The Obama AWOL Birth Certificate Update

~Snooper~

JBlog me!

OK. For the recent uninformed visitor that goes by "Barbara", due to "her" inability to do "her" own homework and due to "her" obvious lack of the ability to think for "herself" (could be attributed to "her" self-proclaimed age of 62), the following are the posts, articles and items I have collected since last July. I have them classified as COLB and COLB Forgery. My personal posts are located here and here.

At one point in time, I was under the understanding that the issue of Barack's citizenship was a non-issue and the ensuing witch hunt that was prevalent from last January was an embarrassment. It wasn't until the weekend of the Move America Forward major and huge on-line Troopathon that my original opinion of this issue began to fade. During the time that I thought the issue was an atrocity perpetrated from the nuts on the right, I did not write on the subject but visited other sites and left comments trying to persuade others to drop it and fight on issues that mattered. I never brought up the issue on my Blog Talk Radio shows either.

That all changed on 04 JUL 08 thanks to my friend Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs whom I disagreed with on this issue of the COLB v Birth Certificate. Since that time, using my investigative skills and my Spook training and verbiage analysis training and applications learned, developed and expounded upon for decades, I began to see an underlying current in this issue as it began to unfold. Most missed it. Some still miss it. I bring up that which most have missed or perhaps disregarded was the fact that Barack Hussein Obama can place this whole issue to bed very easily and quickly yet has not done so. The question is why he hasn't to this point.

It could be because of the audacity of people to dare question him. We have all seen the way he reacted (never responded - there is a difference) to anyone questioning him on any issue. It could be his narcissistic and arrogance that has caused him to not place this issue to bed and that has resulted in his inability to appear weak and cornered. He, being the typical American liberal democrat, cannot ever be seen as weak or vulnerable or to take personal responsibility for a bad decision and that bad decision was to drop this issue back in April of 2008.

He could have very well ended all discussions of his natural-born status when John McCain's was ended but he did not. Perhaps because he could not and cannot still.

In April of 2008, Senator McCain's "natural born" citizen status was settled by Senate Resolution 511. I thought it peculiar that Patrick Leahy would make the comment that the term "natural born citizen" was not defined in the Constitution when it clearly is defined. One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the Constitutional definition when the definition is clearly stated in the Constitution. There is other verbiage in the Resolution that is equally suspect.

[...] Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; [...]

This statement was added to the Resolution by none other than Barack Hussein Obama. Why?

In the process of my self-admonitions of following for a well crafted scam, I ran across this post recently after Pamela Geller rocked my world back in July.

[...] From Obama own website:

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor
sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship
automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Question?

How could it expire, if he never had it? [END]

Indeed. My learning and my cravings for knowledge will never end on this subject. In the linked post, I learned several other items of interest and I do believe that honest people will also see the light, as it were. Naturally, the apologists that can never admit to being in error will claim high and mighty blissful ignorance.

That segment linked above has since been scrubbed from Obama's web site and by his own admissions, he is of Kenyan birth. Perhaps that is why the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States has stated in a recent interview that Obama's birthplace in Kenya is well known and why Kenya has proclaimed a National Holiday in honor of one of their own ascending to the Presidency of the United States. I did a special show on the Kenyan connection last week where we aired the interview with the Ambassador. If Obama was not born in Kenya, why then did his Kenyan citizenship expire in 1982 and how did he come to have dual citizenship when Kenya does not recognize or allow dual citizenship other than British?


A shortened portion of that interview can be heard here and the entire interview can be heard here, complete with mundane chit-chat. The first 10 minutes is fairly boring actually.

By the way, the photo to the left is not a viable birth certificate but it is just as valid as the COLB posted around the internet. I find it comical in a sad sense that the COLB that was proven to be a forgery is still being presented as authentic when the original postings as MoveOn, KOS and Obama's web sites have all been removed. There is a pathology to that I am sure.

Barack Obama and his campaign have spent nearly $800K to NOT reveal the authentic vault birth certificate that every American is issued upon birth. The average cost of obtaining a certified copy of the obtainable birth certificate is $10. Why not spend the $10 and put this issue to rest. If he is in fact a natural born citizen, so be it and we can get along fighting his Marxist nonsense and his pathetically vague policies.


The forged COLB being passed off as a birth certificate (a COLB is not a BC) process is detailed here. Thank God for document forensic science.

It is said that there is a vault copy in Hawaii dated 1961 which is type writer written and sealed from public view and is said to have been released on November 15th. That never happened.

The lad to the right is the forgery dude and he has been cornered and caught. This happened on 06 JUL 08 and the Obama Media is oddly silent. He is or was the Obama Spokesman that stated that the forgery was real and was the official birth certificate. Oddly enough, or not, Labolt didn't know that a COLB wasn't a birth certificate as most of the libtards don't know as well. Curious, ain't it? This is merely one more example in a very long and historical list of examples of how the Leftinistra repeat a lie for long periods of time hoping and knowing that the easily led and easily duped with believe a lie when it is heard over and over, over a long period of time.

Always remember this: "If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!"

Further studies and searching revealed this paper written in 2006: in part, pdf located here:

AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE

SARAH P. HERLIHY

INTRODUCTION

The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution,1 “undecidedly un-American,”2 “blatantly discriminatory,”3 and the “Constitution’s worst provision.”4 Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency.5 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:

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.6

Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.7 In addition to Governor Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen clause prohibits many other prominent Americans from becoming president, including Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm,8 former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao,9 and over 700 Medal of Honor Winners.10 Even though many of these individuals have served in high political positions or fought in a war on behalf of America, they are not able to become president simply because they were not born in the United States.11

The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty. The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citizen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal system. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 19–21, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amendment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12 Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion. Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Amendment. [...]

Why would the natural born clause be an obstacle?

And, in whose path is the obstacle in the way of? Interesting this is indeed. The answer is in further study and discovery, using the legalese of the Friends of Barack, mainly the law firm of whose employ the author of this piece is beholden to. When did Barack decide to run as President? Wasn't it in 2006, officially? What are the odds that Leftinistra law firms and Leftinistra Chicago lawyers of that law firm, which had/have long historical relationships with Czarbie, suddenly be wanting to "deal with" that damned pesky "natural-born clause"? Hmm?

