Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee

A popular Tennessee Congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn (R), has become the first woman and the first Tennessean to add her name to the list of co-sponsors for Representative Bill Posey’s (R-FL) proposed amendment (HR-1503).

The bill amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and would require candidates for President of the United States to provide among other things, “…a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate…”.

Check out the links offered at Google’s News aggregation site Google News.  You will likely see half a dozen or so Wikipedia article links offered next to legitimate news organization links like Reuters and the Wall Street Journal.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that can be edited and re-edited ad nauseum by anyone with an internet connection anywhere in the world, but has been faulted for allowing liberals and academics to gang up and dominate many articles and slant them and delete and block entries from those they (the liberals and academics) don’t approve of, thereby silencing the voices of those who don’t agree with their liberal propaganda.

Since Wikipedia entries can change drastically minute by minute its unreliability for presenting factual articles is renowned across the internet.

Why Google would promote a web encyclopedia site as a news source is a perplexing question especially since Wikipedia does have a news arm ‘WikiNews’, but Google News doesn’t link to that site.

THIS IS A TEST

1.  The defenders of slavery during the Civil War were from which party?

A. Republican
B. Democrats

2. The States that seceded from the United States to join the Confederacy were controlled by which Party?

A. Republican
B. Democrats

3. The President who Freed the Slaves was who?

A. Jefferson Davis (Democrat)
B. Abraham Lincoln (Republican)

4. Racial Segregation was promoted by, and defended by, which party?

A. Republican
B. Democrats

5. John Wilkes Booth (Confederate and Presidential Assassin) was a member of which party?

A. Republican
B. Democrats

6. The party that opposed giving blacks citizenship and voting rights was?

A. Republican
B. Democrats

7. Robert Byrd, the only current member of the US Senate known to have belonged to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is a lifelong member of what party?

A. Republican
B. Democrats

——————

If you answered B to all of the above, you are correct and you go to the head of the class. 

Now here is the kicker.  Give this test to your kids.

I’ll bet you are in for a shock.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) has thrown his support behind a House bill (HR-1503) that would require future Presidential candidates to show documented proof that they meet Constitutional muster, including submitting an official copy of their birth certificate to election officials in order to determine if they qualify as natural born citizens.

“The bill requires any federal candidates’ campaign committee filing with the Federal Election Commission to produce a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate”, Coburn wrote, “If the bill makes it to the Senate, I will likely support it.”

He also noted that his home state of Oklahoma has a bill proposed that would require “any candidate filing with the Oklahoma State Election Board to provide proof of citizenship by providing a ‘state government-issued birth certificate with a raised seal.’”

He went on to write; “I hope the Oklahoma State Legislature will give serious consideration to this bill and I hope more states will reform their ballot access laws to ensure federal candidates must affirmatively prove their eligibility,”.

Representative Bill Posey’s (R-Florida) bill would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.  Four [Five] members of the House have now signed on as co-sponsors of Posey’s bill.

The language in the bill reads:

“To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.”

and

“Congress finds that under section 5 of article II of the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years.”

If enacted, the amendment would be in force during for the 2012 U. S. Presidential election.

The bill has been referred to committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.

—
***UPDATE: Representative John Campbell (R-California) just added his name as co-sponsor to the bill.

Liberals and moderates alike don’t seem to care what the founders thought about how this nation should be governed, other than to give lip service to the subject.  To them it’s all ancient history and of no value to their ‘modern wisdom’, whatever that is.

Even the continuity of the rational rule of law and the rights and constraints enshrined in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights are just a lot hokum to them. They care nothing of such things and would happily trade them for bench rulings based on arbitrary sentiment. They see the law and legal tradition, ethics and morality, and the lessons of history as expendable annoyances that hamper their ambitions for lucre and their indulgences in vice.  A pox on them.

Three Texas Congressman have added their names to Representative Bill Posey’s (R-Florida) proposed amendment (HR-1503) to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which would require candidates for President of the United States to provide among other things, “…a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate…”.

The Three Congressmen; Rep. John R. Carter (R-Texas), Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) and Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), join Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virgina) as co-sponsors of the Posey bill.

The bill reads:

“To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.”.

and

“Congress finds that under section 5 of article II of the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years.”

If enacted, the amendment would be in force during for the 2012 U. S. Presidential election.

The bill has been referred to committee in the U.S, House of Representatives.

In response to Warner Todd Huston’s post entitled:

Is Healthcare a ‘Right’?

Lets have a look back at our history. Back in 1886 firefighting was mostly unregulated, and considered a private matter that had little government involvement. Home owners who desired to have their homes protected from destruction by fire had to pay private for-profit fire companies to respond and put out any fires that might start, which was not uncommon in wood-frame houses of the day that burned wood or coal for heat and used candles or oil lamps for light.

In those days fire insurance companies existed where a person could buy a policy that would cover the cost to put out any fire that might ensue on the property. Insurance companies would issue an insurance badge that was affixed to the front of the house so that any fire company would be assured of payment for their services. Home owners who didn’t have a policy and a badge, and couldn’t pay upfront for the services, had to fight the fire on their own and the fire company would stand by to ensure their neighbor’s home (those who had insurance) didn’t catch fire. Many people thought this was inhumane and called for a solution to this problem because the poor often could not afford fire insurance and as a result, it was the poor and uninsured who suffered the most from destruction and death by fire.

