To confess, I did not have much faith in John McCain as a candidate in winning the presidential office. Yet I continued supporting him over what I think will be an abomination upon our country.

It may have been the total craziness of the past campaigne, the unequal coverage of the marxistmedia. But I know that I lost more faith in hearing McCain say, “we need to keep those people in THEIR homes.” How? How is it THEIR homes? Through government and financial finigalaling not offered to the commone citizen because of his good credit or the color of his skin? Only THEIR homes? Through welfare and workman’s comp checks being accepted as gainful income? How could it be THEIR homes? Bad credit histories, not just one incident (and there shouldn’t have been a second) , but a lifetime of them.

In effect, it’s not THEIR homes but all OUR homes. We have payed for the subprime loans since it’s (mis) conception with our taxes by a “I feel your pain” administration . We have been paying for the Democrat’s preening of groveling beggars based on the excuse of race and (because of) the economic standards they endure.

These rewards do not carry the grandoise connotations you may think. In the eyes of liberals, the rewards are for those they hold in favor, and only for those business’ that have shown the ineptness in un-fair business practices.

As of this latest bailout, (which has more pork in it than a poorly made hotdog) banks and saving and loan institution are rewarded for their greed, their ineptness and their lack of consideration for the country as a whole.

Our Congress, who should be weekly have I.Q. tests ran on them, joyfully agreed to shell out this vast sum of money in order to “help” the business’ and our economy…with no regulations. It’s like, ‘Oh you guys did such a poor job with the money you had before, here, here’s another $700 billion try it again.’ Something I’d do, not. And without regulations? Pardon my play by the rules ass, but I would not only want to know where every penny of that money went, I’d want receipts!

We’ve heard and read much about the conditions of subprime loans being forced upon banks and s/ls by the government. I seriously have to question that excuse used. Unless all the banks in America are foreignly owned, you would think there’d have been an outcry by these business leaders of being subjected to a tryanical form of government. I realize I’m being overly simplistic, if not wishful, in saying, The people that comprise the government “work” for them, the same as they do for you and me. I find it hard to believe that these institutions went against sound business practices, instituted from centuries of man’s interactions. I would think that there was an element of their own personal greed, along with the Democrat’s condoning sense of fair play, that earned them that unintentionally earned them their bailout reward, a.k.a. “Those who play fair by the rules”, punishment.

In the twisted sense of what Democrat’s call “fair play” with it’s change the rules if your losing, fallacys, hypocritical distortions and perjuries, no one playing by the rules can ever be expected to get a fair shake from them. It’s inherent to them, it’s in their blood. Liberals are the original ‘bring a gun to a knife fight’ people we are dealing with and we cannot except anything else from them.

Though we who have played by the rules have gotten stepped on in the biggest way. We will again be stomped on by the Demo’s when they, in the not so distant future, punish our fair play even further by offering the big three auto makers their bailout rewards for poorly ran business’. Even more punishment to those of us with a sense of fair play will be dealt out in uncaring fasion as the airline industry lines up for it’s “reward.”

Great work.

This is the “information age” isn’t it?

Larry

I know the libs have never filed what it is that you have suggested, the “workmans” part has them completely befuddled..

Thanks as always,

Larry

No apologies necessary..

Misspell? I just call them “errors of enthusiasm”..

Thanks as always,

Larry

Read this…

Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.
The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”. Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:
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;
That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)
The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.
But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.
The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.
Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.]
__________________________________________________________
Barack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto:
FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
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.”
That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.
My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. A “natural born citizen” would have no other jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.
The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, “at birth”, a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President. Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.
Obama has admitted to being a British subject “at birth”. And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction “at birth” bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.
As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer “natural born citizen” status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a “Citizen”, and only if he is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The most overlooked words in that section are: “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.
Stop and think about that.
The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves – persons born subject to British jurisdiction – and “natural born citizens” who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.
And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States “at birth”. It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject “at birth”. If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.
If you click through to Factcheck.org, a more detailed discussion as to why Obama was a British citizen at birth explains the relevant statutes:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.’ ”

The article goes on to state that Obama’s British citizenship was transferred to Kenya as Kenya became independent from the UK and that Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned 21 years old. But none of that is relevant since the Constitution requires that every President be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” is proof positive that the status must be present “at birth”. If this were not the case, then, as stated above, the Framers would not have needed to put in a grandfather clause.
The Framers recognized that even they were not “natural born citizens” and so they wrote the grandfather clause in to allow any of them to become President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to those who were Citizens at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. And so, Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States and neither is John McCain who was born in Panama, and neither is Roger Calero who was born in Nicaragua.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html

He wrote this:

The Obama File has been re-hosted to its new server. We did experience some down time, but here we are again.

I’m hopeful there won’t be any further interruptions, but we’re dealing with a lot of stuff here.

We’re bringing up the database today and will be installing a bunch of new software throughout next week — so be advised.

I will be doing limited posting of new items — but will make every attempt to keep you up to date with the latest.

It’s a great site http://www.theobamafile.com/

kaydoomom… email sent! I offer again to provide anyone a zipped up version of the obamafied website “the obama files” to anyone who requests it.

May God bless and keep you all.