Rush Limbaugh, as much as we all admire him (most of us anyway) simply DOES NOT HAVE THE CAJONES to pursue this.
A fascinating a worthwhile post by the way, and I thank you for it, it’s a shame that both elected and appointed officials from the federal level down, have been either threatened, bought off, or simply cowed to look the other way and say nothing.
The federal regime in Washington is increasingly illegitimate, invalid, and without any legal authority whatsoever. But we all knew that anyhow.
This is excellent! So much here to ponder. Thanks so much.
We already know most all of this. Begging Rush to comment on this is like putting a price on his head, and you’ve seen what happened when he called the slut a ‘slut’. We already have evidence of Obama presenting a forged copy of his birth documents on the internet for public perusal, which isn’t even a crime because neither Obama or the one that published it was under oath at any time.
If you’ve kept up with what just happened in the New Jersey Apuzzo, et al eligibility suit regarding Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot, Alexandra Hill presented no evidence, other than objections. She stated that the birth certificates on the internet being produced for evidence were neither certified or original documents and had no relevance to the case, because NJ did not require such proof and they were never presented as proof of eligibility. And the judge accepted that load of manure. At one point she argued that his ‘popularity’ and the signatures of NJ citizens was all the filing documents required by the State of NJ for Obama to be eligible.
Nevertheless, what state has required documented ‘proof’ ever. All they require is a written statement from the DNC, that he is their nominated candidate and IS ELIGIBLE to hold the office and petitions signed by the citizens to put him on the ballot.
As I see it, the ONLY one that can be held accountable is the DNC chairman, Nancy Pelosi, who offered the document stating that he is eligible in a sworn and signed document. And that SHE must be held accountable for the evidence she received to make such a statement to the states which is all that the states require. The problem is 1) at the state level, the the acceptance of such evidence needs to be changed to require such ‘proof’ that he is eligible. And the DNC is fighting that change in every state. And even if it is put in place, it will not affect the election of Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro, one whit, unless it is made retroactive. Fat chance of that happening at this point. 2) even though we’re all 99% sure by a preponderance of the evidence gathered that Obama is most likely an illegal alien in this country, and at best a naturalized citizen, and is not eligible to hold office the election process is flawed and the Obama machine knew it. And even though he has put up two forged documents, and we know somebody forged his Selective Service document have any of those documents been presented while he was under oath, which would make it a crime?
When the US Senate met and confirmed the electoral ‘vote’ making him president, was there a crime there? If you will remember every Senator threw down a vote without raising one question, even though they received the many letters from their constituents begging them to investigate and object and ask for proof of his eligibility. They didn’t. I gathered, from asking on several internet sites for people to send me copies of their letters to only one of my senators begging him to object, over 150 copies of such letters mailed to him. I sent them to him and asked him and asked him for a count of how many of those letters he actually received, and why he was negligent in his duty to raise a hue and cry on our behalf. He wrote me back stating that he was not ‘required’ or paid by the citizens to spend his time providing me with that information, and that a question regarding such ‘negligence’ needed to be delivered to the Senate Ethics Committee. What? Like I have the ability to access the Senate Ethics Committee? I don’t really know whether I do or not, but I don’t think so. I suspect that access to the Senate Ethics Committee is restricted to ‘proven’ punitive damage or acts of moral turpitude which is the only way in my state that you can file a complaint against a lawyer. It’s most likely the same legal game. My determination flailed at that point in the face of such arrogance.
To sum it up, I really admire those that are pursuing upholding Constitutional eligibility for their courage and determination and their gift to us of their time and the truth that is being uncoverred. But again, as I see it, the only way that we are going to effect change is to change the states’ ballot process requiring the parties to present documented proof of eligibility. And we are screwed because Obama is sitting in the White House and the damage is done. Our only recourse at this time is to rouse the citizens to wake up and vote him out and not allow the sociopath another four years of insanity wreaked upon the heads of Americans by a foreign born anti-American mired in communism.
I loved the statement by somebody that “Uncle Ted” wields the truth like a deadly weapon...we’ve seen the attempt at intimidation of both Ted and Rush who are both strong voices of truth. I can only wish that I had such strength. Go Newt...don’t ever give up. Still praying for that miracle.
If you expect Rush Limbaugh to endanger his cushy lifestyle, you are naive at best. Rush maybe a doctor of democracy but he’s as much a coward in order to protect his wealth as anyone in media.
Yes all conservative talk show hosts should talk about Obama's dishonesty and other aspects of his abhorrent past. However most listeners already know.
But there are many more apolitical Americans listening to "nonpartisan" media than there are Americans who listen to and read conservative opinion --
apparently some objected to my opinion because my reply above was deleted.
IMO it is a mistake to ignore the problem ("it's borrrrrrrrring or whatever") because in a close election the apolitical voters will elect Obama.
I will repeat w/o naming the only "nonpartisan" program I know well enough to make comments.
IMO we must let "nonpartisan" media know it when they bash the right and virtually forbid criticism of Obama; or when they kowtow to left-wing MauMauing -- I have cited cases of that in past replies.
If the shows want to support Obama -- fine! Just don't let them get away with saying that they are "nonpartisan." That's all. Give the apolitical folks a clue.
Check one: __ scan __ scroll __ scold (no curse words please) __ scrub :)