Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Eligibility challenge arises in Electoral College

GOP elector demands candidates show birth certificate



A challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president is forming within the Electoral College process, WND has confirmed.

James Grinols, one of 10 presidential electors chosen by the Republican Party of Minnesota, is asking GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan to provide Grinols’ legal counsel, Mario Apuzzo, with their “paper, full form official certificate of birth with raised seal from the place of your birth.”

Grinols told WND that if Romney and Ryan were to win his state, but they ignore his request to provide verification of their eligibility, he might not vote for the Republican candidates in the Electoral College.

“I may be idealistic, but it seems my only available option is to help the Republicans lead by example,” he said.

Grinols’ goal is to establish a standard in the Electoral College that each candidate for the presidency and vice presidency present to duly nominated electors of their parties an official long-form birth certificate to demonstrate that the candidates are qualified as natural born citizens, according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Each party in each state in which its candidate is running for president, chooses a slate of electors. If Mitt Romney wins the popular vote in Minnesota, for example, all 10 of the Republican Party of Minnesota’s electors would cast a vote in the Electoral College.

“If we could get Republican electors in all states – all [538] of them – to ask for Romney’s birth certificate, it would have a visible, strong moral pull at least to independents who might finally see the absurdity of a presidential candidate going to court in order to resist being forced to show birth certificate credentials,” he said.

Grinols’ legal counsel, Apuzzo, is a New Jersey attorney who has filed many legal challenges to Obama’s presidential eligibility.

In an interview with WND, Grinols acknowledged he could not force presidential electors for Democrats in Minnesota or Republican presidential electors in any other state to join him in demanding to see the original birth certificates of presidential and vice presidential candidates.

“Still, my goal is to set a standard,” Grinols explained. “If I demand to see the birth certificates as credentials, I hope the idea will catch on and the Democratic Party presidential electors will do the same for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”

Ultimately, Grinols said, he would like to have the Electoral College set a birth credential criteria for all serious presidential candidates, regardless of political party affiliation.

“I encourage elector nominees of my party and all other parties to do the same,” he said. “I am aware that there are other electors beginning the task for their party. You were chosen for such a time as this. You owe it to your country, your state and your party to trust but verify.”

Letter verifying James Grinols' election as presidential elector for Republican Party of Minnesota.

Grinols insisted the requirement to verify candidates are eligible for the office of president and vice president demands electors see long-form birth certificates that are genuine and officially certified by appropriate state authorities.

“Minnesota trusts but verifies future teenage drivers by insisting on a physical, full-form, certified birth certificate with raised seal and will not accept an Internet copy,” he said. “The Electoral College should accept no less.”

Romney's taxes: Who cares? 

By: Cal Thomas  / Townhall daily / Columnist

Did anyone think the release of Mitt Romney's tax returns would satisfy Democrats and make them focus on the real issues in this campaign, including President Obama's failed domestic and foreign policy record and approaching massive tax increases? If so, please call me for a great deal on Arizona swampland.

The Obama campaign's deputy manager, Stephanie Cutter, accused Romney of taking advantage of lower tax rates for capital gains available only to "those at the top." Is Cutter saying Romney is wrong to obey tax law? The tax code is a mess. It, not Romney, should be the object of scorn. And by the way, Americans who make average incomes can benefit from lower capital gains taxes if they build sufficient wealth by making good investments.

Now that we know Romney paid a considerable amount of tax last year and in previous years, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should apologize for his comment about an unnamed "source" he claimed told him Romney paid no taxes for a decade. After Romney released his returns, instead of apologizing, Reid tried a new tack. "The information released today reveals that Mitt Romney manipulated one of the only two years of tax returns he's seen fit to show the American people," Reid said in a statement. "And then only to 'conform' with his public statements. That raises the question: what else in those returns has Romney manipulated?" Reid, of course, still has not released his 2011 tax returns. Is he hiding something? Suppose a "source" told me so?

I don't care how much, or how little, the Romneys pay in taxes. I do care, and so should voters, about government overspending and a national debt that now tops $16 trillion dollars.

I don't care how much money anyone makes and neither should voters. Voters should be concerned only about whether they have the opportunity to make a decent living without having to depend on government. I do care -- and so should voters -- that our future is being mortgaged to pay for "entitlements" and huge interest on long-term debt that is greater than the gross domestic product of some countries.

