Category Archives: PUMA

What Members Of Congress Think Of Eligibility Question

"We've given you a Republic, if you can keep it..."
WORD IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL eligibility of one Barack Hussein Obama to hold the highest office in our land is being raised in Town Hall meetings all across the country. This should prove interesting. We have no final answers here. We can only read what we read, distill the 2nd and 3rd hand information, only to speculate wildly about what we think is true and what we think is not. However, we're not stupid (apologies to Judge Scalia), and we are not cowed enough to believe that candidate and now President Obama has been in teh least bit properly vetted, despite the useless flow of air issuing from the grit-filled mouths of many our finest men and women who were sent to Washington to represent its citizens in what is, or once was a strong constitutional nation. Among the statements from members of Congress:

U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock: “The Constitution is the starting point for determining eligibility to serve as president. The Constitution requires that to be eligible to serve as president an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least 14 years.” He said candidates are vetted both inside the government and out, and Obama has passed all of the hurdles.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said, “In the run-up to the 2008 federal election and in its aftermath, many Texans have written to express their thoughts and concerns about the electoral process. Some have even raised concerns about the eligibility of candidates to serve in elected office under the Constitution. The courts and the Federal Elections Commission play a central role in determining the eligibility of candidates to serve in the offices they seek. You can be certain that I will continue to be vigilant in making sure that these institutions perform their critical role in overseeing fair and transparent elections.”

Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., The “Constitution of our nation requires natural born citizenship in order to serve as President of the United States of America.” But then she explains that the “Office of Vital Records within the Hawaiian Department of Health has confirmed the birth and citizenship of President Obama.” Nowhere in the letter to her constituent does she explain why the confirmation of “citizenship” equates to meeting the requirement for “natural-born citizenship.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., “I believe that President Obama has met all the requirements of citizenship as set forth by the U.S. State Department, and therefore is eligible for the office of the presidency.”

Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J., said concerned citizens need to go to court over Obama’s eligibility, even though courts ranging up to the U.S. Supreme Court have refused in dozens of cases already to hear arguments on the merits of the dispute:

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: “Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors.”

Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.: “Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president.”

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: “President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate.”

U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla.: “The claim that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the U.S. is false. This rumor is simply election year politics.” She referred questioners to Snopes for documentation.

Based on these documents, most members of Congress from both parties appear satisfied that the president is a U.S. citizen. That would preclude any effort to remove him through the impeachment process, which requires a majority in the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, on the basis of his constitutional eligibility for office. -Lamar Alexander
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: “The courts have held that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Moreover, in December 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, concurring with three other federal courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington. The courts have confirmed the determination of state officials in Hawaii that health department records prove that Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu.”

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: “President Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa.: “I am confident that Mr. Obama meets all the constitutional requirements to be our 44th president. Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website and submitted an additional copy to the independent website The birth certificate demonstrates that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, thereby making him a natural-born citizen eligible to be president.”

U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.: “As you know, some questions were raised about whether President Obama is a natural born citizen. There was a recent lawsuit arguing that he is not eligible for the Presidency for this reason. I understand that the Supreme Court considered hearing this lawsuit, but it ultimately turned down the request to have the case considered before the full court. I further understand that the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health recently confirmed that President Obama was born in Honolulu and has personally verified that her agency has his original birth certificate on record. As you know, the U.S. Congress certified his election on January 8, and he was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. While I may disagree with President Obama on a multitude of issues, he has been elected as President of the United States through a fair process and has shown sufficient documentation, via a state birth certificate, that has been verified as being authentic. In short, therefore, I do not believe sufficient evidence was brought to light to conclude that President Obama was ineligible for the office.”

U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H.: “President Obama publicly posted his birth certificate on his campaign website which confirms that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This birth certificate confirms that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, above the age of 35, and is therefore qualified to be President of the United States of America. If you would like to view President Obama’s birth certificate, I encourage you to go to the Fight The Smears website .”

We learned from Clinton that lying, even under oath, probably doesn’t rise to those standards … so I’m looking for the crime. Perhaps his violation of the war powers act? It’s something my colleagues and I are considering. - Blake Farenthold
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, “The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States. In President Obama’s case, some individuals have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging that he has not proven that he is an American citizen, but each of those lawsuits have been dismissed. This includes a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to not review an “application for emergency stay” filed by a New Jersey resident claiming that the President is not a natural born citizen because his father was born in Kenya. Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health and the state’s Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency. If contrary documentation is produced and verified, this matter will necessarily be resolved by the judicial branch of our government under the Constitution.”

Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa.: “On June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate after numerous claims were made about his eligibility to hold the office of President. The released copy created additional questions, because it contained a blacked out department file number and was apparently missing a seal, and it was impossible to detect raised text, a common characteristic of official documents. There were satisfactory answers to such questions, however: the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department’s system, and the State places the seal on the back of the certificate. The website investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles that revealed the raised text and the seal on the back of the document. … Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States.”

U.S. Rep Vic Snyder, D-Ark.: “According to State of Hawai’i officials, the Hawai’i State Department of Health has President-elect Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with that state’s policies and procedures.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.: “The U.S. Constitution is our nation’s supreme law and cannot be circumvented for any reason. It is my understanding that state officials in Hawaii have attested to the validity of President Obama’s birth certificate showing that he was born in that state, which would make him a U.S. citizen. I also have read that both of Hawaii’s major newspapers ran birth announcements in August 1961 documenting President Obama’s birth in Honolulu. Based on these documents, most members of Congress from both parties appear satisfied that the president is a U.S. citizen. That would preclude any effort to remove him through the impeachment process, which requires a majority in the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, on the basis of his constitutional eligibility for office.”

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., “As a senator representing Colorado, I want to speak very clearly on this issue. President Barack Obama is a ‘natural born’ citizen of America, and he is eligible to be our nation’s Commander in Chief. The legality of his birth certificate has been verified by numerous federal agencies, third party investigative groups, national media outlets, and primary source documentation. The United States Department of State and the Hawaii Department of Health have both verified the legality of the ‘Certification of Birth’ document provided by President Obama. In addition, highly regarded ‘fact check’ websites such as,, and support the findings of the federal agencies through their own independent investigations.”

Sen. Mark. R. Warner, D-Va., “The facts have consistently shown that President Obama was born in the United States. As a natural-born American citizen, he is fully eligible to serve as president of our country.”

Tim Walberg said he’s taken on many other urgent issues and then suggested a repair of the Obama presidency is coming soon, in the 2012 election.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., “Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies the qualifications for this executive office. It states that no person except for a natural born American citizen is eligible to run for President of the United States. Also, the candidate must be at least thirty-five years of age and have resided in the United States for at least fourteen years. President Obama meets these constitutional requirements. If you were not already aware, on April 27, 2011 the White House released a copy of President Obama’s long form birth certificate. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in the United States are considered citizens of the United States. Under these criteria, President Obama, a 47-year old U.S. citizen, who has resided in the United States for longer than fourteen years, is eligible to be President.

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., “Independent and official investigations as well as legal proceedings have validated President Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. The Health Director and Head of Vital Statistics for the state of Hawaii (an official source) has also examined and declared the authenticity of the birth certificate and most recently President Obama released his full birth certificate. If change is to take place it’s likely to come in the form of an election. This is part of the reason everyone needs to make sure we vote for the people who will represent our views correctly. This is also why we must continue to talk to our friends and relatives in other states about their own elected officials and encourage them to let their voices be heard.”

There have been a few who have expressed concern over the situation:

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., in a posting on Canada Free Press by Dean Haskins, “I believe that there should be a more formal process of review and validation as a matter of routine certification of candidates. The office of the presidency is undermined if Americans don’t have confidence that the candidates for the highest office in the land are qualified for the position as required by the Constitution.…“

Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., did not tell a questioner the issue of Obama’s eligibility was settled by the April release of the “Certificate of Live Birth” image by the White House. “Regardless of whether the license that he showed is true or fake, I’ve not seen it other than what was portrayed in the news,” Walberg said. But he said he’s taken on many other urgent issues and then suggested a repair of the Obama presidency is coming soon, in the 2012 election.

Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, “Many of the issues, like the birth certificate, are within the jurisdiction of the courts, not Congress. Our power over the president is impeachment for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ We learned from Clinton that lying, even under oath, probably doesn’t rise to those standards … so I’m looking for the crime. Perhaps his violation of the war powers act? It’s something my colleagues and I are considering.”

MORE FROM TODAY'S Project archives...

