Watching Obama Dodge Yet Another “Association” Issue

Posted in Daily Thread with tags , , , , , , on December 10, 2008 by democratsfreeblog

Well, guys, the holidays have me tied up in incredible ways, and as a result my blogging times is being reduced more than I had anticipated. Please feel free to take this thread in any direction you want!

UPDATES:

Donofrio denied (I know, old news by now) with no explanation from the court.

Berg awaits full conference on Dec. 11th and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz has been scheduled for conference on the 15th. The Wrotnowski case information has been updated on Donofrio’s site, please pay it a visit: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
They have included information regarding Chester Arthur’s citizenship issues and they should (and hopefully will) become a major legal focus for the court to consider.

Alan Keyes case is still in the lower courts and is awaiting a hearing -I believe – on the 11th (please correct if wrong).

In the mean time: Chicago happens, and Obama is dodging and distancing.

See, we tried to tell everyone that “associations” matter. I wonder how close to Obama this one will get?

Thoughts?

Berg States that Full Court Has Distributed His Case for Review!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , on December 5, 2008 by democratsfreeblog

Phil Berg, the PA attorney who has fought so hard for us regarding the birth certificate issue, states on his website: http://www.obamacrimes.com that his case has been distributed to the full court for conference. A date has not been set for the conference yet, but he says it is usually within 10 days. I wonder if it’s possible that the court will go ahead and review it today with the Donofrio case?

Let’s all keep our fingers crossed as the court decides today on whether or not Donofrio’s case should be heard!

Can We Ever Learn to Get Along?

Posted in Daily Thread with tags , , , , , on December 1, 2008 by democratsfreeblog

Twenty-five or so years ago, I was fortunate to work with a small CPA firm that consisted of only 6 employees, including the owners (a husband and wife).  Paul and Jill were the owners and they were Jewish, there was Vic, a Jehovah’s Witness, Wanda was Methodist and there was a man (who mostly stayed to himself, so I don’t remember his name now – but since he was about retirement age then I dare say he is around to be offended that I forgot) who was athiest.  Myself, I am pagan, but was raised Christian and my father was a minister.

I will never forget lunches at the firm.  Almost always we ate our lunch together in the conference room.  We would either bring our lunch, order in, or run down the the cafeteria and bring it back up.  We would put the phones on the answering machine, lock the front door (with an out to lunch sign posted), and spend an hour talking about things other than work.

Our conversations most often led to our opinions on politics, religion, social and moral issues, and our individual views on the world around us.  Sometimes we agreed on things, many times we disagreed – but never once did we raise a voice, attack or become condescending.  We shared and we divested but we always just agreed to disagree on a lot of issues.   We came to look forward to these discussions as all of us believed that understanding our differences meant understanding each other and as a result we worked better as a team than anywhere else I have ever worked. 

We always allowed the conversations to develop naturally:  maybe someone would mention a topic that was newsworthy at the time.  Often, the daily paper was there in the room with us that would serve as a catalyst for our discussion.  Many times in our conference room you would hear someone state an opinion and then directly ask someone else at the table their opinion and how they arrived at it.  What were their religious teachings on the matter, and did they agree or disagree with their religion’s view?  When the firm was sold and we went our separate ways, I was very appreciative of the things I had learned there.  

As a mother, I am very proud that my daughter has learned to also appreciate other points of view – and embraces differences instead of being afraid of them.  Too many people in our world are afraid of or just plainly hate others because they are of a different religion, race, ethicity, etc. 

Unfortunately, we see too much hate and not enough discourse.  I wish that everyone had the opportunity to lock themselves in a conference room everyday with several people who had different beliefs and just learn to talk to each other.  Find out what everone is about!  Of course, these issues extend beyond race and religion – sexual orientation is at the forefront of heated debates right now.  The way I see it, why should gays and lesbians not be permitted to marry?  What in the world is wrong with love?

That being said, I can’t wait to see “Milk”.  Here is the trailer for anyone who hasn’t seen it.  If you have seen the movie, please post a review!!

Has Obama Even Read Our Constitution?