Before leaving Washington to campaign for re-election, members of the Senate passed one of those stopgap spending bills, ensuring government paychecks will continue to go out. It ends what many regard as one of the least productive legislative sessions in U.S. history; not necessarily a bad thing when you consider the damage Congress might have caused were it not for a Republican House crying, "NO!" Voters should also recall the numerous bills passed by the House and ignored in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

In the first presidential debate scheduled for Oct. 3, Romney must show a part of himself no one has yet seen and perhaps not even he knows exists. He should remind Americans of their history of self-reliance, personal responsibility and accountability. When government replaces those virtues with entitlements and dependency it diminishes and weakens the nation.

Government is supposed to be of, by and for the people, not in spite of the people. It is "we the people," not you the government. It is the people who grant power to those who govern. It is not the government, or any politician, who has the constitutional right to limit our freedoms and shackle us to Washington.

Quote Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, Mitt. Quote Reagan. Remind people why the Democrats lost control of the House in 1994 and again in 2010. It makes no sense to vote for conservatives in one election and then vote for a liberal in another.

Four years ago, a majority of Americans were seduced by Obama's soaring and messianic rhetoric. It's time for us to embrace what our parents and grandparents tried to hand down to us: individual responsibility and a sense of caring for each other. If Romney makes that case in this "entitlement nation," he could win. If not, we're finished and what Romney paid in taxes will matter even less than it should now.

10 Reasons Mitt Will Win 

By: David Limbaugh  / Townhall Daily

Call me Pollyannaish, but I believe Mitt Romney will defeat Barack Obama in November. Let me give you some of my reasons:

1) Romney's campaign message is essentially positive; Obama's is overwhelmingly negative. People always prefer promises of something better, but Americans are especially hungry now because times are very tough. Romney is offering concrete and realistic plans to help America grow again and create millions of new jobs.

Romney's message and agenda appeal to all Americans, not just certain groups, and tell them they are not imprisoned in their current economic "station" as Obama would have them believe. Though Obama's promises of "hope and change" in 2008 were vague, at least he presented them as something positive. Today he tells us we must accept an America in decline both internationally and domestically. He insists that 8 percent unemployment is the new normal and that we must adjust to the malaise because it is going to take a long time to make a dent in it.

2) Obama is appealing to people's baser instincts of envy, greed and fear and has deliberately fanned the flames of racial tension for political gain. This would have been bad enough if he'd not presented himself as a post-partisan, post-racial phenomenon.

3) Obama had the wind at his back in 2008 after happening on to a perfect financial storm he claimed he had nothing to do with creating. Today our financial outlook is actually much worse; we are much closer to a Greek-style collapse, and Obama has done nothing and proposed no ideas to avert it. It strains credulity to think Americans are gullible enough to swallow his shameless scapegoating of Republicans for problems he exacerbated and is unwilling or too incompetent to address
.
4) Indeed, Obama's record has been horrendous in every category -- economic, debt, national security, military strength, energy dependence, social cohesiveness, religious liberty, race relations, health care and business. America is significantly worse off than it was when Obama took office. It will be extremely difficult for Obama to overcome the reality of his terrible record with his fictional whitewashing of that record.

5) Similarly, it is hard to believe that the liberal media's gross distortion of events will trump the events themselves. For example, Republicans did not have a terrible convention, and Democrats did not have a wonderful one. Republicans presented a positive message; both Paul Ryan's and Romney's messages were strong and inspiring, and Clint Eastwood's speech mostly resonated. Most Democratic speakers were angry and sniping, and Obama's speech was mostly flat, empty and uninspiring. Bill Clinton's wonkish fantasy speech was the best they could do, but Clinton is not the candidate. It's also unlikely the media succeeded in fooling people into believing that Obama's terrible jobs numbers and foreign policy week from hell were positive or that Romney's relatively innocuous 47 percent video and his proper criticism of Obama's Middle East apologies were terrible negatives.

6) The avalanche of negativity spewing from the liberal media can be discouraging to conservatives, but the liberal media have steadily lost clout over the past 20 years, and the alternative conservative media have never been more robust. Not only are the liberal media less powerful but also conservative talk show hosts, bloggers, tweeters, columnists and Fox News react with lightning speed to counter every single lie they promulgate.

