Please Click on Our Advertisers' Banners and Consider their Products or Services. The Resulting Revenue Helps to Support the March Report. Thank you.


Subscribe to
The MARCH REPORT
Daily Alert
E-Mail Newsletter

Subscribe to The
MARCH REPORT Podcast

Subscribe with iTunes

  Return to Front Page.

MarchReport.com: Around the Water Cooler or Around the Dial, Learn What They're Talking About Here First

Do what's right, no matter what the cost. It always costs. Do what's right anyway. -- Robert Jay March

RSS Feed  FEED



 






4-star hotels at 2 star prices! Get up to 60% off retail rates at Hotwire!

Hotwire

textbookx.com (Akademos, Inc.)

Compusa (Systemax, Inc.)


Free Shipping 125x125button     TigerDirect
    NewspaperArchive.com 7 Day Trial
Puritan's Pride Logo     Tech Depot - An Office Depot Co.
Spring Sale Save 20% Square - Sale Ended 5/3/07 So Updated to NonPromo Ad     Generic Banner 125x125button
Officefurniture.com    

Match.com

Enterprise Rent-A-Car     MTV Networks


   
Classic Gifts For Golfers     EXTRA 30% Off Clearance at Zales.com - Limited Time

Veterans Advantage, Inc.
InstantCert.com, LLC





120x60 iTunes     rollback04_gen_120X90.gif
Offer 125x125button     macys.com
 
Jump TV, Inc.   
Womens Apparel 125x125     Camping World
florsheim.com (Weyco Group, Inc.)
Sierra Club   


Apple iTunes

Apple iTunes

Apple iTunes
March Report Shopping Emporium

Whether you're looking for Books, Cel Phones, Computers, DVDs, Electronics, Photo Products, Software, Tools & Hardware or virtually anything else, we've got it at prices that will beat your local shops. Help support MarchReport.com and save money at the same time. Shop with the March Report Shopping Emporium and we both win.

 

 

 


by Robert Jay March
Monday, May 31, 2010

What did Obama know and when did he know it? We can expect to hear that question repeated over and over again, and this time without the news blackout imposed by all the networks, including Fox News, on the questions about Obama's birth certificate

Barack Obama had promised transparency in governance, but has proved himself to be just another practitioner of deep-dish Chicago politics: cheesy, with a thick crust. His credibility had apparently hit bottom with his handling of the BP oil spill, coupled with the revelation that Obama was the largest recipient of campaign contributions from BP, but this latest revelation has pushed it into the sub-basement. When we first inaugurated the Obamalot section of MarchReport.com on January 27, 2009, with a logo containing the phrase "Transparency Since 2009 (Except When We're Opaque)," we got the expected protests that proclaimed the new messiah would be open about everything. Of course, we knew better, having already seen his duplicity regarding his legal qualifications to serve as President. It was not exactly a stretch to visualize how he would conduct himself in office, and he has lived down to our expectations.

On February 18, 2010, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) revealed on Comcast's Larry Kane Show that the White House had offered him a job to induce him to withdraw from the primary race against turncoat former Republican Senator Arlen Specter, who had switched parties in order to assure his re-election. It's interesting to note that the story, which is a public relations nightmare for Obama, was broken on a Comcast cable show, in that it is Comcast that is buying NBC (including MSNBC). Does this presage a change of direction for MSNBC, which to date has been little more than a public relations service for Obama?

It was rumored that Sestak, a retired naval Admiral, had been offered the position of Secretary of the Navy in violation of Title 18 USC §211, "Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office," Title 18 USC §595 "Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments," and Title 18 USC § 600 "Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity." Only the President (or, in this case, the guy who plays one on T.V.) could have authorized such an offer, since it is he who makes such appointments. This is an impeachable offense, being a "high crime or misdemeanor," which at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, meant a crime or misdemeanor that the offender would ordinarily have been spared the consequences of, by virtue of his high position.

On April 21, 2010, Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the top ranking Republican Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Sestak bribe attempt. To date, there has been no such appointment.

On the May 23 edition of Face The Nation, Sestak again confirmed the job offer, but would not give any details.

The range of human experiences is quite limited, and the same events keep repeating themselves over and over again, with a different cast of characters, much like a Hollywood re-make. The Sestak affair is eerily reminiscent of a Gus Van Sant re-make of the Watergate crisis. Much like Van Sant's color remake of Psycho, it's the same script replayed with lesser actors. Just as during the Nixon administration, and several times since, The White House has investigated itself, assuring us that nothing improper has happened; and, just as happened during the Nixon years, very few are buying it. Clearly, a special prosecutor or independent counsel needs to be appointed.

Modern-day reporters are inherently lazy, being closer to game-show hosts than the ink-stained wretches of yore, and like stories that present themselves already written; no wearing out shoe leather, or even using up cell-phone minutes nowadays. No press-pass sticking up out of their well-worn hat brim: that might muss their well-coifed hair. Regardless of how much they have covered up for Obama thus far, there is now blood in the water, and if it bleeds, it leads.

They started by quizzing his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, who hemmed and hawed, being very careful to say nothing that could get him indicted as a co-conspirator. Then they asked Obama, who did his best impression of Ralph Kramden saying, "Hamena, Hamena, Hamena." Watch the video in the immediately preceding link, and take note of Obama's body language. Stiff as a board, saucer eyed, unblinkingly staring at Alice Kramden ... I mean, Major Garrett.

At least Richard Nixon had the guts to look right into the camera and lie. Just as Obama did when he fumbled the Inauguration oath...



... his "Tell" betrays him. Somewhere inside him, there is the awareness that he is doing wrong. Somewhere inside him, there is the desire to get caught, and that force is struggling to find it's way to the surface, to burst forth as if from John Hurt's chest.

The song "The Gambler," popularized by Kenny Rogers, contains these lyrics: "Son, I've made my life out of readin' people's faces, / And knowin' what their cards were by the way they held their eyes. / So if you don't mind my sayin', I can see you're out of aces."

You got to know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold em. Hopefully, this time the press, which has horribly betrayed us thus far, will force him to show his hole card and surrender his chips. That said, you never count your money when you're sittin' at the table.

 

Bloggers: Permalink to this story is: http://www.marchreport.com/20100531.html#editorial

 

PDF File To download a PDF file of this editorial, click here.

 

 

 

  Return to Top of Page



 The Subtle Racism of the Left.

by Robert Jay March
Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Yesterday, a MarchReport.com reader from Lyndhurst, New Jersey sent me a copy of a letter from an Emergency Room Doctor that someone had found on the internet and passed along to him. I thought it was well worth reading, and wrote back, asking for the original source of the letter, so that MarchReport.com could link to it. As it turns out, he did not know the source, and, my curiosity piqued, that sent me on a Google-quest to find it. The original posting is six months old, and MarchReport.com being a current news site, I normally would not have linked to it now; however, Google being Google, the search returned 20,300 results [with the usual Google-caveat on the last page (p. 76): "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 757 already displayed."]

As I began to read through the resulting links, it became apparent that this could be used as an object lesson for those who have been on the receiving-end of abuse from those who think that anyone to the right of Chairman Mao or Ernesto "Che" Guevara must be a racist, must live in fear of "the other," and must be re-educated, ideally with a blunt instrument.

The article was posted on Snopes, a project of The Annenberg Public Policy Center, the very bastion of re-education and guardian of the public's zeitgeist.

The post was entitled "Why Pay for the Care of the Careless?" and consisted of a Letter to the Editor of the Gannett-owned Jackson, Mississippi Clarion Ledger, written by Starner Jones, M.D., and published in the August 23, 2009 issue. It reads as follows:

"Dear Sirs:
"During my last night's shift in the E.R., I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B tune for a ringtone. Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid. She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer.

"And our Congress expects me to pay for this woman's health care? Our nation's health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture -- a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. A culture that thinks "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me." Life is really not that hard. Most of us reap what we sow.

"Don't you agree?"

The good doctor's simple statement of his philosophy, published in a small paper with a daily circulation of only 70,000 (MarchReport.com's Daily Alert Newsletter has a circulation of nearly quadruple that) despite having won a Pulitzer in 1983, would have been forgotten in a day or two and had the ignominious fate of most such Letters to the Editor dropped on them (the bird-cage prize) were it not for the ever-vigilant eyes of Those Who Must Be Obeyed: The Looney Left (apologies to John Mortimer, QC and his creation, Horace Rumpole).

