Monday, January 19, 2009

One helping of crow, extra ketchup.

A couple of years ago, I posted an opinion that the Democrats were nuts for running a candidate for President who had a Middle-Eastern name at a time when a significant portion of America was in a war with folks with Middle-Eastern names.

Boy, did I mis-call that one.

Ah, well. This is an example of why I'm a cop and not a political prognosticator.

One of the things that really irritated me about the Moonbat Left during the last eight years was their continued declaration that President Bush "Isn't MY President".

Of course he was, and everyone uttering that statement should have been backhanded across the mouth and sent to bed without their supper.

Barack Obama was not my candidate. He is a gun-grabber; a closet Marxist; a liar; a snake-oil salesman; and the corruption of the Chicago Political Machine goes far deeper than the blood and bone in the man.

However, the Electoral College has spoken, and tomorrow Barack Hussein Obama will become the 44th President of the United States of America -- and my President.

We will never see eye-to-eye -- and I will freely admit that I intend to spend the next four years exercising my First Amendment right to ensure that Mr. Obama doesn't get a second term in office -- but for the next day or so, I offer my congratulations to our new President; wish for him the best of luck and join him in praying for the blessings of Providence upon our mutual Nation.

LawDog

63 comments:

Tim Covington said...

"We will never see eye-to-eye -- and I will freely admit that I intend to spend the next four years exercising my First Amendment right to ensure that Mr. Obama doesn't get a second term in office"

At least until they pass the new "Fairness Doctrine" and make it apply to all media, including the internet.

D.W. Drang said...

Once again, sir, you have summed up my sentiments well, better, in fact, than I seem to be able to do.

Bravo.

Outbreak said...

I won't be saying "He's not my president," because of the logical fallacy you noted, but every time he does something that causes public criticism, I'll be quick to point out to all the believers in Hopenchange, that I didn't vote for him.

Old NFO said...

Well said Lawdog- Regardless of our personal preferences, he IS going to be President tomorrow. I can only hope he will be a good President, and we have to respect the office. I will be watching the actions of the congress et al, and will be active in the conservative world as that is where my beliefs lie. I truly hope he does NOT do anything to hurt this country.

Rogue Medic said...

Why do you think that political pundits are accurate in their predictions?

The only people who make predictions bad enough to make political pundits look accurate are psychics, such as Jean Dixon, and those wonderful economists. The clowns, who didn't see this downturn coming are telling us we have to pay off those who created the problem. Some solution. :-(

Political pundit-wise, I thought John Edwards would win everything. He was supposed to be the contemporary JFK. I am glad I was wrong.

It would be nice if one of these parties would propose a candidate who is not campaigning as the lesser of two evils. After all, isn't Hope and Change just another way of saying the lesser of two evils?

Anonymous said...

The only reason that you didn't call that right because no one could have predicted how far the media would have gone to push Obama, and betray any journalistic integrity they may have had beforehand.

Yes, it used to be bad, but during this last election cycle it was a complete joke... or a thrill going up your leg, whatever you prefer.

And hey, it's now the media's job to make sure that this presidency goes well, as Mr. Thrill says.

Joseph said...

I will never agree with the man or his politics either...he is our first Hollywood president...all style without substance. I wish him well...for the sake of the country. But frankly, I don't think he will do well, mainly because with the economy, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan I don't think anyone could do well.
I will be interested to see how the media handles this administration. Without Bush to print slanted news about, they have to fill the newpapers with something. And All Obama, All the Time is gonna get old for a lot of people really fast.

bogie said...

I'm figuring that the "honeymoon" period is going to last maybe a month... And when his supporters figure out that they're not all going to get a bunch of free money, the war in the middle east doesn't end overnight, etc., etc., they're going to turn on him.

We need to keep asking the hard questions... Like "Okay, you voted for change. What kind of change?"

Of course, that tends to confuse them...

Tommy Paine IX said...

I agree 100% on the "Not My President" issue. That said, Obama's getting the same slack from me that Bush got from the left.

Kimberly said...

As usual, well stated.

As a former resident of the state of Illinois, I knew better than to vote for him. Change in Chicago politics tends to involve absolutely nothing except maybe who to throw under the bus to avoid prosecution.

The corruption there is only getting worse....

Jon said...