7) The polls can be discouraging, too, but we've seen this in previous elections. Some pollsters showing Obama significantly ahead have a dubious history of distortion and have used their polls to manipulate instead of report public opinion. Most polls showing Obama ahead are either oversampling Democrats (using 2008 as a model instead of more recent elections) or understating Romney's lead among independents. The Weekly Standard reports that through 2004, every incumbent whose Gallup approval rating was less than 50 percent at this point -- as is Obama's -- lost. In Ohio, thousands more Republicans have ordered absentee ballots than Democrats. Also, I'm skeptical that all poll respondents are being completely candid in their positive responses about Obama for fear of being accused of racism or of being out of step with the manufactured media narrative that Obama is a likable person.

8) Obama is having some difficulty with his base, which is why his campaign is increasingly desperate and shrill. Some blacks are so angry over his liberal social views they may stay home. Some Jews are awakening to Obama's mistreatment of Israel. If Obama were so confident, he wouldn't be so flagrantly neglecting his official duties to feverishly campaign.

9) Conservatives have never been more motivated. Americans reject Obama's radical liberalism. Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's Senate seat; Democrats took a "shellacking" in the 2010 congressional races; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker won; a strong majority of Americans still hate Obama's proudest achievement, Obamacare; the tea party is more energized than ever; and grass-roots Americans voted with their bellies for Chick-fil-A.

10) Americans haven't given up on America yet. They recoil at Obama's socialist rantings, redistributionism, class warfare, race baiting, apologies for America, attacks on business and domestic energy producers, and bizarre and offensive statements that "the private sector is fine" and that the death of our ambassador was "a bump in the road."

It’s Not Me; It’s You 

By: Ben Crystal / Personal Liberty Digest

It’s Not Me; It’s You
PHOTOS.COM
Dear Democratic Party,

I wish it didn’t have to be this way, but you just haven’t left me with any other choice. We’ve been together for decades now — since the days of President Roosevelt (the “New Deal” one, not the “Man in the Arena” one), if not earlier. I’ve put up with your madness because I wanted to make it work. After all, we do share a home.

But this just isn’t working out anymore. And I just wanted to let you know why.

The money is a real problem. I work hard to keep us afloat; yet I can’t seem to make enough to satisfy you.

And the things on which you spend my hard-earned dough really don’t work for me. It’s bad enough that you spend my cash like a high-school girl who got ahold of Daddy’s American Express Gold Card, but your spending habits don’t even make sense. Obamacare? So now, not only do I have to cover your doctor’s bills, but the IRS is going to break down the front door if I refuse? And after all that, some stuffed suit from the Department of Health and Human Services is going to means-test my viability? I’m sorry, honey; that doesn’t work for me.

And your pal Bernanke and his “quantitative easing” are making the cash I do earn worth less than the commemorative copies of those Michael Moore DVDs you keep buying. Also: Have you ever considered staying at a regular hotel? You know the Holiday Inn Express may not offer the same high-thread-count sheets as the Four Seasons, but it does have a nice breakfast buffet — and there’s a rumor that staying there can boost your brainpower a bit. You should consider that. And there are perfectly fashionable clothes out there that don’t cost as much as the rest of us make in a month. Some of them even fit — a tip you should share with your BFF, Michelle Obama.

I’m also not comfortable with some of the people with whom you hang out. That Barry Obama guy is a perfect example. He’s never held down a real job in his life, and you think he’s the guy to lead private enterprise back to prosperity? Have you even listened to this guy read a teleprompter? I’ve heard more sense on “The View.” He actually believes in something he calls “redistribution” and the rest of us call “theft.”

I can dig your affinity for the whole “retro” thing, but why can’t you just hearken back to the 1980s instead of the 1880s? For someone who pretends to call herself “progressive,” you’re about as forward-looking as the AFL-CIO.

And we need to talk about those clowns, too. Union thugs are not simply bad news, doll. They’re bad guys.

I know they seem like fun, but people who cross them have a tendency to meet severe fates. Look at what happened to those old folks who protested Obamacare. For that matter, look at what happened to General Motors. For that matter, look at what happened to Jimmy Hoffa — and he was one of their guys.