In the September 6, 2009 issue of the Clarion Ledger, one Jennifer Sigrest of the aptly-named Clinton, Mississippi wrote a response to Dr. Jones' letter, wherein she said, "This kind of personal attack is nothing new with the hateful rhetoric of late. But it's a real slippery slope when one questions whether another human merits support for health care because of appearances and choices. There are a lot of folks in this state who make less-than-perfect choices about finances and health. We are the poorest, fattest state, after all." (Read her entire letter at Snopes, and you'll understand why I feel Clinton is aptly-named.)

O.K., fine: she disagrees with Dr. Jones' simple philosophy, and felt strongly enough to write a rebuttal. MarchReport.com agrees with the good doctor and disagrees with her, but freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, is an absolute guarantee: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It is that very guarantee that, apparently, sent the left lunging for their Absolut.

Vitals.com is a web-site that posts reviews of Doctors. They describe themselves as "Your source for comprehensive medical information on 720,000 doctors nationwide." Have a look at their review page of Dr. Jones. The reviews of him as a Doctor are very positive. A week ago, a "critique" was posted about him (not about his skills as a physician; it's about his Letter to the Editor) by a "reviewer" who signed himself as William Utter. We reproduce it here, misspellings, bad grammar, and all: "YOUR WRONG. It's ppl like you are the reasion we don't have health for everyone in this country. If ppl like you would stop having babies this country would be better off!"

Another "reviewer" who signed his post with the non-de-plume "health care for all" and entitled his post "Sad Selfish Bigot" said this: "All this doctor can see is the color of his patient and the amount of reimbursement he is going to receive. Would he be as troubled by the gold tooth and tattoo if they were on an 80 year old white patient? I think not."

These, on a site for medical reviews: it is not a place for political discussions -- for any "reasion."

Wading more deeply into my Google-results, I found this on, of all places, a Real Estate Blog called ActiveRain: it's a post entitled "Dr. Starner Jones, MD -- Racist of the Week." The author of the post starts by saying, "Now some of you will immediately see that this guy has a real hatred for black people and get angry. Others -- and I can almost predict who the "others" will be -- will think this doctor really has it going on. A real genius."

Say what? Exactly where in Dr. Jones letter is it stated, or even implied, that the patient was Black? NO WHERE! I remember a book store cashier who fit the description of Dr. Jones' patient to a "Tee," and he was White. When I lived in New York City, prior to my disability, I saw people that fit this description on the subway every day -- of all races.

Lefty (who signed her post "The Arizona Home Loan Lady," but that's a bit of a mouthful) continued: "He makes it very clear that he is talking about a black person in the first paragraph. And just to make sure we get the point, he even throws in "R&B" music, just to hammer it home. He could have left out the gold tooth thing. But he paints us a real nice picture, doesn't he? I'm sure all of his black patients are like this. Every single one of them has gold teeth and an R&B ringtone...I'm sure." She goes on to say, "And he is sarcastic about doing his job for a black person, when he writes "I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a gold tooth ..."

My father had two gold teeth, and he was a mix of Polish, Ukranian, and Mongolian -- and had curly blond hair to boot. "R&B music"? One of my favorite tunes is "What Becomes Of The Brokenhearted," which was recorded by Jimmy Ruffin when The Spinners passed on it. I have it on vinyl, cd, and as an mp3 downloaded from Amazon.com. It's a Soul-music classic, and I rarely go through a week without listening to it, and I, too, am the aforementioned mix of Polish, Ukranian, and Mongolian. My mother was descended from Polish royalty, and my father from peasantry; in fact, going back many, many generations, my ancestors on my father's side were the gamekeepers to my ancestors on my mother's side. I must take after my father's side of the family, because here I am cleaning up another creature's poop again.

Who are the real racists here? The white Medical Doctor who made a simple comment about the apparent misuse of the funds exhibited by his patient, or the overcompensating leftists, who see racism where there is none, and try to force the rest of us (not them -- never them) to bend over backwards to remedy it; the leftists who want to ban Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn because those books, which accurately reflected their times, and were written by Mark Twain to show just how truly revolting was the bigotry of his time, were supposedly Inappropriate, Unacceptable, and Racist? The 12-year-old called racist for wearing Palin t-shirt, or those who made the accusation?

Just as I had finished writing the previous paragraph, and was about to start looking for an old Readers Digest article from the 1930s, wherein I remember the author, a classic liberal if his day, was writing on what was then called "home relief," who was interrupted by a black (no ... he said "colored," if I recall correctly) janitor, who had come in to clean his office. I was looking for it because I recalled recoiling at the remark he made in the article about those who were and were not fit for certain jobs, made the classic 1930s-liberal quip that "it was good they found some kind of work for him." Today, he'd be drawn-and-quartered in the court of public opinion for that remark, but back then, it was what passed for enlightened, progressive liberalism. The liberals of the day enthusiastically advocated eugenics; in fact, the September 10, 1932 issue of Literary Digest ran an article entitled "Eugenics as the Cure for All the Race's Ills."

Anyway, retracing my steps from that pre-Yahoo! Maps detour down a side road: literally, actually just as -- an e-mail arrived from a business associate of mine (a liberal, doncha know), that contained an article with the perfect example of the racism of the left: Colorado School District Pays Six Figures To Professional Race Hustler To Tell Kids How Racist They Are." It describes what the author of the post characterizes as "professional race-hustler and certified loonbag Glenn E. Singleton" and his book Courageous Conversations About Race: A Field Guide for Achieving Equity in Schools, wherein Singleton claims that "White teachers, and minority teachers who have been 'co-opted into the white power structure' are racist by virtue of not understanding the 'special ways that blacks and Hispanics communicate.'"

That statement sounds pretty racist to me and, being that Singleton is white, he should be made to listen to a books-on-tape version of his book over and over again until he learns what he is teaching! Made ... MADE, I say! Then, he should be forced to pay reparations ... to the rest of us, and whatever sap put out a books-on-tape version of that waste of wood pulp and mylar.

As I see it, human beings are all one color: varying shades of brown, from extreme pastel to very dark. Any other distinctions are nonsense. The sooner people from all points on the political divide see it that way, the sooner we can toss "Political Correctness," that modern-day resurrection of George Orwell's "Newspeak," from "1984" on the dung-heap of history, where it has belonged all along.

 

Bloggers: Permalink to this story is: http://www.marchreport.com/20100330.html#editorial

 

PDF File To download a PDF file of this editorial, click here.

 

 

 

  Return to Top of Page



 In Memoriam: "Uncle Joe,"
Killed by "Health Care."

Uncle Joe

by Robert Jay March
Friday, March 19, 2010

As I write this, a couple of hours have passed since I received word that my Uncle Joe has died. I suppose you're wondering why I'm telling you about this; I'm doing so because his death was needless, caused by the rationing of health care in England by the National Health Service.

England has essentially the same system that the United States will have if Obama's health care power grab succeeds, so forgive me if I take the liberty of telling you about Uncle Joe, as a cautionary tale of what our future holds if the Health Care Bill is enacted.

About six years ago, my Uncle Joe was diagnosed with prostate cancer. The same kind of cancer that Rudy Giuliani and Don Imus have. Nowadays, prostate cancer is very treatable, and the survival rates are very high. However, under a nationalized health care system, care is rationed, and the elderly are frequently denied care based on the assumption that preserving their lives is simply not worth the expense.

That is precisely what happened to my Uncle Joe. The NHS, in their infinite wisdom, decided that it was not worth treating a man in his 70s. A paper-pushing bureaucrat effectively sentenced him to death.

Over the years, the cancer metastasised to his bones, and then his brain. He died, not of old age, but of the progressive effects of the prostate cancer. Rudy Giuliani was diagnosed several years before my uncle, and still leads a healthy productive life because he received treatment in the United States, under the very system that Obama and his cronies are working, conspiring, and back-room dealing to scuttle. Had Joe lived in the United States instead of Bolton, England, he would still be alive today.

Joe was a kind, gentle man, whom I first met in 1966, when I was 14 years old. He had saved up enough money so that he could bring his wife (my late mother's sister) and children to visit us in the States. Over the three weeks that they stayed with us, I got to know the British family I only was aware of abstractly up until that point.