Posted in Daily Thread with tags , , , , , on November 26, 2008 by democratsfreeblog

Thanks to a headsup report by the American Independent Party, aka as AIP, of which Alan Keyes was a nominee for president this year, it appears that yet another constitutional problem could be in the works for President elect Obama.  Apparently, congress voted to give the Secretary of State a raise this year (in January).  That provides, constitutionally speaking, a problem for the yet to be officially nominated but sure as hell trying to get her there Hillary Clinton.  The pertinent part:

Article 1 Section 6 Part 2 of the U.S. Constitution

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

OK, basically, how this ciphers is this:  if you are an elected member of the house or senate, and during your tenure you and/or your senate or house co-members decide that you want to establish a new civil office, or if you or said other members are particularly moved to give an already existing office position a raise, then you or any of the members who are still members and who participated in creating the new job, or giving an established position a raise, then you can’t be appointed to that position.

So….  is anybody looking into this from “The Office of the President Elect”.  (Yea, I had to put that in there, because, you know – damn….  

Hey, Obama!  There is NO SUCH THING as “The Office of the President Elect”!  Could you please remove the signage???)

Stand By Your Man, and Show the World You Love Him…

Posted in Daily Thread with tags , , , , on November 22, 2008 by democratsfreeblog

Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man
You’ll have bad times
And he’ll have good times
Doin things that you don’t understand
But if you love him
You’ll forgive him
Even though he’s hard to understand
And if you love him
Oh, be proud of him
Cause after all he’s just a man

Stand by your man
And tell the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man

——-

In the days that this song was popular, so was the belief that it was just a woman’s lot in life to be abused by a man.  Women were taught to accept it, even to accept responsibility FOR it, and love their man no matter what.  Women were, after all, second class to their male counterparts.  Men were the controllers, and women were the controlled.  Suck it up, lady – get with the program.

Today, as women, we have come a long way in understanding the affect of not only physical abuse, but psychological abuse as well, as it is doled out by the men in their lives.  Psychological abuse does not have to come from a partner or husband, and we now know that it does not even have to be handed out by males only targeting females only.  There are men who are victims of spousal abuse, employee victims of superiors abuse, etc.  Battered wife syndrome has changed over time to battered person syndrome, and there are many victims. 

Victims are typically those who, in some way, feel inferior to their abuser.  This inferiority often is a result of a long and tedious process of breaking down a person and exposing a weakness.  Now, this does not mean that the person, to the outsider, is a meek and introverted person.  I know a male police officer who is a victim of psychological spousal abuse.  It happens when the abuser uses a persons weakness to acquire their submissiveness. 

In my opinion Hillary Clinton’s acceptance of the Secretary of State appointment from Barack Obama is indicative of psychologically battered person syndrome.  During the primaries, Hillary was repeatedly attacked by the media ways that were specifically geared towards her gender.  No such attacks (obviously and appropriately) were aimed at Obama based on his race.  Obama himself did absolutely nothing to repudiate the remarks made by media icons such as Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews.  Even female reporters jumped on the bandwagon to denegrate Senator Clinton.  No word of disdain from Obama. 

His silence indicated his agreement and his approval of her treatment.  It was that treatment, combined with the sleazy politics employed by the Obama campaign, the outright cheating in the caucus states, and the donations via PAC’s to superdelegates who had either previously supported Clinton or at least represented states and/or districts that she won in the primaries, that caused him to take the nomination.  It was a sham of a political process, supported by the DNC.  If you think Obama was “elected”, think again.  He was “selected”.

So, Obama inherently suceeds to “break” Hillary and her efforts for the nomination.  Now, let’s take a look at this politically extremely sucessful woman.  OK, I love Hillary, I really do – and I absolutely think Bill is the greatest president of our lifetime.  But look at their marriage and relationship.  Hillary is a “stand by your man” kind of woman.  It doesn’t matter what he has done to her, it doesn’t matter how badly she is treated, or how many women he cheats with – she takes him back.  She will continue to do so until she dies.  He will continue to cheat on her (tho there’s no new media attention on it, I absolutely believe he still runs around).  This psychological weakness of Hillary’s has nothing to do with her ability to be independent in her work – a strong political force – or anything else.  Because this particular problem has to do specifically with men that she has a more personal relationship with. 

Hillary will let Obama keep abusing her, and will always forgive him when he offers her a present and an “I’m sorry”.  Watch this situation closely, for if she accepts the Secretary of State position from him, we will see it play out for us time after time.  Until Obama decides that he’s tired of her, that she’s just not the fun girl that she used to be.  I don’t give them long.  Yet that’s not even the whole of it. 