Eventually a solution for this problem was reached and I am sure you already know what it is. Private for profit fire companies and fire insurance companies were replaced by government run non-profit fire departments supported by property taxes instead of fees. Now I am also sure that by now you are beginning to see the correlation between 1886′s fire companies and fire insurance companies with 2009′s health care providers and health insurance companies. Some of the same arguments were made back then for keeping the old system, but I think we made the right decision to dump that system and adopt the one we have today,… for fire services that is.

Even though fire services and health care services are very similar in nature, we didn’t adopt the same system for health care service, I think it’s time we did,

However, notice that the system of government run fire departments that has been so successful for the last hundred odd years is NOT a Federal government run system, but rather it is a LOCAL government system that is mainly funded on the local level with additional support from State and Federal programs, and also there was no longer a need for the old fire insurance companies anymore. They had to move on to insuring other things, like health care.

So, I think the local fire department model is a good one for a rational and nearly universal method of distributing health care services, except, since health care is a lot more expensive than firefighting, I think it should be a State and Local partnership with dollars coming mainly from the state level and doctors and nurses employed mainly at the local level.

Inevitably, someone will bring up the subject of market economics and competition to defend the current system, so let me point out that these are not lost on the fire department example, they become a factor of locale. Just like people want to know how close a fire house, or fire hydrant, or for that matter a police station is to their prospective new home, people will look closely at the kind of health care offered in one locale with those offered in another locale and choose the one that fits their needs.

And for those die hard capitalists who are opposed to health care reform, I ask you, if relying on private enterprise and market economics is the best and most efficient system, then why don’t we get rid of “socialized” police forces and fire departments and interstates and rely entirely on private enterprise to supply us with law enforcement and fire services and have all highways privately run as toll roads?

Answer: It may be true that firefighting and police protection and health care are not “rights” per se, but in a modern civilized society they are universal necessities that we want everyone to have; and local government is the method that we have chosen most often in the past to provide such services.

(Updated below)

What do you think should be done about it?

Here are your choices as I see it:

1. Ignore, deny, and actively avoid the subject.
2. Investigate, impeach, and remove him from office
3. Force him to relinquish the office, thereby making Joe Biden the acting President
4. Prosecute him for election fraud and misrepresentation of his credentials.
5. Deport him.
6. Attack me for asking the question.

And secondly (if you care to comment),

What do you think the ramifications of your choice will be (assuming your choice prevails in the end) for the nation, and of all of the decisions and acts and executive orders Obama has signed while he was in the White House?

And thirdly,

What should the GOP position be about the subject (again, assuming your choice prevails)?

Since questions have been raised on why even ask this question, the following video explains the question better than I could.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI

Virginia Republican Congressman Bob Goodlatte has signed on as a co-sponsor to a measure in Congress that would require presidential candidates to verify their eligibility to hold the highest elected office in the United States.

Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., filed H.R. 1503, an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.  H.R. 1503 would “require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.”

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

Full Story >>

It is good to use the ‘O’ moniker in polite company when referring to the poseur in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, since I, as a morally upstanding citizen, find the full use of the name to be profane.

It represents the most vulgar and uncivilised and shameful use of political power that has ever befallen the United States of America, and the ‘D’ that such people associate under undoubtedly stands for “Destruction” as in the premeditated and planned destruction of those who don’t proudly wear the ‘D’ on their right hand or their forehead.

The ‘O’s campaign of destruction has already felled or ensnared the Banks, the Dollar, Wall Street, and, Detroit.  Mainstreet is next, then come the Corporations, the Charities, and finally the Churches.  I think Texas’ recent actions show that she can see this storm on the horizon and is wisely preparing herself for Hobson’s choice.  We, the other red states should do likewise.

The ‘O’ doesn’t see himself as Lincoln merely because he hails from the Land O’ Lincoln.  He see’s himself playing the part of Lincoln in a War of Leftist Aggression against those who want to maintain the ‘outmoded’ (in their view) model of Constitutional republican governance our nation was built on.  Once defeated in this war, the modern “rebel states” and peoples will be subjected to “reconstruction” in a Marxist/socialist/atheist form designed to eliminate and exterminate the conservative opposition once and for all; not merely to win the next election cycle, but to eliminate the need for elections at all.  Does this sound like Hilter’s concentration of power before his campaign against the Jews?  Or maybe the lead up to the Communist revolution that preceded the rise of the Soviet Union?  It should.

Then look at ‘O’s mentors and heros: Rev Wright, Bill Aires, Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshall Davis, John L. McKnight, Louis Farrakhan, Oprah, Tony Rezko, LBJ, FDR, and (apparently) The Saudi King.

Do you really want to go any further down this road?

Are you still unconvinced?

If you are,  please study political history and read the ‘D’s recent acts in congress and listen carefully to what the ‘O’ says and compare it to what you have learned.  And please do this quickly, for we haven’t much time for you to catch up.  Then decide where you stand.  Are you going to passively accept the noose intended for your neck, or will you oppose those who are tying it?  And how much energy are you willing to exert, and what sacrifices are you willing to make in an effort to oppose them?

Think on this.