Sorry, I don't wish him well. For him to succeed is dangerous to my country.

I only wish the damage is light and the U.S. learns a valuable lesson.

wolfwalker said...

but for the next day or so, I offer my congratulations to our new President; wish for him the best of luck

I don't see how you can, without being a hypocrite. The above sentiment sounds to me not at all unlike the liberals who paraded around declaiming "I support the troops but not their mission." Good luck for the new administration means the destruction of America.

I make no bones and no excuses: I want to see this narcissistic numbskull fail. Absolutely and catastrophically. I want to see every policy he proposes backfire, and every initiative he attempts blow up in his face. I want him to fail so completely that his party doesn't renominate him for a second term, and I want to see him plod wearily offstage in four years as a completely broken man.

Tam said...

Prior to 1/20/01, I remember a lot of "Charlton Heston Is My President" siglines in certain sectors of the internets.

Anonymous said...

Hey, I'll give the left's boy Obama the same "respect" that the left gave President Bush for the last eight years. Which is say, none at all.

First, I've still never seen any evidence that Obama is even eligible to be elected president. Just exactly WHERE was he born? It seems pretty certain that it wasn't in any of the United States or its territories.

Second, what with ACORN registering MILLIONS of fraudulent voters, I believe he stole the election.

Hence, Obama is NOT my president.

chicopanther

Anonymous said...

It's all a matter of respect, wolfwalker, something of which the last couple of generations appear to have little knowledge. I wasn't a Reaganite, but the man so respected the OFFICE OF PRESIDENT that he never appeared in the Oval Office without a coat and tie on. I respect the Office of President, therefore, I must respect the position of the person who holds it. I don't have to respect the critter personally.
I didn't like a lot of things President Bush did, but I respect both the office and the man immensely. With Obama, I only respect the office.
LawMom

Berserk said...

Actually, Rogue Medic, I think it would be refreshing to see someone campaign (for any officer) with a slogan like "I'm the lesser of two evils."

Rogue Medic said...

Berserk,

The honesty would be refreshing.

The application probably wouldn't be any different.

I found the Bush/Cheney vs. Kerry/Edwards election to be interesting. No matter who won, we were pretty much guaranteed no assassination attempt. No left wing or right wing fanatical opponent of the president would want to elevate either of those, if they were vice president.

Anthony said...

I always hated when people said that garbage. Constitutionally Obama is my President, fine, but like someone else pointed out it will be made clear that I did not vote for this man, and I warned others about him, so don't blame me.

Jack said...

Did anyone else notice that it was "George Walker Bush" but "Barack H. Obama"?

js said...

I couldn't agree with you more. I SO hope we are wrong...

The Bad Yogi said...

Remember that the first "not my president" was a republican Senator referring to Clinton. And echoed by a senior member of the armed forces, that Clinton wasn't my CinC.

Did you object then, too?

So it goes both ways. Can we all just hold his feet to the fire without villifying him? Can we disagree strongly without turning into the wingnuts/moonbats from either side?

Can we admit error? I voted for Bush. The first time. Ooops. Do you like what we did to each other the last 8 years? How's it working out?

Can we change HOW we do things?

Shell said...

Dunno about anyone else, Bad Yogi, but I objected back then and always have. To those who say, "He's not my President." I say, "Perhaps not, but he is the President.", whether you like it or not. Deal with it.

LawMom has the straight of it.

Did anyone who watched the inauguration notice the hug and "Good luck." that the new President got from his immediate predecessor? While they've touted the smoothness of the preparations for and the transition of administrations itself, I haven't seen the vaunted MSM note in any way that it's due to the class, grace, and hard work of President Bush and his people.

Whatever else is ever said about George the Younger, he understands that there is more to being POTUS than just having your name on the door (so to speak) and being able to order people around.

Nathan said...

Very well said sir.

bogie said...

I'm guessing that the Obama administration isn't going to have to go recover the former contents of the White House from the former tenants... Like the former tenants had to do from the bunch before them...

wolfwalker said...

LawMom wrote: It's all a matter of respect, wolfwalker, something of which the last couple of generations appear to have little knowledge.

Oh, I have plenty of knowledge of it. I also have plenty of knowledge of being denied it by liberals for at least the last sixteen years. Liberals who were acting out of calculated malice, casual cruelty, and conscious hatred, all backed by unconscious bigotry. I literally do not remember the last time any liberal showed any respect for me or my political views.