The union thugs aren’t even the heaviest hitters around. I know none of your little pals like to talk about it, but that Eric Holder is some piece of work. He’s the top law enforcement official in the United States, and he perjured himself in front of Congress as easily as Obama skips national security briefings to play 18 at Congressional. You really ought to think about the effect an association with a man who thinks engineering and then covering up the murder a Federal agent can have on your reputation.

Then, there are those gals from Planned Parenthood. As I told you before, if you want to vacuum babies out of your uterus, you’re welcome to it. But I can’t be a part of that. I don’t glean any joy from upsetting you; but I’d rather risk your wrath than His, if you get my drift.

And, baby, the fact that you’ll let someone like Joe Biden anywhere near you freaks me out. This is the guy you’re comfortable allowing within one heartbeat of “The Button,” and I’m not convinced he can spell either “heartbeat” or “button.” I’m actually not even convinced he can spell “the.” I’m willing to admit he can be somewhat entertaining, but so can the better Vegas floor shows. And no one thinks the girls with the small clothing and the fans should be one office down from nuclear Armageddon.

I won’t even get into those sock puppets at the Democrat Channel (MSNBC) and the rest of the corporate media flunkies you listen to. The right has some borderline personalities of their own, but your “news” sources are about as informative as those late-night infomercials. Honey, Chris Matthews is absolutely certifiable. Between Chrissie and the rest of the Obama Protection League claiming everything anyone says is racist, we’re all going to end up with a smaller vocabulary than one of those so-called “Occupy” fleabags after a turn in the “hemp tent.”

You also really don’t do well with our neighbors. If someone tries to burn down the house, you don’t give him my money and hope that encourages him to find a new hobby. And you certainly don’t blame me for his lack of compunction. Likewise, blaming our friendlier neighbors because the hoodlums down the street can’t behave themselves is poor form.

We’ve had some good times, baby. But we’ve clearly grown apart. I believe in freedom, justice and American exceptionalism; and you’re a Democrat. It’s time we see other people. I’m going to stay here, since I paid for the place. You should check out some places where the folks share your interests. I’m thinking North Korea. I wish I could say “it’s not you; it’s me;” but I really can’t. It isn’t me; it’s really you.

Good luck,
Ben
Romney Pulls Ahead
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com

The published polling in this year's presidential race is unusually inaccurate because this is the first election in which who votes determines how they vote. Obama's massive leads among blacks, Latinos, young people, and single women vie with Romney's margin among the elderly, married white women, and white men. Tell me your demographic and I'll tell you who you're voting for and I'll be right at least two times out of three!

Most pollsters are weighting their data on the assumption that the 2012 electorate will turn out in the same proportion as the 2008 voters did. But polling indicates a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the president among his core constituency. He'll still carry them by heavy margins, but the turnout will likely lag behind the 2008 stats. (The 2008 turnout was totally unlike that in other years with all-time historic high turnouts among Obama's main demographic groups).

Specifically, most pollsters are using 2008 party preferences to weight their 2012 survey samples, reflecting a much larger Democratic preference than is now really the case.

In my own polling, I found a lurch to the Democrats right after their convention, but subsequent research indicates that it has since petered out. Indeed, when one compares party identification in the August and September polls of this year in swing states, the Democratic Party identification is flat while the ranks of Republicans rose by an average of two points per state.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen has the best solution to the party id problem. He weights his polls to reflect the unweighted party identification of the previous three weeks, so he has a dynamic model which adjusts for sampling error but still takes account of gradual changes in the electorate's partisan preferences.

Finally, with Obama below 50% of the vote in most swing states, he is hitting up against a glass ceiling in the high 40s. He can't get past it except in heavily Democratic states like New York or California. The first time Obama breaks 50 will not be on Election Day. Either he consistently polls above 50% of the vote or he won't ever get there in the actual vote.

So here's where the race really stands today based on Rasmussen's polling:

• Romney leads decisively in all states McCain carried (173 electoral votes).

• Romney is more than ten points ahead in Indiana - which Obama carried. (11 electoral votes)

• Romney leads Obama in the following states the president carried in 2008: Iowa (44-47) North Carolina (45-51), Colorado (45-47), and New Hampshire (45-48). He'll probably win them all. (34 electoral votes).