Be prepared, ladies and gentlemen. A fully socialized and "communal" (globalized) America is on the horizon if we do not rise up to the salvation od our Freedoms so richly threatened by the globalization socialists that dwell among us. And morons say that the List of 45 is crazy. HA!

I find all of this ironic because GWB's critics criticized him for his "Globalization" outreach yet these same critics are themselves Globalists. I guess once more that Globalization is only good when the socialists do it.

Go ahead Barack. Make my day. Show your VAULT birth certificate and stop being a coward, cowering behind your Goon Squads and that forged Certificate of Live Birth fraud and scam. If you have an honest bone in your body, you would end this once and for all. Oh. Wait.

UPDATE: I get it now...what a freeptard is...someone called me that. This article has been excerpted by Free Atlanta and placed in the Free Republic web site, as opposed to the Not So Free Democracy web site. There is a difference between a Republic and a Democracy, fyi. Count me as a proud freeptard. LOL!

Islam or Liberty?

An  editorial in the Wall Street Journal raises critical issues. Lets examine them carefully.
Geert Wilders
'Our Culture Is Better'
Champion of freedom or anti-Islamic provocateur? Both.
By JAMES TARANTO

Mr. Wilders is right to call for a vigilant defense of liberal principles. A society has a right, indeed a duty, to require that religious minorities comply with secular rules of civilized behavior. But to demand that they renounce their religious identity and holy books is itself an affront to liberal principles.

---

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

---

    Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  Laws prohibiting the free exercise of Islam are unconstitutional.  Congress can not outlaw: 

• Jihad: [Translator's footnote to 2:190.]
• holy fighting
• in Allah's cause
• Bukhari 4.52.41
• Bukhari 4.52.65
• with full force of arms
• establishes Islam
• makes Allah's word superior
• Islam is propagated.
• Jihad means to war against non-Muslims [Reliance of the Traveller: O9.0 (Islamic law.)]
• Mandatory:
• against pagans
• 8:39  And fight them until there is no more Fitnah...and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone...
• Reliance of the Traveller O9.9
• The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim...
• against Jews & Christians
• 9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah,...among the people of the Scripture...until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
• Reliance of the Traveller O9.8
• The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...
• Genocide:
• 8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. ...
• 47:4. So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allâh's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam...
• Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:
  Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
  I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.
  
• Terrorism:
• 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, ...
• 8:12. ... I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."
• Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
   Narrated Abu Huraira:
  
      Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),...
• Rape of captive women:
• 4:24. Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess.
• Bukhari 5.59.459 

    Jihad, genocide, terrorism & rape (of captives) are intrinsic sacraments of Islam; religious practices under the umbrella of first amendment protection.  That does not square with liberal principles:

• right to life
• liberty
• freedom of religious belief & practice.

If Muslims have the right to practice Islam, then you do not have any rights.

• life
• Muslims may kill you as a rebel against Allah. Your blood and property are not sacred to Muslims.
• Muslims are commanded to attack Kuffar at least once in every year. [Reliance O9.1]
• liberty
• Pagans & atheists  must be killed, converted or enslaved. 
• People of the Book may be converted or live as less than second class citizens under a "treaty of protection".
• Dhimmis may not:
• pray or recite scripture aloud in public
• build new churches
• repair existing churches
• own or carry weapons
• testify in court against a Muslim

    Muslims can not renounce the Qur'an or any part thereof without becoming apostates subject to the death penalty.

• Reliance O8.7.7 to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it; [Acts which entail apostasy.]
• O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
• O8.2  In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

    The Qur'an can not be edited to render Islam anodyne.

• Allah has perfected it. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved. 
• 6:115. And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All­Hearer, the All­Knower

    An irreconcilable conflict exists between the imperatives of Islam and the rules of civilized behavior & rights of man enshrined in the Declaration of Independence & guaranteed by the Constitution.  The preservation of our lives & liberties requires the removal of  Islam from our society.

• Close the Mosques.
• Close the Madrassahs.
• Close the Islamic Cultural Centers.
• Deport the Muslims already here. 
• Prevent the entry of Muslims. 

    None of those necessary actions can be taken without first amending the Constitution to recognize the fact that Islam is a war machine, not a legitimate religion worthy of first amendment protection.  Pedestrian Infidel has posted a proposed 28^th amendment. An on line petition calling for a generic amendment is explained here and is posted at petition on line.

Hopey-Changey Idiocy and The Liars of Academia

~Snooper~

In recent days I have had a blithering idiot trying to convince me that the United States of America was formed as a Democracy because, after all, the entire world thinks we are a Democracy and that the World Bank says that we are. This is a direct result of the lies that they tell, with the "they" being American Academia. I know...I practically live in American Academia.

Students are also poisoned by sycophantic buffoons that are so demented, they write complete and total idiocy and have no basis of fact to substantiate their inane mental illnesses. They claim President Bush should be imprisoned for crimes perceived to have been committed when there is absolutely no proof of the alleged crimes. They also claim some loyalty to the United States Constitution yet afford no Due Process for the man they hate. Krauthammer was dead nuts Spot On when he coined the phrase which described the mental instability now known as Bush Derangement Syndrome. I wrote about the resurgence of BDS not too long ago. A special song was written just for those that have no clue and it is indeed appropriate. For the news media and the BDS crowds, the world's woes will always be Bush's fault until they figure out what tools they have been for Czarbie.

As is now seen as a universal and well known fact, the vast majority of the Obama voters are quite dumb, ignorant and flat-out stupid with no repairs in the foreseeable future. Odolatry is infecting the emotionally unstable; hope and change has been redefined; hope and change will be decided by the new and real Decider; Obama denies his lies yet clings to them at the same time; Obama hopes to change his supporters' minds by selecting old school Clintonistra; the Leftinistra are having second thoughts now which should have been their first thoughts had they listened to us that already knew; veterans express concern over a Czarbie "presidency"; and a Democrat Civil War breaks out in DC.