Never again will I be kind or generous to a liberal in the foolish and naive hope that they will react as human beings and show respect or kindness in return. I now apply the Tit-for-Tat rule to them: do unto them as they have already done unto me. And that means the bloody flag: no respect, no quarter, no mercy.

ajdshootist said...

Well he has been Crowned when is he going to walk on water and show us the Farting Pink Unicorns farting Rainbows of Love and Peace and heal the world prevent Global Warming well i am WAITING!!!!!!!!!!

Grunt said...

ObamalammaDingDong is the president, and the office gets my respect.BHO however is an interloper who has fialed , by virtue of ommission to prove his eligbility to hold the office he now holds.he gets no respect other than that due the office. I perosnally feel he is an enemy of everything the Founding Fathers wanted for this nation.(He has much company in this I will admit with many politicians of both parties being right there with him). I pray NOTHING happens to him(and hope y'all do also) as I do not feel the nation would survive the civil unrest that followed. I too will fight his attempts to limit our Creator endowed, constitutionally affirmed rights to the end.

munchkinwrangler said...

Whether I agree with his policies or not, he's the publically elected President of the United States, and you're damn straight he's my President.

I wish him all the best, because that's the hardest job in the world. If you want him to fail just because he doesn't carry the proper letter after his name, you wish ill on our country, and you may just be better off moving to Europe for the duration of the BHO administration. I had no patience for the liberals who claimed that GWB wasn't "their President", and I'll have none for the conservatives who claim the same thing now.

doug in colorado said...

this is not Obama derangement syndrome, it's not racially morivated, it's strictly on principle that I say this:

If his idea of success is a new round of the assault weapons ban and other "sensible" gun control, union domination of the workplace with the end of secret ballots, 600,000 more federal employees as a jobs program, revisiting NAFTA and all those other free trade agreements, lack of support for Israel, sitting down with Iranian terrorist/government officials, buying up all the banks and other major businesses and putting Barney Frank in charge, funneling more money to ACORN for more voter fraud, and paying back his Chicago cronies for helping him get his hand into the pocket of the Treasury...well, you get the picture...if that's his idea of success and change and hope in America, I cannot wish the man luck or success or anything but early impeachment and abject failure. I'm basing this entirely on the content of his character (or the lack thereof) not on the color of his skin.

NavyChief said...

I enlisted in the Navy during Reagan's second term. I was honered to serve under him, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43. Each of them, in their turn, WAS my President. Part of the oath I swore was, "...and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States..." Likewise, though I may wish otherwise, President Obama IS my President. And yes, I wish him "fair winds and following seas." (My fellow squids will most certainly pick up on my double meaning there.)

wolfwalker said...

You who want to give the new God-King a fair shake -- keep in mind that this pile of filth is what you're defending and wishing good luck to.

I repeat: I will start showing respect to him and his zombie-cult followers when they start showing respect to me. Not a microsecond before.

fuzzys dad said...

Well said dog.

Anonymous said...

Obama is not the president. He was born in Kenya. He may be filling the position but he is not legitimate.I hope he fails miserably.

Rogue Medic said...

Perhaps people, who are too stupid to be able to come up with legitimate criticisms, feel good to claim that President Obama is not an American (he was born in Hawaii, which is part of the US), or that he was the one who chose his middle name, and that was because of some neonatal allegiance to some Arab country. This conspiracy theory stuff should be treated as similar conspiracy theories, with ridicule.

Grow up.

There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize about the president's politics. This infantile nonsense only makes it seem that the liberals know what they are doing.

He is president, which certainly does not place him above criticism, but being juvenile accomplishes nothing positive.

Anonymous said...

Well, its pretty easy to pick and choose the facts and your perspective if you want to make a case against anyone. Put up an acronym like ACORN, call someone Marxist, it is pretty effective. What interests me is whether or not anyone here who is so idealistic as to rant against the new president also ranted when the now old one trampled on the rights that GENERATIONS of Americans gave the last full measure of their devotion to protect? Wow, I guess that makes GWB look pretty bad, doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

This wacko idea of loyalty regardless of conscience kept "good Germans" following the orders of Hitler. Is there anything he could do that would cause you to reject him as leader?

