World News Korner

It's just too bad that so many Americans refuse to recognize the hand of the creators in bringing everything around us to life. And their purpose for doing so.




Source

Courtesy of Gallup:

Nearly two in three uninsured Americans say they will get insurance by Jan. 1, 2014, rather than pay a fine as mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), while one in four say they will pay the fine. Less than half of the uninsured say they plan on getting health insurance specifically through a federal or state health insurance exchange.

Personally I think that this number goes up once more people learn about how the program works and get some help cutting through the Republican bullshit.

And that theory is supported by the data that Gallup gathered in their poll:

Overall, 83% of Americans are aware that most Americans will be required to have health insurance or pay a fine beginning January 2014. This awareness drops to 68% among those who are uninsured, and is at 69% among the vital group of 18- to 29-year-olds who are the most likely of any age group to be uninsured.

Kind of frustrating that the very people who need this program the most seem to know the least about it. Gee almost as if some nefarious group had tried to confuse them and discourage them from learning more.

By the way you can count me among the uninsured who will soon be taking advantage of Obamacare.

I live in Alaska, where our Governor has completely refused to cooperate with the program, so I imagine I will run into obstacles, however I will do it and report back to all of you as to how it goes and what I learn.




Source

The first excerpts were taken from an op-ed that was published yesterday at The Patriot Factor titled: Both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are eligible to be President or Vice-President; - But Obama is not.

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Now reread these words very carefully again, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...” “At the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...” This again is a key phrase that allows both Cruz and Rubio to be the Republican nominee for either position.

Let me again explain...the requirement to be ‘natural born’ was an attempt to alleviate the fears that foreign aristocrats might immigrate to the new nation...the United States of America...and use their wealth and influence, and power to impose a monarchy upon the people, a monarchy, the very rule of government that the Founders were opposed to.

So to make sure this did not happen, as they were laying the foundations of the laws of our land that would became our Constitution, the Founders made it clear that at the time of the “Adoption of this Constitution” that no one NOT born on United States soil would be eligible to become President, because they feared that England might still try to destroy the emerging nation from within by ‘planting’ a person of their choosing within the emerging ranks of leaders.

Breaking it down even further, this phrase uses the term ‘natural born’ in context only to the time in which the Constitution was being adopted and makes NO reference to ‘natural born’ in context to later years. [...]

The indisputable fact is that Ted Cruz's mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born and raised in the U.S...in Delaware...did NOT go to Canada until her mid-to late 20s. and did NOT have Ted until into her 30's...way beyond the mandatory 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement.

And herein lies Barack HUSSEIN Obama's problems for whether he was born in Kenya as some claim or whether he was born in Hawaii as others claim...his American citizen mother did NOT reside in the U.S. for 5 years after age 14 as she was 18 years of age when Obama was born...only 4 years after reaching the mandatory 14 years of age...and Obama was born in 1964 so he comes under the same rules of law as Ted Cruz does.

This simple fact makes Barack HUSSEIN Obama ineligible to be President NO matter which side of the 'birther' vs 'non-birther' battle one is on.[...] Full Op-Ed @ The Patriot Factor.

Obama DOB 1964? The highlighted portion is the only part that is correct. The rest is complete rubbish.

Facts about the Grandfather Clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution (which is not a dictionary):

Under the Grandfather Clause the person must have been a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause the person must have been born in the USA to parents who were born Citizens of the United States when the child was born. Under the NBC clause it does not matter if the parents were foreign born but only that they both be U.S. Citizens (either born or naturalized) when the child is born in the USA. Both Chester Arthur and Barack Obama were unconstitutionally seated due to Election Fraud and their lying about their respective nativity stories and hiding and destroying their personal early life records. It has been recently discovered that despite the fact the Chester Arthur's father ultimately was a U.S. Citizen, he did not naturalize until after his son Chester Arthur was born. Obama's father was never a U.S. Citizen, never intended to be, was not even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent resident. [...] - CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret).

