Anyone who questions President Obama’s grades in school is REALLY a racist.  We know this because the same people announce it is so. I gently point out that these same people constantly accused President Reagan of being an “amiable dunce;” and President George W. Bush a “liar” on the floor of the U.S. House. Twice. Bush was “evil,” “mediocre,” a “playboy,” an “oil man,” who got where he was because of his “daddy.”

No one is in the position to know if a another person is a racist.  We can only know if the other person does or says things that indicate they have a preference for people of a certain race, or if they, suggest that people of a certain race are superior or inferior, propose that people of a certain race are deserving of greater protections or more opportunities than people of other races – but no one can identify a person as a “racist” – that’s only a name; an epithet of scorn. 

We demonstrate utter and abysmal incompetence when we suggest that someone is a racist because they demand that every person be treated equally. We demonstrate our own tendancy toward either racial preference -or evil -by suggesting that anyone who suggests President Obama should clear up questions about his birthplace is a “racist.” Questions were raised because his father had more than one wife at a time, and was a Kenyan; and because Mr. Obama’s mother married an Indonesian national; and because Mr. Obama lived as a young child in Indonesia.

The fact is that there have been at least 7 presidential candidates in U.S. history – including Barry Goldwater, Lowell Weicker, and John McCain – before Barack Obama who had to deal with questions regarding their birth qualification to serve as president.  None of them were black.  Not one of them forced the country to go through the agony that Barack Obama forced on us. 

President Obama was not singled out because he is black. And it would appear that those who suggest that anyone seeking further proof of Mr. Obama’s birth is a “racist” is, in fact, a person who believes a black American is deserving of greater protections than people of other races.

This issue comes up constantly when anyone disagrees with the policies espoused and championed by President Obama. I point out that 4% of African Americans voted for the white candidate in the last presidential election; 43% of white Americans voted for the black candidate in the past presidential election.

Who are the “racists?” You can’t tell except by seeing what people do or say. Just sayin’.

It’s clear that there is no U.S. interest in our involvement in Libya.  No U.S. citizens were in danger.  Libyians were involved in the bombing of a German discotheque in 1986, but the perpetrators were punished in court. Libya has not attacked any U.S. interest since the Lockerbie incident in 1988 23 years ago.

The U.S. dropped Libya from the ‘state sponsor of terror watch list,’ and even restored diplomatic relations with the country in 2006 because the country had dismantled their nuclear program under the eye of inspectors.  In my previous post I showed why President Obama has launched the current attack.  His has become an imperial presidency.  Mr. Obama has become a warlord.

What I want to point out in this post is that we actually have more Constitutional warrant; War Powers Act authority; and United Nations resolution cover for actually launching an attack against Mexico then we do Libya.  The only thing we wouldn’t have is cover provided by the Arab League so eagerly sought by Mr. Obama.

Mexico has either been unable, or unwilling to prevent its criminals from illegally crossing our border for the purpose of breaking U.S. laws.  The results of these efforts have contributed to the addictions of millions of Americans  creating anual expenses in the tens of $billions for additional police, prosecutions, incarcerations, treatments, and medical costs. 

Libya has done none of these things against the United States.  Sure its a crummy country with with oil and a horrible “leader;” but it has done no damage to the United States that begins to compare with what the Mexican government has allowed to happen.

Mr. Obama doesn’t like what was happening in Libya, so he sent our military to do something about it.  It has nothing to do with protecting our country – it’s just what he wants to do.  He is using our military to do something we have no say in; to do something he just decided he wants to do. 

What happens when some future president follows Mr. Obama’s precedent and launches the U.S. military to create a ‘no-fly zone’ over Mexico, for example, because he personally doesn’t like the way they are doing things?  That he doesn’t want any Mexican blood shed on his watch?  Too many people dying in Mexico!

Could any of those supporting the President in Libya make a coherent argument that this imaginary future president would be acting illegally? Unconstitutionally?  No.  The precedent has been set. 

Can Obama supporters say that more people have been murdered in Libya than in Mexico therefore we must not do it?  No.  Could they say that Libya did more to harm the U.S. than Mexico?  No.

Do I think we should launch any kind of military action against Mexico?  Of course not. 

I’m only pointing out that Mr. Obama is a complete cowboy when it comes to the use of American military might to carry out something personal concern to him; something that is completely unconcerned with U.S. security, and in fact could destabilize the entire Middle East.  And he has set the precedent for any future president to engage in any kind of war ‘kinetic military action’ against anyone in the world just because he personally wants to.

