Home > Uncategorized > The Case for Impeaching Barack Obama

The Case for Impeaching Barack Obama

Since August of 2008, numerous lawsuits have been filed against Barack Obama by various attorneys, including: Phil Berg, Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo and Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation. The bulk of these suits were filed to mandate Obama to produce proof that he is a natural born U.S. citizen, according to Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution which states that:

“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 35 years and been 14 years a resident within the United States.”

Anyone following these suits with any regularity or casual review knows three things:

1.      Every case thus far heard before the courts has been dismissed, usually for lack of standing or jurisdiction

2.      No case has yet to be adjudicated on the basis of its merits

3.      The birth certificate provided by Obama’s campaign team and Obama friendly websites has been refuted as bogus by experts and non-experts alike as it is deemed to not be an original copy.

One of the few sources meticulously covering all angles of the Obama eligibility issue is World Net Daily with over 300 articles since this issue first surfaced.  WND has been mocked, ridiculed and treated with contempt on this matter from both the left and the right.  However, its critics have thus far been evidentially unable to refute its findings.

WND has extensively documented the communications coming from both Congress and state legislatures towards constituents with questions pertaining to Obama’s eligibility as well as general comments when presented with this issue.  The comments from elected officials range from ridicule to indifference to the belief that the issue is settled to at least one brave Congressman who has put the question to America ’s putative president.

This writer has posed this issue numerous times to his elected officials in Washington , namely Congressman Peter Visclosky and Senators Evan Bayh and Dick Lugar.  At no time has any of the three responded to the concerns addressed to them.

It should be noted that Rep. Visclosky and Sen. Lugar have been faithful to respond to virtually every concern presented before them.  Whether the issue was cap and trade, Obamacare, hate crimes, spending, sovereignty, etc., both of them always wrote back, even when they admitted they did not agree with my positions and voted accordingly.

But when it came to Obama’s eligibility, this writer has yet to receive any correspondence one way or another.  It is quite telling that perhaps there is a huge cover-up that Congress doesn’t want to let the public in on.

For the record, out of roughly 30 letters sent to Sen. Bayh’s office over the last 2½ years on a myriad of issues, he has responded but twice and one of those was in response to a critical letter of his lack of representation this writer wrote to the local paper.

In this writer’s view, the refusal of Congress to hold hearings on Obama’s eligibility is a monumental miscarriage of justice to the constituents these elected officials serve.  The deafening silence points to a complicit Congress.  The thought that America may have a sitting president who is foreign born and arguably represents foreign interests should shudder Obama opponents and supporters alike.  Americans can disagree with the Obama agenda and fight tooth and nail to prevent its implementation. And Americans can accept him as legitimately elected, even it there were compelling questions relative to his victory.

But no American should have nagging thoughts in his or her mind as to whether their president is a natural born citizen.  It’s clear to any rational thinking individual that, when contrasted side to side, a natural born citizen is more likely to fairly represent America ’s best interests than a naturalized one.  Obama’s fondness for foreign policy and to put America on par with other foreign nations sends clear signals of questionable birth status.

However, while we must continue to force Mr. Obama to set the record straight as to his citizenship, it is time, even if reluctantly so, to turn our attention to impeachment.  Unlike impeachment, a failure or unwillingness on the part of Obama to provide proof of natural born citizenship warrants, according to experts and non-experts alike, simple removal from office.  Two examples of removal without impeachment can be found here.

But since simple removal is not immediately forthcoming, it is imperative that other avenues be pursued to oust America ’s putative president.

The U.S. Constitution states 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.”

An extremely lengthy laundry list of cases could be made for impeachment.  In the minds of many folks, Obama’s actions to close Guantanamo Bay and for Islamic terrorists to be transferred to U.S. prisons, the pending trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a New York court instead of a military brig (though that may be changing), among many other items, including giving federal money to the family of the terrorist dictator of Libya, Muammar Gadhafi, likely constitute treason.  High crimes and misdemeanors arguably includes Social Security fraud and Selective Service fraud.

So many other compelling items for the removal of Barack Obama from office, which would take near endless time to document, can be viewed here.