A famous Holmesian dictum provides that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921) (Holmes, J.). There have been 43 Americans that have served as President (not including Barack Obama). Ten were born before 1787. Until Martin Van Buren (who was born in 1782 or six years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence) became President in 1837 (making him the 8th president), all the Presidents had been born before 1776 to parents who, undoubtedly, at the time considered themselves to be loyal subjects of one of the British Kings. The president following Van Buren, William H. Harrison (the 9th president), was also born before 1776 to parents who were British “natural born subjects.” All Presidents born before July 4, 1776, were born British “natural born subjects.” Those early presidents were naturalized to become “Citizens of the United States” through the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution. These presidents included Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, and Harrison. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, allowing anyone who was a “Citizen of the United States” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible to be President, grandfathered these presidents to be eligible. All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria, i.e., born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who were themselves U.S. citizens at the time of the President’s birth. Neither Arthur nor Obama were “natural born Citizens” at the time of birth. Arthur was born to an alien father who also made his U.S. citizen mother an alien. Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father who never became a U.S. citizen and, being here only on a temporary student visa, was never even an immigrant. There have been 46 Americans that have served as Vice-President (not including Mr. Biden). Ten were born before 1787. All Vice-Presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria. Fourteen Vice Presidents have gone on to be President. [...]

The citizens made the Constitution and their government. The Constitution and government did not make the citizens. The citizens had the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness granted to them by nature and their Creator and not by the Constitution or government. On July 4, 1776, our first Americans declared independence from Great Britain and created the new American community of free and independent states. July 4, 1776 is therefore the critical date which established American citizenship. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the first constitution of the United States, which went into use in 1777 and which were formally ratified on March 1, 1781, officially recognized the nation as the "United States of America." Hence, all those who helped create the new nation became its members and therefore its citizens. These were the first "Citizens of the United States," which Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 grandfathered to be eligible to be President provided they were born before the adoption of the Constitution.

Hence, anyone born after July 4, 1776 in the U.S. to parents who became "Citizens of the United States" as a result of the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution was born in the country to U.S. citizen parents and therefore a "natural born Citizen." The First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 even extended the “natural born Citizen” status to persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents. The Third Congress, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, repealed the 1790 Act and declared such children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be considered as “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born Citizens.”

The first President to be born after July 4, 1776 in the U.S. to parents who became "Citizens of the United States" on July 4, 1776 was Martin Van Buren, who was born in 1782 in New York. He was therefore the first President to be a "natural born Citizen." Tyler was the second President to be born under these birth circumstances which makes him the second President to be a "natural born Citizen."

Let us now examine how President James Buchanan, who had an Irish father, Woodrow Wilson, who had an English mother, and Herbert Hoover, who had a Canadian mother, were “natural born Citizens.” As we have seen, President Thomas Jefferson, whose mother was born in England, and Andrew Jackson, whose parents were both born in Ireland, were grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Chester Arthur, not being either grandfathered or a “natural born Citizen,” will be treated separately.

When determining whether a child born in the U.S. is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” the question is not whether the parents of the child are foreign born. Rather, the question is whether they are “citizens of the United States” at the time of the child’s birth in the United States. In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), our U.S. Supreme Court, providing the same definition of a “natural born citizen” as did Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758), but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, stated:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80. So as we can see, the Supreme Court told us that a “natural born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. See also, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” and cited Vattel and quoted his definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett but relied on the English common law to define a born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment).

The status of being “citizens of the United States” can be acquired by the parents by either being “natural born Citizens” or by becoming “citizens of the United States” by naturalization under an Act of Congress or treaty or if born in the U.S. under the 14th Amendment. The case of Perkins v Elg 307 U. S. 325 (1939) makes the point and shows how a child born in the U.S. to naturalized parents was declared a “natural born Citizen.” The central question in the Perkins case dealt with whether the Elg child lost her U.S. birth citizenship status because of the acts of her parents and not because of anything she elected to do or some treaty or Act of Congress. But the case is also important in understanding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”
Under out naturalization laws, citizenship can be derived from a close relation to a family member. Historically, a number of U.S. laws have provided for the automatic naturalization of children or wives (not husbands) of naturalized U.S. citizens. In some periods of our history, these laws provided that married women derived citizenship from their husband and had no control over their status. Under the Act of 10 February 1855, a woman automatically became an American upon marrying a U.S. citizen or following the naturalization of her foreign husband. Kelly v. Owen, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 496 (1868). The 1922 Married Women's Act (or the Cable Act) finally severed the link between naturalization and marital status for most women.