Removing The Fishwrap, Sniffing The Stench

Thanks to DisEnfranchised Voter for this entry posted over at the Confluence, a high octane PUMA site whose energetic post-election dialogue nearly matches the buoyancy of those frothy days in early September when I first discovered this most kinetic of political creatures.

Removing The Fishwrap, Sniffing The Stench

I CAN CONCUR WITH Joseph Cannon that I also expected a few Republicans to sound more “progressive” than Obama, since Obama will say anything. Thus I also agree with blogger Falstaff that Obama isn’t a conservative in liberal’s clothing. He’s just what many of us predicted him to be: a blank sheet of paper, an empty suit, a person who has no idea who he is or where he stands. He’s only cared about doing whatever he could to get to the top without even thinking about anyone else. It is why he can sound like a conservative because he seriously doesn’t understand the difference. He goes with whatever the status quo is until an adviser tells him differently. Now here is what Falstaff said:

I don’t think this can be understood in conscious terms or in the sphere of political judgment. Contra some PUMAs, I don’t think he’s some kind of clever right-winger in liberal’s clothing. I think we’re seeing someone with a deep need not to be seen—including (indeed, most importantly) by himself. In stark contrast to Hillary, he doesn’t have the first idea who’s actually in there. He’s even hiding in his autobiography, where he becomes more opaque as one reads.

Thing is, this job does not permit invisibility. As I’ve also posted elsewhere, he’s walked out onto the biggest stage of all, and he won’t get off it without us and him knowing who, in fact, he is. That’s the case in palmy times, and it’s certainly the case in a tempest.

Having said all that, my point here was somewhat simpler. It was about preparation. I did credit him with skill at that. He was better prepared for some aspects of the primaries than was Hillary—he had what turned out to be an intelligent game plan. It was all he had, of course—his ability to run plays was really limited, all float-like-a-butterfly, no sting-like-a-bee. But figuring out about the Net, about the generational emotions of Millenials, and about how to game the caucuses was smart tactically. But it turns out that his ability to prepare seems to be limited to campaigning. He and his team don’t seem to have been able to prepare for actual governing.

And the question he faces, and that we all face, is whether he can become a person in real time, in the midst of the tempest. Or, more accurately, what person it’ll turn out is in there, what person he has been so terrified of his entire life and that he’s pervasively and energetically kept in the box. And, then, whether than person is up to the demands of the moment.

It should be obvious by now that our new President is a puppet on a string and we now have a Puppet Government run by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Rahm Emmanuel. And what nonsense is this—rumors that what may be coming down the pike is an election to remove presidential term limits? God forbid. Our State Department just congratulated Venzuela on it's successful election to eliminate term limits—pure unadulterated penis envy!

Totalitarianism all across the chessboard, what a concept! To paraphrase the prophet from Hibbing, oooooh Mama, is this REALLY the end—to be stuck inside Big Government with no liberty to choose again? Should patriotic Americans (and we know what we mean) act as if all this para-democratic nonsense is just for silly kicks or is this just the set-up for the global tribulation next in line to render a few licks across the neck for the menacing tribes of Arab supremacy, and what about China, Russia? Has anybody thick in the business of running this once great nation read to the end of the friggin' manual, yet?

Okay, abort panic mode. Cooler heads must prevail. Steve Lingus of Anderson, SC puts our dilemma into ample clear terms:

The demise of the USA began when we decided to be the guardians of freedom for the peoples of the world and were willing to give our manufacturing to other countries to foster democracy in those lands. Now we pay the price. We are now dependent on foreign labor to make the goods we need. Gone are the slogans that said "Crafted with pride in the USA". Our clothes and shoes come from other lands as does some of our food. Corporate CEOs share this blame as well as to increase the bottom line it was more profitable to make goods overseas where wages were cheaper and there was less regulation. The current economic situation does not help much either as people cut back on all but the necessities which are made in China. The road to recovery will be difficult but as a strong people we will survive that is unless President Obama decides to put us under UN jurisdiction.

Let me add these finishing touches to the discussion. First, you cannot have "free trade" with non-capitalist market sectors. A free market system cannot compete fairly with slave/prison/child labor. Second, China refuses to float its currency on the world market, but instead props up its currency by fixing it to an unreasonable sub-value. This protection in turn guarantees its exports low prices in relation to other countries, and is just another way to dump products in other markets at below cost. The US must set trade policy to reflect reasonable currency values and impose tariffs that reflect those imposed on our products by the trading partner. If Chinese products were valued at their true cost, they would be priced competitively with goods made in the US and other "free" economies.