However, I chose to cover the crime of bribery at this juncture because of recent events taking place in Washington.  The Obama Administration faces damning charges if the two events (one which surfaced last month) highlighted here (you need to read this link in order to grasp the full spectre of this matter) are indeed fact. Bribery, as its historically and traditional definition goes, is not in question here, if such jobs were indeed offered.  They should be investigated by Congress.

Of course, I don’t expect Obama & Eric Holder’s “see no evil, hear no evil, know no evil” approach to policy to change.

But an even more recent sinister charge of possible bribery in exchange for buying a vote may signal that the worst is yet to come.  A reason for this is because this one is better known in the public spotlight since it involves a judicial appointment and not just an administration job as in the above cases.  Another is because the vote could conceivably change the course of American history since landmark legislation is literally at stake.

The nomination of an arguably well qualified jurist by Barack Obama (a rare sense of brain power) to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has raised eyebrows since this individual is the brother of an existing Congressman.

In short, Obama had a meeting last week with roughly a dozen recalcitrant Democrats to prop up support for his ailing and failing Obamacare legislation.  One of those Dems was conservative (somewhat) Congressman Jim Matheson of Utah.  Rep. Matheson had voted against the first House version of Obamacare back in November.  Now sibling Scott faces confirmation as a result of his nomination with GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch leading the way.

The initial appearance and credentials of Scott Matheson reports that he may not tilt to the left, unlike a hard core leftist Obama appointee last year to the 7th Circuit who was deemed not qualified by even the American Bar Association.  Obama has not been shy about picking people ideologically to his liking on every issue.  For him to chart a different course here should not be seen as an obvious move to the so-called center by Obama but a more likely to buy the vote of the gentleman in Utah ’s second district.

What other logic makes sense here?  Well, when you go from a NO vote to “undecided”, what would you think?  If in the end Matheson votes NO the second time around, should Obamacare get a second vote (which is far from a foregone conclusion), then perhaps it was all a coincidence, which would on the surface seem strange.

But if a YES is forthcoming, then YES, it’s all but certain that Obama bought this vote.  It would be virtually certain that this is an impeachable offense.

And in this writer’s opinion, if Republicans (and some Democrats) don’t support the impeachment of America ’s putative president for bribery (among numerous other items), then nothing will.  They can ans should then all be viewed as either sellouts to the Constitution, indifferent or both, worthy of removal.

To further illustrate why impeachment is absolutely warranted (don’t forget we also had the Louisiana Purchase & the Cornhusker Kickback) and why now is the right time to do so, it’s important to note that there are at this moment two impeachment cases currently in place in the House Judiciary Committee. One is for Judge Sam Kent of Texas who was guilty of sexual misconduct, abuse of power and obstruction of justice. The impeachment hearings against Judge Kent are good reading but not specifically relevant here since bribery was not an issue.  If anything, it may be more along the lines with what former President Clinton was charged in his impeachment trial.  This judge is rightfully serving time in the big house for his bad conduct.

But the other case, the impeachment proceedings against Judge Thomas Porteous of Louisiana , is much more apropos since similar charges of bribery are in place and it is as recent as January.  It is also notable in that, as reported by one of the judiciary committee members, that up until then, there were no judicial impeachment cases for over 20 years (see page 38 of the link at the start of this paragraph).

Article I in the Porteous impeachment case states:

G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., while a Federal judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a Federal judge as follows:  Judge Porteous, while presiding as a United States district judge in Lifemark Hospitals of Louisiana, Inc. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, denied a motion to recuse himself from the case, despite the fact that he had a corrupt financial relationship with the law firm of Amato & Creely, P.C. which had entered the case to represent Liljeberg. In denying the motion to recuse, and in contravention of clear canons of judicial ethics,

Judge Porteous failed to disclose that beginning in or about the late 1980s while he was a State court judge in the 24th Judicial District Court in the State of Louisiana, he engaged in a corrupt scheme with attorneys, Jacob Amato, Jr., and Robert Creely, whereby Judge Porteous appointed Amato’s law partner as a ‘‘curator’’ in hundreds of cases and thereafter requested and accepted from Amato & Creely a portion of the curatorship fees which had been paid to the firm.

