in chief." Moreover, just like Lakin, 3 out of 5 Americans – 58 percent according to a recent CNN poll and 61 percent according to a "60 Minutes/Vanity Fair" poll – are not convinced Barack Obama was born in Hawaii as he has long claimed. The Constitution requires in Article 2 Section 1 that every president be a "natural born citizen." So, now this veteran Army doctor, who would much rather continue serving his country than go to prison, is respectfully telling the military tribunal judging him that he needs for Obama or his representatives to prove that the president is occupying his office constitutionally. In simple terms, Col. Lakin wants to see Obama's birth certificate. Not the computer-generated summary document that almost everyone in the media mindlessly and ignorantly refers to as "Obama's birth certificate," but the actual document that virtually everyone reading these words possesses – showing the hospital of birth (to date, no hospital on earth officially claims Obama was born there), the attending physician or midwife and similar information that actually proves where and when he was born. For Obama, at long last, to produce the documentation proving his eligibility to be commander in chief is critical not just to Lakin's defense, said McInerney, but to the preservation of the nation itself. Indeed, in an extraordinary affidavit he filed with the court in Lakin's defense, McInerney, who also served as assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force and commander of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing, made this bold statement: The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, is the source of all military authority. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office, that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined. Adds McInerney: "Officers in the United States military service are – and must be – trained that they owe their highest allegiance to the United States Constitution." So, what does the officer presiding over Lakin's court-martial say in response to all this? Army Col. Denise R. Lind, acting as judge in the case, has so far ruled that Lakin will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as testimony from any who may have access to his records. Her reason for what amounts to denying Lakin the right to defend himself is, according to Lind, that producing such evidence about Obama in a military tribunal could be – and I'll quote her exact word – an "embarrassment" to the president. Let's make this crystal clear: Lakin's whole argument is that the sacrosanct chain of command may well have been corrupted by a usurper – and millions of Americans agree he has valid reason to suspect this is the case. Yet the presiding officer in the hearing has ruled that neither Lakin nor his defense team may present any evidence bearing on Obama's eligibility to be president – because it might be embarrassing. Instead, the only "defense" Lakin is being allowed, by Lind's order, revolves around whether a deployment order was given (no one contests this) and whether he refused to obey it (no one contests this either). In other words, this is shaping up as a sham proceeding in which Lakin cannot defend himself, reminiscent of the kind of justice the old Soviet Union used to mete out in kangaroo courts, followed by imprisonment. Since when does "embarrassment" – especially since the embarrassment in question wouldn't even occur unless Obama actually were indeed lying and usurping the office of the presidency – have anything to do with administering justice? Truly an amazing and consequential case, both for Lakin and for the nation. Why, then, have you not heard anything about it from the rest of the media? Because it's the "mainstream media" – which Rush Limbaugh calls the "state-run media" – that gave us Obama as president in the first place, and which continues to run interference for him to this day. (Who can forget the "thrill going up" Chris Matthews' leg and Newsweek's Evan Thomas rhapsodizing that Obama was "sort of God"?) Moreover, when it comes to the question of Obama's constitutional eligibility, the media, including much of the "conservative" or "alternative" media, remain in denial – with the exception of WorldNetDaily, which has endured constant ridicule and marginalization for daring to cover what the CEO of a major radio syndicator recently told me was "the story of the decade." Fortunately, most conservative talkers – with the notable exception of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck – admit this is an important, albeit radioactive, story. Beck and O'Reilly, both immensely talented commentators whom I enjoy watching, live in a "birthers-are-crazy" bubble in which they reassure each other there's just nothing to this "conspiracy theory" – you know, the one 3 out of 5 Americans now suspect is true, according to repeated polling. Meanwhile, virtually the entire rest of the talk-radio world acknowledges the issue's legitimacy – from Rush Limbaugh ("All [Obama] has to do is show a birth certificate") and Sean Hannity ("What was so wrong in saying that, 'Can we see your birth certificate?'") to Lou Dobbs ("I don't understand why he shouldn't produce a birth certificate") and Michael Savage ("the presidency may have been usurped by a foreign power"). Not to mention politicians, from U.S. congressmen ("Those are legitimate constitutional concerns") to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin ("I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue"). Although most of these good folks are still somewhat afraid of the issue – nobody likes to be mocked and attacked mercilessly – at least they acknowledge occasionally that it's a valid and important issue. Maybe things are starting to change. I increasingly see conscientious pundits threading this scary needle – first engaging in the obligatory distancing of themselves from the "birthers," and then agreeing with them. A typical "non-birther birther" would be National Review's Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and highly respected analyst, who after making clear he doesn't give credence to conspiracy theories, nevertheless argues that Obama seriously owes it to the American public to come clean with the major documentation of his past, including his birth certificate. For the record, this is exactly what I – and Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi and Aaron Klein and pretty much every other journalist at WND – believe. After exhaustive research, we don't know where he was born, and neither do you. Not only does he continue to conceal his birth records, but also the rest of his life's documentation – his school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, and on and on. All the documents that are a routine matter of public record for all other presidents are, for Obama, hidden. And if you try to access them to find out what he's hiding, you're called a conspiracy nut. Meanwhile, we're about to witness the spectacle of a true patriot, a decorated military physician who wants nothing more than to save more lives and continue to serve his country, a man of admirable conscience and backbone, being court-martialed and sent to Fort Leavenworth prison as a sacrificial lamb because the "judge" – just like the establishment press and so many others for whom Obama is "too big to fail" – is fearful of "embarrassing" the president. If this isn't an outrage, then we have lost our capacity for moral indignation in America. Barack Obama, if he indeed has been lying about his constitutional qualification to serve as president, should be more than embarrassed – he should be impeached. But that's for next year. Right now, dear reader, help Col. Lakin. Later will be too late. His court-martial is scheduled for Nov. 3-5. Send a contribution, whatever you can manage, to Col. Lakin's Legal Defense Fund. Write, call and e-mail your congressmen and senators about this case. Call talk radio shows. Forward this column to your friends. Do what you can and make your voice heard!

bump

I guess the problem I have is if Obama was really a "people's president" than he would just show the damn birth certificate and it would be over. What's so hard about that?