Matthew (12:43-45) quotes Jesus as telling the story of what can happen when you cast out an evil spirit-  like Qaddafi.  The spirit departs to a dry place seeking rest (perhaps in Uganda); but finds none.

Then the spirit says, “‘I will return to the house from which I came.’  When it arrives, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order.’”

So the spirit goes and finds 7 other spirits more evil than itself, and together they go back and enter the emptied house and dwell there, “and the last state of that person is worse than the first.”  Then Jesus said, “So also will it be with this evil generation.”

He uses the metaphor as an indictment against those who decide to morally reform themselves, to negatively get rid of something bad in their life; and after having done so, are “empty, swept, and put in order.”  But they take no positive action.

Note the word “empty.”  To succeed at doing good, Jesus is teaching, one must not only negatively get rid of the bad, but positively replace the core of himself with something good.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

I thought about this story recently when considering the Qaddafi conundrum.  We are given strong and inspirational messages from President Obama: 

• “I will not stand by while citizens are being killed!”
• “I will not be responsible for a massacre!  That will not happen on my watch!”
• “I will not engage in war against Qaddafi in the Middle East!”
• “I will use the U.S. military in a kinetic military action against this man-caused disaster!”
• “I say, Qaddafi must go!” 
• “I will not attempt to kill Qaddafi or actually make him go!”

The President pushed together a U.N. resolution dealing with the use of power to create a “no-fly zone” over Libya in order to prevent the Libyan Army from bombing the rebels.  That meant we had to bomb their surface-to-air missiles and shoot down their planes. 

But then we began to bomb tanks and artillery – which have nothing to do with creating a no-fly zone – because the Libyan Army was actually using them against the rebels too!  The nerve!

The President didn’t need the input of his own country – especially the Congress, because you only need that if you engage in war.  And this is not war, it’s a “kinetic military action!”  Which means that we are only bombing and shooting people not actually engaging in war.   He only needed approval from two sources – the U.N. and the Arab League because THIS IS NOT A WAR!  But I digress.

The point is that removing Qaddafi in Libya - or the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Saddam Hussein in Iraq for that matter – is not the real issue.  When the house is “empty, swept, and put in order,” it is only an invitation for becoming 7 times worse – unless…

The evil must be positively replaced with the good.  But we will have no “boots on the ground,” we will not engage in “nation building.”  Our intention is to stop people from hurting, to “empty, sweep, and put the house in order.”  I for one am reassured because the President is really hoping that the rebels will not ally with the Muslim Brotherhood (who are actually really good democrats by the way) and al-Qaeda.

So we get involved in Libya because President Obama will not idly stand by and see blood running in the streets – they are actually hurting people over there!  But he has no intention of actually ending the cause of the hurt, you see, because we don’t do that sort of thing; it’s not nice.  However he demands that the cause of the hurt must be stopped! He must go!  COME OUT YOU EVIL SPIRIT!  He makes it clear that has absolutely no intention of actually making that happen though because he will not engage in assassination, he will not remove the leader, he will not engage in nation-building, he will not get involved in a long-term war kinetic military action.  Rest assured though, because he will get out of this war kinetic military action in days, weeks, months, by the end of this year for sure!  HE CARES A WHOLE LOT!  And besides, he is hanging on to his Nobel Prize for Peace! What?

Nature abhors a vacuum.  We need to remember that in Libya, and Iraq, and  Afghanistan.  We need to remember that right here in America too.

It was created this way because the people forming it had real life experience with a hegemonic, central governmental power – that of King George III.  The Parliament and the King instituted whatever they wanted – even if the people didn’t want it.  (This may sound vaguely familiar.)

This exercise of the power of the few over the many has been the experience of all humans from the beginning.  Dictators, Kings, Pharaohs, Emperors, and military Generals have forced the common citizens to comply with the leader’s vision of what was the good society in every corner of the world in every time throughout history.

The brief experiments at democracy and republicanism during the existence of the Greek city states are not a real exception.  Yes, citizens had input on the influence and structure of government, but in almost every case, there were many more slaves than citizens living in those cities.  Slaves had no input whatsoever, and could not vote, so government by consent of the governed wasn’t practiced at all.

Following the Dark Ages, the influence of Christian ideas about the central value and importance of individuals began to chip away at the concept of the divine rights of Kings.  Having to listen to the concerns of noblemen and barons and Pope Innocent III diminished the power of the central government in England.

