19 hours ago
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
Prayer for our Nation on July 4th
Click image for full view
Truth.........from a man the media has never been able to throw dirt on..amazing!! SUCH GREAT WORDS OF WISDOM & PRAYER He has certainly hit the "world" on the head!! Billy Graham's Prayer For Our Nation THIS MAN SURE HAS A GOOD VIEW OF WHAT'S HAPPENING TO OUR COUNTRY!
'Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics... We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and Set us free.
Amen!'
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, 'The Rest of the Story,' before he died and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired. With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called 'One nation under God..'Think about this: If you forward this prayer to everyone on your e-mail list, in less than 30 days it would be heard by the world. (It's worth a try!) One Nation Under God.
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, 'The Rest of the Story,' before he died and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired. With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called 'One nation under God..'Think about this: If you forward this prayer to everyone on your e-mail list, in less than 30 days it would be heard by the world. (It's worth a try!) One Nation Under God.
'Citizen grand jury' organizers deliver accusations
'Citizen grand jury' organizers deliver accusations'Presentments' against Obama given to White House, FBI
By Bob Unruh© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Documents assembled by volunteer "citizen grand jury" members alleging Barack Obama is ineligible to serve as president have been delivered to the White House, the FBI, members of Congress and the court system in Washington, D.C.
Carl Swensson, a spokesman for the American Grand Jury movement and author of his own RiseUpForAmerica website, said he's now calling on Americans to reach out to those powers, demanding to know what action is being taken.
"Any way you can get in touch with them," he told WND today, via calls, e-mail and faxes.
The papers, called "presentments," were compiled by a "super grand jury" of 172 people who contend Obama may not meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born" citizen.
Such volunteer citizen grand juries already have been active on the local level, presenting their accusations against Obama to courts, sheriffs, prosecutors, judges and legislators across the nation, without success so far.
The participants explain they are within their constitutional rights to assemble, review evidence and deliver accusations. The actual documents are not widely published, because they adhere to the grand jury rule of secrecy.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join nearly 400,000 others and sign up now!
"Sooner or later some court or many courts will formally indict Obama from our presentments or [a] complaint," said one organizer.
Swensson told WND that he and other volunteers armed with copies of the citizen grand jury's report accusing the president of fraud and treason arrived in Washington in time for this week's planned meetings at the White House, the FBI, Congress and other locations.
At the White House, his team was greeted by no fewer than nine members of the Secret Service with the immediate question, "Are you kooks?"
Assured the visitors were not, agents listened for more than three hours as Swensson and others explained the purpose of their visit, and ultimately, the Secret Service signed for acceptance of the papers, Swensson said.
The only scheduled delivery that was unsuccessful was at the Department of Justice, run by Obama appointee Eric Holder. But the department is fully aware of the accusations through the numerous lawsuits that have brought challenges to Obama's tenure.
Swensson said now is the time for citizens to become involved and approach government officials, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, through whatever means they have to demand action.
The paperwork also was delivered to the U.S. Supreme Court, organizers said.
Among members of Congress to be given the documentation were U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; Rep. Michele Bachman, R-Minn.; Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas; and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate and other documentation that would put to rest all of the questions.
The "Certification of Live Birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
"It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen and that at that time he himself also became such. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama's father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject."
The accusation of treason comes from a retired member of the U.S. military officer, Lt. Cmdr. Walter Fitzpatrick III, who has presented his complaint to U.S. Attorney Russell Dedrick in Tennessee, the presentments explain.
Fitzpatrick alleged, "Now you [Obama] have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment. Known military criminal actors-command racketeers-are now free in the exercise of military government intent upon destruction of America's constitutional government. We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works."
The American Grand Jury website explains it is clear the U.S. Constitution "intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight."
According to the grand jury website, "Sooner or later the court system is going to be inundated with 'presentments' against Obama. Sooner or later public sentiment is going to demand these courts act and force Obama to answer to the charges."
By Bob Unruh© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Documents assembled by volunteer "citizen grand jury" members alleging Barack Obama is ineligible to serve as president have been delivered to the White House, the FBI, members of Congress and the court system in Washington, D.C.