With what we now know of the Messiah Hussein which is a lot less by light years what we don't know about the Messiah Hussein, isn't it much clearer now why our Founding Fathers made it clear that only the informed were qualified to vote?

The following are excerpts from links provided above...

[...] “Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost,” [Obama] told reporters at his third press conference in as many days. ”It comes from me. That’s my job, is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going, and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing.” [...]

------

[...] Just 2% of voters who supported Barack Obama on Election Day obtained perfect or near-perfect scores on a post election test which gauged their knowledge of statements and scandals associated with the presidential tickets during the campaign, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows. Only 54% of Obama voters were able to answer at least half or more of the questions correctly. [...]

------

[...] Barbara Walters asked Barack Obama how hiring current Defense Secretary Bob Gates and former Bill Clinton cronies constituted the “change” he pimped during the course of his presidential campaign.

Obama’s answer: his cabinet will bring the experience he lacks while he will ‘represent’ change.

Oh, goodie. Bait and switch, anyone? [...]

------

[...] The process proscribed within the Constitution allowed the document to be amended, and without the help of any judicial interpretation. The founding fathers believed, as I do, that the long term welfare of our nation is best served by an informed, invested electorate. Thus, I question the assumption that the original intent fails at all - not only for these reasons, but due to the fact that women were not allowed to vote then because they were not regarded as well enough educated or informed, and that only property owners were thought to have enough of an investment in the long term welfare of the state to qualify as voters. This was the framer's original intent - they believed that such a requirement to qualify to vote was not unreasonable. Would we not be better off today if that principle were applied? It might have been better if the Constitution were more clear, stating outright that only informed citizens with a vested interest are allowed to vote, but clearly, the idea as it was manifested at the time of the writing is a sound one. If anyone today is regarded as well-informed, and non-land owners as vested, let them vote. But preserve the integrity of the system and erect a bar over which people must climb before voting. We will all be better off. [...]

Can you smell the Revolution?

Reeducating The Yutes: Part 6

~Snooper~

On the top of the sidebar to the left (for now with no pun intended) you will find the collection of posts in regards to reeducating the yutes. The particular troll that goes by Barbara finally caught on to the "yutes" moniker and has claimed to be 62 years old and that I cannot teach it anything. I wasn't trying to teach "Barbara" anything. I am exposing the fool for what it is...an idiot moron libtard troll. Get it right.

In part 6, I will be taking the comments from the comments section of Part 1 of this series. Parts 1 through 5 were created from comments left in the originating post located here entitled, "So What Do We Do About It?". In the originating piece, we covered the following in the body of the post; Bible and gun clinging, Nanny States, socialism, liberalism, energy, the many lies of Obama, idiot statements of Obama revealing his inexperience and inept governance, Anarchy, mob rule, fear-mongering, the DNC link and history to slavery and discrimination, voter and campaign fraud, media bias, Obama's narcissism, the liberal pathology, exposing progressivism as socialism and liberalism and the United States Constitution.

I attracted a troll that took exception to liberalism being a mental disorder and then proceeded to prove that it was. I always give the libtards enough rope to hang themselves because they always do. When I alluded to the premise that this particular troll was the "usual suspect", IT got very angry and could not stay on topic. This is also why I do these types of posts. They cannot EVER stay on topic for very long. It is emotionally and mentally impossible for the trolls to stay on topic...I haven't met one that could for very long. I see nothing has changed. Anyway, let us begin.

FYI: this topic has inspired the creation of a new series on my Blog Talk Radio shows. Starting Monday, we will begin reeducating the folks that want to learn by exposing the idiots that are screwing up our Federal Republic that the Founding Fathers created because of the failed Democracies of their time. I haven't scheduled any shows for December but that will change this afternoon. Please stand by.

First comment from Part 1 from libtard troll Q: (used to be A)

Please answer the questions I posed to you on your previous blog especially when I ask How is it unconstitutional to provide health care for all Americans?we have done this for senior citizens for decades. it has never been found to be unconstitutional. please explain how it is unconstitutional. you made an assertion. you should be able to explain what makes it unconstitutional

also explain why you do not accept the picture of Obama's birth certificate that appears on the LA TIMES website and many others.

Explain how liberalism is a mental illness when it is liberal ideas that brought about the formation of our country and so many of its greatest freedoms.. you keep calling names. but you show no proof for your inane assertions like saying that because the US is a Republic it is therefore not a Democracy. I showed you a map from Encarta which shows all the liberal democracies in the world, and it includes the US. Are Encyclopedias wrong?

IT is impatient. I already answered the Health Care deal but IT refuses to accept the fact that the Constitution doesn't authorize National Health Care. IT hasn't read the Constitution and that is what I am trying to get people to do...read the Constitution.

I don't accept the "picture" of Obama's birth certificate as proof because it isn't a picture of a birth certificate because it is a picture of a Certificate of Live Birth which was provewn to be a forgery and removed from the Daily KOSmonoff web site and Obama's web site BECAUSE it was proved to be a forgery. FYI, the one that did the forgery ADMITTED to it and that is why it was removed. Why news outlets still publish the picture of the COLB as a BC AFTER the news of the forgery was just about everywhere is not a mystery to anyone that pays attention.

The poor thing is stuck on maps in encyclopedias as proof of one thing or another and that reveals an empty and shallow mind.

Second comment from Part 1 from libtard troll Q: (used to be A)

and snooper, I have already apologized for my first rude posting and for name calling. That was wrong of me and I am not proud of it. Now you need to answer my questions.

Thank you for linking to your previous article so that readers can view my comments for themselves. That was fair of you, but I get the feeling that your readers probably aren't too thorough when gathering information. Just a feeling I have.

More emotional nonsense. It says that I "need to answer" ITS questions. No, I do not. This is my home, my blog and I do as I please. End of discussion. No one dictates to me what I do on my blog. Period. Right after it "apologized", IT started all over which is typical.