This comes to 218 of the 270 Romney needs. But...

• Obama is below 50% of the vote in a handful of key swing states and leads Romney by razor thin margins in each one. All these states will go for Romney unless and until Obama can show polling support of 50% of the vote:

• Obama leads in Ohio (47-46) and Virginia (49-48) by only 1 point (31 electoral votes)

• Obama leads in Florida (48-460) and Nevada (47-45) by only 2 points (35 electoral votes)

If Romney carries Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, he wins. And other states are in play.

• Obama leads in Wisconsin (49-46) by only 3 points (10 electoral votes)

• Obama's lead in Michigan is down to four points according to a recent statewide poll

• Obama is only getting 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania and 53% in New Jersey. And don't count out New Mexico.

It would be accurate to describe the race now as tied. But Romney has the edge because:

• The incumbent is under 50% in key states and nationally. He will probably lose any state where he is below 50% of the vote.

• The Republican enthusiasm and likelihood of voting is higher

• The GOP field organization is better.

That's the real state of play today.

Romney understands the importance of our leadership in space

Mitt Romney Reveals Space Exploration Plans (But Few Details)



Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has unveiled his plans for the future of NASA and American space exploration, unleashing a blistering attack on President Barack Obama in the process.

In a policy paper released Saturday (Sept. 22), Romney and running mate Paul Ryan pledge to secure the nation's global leadership position in space, which, they say, has eroded significantly during the president's first term.

"Over the past four years, the Obama Administration, through poor policy and outright negligence, has badly weakened one of the hallmarks of American leadership and ingenuity — our nation’s space program," the paper reads.

"Rebuilding NASA, restoring U.S. leadership, and creating new opportunities for space commerce will be hard work, but Mitt Romney will strive to rebuild an institution worthy of our aspirations and capable once again of leading the world toward new frontiers," the authors add. [Gallery: President Obama and NASA]


The paper says Obama's 2010 cancellation of the moon-oriented Constellation program robbed NASA's human spaceflight program of much of its focus and direction. Romney and Ryan promise to restore that focus — but they're unlikely to increase NASA's funding, which stands at $17.7 billion in the White House's proposed 2013 federal budget.

"A strong and successful NASA does not require more funding, it needs clearer priorities," the paper reads. 

"Romney will ensure that NASA has practical and sustainable missions. There will be a balance of pragmatic and top-priority science with inspirational and groundbreaking exploration programs."

No further details about these prospective science and exploration missions are provided. Indeed, the eight-page document is sparing with details throughout, saying that specifics will be drawn up later, after consulation with representatives from NASA, the Air Force, academia and the business community.

Instead, the Republican nominee promises broad commitments to work with international partners, strengthen America's national security space programs — including "the development of capabilities that will deter adversaries seeking to damage or destroy the space capabilities of the U.S. and its allies" — and revitalize the nation's aerospace industry.

Romney and Ryan also say they'll encourage the continued emergence of the American private spaceflight industry, which they feel NASA should rely on for crew and cargo flights to low-Earth orbit to the extent possible.

This last vision is similar to the one the space agency is already embarked upon. NASA is currently grooming private American spaceships to fill the shoes of the space shuttle fleet, which was retired last year.

One company, California-based SpaceX, is set to launch its first contracted cargo run to the orbiting lab for NASA on Oct. 7. And the agency hopes at least two different commercial vehicles will be ready to fly crews to and from the International Space Station by 2017.

Meanwhile, NASA is developing a huge rocket called the Space Launch System and a capsule known as Orion to carry astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid by 2025 and the vicinity of Mars by the mid-2030s — goals laid out by Obama in 2010.

But until the commercial astronaut taxis are ready to go, the nation will be dependent on Russian Soyuz spacecraft to launch its crews to low-Earth orbit. And the Romney-Ryan campaign lays a great deal of blame for this situation on the current administration.

"We have presided over a dismantling of the space program over the last four years," Ryan, a Republican senator from Wisconsin, said during a speech in Florida on Saturday.

Obama "has put the space program on a path where we are conceding our global position as the unequivocal leader in space," Ryan added. "Today, if we want to send an astronaut to the space station, we have to pay the Russians to take them there. China may someday be looking down on us from the moon. That is unacceptable."

NO one must be left behind!