During the period of this scheme, the fees received by Amato & Creely amounted to approximately $40,000, and the amounts paid by Amato & Creely to Judge Porteous amounted to approximately $20,000.

Judge Porteous also made intentionally misleading statements at the recusal hearing intended to minimize the extent of his personal relationship with the two attorneys. In so doing, and in failing to disclose to Lifemark and its counsel the true circumstances of his relationship with the Amato & Creely law firm, Judge Porteous deprived the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of critical information

for its review of a petition for a writ of mandamus, which sought to overrule Judge Porteous’s denial of the recusal motion. His conduct deprived the parties and the public of the right to the honest services of his office.

Judge Porteous also engaged in corrupt conduct after the Lifemark v. Liljeberg bench trial, and while he had the case under advisement, in that he solicited and accepted things of value from both Amato and his law partner Creely, including a payment of thousands of dollars in cash.

Thereafter and without disclosing his corrupt relationship with the attorneys of Amato & Creely PLC or his receipt from them of cash and other things of value, Judge Porteous ruled in favor of their client, Liljeberg. By virtue of this corrupt relationship and his conduct as a Federal judge, Judge Porteous brought his court into scandal and disrepute, prejudiced public respect for andconfidence in the Federal judiciary and demonstrated that he is unfit for the office of Federal judge.

Wherefore, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.

I don’t know about you but a payout to a judge from a legal firm once in close relationship with him in order to influence a particular outcome of a case he presided with them bears scant difference from the Matheson controversy.  Add to that the likelihood (the two cases mentioned and alluded to here earlier) and you have a very good possibility that bribery, which is, constitutionally speaking, an impeachable offense and a federal crime, was committed by the Obama Administration.

It should and must not be ignored.

I had planned to draft a petition for articles of impeachment to be filed against putative president Obama but since there are other websites doing that, we will refrain from doing so for the time being.

However, as things stand, I believe it is quite appropriate to ask the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an investigation into the Sestak and Romanoff cases (the aforementioned ones) as well as the Matheson one and file impeachment charges against Barack Obama as warranted.

As stated much earlier, I believe it is far preferable to have Mr. Obama simply removed for being constitutionally ineligible.  But if Congress will not do it, then we must urge them to begin impeachment proceedings pertaining to the alleged bribery committed.  In this case, we must request the U.S. House to do so since constitutionally speaking, impeachment cases start in the House.

If your Congressman is on the Judiciary Committee, you need to contact him or her and ask them to launch hearings and if appropriate, impeachment charged against Barack Obama for counts of bribery.

But regardless of whether your Congressman serves on the above committee, I urge you to contact Democrat Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Republican Lamar Smith to urge them to file the appropriate documents in preparation for such charges.

Please note – although Congressmen Conyers and Smith may not be your own elected representatives, because they wield a ton of clout for all America as their party’s heads of this committee, you need to let them know of your concerns.

I have outlined below the letter I faxed yesterday to their Washington offices.

Congressman John Conyers
Chairman, House Judiciary
U.S. House, Rm. 2138
Washington, DC  20515
Fax: (202) 225-7680

Congressman Lamar Smith
Ranking Republican, House Judiciary Committee
U.S. House, Rm. 2142
Washington, DC  20515
Fax: (202) 225-7082


Dear Chairman Conyers & Congressman Smith:

I write you today with great heaviness in my heart for this country as well as our rule of law.  It is my fervent hope and prayer that you will read everything I have to say and act accordingly.

By way of introduction, my name is Nedd Kareiva.  I am the former director of the Stop the ACLU Coalition (www.stoptheaclu.org – currently inactive) and the current director of a new organization known as Public School Exodus. Our website (currently offline) is www.publicschoolexodus.com.  Between our databases and my personal contacts, I represent roughly 5000 patriots across the fruited plain.

I believe I speak for nearly all of my contacts when I say that I am gravely concerned about the direction our nation is headed. Between high unemployment and a declining economy social infrastructure, I am convinced an about face is vitally needed before America is permanently lost.