Third comment from Part 1 from libtard troll Q: (used to be A)

you wrote a huge article filled with nonsense. I systematically challenged your statements and you have not backed up your statements with any facts or logical arguments. Why should anyone believe what you write if you can't back it up with facts? you said universal health care would be unconstitutional. Explain how that is true. do you think you can just make outrageous statements and have normal people swallow them whole/

I am not some ignorant ditto head who just swallows a bunch of silly slogans- socialism, marxism!!! Blah Blah Blah. what are your ideas for actually dealing with the nation's problems?

the new president is working on a new bill of rights for VETS. You must certainly think that is a good idea. Don't you think that vets should get some benefits for the sacrifices they have made???

if you have a blog, you are supposed to support the ideas on your blog.

How in the world are you educating me?// with some goofy list of 45? nonsense.

you said Obama is not a citizen yet there are pictures of his BC all over the web. you have no answer as to why this is and as to why officials in Hawaii confirm it is a legal document.

you make up your own facts. you are free to your opinions but you can't distort facts in making arguments.

if you are going to blog, you need to support your views

IT thinks IT challenged my statements. Ummmm, no IT did not. IT started with ad homs and went on a rant about Walter Reed. The only systematic thing the troll did was prove the fact that liberalism is a mental disorder, plain and simple.

Obama's bill of rights for veterans is total nonsense. He hates our Troops just like any other libtard Marxist.

IT then goes off on the List of 45 and calls it a stupid list. Well, naturally a socialist twit would say such stupidity. The List of 45 was read into the official record of Congress in 1963 and the Marxists back then said the same as the Marxist Barbara said. Amazing how the parroting has remained the same. IT claims to be 62 but I suppose IT doesn't remember much of 1963.

I suppose the CPUSA supporting Obama doesn't ring any bells with this trollop. More of the same can be found here not all written by me.

The poor thing also doesn't know the difference between a COLB and a BC nor does it know anything about the recent Kenyan connection. Everything IT needs to know about this issue is right here but IT has refused to go there because IT is too busy proven ITS mental instability.

IT makes the claim that I don't support that which I write. Yes, I do. The issue is this: IT doesn't accept them so IT thinks I don't. Silly thing.

Read the comments that IT has made and you tell me if IT has supported ITS claims and assertions. Yep. Liberalism is a mental disorder just like Drs Rossiter and Krauthammer have stated and proven. FYI, I have already provided the substantiation to this cretin but I doubt IT has gone there. IT will say something like, "NO YOU HAVEN'T! NEENER NEENER BOO BOO!"

Fourth comment from Part 1 from libtard troll Q: (used to be A) ROFLMAO!!

oh now you on to your great respect for human life. ie:the human fetus. You must have lots of blogs condemning Bush's torture of innocent people in violation of our laws and to the Geneva Convention. Our own military leaders including Colin Powell were against the use of torture. Please point me to your blogs of outrage about this inhuman practice since you have such a reverance for human life. and, of course, anyone who is pro life would be against a war against a country that had nothing to do with 911. Pro life people would be against unnecessary war, I would assume. and of course, you must have many blogs against the death penalty. Please provide a link::

The moron DEMANDS a link to something that doesn't exist yet does not provide ITS own for anything other than a wiki or some encyclopedia someplace or a known Marxist libtard POS blog like Crooks and Dope Smokers. Amazing.

Bush's torture of innocent people? Who might they be? What is the definition of torture? Does anyone know? What is the "legal" definition of torture? Does anyone know? Why have the politicians dropped this issue like a sore dick? Oh. Wait. Are sore dicks torture? The torture issue is another non-issue issue and this issue was dropped from the political arena for a reason...it wasn't an issue from the start and, Obama has said recently that he will CONTINUE the policy. The libtards have been SILENT on that portion of the feigned torture issue which isn't an issue.

As soon as the libtards reject and denounce abortion and the murder of American babies and babies around the globe, then and only then will I give a damn about "torture" of enemy combatants which are not afforded Geneva Convention rules because they do not qualify for them by the very tenets of the Geneva Convention. I can hardly wait for the idiot's reaction to that.

The idiot also has an aversion to the War and Iraq and 911. Simply amazing that this fool hasn't figured it out by now...that is another non-issue issue. WOW!

Fifth comment from Part 1 from libtard troll Q: (used to be A)

regarding the constitution,

you can google Bush and the constitution and you will get dozens of articles by constitutional law scholars as to Bush's gutting of the Constitution.

here is conyer's list from a congressional report:

http:// www.afterdowningstreet.or...itutionincrisis

here is one of many of John Turley's
appearances on TV condemning Bush's violations of our constitution. He is a constitutional law professor:

http://crooksandliars.com/silent...l-maddow-show- w

Self explanatory there. Google this.

The 6th comment was a repeat of the 4th...I guess the poor thing was too busy taking marching orders from ITS handlers to notice the cut and pasting routine got out of hand.

A Special For Those Suffering From the "We Are A Democracy" Dementia

~Snooper~

With all of the sincerity I can muster...

Reeducating The Yutes: Part 5

~Snooper~

Reference Parts 1 and 2 and 3 and 4.

This series started with this post right here.

This is the last comment to be dissected for the originating post here. Part 6 of this series will be created by comments placed in Parts 1 and following of this series called Reeducating The Yutes.

Comment #6 from Liberal A: this is a doozy

the united states is not a Democracy????
Are you insane?? do you read anything other than your own whack job authorities. the whole world considers the US a democracy. You and your ilk are terrifying to the future of any rational society. where are your answers to the questions I have posed to you. where is the debate. it is you who are not capable of debate because you have no facts to back up your nonsensical assertions.

how is it unconstitutional to provide health care to all of our citizens?
we have done this for senior citizens for decades. it has never been found to be unconstitutional. please explain how it is unconstitutional. you made an assertion. you should be able to explain what makes it unconstitutional

Judas H Priest. What a ninny. IT demands answers to ITS questions yet offers none of ITS own. Poor thing. Must be tough living in that moonbat spider hole. Let's see if I can "answer these ad homs".