The major liberty sought by those who finally left the British Isles and parts of Europe for the Americas was freedom of religion.  They came to these shores and created – over a couple of centuries – a republican, federalist system designed to forever constrain the power of the central government from gaining increased hegemony over individuals.  This is why the Constitution is a document of enumerated powers; the founders created it so the federal government could not do anything other than what the Constitution stated specifically it could do.

Unfortunately, at this period in our history the Constitution has long been disfigured beyond recognition by political manipulation on the part of Representatives, Senators, and Presidents; but most of all by the federal court system including the Supreme Court.  For some 80 years our republic has existed on the accumulated goodwill, and  moral and economic capitol of previous generations.  Not that many lately have not pursued moral and economic success, but only that our effort has been increasingly seen as immoral and bigoted by those who desire to return power to the king.

With the recent overstepping of our Congress at the urging President Obama imposing their vision of what your your life should be, we have indeed returned to government without the consent of the governed.  The imposition of what the few believe to be ‘good for us’ rather than continuing the concept of freedom for citizens probably puts any return to Constitutional federalism and the Bill or Rights out of reach.  The Democrats have just denied you significant parts of your Bill of Rights.

Mr. Obama has said in the past that the U.S. Constitution is an impediment to his vision. He has stated, “…the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”  With those words, Mr. Obama reveals that he sees the U.S. Constitution as a roadblock to imposing the laws, rules, regulations, and benefits he wants to implement.

It also shows that his vision for the country is entirely different from what the founders created it to be, and what most Americans think it is.  He wants the government to have powers the framers denied to it.  He wants to take powers of freedom away from the people and give it back to the government as if our War for Independence to end coercive powers of government never occurred.  He does not believe in the divine rights of Kings, but it is clear that Mr. Obama believes in the divine rights of Presidents.  Because he believes in his right to force you to live the way he wants you to live rather than the way you want to live.

By his willing and open overthrow of  the U.S. Constitution with its prohibitions on any activity by government other than what is explicitly permitted, he reveals his belief that he should be free to choose for you, and you should not.  Under this regime, the government does not owe you independence from its coercive powers to control your speech, your economic welfare, your freedom to assemble with those you choose; no - in Obama’s world it owes you retirement, healthcare, income of a certain level, and so on.  This means, of course, that it will have to confiscate money from other people in order to hand out these new ‘positive rights.’

Mr. Obama has also been quite open about his intentions of taking money away from some people and giving it to others – some special people he personally wants to support.  He lamented the direction of the civil rights movement because they followed the Constitution; because they had “…a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

By “redistributive” he means that he sees wealth earned by those who sacrificed, denied themselves, and worked hard to accumulate as not belonging to them at all.  Rather, it actually belongs to the government; in his view, your wealth is a government commodity.  It is a commodity that the government has the right to “redistribute”  to the people Mr. Obama sees as more deserving of it than you.  Certainly in his mind, those who earned it and sacrificed to accumulate it are not deserving of it, else he would not use the coercive powers of government to take it away from them so he can give it to people he deems worthy of it.  And so the concept of “private property” dies with most of the remaining parts of the Constitution under President Obama.

There is no longer any doubt about what he meant when he said just prior to his inauguration that he was just 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America. Forcing us to pay taxes without our consent, forcing us to purchase a product from a government controlled entity against our will, denying us the right to enter into contracts with people of our choosing for purposes of healthcare – all of this and more is breathtaking.  We have just witnessed a coup d’état sans violence.  The Constitution was written in order to protect us from people like Mr. Obama.  Now it is gone.  The smiling, benevolent, suffocating bureaucracies he is imp0sing are no less coersive than the Politbureaus, Oligarchies, and Star Chambers we have seen elsewhere.  Denying you freedom is denial if it comes with a fist or a smile.

It only remains to ask if you are willing to throw them out of office before we lose another Constitutional right – the right to vote.  This one is no more or less sacred than the others we have already lost.

“But, uh, you know, Wen, uh… my presidency depends on your support!” 

Better yet, send me your own captions and I will print them in a future post.  

President Barack Obama meets with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during a bilateral at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, Dec. 18, 2009. 

This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House. 

(Official White House disclaimer at Flickr.com)  I am in compliance, I am not suggesting approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

This from the National Weather Service on the huge storm dumping more than a foot of rain causing flooding in Florida.  

We cannot predict what the weather will be like for the next 72 hours, but Obama and Al Gore think they know what it’s going to be like 50 years from now.