Freedom Of Association

Thomas Sowell

HERE'S A FUNNY parody of the Facebook culture, but with a twist. It's called BarackBook, and if you're not careful, it will set your pants on fire. But don't take my word for it. Step into the light. Noted columnist Thomas Sowell last month scored a direct hit in pointing out that the gist of the Barack Obama candidacy is his rhetorical flair which often borders on sheer wizardry except for those times when his teleprompter hits a glitch. Then we are offered a glimpse of the hollow man behind the curtain where designer campaigns are made. In his essay, Idols of Crowds, Sowell quotes the 20th century French philosopher Jean-François Revel:

"A human group transforms itself into a crowd when it suddenly responds to a suggestion rather than to reasoning, to an image rather than to an idea, to an affirmation rather than to proof, to the repetition of a phrase rather than to arguments, to prestige rather than to competence."

Revel was not referring to the United States when he wrote those words, nor to his own France, but to human beings in general. He was certainly not referring to Barack Obama, whom he probably never heard of, since Revel died last year.

To find anything comparable to crowds' euphoric reactions to Obama, you would have to go back to old newsreels of German crowds in the 1930s, with their adulation of their fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. With hindsight, we can look back on those people with pity, knowing now how many of them would be led to their deaths by the man they idolized.

The exultation of the moment can exact a brutal price after that moment has passed. Nowhere is that truer than when it comes to picking the leader of a nation, which means entrusting that leader with the fate of millions today and of generations yet unborn.

A leader does not have to be evil to lead a country into a catastrophe. Inexperience and incompetence can create very similar results, perhaps even faster in a nuclear age, when even "a small country"—as Senator Obama called Iran—can wreak havoc anywhere in the world, when they are led by suicidal fanatics and supply nuclear weapons to terrorists who are likewise suicidal fanatics.

Barack Obama is truly a phenomenon of our time—a presidential candidate who cannot cite a single serious accomplishment in his entire career, besides advancing his own career with rhetoric.

He has a rhetorical answer for everything. Those of us who talk about the threat of Iran are just engaging in "the politics of fear" according to Obama, something to distract us from "the real issues," such as raising taxes and handing out largesse with the proceeds. Those who have studied the years leading up to World War II have been astonished by how many people and how many countries failed to see what Adolf Hitler was getting ready to do.

Read it all.

Of course, this may explain the Obama mystique, but says nothing about the McCain-Palin draw. I'll take a shot at laying out the difference. Common wisdom dictates that putting trust in the McCain-Palin ticket is just a politics as usual afterthought, but more and more, while neither McCain nor Palin have done much of a job articulating a clear vision of what they intend to accomplish in the next four years, the decision of supporting the Republican ticket for many of the independents is most likely an anti-Obama impulse.

Outside of the party diehards, most people simply feel safer with the Republicans, right or wrong. The Democratic ship of state is crawling with fever-carrying rats. Senator Obama is largely a political unknown, propped up by the MSM protecting with secrecy the damaging radicalism of his life. Frankly, if Obama would step up with full honesty to address his whole biography, he might turn a few more heads. Unfortunately for his ambition, full disclosure might sink his campaign for the presidency, forever. Then again, it might not. But dishonesty will catch up to him sooner or later.

For his family's sake, let's hope he loses this election cycle. That would give him time to regroup and rethink his approach in real leadership, his association to the truth, in abandoning this mystical carpet ride he seems to have floated this season. But from all I've learned from Democratic Party front liners during this extraordinarily long campaign, Barack Obama believes he has already arrived like a thief in the night. Lord help us all.

Senator, I've read a few books myself, and you sir, are no Huey P. Long.

Toppling A Political Party, Et Cetera

HERE'S ANOTHER STRONGLY WORDED message from the increasingly radicalized PUMA camp. It seems that indeed the Democratic Party regulars have begun to snatch pages from Adolph's fascist playbook (after all, Naziism, or the National Socialist Party leftist label is self-evident), and are leaving nothing to chance (nee a vote) as they tighten their grip on the party, losing disgruntled millions of their base at the same time.

Eerily, this syncs with what I overheard in a rather strange utterance over dinner with friends at DC's ever so trendy, politically-charged eatery and bookshop—Busboy's and Poets—one evening last December.

