Obama’s Eligibility Challenged In New Jersey

Two New Jersey residents, a Republican from Monmouth County and a Democrat from Ocean County, have filed an objection to Barack Obama’s name being placed on the New Jersey Democratic primary ballot and the general election ballot for the office of President of the United States, according to a story first reported on Conservative News and Views.

Nicholas Purpura, the Republican, and Theodore Moran, the Democrat are represented by Attorney Mario Appuzzo of Jamesburg. They filed their objection to Obama’s candidacy with the New Jersey Division of Elections on April 5.  A copy of the objection can be downloaded here.

There is a plenary hearing is scheduled before an Administrative Judge at the Office of Administrative Law in Mercerville on Tuesday April 10, 10am, according to Appuzzo.

On his blog, Natural Born Citizen-A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers, Appuzzo said:

The Objection to Obama’s nominating petition is that he has not provided competent and sufficient evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing his identity and that he was born in the United States, and that even if he were born in the United States, he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. The Objection therefore demands that the Secretary of State not permit Obama’s name to be printed on the primary and general election ballot.

Posted: April 6th, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 Presidential Politics, Barack Obama | Tags: , , , , | 68 Comments »

68 Comments on “Obama’s Eligibility Challenged In New Jersey”

  1. Rick Ambrosia said at 8:15 pm on April 6th, 2012:

    I hope the judge throws this out and makes them pay for such a frivolous lawsuit and for wasting the courts time. This has already been tried and thrown out numerous times. What a bunch of idiots you people are.

  2. Joe said at 8:22 pm on April 6th, 2012:

    Art i love that you are a birther! keep it up so the Dems can get a 2 to 1 victory!

  3. Pete Tempt said at 9:45 pm on April 6th, 2012:

    “A member of the vast common sense conspiracy”? This reads like lunacy. It’s beneath you.

  4. Joey Novick said at 8:12 am on April 7th, 2012:

    should be on my website.

  5. Gene Baldassari said at 8:37 am on April 7th, 2012:

    This is not about Obama. This is about the Constitution.

    Should we enforce it or not? If so, what should the mechanism be to make a determination and resolve the issue? There would not be any question about Obama if there were a reasonable method to resolve this issue.

    WE have a major problem in America, and especially NJ, where the voting public does not support candidates who support the Supreme Law. This case gives us a chance.

    I cannot understand the people who call others names when they want government that is ruled by the Constitution.

  6. ArtGallagher said at 9:10 am on April 7th, 2012:

    I cannot understand the people who call others names when they want government that is ruled by the Constitution.

    Surely you’re used to it by now, Gene. Prominent members of congress and the media called the Tea Parties racists, teabaggers, etc, dating back to 2009. The race card was used very effectively by the Obama camp in 2007-2008. They even used it against the Clintons.

    Now they’re using the crazy card.

    I didn’t editorialize about the Objection. I just reported it. I’m being attacked for reporting what happened and what is going to happen on Tuesday. Makes me wonder.

    This Objection and the others filed across the country could be resolved if the actual long form birth certificate were presented for examination and if Obama could present an argument that successfully counters the Article II claim.

    That hasn’t happened. So the left has to resort to smears.

    I can think of only two reasons Obama has let this issue fester throughout his term rather than present the long form certificate and an Article II argument:

    1) He can’t.
    2) He sees political advantage in keeping the issue alive.

    Maybe Rick, Joe(aka Sam, Bob, Waldo Fred, Louis, Jorge, GOPRedBank2, et al) Pete Tempt and Joey Novak can point out what I’m missing.

  7. Not Required said at 9:54 am on April 7th, 2012:

    I can point out what you’re missing. Stupid is as stupid does.

  8. ArtGallagher said at 10:12 am on April 7th, 2012:

    Thanks NR, that was helpful.

    Maybe it is time that I eliminate the option of commenting anonymously, as Tommy DeSeno has been after me to do.

    Or maybe I’ll just edit anonymous comments to include the IP address. It’s not fair that I’m the only one who knows what other identities some of these people post as.

    “Not required” is a frequent visitor who posted as “Anna Little” in the April Fools post.

    Other identities that “Not required” has used in the past include Dr, Dr, Jackie Kennedy,Seymour Light, Lou Nee Tune, Kathy Baratta, Just the Facts, Eleanor Rigby, and The Truth will set you Free, among others.

    Let see the truth set us free.