During World War II, he had been taken prisoner by the Germans and held in a POW camp for 9 months. Joe, who was 6 feet tall, weighed 84 pounds when he was released. Joe had spent his entire working life as a cog in the system, working for Britain's National Rail network, which was operated by the British Government before it was privatized in 1993, but when Joe became ill, the NHS, also operated by the British Government, which was founded to see to it that everyone got health care, decided that Joe wasn't worth it. Those of us who knew and loved him know better.

Joe died about 5 weeks after his 60th wedding anniversary. Shortly before he died, he had to be placed in a nursing home. The day he died, my Aunt Janina, his wife, walked into his room and said "Joseph, I love you. How are you, my sunshine?" He looked at her, smiled, one tear in his eye, kissed her and died then and there. He weighed 84 pounds; the same as he weighed in the POW Camp.

The system that let my Uncle Joe die is the same system that Obama and his cronies are trying to force on us.

This is only one of the very many horror stories that have happened to my family over the years, as a direct result of Government interference in our lives. Most of those events happened here in the U.S., not in England or Europe. My immediate family was destroyed, and my mother died much earlier than she would have, as a direct result of Government meddling in our lives; always, done by well-meaning bureaucrats and their minions, who had our best interests at heart.

Those of you who are regular readers of MarchReport.com, and/or listeners of my podcasts, know that I have been a vocal opponent of Obama from the beginning. Since it's inception, I have financed MarchReport.com out of my own pocket: my earnings from another business I own, which did pre-press production for scholarly, scientific journals published by major universities. While I disagreed with the content of many of these journals -- particularly those focused on sociology and economics -- I have always regarded the First Amendment to be an absolute guarantee, and I never denied my services to anyone simply because I disagreed with the content of their material. As we have seen played out in the mass media on many issues recently, the Left disagrees: in their eyes, you are free to speak only if you agree with them; otherwise, you must be silenced, by whatever means necessary.

All of these universities and other publishers of scholarly journals rely on left-leaning organizations for their financing. After over a decade of doing business with us, suddenly, and for no apparent reason, ALL of these un-related publishers -- every one of them -- pulled their work from us within a few months of each other-after we began covering what I call the "Certifi-Gate" scandal -- the fact (for which I provide extensive proof) that Barack Obama does not meet the legal requirement to serve as President as defined by the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

Before you dismiss me as "one of those idiot birthers," be advised that I, too, initially did not believe the rumors. As my readers continued to e-mail me about their concerns, I resolved to check out the story in order to put their minds at ease. I was shocked to discover that the story was true, and over the last two years MarchReport.com has become one of the largest repositories of stories about this shocking scandal.

My other business was thus put out of business as a direct result of daring to tell the truth and prove it, and say so publicly on MarchReport.com.

I have been disabled and homebound for eight years, and will remain so for about another two years, by which time my injuries will be sufficiently healed as to allow me to take my place in the world again. Despite the constant excruciating pain caused by my disability, and being unable to leave my home, I work over 100 hours per week. I have never taken a penny of government money, or charity from anyone, and never will. MarchReport.com is read in 128 countries around the world, has a Google page rank of 4, our daily e-mail newsletter (separate and distinct from our much smaller Yahoo group) has approximately 240,000 subscribers, and as many as 18,000 unique visitors come to our website per month (many of them daily), for a total of over 60,000 page views per month. The advertising revenue generated by our small but enthusiastic audience is only enough to cover one month's expenses per year. Every investor I have talked to has balked at investing in a project run by a disabled man. When I tell them that I will be okay in a couple of years, they say "come back in a couple of years." Obama's people have seen to it that I do not have a couple of years.

I will soon be out of money, and will become destitute, as a direct result of defending my country from a would-be despot. Having read that, I must seem like the poster boy for nationalized health care: I'm disabled and without income, so those who would support such a system would think that I would welcome being rescued from my problems. I don't, and I won't allow it.

Over the last 6 decades, I have seen and personally experienced how much damage can be done by the well intentioned, who have only your best interests at heart and assume that they know better. They don't.

Those who support the health care bill are such well-intentioned fools, or weaklings who would prefer that others take care of them rather than assuming responsibility for themselves.

Over 200 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville warned us: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." He also said, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

Sound familiar? Doesn't that eerily predict just what is happening today?

I may crash and burn, but I will never yield. I may end up in a dumpster, but I will never yield to government imposed "care." Quoting de Tocqueville again, "A nation that asks nothing of government but the maintenance of order is already a slave in the depths of its heart; it is a slave of its well-being, ready for the man who will put it in chains." That man is Barack Obama.

The so-called health care bill must be defeated. Please copy and send this to everyone you know who can make a difference. Call your representatives until the phone lines in Washington, DC melt.

The health care bill serves one purpose only: to see to the health of The State, not the people. IT MUST NOT BECOME LAW.

In the book It's Your Choice (1983), author Warren T. Hackett attributed the following quote to British historian Arnold Toynbee:

"The release of initiative and enterprise made possible by self-government ultimately generates disintegrating forces from within. Again and again, after freedom brings opportunity and some degree of plenty, the competent become selfish, luxury-loving and complacent; the incompetent and unfortunate grow envious and covetous; and all three groups turn aside from the hard road of freedom to worship the golden calf of economic security. The historical cycle seems to be: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more."

The Christian hymn "Amazing Grace," written by English poet and clergyman John Newton, who had been press-ganged into the Royal Navy and forced to participate in the slave trade, contains this line: "I once was lost but now am found." Whoops, lost again! Chains, anyone? Chains you can believe in?

 

Bloggers: Permalink to this story is: http://www.marchreport.com/20100319.html#editorial

 

PDF File To download a PDF file of this editorial, click here.

 

 

 

  Return to Top of Page



Americans Turn Right On Reds

by Robert Jay March
Tuesday, January 26, 2010

After months of demeaning comments about the Tea Party movement, the so-called "Democratic" Party, which is anything but democratic, is now quaking in it's Manolo Blahnik boots. Having tried to force-feed the takeover of the American Health Care system to the American public over it's vociferous objections, saying "Let's win it for Teddy," it is ironic that their wake-up call came in the form of the loss of the late Senator Kennedy's Senate seat to an opponent of that very bill. Obama's knee-jerk response, true to form, was to blame the loss on eight years of George W. Bush.

After a few days to reflect and allow the humiliation and repudiation to penetrate that thick noggin of his, Obama was interviewed by Dianne Sawyer, who asked him if one term was enough. The question was shocking enough in and of itself, in that it was only a year ago that Obama was proclaimed as our saviour, the demi-deity who would solve all problems (hosanna in the highest and praise be to Barry). Obama chuckled nervously, and replied "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president."

Actually, he fails on all counts. One, he's not legally President, per Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Two, in play-acting the role to the most receptive audience any politician has ever had, he's blown it so badly that, even in Germany, the press is saying "Bid fairwell to Obama." The scent of political "blood in the water" is so pungent that Democrats in droves are re-considering plans to run for office, and Republicans who had not planned to run are now gearing up to do so.

Those in the Tea Party movement who are celebrating the victory of Scott Brown have good reason the celebrate, but I urge them to keep it in perspective. Brown's victory was a repudiation of the Health Care Bill, not an embrace of limited government per se. Half of the people who voted for Brown believe government should do more to solve problems, which is inimical to the Tea Party philosophy.

Scott Brown is a "progressive" (read: "Big Government") Republican in the mode of John McCain. He is a friend of convenience, a temporary ally whom they will probably find themselves in opposition to down the road. While the enemy of my enemy may be my friend, I'd rather have a true friend at my side when going into battle.

Meanwhile, down at the Elephant Preserve, the elders of the Grand Old Party are scratching their heads, trying to figure out how to co-opt the Tea Party Movement and turn it into an appendage of the Republican Party. Remember how outraged the GOP was when Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty and Fred Thompson endorsed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd District Congressional race? The party had picked yet another progressive, Dede Scozzafava, and all the party pros, such as Newt Gingrich, had endorsed her, feeling that party loyalty trumped principle. When it became apparent that Scozzafava has no chance of winning, she withdrew from the race -- and threw her support to the Democrat. So much for party loyalty.

Putting party over principle will leave us forever condemned to whip-sawing from left to right, as every urge to "throw the rascals out" leaves us with only the other set of rascals to vote for. Don't be a Democrat. Don't be a Republican. Don't align yourself with any political party. Be a LOCist.