No, I am not insane unless I think fixing a moonbat's idiocy, self-induced, is actually possible. And, no, the USA is not a Democracy or at least it wasn't founded as one. It may be one now seeing that every moron in and out of government thinks that mob rule is the law of the land. Mob rule is not the law of the land...yet but it is getting close. Just look how those morons in CA and across the country are reacting to the Prop 8 vote in CA. Those Anarchists seem to think that if they burn enough churches down and if they send white powder to enough people, the majority will yield to the minority. That is what democracy is...mob rule.

I have presented many facts and substantiation to my every point and assertion and this moonbat has brought none...IT came unprepared to be spanked and had by the Mad Hadder, me. And now, IT is upset so IT accuses me of doing what IT is doing...making lame assertions with zero facts and examples.

It is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to provide Health Care, Unemployment, Food Stamps, Welfare and any other socialist give-away program that cannot be reconciled with the United States Constitution. As soon as someone in and of authority that can provide Constitutional Chapter and Verse for every single Federal Government agency, policy and program, I will accept them if they are indeed Constitutional. Seeing that the Federal Government never has and seeing that absolutely no politician has done so, I can only conclude that there isn't Constitutional standing for any of them. I am talking about on the Federal level and not on the State level...there is a difference. We fought a Civil War over States Rights that some think was over slavery...which it wasn't.

And, I don't give a DAMN if "we have been doing it for a long time", no matter what that particular "it" is. Some politicians have tried to have our CONgress substantiate everything with the US Consttution and they will not even bring that out of committee. I wonder why that is.

Reeducating The Yutes: Part 4

~Snooper~

Reference Parts 1 and 2 and 3.

This series started with this post right here.

It was a simple post actually and an obvious one at that. It started with a simple question and the poor thing had a conniption fit over the Republic v Democracy thing. It obviously wants a Democracy and I am sure any Democracy would make this idiot happier than returning to our Federal Republic as outlined in our Constitution.

UHOH! More talking dulls from a deluded and poisoned mind. It actually DOES believe this crap!

Comment #5 From Libtard IDIOT A: ROFLMAO! I really don't know where to begin with this complete and utter fool.

you said you wanted to debate. you haven't answered any of my questions:

Federal Republic IS a form of democracy. we consider ourselves a democracy.here is a map of modern democricies. They are even called "Liberal Democracies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Lib...beral_democracy

case closed. please answer my questions about the gutting of all of our regulatory agencies.

here's another question: apparently, you think government doesn't work. that't true when it's run by incompetents and criminals like the ones in the Bush administration. Bush privitized Walter Reed Hospital. Greed took over and veterans received no care.It is back to government control now.when Obama gets in, veterans will get the care they deserve. Bush pushed student loans into private credit providers. Those providers are gutting students with usorous interest rates and unfair practices. here is an article in today's paper.

Student Loan Aid Is Test for Treasury
Groups Urge No Bailout Benefit To Private Lenders

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...ml? hpid=topnews

of course the republican congress gutted all the regulations on credit card companies and they are now charging up to 39% interest. I suppose you support that too.

So since you are against government, Mr Historian, why don't you name one country in the whole history of the world that has had NO government. Do you suggest a country of 390 million people have no rules and regulations, no one to fix the roads, protect the consumer, provide a safety net for the poor and sick. what are governments for, just for killing and the military, kind of like the Libertarian idea??? Tell me Mr Historian. Elaborate on those phoney nonsensical soundbites of yours!

Please tell me how providing health care to all of our citizens would be unconstitutional. Explain how it would be unconstitutional. I will be happy to debate.

I am sorry I called you names. I am not proud of that, but I would like your detailed answers since you have written a long opinion piece.

Respectfully,

Barbara

Holy Toledo ladies and gentlemen! I mean, DAMN! This was sure has the SALAD thing down doesn't it?

The very first sentence in this idiot's comment is one of those jumping to conclusions things. I wonder where I stated that I "wanted to" debate? I don't debate idiots. I squash them. Period. There is no debating a fool and this particular fool is the very epitome of a spoiled brat, breaking out in temper tantrums. It really is amazing.

In parts 2 and 3 of this series, the comments therein bear the assertion of the emotional idiocy so common among the basic childish libtard that has absolutely no idea what they think they are talking about. It is incredible. Comments for Part 2 is located here and Part 1 comments is located here. I am quite sure that this series will go for quite some time due to the comments that are in Parts 1 and 2...I haven't even gotten to them yet but if one of the contributors of this blog wants to make a post on them, go ahead and do so.

Whenever they mention ANYTHING with wikipedia in it you know you have a total buffoon on your hands. Checkmate at this point and anything they say afterwards can be discounted as irrelevant. To make matters worse for itself, after IT cited wiki, he cited the Washington Compost. I am surprised that IT didn't cite the National Enquirer as well. Hell, in other comments IT cited the Rolling Stone for Christ's sake. DAMN!

These idiots shouldn't be allowed to vote. Now do you all understand why our Founding Fathers allowed for only the informed people vote? This one is sorely ill informed. Michael Sall has something to say about that as well.

Once again and as usual, IT makes a claim with absolutely no examples and no proof. IT makes the claim and I guess expects or "demands" that I answer ITS questions. That doesn't fly here in this blog. So, when the moron says that Bush is a war criminal and incompetent without the examples or proof or substantiation, I'll not do ITS homework for IT. I know EXACTLY what IT is going to say if IT has the guts to place the examples in the comments but I doubt IT will. The poor thing has already been spanked hard and has been had by the Mad Hadder...me.

When did President Bush "privatize" Walter Reed? I must have missed that memo. Chapter and verse please. Another incredible and outrageously retarded statement by this moron is that I don't want a government. I nearly lost an entire mouthful of coffee on that one.

Someone help me out here and let me know EXACTLY when and where that I have ever said that.