It is probably not lost on both of you that America’s putative president, Barack Obama, is rapidly sinking into the political gutter.  Between the current scandals in Washington and on Capitol Hill, massive spending, unprecedented job losses and a relentless push for his highly unpopular health care legislation, public confidence in Washington and this man is nearly at an all time low. The reliable Rasmussen poll today shows a mere 22% in strong support of him with 41% strongly disapproving of his actions.  It’s fairly safe to say that Mr. Obama is political toast.  However, he shows little, if any, sign of caring about any of these matters.  This is quite troubling.

I checked out the House Judiciary’s website over the weekend and observed that this committee has considered impeachment charges against U.S. District Judge Sam Kent of Southern Texas and more recently filed such charges against U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous of Eastern Louisiana.  It appears the charges levied against Judge Kent currently lie dormant, perhaps because he was sentenced to nearly 3 years in the penitentiary for charges of sexual assault and abuse of power.  As horrific as that was, it’s irrelevant for the time being since justice has apparently been served with Judge Kent being locked up.

The charges against Judge Porteous, however, though rather different, are just as serious because abuses of power were committed during his tenure on the bench.  The first charge, the kickback scheme, is one that is most notable and which I want to address.

From what I have read, it appears the Louisiana jurist engaged in wrongful activity as pertaining to a long term financial relationship with a law firm and adjudicating a case in favor of his friend’s legal counsel without disclosure to the opposing legal team.  The Judiciary Committee reported the law firm proceeded to collect $40K from their client and sent half of it to Judge Porteous.

As noted in one of the documents posted on the Judiciary website, such actions on the part of this judge arguably constitute high crimes and misdemeanors   While I believe such a description is thoroughly accurate, I believe it would have been even more fitting had the term “bribery” been used and added, along with the constitutional reference to impeachment in Article II, Section 4.

I fully agree that the actions of Judge Porteous warrant his removal from office.  And I am pleased that the members of the committee were unanimous or nearly unanimous in every count filed against both Judge Porteous and now ex-Judge Kent.  It was notable that, per Congressman Goodlatte and other members of the committee, the desire for swift justice was mutually bipartisan and cordial.

It is along those same lines I respectfully request that members of the committee consider investigating possible bribery charges against the Obama Administration.

As you may know, there is said to be three cases where by Mr. Obama and/or a member of his staff used coercion or other actions in exchange for political favors, charges which could easily be translated to bribery under the proper circumstances.

The first case was reported last summer by the Denver Post over the Senate seat currently occupied by Mike Bennett of Colorado.  Mr. Bennett was appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter to replace Sen. Ken Salazar who went to work as Secretary of the Interior.  It was claimed that a state lawmaker who sought this appointment was offered a position at U.S. AID if he would consider abandoning his run.

The second case involved a possible appointment to Secretary of the Navy for Rep. Jim Sestak in exchange for not challenging incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democrat primaries. While the Pennsylvania Congressman refused to answer a question as to what position he was offered, he readily admitted that he was offered a job in the federal government.

And most recently concerns the rumors flying that Mr. Obama nominated the brother of Congressman Jim Matheson for a seat at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in exchange for the Utah legislator’s YES vote for the legislation now commonly termed Obamacare.

Congressmen, these are serious indictments that must not be glossed over.  To charge a corrupt judge with abuse of power for bribing a group of lawyers to achieve a favorable outcome but not to charge Barack Obama and/or his administration with abuse of power and bribery to gain certain leverage is a serious offense.  It violates the spirit and law in the 14th Amendment which forbids the denial of equal protection of the law.  In other words, putative president Obama and Judge Porteous must placed equally under the scrutiny of the law and judged the same way by it.

President JFK once said that it was a federal offense “to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor.”  If the words of JFK mean anything today, Obama and his administration must be fully investigated for bribery, an impeachable offense.  I urge you both to use the full weight of your positions to do the right thing and launch a criminal probe into the White House on these matters.