What's a LOCist? Quoting from my Editorial of April 5, 2008 edition of MarchReport.com, brilliant as it was,

"It's a Party of one, of which I am Party Chairman. It is based on the 1960s theory of television programming put forth by CBS 'master scheduler' Mike Dann and Paul Klien of NBC, called the "LOP" or "Least Objectionable Program" theory. In those days, there were just the 3 major networks (or 2 plus ABC, if you're really honest) and programming was based on the concept of the Mass Audience. Nowadays, with network audiences down to about 50% from a high of 90%, the LOP theory no longer works.

"HOWEVER, when it comes to Politics, there are only 2 'channels': Democratic and Republican; all the other parties are the equivalent of local stations, some with and some without network affiliations. Each major party needs MASS NUMBERS, so they try to nominate the Candidate that is Least Objectionable to their base. That's why, in primary season, Democrats run to the Left and Republicans to the Right, but in the General Elections, both move towards the perceived center. Party loyalists always vote for their party's candidate; the rest of us vote for the Least Objectionable Candidate (LOC). The candidate perceived by most voters to be Least Objectionable wins. Yay! Tapioca pudding for everyone!"

Given that Government is a necessary evil (the operative word being evil), there will always be politicians. People who succeed in politics are people who lie well enough to get a plurality of voters to put them in office. While some may get into politics initially to serve the public, those who survive have that youthful zeal burned out of them. Much as a sword-maker pounds and heats his steel into submission, forming the blade he intended to form, so each party pounds their new blood into a pulp useful only for feeding the machine.

Until such time as our "tea" is steeped strongly enough that we can field candidates that stand on principle, rather than stand for party loyalty over integrity, we must vote for the Least Objectionable Candidate, regardless of what party they are affiliated with. Then, we must hold their feet to the fire, constantly reminding them of how they got elected in the first place, and how fleeting their jobs can be.

 

Bloggers: Permalink to this story is: http://www.marchreport.com/20100126#editorial

 

PDF File To download a PDF file of this editorial, click here.

 

 

 

  Return to Top of Page



 Q: When Is A Tiger A Cheetah?
A: When He's a Dog

by Robert Jay March
Monday, December 7, 2009

The first time I became aware of Eldrick Tont "Tiger" Woods was when I was 26 years old and he was 3. I watched as he appeared, with his late father Earl Woods, on The Mike Douglas Show as a "golf prodigy," putting against Bob Hope. At the time, he seemed to be the sweetest child on the face of the planet, and, being an expectant father who had just recently lost his own father, I found myself inspired by him, and hoped for a great future for him. After all, how could such a talented child fail? How could such a sweet child who was so close to his father ever do anything wrong?

I can't give you a precise air date for the program because, in those days, satellite distribution did not yet exist, and syndicated programs were distributed by bicycle messengers, hauling 2-inch video tape cartridges from city to city. What aired in January in one market might not air until July in another.

Nowadays, information travels a lot faster. As this is being written, six women have come forward claiming to have had affairs with Tiger Woods. The elapsed time between each woman's declaration and the whole world's knowing of it was virtually zero.

On November 27, 2009, Tiger Woods crashed his car into a fire hydrant near his home. The National Enquirer had already run a story about his alleged affair with Rachel Uchitel, and the accident, coupled with rumors that it occurred due to Wood's fleeing his home to escape an angry, golf-club wielding wife flashed around the world at the speed of, well, a man fleeing from a golf-club wielding wife. Since then, we've learned about Jamie Grubbs, Kalika Moquin, Jamie Jungers, Cori Rist and Mindy Lawton, with rumors of more to come.

One thing Woods and I have in common is that we are both Buddhists. He was born into the faith, while I converted 38 years ago. Twelve years ago, I adopted a life-style of celibacy: partly for religious reasons, and partly because, like Woods, I was having difficulty leaving my putter in the bag when that was where it should be. Much like an alcoholic who does not dare touch a drink, while others can drink responsibly, I found that "putting the cork in the bottle" for good was the only way to deal with a serious flaw in my character. On the other hand, I can safely discuss the wisdom of this decision with Jose Cuervo or Jack Daniels, and keep it brief.

Buddhism teaches us to divest ourselves of attachments, because attachments are at the root of all pain. Material things can act as anesthetics, muting that pain while not addressing the cause. Due to his talent, Tiger Woods has gained an abundance of material things in his young life, but apparently not the maturity to deal with them. When one gets so much so early, one can easily develop the delusion that one is living a charmed life; that delusion inevitably leads to disaster. When one has so much ready cash, it always attracts those who are only interested in the size of your wad. What do you expect when one of your mistresses stars in "Tool Academy?"

A couple of days after the initial revelations, Woods issued a self-serving statement, wherein he said, "the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions." What planet are you living on, dude?

I learned the hard way, a long time ago, that the only way to protect your secrets is not to have any. When you make your living in the public eye, the public's eye is always on you: when it's convenient and when it's not. Especially when it's not.

It has been reported that, as a result of his infidelity, Elin Nordegren Woods has renegotiated her prenuptial agreement with Tiger. The original prenup granted her $20 million provided the marriage lasted for 10 years. Now, reports say that the amount has been increased to $80 million, and that she got an immediate additional $5 million as a "signing bonus." Who negotiated this deal, Jerry Maguire? In exchange, Elin will keep her mouth closed. Oh, you can count on that, my man; hermetically sealed. This relationship sounds more like a mergers-and-acquisitions deal than a marriage, but I think I can safely say that there won't be much merging going on anytime soon.

Tiger's father Earl was an inspirational man. He attended Kansas State University on a baseball scholarship, and broke the Big Eight Conference "color barrier." He was good enough to be offered a contract by the Kansas City Monarchs of the Negro Leagues, which he turned down so he could finish college. When he was not allowed to get off the bus for a game in Mississippi, the entire team supported him and left without playing. Earl Woods served two full tours of duty in the Vietnam War, and was part of the Green Berets. He went on to become a Professor of Military Science & Tactics at CUNY.

One can only wonder if recent events would have played out as they did (or if they would have occurred at all) had Earl Woods still been around to talk some sense into his son. Regrettably, Earl died in 2006 of prostate cancer. Tiger might have been better off if Earl never taught him how to play golf. At Stanford University, Tiger majored in Economics, where he was nicknamed "Urkel" after the character on the ABC sitcom Family Matters.

Somehow, I can't see Ms. Uchitel, et al. doing the Urkel Dance with a nerdy economist. However, I can envision Tiger asking "You love me, don't you?" of the betrayed Elin, as Urkel would have asked Laura Winslow. Elin might reply, "Sure, baby, $80 million worth...and counting."

 

Bloggers: Permalink to this story is: http://www.marchreport.com/20091207.html#editorial

PDF File To download a PDF file of this editorial, click here.

 

 

 

  Return to Top of Page



How Freeing Seven of Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero-One From The Borg Collective Provoked a Constitutional Crisis On 21st-Century Earth
... or ...
Bait for the "Birther"-debunkers

by Robert Jay March
Thursday, November 5, 2009

Actress Jeri Ryan, best known to the American public as "Seven of Nine" on the series "Star Trek -- Voyager," is responsible for the whole mess. No, I haven't taken leave of my senses ... not yet anyway ... as the following narrative will show.

In 1990, then-Jeri Lynn Zimmermann met future political candidate Jack Ryan, married him on June 15, 1991, and ultimately divorced him on August 27, 1999. When Jack Ryan was running for the Senate on the Republican ticket in 2004, WLS-TV, the Chicago ABC affiliate, sought to have his divorce and child custody records released. In print, if it bleeds it leads; on TV, if it skewers, it attracts viewers.

When the custody records were released after a protracted court battle, it was revealed that Jack Ryan had repeatedly asked, begged and cajoled Jeri to perform sexual acts in public in various sex clubs. Ms. Ryan described one of these clubs as "a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling." Obviously not a "family values" kind of guy, Jack Ryan's poll numbers were plummeting faster than an ejected warp-core falling into a black hole. He was force to withdraw from the race, and was replaced by Alan Keyes, who lost to ... wait for it ... Barack Obama!

Barack Obama's very first act as "President" made it illegal to release any of his records. "EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 -- PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS," signed by Barack Obama on January 21, 2009, begins as follows: "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America ..."