Obama, by offering her the job, is determining by her response just exactly how much abuse he can exert and keep her in line at the same time.  This time he will control her political destiny, for she will serve entirely at his pleasure – and when he’s done with her, she’ll be out of work. 

Mark my words, Obama will, if he so desires, make her his scapegoat for any failed policies, ensure that her good name is smeared (and the way people adore Obama, they will do and say anything that he wants), and that she will essentially become a laughing stock in the face of America and the world.  If he wants to, he can, and I believe that he will.

Ultimately, however, I believe Obama wants her out of the senate, where she would be a voice of temperance for the democratic party.  He fears, I believe, that on many issues she may side with the republicans, and let’s face it – without her there he could have (depending now on 2 state elections) a fillibuster proof senate.  I don’t think that’s something that America can afford right now.

US Supreme Court Schedules Donofrio Case for Full Conference

Posted in Daily Thread with tags , , , , , , , on November 19, 2008 by democratsfreeblog

Today, the United States Supreme Court scheduled the case – Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407 – for a conference of the nine Justices. 

If four of the nine Justices vote to hear the case in full review, oral argument may be ordered.  The conference is scheduled for December 5, 2008, ten days before the meeting of the Electoral College.

The case originally sought, pre-election, to have the names of Barack Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero removed from New Jersey ballots, and for a stay of the “national election” pending Supreme Court review of whether those candidates were eligible under the Constitution as natural born Citizens, as is required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.  

Leo Donofrio brought his case from a lower New Jersey court to the NJ Supreme Court – was denied – and then he filed an emergency stay application in the United States Supreme Court on Nov. 3, 2008, before the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter.  Justice Souter denied the emergency stay application on Nov. 6. 

Leo Donofrio renewed the application, as per Supreme Court Rule 22.4, to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas by way of Express mail on Nov. 14.  The application arrived at the Supreme Court on Nov. 17 and was submitted directly to Justice Thomas.  

On Nov. 19, the case was docketed for full conference of all nine Justices and scheduled for December 5, 2008.  It is not known at this time the exact details of how the case came to be “DISTRIBUTED for Conference”. 


Background on “The Justices Conference” is discussed as follows by the Supreme Court Historical Society:

“No outsider enters the room during conference. The junior Associate Justice acts as “doorkeeper,” sending for reference material, for instance, and receiving it at the door…

Five minutes before conference time, 9:30 or 10 a.m., the Justices are summoned. They exchange ritual handshakes and settle down at the long table. The Chief sits at the east end; the other Justices sit at places they have chosen in order of their seniority…

The Chief Justice opens the discussion, summarizing each case. The senior Associate Justice speaks next, and comment passes down the line. To be accepted for review, a case needs only four votes, fewer than the majority required for a decision on the case itself. Counsel for the litigants are directed to submit their printed briefs so that each Justice has a set several weeks before argument.

 

This blog will be updated as details emerge.  Below is a screen-shot of the docket entry:

 

No. 08A407
Title:
Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant
v.
Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of New Jersey
  Case Nos.: (AM-0153-08T2 at the New Jersey Appellate Division without a docket number)
~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 14 2008 Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
Nov 19 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~    ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Leo C. Donofrio P.O. Box 93
East Brunswick, NJ  08816
Party name: Leo C. Donofrio

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

Donofrio’s website:

~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 14 2008 Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
Nov 19 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~    ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Leo C. Donofrio P.O. Box 93
East Brunswick, NJ  08816
Party name: Leo C. Donofrio

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

Obama Voters Speak Out!

Posted in Daily Thread with tags , , , , , on November 18, 2008 by democratsfreeblog

Ambassador Alan Keyes Files Lawsuit Against Obama et al!!!!

Posted in Daily Thread with tags , , , , on November 15, 2008 by democratsfreeblog

I’m still reading the claim, but I dare a judge to deny based on standing, he was on the ballot in California, where this lawsuit is filed.  Read the file here:

http://americamustknow.com/Documents/Final%20writ%20Keyes%20v%20Bowen.pdf

Main page here:  http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx

Obama has got to be reeling over this one!!