The only item that can be truly addressed in this comment is the subject of Federal Government provision of Health Care. National Health Care or Socialized Health Care or any other name the liberals want to give it is unconstitutional because the very premise cannot be reconciled with the United States Constitution. Period. End of discussion. Name the chapter and verse in the United States Constitution where that is addressed and I will buy into it. Now, if each individual State wants to provide that kind of health care to the residents of the individual States and the PEOPLE of those States so choose that for themselves, that is a different story. The Federal Government, by the US Constitution, does not have that authority.

The United States Constitution belongs to We The People and not the Government. Period.

Reeducating The Yutes: Part 3

~Snooper~

Reference Parts 1 and 2.

This is getting quite entertaining. What we have here is an official professional libtard idiot troll. Yes sir. A Pro Troll. What with all of the leaping and plunging to a previously perceived conclusion, their emotions take over and infer just about anything imaginable to support their inability to produce any substantiation at all. Simply amazing.

I was going to place three of the comments, #s 4, 5 and 6 here but I have changed my mind. It makes the posts too long. So, I will utilize #4 comment from the original post that started this reeducation process.

Comment #4 from Libtard Troll A:

as those of us who have gone to school know: a federal republic is a form of democracy: Your labels are silly and show an inability to think critically and in-depth. everything isn't just black or white- old snoopy

Encarta Answers
Democracy:
(Greek demos, "the people �; kratein, “to rule�), political system in which the people of a country rule through any form of government they choose to establish. In modern democracies, supreme authority is exercised for the most part by representatives elected by popular suffrage.
More about Democracy | Source

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/re...spx? q=democracy

WOW! Proof positive that this foolish imp has an ego the size of ITS plant between the legs, as it were. Not a SINGLE original thought other than emotionally charged drivel and then a word for word incantation from someone else that did ITS thinking for IT. Very interesting pathology there. Dr Rossiter and Dr Krauthammer would have field days with this one. I am sure Freud would as well.

The poor thing is stuck on whether or not we are a Democracy because IT has never taken the time to actually read our Constitution. If IT had, IT would know that we are not a Democracy but a Federal Republic operating under Democratic Principles.

IT has also revealed several of ITS "other identities" by using specific monikers.

It matters not a wit what people of today call or label the Nation we call the United States. What matters is what is in the US Constitution. It really is that simple and the simpletons should be able to decipher and discern this. Hell, my 13 year old can.

Don't you just love how the libtards say things like, "as those of us who have gone to school know: ", and then quote someone else? ROFLMAO!

Reeducating The Yutes: Part 2

~Snooper~

Please reference Part 1.

The comments which have inspired this series can be located here for the thread referenced in Part 1.

The second and third comments in the post originally written here is what we will deal with in this post. To be clear, please take note that the comments do not address the lies of Obama and his migration from the far-left Marxist ideology to the alleged and feigned centrist ideologies now being put forth by The One Messiah. The Czarbie apologists have begun there realization...Obama lied just like we said he was doing. The one placing the comments has also ignored the birth certificate issue, the democrat fear-mongering quagmire; self induced, the Democrat Party history of slavery, bigotry, the formation of the KKK, voter and campaign fraud and their unconstitutional principles and practices while claiming others have shredded the document. However, that is to be expected because one cannot debate the Leftinistra on Principles and Policies and Issues...they lose every time. They would "Rather" talk about their fantasies and their lies as if they are Truth. With that said, let us begin.

Comment #2 by Liberal A: (notice the unoriginal cut and paste technique...they have no originality to speak of)

Here is a section from Encarta about a great liberal thinker who influenced our founding fathers:

IV
John Locke
Print this section

An influential early liberal was the English philosopher John Locke. In his political writings, which deeply influenced the framers of the United States Constitution, he argued for popular sovereignty, the right of rebellion against oppression, and toleration of religious minorities. According to the thought of Locke and his many followers, the state exists not to promote people ’s spiritual salvation, but to serve its citizens and to guarantee their life, liberty, and property under a constitution.

Much of Locke ’s philosophy is reflected in the writings of the Anglo-American political philosopher and writer Thomas Paine, who argued that the authority of one generation should not be considered binding on its successors, that the state is perhaps necessary but still an evil, and that a belief in divine order was all the religion that need be demanded of free people. Thomas Jefferson also echoed Locke in the Declaration of Independence and in later pronouncements defending revolutions, attacking paternalistic government, and upholding free expression of unpopular opinions.

In France, Locke ’s philosophy was taken over by the leaders of the French Enlightenment, notably by the author and philosopher Voltaire. He insisted that the state should be supreme over the church and demanded universal religious toleration, abolition of censorship, lenient punishment of criminals, and a strong state acting only under general rules of law against forces obstructive of social progress and individual liberty. For Voltaire as for the French philosopher and dramatist Denis Diderot, the state is a machine for the creation of happiness and a positive instrument designed to check a strong nobility and a strong church, the two forces they considered most uncompromisingly dedicated to the conservation of old institutions.

http://encarta.msn.com/ encyclope...Liberalism.html

They make it hard to read sometimes with the cut and paste deals due to the odd-ball symbols. This is usually the sign that they have brought another's verbiage to the Debate Table because they have none of their own that mean anything. Their own verbiage that they write themselves is normally rife with ad homs and emotional drivel and has absolutely no basis in fact except for the usual moniker of "google it". Such shallow and child-like idiocy makes me chuckle and can inspire posts such as this.

Comment #3 by Liberal A:

do you see where liberals influenced the founders of this country and our constitution?????? You are completely ignorant. you like to use stupid labels like all you right wing non-thinkers. Liberalism Marxism. how about fascism and GW Bush. You people have just about destroyed our whole country and still you are spewing your ignorant chatter without any decent policies or concrete suggestions in sight. you are a disgrace to any intelligent society. Go get yourself an education. You hold degrees? Really hard to believe unless it is one of those right wing religious schools that make up their own "facts".