‘They say to the seers,
       “See no more visions!”
       and to the prophets,
       “Give us no more visions of what is right!
       Tell us pleasant things,
       prophesy illusions.”‘

Israel feared the Assyrians, but the leaders thought the people would rather hear falsehoods - lies about how things were going, so they demanded that the prophets tell the people lies – pleasant things, illusions; and Isaiah was exposing those leaders for their deception and destructive leadership.   ‘Quit looking for information from God – we don’t need any information; the science is settled; we have decided what the people want.  If you’re going to prophecy quit telling us the truth; instead tell us that God is urging you to say pleasant things.’  Today we have many examples of this kind of evil leadership; here – in the spirit of Isaiah - I expose two of them.

Tom Freidman

Tom Freidman, columnist for the New York Times, suggests that we should support ending carbon based industry and energy even if there’s a 1% chance that they may cause global warming; that ending America’ s economic dominance in the world is worth it.  I wonder if Mr. Freidman would consider the same element of risk or reward for his 401-K investments. 

If there was a 99% chance he would make money on an investment, would he make that investment?  If the other side was true – a 1% chance of actually losing money – would he go ahead and invest?  I guess not.

Would Mr. Freidman have married his wife if there was only a 1% chance that the marriage would have worked out?  What about his two daughters?  Would he and his wife have gotten pregnant if there was a 1% chance of the girls being born with problems of some kind?  What if there was a 99% chance everything would go well with the pregnancies and births?  Would he refuse to take that risk?  If so, he wouldn’t have any children.

Would Mr. Freidman drive to work at the New York Times if he thought there was a 1% chance he would die in an accident on the way?  Of course he would; if not he wouldn’t have a job.  But according to his logic on global warming, he would refuse to drive to go to work at all – the risk is just too great.  Ending up in poverty would be better than taking the 1% risk.  Can’t be too careful, you know.

Barack Obama

What would Barack do?  What if it was revealed that those who were working the health care numbers for him had actually fudged the numbers and lied to him; that they had deleted their original work that supported what the president was now publicly proposing making him look like a fool; that they had conspired to hide information from him that would have helped him make a well-informed decision instead of an embarrassment; that they had worked to prevent other people with information from getting that information to him so he could make good decisions before going public?  Would he still support it?  Apparently so.

What if he was checking up on Michelle when he first saw her, and they began talking, telling him about herself, her family, and what she wanted in life?  What if they were discussing children, politics, friendships, what they liked and didn’t like and it turned out that Michelle had been lying?  What if she was creating a fictional character in Barack’s mind – that the real Michelle was much different than they one she was presenting? 

What if she told him she was liberal in her politics, and was a big fan of Dr. King; that she wanted to make a positive difference in the world?  What if she said she was going to law school so she could stand up for the downtrodden and disenfranchised; but it all turned out to be a lie?  What if she was actually very conservative in her politics, that she hated the Democrat party for their 160 year support of slavery, Jim Crow, poll taxes and lynching of blacks; for their poor support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and for destroying initiative among the black population by addicting them to welfare programs?  What if she actually was motivated by making money instead of working to help the poor?  What if she actually was already married? 

Would Barack feel deceived, or would he go ahead with the marriage because he preferred to believe that she really was a liberal, compassionate Democrat?  Would he go ahead with the marriage because he thought those who told him these things about her were Michelle deniers, and that he had already made up his mind about who is the ‘real’ Michelle; that the issue was settled?

Well, I guess we know the answers to these questions.

Increased Costs 

1. Mr. Obama has decided to reward his home state by making Illinois the home of the biggest nest of terrorists this side of Tora Bora.  Yes, the Obama has decided to bring the world’s worst terrorists to America.  

A few years ago when the state was flush with money, they built a new state prison for $145 million.  Then they ran into recession problems and didn’t have enough money to actually house prisoners – they are currently using about 10% of the prison’s capacity.  Obama has agreed to purchase the prison from the state of Illinois. 

Attorney General Eric Holder promises that they will pay to “harden” the prison making it, “the most secure prison in America.”  Yeah, Gitmo is already Geneva Convention, and Red Cross approved; already hardened,  It is the most secure prison in the world – we spent tens of $millions making it that way.  No matter; the Obama plans to let it grow weeds while he spends more of your money hardening yet another prison right in the heart of America.  