Marie Elg's parents emigrated from Sweden to the U.S. in 1906. In that same year, Mr. Elg naturalized and became a U.S. citizen. Under the then existing naturalization laws (Act of 10 February 1855), his wife automatically became a U.S. citizen through the U.S. naturalization of her husband. Hence, when Marie Elg was born in the U.S. in 1907 both her mother and father were U.S. citizens. Marie Elg was therefore a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. The Court found that “[o]n her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.” Additionally, the lower court found Elg to be a “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this finding. The Court therefore gave a child born to naturalized “citizens of the United States” the right to run for President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Elg therefore once again affirmed the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to citizen parents, a definition that was confirmed during the Founding by Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758). On the other hand, no U.S. Supreme Court decision has found a child born to one or two alien parents to be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

So as we can see, a “natural born Citizen” can be produced by being born in the U.S. to naturalized parents who are “citizens of the United States.” Also, under our old naturalization laws, once a woman married a U.S. citizen, she herself automatically became a U.S. citizen derivatively from her husband. These laws apply to show that three of the six Presidents listed were “natural born Citizens.” Jefferson was not a “natural born Citizen” but, adhering to the revolution, was a “citizen of the United States.” Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, he was grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Jackson, also became a “citizen of the United States” by adhering to the revolution and also grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Buchanan’s father naturalized to become a “citizen of the United States” prior to his son’s birth. Wilson’s mother became a “citizen of the United States” when she married her husband who was a “citizen of the United States.” Hoover’s mother became a “citizen of the United States” when she married her husband who was a “citizen of the United States." So except for Jefferson and Jackson who were grandfathered, all these presidents were born in the U.S. to parents who were at the time of their birth “citizens of the United States.” They were all “natural born Citizens.”

The only exception to all this, apart from Barack Obama, is Chester Arthur. [...] Attorney Mario Apuzzo.

The Patriot Factor then attempts to tie in the 14th Amendment even though an Appeals Court ruled:

To the extent appellant maintains that Article II, Section I, clause 5 of the United States Constitution has been implicitly repealed to the extent it bars naturalized citizens such as himself from holding the office of President, appellant failed to state a claim for relief. Appellant cites no authority to support his contention that a constitutional provision can be implicitly repealed, nor has he shown the natural-born citizen requirement is in irreconcilable conflict with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, or that those amendments “cover[ ] the whole subject” of the requirement and are “clearly intended as a substitute.” Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254, 273 (2003). [...] - United States Court of Appeals.

The CRS memos also were dragged into the piece. They've been thoroughly debunked here.

There's a reason why Justice Thomas stated they are evading the NBC issue... You've been had!


Source

Obama's Kenyan brother and purported money manager for radical jihadist groups including the Muslim Brotherhood is now attacking Walid Shoebat and Dr. Jerome Corsi for daring to report their findings. Obama's brother Malik Obama is being accused of managing the Muslim Brotherhood's investments.

WND reports:

Malik Hussein Obama, President Obama’s half-brother in Kenya, has charged in an interview with Turkey’s state-run Anatolia news agency that WND senior staff reporter Jerome R. Corsi has engaged in a “smear attack” against him for publishing statements by the Egyptian government accusing him of managing funds for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. [...]

Malik Obama told the Anatolia news agency: “I heard these allegations that are traded over the Internet, which is nothing more than ‘pure nonsense.’”

He proceeded to attack Corsi as a critic of President Obama who has written several books about the president and Shoebat as “known for his criticism of Islam and his support for Israel.”

Malik Obama further alleged that Corsi and Shoebat “are seeking to gain publicity by attacking my brother, Barack Obama, president of the United States of America who is serving the American people and the world.”

WND further reports they've confirmed criminal charges against Malik have been filed in Egypt:

Since the publication of the initial article Aug. 20, WND has obtained independent confirmation that criminal charges have now been filed in Egypt against Malik based on Gebali’s accusation that he was managing investments for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

In response to a question about whether he had visited Egypt or intended to visit Egypt soon, Malik said: “I did not go to Egypt before. I am a Muslim, but I do not promote hatred or violence, and I have not belonged to any extremist group in my life.

Malik Obama is the executive secretary of the Islamic Dawa Organization, or IDO, a group created by the Sudanese government, which has been designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist state.

I'd still like to know why Kenyan national Malik Obama possesses a U.S. Social Security Number...

As they say, birds of feather flock together!







Source

Article Source here
Author:
By Scott Mayerowitz of Associated Press

Article Source here
Author: by Peter Gicas

Article Source here
Author: Becca Day-Preston

Article Source here
Author: By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

Apparently the new methodology for making Palin appear smarter is to have her interviewed by the human equivalent of a blonde houseplant.