As I have said over and over and over again, if there is nothing to hide, why hide it? Yet, the very first thing he did as alleged-President was sign an Executive Order that locks all of his records -- including his personal ones -- away from public view. This leaves us in a legal mobius loop: If his personal records prove that he is ineligible, then he is not President, and the Executive Order is null and void, but in order to prove that he is ineligible, one must have access to his personal records. Quoting the eminent philosopher Homer Simpson,
   "DOH!"

It is interesting to note that, in the private sector, Obama was employed by the law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland, which describes itself as "one of the best-known and most experienced firms in the country in large-scale voting rights cases." As such, they have done extensive Constitutional research, such as that cited in a case wherein Obama was one of the lawyers representing ACORN, ACORN V. EDGAR.

It is rumored that Miner, Barnhill & Galland also researched ways and means of getting around Article II Section 1 of the Constitution ("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...") Now, read that Executive Order again.

If only Jeri had let her hubby get his freak on, the nation may have been spared all of this; but nooooooo, she left us with a typically-Republican sex scandal (two straight people and no sex) which ultimately led to a Constitutionally unqualified man being elected President.

By now, many of you are asking yourselves why I even bothered to write about this. Simple: half the country believes that Obama is not legally qualified, and the other half simply has not looked at the evidence, assuming we're all nuts, racists, or both.

Those people won't be able to resist reading this article: It embarrasses Republicans, it involves science fiction, has sex, intrigue, and a gorgeous woman whose talents let her rise to the top (or vice versa). They'll pass this around as evidence that the "Birthers" have finally lost it; and, a very few of them will be intrigued enough to actually check the facts, just as I did when I did not believe it, and realize that we're right.

Resistance is futile. It just takes a while.

 

Bloggers: Permalink to this story is: http://www.marchreport.com/20091105.html#editorial

PDF File To download a PDF file of this editorial, click here.

 

 

 

  Return to Top of Page



"Immeltdown Interruptus"
Or
"Is That A Cable Box In Your Pocket, Or Are You Just Wired?"

by Robert Jay March
Monday, November 2, 2009

Given that Comcast is about to acquire NBC-Universal, is there any hope that NBC News and MSNBC will become more than just a press release service for the Obama Administration? Will the new management realize that Keith Olberman is the Worst Person in the World -- for their business? Will their Human Resources Department send Chris Matthews for treatment of his Obamica -- that being the sciatic tingling he gets from his ischium to his lower-leg every time our Monarch-wannabe opens his mouth to warble from the teleprompter? (I hate when that happens!)

Don't hold your breath.

The link leads to the 2008 Election Cycle Report for COMCAST CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE -- FEDERAL. The report does not show a grand total by party, so we figured it out for you. Contributions totaled $790,950.00 to Democrats, $538,350.00 to Republicans and $12,000 to one candidate who's affiliation was not listed, but is also a Republican. That's a grand total of $550,350 to Republicans.

Out of a total of $1,341,300 in political contributions, 59% went to Democrats and 41% to Republicans.

Given that most businesses -- especially regulated ones -- donate to both parties in approximately equal amounts (both parties have fundaments in need of osculation, after all), this seems a tad lopsided.

On the other hand, Comcast has in infinitely smaller concern about defense contracts than GE does (only $479,142 from 2000 to 2009, according to governmentcontractswon.com . versus billions for GE. (In1992, GE paid $69 million to the U.S. government in fines -- one of the largest such fines ever levied -- for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. No wonder Obama loves them!

According to hoovers.com, "Comcast competitors are primarily in the Cable & Satellite Services industry. Comcast also competes in the Data Services, Television, and Sports & Recreation sectors." Now that they're buying content-creation, one can only hope they would be more concerned about ratings than politics and that Comcast will rescue NBC-Universal from its ongoing Immeltdown.

One can also hope to win the lottery. The odds are probably about the same.

 

Bloggers: Permalink to this story is: http://www.marchreport.com/20091102.html#editorial

PDF File To download a PDF file of this editorial, click here.

 

 

 

  Return to Top of Page



Mass-Media Coverup Exposed

by Robert Jay March
Monday, August 10, 2009

In the Certifi-Gate section below, we link to a story I urge you to read in full, "Media Blackout On Obama Eligibility Dates Back To November" by Douglas Hagmann & Judi McLeod, which was brought to our attention by a regular reader, Ursula. In that my own sources have told me that Jeffrey Immelt has imposed such a blackout at NBC and MSNBC due to his desire to protect and increase G.E.'s Defense Contracts, I contacted the authors and asked the following question: "I do not expect you to compromise your source, but can you say that the network you refer to in your story is not NBC/MSNBC?"

Douglas J. Hagmann wrote back, saying:

I will go beyond a non-denial.

First, there are multiple networks involved. Secondly, my statement below does not relate to the signed statement from the talk show host, but it should more than answer your question. Use it as you wish:

At approximately 12:30 pm On March 23, 2009, I interviewed a source outside of St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City who works in an administrative support position at a nearby network. I was put in contact with this source by an individual from Los Angeles (known by me) who had traveled to this NY network headquarters on business prior to my interview. The individual from Los Angeles had told this network source of my investigation and assured this source I could be trusted. Introductions were ultimately made.

On that date, this source agreed to talk only with the strict assurance of confidentiality, conditions to which I agreed. It is important to note that throughout this casual interview in a public venue, this source appeared to be extremely nervous and looked around more than appeared to be reasonably necessary. Nevertheless, this source seemed to be genuinely sincere, exhibiting no outward signs of deceptive behavior.

During the course of my interview, this source admitted knowledge of high level management meetings with certain on-air personalities about the "controversy surrounding Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility due to birthplace and citizenship questions." This source claimed to be present and in close proximity to one open door meeting between a corporate official and on-air personnel. My investigation confirmed that this source would normally have such access.

During this meeting, the official stated that he was ordered by "those at the top" to warn them against any reference to this [eligibility] issue. This statement was originally met with some apparent objections and there was "over talk," but this source clearly heard the official state: "This is serious, and so will the consequences be if anyone chooses not to be a team player with this."

There is more, but for now, I think you get the idea.

CNN, Fox News and NBC's offices and studios are all very near St. Patrick's Cathedral. I had a conversation with a Fox anchor months ago about this issue. The anchor, whom I will not identify, was well versed on the eligibility issue and seemed to agree with me, but said he could not discuss it on the air.

All of these hosts like to pretend that they take orders from no one, that no one would dare order them around. This is bovine scatology, pure and simple. As an example, many years ago I was in the office of the Program Director of WGY for a business meeting, when Mike Gallagher, who was a local afternoon-drive host at that station at the time, knocked timidly at the door. Far from being the bombastic blow-hard he portrays on the air (he was even more so, then), he said, "You wanted to see me, sir?" The PD dismissed him with a simple "later," and Gallagher skedaddled away. These people are just employees who want to keep their jobs.

We need to force the issue of the media coverup. Call the local and national talks shows you listen to, and keep bringing up the issue. Keep calling; flood their switchboards until they put you on the air or have no callers at all they can put on. Demand that they book guests like Douglas J. Hagmann, Joseph Farah of World Net Daily, attorneys Phil Berg and Dr. Orly Taitz, and li'l ol' me, Robert Jay March of MarchReport.com, to talk about this issue.

The left uses "seminar callers" all the time; we need to borrow the tactic. As it is, Pelosi and her minions have called the legitimate, grass-roots protests that have sprung up over Health Care and the Birth Certificate "astro-turf," and falsely claimed that those protests were orchestrated. Let's show them what real orchestration looks like.

The very survival of our democracy is at stake, for what has occurred is nothing less than a coup d'état, aided and abetted by those who are supposed to be the unfettered guardians of our freedom -- the press.

1,000 Cuts with Occam's Razor

Despite the fact that I am racially mixed (part Oriental); despite the fact that I have published both written columns and recorded podcasts wherein I have praised the American public for the truly color-blind vote cast last November, regardless of whether or not the victorious candidate is legally qualified to serve; despite the fact that I myself am among those who believe that The Constitution should be amended to permit Citizens who were not born on American soil to serve as President (but not retroactively); I still get hate mail accusing me of racism, or excluding me from the accusation, accusing my readers of it because of our inquiries as to whether or not Barack Obama is in compliance with Article II, Section I of The Constitution.