Today, Illinois officials and U.S. Senators were crowing about creating $1billion worth of jobs for Illinois residents, and they surely need that!  They didn’t say much about duplicating what we already have in Gitmo.  Heck, let’s create some more jobs! 

Legal Problems 

1. Once these terrorists (and alleged terrorists) set foot on U.S. soil they get all the same rights you have.  (You should be encouraged that you will be doing your part by footing the bill for $millions in legal fees provided at no cost for these animals.) 

A failure to convict any of these guys would require that they be released into the U.S. population.  Sure hope they stay in Illinois. 

2. The 2005 Real ID Act bars aliens who have been members of terror organizations, or who have had training in terror camps from entering the U.S.  Oh well, Mr. Holder will find a way around that.  But that could set a precedent permitting more known terrorists into the U.S. couldn’t it?

3. The Obama administration already proposed the idea of releasing Gitmo guys into the U.S. population, and of course we couldn’t expect them to get by without knowledge of the language or any income so they would have to be given welfare benefits.  How’s that hope and change working out for you?  President Bush wanted to attack the enemy while they are on foreign soil to prevent them from coming to the U.S. Barack Obama trumpets the announcement that he wants to BRING the terrorists into the U.S. and roll the dice on whether or not they can be convected of criminal activity!  Whole lot of change; not much hope.

4. Some U.S. judges will be sympathetic to detainees who have been held for years, and will be inclined to dismiss the charges on the basis that the prisoner’s (now) Constitutional right to a speedy trial has been denied, and set him free.

Increased Danger 

1. Most of the lawyers elbowing each other to try to defend these terrorists are ACLU radicals who use our legal system to ruin the country.  (If you think I’m making it up, read about the founder Roger Baldwin.) 

The ‘Blind Sheikh’ Omar Abdul Rahman was convicted of facilitating the 1993 World Trade Canter bombing and is serving time in a federal penitentiary.  His defense lawyer Lynne Stewart is also serving time in the federal pen. (The ACLU represented her, but lost in federal court.)  

She was convicted of passing messages from Rahman to his terrorist organization in Egypt – while he was in federal prison.  She had unrestricted access to him as his lawyer. 

Every one of the 200-odd detainees brought into the heart of our country will have numerous lawyers – each of whom will have unlimited access to their clients providing ample opportunity for more facilitation of terror in the U.S. 

2. Obama and Holder say the federal system needs more beds anyway, and the prison in Illinois has 1600 of them.  They are planning to house dangerous U.S. criminals in the same prison with some of the best terror recruiters in the world.  What could go wrong? 

Recruitment of disaffected, hardened, angry criminals will undoubtedly occur.  Remember that communication between Jeremiah Denton, John McCain, and other prisoners occurred in Vietnam despite them being isolated from each other for years.  Expect more domestic terror as a consequence of Obama’s stupid decision. 

3. Recently Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber” terrorist who tried to blow up an airliner full of civilians by igniting explosives in his shoe was moved.  Yes, he is serving time in a federal penitentiary after conviction, but he and his lawyer said Mr. Reid’s First Amendment rights were being violated because he couldn’t have communal prayer with other Muslim inmates.  Do you think a federal judge would deny Gitmo detainees the same?  Me either.  Think of this as a growth opportunity.

4. Each of these terrorists (and alleged terrorists) Obama insists on bringing into our home will have access to Muslim spiritual leaders for counsel.  Do you really think a federal judge will deny freedom of religion in a federal prison to a Muslim?  Yeah, right. 

This will also provide opportunity to facilitate communication between terror inmates since the spiritual leader will have access to more than one inmate.  It will also give them the opportunity to carry messages into and out of the prison for the terrorists. 

Cases dismissed 

Without doubt many of the terrorists from Gitmo will be turned loose into the U.S. population.  This is true because they can’t be convicted in a civilian court.  They will not be given the right to face their accusers because the accusers are CIA undercover agents, or other undercover law enforcement personnel.  In addition, none of these terrorists were given their Miranda warnings, and the U.S. government will refuse to testify if it means that sources or methods will be compromised. 

Conclusion

Obama says these problems can be handled by conducting certain prosecution witnesses interrogation in camera.  How stupid!  Would you expect secrecy when you have radical lawyers sitting in the room to defend their clients?

If you can’t provide prosecution witnesses because they fear for their life; and you can’t reveal how the prosecution got the information; and if you can’t prove that the defendant was warned about his (now) Constitutional right to not testify against himself; and if you can’t show how some of the information was generated because of enhanced interrogation, how can a jury find for the prosecution?  Many of these guys will not be convicted.

