I ran across this on AOL and I don't even know what to say. I thought it was just another ranting blogger as I was reading along and when I got to the end I was shocked. Still am. The author, Paul Shepard, is a veteran reporter of 16 years "on the national urban/minority affairs beat for The Cleveland Plain Dealer and for The AP in Washington, D.C."
From Mr Shepard's article, it is clear he was not educated on the facts - nor the number or magnitude of the cases pending. He wasn't aware of the Wrotnowski or the others still alive. And he refers to folks as "conservative crazies...trying to use the courts to subvert the people's will expressed at the ballot box on Election Day."
The point is the constitutionality of the ballot itself. Wrotnowski and Donofrio were not suing barry or any other political candidate. They were suing the Secretary of State responsible for putting the names on the ballot. Senator McCain's and Senator Obama's names were both challenged. One cannot subvert the people's will when their vote, when cast, was expressed on an unconstitutional ballot.
And, secondly, it is not just "conservative crazies" or people who want barry not to be president. Each one of us on this site is politically neutral. I have never voted or even followed politics until I saw the flagrant pro-Obama media bias, rampant sexism, unvarnished misogyny, hierarchy of -isms and The Double Standard.
That is our outrage here - propaganda and censorship - and how the pro-Obama media bias clearly, undeniably, and irrefutably influenced and is still influencing this election.
I would think that a veteran journalist would respect that. I expect nothing from reporters, journalists, pundits or screamers like hardball.
Instead, all the barry naysayers are lumped into a giant bucket of crazies, wackos, rednecks, evangelicals and whatever else. And, of course, all are racists.
Who is bigoted? Narrow-minded?
One size, color, shape fits all?
I don't have the energy for this. There is no room for rational thought or discussion whenever any question is raised on even the periphery of barry's eligibility to do anything. Especially when the barry supporter is asked to go first and lay out the argument why barry is qualified. All there ever is a litany of why barry's opponent is evil, racist, what they have done to him - and if one remains steadfast - then the personal insults begin. The Man Above the Fray's proponents are anything but.
It is sad.
More of Mr Shepard's words.
Unfortunately we will all have to deal with this one more time. A Pennsylvania man is pursuing a court challenge to Obama's presidency claiming the president-elect was born in Kenya and not Hawaii as both he and Hawaii officials confirmed.
Again, there is no point in going into depth. There is more to the "Pennsylvania man". Philip Berg's lawsuit than the allegation of barry being born in Kenya or even the allegation that he surrendered his US citizenship in Indonesia. It goes to the heart of barry's integrity as a man sworn to uphold the Constitution.
Where is Sheperd's questioning as to why barry has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars when all he has to do was open the vault and produce the copy? What same person would spend money, waste resources and continue to dodge questions when $12 copy could clear up the issue? A man proclaiming transparency?
And Shepard was not aware that the Wrontowski case (identical in theory to Donofrio's) was in the Court's hands - in fact a supplemental brief was filed on the day of his article (12-9-08).
Where was the questioning why The Court would ask for a supplemental brief and pass for discussion a case that was idenitical in Constitutional challenge to Mr Donofrio's, which they had just denied?
SHEPARD: Desperate is the best way to characterize the reasoning behind the lawsuit which somehow managed to get all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court before being tossed in the garbage.
Hopefully, that will be the last silly challenge we have to stand. So let the stupid tricks end and let Obama have his chance to govern.
How sad - the ignorance. It is not worthy of frustration or anger, But I like that wording - very revealing. "let Obama have his chance".
If you don't like Obama, that's fine.
What are the chances Mr Shepherd, or any obamafan, would think it a "silly challenge" if it were Senator Clinton or McCain? And it doesn't have anything to do with not liking barry. It is a matter of Constitutional eligibility. Again, where is the curiosity about a constitutional lawyer who avoids mention of The Constitution. If barry has nothing to hide (I am not saying he does), why didn't he welcome the chance to give another one of his speeches for the ages on The Constitution?
Attack his agenda, attack his appointments, attack his ideas. That's all a fair part of the political game.
I think not. Look at anyone who has tried. Their families including a "DISABLED INFANT" and minor children were attacked, emails and personal files hacked and every single one of barry's opponents were branded racists, when none of them were so onsidered previous to opposing The self-proclaimed (and delusional) Transcender of Race. And most heinous, a man who has served this country with honor and distinction for over fifty years - including five years in a prison camp - was attacked for using the "POW Card" and accused on national TV for inciting to crowds to say "Kill him" (in reference barry). It never happened and barry has never apologized for saying it - which was 100% intentional.
A man of honor, integrity and judgment?
More empty words. And there couldn't be an article without this.
But attacking his parentage is out of bounds. Remember, few things in life will earn you bruised feelings and perhaps a bruised nose faster than attacking the ancestry of a black man.
Generic generalized tired old argument to match skin color. Has no relevance to the lawsuits but has every relevance to barry's campaign tactics. barry has no relevance to the Oppressed Southern Negro - no matter what his book of mythology says. No one can corroborate what he claims happened to him and the seminal event of him seeing a picture of a man who had tried to bleach his skin white was a complete fantasy. He said the picture was in LIFE - it wasn't. He said it was in Ebony - it wasn't. And yet that is what he points to as his racial awakening.
Barack Obama Sr was an educated East African who lived in America long enough to marry (?) a white women and father a son only to abandon them for Harvard. It not an issue of money as barry says in his book. A stipend would have been provided in New York but barry Sr wanted to got to Harvard and he did. There he found another white woman who he would later marry - all the while married to his tribal wife who he had left pregnant and caring for their young child.
Remember too, barry chose not to go to Africa until after his father had died. barry grew up in Hawaii, the most diverse state in the Union, which had just became a state two years previous. There were no segregated schools. Interracial marriage was legal and integrated, multicultural households commonplace. Whites "haoles" were prejudiced against. The last day of the school year: "Kill Haole Day". Kill Whites Day. barry went to what is still one of the most prestigious prep schools and his classmates do not recall him having racial identity issues. They do however say he was lonely for his mother and father.
barry never lived in the South. The first time he visited Kansas was on the stump. He admits in his own book that he was afraid of the black kids in the neighborhood in Chicago.
There is so much more but there's is no need. From now on I'll just present the obamerized ignorant--as in unacquainted with the facts--own words. They will speak for themselves.
You wanted facts - I am giving you facts. I refuse to go back and find the exact post where the references are for everything here. It is fact. What need would I have to fabricate something about barry when we are so busy proving his fabrications.
Is there anyone out there interest in truth?