They seem to think that because we are concerned that the law be complied with, that must mean that we are actually racists who do not want a Black President. If Arnold Schwarzenegger had ignored The Constitution, run for President, and been elected, would it be racist to insist that he be removed?

Occam's Razor, attributed to 13th century Franciscan friar and philosopher, William of Ockham, is a concept in science that says the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable, and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. In the simplest terms, this means that the simplest, most straight-forward answer is usually the correct answer.

Let's take what we know and analyze it logically.

  • Does the Constitution require that the President be born on American soil? YES.
  • As Chief Executive of The United States, is the President required to obey The Constitution? YES.
  • As a former Constitutional Lawyer, Does Barack Obama understand this requirement? YES.
  • Has Barack Obama proven that he meets this requirement? NO.
  • Have Obama's supporters claimed that Obama has released his birth Certificate? YES.
  • Has Barack Obama actually released his Birth Certificate (as opposed to the Hawaiian Certification, which is not a legal birth certificate)? NO.
  • Comparing the above two statements, are Obama's supporters lying? YES.
  • By definition, what do liars do? They tell lies.
  • Who claims that the so-called "Birthers" are racists? Obama's supporters.
  • Therefor, are the claims that "Birthers" are all racists a lie? YES.
  • If you apply for a driver's license, or other privilege where production of a birth certificate is required, and you refuse to produce it, will you be granted the license or privilege? NO.
  • Having "applied for" and won the Presidency, has Barack Obama provided the documentation to prove that he is entitled to it? NO.
  • What was the political orientation of the person who first brought the Birth Certificate issue to Phil Berg's attention? Far-left Democrat.
  • What is Phil Berg's Political Orientation? Liberal Democrat.
  • What is the author of this column, Robert Jay March's political orientation? Unaffiliated with any party. Conservative (not neo-Con) on Economic and Constitutional issues, Libertarian on social issues.
  • Are all "Birthers" Republicans? NO.
  • Given that Obama has refused to provide his birth Certificate, what is the logical course of action? He should be compelled to produce it or be removed from Office.
  • What happens if Obama is removed from office? In that event, legally, Joe Biden has been president since January 20, 2009, and every bill Obama has signed, unless also signed by Biden within the required time-frame, has been pocket-vetoed and is null-and-void; all appointments to Office made by Obama become null-and-void, because they were made by a man who was never President.
  • If Obama were removed, it would place Nancy Pelosi next in line to the Presidency. Should something happen to Joe Biden prior to the appointment and ratification of a new Vice President, Nancy Pelosi would become President. Do Obama's opponents consider this desirable? NO.
  • Therefore, are all "Birthers" political opponents of Obama? NO.

Applying Occam's Razor, the most likely, simplest explanation is that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen, and therefor not in compliance with Article II, Section I of The Constitution. He is ineligible to serve as President, and he knows it. That is why he will not release his birth certificate. A second, less likely explanation is that, although a natural-born citizen, he will not release his birth certificate because doing so would be acutely embarrassing for other reasons; so embarrassing that he is willing to stake his Presidency on concealing it.

 

 

 

  Return to Top of Page



Sarah Palin Resigns--
And So It Begins ...

by Robert Jay March
Saturday, July 4, 2009

Ever since she was selected to be the running mate of then-Presidential candidate John McCain, Sarah Palin has been "dumped on" by nearly everybody who is anybody in politics: both Democrat and Republican. Like the proverbial bully kicking sand into the face of the perceived 98 pound weakling, none of these political hacks realized they were dealing with Clark Kent in drag, glasses and all.

On Friday, July 3rd, Sarah Palin announced that she would resign as Governor of Alaska, effective July 26. In doing so, she discards the guise of the mild mannered Governor of a geographically large but not terribly populous state and revealed the blue and red garb of ... Super Candidate! Now that she has leaped out of the window, the only question that remains is: can she fly? Let's analyze that.

First, why have the Lex Luthors of the mainstream media and political Braniac-wanabes continued their assaults after the McCain-Palin ticket was defeated? After all, aren't most defeated Vice-Presidential candidates consigned to irrelevancy? Why continue to try to defeat the defeated?

Simple. Sarah Palin scares the bejesus out of them! Your typical politician (of both parties) is a Diamonair phony: highly polished, but fake. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is a real diamond in the rough. Yes, she lacks foreign policy experience, as opposed to the alleged genius demonstrated by Barack Obama (if you choose to swallow the bilge that MSNBC, CNN, et al. have been serving up). And she can actually wing it when the teleprompter breaks down, heaven forfend! It seems that she actually speaks her own thoughts, and can still deliver them when the notes go poof, instead of blindly reading what someone else wrote for them; how unprofessional of her!

Years ago, I took a vow that I would never lie to anyone about anything, ever, regardless of the cost; and, I have paid a high price over and over again for honoring that vow. That's why I'll never run for office -- the political pros know that you can't tell the American public the truth. We're just not able to handle it, or so they believe. That's why the campaign consultants for the Republican Party forced Mrs. Palin into interviews she was not yet ready to deal with, to feign foreign policy experience she did not yet have, thus creating the false impression of Mrs. Palin: the air head. After all, due to Senator McCain's age and prior health problems, they had to try to convince the American public that Mrs. Palin was ready to assume the Top Job on Day One, didn't they?

Was she ready from Day One? No, and she knew that. After all, she had the least experience of any candidate running -- except for Barack Obama, who had to be ready to take the Top Job from Day One, because that was the job he was running for. Would she have been ready by the end of Year One? Uh-huh, you betcha. Sarah Palin is a bright woman who, rising from Mayor of Wasilla to Governor her state, turned Alaska around. Had the McCain-Palin ticket won, and had she been left to her own devices, Vice President Palin would have steeped herself in a course of Foreign Policy "Dynamic-Tension," building herself from a foreign policy 98 pound weakling into the Charlene Atlas of international relations. I have no inside information on that; one need only look at her career from it's inception to infer that.

After the brilliant move of selecting Governor Palin as his running mate, Senator McCain allowed his own consultants to destroy the advantage that her selection gave him by means of the machinations cited above. It is now those very consultants that are trashing Sarah Palin from the Republican side. Why? Because they know that, should she become the Republican Presidential nominee, she'd never hire them. Therefor, they must move heaven and earth to see to it that she never gets that nomination. They'd be out of work for that election cycle; worse yet, she might actually win without them!

As for the Democrats: why, this woman actually believes in rugged individualism and self-reliance, characteristics that the badly-misnamed-party has spent the last half-century trying to stamp out. The Democrats assume that all Americans -- or at least, the sane ones -- want a Federal Daddy to tuck them in at night and provide for their every whim. There's an old expression: when you assume, you make an ass of u and me. No wonder their mascot is a donkey. Ward Cleaver for President! No, strike that; he set limits for, and occasionally disciplined Wally and the Beav. For them, Sarah Palin is the Wicked Witch of the far-off-North, and must be melted at all costs. What a world, what a world!

Relieved of the office of Governor, she can now focus on building political support and building her knowledge, just as Ronald Reagan did.

Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In had a segment called "News of the Future," wherein Dan Rowan, as the faux-news anchor, did several bits about Ronald Reagan being president in "1988, 20 years from now." Gales of derisive laughter ensued, yet, in 1980, Reagan in fact became President and served until 1988, ushering in a prosperity that was undiminished until Bill Clinton's policies finally succeeded in chipping away at it.

Now, the jokesters make fun of Sarah Palin, and the political pundits are all over the tube suggesting that her resignation was a bone-headed move: Dang! Why'd she move when we had her in our cross-hairs! How ignorant!

Sarah Palin will be President of the United States. Maybe in 2012 or 2016. Maybe not until 2020, when she could be our Maggie Thatcher. But she will be President.

If you've got a problem with that, get over it.

I hope to live long enough to write a history of her Presidency. The Title: "Sarah, Palin and Tall."

 

PDF File Download a pdf file of the Editorial.

 

 

  Return to Top of Page



The Election Results And The Certifi-Gate Scandal

by Robert Jay March
Wednesday, November 5, 2008

As this is being written at 10:59 PM on November 4, the cable news and broadcast networks have just this minute projected Senator Barack Obama as the winner of the election; it seems that the next President of the United States will be a Democrat. But, which Democrat?

Supreme Court Associate Justice David Hackett Souter (who usually votes with the liberal wing of the court) has ordered that the defendants in Philip J. Berg v. Barack Obama, et al. "are required to respond to Berg's Writ of Certiorari" by Dec. 1. In simple English, that means Barack Obama may (or may not, depending on how Souter rules after receiving Obama's response and Berg's response to that) be required by the Supreme Court to provide valid documents that prove he is a "natural born" citizen of the United States and thus legally eligible to serve as President as required by Article II of the Constitution.

As we have conclusively proven (see our Certifi-Gate page), Barack Obama is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States, and thus is legally ineligible to serve as President. All of the "proofs" he has provided have been exposed by us and others as forgeries, by means of forensic analysis.

To those of you who have been sending us hate mail: THIS IS NOT ABOUT RACE. THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT LEFT OR RIGHT. IT IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION.

I (Robert Jay March, editor and Publisher of The March Report) am a racially-mixed, non-Christian American. I even have Muslim members of my extended family, some of whom even have Hussein as their surname. For the record, I am a former Catholic who converted to Buddhism 37 years ago. I am not affiliated with ANY political party. My views are to the right on some issues, to the left on others (Don't get me started).

To the greater number of you who have shown their support with encouraging e-mails, or by subscribing to our Daily Alert Newsletter: take heart. This, too, shall pass.

It is a testament to the tremendous progress America has made over the last generation that centuries of prejudice have been swept aside, allowing a clearly color-blind vote to be cast. That is a cause for celebration. I am old enough to remember being horrified as I watched Bull Connor on 16mm film, as shown on the Huntley-Brinkley Report, turn high-pressure water jets and set attack dogs on civil rights protesters, who were only attempting to claim the rights every human being is entitled to, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, or sexual orientation.

The problem we face is, the candidate that has been elected, the candidate that has shattered that barrier, cannot legally serve.

We now have a constitutional crisis on our hands. Will Justice Souter ignore the Constitution and sweep this under the rug, or will he disqualify Senator Obama, thus leaving us with President Biden? How will the country and the world at large react if Barack Obama, the first person of color elected President, is disqualified, or, worse yet, removed from office after he is inaugurated? For the sake of the country, it would have been better if this had been resolved before the election. Paraphrasing Oliver Norville Hardy, "Barry, here's another nice mess you've gotten [us] into."

The best resolution to this, in my humble opinion, is a Constitutional Amendment to allow naturalized citizens to serve as President. Then, Obama can come clean, get naturalized, and face Arnold Schwarzenegger in 4 years.

"Tague Dat, Meesta Prezeedend!"

 

PDF File Download a pdf file of the Editorial.

 

 

  Return to Contents

 



Barracuda Palooza!

Bar the Door, Barry!
Sarah Barracuda's Coming!

by Robert Jay March
Saturday, August 30, 2008

Not since Brett and Bart have there been two Mavericks like McCain and Palin appearing on our television screens.

In a brilliant masterstroke designed to "close the deal" with disaffected Hillary supporters, not to mention let the air out of Senator Obama's post-convention bounce, Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, selected Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate.

This just happened on Thursday, August 29, right?

Nope; and we prove it below. You read it here FIRST. If you subsequently read it elsewhere, they got it from us.

The domain "mccainpalin.com" was registered anonymously on January 29, 2008 with DreamHost Web Hosting, a California based hosting service that handles non-profits as well as commercial accounts. Yup. January. Eight months ago. Given that it takes 24 to 48 hours for a domain name to proliferate to all servers, the running-mate decision was made at least 2 days ago, and Palin had been under consideration at least since January. More likely, as information below implies (if not outright confirms), McCain intended to select Palin all along, and the other leaks and hints were just subterfuge.

In fairness, mccainjindal.com, mccainlieberman.com, mccainhuckabee.com, mccainromney.com, and mccainpawlenty.com were also registered (none anonymously); but, when and by whom?

  • Mccainjindal.com was registered on February 10 with Name.com by Christian Investments LLC, d/b/a Protected Domain Services of 125 Rampart Way, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80230, a domain-name broker who owns over 51,000 domain names. According to RegainDomain.com, Protected Domain Services is a known "Cybersquatter." Cybersquatters register domain names that are identical or similar to someone else's name or brand that they think they will be able to sell at a profit down the road. Think of it as going long in commodity trading of website addresses. It is a practice widely considered to be unethical.
  • Mccainlieberman.com was registered on January 10, 2005 by Jerome Greenwald of 1521 Alton Rd #708, Miami, FL 33139. According to the Huffington Post, Greenwald is a Democratic donor who gave $250 to the Kerry campaign in 2004.
  • Mccainhuckabee.com was registered on June 9, 2007 by Michael Deutsch of 7000 Boulevard East #128C, Guttenberg, New Jersey 07093, a consultant who gave $1,000 to McCain 2000 campaign on February 7, 2000. According to American Stock Exchange Weekly Bulletin of April 7, 2006, he owned seat no. 663-R as of March 31, 2006. On April 9, 2005, he registered mccainpawlenty.com. He is co-owner of SCD Associates, L.L.C., a dormant corporation formed in 1993, according to corporationwiki.com. According to the Huffington Post, he had donated $256 to the 2008 McCain Campaign; guess he didn't have exact change. Perhaps he was hedging his bets when he later registered mccainhuckabee.com
  • Mccainromney.com was registered on Dec 23, 2007 by Terry Graham, a registered Independent who is soliciting offers for the sale of mccainromney.com.

Had anyone bothered looking last week (The March Report did), they would have found the "mccainpalin.com" website carrying the following information: "Welcome to McCainPalin.com -- the best source for information on the John McCain - Sarah Palin 2008 Republican Presidential Ticket. Stay tuned for important announcements." The mccainjindal.com, mccainlieberman.com, and mccainhuckabee.com sites had the typical cybersquatter advertising links on them. mccainromney.com and mccainpawlenty.com contain offers to sell mccainromney.com and mccainpawlenty.com. We couldn't ethically run the story last week in the absence of confirmation from the campaign, and since they were playing games (very successfully) with the big boys, we kinda doubted that they'd talk to us.

Now, with the minutia out of the way, let's asses what "Sarah Barracuda," a name she earned as point guard for Wasilla's championship high school basketball team, brings to the table.

This may well be the first election where, for both parties, people will be voting for the Vice-President as their primary reason for selecting a given ticket.

In the August 29th edition of The Christian Science Monitor, writer Linda Feldmann describes Gov. Palin as "The popular, telegenic governor of America's 49th state brings to the table a record of challenging the status quo, strong social conservative views, and the potential to attract disgruntled supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who came close to winning the Democratic nomination but was not chosen as nominee Barack Obama's running mate. Governor Palin's own maverick streak, pushing for ethics in government and opposing special-project funding from Washington, meshes with Senator McCain's stance." Feldmann goes on to quote Dennis Simon, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas as assessing the Palin pick as "both a bold and a risky move. Bold, because McCain went way outside the Washington, D.C., establishment and chose someone who was hardly on the radar screen; risky, because she has no exposure to the rough and tumble of national politics. I don't want to draw too close a comparison, but the last time this happened was when [the first President] Bush went with Dan Quayle." Please note that, despite the gales of derisive laughter, Bush won.

The New York Daily News' Corky Siemaszko writes:

"She's the runner-up beauty queen who could wind up in the White House.

"She's a mooseburger-eating hockey mom married to an Eskimo.

"She's a gun-toting, pro-life Christian conservative -- and a Republican reformer who took on crooks in her party.

"Meet Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, John McCain's unlikely choice for running mate - a mother of five who drives a snowmobile, flies a plane, fishes for salmon and wears the mantle of maverick like a parka."

Pat Buchanan opined: "I think this is the biggest political gamble, just about, in all of American history." He says that Palin was a "brigader for me in 1996," a reference to the Buchanan Brigades who metaphorically wielded the pitchforks when Pat was running for President.

A reformer, she took on corruption in her own party, forcing Republican Party Chairman Randy Reudrich out of office; see Wikipedia for the gory details. While this did not endear her to GOP party insiders, Palin achieved an upset victory over Alaska's powerful Gov. Frank Murkowski in the Republican primary, and went on the defeat her Democratic challenger in the 2006 race.

A survey on Laura Ingraham's website asked, "Will Palin draw a significant number of female Hillary supporters to McCain?" The results: Yes: 84%; No: 16%.

Sarah Palin is mother of five, a lifetime NRA member, and former beauty queen. A staunch opponent of abortion, she held to her principles and gave birth to her last child knowing that he had Down's Syndrome. As voters get to know her, the women will want to BE her and the men will want to wake up next to her -- AND stay for breakfast.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton is quoted in numerous media outlets as saying, "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." An Obama spokesman chiding McCain for selecting as his VICE Presidential running mate someone who has less experience than just about anyone -- except maybe . . . OBAMA!

Even Obama knows that his ticket is bass-ackwards. Note the Freudian slip Obama made on August 23, where he introduced Senator Biden as "The next President -- the next VICE President -- of the United States." You can view a BBC video of the gaffe here. I looked for some domestic video footage of this, but all of the American coverage seems to have omitted the misstatement; an error they will no doubt rectify in the near future -- my sweet patootie. Hey, kiddies, can you say "in the tank"?

Obama had to scuttle his original selection of Kathleen Sebelius for Vice President after his disastrous thumping by Senator McCain at the Saddleback Faith Forum Debate on August 17. In 2004, Sebelius was considered by the Kerry campaign for the Vice Presidential nod. Obama may now be regretting that decision, particularly since Biden has caused him a loss in poll numbers.

Whomever wins this election, it will be one for the history books. We will either have the first Black Vice President -- (whoops!) I mean, the first Black President of the United States, or the first Female Vice President.

Let the games begin.

As Nancy Wilson of Heart sang, "Oooooh, Barracuda!"

 

PDF File Download a pdf file of the Editorial.

 


Copyright © 2008 MarchReport.com. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to reproduce this article in any medium, provided that the wording is not altered or edited, that it is reproduced in its entirety, that Robert Jay March is credited as the author, and MarchReport.com is credited as the source publication. Inquiries to Robert Jay March at 1-800-878-6007.

 

 

  Return to Contents

 



What, Me Flip-Flop? Obama

Obama's Flip-Flop Flops With Those Who Previously Flipped.

by Robert Jay March.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008

When you meet a person for the first time, they are like a pane of glass: you see little more than your own indistinct reflection. You impose on them all the hopes and dreams that you hope they will fulfill. That's true whether the person is a possible client, employer, lover or leader.

Then, as you get to know the person better, some degree of disappointment sets in. You audit the reality you've begun to perceive against the idealized person you created in your head, and find the real person lacking.

That's what's happening on the left. Since beginning his campaign, Senator Obama has been saying that he would bring all U. S. troops home within 16 months of being sworn in as President of the United States. Never mind that if the terrorists in Iraq know when the U. S. troops will "get outta Dodge," they'll simply keep their powder dry until we're gone.

The Strike Force

In March 2008, Obama said:

"In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them in 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy."

One envisions Bruce Willis, Harrison Ford, Sylvester Stallone, Jackie Chan, Nicolas Cage (toupee firmly super-glued on), and Chow Yun-Fat being led into battle by Arnold Schwarzenegger (conveniently freeing up the governorship of Cah-LEE-for-Nya for a Democrat), with Steven Seagal huffing and puffing, bringing up the rear, charging into Iraq ("Tague DAT, Al Kay-Dah," the Governator catch-phrases through grinding teeth).

Bored on the Third of July

On July 3, 2008, in Fargo, N. D., Obama back tracked, saying that he would "refine" his policy after visiting Iraq and speaking with the on-site commanders. This prompted a firestorm of outrage from the left. Within two days, in the Huffington Post, Bill Press (best known as Pat Buchanan's leftmost appendage), cried out: "Oh, no. Say it isn't so. Obama didn't win the primaries by being fuzzy on Iraq. He generated so much excitement and support principally because he was out front, opposing the war in Iraq from the very beginning, while Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and others were voting for it. More than any other issue, opposition to the war in Iraq defines Obama's candidacy. He can't go soft on Iraq."

Do I Hear the Sound of Glass Breaking?

Naturally, Senator Obama, gallant agent of change that he is, changed his position. "I intend to end this war," he opined. "I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month."

This from the man that opposed our entry in the war to begin with, who opposed the surge that has resulted in Coalition casualties falling by 75% since their highest point in 2007. Never mind that, if he had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be grinding people up alive, while his sons raped the younger female populace, all three of them oppressing an entire country for their own convenience.

Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant said, "Obama's Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician." Hear, Hear. Please Hear.

I Just Want to be Popular

That's a phrase very familiar to those of us who have raised teen-aged daughters, or followed politics. To any politician, left or right, a campaign is Prom Night, and their promises are the liquor they pour into the mouths of their dates, hoping to, ahem, persuade them to acquiesce. You wanna leave Iraq? I'll do it! You wanna stay in Iraq? I'll do it! You wanna Bomb Iraq? I'll do it! You want a Spice Iraq? Ummm...I'll get you one! All I need is your vote. You'll see, I'll be true. We'll be happy together.

Let's Play Rummy

Just how did we find ourselves in this position, faced with choosing between a candidate so green he has no idea what he's doing and a candidate who used to remember what he was doing? Iraq. The American People are massively P.O'd about Iraq; but, why? Blame one Donald Henry Rumsfeld.

In 2003, 85% of the American People approved of the decision to go to war with Iraq. That figure was halved by September of 2007, and resulted in the outcry of "change" from the electorate. Why? Because it appeared that, after the famous declaration of "Mission Accomplished," we were getting our collective gluteus maximi kicked by a rag-tag bunch of extremists and seventh-century fanatics for whom the Crusades never ended. Many of those crying for change feel that they were betrayed; they were, but not in the manner that they imagine.

Big Bang Go BOOM

In the computer industry, there is a well-deserved maxim against "big bang installations." A "big bang installation" is defined as a system being deployed to all the users all at once, as opposed to an incremental rollout. In the book "Software Development With UML" by Ken Lunn, wisely advises: "Wherever possible, incremental rollout should be used. This minimizes risk and allows for rollback if the deployment is unsuccessful or the application has serious problems." He goes on to say "Deployment is the riskiest point in any system development. Even a minor fault in the application or the deployment process can cause the system to fail, with dramatic consequences. Thus care needs to be taken that a failure causes the minimal amount of damage. No matter how carefully the application has been tested, the deployment will uncover cracks. If the ship is soundly constructed, a few minor leaks can be tolerated and repaired while still afloat, but if a gaping hole appears then the ship needs to be quickly returned to dry dock before it sinks."

Bingo

That's what Rumsfeld did in Iraq. A "Big Bang Installation" of new, stripped-down, untested military strategy ordered by an arrogant man with no military experience, over the vigorous objections of those professionals who knew better. They know it wouldn't work, and it didn't, and as a result, over 4,000 people have lost their lives, with another 29,000 wounded.

The upshot is that the American People seem poised to return the Republicans to dry dock. My advice: don't. The "surge," championed by McCain and opposed by Obama, was simply a return to the sound military strategy that should have been used in the first place. Contrary to Obama's predictions, it worked. It would have worked even better if it had been done in the first place, and many who were killed or maimed would now be whole, and most of our people who are still there would now be home.

I reluctantly support John McCain for President. I say reluctantly because I would rather he had won the Presidency the last time he ran (in 2000), before, as Don Imus says, he "lost his marbles." As I said in a previous column, I define myself as neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but a LOCist--one who supports the Least Objectionable Candidate. Better a brave warrior who has seen better days than a crass panderer who has seen too few to be taken seriously.

As Ann Coulter suggested on Fox News' RedEye recently, get drunk and vote for McCain.

Inspired by "Reflections on Ice-Breaking" (1936), in which Ogden Nash famously advised "Candy Is Dandy, But liquor Is quicker," Robert Jay March says in The March Report, "McCain Must Prevail or Obama Will Derail...us"

O.K., so I'm a lousy poet. Sue me.

 

PDF File Download a pdf file of the Editorial.

 


Copyright © 2008 MarchReport.com. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to reproduce this article in any medium, provided that the wording is not altered or edited, that it is reproduced in its entirety, that Robert Jay March is credited as the author, and MarchReport.com is credited as the source publication. Inquiries to Robert Jay March at 1-800-878-6007.

 

  Return to March Report Front Page.

 

 

 

Google






 


ProBannerSwap

 

Buffett 468x60banner   Extreme Adventure Gear