Are Bay Area conservatives willing to emerge from their seclusion?
Bookworm on Feb 15 2010 at 1:02 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
[Posted earlier and moved to the top, because momentum is building.]
Are Bay Area conservatives willing to emerge from their seclusion? Bay Area Patriots (“BAP”) certainly hopes so. On Sunday, March 7, 2010, in Mill Valley, California, BAP is hosting a Conservative Groupa-Palooza that BAP hopes will be the largest gathering to date of that beleaguered species: the San Francisco Bay Area conservative. BAP encourages conservative groups and individuals to attend. You can learn more about it and RSVP (for a pretty nominal fee) here.
I have a few predictions:
1. The Groupa-Palooza will be surprisingly well attended.
2. The conservatives in attendance will achieve something approaching euphoria simply because they can be open about their political views.
3. There will be fringe, crackpot groups attending, such as Ron Paulians, just to name one of the less savory groups that self-affiliates with the conservative party. There will also be some Birthers who haven’t yet acknowledged that the birth certificate ship has already sailed.
4. No matter how small the percentage of fringe groups in attendance, those are the only groups that will get media attention.
Related posts:
- Another reason conservatives are a bit shy here
- Why there are so many crypto-cons in the Bay Area
- The difference between conservatives and liberals
Email This Post To A Friend
6 Responses to “Are Bay Area conservatives willing to emerge from their seclusion?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Bar Area conservatives… hello?…
Charlene and I have already RSVP’d to attend this meeting, described by Bookworm: Are Bay Area conservatives willing to emerge from their seclusion? Bay Area Patriots (“BAP”) certainly hopes so. On Sunday, March 7, 2010, in Mill Valley, California…
“There will also be some Birthers who haven’t yet acknowledged that the birth certificate ship has already sailed.”
Who has sailed this ship? The water carriers for Repoo-ooblican party? That vary party who overlooked and orchestrated the ascend of the impostor?
It is even not so much about the typewriter issued full birth certificate (which helps too). It is about good citizenship and understanding the Constitution. The previous presidents (before Obama) were born on American soil to parents who were both US citizens, which constitutes the concept Natural Born Citizen as a prerequisite to the presidency. And this definition
http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm
was applied to McCain in 2008!
Also the previous presidents did not have dual citizenship (like Indonesian), nor did they have multiple Social Security card numbers to their names.
In a civilized nation a “ship” which is guilty in fraud and constitutional crisis is not just allowed to walk away, but is prosecuted in full extend of the law. Nor does civilized citizens call to forget the crime of the highest elected official and those who helped him, just going with their business…
Alexander…
I agree with you. I understand that the issue may not be addressed – that the complications are more than lawmakers want to deal with, assuming that the issue is genuine. And I agree with you that it _is_ genuine. Nevertheless, it is also true that enough people have not looked into the matter enough to consider it to be more than a wacko theory, and therefore simply don’t want to deal with it. For that reason, it probably should not be used by anyone who hopes to run for office. As long as the Democrats control congress, nothing is going to happen.
If Republicans gain a majority in one or both houses, it may be possible to consider the issue – either from the standpoint of fraud on the part of Obama or on the part of the leadership of the DNC. Additionally, it seems to me that the issue needs to be addressed from the standpoint of never allowing it to be a legitimate issue again.
The problem, of course, is that if indeed he is _not_ legitimately president, how do you unring the bell? Do you simply say what’s done is done and move on from there? I don’t know – but I agree with you…if it’s possible to resolve the issue, it _should_ be resolved.
I’m not sure what “that ship has sailed” means either. Either he’s natural born and legitmately president or he isn’t. If we’re a nation of laws, then the fact that he’s stonewalled on the issue shouldn’t mean we just say “Oh well…” and let it go. Unfortunately, there is a political reality and in that sense, we’re helpless to enforce the law.
Even if we were completely helpless to enforce the law (caught into an unescapable legal trap on the entire national scale) – even then it did not mean that we must sweep it all under the rug and all turn into a crowd cheering an emperor without cloths! We must not allow the demagogs from the Repooblican Party to silence us and to smear us by associations with “the 9/11 internal job crowd”. It is this very Repooblican Party who is guilty in this crisis. Their apparatchicks will never agree to acknowledge their guilt disregarding whether they are minority of the majority. They all must go. We must leave not one incumbent in 2010.
Yet we are not completely helpless to enforce the law! The legal means are not yet all exhausted. Both criminal and civil cases are still waiting in appeal courts. Quo Warranto by Orly Taitz in the DC court is due this 26 February. Presentments of American Grand Jury are still being served.
And this is not the entire story. Elect an honest Attorney General or Secretary of State in California this 2010: elect Dr. Orly Taitz. Next day she will file the full blown criminal and civil cases against this impostor!
Demand from each and every future elected official to support the cases against the Impostor. Nobody who refuses to do that should be elected!
Yet the most important: do not allow anybody to silence the truth. Voice it louder and louder. The greatest truth is powerless against a small lie if everybody are happy with this lie.
As Justice Louis Brandeis said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.
[...] Group-Palooza that I blogged about here is taking place in Marin today. There are 400 attendees plus a long waiting list. The local [...]
I can give you my take on “that ship has sailed”, concerning the birth certificate issue. It consists of two parts.
The first part is that the President must be a natural-born citizen of the USA. There *must* be proof, and it should always be provided before a person can be sworn in as President of our country. But as a nation we’ve become quite comfortable ignoring the letter of the law, in favor of vague sort-ofs. Obama’s ambiguous status and “proof” did not suffice, at the point in time of the swearing-in. But that’s part and parcel of our deplorable ignoring of the law in many ways, so for me, yes, the ambiguity is troubling, but I do let it go. I don’t want to unring that bell. We could do so much better in the future demanding precise proof of natural-born citizenship, and I want it prior to the swearing in. I’d hope that would come with a vaster respect in this country for the Rule of Law itself (rather than the Rule Of Man).
The second part I’ve alluded to above, and it’s the timing. Prior to the swearing-in… ok. But mid-stream, I’d rather not see it. It has the flavor of a Constitutional Crisis. Also, if Obama is not natural-born, then in assuming the Presidency, it constitutes what’s known in politics as a Dirty Trick. There have been many, many dirty tricks in our elections history. It’s proven that JFK assumed the presidency due to just a few fraudulent votes in the Daley machine’s Chicago area, sliding Illinois into his column in the electoral votes. For me this is just another such dirty trick, if true. Not enough to warrant the Constitutional Crisis that I believe would ensue.
I don’t mind the fact that those court cases are quietly in the wings or slowly moving forward. Better to know for sure, in the end, one way or the other. And fix the problem by demanding the proof prior to the swearing in.