Fact: a photograph of Obama's birth certificate is online here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/...bama- birth.html

if you are a history major, you should respect modern day historians,

here's an article about some of their thinking.there are other even worse polls of their opinions. maybe most historians are liberals because they have studied history and they see what policies and ideas are for the common good and which are not and which are actually destructive

http://www.rollingstone.com/ news...dent_in_history

I am just curious. you appear to be one of the 26% who think Bush has done a hell of a job.. just tell me why you think it is a good thing that he gutted all of our regulatory agencies- including those that protect our food and our environment, not to mention those that used to regulate financial institutions and the trading of commodities. Please tell me how that is a good thing.

then tell me why it is right that this disgraceful human being politicized our whole JUstice department. Is that what freedom and democracy are all about. yes our country is referred to as a democracy. JUst like Bush the idiot says he is spreading democracy all around the world-via war and torture. did you see how those world leaders refused to shake his hand??? I guess degrees are easy to come by these days. Bush has a degree from Yale and the whole world knows he is a know nothing who admitted to having read only one book that wasn't about Baseball or wasn't the Bible-his first debate..

oh well, you will keep spewing your nonsense, I am sure..

Barbara

There is quite a gathering of words forming sentences and all but they don't amount to much of anything substantial but we will try and make some sense of it anyway.

John Locke: yes, he influenced just about everyone he met and those he never met via his writings. I am one of them. However, his "liberalism" is not the same as Americanized Liberalism which amounts modern socialism, Marxism and Communism and in recent years "Progressivism". Equating today's Liberalism with John Locke is not only laughable but absolutely ridiculous. However, referencing the List of 45, one will find that this particular tactic was discussed before this particular "liberal" was born. Behold:

29) Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30) Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man".

31) Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture": Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32) Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture - - education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33) Eliminate all laws or procedures, which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34) Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

42) Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political, or social problems.

All of the above are obviously diametrically opposed to the writings of John Locke which I have studied for decades so when a "liberal" brings up John Locke, you can see why I find that particularly funny and how it reveals their utter ignorance. So, John Locke is not the same as today's liberal at all. Let's move on to the third comment.

Aside from the over use of the ? key, the first sentence can be discounted and summarily dismissed as being totally irrelevant. Historically speaking, the liberal of yore is certainly not the liberal of today and the next part is yet another ad hom showing and revealing the inability to check their emotions due to one's uneducated stupidity trying to sound as if they are educated. I only write such posts to teach others how this is done.

It speaks of the fascism of Bush. I find that comical. Where is the substantiation? Where are the examples? Where is the proof? If they try to bring up FISA, does that make Obama a fascist as well seeing that he voted FOR it right after he said he wasn't going to? Naturally, there are no connections to President Bush and fascism but then again, the liberals have claimed that President Bush was also Hitler and there again, no proof has ever been presented other than emotional ignorance and stupidity which exposes the lack of historical education.

The remaining portions of the first paragraph in the third comment is nothing more than more childish ad homs which amount to more childish and emotionally unhinged stupidity. Simply amazing and this fool wants to debate? Debate what? How emotionally weak it is? No thanks. That requires no debate as it is "Rather" obvious even to the oblivious.

Next, the emotional child presents proof that the COLB (certificate of live birth) of Obama was shown to be fact but failed to recognize how forensic specialists proved the COLB was false and forged and the ones guilty of the forgery admitted to it. It also fails to make the connection that a COLB is not a birth certificate. Case closed.

Next, the uneducated "liberal" cites the Rolling Stone as an authoritative source as a historical source for the "common good" yet exposing that IT has no idea what the Constitution says about the "common good". Incredible. So, how does one debate a fool? The answer is that one does not because one cannot and this particular fool is a fool's fool.

The last two entries in the liberal's comment proves the fool's fool assertion. Apparently, IT believes in opinion polls as gospel which reveals a mental disparity between that which is real and that which is not. IT thinks I am a Bush supporter. I am not and never have been. I voted for him twice because I was certainly not voting for the Global Warming Myth Fraud Gore nor was I going to vote for the War Criminal, self-admitted, John F'n Kerry. Period. The ONLY thing I supported President Bush on was the Global War On Terror because he was rioght on that one and I fought in that war BEFORE he was President and BEFORE he was Governor of Texas. So, its following assertions are null and void and have no bearing, at least as far as I am concerned.

Yet, those assertions IT makes have no factual basis because IT presents no examples whatsoever which is the usual tactic utilized by such an emotionally unbalanced Americanized liberal. IT whines about the Justice System and I can only surmise that IT means the firing of the attorneys which is a President's right to do so and the only idiots that politicized it were the liberals...that discount that President Clinton did worse. Checkmate.

IT whines about Bush spreading democracy by war and torture with no basis in fact and discounts that thew United States has been at war with terrorism since 1974...they declared it via a plethora of Fatwahs and we ignored them until 91101 which was the Final Straw. The fool is a fool's fool. Alas, I digress.

Comments 4, 5 and 6 of the liberal will be addressed in Part 3 of Reeducating the Yutes series. IN comment #6 IT claims that "the whole world thinks we are a democracy" so I guess we need to amend our Constitution accordingly now.

Saints be with us.

Reeducating The Yutes: Part 1

~Snooper~

In a previous post entitled, "So What Do We Do About It?" we had the typical reaction from an uneducated "lefty" or a wrongfully educated "victim" of the List of 45. I cannot classify the individual making the comments a troll just yet so I will refrain from the usual "nailing of the troll to the Leftinistra cross" at this time. However, as SOP goes here, there comes a time when comments from the opposition make for good posts. This is such a time.

Click the link above and then read the post. Once that is accomplished, return here and we will discuss the comments left by the "misguided" and "wrongfully educated" student of history.

The post is about the creeping socialism in this nation beginning with President Wilson and made Law by FDR. Since that time, it has been a battle of ideology as this libtard points out. Naturally, the responder to the post in the comments section ignored the Obama birth certificate issue, and his many lies as revealed by his post-election actions and activities. The gist of the post was how the basic and general Marxist/socialist will lie to anyone and everyone to "win" an election. Their followers have not ideologies of their own and merely parrot the ideologies that appeal to their emotion because their intellects are void of substance and their void of understanding is simply AWOL.

