The Democrats for illegal immigrant child prostitution, and why some ACORN investigations are a bold faced lie

According to the Kansas City Star, there were 75 'nay' votes for the complete defunding of ACORN. The vote passed 345 to 75 in favor of the defunding. All 75 'nay' votes were democrats.

Baldwin Becerra Brady (PA) Brown, Corrine Butterfield Capuano Carson (IN) Castor (FL) Cleaver Clyburn Crowley Cummings Davis (IL) DeGette Delahunt Doyle Edwards (MD) Ellison Engel Fattah Filner Fudge Green, Al Grijalva Hinchey

Hirono Holt Honda Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Johnson, E. B. Kilpatrick (MI) Kucinich Larsen (WA) Lee (CA) Lewis (GA) Lynch Markey (MA) McCollum McDermott McGovern Meeks (NY) Mollohan Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Nadler (NY) Neal (MA) Olver Pallone Pascrell

Payne Polis (CO) Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Roybal-Allard Rush Sánchez, Linda T. Schakowsky Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Serrano Sherman Sires Slaughter Stark Thompson (MS) Towns Tsongas Velázquez Waters Watson Waxman Wexler Woolsey

I'm embarassed. Emanuel Cleaver is my representative, and he voted 'nay'. (I can already see the T-Shirts, 'Cleaver for underage illegal alien prostitution') Actually i'm not too surprised, SEIU is one of his biggest campaign contributors, and am I not suprised to see Dianne Watson (the race-baiting Castro lover), Henry Waxman (the ugly one who sits on the commerce and energy committee), and ... CHARLIE RANGLE (the one who failed to report 2.4 million dollars on his taxes) among the noes list.
There were some surprising names for the yea votes. (Conyers, the guy who said that the powers that be decided against a federal ACORN investigation), and Al Franken (former Air America host and SEIU's 3rd largest recipient in campaign funds). Some prominent names were missing from the vote altogether (Nancy Pelosi, and Barney Frank)
If your congressman is named in the list above, VOTE THEM OUT.
In my article titled "Impeccable Timing', Nancy Pelosi names Phil Angelides to chair the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. He just so happens to chair the Apollo Alliance (they drafted the stimulus bill we love so much), and ACORN. To make things even muckier, ACORN announced who will perform their internal investigation the notables are..

• John Podesta, President and CEO, Center for American Progress
• Andrew 'Andy' Stern, International President, SEIU
  
• Eric Eve, Senior VP of Global Consumer Group, Community Relations, Citigroup

With an all star cast like this, and the federal chair of the investigation into these guys, I put my money on nobody finds anything.

Impecible Timing

     This story surfaced on Big Government blog and was written by Phil Kerpen. This article is out standing. Once again, we have high level government officials (Nancy Pelosi, D-CA) appointing Phil Angelides to chair the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. One problem, he also chairs ACORN and the Apollo Alliance. Where have I heard that before? Van Jones. What are the odds that he will turn a blind eye to the corrupt organizations and sweetheart deals?
     Try this one on for size, Are President Jimmy Carter and ACORN some how responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis? Read this article and you tell me. If this is true, what are the implications? Will Phil Angelides bring this out in the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report?
   On a side note, I launched a new blog dedicated to our technology and media rights. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Rules for Radicals

     With the firestorm of ACORN controversy as of late, there has been an unraveling of sorts on the political left. Ann Coulter in her book accurately describes the totem pole of liberal victimology. It is quite simple really, in order to champion the disenfranchised, you must yourself remain a victim. For example, if a woman murders her abusive husband, the liberal will spin the events in such a manner so that her status a victim will clear her of the wrongdoing, (the sex card) when the fact remains that all murder is wrong. With ACORN however, they represent the poor, (the class card) as long as they're not white, and blacks, as long as they're not rich. (the race card) In the realm of liberal ideology, race trumps sex. Why else would the media jump ship during the democratic primary? Here you have Hillary Clinton, a rich white woman from an affluent background and an extensive background in the political limelight, juxtaposed to Barrack Obama, a black man from a poor family and a bit of an unknown on the national stage, other than liberalism 101, poor black trumps rich white. Hillary was immediately thrown under the bus by the media, and Obama was portrayed as the savior of the disenfranchised. Or was he?
When faced with tough questions about the economy, what was the response from democratic officials? "We inherited a deficit from Bush, the bush deficit, the bush economy et cetera" (remove yourself from responsibility by maintaining your status as a victim) Look at the statements he's made here over healthcare. With one hand, he champions the poor and the elderly, but misrepresents some facts in order to push the agenda. Upon careful examination of the statements and the actions of ACORN, they claim to champion the disenfranchised with one hand, and with the other attempt to usurp power. They defend their employees with their lips, and throw them to the wolves with their hands. There is a liberal behind every double standard. And the biggest double standard is yet to come.
Enter Sarah Palin, love her or hate her, you defiantly heard of her. Here is a woman (liberals love to champion womens issues) who is a political power player, and now she is the pariah of liberal politics, and the laughing stock of liberal pundits worldwide. Why go through so much effort to destroy such a woman? Well it's because she doesn't fit the mold. Here is a woman who is pro-life (liberals hate these types) and pro gun (liberals really hate them) who has more executive experience than 'The One' and has a down syndrome baby. They hate her because she is not a product of their woman's liberation efforts, and people like her must be destroyed at any cost, thus the increase in the cases of PDS. (Palin derangement syndrome, it's real folks don't let it happen to you)

Did The ACORN Journalists Break The Law?