  9. Birth Certificate said at 10:35 am on April 7th, 2012:

    The reason Obama won’t release the original birth certificate is simple. He was born by a single white mom living in white family. His original BC states his race as “White”. He finds it too embarrassing.

  10. Sancho Panza said at 10:54 am on April 7th, 2012:

    @”This Objection and the others filed across the country could be resolved if the actual long form birth certificate were presented for examination and if Obama could present an argument that successfully counters the Article II claim.”
    It is immediately incumbent on Norcross and the other Democratic powers that be to present the correct and legally required documentation to the Secretary of State of New Jersey. Anything less serves only to increase the growing doubts.
    As far as”Birth Certificate’s” theory, that is not only an interesting hypothesis, but also an entirely plausible one.

  11. Rick Ambrosia said at 11:49 am on April 7th, 2012:

    I’ve been saying that for years Art…posters that hide have something to hide. And it doesn’t matter what this President presents, you and other “birthers” wouldn’t believe him anyway. This would have had to have a been hoax from wayyyy back, like Bob English pointed out. And, after nearly 4 years, you would think that it would be put to rest, only because more courts than you can count have thrown out every single suit. And also, of course, the one big red herring that ALL republicans put out there is “its about the Constitution”…funny how that mantra just keeps popping up when the President puts forth any type of legislation that they don’t like. It was just that you and your cabals have never gotten over the fact that he was duly elected.

  12. Gene Baldassari said at 11:50 am on April 7th, 2012:

    Name Calling is a tool used by debaters who cannot (or are afraid to) support their positions.

  13. Jim Sage said at 12:01 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    I just love the way you printed in bold, “Kathy Baratta.” I guess I am in good company thinking that the venomous posts are from “you know who,” lol.

  14. ArtGallagher said at 12:05 pm on April 7th, 2012:


    I don’t have a cabal, I’m not a birther, and you know it.

    Are you aware of a suit that has been thrown out since the veracity of the long form birth certificate has been questioned by Sheriff Apaio? If so, please give us a link.

    Are you aware of a judicial decision regarding the Article II claim? If so, please post a link. I’ll make sure it gets to the Administrative Law Division before Tuesday, thereby saving everyone time and money.

  15. ArtGallagher said at 12:08 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    Jim Sage,

    “Thinking it” or speculating is no longer necessary. I have confirmation. If Kathy wasn’t the writer, it was someone with access to a computer and email address she uses.

  16. Rick Ambrosia said at 12:24 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    Really Art? Weren’t these frivolous suits just filed? Here’s some more recent suits thrown out by rational people. And no, I don’t know you are not a Birther…quite the contrary. Your posts indicate that you are. If you’re not, then you would be discounting these idiots. But you don’t. So, that tells me you’re right up there with them. PS. Arpaio is a bonafide nutjob. Not just for this idiocy, but for all the racist, yes racist, practices he’s used in the past.




  17. ArtGallagher said at 12:33 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    Thanks for the links Rick, but none of them provide the answers I’ve asked for.

    As for the rest, you’re bloviating.

  18. Gene Baldassari said at 12:35 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    Sorry for hogging the comments but I have to say it:

    I do not think that anyone making comments here are “birthers”. It is the name-callers who are guilty of the improprieties that they tag on others.

    In my case, I could care less about Obama at this point – it would be more efficient to wait until the new President takes office in January, 2013.

    But I still want the credentials issue pursued. It will take Obama to prove why it is necessary. We must have a simple method to resolve all future credentials of candidates. I don’t care whether they use court precedent, legislation, decree by king, or other some administrative gobbly-gook – it has to happen.

    Otherwise there would be no point in having constitutions, laws, and courts.

  19. ArtGallagher said at 12:39 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    Please don’t be sorry Gene. Regarding the issue at hand, you’re the only one posting honestly at this point.

  20. Gene B said at 1:00 pm on April 7th, 2012:


    I have to tell you something about America.

    In this country, courts in Alabama, Georgia, and California do not have jurisdiction over New Jersey. Even if they did, the legal complaints that you refer to were separate lawsuits with different set’s facts and law with different Plaintiffs.

    In addition, in this country, courts from different circuits can have different opinions. For that purpose, we have a Constitution which provides for a Supreme Court to resolve those differences.

    That same Constitution also lists a few basic requirements for candidates – one of which in the process of being resolved in NJ.

    Of course, you are welcome to become an American and lobby for a Constitutional Amendment if you wish to change it.

