With the Iowa caucus behind us, Bachmann pulls out of the race, Perry doesn't know what he is going to do. Obama takes out full page ads in the Des Moines Register to let his people know he is still viable, needless to say, things are getting very interesting.
I am not a huge fan of Romney, however, if he can beat Obama, I will vote for him. I honestly don't think Ron Paul could beat Obama in the General election. I don't agree with his foreign and some of his domestic policies. Yes, I do agree with some of his ideas like end the Fed, abolish certain federal departments, etc... Rick Santorum really won Iowa simply by placing second by 8 votes and not spending 14 million dollars like Romney. In my opinion, Santorum is the closest to a conservative we have left. Herman Cain had to go. His issue is that he is black. Obama can be the only black man running for President. Obviously, so the liberals can play the race card. I don't con don the advances Herman Cain allegedly made, however, I never saw any proof, just accusations. When Gloria Allred gets involved, you know there is suspicious activities being created. The liberals will attempt to take down any republican candidate that is moving to the top of the pack. Gringrich is done. His ego thinks he can pull off an upset. Newt has a hundred ideas a day, where only 25 are good ones. He has a lot of baggage from the nineties. Also, his commercial with Nancy Pelosi will hurt him in the contest. Huntsman should get out now. He insulted the Iowans, no one besides his daughters will vote for him. Buddy Roamer, I think is still in the race, enough said. So what do we do and where do we go? I am part of the ABO Consortium (Anybody But Obama). The bottom line is we must defeat Obama in November to start to rebuild our country's employment, energy independence, fiscal responsibility, immigration issues and a whole host of domestic and foreign problems. If we don't we will never get our country in 2016. It will be a distant memory. On Facebook, many of my conservative friends say they won't vote for the republican candidate if they are not completely conservative? So, in spite of themselves, they will graciously give Obama a second term. Foolish at best!
Obama has the gonads to tell 60 minutes' Steve Kroft that he rates himself the 4th greatest President. Jimmy "Peanuts" Carter is partying like a madman (he is a Mad man) because the anointed one is undoubtedly, the worst President in our short history. Look into the future, if Obama won a second term, he could possibly appoint 2 Supreme Court Justices. Scalia and Kennedy are in their late seventies or early eighties. There is only a 5-4 conservative edge to the court. Obama has already appointed Sotomayor and Kagen, 2 progressive radicals. Along with a cackle of liberal agenda policies, Obama would implement a western European Socialistic society, without having to worry about being re-elected. Knowing his acute narcissism, he could possibly become the supreme leader of the United States, like Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il (changed to Kim Jong Dead).
So, what are we going to do? Us conservatives? If we don't get our way? Stay home? Let Obama walk into a second term? No! We will support the candidate that wins the Republican nomination. That's right, we need to get Obama, his sycophants, czars and Muslim brotherhood members out of the White House. Period. We can do it. Believe!!!
Did Romney 'win' in Iowa with 8 vote margin? (updated)
But at least three candidates have a plausible claim to have "won" the Iowa caucuses:
1. Mitt Romney, whose vote total of 30,015 votes exceeded that of Rick Santorum by 8 votes.
2. Rick Santorum, who rocketed from the bottom of the pack to the position of number one anyone-but-Romney candidate.
3. Ron Paul, who finished 3 percentage points behind Romney and Santorum, but whose organization reportedly instructed his well-organized supporters to stay late, and get themselves elected as delegates. Grace Wyler of Business Insider:
Paul's massive organizational push in Iowa focused on both winning votes, and also on making sure that Paul supporters stuck around after the vote to make sure they were selected as county delegates - the first step towards being elected as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.That's because Iowa's Republican caucuses are non-binding - they are technically just a straw poll, so once selected, delegates are free to vote for whichever presidential candidate they choose."Part of what we've been training the Ron Paul people to do is not to leave after the vote," Dan Godzich, a senior campaign advisor, told BI. "Stay and get elected to the conventions and get us those delegates."
Newt Gingrich only pulled in 13% of the vote, but vows to make his stand in South Carolina. Rick Perry is returning to Texas to "determine whether there is a path forward" , after receiving just over 10% of the vote, which sounds as though he may be dropping out of the race. Michele Bachmann, whose total was about half that of Perry's may not be able to continue her campaign, but vows to press on. If both drop out, presumably this would add support to Santorum.
Conservative stalwart Richard Viguerie of ConservativeHQ.com sees the results as a defeat for Mitt Romney:
"The Republican establishment is in a major panic tonight. The Iowa caucus results show the volatility of a campaign that appears to open the door to new candidates (from the right and the center) to enter the race--all but guaranteeing the race will be settled at the Republican National Convention."Mitt Romney's Nelson Rockefeller-like strategy of ignoring conservatives met its limits tonight. After five years of campaigning, and spending tens of millions dollars, Romney is almost exactly where he was in 2008--at 25% of the vote. Romney's failure to grow his base and close the deal with conservatives tonight will undoubtedly renew the establishment's search for a new candidate to replace the flagging Romney.