I am well aware that there are risks, politically and perhaps well beyond, for challenging Mr. Obama. It appears, based on his relationships with foreign power sources, such as George Soros and Middle East Muslims, not to mention his relationship with the ultra wealthy Goldman Sachs, that he is untouchable.  While human nature might dictate a form of reticence, based on Obama’s connections, such must not persuade either of you nor any member of the Judiciary from doing what is right. The public would insist on a thorough investigation of the charges. I cannot strongly urge you enough to do the same. This could well be the Watergate of the Obama Administration.

The possibility that one of these accusations could be true might give little pause if there were no other scandals or controversies.  Two such actions of offering favors for federal employment, while possibly alarming, could be viewed as coincidental.  But three such possibilities, well, I think most betting men wouldn’t bet a full deck on this being nothing.

That aside, sizable majorities of Americans view Obama’s actions to assign Gitmo detainees to American prisons and his desire to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other Islamic terrorists to U.S. courts as treasonous and thus impeachable.  His appeasements with foreign Muslim nations also raise questions as to whether his loyalty is to the United States or some foreign powers.  These matters should be thoroughly looked into as well.

And on top of it all, you have a continually growing uneasiness relevant to Mr. Obama’s questionable constitutional eligibility to be president.  Congress has ignored this elephant on Capitol Hill since the commencement of the 111th Congress.  The issue is not going way anytime soon.  Congressmen and senators have heard from constituents from all across America who have serious doubts as to whether Mr. Obama is a U.S. citizen and most have given short shrift to their constituents’ concerns.  Congress has neglected to investigate this crisis and it shows, be it thru correspondence to members’ constituents or on the House or Senate floor.  The courts have consistently refused to address it as well, most frequently citing lack of standing or jurisdiction.  Not one case has been decided on the facts and the merits of the case.  No court has dismissed a case based on evidence.

In this writer’s opinion, Congress has done a grave disservice to the roughly half the country who have nagging doubts on Mr. Obama’s eligibility to be president.  It is incumbent upon our elected officials in Washington to ignore this critical issue no more.

For all these reasons and so many more which are not even laid out here, I cannot strongly urge you enough, Rep. Conyers as chairman and Rep. Smith as ranking Republican, to thoroughly investigate the issues above of bribery, treason and eligibility and report to the public an honest dispersal of the facts. The same way the committee has been above reproach and in bipartisanship towards Judge Porteous I expect the Judiciary Committee to do no less in approaching the issues concerning putative president Obama.

A timely response to my letter to you would most certainly be appreciated.  Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns.


Nedd Kareiva
(Address removed for this post)

Please note the following as you address this with your elected officials.