This story that surfaced on breitbart.com reports that the Baltimore city state's attorney Patricia C. Jessamy is considering prosecuting those responsible for taping the ACORN employees on charges that they violated Maryland's wiretap laws. Maryland law prohibits the interception of communications without the consent of all persons to the communication, and is punishable by five years in prison. I had just one question, does the Maryland state law concerning the law of intercepting communications apply to the two journalists?

The answer can be found to this question can be found not by looking forward, but into the past. Linda Tripp was charged by the state of Maryland for violating the state's wiretapping laws, and thus the evidence she submitted in the Monica Lewinsky trial was inadmissible. Notice the pattern here? The Maryland state wiretapping law states the following;

Unlawful acts. -- Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
(2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or

(3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-402(a)(1)-(a)(3).

"Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-401(3)

"Electronic, mechanical, or other device" means any device or electronic communication other than: (i) Any telephone...equipment...or any component thereof... furnished by the subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of the service and used in the ordinary course of its business. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-401(4)(i).

It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution of laws of the United States or of this State. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-402(c)(3).

For the lot who don't understand leaglease, what this all means concerning the ACORN case is that the two journalists didn't wiretap, or illegally intercept any communications as defined by Maryland state law because the device used to obtain the evidence is exempt from the wiretapping laws, the obtaining party was a participant in the communication, and the communication revealed a conspiracy to commit multiple, heinous crimes. Did I mention the 10th Circuit Cort of Appeals ruling in 1974 that states the following?

"The government has adopted the position of the trial court below that the intercepting device was the recorder and not an extension telephone. While such a view avoids the problem presented, we are simply not persuaded by this contention. We agree with appellant that the recording of a conversation is immaterial when the overhearing is itself legal. It is the means whereby the contents of the conversation are acquired that is crucial. See State v. Vizzini, 115 N.J. Super. 97, 278 A.2d 235. A recording device placed next to, or connected with, a telephone receiver cannot itself be the "acquiring" mechanism. It is the receiver which serves this function--the recorder is a mere accessory designed to preserve the contents of the communication. This interpretation comports squarely with the clear distinction drawn between "intercepting" and "recording" under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8) (a), which deals with judicially authorized interceptions: The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by any means authorized by this chapter shall, if possible, be recorded on tape or wire or other comparable device."

Case and point, the legal president states that these two journalists did not in any shape or form flout the law prohibiting wiretaps. The legal president has been established the two journalists should walk away from this.

Birhters? 9/11 Truthers? How About KoolAid Stirrers!

Okay, I know it's been a while since last posted, but i have been busy, and it's not like I make a lot of money doing this, so it's put on the back burner now and again. I digress however, and will now proceed to opine on the topic of two 'ers'.

In case you have been living under a rock for the past 3 months, ( or just don't pay attention to to current events) there is a 'theory' circulating in several circles who believe that our democratically elected President Barack Obama, was not born in the United States, as required by Article II, section I, paragraph 5 of the US Constitution.

"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;
neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been
fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Now, if ... and this a big if, what these 'birthers' claim is indeed proven to be true, the president would be removed from office, as read in Article II, section 4.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

FACTS: 1) Both major newspapers in the state of Hawaii announced the birth of one Barack H. Obama to a Mr and Mrs Barack Obama on the date of 4 Aug 1961
2) There are these photos posted here.

SPECULATION: There would have had to have been an extremely well coordinated effort to manufacture the evidence.

OPINION: The birther claims are bogus claims perpetuated by people who hate Obama. Open and shut, case closed.

When I first saw the story, I believed the claims, but a little research, and some good 'ole fashioned common sense led me to change my mind. I'm not exactly Barack Obama's biggest fan, but these claims are simply beyond the pale. I'm glad that I quit stirring my KoolAid on this.

Now there exists another group of 'ers' that need to be addressed as well. While the 9/11 truth movement has a few more recognizable figures in their following (a small list of these names here,) there exist several glaring facts that simply cannot be refuted here concerning claims that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. I presently do not have all of the facts to form an honest and intelligent opinion concerning peoples motives, but my initial reaction is that the 9/11 truthers are simply loons who will hate George Bush for ever.

Now before I get blasted, let me be absolutely clear. Every American, be they rich, poor, conservative, liberal, black, white or whatever deserve to be treated with respect and civility. Americans, on either side of any debate should exercise their right to question their government.
As an American citizen, I demand accountability from my government and you should too because the mainstream media certainly isn't. The First Amendment says this;

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances."

Now, I would like to leave you with a quote from Thomas Jefferson,

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear"

Sources; www.quotedb.com, US constitution, http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/03/911-truthers-meet-their-waterloo-ron.html, http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633, http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html