As for Palin she is back to wearing her hideous purple furry collared housecoat, as well as a fake smile and a barely housebroken rodent on her head. In other words somebody pulled her out from under the bed, plopped a hunting trophy on her head, poured a Red Bull down her throat, and tied her to a chair in front of a fake backdrop.

(And action!)

Of course the purpose of this interview is to gave Palin the chance to pimp her ghostwritten Heritage Foundation love note to Ted Cruz. As well as to attack Obamacare. ("What about Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!")

The interview is almost impossible to listen to without wanting to rip your hair out (Or at least bitchslap that half dead thing on Palin's noggin.), however here are a couple of Palin-isms that I managed to glean in between the giggling and jaw dropping stupidity.

"United we stand and divided we will fall. And we will fall under Obamacare."

"Obamacare is going to result in a part time employment arena that most Americans are going to have to face."

"This is what we're looking for, some kind of relief for Americans. Idilly (sic) the relief would be the same relief that Congress gave themselves, and that is an exemption from this burdensome, unaffordable, unworkable, law called Obamacare."

"Obamacare is a disaster, it is a train wreck, it is huge government intervention, I believe it's unconstitutional because it violates the commerce clause, and the Federal government really has no right to tell us what we should, or should not, purchase." (Does she mean like they have no right to tell us we have to buy car insurance?)

"That's why we don't want to just give up and say okay Federal government intervene even more fully in our lives, more than what our Founders had ever intended. For this branch of government to...to..um..be able to burden us. No we don't give up we..we..we fight for what's right and tart's why we elect those like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, who are willing to stand firm and speak on behalf of we the people."

At the end of the interview Carlson asked Palin if there is anything about her that nobody knows. (You know like faking a pregnancy, or lying about an abortion, or about how and why your oldest son joined the military? Something like that?)

Of course Palin is not willing to reveal anything of any news value. (Dammit!) And instead says that everybody pretty much knows all about her since her e-mail got hacked and everything. (It wasn't hacked!)

However she does volunteer to tell the viewers how her Fox interviews are done.

"Something that maybe viewers would find interesting is the way that we put together these Fox interviews. I'm in Todd's airplane hangar, and Todd is the one manning the camera, and he's behind the controls. And we put a sign outside the door asking the kids to stay out for about fifteen minutes. Don't come knock on the door, we put that sign up, and we also ask the kids to keep all the dogs outside because we've had them wander through once in awhile during these hits and it creates some chaos."

WTF? Does anybody remember a time when a dog caused a problem during a previous interview? I sure don't.

Carlson then asks Palin how many dogs they have.

This kind of catches Palin by surprise, and she fumble a bit before claiming that they usually end up "babysitting" Bristol's dogs and then bizarrely suggests they always have "strays" coming around as well.

Really, taking in stray dogs? Does that sound like something the Grizzled Mama would do?

It sounds to me as if SOMEBODY is once again working to put to rest the rumors that she is no longer living in Wasilla, and is using this hokey story to provide cover.

I wonder what kind of sign she has on her door in Arizona?

Source

So this was the tweet where Fleischer got all outraged over the fact that clearly Twitter loves the President more than everybody else.

Question to @gov: how come @BarackObama 's last tweet was more than 140 characters? Does he play by different rules???
— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) September 24, 2013

Yeah, why does the President get to break a rule that should be impossible to break since the 140 count thing is automatic?

Wait, who did the counting here? Uh oh!

Then the Twitterverse weighed in:

To be fair once Fliescher started to receive these tweets he took his socks off and did a recount.

Of course it was too late and the mocking continued for days. As well it should.

After all what can we expect from a man who had to play dumb on a daily basis about all of the criminal activity undertaken by the Bush administration?

And it is not like his other tweets are bursting with intellect either.

Congress passed it. Then the voters through out the Congress that passed it.
— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) September 26, 2013

Yep, they certainly "through" them out all right.

You know people sometimes say that I unfairly mock the Republican party as being full of assholes and idiots.

I think I take exception to the word "unfairly."

Source

It was the film that caused the Right Wing to rip their hair out in frustration, and the RNC chairman to state that there would not be a presidential debate on CNN if they went ahead with their plans to make it.

However as it turns out THAT was not enough to kill the movie. No that was achieved by Hillary Clinton herself.