I was sitting at the table of a self-professed Marxist political activist plotting and regaling fellow radicals with anecdotes and news of the day. Then I heard this dear fellow suggest in a single phrase that to get the results he and his Naderite cronies wished to achieve, the Democratic Party must be destroyed first. The insinuation was that the Republican Party would only then be strategically vulnerable enough to topple. Not that any of this destructionism makes a lick of sense to me, as a reactionary constitutionalist, even if I were to throw on a Marxist cap for a day, and I think the record will show that I am a piss poor excuse for a venture capitalist perhaps, but a global Marxist, never!

Toppling a political party? Sorry, unintended consequences do tend to foil the best laid plans. In the spirit of full disclosure, I must admit that I to date remain friendly with this particular Marxist Naderite, having been introduced the previous September on a trip to the American Visionary Art Museum in Baltimore, but we are hardly what I'd call bosom buddies, although he and his friends are indeed of the touchy-feely hug-a-lot crowd—not that there's anything wrong with that.

Okay, back story finished. Here's the PUMA report by Heidi Li...

Action alert: time to make it crystal clear that under no circumstances does Senator Obama get to pick the next DNC chair. CQ Politics is reporting a new twist in the shameless collusion between Senator Obama and the DNC to suggest that, at a time when the Democratic Party is deeply divided, it is somehow Senator Obama's prerogative to pick the next DNC chair.

Apparently the new Democratic Party way is for one chair to overrride rank and file Democrats and use any number of unscrupulous tactics to install his preferred candidate as the nominee and then that nominee turns around and arrogates to himself the right to pick the next chair, even though it remains entirely uncertain that Senator Obama will win the general election or even if he does manage to do so that he will do more than squeak by.

In any event, one thing we know about Senator Obama: he is not very good at forging coalitions among different segments of rank and file Democrats, let alone being able to "unify" the Party or the country. Since the DNC is meant to be the official representative of all Democrats (not that it has even pretended to live up to that job description under the stewardship of current chair Howard Dean), it is patently absurd to put the future of the Party's internal leadership in the hands of Senator Obama. The cycle of egomanical self-servingness has just been ratcheted up.

Since the DNC claims that the reason Senator Obama gets to dictate who the next DNC chair is, it is ever more important for the medium and long term health of the Democratic Party that Senator Obama not win this election. Here's the passage from the CQ Politics story that informs us that Senator Obama's internal party is based on the assumption he will win the general election, and that if he does win the DNC will once again hold a fake election rather than a real vote for the position of chair:

'“We expect Sen. Obama to be in the White House, and it’ll be his decision as to who’ll be nominated” to succeed Dean, said Stacie Paxton, national press secretary for the DNC.

If Obama is elected, he will designate his choice for the chairmanship, and DNC members would be expected to ratify his decision at a meeting immediately after Inauguration Day on Jan. 20.'

The story goes on to say:

'If the Democrats do not win the White House, a special party meeting would be called for an election to be held between Jan. 1 and March 1, said DNC officials. Dean and his predecessor, Terry McAuliffe, were both elected in meetings during the month of February.'

If this is the way the DNC wants to play this, then there is only thing to be done by Democrats who care about seeing their Party survive the civil war that Senator Obama and Howard Dean have already brought to it. Senator Obama must not win the general election. And his defeat must come at the hands of Democrats who now realize that in the new Democratic Party way no compromise is allowed. If no compromise is allowed, if Senator Obama is determined to make the entire Democratic Party revolve around him and the DNC is willing to be a mere satellite to Senate Obama, then responsible and wise Democrats must make sure that Senator Obama loses this election.

Read it all.

And another clear-eyed look at this crisis is Pat Buchanan's (yeah, I know, but just get over it) latest essay. So we've got Hillary's PUMAs, card-carrying Marxists, and rare Robert Taft conservatives, while certainly not in lockstep, all jostling in somewhat relative agreement.

What's that quip about strange bedfellows?

I read elsewhere that political shock jock Lou Dobbs continues to insist that plans for the North American Union are already underway. But one can't unilaterally form a North American Union with a united currency (the Amero) unless the economies of the U.S. and Canada sink to near equal that of Mexico. This economic crash seems to be a case of "Problem, Reaction, Solution" artificially brought upon us by the Federal Reserve which of course is the enterprise of private bankers.