Cybrludite said...

Anon at 10:17,

Could you be so kind as to list the specific rights so trampled?

Anonymous said...

With all the Obama-bashing here, I am curious to see where one derives that his predecessor did all that good a job...

Come on, show me.

Anonymous said...

Rights trampled would be a long list, BUT the biggest item on the list of overreaches by the last administration would be habeas. Now before everyone here starts screaming about how this applies only to "terrorists" I want 2 reasonable answers. 1 - How do you know they are terrorists? 2. If a law was vaguely worded that allowed the government to confiscate your firearms but you were assured that it only applied to 'bad' people would you feel your rights were protected?

wolfwalker said...

I'm not aware of any terrorism-related case in which an American citizen was denied habeas, or any of his or her other constitutional rights. The Left's castrato shrieks of "denial of habeas!" all involved cases of foreigners captured on the field of battle and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay -- individuals who, by dint of their refusal to obey the Geneva Conventions, had no rights that the US government was obliged to respect.

Rogue Medic said...

wolfwalker,

What about the removal of the judicial review for FISA warrants. If you watched the hearings on that, the FISA judges stated that they never denied a warrant. There was also a 3 day period after the search before the they needed to obtain a warrant, so no warrant was needed at the time of the search. Yet this wasn't enough for President Bush and the rest of the terrorist fear mongers. All of the arguments were about what if a terrorist has a nuclear bomb and there are just minutes left.

First, this is a movie plot, not a real situation faced by law enforcement.

Second, if this situation were to exist, what LEO would refuse to act because of a fear of violating Constitutional rights?

Third, what LEO would be more worried about making a case after the detonation, than about preventing the detonation, since they do tend to be suicide bombers?

When you get the American Library Association upset, you know that you have done something extreme. All of these activities are top secret. Just telling someone that they were investigated is a crime, so we have no way of knowing how many times this is done, or which Americans are affected.

Anonymous said...

In 1898, William Randolph Hearst bet Joseph Pulitzer that he could start a war with his newspaper. He succeeded, and America had the ridiculous and ruinous Spanish-American War.
As a result, we had one of our 'hero' presidents elected. Like Grant and Eisenhower, he was neither good nor bad; in this case, he was just blusterous and loud in a period which required no real talent.
Yellow journalism was born, and this election is proof that 110 years later, it's alive and well.
Now we have another media-elected president. As a former member of that profession, I watched, both amused and apalled, by the American people's gullability and celebrity worship.
I would bet that 90% of the people who voted for Obama never truly investigated his qualifications nor saw beyond the color, the rhetoric, and the still-extant (and disgusting) white American capacity for ancestral guilt (oh, yeah, and Brad Pitt was 'for' him)-and the media played it to the hilt.
One wonders just who bet whom they could elect this-person-president.
LawMom

armedandsafe said...

"We live in the greatest country in the world. Together we can change that."

Not a direct quote, but my paraphrase of what I remember him saying in one of his early speeches.

I honor the office of the President of the United States. The man occupying that office at any given time is just that: a man. I hope the reality of the times is recognized by this man and that he has no time nor energy left to spend on changing the basic structure of our country's philosophy and structure.

I hope we have enough time and energy to fight against and defeat any attempts by certain of our hired hands to change this country's philosophy and structure.

"Hope and change." Come on, 2010.

Pops

Anonymous said...

I did not mean for my posting to devolve into a debate on the prior administration. It was pointing out how easy it is to paint someone as pure EVIL. The right of Habeas goes back farther than our Constitution, our treaties have the force of law behind them, and one of the foreigners who was denied Habeas was a Canadian citizen. What battlefield was he picked up from? A US airport. Also, how could anyone know if a Citizen was detained? Its circular. Most Gitmo detainees were not taken "off the field of battle" btw. But the way the law has been written makes that a moot point. Factually, BHO could "declare" GWB an unlawful enemy combatant and have him drug to Gitmo RIGHT NOW under the current law and regulations. I am not saying BHO is bad or good. I am just puzzled by the invective. Would most here be happier if Hillary had been elected? Not by a long shot. Why was the media able to 'elect' this man? Because the prior president made it impossible for any republican to win. If the GOP doesnt learn how to either build a new coalition, recognize mistakes, or be more centrist, we all will have to stomach decades of Democratic legislatures and presidents. When your side LOSES then before you start pointing at the other team, look at your own and ask "What did WE do wrong?"

crankylitprof said...

Everyone knows you should serve crow with a nice mango chutney.

I'm with LawMom. I'll respect the Office...but the current occupant leaves a great deal to be desired, policy-wise.

Rogue Medic said...

crankylitprof,

not with some fava beans and a nice chianti?

Crucis said...

I've had crow a few times. Heinz 57 is much better than ketchup!

(I'll not joy the crowd about your reason for a Crow lunch.)

wolfwalker said...

Rogue Medic:

What about the removal of the judicial review for FISA warrants.

What about it? FISA refers to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance. Can you show me a case where an American citizen had his or her rights violated by means of a FISA warrant?

If you watched the hearings on that, the FISA judges stated that they never denied a warrant.

A fact that I find highly disquieting. But I don't know the details, so I can't say anything more about it. It is, after all, possible that every warrant was legally justified. Unlikely, I'll grant you, but still possible. Somewhat more so when the secrecy shroud permits use of classified data.

First, this is a movie plot, not a real situation faced by law enforcement.

Nonsense. It's a real situation that happens every day. An imminent threat to life or limb is one of the "exigent circumstances" routinely used by state and local cops to justify warrantless searches. It's also typical of the hypotheticals that law school professors delight in throwing at their students. And it's a valid engineer/troubleshooter's question to ask: if you're way out on the edge of the envelope, everything that could go wrong has gone wrong, and all the usual options have crapped out on you, what's left? You can obey Law A or Law B, but not both. But you're sworn to uphold both laws. Oh, and you've got a wife and kids to support, and you know the local DA is a vindictive s.o.b. who hates your guts and is just lusting for a way to take you down. What do you do?

Second, if this situation were to exist, what LEO would refuse to act because of a fear of violating Constitutional rights?

How many LEO's would execute an order to confiscate privately held firearms, despite the Second Amendment and the Heller ruling? Surveys show that quite a lot of them would.

wolfwalker said...

One further thought, Rogue Medic: You asked, Second, if this situation were to exist, what LEO would refuse to act because of a fear of violating Constitutional rights?

We know there are LEOs who would refuse to act in such a situation -- because it's already happened! During the summer of 2001, someone tipped the FBI to suspicious behavior by a man who later proved to be part of the 9/11 plot. Information on his laptop computer might have broken the whole plot, but the FBI couldn't get a warrant to legally seize and search it. Wikipedia says they even tried to get a FISA warrant -- and were still turned down. SO much for "all FISA warrants are granted."

Rogue Medic said...

wolfwalker,

During the hearings they were discussing sneak and peek warrants and FISA. I may have made a connection that was not correct. The sneak and peek warrants also have the 3 day period to obtain a warrant, after the search. I do not know if the FISA courts had anything to do with these warrants, but that was the impression I had. The PATRIOT Act was about changing the rules for domestic surveillance as well as foreign surveillance. The hearings I was watching were on the PATRIOT Act.

You cut off part of my quote, apparently to make your point seem reasonable, when my quote was not about a reasonable concern. Here is the whole quote.

All of the arguments were about what if a terrorist has a nuclear bomb and there are just minutes left.

First, this is a movie plot, not a real situation faced by law enforcement.


Are you claiming that there are nuclear weapons that are just minutes from detonation, but stopped by law enforcement - every day?

It is a movie plot. It was used as an example of why we need the PATRIOT act. It certainly does not happen every day, although use of exigent circumstances probably does happen every day. Your suggestion that people would be more worried about their jobs than a ticking nuclear weapon, is absurd.

And why are these nuclear weapons always ticking? Oh yeah! Got to make it a scary visual, so that people will not think rationally. So that people will think of the movies, where the end of the world is prevented with 007 left on the clock!

Your second comment, about attempting to obtain a warrant to seize a computer, is also misleading. You wrote:

someone tipped the FBI to suspicious behavior by a man who later proved to be part of the 9/11 plot. Information on his laptop computer might have broken the whole plot,

Suspicious behavior is a whole different category of crime from a ticking nuclear weapon. You are using the information obtained after the fact to suggest that we should have known this before the fact. If only the world worked that way.

