A Couple Key Observations

Here are a couple of very interesting things I wanted to pass along to you. First, which political party is it that is typically associated with helping minorities? The Democrat party, right? As is so common in politics, the opposite is true, at least if this story from Glenn Beck via Right Truth is accurate:

What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Democrat "leadership".

1) Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
2) Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;
3) Cincinnati, OH (3rd)... .......................since 1984;
4) Cleveland, OH (4th)... .......................since 1989;
5) Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;
6) St. Louis, MO (6th).... ........................since 1949;
7) El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;
8) Milwaukee, WI (8th)... ........................since 1908;
9) Philadelphia, PA (9th).........................since 1952;
10) Newark, NJ (10th)... ..........................since 1907.

Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats - yet are still disadvantaged... hmmm... Wonder if there is any relation.

And for a closing thought----Fifty years ago Cuba voted for change---and got it !!!

Amazing, isn't it? If Democrats were so good for poverty, then why is it that every single one of the top ten cities with the worst poverty problems have been controlled by Democrats for decades? If Democrats really knew how to help those in poverty, sure 50-100 years would be long enough to get the job done, wouldn't it? Maybe the problem is with the entitlement mentality fostered by Democrat policies, and that the typical Democrat solution is giving a man a fish rather than teaching a man how to fish. Ultimately, which way helps those in poverty, and which way just keeps those in poverty subservient? Think about it.

Next, we have another possible game-changer from Thomas Lifson. I had thought that the whole Barack Obama birth certificate fiasco had pretty well played out, but Lifson appears to have uncovered some new evidence that could spell problems:

Someone with the unlikely name of Molotov Mitchell has produced a 10 minute and 52 second video that could well change the terms of the election -- if enough people watch it. Illuminati Productions has posted it to YouTube. They have provided the voting public a very professionally and engagingly done video generation equivalent of a long detailed article in a place like American Thinker.

It makes accessible to the general public some of the serious questions about Obama's citizenship status that have been vetted almost exclusively in the conservative web world. More important than the questions and allegations is the refusal of the Obama campaign to provide what should be the simplest response to an action brought in federal court: a certified birth certificate from Hawaii.

A lifelong Democrat who has held political office and been a Pennsylvania state committeeman, Philip Berg, has brought suit over the real questions raised by the absence of a valid Obama birth certificate. His narrative of the various questions Obama has refused to answer is devastating.

When he contrasts Obama's behavior when challenged (use perfectly valid legal technicalities to delay) with John McCain's full disclosure of all documentary evidence under a similar challenge (remember the flap over his birth in the Panama Canal Zone? -- who raised those questions, anyway?), there is no doubt in a viewer's mind that there is something seriously wrong here.

We are talking about the Presidency and this guy stonewalls?

The only way Obama can satisfactorily respond is to release his suposed Hawaiian birth certificate. If he has it, why hasn't he released it? If he does release it, game over. So why drag this out on technical grounds? It doesn't make sense.

Here's the video mentioned above:

Lifson points out that this guy Berg could be wrong, and everything might be legit with Obama's birth certificate. If that is the case, then why is Obama stone-walling and avoiding the issue? It immediately makes it look like he's hiding something. If the simple release of his birth certificate (the real one, not a photocopy like he did before) would clear all this up, why isn't he doing it?

Why does it matter? If he was not born in Hawaii, or anywhere in the U.S. or U.S. territory, he's not eligible to become President.

Game over.

Where's the truth, Senator Government? What are you hiding? Why are you continuing to be deceitful with the American people?

There's my two cents.