UPDATE:

I have finished reviewing the lawsuit.  It looks good – it’s clean and unencumbered with a lot of legal lingo.  This is a request for injunctive relief, or a stay. (That is the same method that Mr. Donofrio is using in NJ.  As an update on that case, he will be resubmitting to the SCOTUS, requesting review by Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday, Nov. 17th. )  Ambassador Keyes lawsuit highlights all of the points and arguments that are used in Berg vs. Obama, et al, but without all of the extravagant detail and sometimes overdone elaboration of fact.  Mr. Bergs lawsuit, in my opinion (I am NO expert) sometimes crosses the line between what is fact, what maybe fact, and what is pure speculation. 

Again, this California suit brought by Keyes, as a candidate for the American Independent Party (AIP) is very significant due to the issue of standing.  Several lawsuits have been dismissed based on standing.  There is currently an attempt in NC to create a class action, hoping the courts will recognize the voters as a group to have standing.  Personally, I think this Keyes lawsuit may be the one that breaks it open.  This is bound to get some level of media attention, because he is so very well known (albeit a bit eccentric bordering on wierd).  That he is a candidate with a claim of actual harm it may be just what is needed. 

We’ll keep our eyes on this one, as well as Donofrio and Berg.   There is one target here:  the US Supreme Court.  Surely with all the rocks being thrown, one of them will hit the target!

Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State????

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on November 14, 2008 by democratsfreeblog

There are rumors, speculation and flat out leaks from the Obama transition team that Hillary is being considered for Secretary of State in the Obama administration.  On the face, it appears that it would be a smart move for PE Obama, to offer such a high level cabinet position to a woman who, although obviously his foe for some time, is no doubt very qualified for the position.  He passed over her for VP (although having her on the ticket would not have changed my vote) and she worked hard campaigning for him, so one would think that perhaps he owes her….right?  What better way to show unity and a coming together than to put her up front and just off center.

To that consideration I scream a resounding “NOoooooo”!!   OMG!  Why NOT??  You are asking… let me tell you why not.

Hillary has a lot of clout in the senate.  She is capable of working on issues all across the board, domestic and foreign.  She can write, endorse, support and vote on bills.  If, as many Hillary supporters are hoping, she becomes the senate majority leader, she will have even more influence on all of these issues.  In either position, Hillary has the ability to keep a watchful eye on the Obama administration and make sure that they do not push through policies that are inherently anti-democratic, capitalist America.  Remember, Hillary is very much a moderate, while Obama is very liberal. 

If Obama nominates, and Hillary accepts, the secretary of state position, she will lose her seat in the senate.  She will only be able to influence foreign affairs, and while obviously a notable and necessary cause, her real passion is and has been domestic issues such as universal health care, education, welfare reform, etc.  Knowing that there is, regardless of how well she campaigned for him, no love lost between Clinton and Obama, it strikes me that any such offer would be an attempt to get Hillary out of the senate.  Once established as secretary of state, there is nothing that would stop Obama from replacing her in a year, making it appear that she refuses to do the work he asks her to do.  He would be able to reduce her to political ashes.  If that happens, then in a year or so we could see Hillary without a senate seat and without a cabinet position and unable to try to check the steamroller socialistic positions that it seems Obama wants to put forth.

UPDATE:  I just found this “First Read”, although it was posted before mine.  I’m glad I’m not the only one thinking this:   http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/14/1674694.aspx

The best reason for Obama to be looking for a place in his cabinet for Clinton is simple: to get her out of the Senate. Just ask George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter what it was like to have a once or future presidential rival in the Senate serving as a one-person Roman tribunal. Remember how easily the press gravitated to John McCain in ‘01 or Bob Kerrey in ‘93 or Ted Kennedy in ‘77 to allow them to be one-senator judge/juries on Administration proposals? The upside for Obama putting Clinton at State (or even the Pentagon) is that it gets her out of the Senate and gets her out of the domestic policy debates. Also, one other thing to keep in mind if Clinton does end up at State, she’ll be off the political circuit; it’s considered unseemly to practice politics while serving in one of the big cabinet posts, especially at State or Defense.

 

This goes ditto for McCain as well.  His name has been rumored, too.  If anything, he wants them out of the senate,   IMO, of course.

Want a Job? It’s Easy With Obama!

Posted in Daily Thread with tags , , , , , on November 13, 2008 by democratsfreeblog

Just complete the attached questionaire!

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/13apply_questionnaire.pdf

 

Personally, I want to see Obama’s responses….