There were many ways that the 9/11 attacks should have been stopped. Our intelligence agencies were focused on the wrong threats. Now they are obsessed with airplanes and subways, because the people in charge are reactionary. The terrorist will defeat that kind of security.

WW I. Germany invades France by direct assault. After WWI, France decides that it was so horrible, that they must prevent the possibility of it happening again. They build the Maginot Line.

WW II. Germany invades France by driving around the Maginot Line.

France had felt secure, because they had done a tremendous job of preventing the last type of attack. They had irrationally addressed the fears, but not the reality. In the 4+ years of WW I, Germany never completely occupied France. In WW II, in part because of this false sense of security, it took six weeks for France, reinforced by British and Canadian troops, to surrender.

Maybe we should work on security that is effective.

TOTWTYTR said...

Don't feel bad LD. Who could have predicted that enough voters would have been stupid enough to vote for a guy that spent most of the campaign hiding his past?

We know less about Pres. Obama than we do about any other major political figure in my life time.

We're going to regret that someday. Soon, probably.

RM, the FISA court never denied a warrant under the Clinton Administration either.

Anonymous, they are not at Gitmo because they are "terrorists". They are at Gitmo because they are unlawful combatants who were captured in combat. The legal punishment for that is execution after a military trial. That's what the Geneva Convention calls for.

Rogue Medic said...

TOTWTYTR,

I was not limiting that to any time period. I was just stating what one of the FISA judges had said during the hearings. I do not know if it is accurate.

Anonymous said...

Wolfwalker, U.S. Citizens involved in this: Hamdi and Jose Padilla—have received the full "enemy combatant" treatment, locked up indefinitely without access to courts.

TOTWTYTR, Yeah they were captured, but the VAST majority were not captured by Anyone that has credibility. Check out this study : http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

I'm sorry, but when you are paying for prisoners in one of the poorest areas of the world, how sure can you be that these are people who EVER threatened U.S. troops?

And again no one has commented on the legality of carting our past president off to CUBA based on the policies that he himself set up.

But frankly the truth of this is between the far right and far left. I just hate to see people trying to radicalize it.

Anonymous said...

If I were to excercise my 2nd Amendment rights and shot a fleeing anyone in the backside, I would be the first to be arrested and thrown in jail.

Rick

Mark said...

Brack Hussein Obama has already restored the transparency and accountability of the White House in his first few days in office. I believe he will restore most of the Constitution into being the rule of law.

George W Bush destroyed that transparency as soon as he could. He waged war on the Constitution, instead of serving it.

*sighs*

America isn't a country. It's an idea, defined by the Constitution. If you all really think that what you want is worth destroying the constitution for then I respectfully submit that you do not actually want to live in America. If Barack Hussein Obama serves and upholds the Constitution in *ANY MEASURE*, he's already well ahead of George W. Bush and the Republican Party.

Anonymous said...

ROTFLMAO!!! @ Mark.
LM.

phlegmfatale said...

Mark - Beverage alert on that transparancy statement next time, please. It's generally considered a courtesy to conclude such comments with "thank you, I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waitress."

Anonymous said...

There must be something classical which would elevate Mark's prose to even greater descriptive heighths. Now, what was it? Oh, yes, that's it-"through a glass darkly."
LawMom.

Anonymous said...

Sigh, to wish the worst for the president is to wish the worst for our country.

What good did Bush do in his two terms?

Anonymous said...

Wrong. In most instances, the president has to get anything he wants via Congress-unless, of course, as threatened, Obama invokes executive privilege. Given his lack of experience in ANYTHING and the dubious qualities of the people with whom he has surrounded himself, you'd best pray that Congress is more honest, more trustworthy, and more sensible than they've been in a century for this ride.
LM.

phlegmfatale said...

or how about "a dark, adapted idolator?"

Windy Wilson said...

He is also evidently Der Fuehrer of a bunch of moonbat actors who have sworn allegiance to the man instead of the flag (or more properly, the constitution).

Orion said...

If I could convince myself that we had actually held an election, rather than a Soviet-style rigged coronation, I would be in complete agreement with you. He may even have won a real election - But I don't think we had one.

WAYYY too much evidence of fraud for this one to pass muster.

Orion