"We were warned. Here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

And there we have it, folks. The bottom line is that an unelected financial elite has controlled this country since The Federal Reserve Act and Woodrow Wilson. Within a generation we were off the gold standard, and now, we are swamped in a miasma of worthless dollars. And as a result, what's left of any fiscal morality Americans once knew and practiced has left the building, and is whistling Dixie, otherwise known as just another somebody done somebody wrong song...

The Theatre Of Political Desire

The following is a comment from a PUMA named Janis. The topic is Obama's 2004 speech. Her perspective is quite close to my own, even though I do not consider myself a member of the Democratic Party as does she. In fact, I have been a declared independent, thus, bypassing the primary slate, for all of my adult life. But I am thankful to Janis for sharing her POV in this theatre of political desire.

I CAN QUOTE from the speech myself, from the parts that struck me as good speechwriting. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like people poking around in our libraries in the red states. It was good—but it wasn't that good. It wasn’t the goddamned second coming.

The Reality Of Obama's Kenyan Half-Brother

I recall a short comment from Howard Dean about how the Dems lost in 2004; he made a comment about how the Dems consistently underestimate how deeply religious Americans are. We do. I’m atheist; I’ll openly say that I tend to find organized religion rather laughable and sad.

But what they did was they figured if they could whip up a religious messiah-figure, they could capitalize on that. They still didn’t get what the religiosity of Americans was; they thought they’d come to a brilliant strategic realization that “most Americans are religious,” and then they filled in the blanks with the worst of their own stereotypes of what “religious” meant: chanting and falling to the ground in front of a messiah, like a cult following.

To most Americans, religion is a sort of quiet, rock-solid, hard little thing underneath their lives that they like to rest on but don’t like to think about or talk about all that much. They allude to it, make proclamations, and then go about their lives. Most American religious types are not swooning snake-handlers. *shakes head*

And what they got instead was exactly the opposite; they didn’t woo the fundies over from the other side; they created a shitload of unrevealed fundies on their own side, young kids who were DYING for their own chance to weep oceans at the sight of the Radiant One’s golden halo.

Just as was planned. After the destruction...

"I shall stand astride the wreckage a colossus."

—Karl Marx

Americans may be religious, but we also don’t like phonies. Dog whistles are one thing, but once we feel like someone’s bullshitting us, we turn red. We’re not that bright a lot of times, but once we clue in, we don’t clue OUT.

McCain Gets Ten Point Bounce


AS THE WORLD TURNS, SO DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE who wise up despite the pressures of a political correctness that stifles the democratic process and free circulation of ideas. Now we have reports that McCain is up ten points over Obama in latest Gallup poll.

The MSM and the stupid talking heads are again insisting that Hillary and Bill come out openly and sing the praises for the most unqualified, inexperienced, overrated “community organizer” ever to grace the national scene as a future presidential candidate. What bullsh*t!

If I were Hillary I would just say: “Look, I am far better equipped and prepared than this No Nothing, but you just had to have him. I was smeared, derided, insulted, abused, and called a racist and now I am expected to come out here and promote the very same person behind these attacks? As Bill would say, give me a break! I am the real thing, not this generic excuse for a Commander in Chief. You wanted Brand X, you got him. But don’t expect me to pitch this product. And from the way things are going right now, he ain’t doing all that well with the consumer. So start practicing, “Good morning, President McCain”.

Thanks, Pat Johnson for those poignant words! The PUMAs will be remembered by this nation as a pro-democratic anti-machine movement that stood by its own principles, old familiar, historically-tested principles that once again resonated with the American voting public!

Just ask Tammy Bruce.

And from the gift that keeps on giving, here is more news that indicates that the Obama fix is unraveling. Nigerian anti-graft investigators have seized money raised by the head of the Nigerian Stock Exchange to support US presidential candidate Barack Obama.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has said it would give the money back to those who attended a gala dinner in Lagos last month. The EFCC reported that it had seized 74m naira ($630,000, £314,000), while also stipulating that no Nigerian laws had been broken.

But let's not forget that US political parties are not allowed to receive contributions from abroad. Read the entire article here.

Stalking The Democratic Party Puma

Still uncommitted? Here's something from the camp of Democratic Party politics that caught my attention. It was originally published on June 2, 2008 by a blogger named River Daughter.

