terrorists in Afghanistan, Martha Coakley has
found that she has no more campaign in
Democratic candidate Martha Coakley has run such a clueless race for Senate in Massachusetts that Democrats are already comparing her to Creigh Deeds, their hapless nominee for governor of Virginia who lost last year in a landslide.
But other comparisons are even more cutting. Michael Barone, co-author of the Almanac of Americans Politics, wrote yesterday: "If Republican Scott Brown wins this election -- and every day his chances look better -- Democrats might conclude that Martha Coakley was a Republican plant, a Manchurian candidate inserted into the race in order to deprive Democrats of their 60th vote in the Senate."
How bad has Ms. Coakley's effort been? This week she took time off from her desultory campaigning to go to a Washington, D.C. wine bar and collect $10,000 in checks from health care lobbyists. Afterwards, an aide shoved a reporter to the ground for trying to ask the candidate a question (an action the aide has now apologized for). The Weekly Standard reporter had been trying to ask Ms. Coakley about her incredible statement in a debate this week that there were no longer any terrorists in Afghanistan.
But perhaps her worst error was appearing to have dissed baseball fans who congregate at Boston's Fenway Park, a Massachusetts shrine even in the off-season. Asked to answer charges that she wasn't campaigning hard enough, she fired back: "As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?" (An ad for her GOP opponent Mr. Brown showed him shaking hands in front of the ballpark.)
The crack drew an instant response from former Red Sox star Curt Schilling, who attacked Ms. Coakley for being one of those pols who are "so far out of touch with their constituents it's laughable and pathetic."
Ms. Coakley's campaign has indeed been a disaster, and that's certainly what Democrats will emphasize should she lose. Democrats will studiously ignore the fact that her cookie-cutter liberal ideas were viewed by many independents as out-of-date and conventional. Her inability to talk about issues such as jobs that are a pressing concern to voters will be every bit as much to blame as her innumerable tactical missteps.
-- John Fund
Of course, the uber-intense Massachusetts Senate race is about health care and the fact that a victory by Scott Brown would give the GOP the 41st vote to stop the bill now before Congress -- a bill that a new Suffolk University poll shows is opposed by 51% of Massachusetts residents.
But many other factors explain why Bay State voters -- especially independents -- are mad as hell and joining a "pitchfork populist" revolution fueling the Brown candidacy.
A Boston Globe poll found that, by 49% to 45%, independent voters feel that Democratic domination of all levers of power in the state is a problem. The check on political arrogance and corruption that competitive elections create in many states is pretty much non-existent in Massachusetts. Three successive speakers of the Massachusetts House have been convicted of crimes in recent years. Undercover tapes recently showed a Boston state legislator stuffing a bribe into her bra. Then there's Boston's Big Dig construction project, which has featured numerous horror stories of corruption.
If that weren't enough, much of the establishment's political arrogance has been focused directly on voters. The state legislature ignored hundreds of thousands who signed petitions to place a referendum on gay marriage on the ballot by simply running out the clock and refusing to allow it to go before the electorate. After Senator Ted Kennedy died, the legislature also changed state law in a matter of days to allow the sitting Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim Senator -- a Kennedy family retainer named Paul Kirk -- so Democrats would have the 60 needed votes to pass health care without Massachusetts voters getting in the way.
Democrats have also reacted badly to the Brown surge in the polls. Senator Kirk ignored specific instructions from the legislature that approved his appointment when he endorsed Ms. Coakley in the race. Senator Kirk also announced he would vote for the ObamaCare bill even if Mr. Brown wins on Tuesday and is on the brink of being sworn in. Likewise, Secretary of State William Galvin, Massachusetts' top election official, told a Boston paper that certification of a Brown victory could be delayed until mid-February to permit Mr. Kirk to vote on health care.
No wonder Mr. Brown has made headway by arguing he's running against "the machine" in the Bay State. The American Revolution began in Massachusetts. Democrats, who have adopted a royalist entitlement mentality towards their political power there, seem to have forgotten that and are now facing a sudden uprising by a rebel army called the voting public.
-- John Fund
FRIDAY, 15 JANUARY 10
BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).
He is not eligible
because he was not born of
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:
‘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…’ “
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.
Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS
“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”
- Leo Rugiens