On APRIL 17, 1790, the son of a poor candle-maker died.
The 15th of 17 children, he apprenticed as a printer and published a popular almanac.
He retired at age 42, then taught himself five languages, invented the rocking chair, bifocal glasses and the lighting rod, which earned him degrees from Harvard and Yale.
He helped found the University of Pennsylvania, a hospital, America’s first postal system and fire department.
He became the governor of Pennsylvania, signed the Declaration of Independence and called for prayer at the Constitutional Convention.
He was president of America’s first anti-slavery society.
His name was Ben Franklin.
When France and Spain raided American colonies, Ben Franklin proposed a General Fast, which was published in the Pennsylvania Gazette, December 12, 1747:
“We have…thought fit…to appoint…a Day of Fasting & Prayer, exhorting all, both Ministers & People…to join with one accord in the most humble & fervent supplications that Almighty God would mercifully interpose and still the rage of war among the nations & put a stop to the effusion of Christian blood.”
In his Poor Richard’s Almanac, May 1757, Ben Franklin wrote:
“Work as if you were to live 100 years; pray as if you were to die tomorrow.”
In a pamphlet for Europeans titled Information to Those Who Would Remove to America, 1754, Benjamin Franklin wrote:
“Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel.
And the Divine Being seems…pleased to favor the whole country.”
~ What is not mentioned is Benjamin Franklin was an atheist and Freemason:
“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.” - Ben Franklin
An attorney representing Barack Obama has argued in court to prevent the long-form birth certificate image that was released by the White House nearly a year ago from being placed into evidence.
It was on April 10 at a three-hour eligibility hearing before a New Jersey administrative law judge that the argument came from Alexandra Hill.
Mario Apuzzo at NJ Ballot Challenge Hearing Part 1:
This NJ Ballot Challenge hearing was held on March 10, 2012…
Hill repeatedly explained to Judge Jeff S. Masin that, “We do not believe the president’s birth certificate is relevant to this case.”
Challenges to Obama’s name on the 2012 election ballot have appeared in more than half a dozen states already.
At a press conference in Phoenix, Arizona, on March 1, Arpaio announced his law enforcement investigators had established probable cause to believe Obama’s birth certificate and his Selective Service Registration card are forgeries.
Zullo questioned why the White House did not instruct Hill to champion the birth certificate as legitimate.
More on this from Front Porch Politics perspective:
Penbrook Johannson, editor for The Daily Pen said, “Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified. Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”
So what this comes down to is legal tip toeing around the issue. Let me put it simply. Obama’s own lawyer admits that the birth certificate which was put out by the White House is a forgery. The forgery does not prove Obama is not a “natural born” citizen since it is a forgery. Therefore, the plaintiffs have not made their case and Barack Obama should be left on the ballot. I’ll bet Mr. “It depends on what is, is” was behind this bit of legal wrangling.
In a nut shell, the above is exactly why Barack Obama and the Democratic Party do not fear mocking the American people with their blatant forgery, lies and manipulation of the Constitution and the facts. In order to remove the man it would have to be done by force or by impeachment and impeachment will never happen with the way things are now. It is my opinion that since our military takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from both enemies foreign and domestic, that they should be looking at the evidence and act accordingly.
Wallace kept Axelrod on defense and off balance throughout.
Like his boss, Axelrod seems almost at a loss to respond once the talking points are challenged. But I imagined his invitation to choose “between economy that produces a growing middle class and gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead and an economy that continues down the road we are on, and everybody else is running faster and faster just to keep pace,” might just become a Mitt Romney campaign ad. Obviously, the only thing left to do is to scare people that unless we re-elect President Obama we’ll be going back to the bad old days of President George W. Bush.
WALLACE: That’s absolutely true. But when you talk about social Darwinism, radical, making the Contract with America look like the New Deal — first of all, you don’t know if it’s massive tax cuts for the wealthy because — and this is a fair criticism. But the Ryan budget, they say that they are going to come up with closing loopholes for the wealthy. And when you talk about these massive spending cuts, the fact is all it’s doing is reducing the rate of the growth in spending.
WALLACE: In the last week, the president has made a couple of major speeches and devoted his entire weekend media address to the Buffett rule. When the president introduced the Buffett Rule last September, he said it was a matter of fairness and this is the quote, we also stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade.
But here’s the math: the Buffet Rule that millionaires should pay a minimum tax of 30 percent would bring in $47 billion over the next decade, while the president’s budget adds $6.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.
NOTE: The buffet Rule FAILED because it was a ‘Con’. WaPo is spinning that the GOP stopped it. Hello! The Senate is Dem rule.
Senate Republicans blocked President Obama’s so-called “Buffett Rule,” as the proposed minimum tax rate for millionaires failed to advance in a procedural vote Monday.
The measure received majority support, 51-45, but 60 votes were required for the legislation to advance.
At the White House, Obama denounced the vote, saying Republicans chose “once again to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest few Americans at the expense of the middle class.” In a statement issued after the vote, he said he would keep pressing Congress to help the middle class.
WALLACE: I am — if I may, David, I am going to get into a lot of that with Ed Gillespie in the next segment. But you would certainly agree that when the president introduced it last September, he said the Buffet Rule would, quote, “stabilize our debt and deficit over the next decade” — that wasn’t true.
The first Muslim nobleman in England has been suspended from his political party following reports that he put a bounty on Presidents Obama and Bush during a speech Sunday in Pakistan. It is not the first time that Lord Nazir Ahmed has advocated on behalf of the worldwide Islamist causes.
It’s also a damning indictment of how the British political system empowered and supported a radical Islamist, despite indications that his misuse of the position would convey legitimacy to extremist causes.
“If the U.S. can announce a reward of $10 million for the [capture] of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of £10 million [for the capture of] President Obama and his predecessor, George Bush,” Ahmed was quoted as saying by Pakistan’s Express Tribune. The threat came during a seminar at Punjab University entitled “International Scenario, Pakistan and Our Responsibilities.” It was a sharp response to an American reward for Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the founder of Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and an alleged planner of the Mumbai massacre in November 2008.
Ahmed was appointed the Lord of Rotherdam for life in 1998, during Tony Blair’s reign as prime minister. He functions as a Labour Party representative for Britain’s noble upper branch of Parliament, the House of Lords.
Ahmed indicated “that he would arrange the bounty at any cost, even if he was left with the option of selling all his personal assets, including his house,” according to a report by Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
An article on the Punjab University’s webpage independently confirms the threat and adds more details. It said that Ahmed told a “charged” university audience that former President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair must be indicted for war crimes, and he predicted that “Iran was likely to be attacked by the U.S. or Israel in order to get votes.” If either nation did attack the Islamic Republic, “the Muslim nation [Ummah] should unite against these powers.”
Britain’s Labour Party immediately distanced itself from the comments and Ahmed. “We have suspended Lord Ahmed pending investigation. If these comments are accurate we utterly condemn these remarks which are totally unacceptable,” a party spokesman told British news outlets.
This isn’t Ahmed’s first brush with controversy. He has long promoted extremist causes to British and American audiences, including defending terrorists and lauding Islamists in both countries.
In February 2009, he sent a letter to President Obama questioning America’s treatment of terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT-educated scientist who recently was convicted of trying to kill U.S. troops and federal agents in Afghanistan. Ahmed called for her to be repatriated to Pakistan.
Ahmed’s outrageous statement about two American presidents should come as no surprise to anyone who has tracked his career in the House of Lords. A brief suspension, or anything less than his removal from parliament, should draw vehement protest by the United States.