There will be some of the detainees who will never even have charges brought against them because the evidence that they were engaged in terrorist activities is insufficient to prove in a civilian trial.  They will be released into the U.S. population because that is what the court will require. 

Granting radical lawyers access to some of the world’s worst criminals; putting these terrorists in the company of deadly, angry criminals permitting conversion; and permitting the terrorists to ‘pray’ together because a denial of it would violate their (now) Constitution right is a recipe for disaster.  You will see terror recruitment and terrorists activities increase in the U.S.  During the election next year you will have the chance to respond to the political party who thinks we are better off with terrorists IN the U.S. instead of somewhere else.

When the administration’s political hack at the DOJ – Eric Holder – dismissed the slam dunk conviction of New Black Panther Party thugs for attempting to determine the outcome of the recent presidential election, Mr. Obama signaled his openness to election fraud nationwide.  This will set Democrats free to do whatever they need to do steal elections.

New Jersey already has a reputation for election violations, and we know that operatives are already at work.  You can read this Wall Street Journal piece by John Fund to see the details of what is likely to happen here. 

Washington state

Democrat Christine Gregoire was elected governor of Washington State in 2004 by 129 votes.  Dino Rossi, the Republican candidate was declared the winner, but a recount was triggered.  During each of the recounts, Gregoire moved ahead.  She was finally declared the winner by 129 votes.  There were 1,678 confirmed illegal votes statewide. 

In 2004 during the presidential race in 2004, it was confirmed that over 200 illegally voting felons cast votes in Washington state, and in addition, more than 100 people voted twice. 

Florida

During the 2000 presidential election in Florida, the election was determined by 547 votes giving the state’s electoral votes to George Bush.  But election fraud was rampant.  About 65,000 dead people were found to be on the election rolls, and we saw what the process of hand-counting the votes was like in Florida!  A newspaper found that more than 400 voters registered in New York City voted in New York, but they were also registered in Florida, and voted there as well. 

Illinois and Texas

It is well documented that Illinois electoral votes were given to John F. Kennedy, and because of voting fraud in Illinois and Texas John F. Kennedy was elected.  There is a great deal of evidence for these allegations.  Sam Giancana the mob boss in Chicago delivered delivered all union votes for Kennedy because of backdoor deals made regarding the Kennedy’s going easy organized crime.  “Landslide Lyndon” Johnson was now a powerful Senator from Texas which made delivery of Texas’ electoral votes a sure thing.

Later we found out that Kennedy was sleeping with (among many others) Judith Exner, one of the girlfriends of Sam Giancana.  After the Kennedy’s got to the White House, Bobby decided to go after organized crime with a vengeance.  This is why there were many allegations (never proven) that the mob was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. 

Lyndon Johnson was known as “landslide Lyndon” because of widespread belief that he had stolen his election to the Senate – he won the State of Texas by 87 votes. 

Absentee voting

Absentee voting has always been easy to manipulate, and now huge percentages of people in most some states vote by absentee ballot.  In fact, Oregon doesn’t have polling places at all – all votes are done by mail.  This results in people forging signatures, hides the tabulation of votes from scrutiny, and requires any legitimate voter to post his or her signature on the outside of the envelope making it easier for forgers to see how people sign their names.  This removes the process from public scrutiny making voter fraud easier. 

We know ACORN registers hundreds of thousands of “people” to vote when the “people” are dead, are members of football teams in other states, characters in Disney cartoons, and the like. 

So here’s what we have: an administration perfectly comfortable covering up for thugs who publically stand at polling places and refuse to permit voters to enter to vote, and a president who rose and was promoted by probably the most corrupt political machine in the world; Chicago, Illinois. 

My question:

If the radicals now running the country are in control of the voting process; if the voting process can to corrupted; and if the government expresses no interest in prosecuting voter fraud – what will future elections look like?  Will it be possible for those with a traditional view of America to actually win elections going forward?  This is why it is impossible to take Mr. Obama seriously when he complains about voter fraud on Afghanistan, demanding honesty and truth in the voting there.  Give me a break!  He worked for, and as a lawyer, legally defended ACORN which is perhaps the largest franchise for voter fraud in the world.  When we can no longer trust the outcome of elections, it is time for a political revolution to hire leaders who have proven themselves worthy of our trust; leaders we have vetted not the empty suit the media promoted in the last presidential election; leaders for whom the well-being of the country is more important than their personal well-being.