Romney is expected to do well in New Hampshire, where voters are familiar with him via Boston media that reach the heavily populated southern end of the state. Santorum's performance there will be the major question mark. The all eyes will turn to South Carolina.
Steve McCann adds:
There are 2.1 million registered voters in Iowa. Of that number approximately 1.4 million are registered as independents and Republicans.
Last night 122, 900 voters attended the caucus and cast their votes. That represents 5.8% of all registered voters and 8.7% of those identified as independent and Republican. (While theoretically a closed caucus anyone could change or register at the caucus site.) For the record the turnout amounts to 19.0% of all registered Republicans. (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ia)
By age group: 68% of caucus attendees were in the 45 and over group. In the 2008 general election: 53% were in the 45 and over group.
Since 1980 only one Republican, George W. Bush, has won the Iowa caucus and gone on to win the presidency.
Richard Baher adds:
I do not see any new candidates entering the race, after being recruited by the so-called Republican establishment. The candidates who might have excited more Republican voters- Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, just did not and do not have the fire in the belly to run this cycle. If Obama wins in 2012, they will be around in 2016. Most worrying is the modest turnout last night- 122,000, about the same as in 2008, when GOP race was overshadowed by Obama-Clinton-Edwards fight in Iowa on the Democratic side. Most independents attended Democratic caucuses in 2008. Most of the independents who voted in GOP caucuses last night were new to the caucus process, and young Ron Paul voters, who likely will not back any GOP nominee other than Paul.
Romney will win easily in New Hampshire, though both Huntsman and Gingrich will fire away at him this week. Paul will do very well in New Hampshire- many more libertarians than in Iowa, and an open primary to welcome them if they are not Republicans. . . South Carolina will be a three way fight now- Romney, Gingrich and Santorum. Romney could do OK there, if the other two split the more conservative vote. McCain won the state in 2008, when Romney, Huckabee and Fred Thompson divided up the conservative vote. Taking a longer view, the new delegate selection rules will insure a longer time frame for anyone (most likely Romney ) to reach 1144. Paul will do well in caucus states, where he has learned the Obama rules from 2008 (Obama won the nomination by beating Clinton in all but one caucus state).
The new attacks this week on Marco Rubio suggest that the left is already planning on facing a Romney Rubio ticket.
J. Robert Smith adds:
The truth is Mitt Romney lost Iowa. Romney's presidential candidacy stretches back well before 2008. Romney's been stumping Iowa and spending lots of cash there for over four years. Still, Romney could only manage 25% of the vote, which is what he accomplished against the GOP field in '08.
Romney's failure to breakout doesn't mean that he can't secure the Republican presidential nomination, he can. A healthy campaign war chest and unsexy but critical field organizations are Romney advantages. Still, Romney had those two advantages working for him in Iowa, and nearly out of nowhere, an under-resourced Rick Santorum surged to a virtual tie with the better provisioned and armed former Massachusetts governor.
Romney's real edge is that conservative voters remain fractured. Would Rick Perry's and Michele Bachmann's voters have gone to Santorum had the two quit Iowa? Many of Perry's and Bachmann's voters would have done so, given that Santorum was the logical choice for conservative voters. (Newt Gingrich, always vulnerable, saw his fortunes flag after spending days on end in the GOP establishment and the mainstream media meat grinders.)
New Hampshire is next, and it looks like a Romney win. After all, the New Hampshire primary is just a week away, hardly enough time for Santorum to technically change the dynamics there. Romney's Massachusetts is cheek and jowl to New Hampshire; the state boasts a large Massachusetts expatriate population. New Hampshire's primary is closed, meaning independents and Democrats can't wander over to the GOP side to make mischief. New Hampshire should be Romney stomping grounds.
But New Hampshire - like Iowa, though more so - isn't about Romney winning; it's about expectations. If Romney doesn't have a substantial victory in New Hampshire (an outright majority of the votes), then the perception of Romney's viability could be further damaged.
After Romney-friendly New Hampshire, come South Carolina and Florida, notably. South Carolina is red meat conservative country, and the Sunshine State has large conservative voter segments. If Santorum places well in New Hampshire, he'll appear all the more viable to southern conservatives anxious to nominate an A.B.M. (Anybody But Mitt) candidate.
Expect Romney to unlimber his big guns against Santorum immediately. Santorum accomplished in Iowa what Romney's other challengers hadn't yet accomplished. Santorum collected real votes in a real ballot test and fought Romney to a dead heat.
As a sixteen-year congressman and U.S. senator, Santorum made plenty votes, some of which are exploitable for being un-conservative (Santorum had a taste for earmarks and Big Labor). Romney needs to knockdown Santorum as quickly as possible - and he needs to hope that Perry and Bachmann stay in the race longer. (Gingrich will stay in because the presidential contest is Newt's last hurrah).