Carl Swensson, a spokesman for the American Grand Jury movement and author of his own RiseUpForAmerica website, said he's now calling on Americans to reach out to those powers, demanding to know what action is being taken.
"Any way you can get in touch with them," he told WND today, via calls, e-mail and faxes.
The papers, called "presentments," were compiled by a "super grand jury" of 172 people who contend Obama may not meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born" citizen.
Such volunteer citizen grand juries already have been active on the local level, presenting their accusations against Obama to courts, sheriffs, prosecutors, judges and legislators across the nation, without success so far.
The participants explain they are within their constitutional rights to assemble, review evidence and deliver accusations. The actual documents are not widely published, because they adhere to the grand jury rule of secrecy.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join nearly 400,000 others and sign up now!
"Sooner or later some court or many courts will formally indict Obama from our presentments or [a] complaint," said one organizer.
Swensson told WND that he and other volunteers armed with copies of the citizen grand jury's report accusing the president of fraud and treason arrived in Washington in time for this week's planned meetings at the White House, the FBI, Congress and other locations.
At the White House, his team was greeted by no fewer than nine members of the Secret Service with the immediate question, "Are you kooks?"
Assured the visitors were not, agents listened for more than three hours as Swensson and others explained the purpose of their visit, and ultimately, the Secret Service signed for acceptance of the papers, Swensson said.
The only scheduled delivery that was unsuccessful was at the Department of Justice, run by Obama appointee Eric Holder. But the department is fully aware of the accusations through the numerous lawsuits that have brought challenges to Obama's tenure.
Swensson said now is the time for citizens to become involved and approach government officials, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, through whatever means they have to demand action.
The paperwork also was delivered to the U.S. Supreme Court, organizers said.
Among members of Congress to be given the documentation were U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; Rep. Michele Bachman, R-Minn.; Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas; and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate and other documentation that would put to rest all of the questions.
The "Certification of Live Birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
"It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen and that at that time he himself also became such. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama's father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject."
The accusation of treason comes from a retired member of the U.S. military officer, Lt. Cmdr. Walter Fitzpatrick III, who has presented his complaint to U.S. Attorney Russell Dedrick in Tennessee, the presentments explain.
Fitzpatrick alleged, "Now you [Obama] have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment. Known military criminal actors-command racketeers-are now free in the exercise of military government intent upon destruction of America's constitutional government. We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works."
The American Grand Jury website explains it is clear the U.S. Constitution "intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight."
According to the grand jury website, "Sooner or later the court system is going to be inundated with 'presentments' against Obama. Sooner or later public sentiment is going to demand these courts act and force Obama to answer to the charges."
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Time for an Israeli Strike? - and ATH Commentary
And Aristotle the Hun says:
By this time I suppose readers of this blog are tired of hearing about my lobby for use of nukes in the Middle East.
We keep going at this piece by piece and we are being pieced to death with no peace in sight.
With the liberals being weak on defense I think it will hasten the day when we will need to use nukes to survive.
Swift and deadly saves more lives than slow and diplomatic.
Had the Gatling gun been available and used at Bull Run might we have saved 620,000 lives in the civil war?
Had the atomic bomb been available and used after Pearl Harbor or the invasion of Poland could we have saved 62 million lives during WWII.
Is the time to use nukes now rather than later and would we save lives by doing so?
You get the idea. I am beginning to think that being “civilized” and “diplomatic” is a very costly way to deal with things. Being civilized and diplomatic kills people. We usually apply a solution that works only after we have tried everything else. Maybe the most humane strategy is to be swift and deadly at the first sign of violence or in the case illegality be swift and just.
The State Department's diplomats have caused more deaths than the Defense Department's Generals
Because we are civilized we are easy targets for the uncivilized. Is there a major flaw in my reasoning that I don’t see? Or as O"Reilly says, "Tell me where I'm wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Preparations for Attack on Iran Almost Complete
http://www.globalpolitician.com/25720-iran-israel-nuclear-obama-usa
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3027
Time for an Israeli Strike?
» Links to this article
By John R. Bolton
Thursday, July 2, 2009
With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.
Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.
Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.
He still wants "engagement" (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran's current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about "getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has." This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.
Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find "acceptance" by the "international community." Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly's opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about "acceptance" or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.
Obama will nonetheless attempt to jump-start bilateral negotiations with Iran, though time is running out even under the timetables leaked to the media. There are two problems with this approach. First, Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. It hasn't for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now. As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has "a huge credibility gap" because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.
Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.
In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.
Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.
Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.
The writer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 and is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
By this time I suppose readers of this blog are tired of hearing about my lobby for use of nukes in the Middle East.
We keep going at this piece by piece and we are being pieced to death with no peace in sight.
With the liberals being weak on defense I think it will hasten the day when we will need to use nukes to survive.
Swift and deadly saves more lives than slow and diplomatic.
Had the Gatling gun been available and used at Bull Run might we have saved 620,000 lives in the civil war?
Had the atomic bomb been available and used after Pearl Harbor or the invasion of Poland could we have saved 62 million lives during WWII.
Is the time to use nukes now rather than later and would we save lives by doing so?
You get the idea. I am beginning to think that being “civilized” and “diplomatic” is a very costly way to deal with things. Being civilized and diplomatic kills people. We usually apply a solution that works only after we have tried everything else. Maybe the most humane strategy is to be swift and deadly at the first sign of violence or in the case illegality be swift and just.
The State Department's diplomats have caused more deaths than the Defense Department's Generals
Because we are civilized we are easy targets for the uncivilized. Is there a major flaw in my reasoning that I don’t see? Or as O"Reilly says, "Tell me where I'm wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Preparations for Attack on Iran Almost Complete
http://www.globalpolitician.com/25720-iran-israel-nuclear-obama-usa
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3027
Time for an Israeli Strike?
» Links to this article
By John R. Bolton
Thursday, July 2, 2009
With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.
Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.
Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.
He still wants "engagement" (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran's current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about "getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has." This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.
Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find "acceptance" by the "international community." Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly's opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about "acceptance" or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.
Obama will nonetheless attempt to jump-start bilateral negotiations with Iran, though time is running out even under the timetables leaked to the media. There are two problems with this approach. First, Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. It hasn't for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now. As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has "a huge credibility gap" because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.
Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.
In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.
Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.
Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.
The writer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 and is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Steady Drip had 211,778 hits during the first six months of 2009
The Steady Drip had 211,778 hits during the first six months of 2009
By far the most popular post was:
AKA Obama Fans: All together now – say OMG!!
· This monster hit was first published April 21 and quickly out distanced posts made much earlier in the year.
· The “OMG” article has been revised and updated several times and continues to grow in popularity.
· Even now it is the number one hit on the “stat counter”.
· The “OMG” article is also available on over 100 other blogs and web sites since I gave permission for others to post it.
· Should you want a MSWord version with embedded links please let me know and I will provide a copy for you by return email
Validated Facts on Obama Eligibility Story Updated and Expanded
If you read the articles at the link and review the citations at the embedded links, you will be “literate” about the facts of the “eligibility” story and will be able to inform the public objectively.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
By far the most popular post was:
AKA Obama Fans: All together now – say OMG!!
· This monster hit was first published April 21 and quickly out distanced posts made much earlier in the year.
· The “OMG” article has been revised and updated several times and continues to grow in popularity.
· Even now it is the number one hit on the “stat counter”.
· The “OMG” article is also available on over 100 other blogs and web sites since I gave permission for others to post it.
· Should you want a MSWord version with embedded links please let me know and I will provide a copy for you by return email
Validated Facts on Obama Eligibility Story Updated and Expanded
If you read the articles at the link and review the citations at the embedded links, you will be “literate” about the facts of the “eligibility” story and will be able to inform the public objectively.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
every day in every way things are getting better and better
More Americans See Democratic Party as “Too Liberal”
More believe Democratic Party’s, rather than Republican Party’s, views are about right
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being "too liberal," from 39% to 46%. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party's losses in that year's midterm elections.
More believe Democratic Party’s, rather than Republican Party’s, views are about right
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being "too liberal," from 39% to 46%. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party's losses in that year's midterm elections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