First comment from Lib A:

You are one sick uninformed puppy. Liberalism is a mental disorder? It is liberalism that brought us Democracy, the end of child labor and so many other great reforms. It brought us free speech, the right for all citizens to vote. People with grade school educations should not be writing blogs and exposing their ignorance for all to see. I suggest you go to the Encyclopedia Britannica (if you know what that is) and look up Liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism great accomplishments take up dozens of pages and like I said before include the development of democracies. Conservatism fought all of these ideas and it's main accomplishment in America in the 20th Century was McCarthyism.

What you need is an education. Finally our country IS BEING TAKE BACK from the ignorant and uninformed which you so shamefully represent. oh that's right- Republicans have no shame! They say they are Christians as they support war and torture and the gutting of our great Constitution, written by men who were the Progressives of their times

Barbara

WOW! The first statement is the usual personal attack and some would call that some sort of derangement syndrome in some circles. We will call this one the XDS with the "X" undefined at the moment. However, I was then referred to the Encyclopedia, specifically the Britannica and IT wondered if I knew what that was. If the Encyclopedia Britannica is the be-all of end-all, we are all in trouble. Have you ever read the idiocy therein? That publication is at least one step up from Wikipedia and that isn't saying much.

According to the comment, because "liberalism" takes up pages and pages as opposed to "conservatism", conservatism isn't as good as liberalism. Interesting pathology that. I wonder what Drs Rossiter and Krauthammer would say about that? Incredible. I could spend quite a bit of time on that alone. As a matter of fact, I have.

One thing is more or less true in the comment...liberalism does bring about "democracy". There in lies the problem. Democracy is the antithesis of our Constitution. Democracy is mob rule and an example of that would be what is going on in California in regards to Proposition 8. The "losers" in that California Constitutional Amendment voting scenario are demanding that their "loss" be turned over and they are willing to do whatever it takes to get that "election" undone. That is democracy at work...mob rule...the minority in number violently dictating to the majority in number, the peaceful. Yes. liberalism, at least Americanized Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder reminiscent of temper tantrums rendered by spoiled brats when their way is not allowed or realized. This is also alluded to in the List of 45.

The poor misguided student has revealed quite a bit of its misunderstanding of the Founding Fathers and that is also exposed in the List of 45. The creature has no understanding whatsoever about the end of "child labor", "free speech", the right to vote and the catch-all and unsubstantiated "many other great reforms". Generalities are vanity. I deal in specifics. I let the emotional deal in generalities because it soothe their empty souls while I deal with the intellectual aspects of life.

Free Speech was granted us as a gift from our Creator and not "liberalism". Child Labor was abolished due to common sense and has nothing at all to do with "liberalism" unless one plays with the emotion heart string and claims the children were "liberated"...not the same thing unless the emotionally unhinged think otherwise. The "right to vote" is granted by our Constitution and has nothing to do with "liberalism". If you look back in time, only certain people were granted constitutional rights to vote and those people were the ones that "qualified" to vote and the people qualified to vote were the "informed people". Such isn't the case now and I will grant the premise that perhaps "liberalism" has done away with that and this is why we must revert back to the original intent...only the informed should vote.

In the last election, it is painfully and ruefully obvious that there should be cause to pause and rethink the electoral processes. Especially among the Obama supporters, I wold estimate that at least half - if not more - had no earthly idea why they were voting or for what they were voting. I saw this first hand with our Man On The Street episodes we conducted since the beginning of July to a week before the elections. We also witnessed the same as Howard Stern and others witnessed. The Obama supporters were 100% clueless. This type of electoral malfeasance needs to end.

Americanized liberalism? No thanks.

The last entry in the "liberal" comment is as thus:

What you need is an education. Finally our country IS BEING TAKE BACK from the ignorant and uninformed which you so shamefully represent. oh that's right- Republicans have no shame! They say they are Christians as they support war and torture and the gutting of our great Constitution, written by men who were the Progressives of their times.

I can spend hours and hours on this lunacy. The individual which wrote this utter nonsense is typical of that which we face; the brainwashed lunacy production of the government run reeducation camps we call Public Education and Institutes of Higher Learning...please read the List of 45.

First of all, "their kind" have not taken anything back from anyone...they have successfully pulled off the List of 45 by installing Americanized Socialism in the White House and Congress. They have in affect, committed Treason by overthrowing the United States Constitution and if the Nationalized Health Care, Nationalized Banking Industry, Nationalized Auto Industry projects are fully accomplished, the overthrow will be complete. There isn't anywhere in the Constitution that authorizes any of the above.

The cretin once again alleges the "gutting of our Constitution" without any substantiation. This reveals the over emotional or the emotionally unhinged type of rhetoric. It has no proof and lashes out as the spoiled brat would. The same would go for the "shame" and "war" comments. With no examples or substantiation, these "arguments" are unceremoniously discounted as the childish idiocy it represents.

The "Progressives of their times" is an interesting comment. I agree and always have and through the years of teaching that very concept, I have witnessed the morphing of this and the morphing took an evil turn in the early 1960s. In today's rhetoric, "Progressive" means "socialist" because "liberal" took on an ugly connotation which was handily rejected in the Reagan Era. The Founding Fathers were far from "socialists" and their progressivism was indeed progressive, not socialistic. Semantics people. You have to pay attention to their semantics.

The emotionally unhinged and the wrongfully educated fools in this nation are Clear and Present Dangers and need to be summarily dismissed as such and handily defeated.

The cretin mentioned shame and this will be the last entry of the comments left by the fool. It is the democrats and the "progressives" and the "liberals" and the "socialists" and the "Marxists" that have no shame. They "protect" the animals yet murder the unborn. That is a lack of shame right there and until that is well understood and acted upon I will entertain no "lectures" from the murderous pathological liberal. "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness" is indeed a must read. I am on my third time through it.

What's your excuse?

JBlog me...thanks