Party Unity My Ass

The Party Unity My Ass un-Party (PUMA) was born yesterday. We already have many new members. But, some of you may ask, what does it mean? How can we make a difference? Before I get to that, I’d like to refer you to one of Anglachel’s latest posts, The Idea of Obama. I think that what Anglachel is describing is a kind of “puppy love” or an infatuation. The situation we have here is precisely the reason why superdelegates were created in the first place. There is a unacknowledged immaturity about the Obama faction that many parents among us will recognize. Here’s the money quote:

The deep problem of Obama’s campaign is that he and his supporters do not want to face the political reality of their own conflicting desires. They both want to sweep to victory in November and they want to purge the party of anything connected to the Clintons, which includes all of the voting contituencies represented by that amazing and talented duo. The failure of the Unity Pony stems directly from that fantasy of majority status without majority support and the political work and compromises that go with cultivating that support. Thus, their model for unity is unanimity through elimination, purging the ranks of the unclean and unbelievers.

They will not acknowledge that Hillary is a legitimate political actor and reduce her to an inhuman monster and enemy. They will not acknowledge that her supporters have sound, rational reasons for our support, and reduce us to mindless fools and spoils of war. They shift blame for their own choices and actions onto us and expect that we will cater to their whims.
Like adolescents, they insist on making their own decisions and yet expect us to get them out of a jam later. They hate us because of who we are and yet they need us in order for them to get what they want. And the superdelegates are the too permissive parents who are giving in to them because they can’t handle the screaming and guilt trips that will follow if they don’t.

This is where we come in, PUMAs. We will fill the role that the superdelegates have abrogated. It is our job to say “no”. We do not want to lose in 2008. We do not want another four years of Republican rule. We want 4 years of intelligence, competence and courage in a time of what will surely be a very critical time in our nation’s history. Terrorism is still out there. There are two wars going on. Our military is stretched so thinly that our national security is compromised. We have an energy crisis and many families are hurting. Our financial institutions got themselves over their heads. And there is a serious environmental catastrophe at hand in global warming.

Now is not the time to put a love object in office, a weakling who will be entirely dependent on his power elite enablers. Or worse, he may be a dissembler who has barely disguised his contempt for the voters.

There will be a lot of calls for “Unity!”. But let us acknowledge what this really is. “Unity” is a weapon that the party is going to use against us. It is the emotional blackmail of the teenager. “If you don’t let me have my way, it will be all YOUR fault if something bad happens!” “If you don’t get in line, it will be YOUR fault if we lose.”

Don’t give in to this. This is where a parent’s mettle is tested. When the stakes are not high, like staying up too late on a school night, we can afford to let them live with the consequences of their actions. When the situation is critical, we have to be firm. We have to give them choices. We have to tell them that we will not be willing participants in their destructive behavior. We have to tell them that the consequences of their behavior will fall on *their* heads. We have to take away the car keys. Not ground them. Just not aid them in doing what they want. We have to exert our authority.

That goes for superdelegates as well who are failing in their responsibilities. We will hold them accountable as well. If they allow these children to run the house, they will have to live with the consequences, not us.

Barack Obama is a ruthless campaigner who has brought out the worst in the political system but no matter how far he has come, he is a failure. He has failed to live up to core Democratic principles, He has failed to respect the voters. He has failed to disguise his contempt for average, hard working American men and women. And because he has failed in so many ways to appeal to the electorate at large, he will fail the ultimate contest. He will be a failed presidential candidate. We do not wish to be associated with failure while there is still time and an opportunity to avoid it.

We will not be blackmailed into party unity in order to indulge irresponsible people in their fantasies. Our votes belong to us and we will do with them what we feel is best for us, the party and the country.

The action plan for PUMAs is:

  1. Dissociate yourself from the party. Tell them you will not be a party to its self destructive behavior.
  2. Reflect on your values. Read the credo at the top of this site and create at better one. Keep the language general and inclusive. Concentrate on universal truths and beliefs. Avoid wordsmithing.
  3. Stick together. We are powerful as a unit if we do not fall victim to the psychological warfare that is about to be directed at us. Turn off the media. Avoid conversations with trolls. Stand firm and do not yield.
  4. Remember that there is a better alternative. Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate for the party and the nation. She has a lot of support out there. The nation will rally around her if we let them know we are not giving in. We must not let her concede one inch. Stand firm. Send her your good thoughts. Send her money. Do not give up.
  5. Spread the word.