  • Since the House is where impeachment proceedings begin, it is important that at this juncture you only contact your Congressman or woman and not your senators.  Express your concerns similarly as outlined in the above letter and in the full post.  Everyone should contact their representatives, even more so if they are Republicans or if they serve on the Judiciary.  And everyone needs to contact both Congressman Conyers and Congressman Smith.
  • While phone calls help tabulate the amount of interest constituents have for the removal of Barack Obama, it is important to have your communications in writing.  In the same way verbal contacts have little, if any, power and meaning behind them, it is the same thing in contacting your elected officials.  A well written (preferably typed) letter (preferably no more than two pages) will get the attention of your elected official and/or his or her staff.  That is not to say a phone call is useless.  It certainly is not.  But calls can be ignored or forgotten. Letters cannot so easily be dismissed as such are considered more thoughtful than communications via the telephone.
  • Avoid the e-mail route, if at all possible, since e-mails are frequently deleted without reading or ignored.  Most lawmakers cannot be directly reached today via direct e-mail from your personal account. They now (almost all of them) provide a web form on their websites for you to submit your requests.  However, unlike a sent e-mail from your mailbox which gives you a note of confirmation after sending, outside of calling your lawmakers’ offices, there is little way of knowing for sure whether he or she received your message unless you call them to verify but even then they may not be telling you the truth, particularly if the representative is a liberal Democrat.
  • If at all possible, use a fax to get your message to your lawmakers as quickly as possible.  If you don’t have one and can’t afford one, many supply stores, real estate offices and currency exchanges do and you can often get your message over for just $2 or $3 dollars.  Efax.com is also another tool you may use, though there is a limit of how many you can send for free.  Going over their quota will either force you to buy into one of their packages or if you can’t afford to, will result in you being blocked from sending your message.
  • If you have the means of doing so, FedEx your letter to your lawmaker’s Washington offices.  That will demonstrate how serious you are about this matter.  Avoid snail mail as that can take up to two weeks for delivery with all the anthrax and other security measures in place.
  • If you don’t want to fax or mail your letter and it’s not too far away, take it over to your Congressman or woman’s local district office and ask an aide there to fax it to his or her DC offices.  Obviously that will not work in the case of the Chairman’s or ranking Republican’s offices unless  Reps. Conyers and Smith are your actual representatives in DC.
  • While petitions have a modest effect on lawmakers, it is best by far if you can use your own words to draft your letters and thus skip the many online petitions that you can find.  It’s OK to go to those sites to understand the content of what is at stake, sites like here.  But you do best when you put your own words in your letters instead of using a petition to send what is considered by some a canned message.
  • And while it is perfectly permissible to use my above letter as your own personal correspondence, it is much better to use the letter as a guideline for what you have to say.  I have laid out many good links in this post for you, my readers, as references.  Please take a little time to do your due diligence to gain a decent grasp of what is at stake and why impeachment is imperative and by far the best way (absent the preferred outright removal) to get the usurper out of office.
  • Please close your letters with a request for a reply.
  • Please note that in the above letter, it is possible that you might get a ring, no answer or busy signal at the Judiciary Committee’s fax number.  If this persists, then send your faxes to Rep.  Conyers’ & Rep. Smith’s Congressional offices.  Mr. Conyers office fax is (202) 225-0072 and Mr. Smith’s fax is (202) 225-8628.
  • And should you decide you would like to fax the entire Judiciary Committee, their office fax numbers are here.
  • Keep copies of your letters.  At some point, we might request copies (if you’re willing to share them) so we can get an idea of what was said and to whom it was sent to.
  • Of course, be sure to spread the word to everyone who agrees with the absolute need to remove the pseudo-American Marxist from power.

If you have faxed or sent via FedEx letters to your Congressmen and women and/or the Judiciary Committee, please let me know by sending me an e-mail at TheObamaCrisis@ymail.com.

And though we are not yet looking to compile letters, if you would like to now share with me what you wrote, include that in your e-mail.  You may either copy and paste it into the e-mail body or you can send as an attachment in Word or PDF (no other programs, please).

Again, please spread the word and let’s force the Judiciary Committee to do its job again America’s bogus “president”.  Thank you and God bless.

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. TheReturn
    March 9, 2010 at 5:51 pm


    Glenn Beck doesn’t believe them. Ann Coulter doesn’t believe them. Bill O’Reilly doesn’t believe them. Fox News doesn’t believe them.

    Obama has published the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed by the two top officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii. All citizens who were not naturalized are Natural Born Citizens, and Obama was not naturalized because he did not have to be naturalized since he was born in Hawaii.

    • thatsafact
      April 1, 2010 at 5:20 pm

      The BC you’re referring to is bogus and has been refuted over and over. Perhaps if you want the truth, visit Mario Apuzzo’s blog at puzo1.blogspot.com. Lawyers don’t like spending money for baseless cases. Obama is spending in excess of $2 million to cover his hide.

  2. ooooohio
    March 9, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    Nobody believes birthers anymore. As you know, Glenn Beck doesn’t. Ann Coulter doesn’t. Bill o’Reilly doesn’t. Fox news doesn’t. J.D. Hayworth doesn’t. Nathan Deal doesn’t.

    • thatsafact
      April 1, 2010 at 5:17 pm

      Joe Farah of World Net Daily does as evident per his 300+ items at his site. Many lawmakers at the state and federal level do. Phil Berg, Orly Taitz, Gary Kreep, Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio. I do. Beck, O’Reilly, Coulter, Medved, Horowitz, Erickson, Fox, etc. don’t speak for millions of us who do. Sorry, my friend, you are in error.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: