Dr. Paula Gordon has done extensive research and created an all encompassing catalogue of the Obama eligibility issue at her site Eligibility Questions.
She listened to last Monday’s The Andrea Shea King Show radio program during which we talked with political writer JB Williams about Obama’s personal history. What she came away with was the discussion about third party elections, and why that would be a dangerous idea in the upcoming November election.
Following that, she posted her obervations on World Net Daily’s online forum under her moniker Key Eligibility Question.
Dr. Gordon addressed points brought out during the interview that dovetail with the post I wrote about it in “Beck benches ‘Question With Boldness’; while US Congressman asks boldly”. That post, by the way, is so far, the most read post (by better than two to one) on this site for the second day in a row. It has also garnered a respectable number of comments, for this site anyway.
Here’s what Dr. Gordon took from the JB Williams interview (reprinted here with her permission). If you haven’t listened to the show and would like to find out what all this is about, she has included the link below:
JB Williams re working within the two parties
Posted by Key Eligibility Question on Jan 09, 2010 15:03
JB Williams has some fascinating things to say about the problem with Third Parties in his recent interview with Andrea Shea King that can be heard at
He says that trying to compete as a third party would be like trying to field a baseball team against a football team and expect to make it to the Superbowl.
He also talks about the initiatives that are well underway by Freedom Force and The National Precinct Alliance and their initiatives that could result in a conservative win in the Superbowl.
It seems to me that there is a great wisdom in simply running as Republicans (or if a Democrat as a conservative Democrat) and defeating the traditional party member when there is one in the primaries. I think there is greater assurance of winning the State races as well as the Superbowl if that approach is followed. With the momentum that is growing for conservatives and Constitutionalists, that would seem to me to be the best fastest way to bring common sense back to governing America.
JB Williams has a new piece up at Canada Free Press. This will get you started:
So as not to offend any of his Muslim brethren who paid for his college education and much of his presidential campaign, Obama rejects “terror profiling” the very common traits of Middle Eastern men most likely to travel with a bomb in their shorts in favor of the TSA treating everyone at an airport like a potential terrorist.
And although the intelligence community did its job, and the fact is, it was Hillary Clinton’s State Department, which sat on the knowledge that a Yemen member of Al Qaeda was about to board a commercial flight for Detroit with a bomb in his underwear, Obama uses the Christmas Bomber opportunity to take another swipe at the CIA – a swipe that Leon Panetta was fast to rebuff.
The nation, many states and municipalities, along with a large segment of the population of the nation is facing large debt obligations.
What should we do about government debt?
The first question to ask is this: Is past and current debt an obligation that must be met?
If you answered no, then selective default or overall bankruptcy is an option.
If you answered yes, then we have only three choices. We must make more, spend less, adjust our expectations, or use a combination of all three.
To generate more tax revenue, we have to produce goods or services that others want. We can tax the production, the sale, the increase in value, the usage, the gross business and/or personal income, or the net business and/or personal income.
This is where the rub begins.
In order to reward those who have helped those who have been elected to office, we permit representatives to amend laws, rules and regulations with riders to primary bills of legislation with complex and qualifying language. This amounts to nothing more than insider trading, as more-often-than not, once the general public realizes that an opportunity exists, those who were on the inside, have already run the race and have moved on to the winners circle to collect a handsome payoff.
We live in a world of warlords. Warlords fight and control through the threat and use of force. Various video games increased the awareness of the word warlord, but rarely is the term used in politics; but it should.
The myth of Mr. Smith being able to go to Washington and possibly, one day becoming the common man’s President has been bought hook, line, and sinker as a result of nationalism, patriotism, and myopic rose colored glassed as a result of heavily manipulated public education of revisionist history. The truth of the matter is that we were born from, in, and remain in a state of conflict at home and abroad. Conflict has always existed, and it always will. In order to survive and prosper, humans gather in groups akin to dogs, wolves, bears, fish, and birds, who pack, school, and flock. A leader (warlord) emerges from natural selection, more often due to the luck of genetic configuration while in the womb and external circumstances we merely know of as luck. When there are two or more lucky genetic winners, conflict arises. The members of the pack must decide to stay loyal to the existing warlord, change allegiance to the challenger, or declare neutrality and risk offending everyone and being pushed around. The fourth option is the creation of a third group.
The Fourth Option: The Thirds
The fourth option is often the option of last resort. The members are not fond of the current or challenging warlord. The spoils system enjoyed by the warlords and their minions, have left the Thirds in a position of constant turmoil. When not fighting the forces outside the pack, the Thirds are forced to witness and engage in the fighting within the pack. The Thirds are the workers of the pack. They gather, hunt, and provide for themselves and those who are physically, emotionally, and intellectually unable to fully take care of themselves. The Thirds do this naturally, without the expectation of reward for it is the right thing to do in order to ensure the survival and growth of the pack. The developing leader of the Thirds is not as superior and gifted as the incumbent and challenging warlord, and so he relies upon the law of large numbers, the strength of many as opposed to that of the individual. Others within the Thirds begin to fill in the gaps, work as a unit, and grow in strength. And then, one day it happens.
The warlords, leader and challenger, go at it again. The spoils of the days hunt have been nearly consumed by the two and the last remaining fleshed bone remains. They fight one another while the Thirds grow hungry, watch, simmer, and begin to boil in anger and disgust. The fight begins to subside as fatigue sets.
Without warning, without a word said, the Thirds react as one and pounce on the two warlords. The first couple of Thirds are quickly tossed aside, but they do not stop. The two warlords are overwhelmed and to the surprise of everyone, are quickly defeated.
The Thirds restrain and control the two warlords and now must make the decision to either kill them off or banish them from the pack. A mature and wise member of the Thirds steps forward to say that the pack is strong with the defeated warlords, for outside forces remain that require the full strength of the pack; however, there are terms and conditions that the defeated warlords must not violate. The warlords have no choice; they capitulate.
The consensus of the pack is that the ways of the pack will change. Each member is responsible for his welfare and what he has gathered in excess will be shared with those-in-need and saved when the drought arrives; which it does every year. The pack divides into three, generally equal social groups. The spoils system of rewarding the fittest remains, but those in need due to injury while gathering and hunting are taken care of as never before by those who know them best, their family within the larger pack. At times, families struggle and the pack respond appropriately, not out of a moral basis but out of the realization that the survival of the pack requires nothing less.
The Founding Whigs of the United States in the 1700s understood the trilogy of balanced needs between We the People, the States, and the Nation, by creating a trilogy of governance, where equality existed between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. The formalization of three equal political groupings was never considered as natural selection, of and by the people, cannot and must not be regulated.
The incumbent and challenging warlords, the Modern Tories that carry the banners of the Democratic and Republican Parties, have effectively blocked the efforts of the Thirds; and they continue. The “True” Thirds are those who are more than lip service tea drinkers of the Republican Party. The “True” Thirds of the nation are growing hungry, watching with disgust, simmering, and beginning to boil-over in anger.
Warlords Beware: The True Thirds Are Lying In Wait No More.
Telling The Truth
Spend Less, Make More, Adjust Expectations
The Fourth Option: The Trilogy
It’s Just That Simple