This from the filmmaker himself courtesy of HuffPo:

I would have loved to explore all this. But when I approached people for interviews, I discovered that nobody, and I mean nobody, was interested in helping me make this film. Not Democrats, not Republicans -- and certainly nobody who works with the Clintons, wants access to the Clintons, or dreams of a position in a Hillary Clinton administration. Not even journalists who want access, which can easily be taken away. I even sensed potential difficulty in licensing archival footage from CBN (Pat Robertson) and from Fox. After approaching well over a hundred people, only two persons who had ever dealt with Mrs. Clinton would agree to an on-camera interview, and I suspected that even they would back out.

This, of course, was the real consequence, and probably the real intent, of the announcements by the RNC, Philippe Reines, and David Brock. Neither political party wanted the film made. After painful reflection, I decided that I couldn't make a film of which I would be proud. And so I'm cancelling. (Not because of any pressure from CNN -- quite the contrary.) It's a victory for the Clintons, and for the money machines that both political parties have now become. But I don't think that it's a victory for the media, or for the American people.

I disagree that having this biopic made would constitute any "victory for the American people." As I have written before I really don't think that any movie about Hillary will sway voters one way or the other, but I can certainly understand why the Clinton camp does not want all of those old stories dredged up right now, and why the RNC fears how THEY will be portrayed in any non-biased documentary.

To be honest I probably would not have watched in anyhow, nor will I watch the one made by NBC, assuming of course that they will have any more luck than CNN.

By the way, for the slow learners among us, it is very unlikely the Clinton's would have worked this had to kill this thing if Hillary was NOT running in 2016. I'm just saying.

Source

Courtesy of the YouTube page:

NBC Sports network came under fire this week after it aired an NRA-sponsored program that included gun lobbyist Tony Makris shooting an elephant in the face and then drinking champagne. Deadspin noted on Tuesday that the Botswana hunt had aired during this week's episode of Under Wild Skies.

Makris is a longtime friend of NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre and is best known for orchestrating Charlton Heston's rise within the organization.

In a video of the hunt, Makris spots an elephant in the brush, walks up and shoots it in the the face twice. After a short chase, Makris fires again and the elephant is dead. The NRA lobbyist then takes a moment to pose with his .577 "Tyrannosaur" rifle and the dead pachyderm.

As the episode ends, the group of hunters enjoys a glass of champagne while watching the sunset.

Yes, NOTHING will improve the reputation of the NRA like televising a hunt featuring one of their lobbyists, where he shoots a majestic elephant IN THE FACE.

I will have to assume that there were no kittens or puppies around for them to stomp to death.

Source

Kris Zane of Western Center for Journalism published an interesting piece title: Obama Admin Produced Fake News Of Syrian Dictator Being Toppled;


The failed novelist, once Obama speech writer, now National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote a series of phony newscasts showing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad being overthrown.

Huge movie sets of the al-Assad presidential palace were built in Saudi Arabia, overseen by our own CIA, in which doubles of al-Assad and his generals are depicted fleeing the Free Syrian Army.

The Hollywood-like operation had an army of special effects crew, stuntmen, and makeup artists that rivaled most studios.

The phony footage was to be fed through Arab League-controlled satellites, preempting regular Syrian newscasts, making the Syrian people think their government had just been toppled.

The CIA-controlled CNN would then re-broadcast the phony footage, causing the world to think al-Assad had been overthrown. While Syria was mired in anarchy, a real coup would take place; and Obama would ride in on his white horse, installing another Islamic regime.

The plan, scheduled to occur on June 15, 2012, never happened because Syrian officials got wind of it and put a stop to it. The White House and CNN then buried the story down the memory hole and created a new fiction: al-Assad’s August 21, 2013 chemical weapons attack, also now proved to be fake, perpetrated by Obama’s own al-Qaeda rebels in order to warrant a U.S. bombing campaign. [...] Continued @ Western Center for Journalism.

I can't imagine CNN or Team Obama would do such a thing... Can you?

- More on CNN -

Source

Source

I somehow doubt that too many of you are surprised to learn that almost half of Palin's Twitter followers are fake, and of course that goes for her Facebook followers as well.

However it is an indication that at one time Palin, or somebody who really wanted her to succeed, paid for 350,000 fake followers in an attempt to buoy her credibility and provide her with some street cred.

Not that it would have been THAT expensive, according to this site it may have only run her just a little over $1,500. Though it would have cost her substantially more to purchase fans and likes on Facebook. (Now do you know where all that postage money goes to?)

It is by NO means news that Sarah Palin is a complete phony, but it is nice once in awhile to provide a little proof of that to the people who may not have been paying close attention.

Remember, how do you know when Sarah Palin is lying? Trick question, she is never NOT lying.



Source