Subscribe to author feedText biggerText smaller
For the first time in dozens of court cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, a judge has ruled that Obama must, in order to be a candidate on the Georgia ballot for president in 2012, meet the constitutional demands for candidates for the office.
A hearing has been scheduled later this month for evidence on the issue that has plagued Obama and his presidency since long before he took office. At issue is the constitutional requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen.” Some allege he was not born in the U.S. as he has claimed and, therefore, is not eligible.
Others, including top constitutional expert Herb Titus, contend that the term “natural-born citizen,” which is not defined in the Constitution, would have been understood when the document was written to mean the offspring of two U.S. citizens. That argument is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision
Under that standard, Obama could not qualify, because his father, as identified on the “Certificate of Live Birth” image released by the White House, was a foreign national who came from Kenya to study in the U.S. and never was a citizen.
The ruling came today from Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings.
In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
While Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had argued that the requirements didn’t apply to candidates for a presidential primary, the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.
“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.”
The decision from Malihi came as a result of a series of complaints that were consolidated by the court. They were brought against Obama’s inclusion on the 2012 election primary ballot by David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by attorney Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield.
 Barack Obama |
The judge’s decision was to refuse to dismiss the complaints, an action that had been sought by Obama. He also granted a motion to sever the cases, and he scheduled a hearing at 9 a.m. on Jan. 26 for the complaint brought by Weldon. Following immediately will be hearings for the cases brought by Swensson and Powell, and the issue raised by Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren and Roth will be third.
Malihi’s ruling said: “The court finds that defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona and New Hampshire as well.
Taitz told WND she will present the decision to a court in Hawaii, where she is arguing to have access to Obama’s original birth documentation as it exists in the state, which for many years allowed relatives of babies to simply make a statement and register a birth, even though the child may not have been born in Hawaii.
Irion had argued in his opposition to Obama’s demand to dismiss the concerns that, “The only fact relevant to this case is the fact that the defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen. This fact has been repeatedly documented and stated by the party opponent, defendant Obama. This fact is also evidenced by plaintiff’s exhibit 6, previously submitted with plaintiff’s pre-trial order, and apparently authenticated by defendant’s citation to this exhibit in defendant’s ‘Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute,’ number 7.
“The lengths to which the defendant goes in order to avoid the one relevant fact is telling. The defendant asks this court to interpret Georgia election code in a way that leaves the code in conflict with itself, goes against the plain language of the law, leaves the law without meaning, and conflicts with common sense. He then cites freedom-to-associate precedent to support an assertion that has never been supported by such precedent, and which would nullify election codes in several states. All of these arguments are futile attempts to distract from the undeniable conclusion: Barack Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president of the United States,” Irion wrote.
He continued, “It is true that some states lack election codes authorizing any state officials to screen candidate selections from political parties. In these states political parties have essentially unfettered authority to determine which candidates appear on ballots. However, these instances represent decisions of the states to not screen candidates. It is the states’ right to decide how to administer its elections. The fact that some states have decided to not protect their citizens from unqualified candidates does not mean that other states don’t have the right to screen candidates. It simply means that some states have left the screening to the political parties.
“Georgia has determined that it is in the best interest of its citizens to screen candidates prior to placement on the ballot.
“Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, the defendant can never be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, the defendant cannot meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office of president. See U.S. Const. Art. II Section 1.5 Georgia election code requires such a candidate to be stricken from any Georgia ballot.”
The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.
That case states:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Irion said the goal would be an injunction that would deprive Obama of Democratic Party certification.
“Without such certification from the party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election,” his organization said in an announcement when the cases were launched.
Liberty Legal said it is not addressing Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate.
“These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant,” the group said.
WND has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation into whether Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state’s election ballot in 2012. A full report is expected within weeks.
The White House in April released an image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama’s claim that he was born in the state. The White House has not addressed the questions raised by Obama’s father’s nationality. In addition, many computer, imaging, document and technology experts have stated the document image appears to be a forgery.
The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant:
 Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House |
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”
Worth watching!!!! It's incredible that this 1948 cartoon has come this close to depicting our current day situation. It's worth your time. EVERY PERSON IN THE USA SHOULD SEE THIS! JUST THINK, THIS WAS FORECAST 62 YEARS AGO! What can a cartoon produced in 1948, teach us today, that's of any value? You'd be very surprised! Pay close attention! Keep in mind this was done in '1948'. Keep telling yourself that as you view it. This is one of the best I have ever seen. This should be viewed by every AMERICAN. Click on 1948 Cartoon below - See if you can recognize anyone from today! |
Quote Du Jour:
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
References:
www.hotair.com
www.wnd.com
www.hotair.com
www.realclearpolitics.com
www.quotationspage.com
www.americanthinker.com
www.americanspectator.com
www.youtube.com
www.theblaze.com
www.dailycaller.com
www.humanevents.com
Washington Post