  21. Martha Trowbridge said at 2:33 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    You may have interest in the “Obot M.O.”:

    Truth Obliterated: The “Obama Conspiracy Theory Psychological Assault Weapon”:

    And Attorney Apuzzo’s post:
    Is Putative President Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bari Shabazz, Fugitive from Justice For 21 Years Following An Auto Accident in Honolulu County, Hawaii on March 12, 1982?

  22. Martha Trowbridge said at 2:56 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    ArtGallagher says:

    “Maybe Rick, Joe(aka Sam, Bob, Waldo Fred, Louis, Jorge, GOPRedBank2, et al) Pete Tempt and Joey Novak”

    With just a few strokes I have validated your observation. Synthetic identities – likely puppeteered by only one real person.

    The extent of internet infiltration of discussions by decent patriotic Americans is staggering. Every single conservative discussion group is riddled with their evil manipulators.

    Know them by their vicious attacks, ridicule, insult, shaming, intimidation and threatening.

    For years they’ve gotten away with it. We The Decent-Minded had no clue what we were dealing with. We had no model for such behavior.

    That’s how they prevented those who sought the Truth from accessing it.

    Thanks be to God their m.o. has been smoked out.

  23. Rick Ambrosia said at 3:13 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    Nice work Art…see what you “smoked out”? LOL….too funny…Thank you for the Ahem…advice Gene…but I already am a patriotic American that doesn’t want to see our country destroyed by the likes of these birthers, tea partiers, or whatever moniker they want to call themselves. They are destroying the America I know by their insistence that only the vision of THEIR America is the correct one. God help us all.

  24. Martha Trowbridge said at 3:28 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    Rick: Perhaps you would like to chat with me directly, hmmm? I am certain we have much to discuss.

  25. Bob English said at 3:38 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    There is overwehlming documented evidence that the President was born in Hawaii including the Certicicate of Live Birth, a certified (by state officials) copy of the Long Form Birth Certificate (that the President requested be released) as well as birth announcements in two local newspapers about a week after the President was born (and noted that the information was provided by the local hospital.) To believe otherwsie, you would have to believe in a huge conspiracy going back 50 years and at the very least involving the hospital, the two newspapers and various to government officials in Hawaii.

    I am suprised the issue was raised again since most of the birther crowd vanished after the President requested that the long form birth certificate be released. Have not heard anythign from Trumps so called “detectives” (although I doubt they ever existed in the first place).



  26. Rick Ambrosia said at 3:52 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    Sorry Martha…I would talk with you….but my tin foil hat is not working today.

  27. Martha Trowbridge said at 4:03 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    Well, Mr. English, there you go, bandying the “conspiracy theory” model to render our rational thought illogical.

    News Flash: It ain’t working any longer.

    Investigators – criminal and private – have determined that the so-called “Hawaiian Birth” evidence is fraudulent. As phony as “BHO’s” selective service card.

    Have you not read the topic of this post – or Mr. Apuzzo’s brief?

    As for the hospitals, how clever for The “Obama” Campaign to ‘tie them up’ with privacy laws. But not for long. Now that probable cause has been established, and a criminal investigation opened, a judge will rule that records be accessed.

    As for what you call evidence, it seems you have not seen Tim Adams’ deposition attached to Mr. Apuzzo’s brief. He was an HI elections official. When confronted by requests from all across America, prior to the election, NO ONE working in the Hawaii government could verify “BHO’s” birth. NO ONE. Including the TWO hospitals at which he claimed to be born.

  28. Joe Jesson said at 4:28 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    Forget all the political bias’ and look at the facts. Simple fact checking on his PROMISES made pre-election contrasted with his ACTION illustrates he – and his czars – are chronic liars.

    Just a few examples to make my point,
    1). He promised to have the most transparent govt ever
    2). He promised to shut down Guantanamo
    etc., etc.,

    And how many Marxists do you know? Ask our President about his buddy and now ex-czar Van Jones. Do you really think that a Birth Certificate forgery is below this govt? Ask Hilary Clinton’s supporters if you think this is a product of paranoia :-)

  29. Rick Ambrosia said at 4:39 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    Might as well give it up Bob…rational thought has no place here.

  30. Bob English said at 5:12 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    Martha: I used the word “conspriacy” since at this point there would have to be numerous people involved in a cover-up spanning over a 50 year time-period…that would make it a “conspiracy”

    Just out of curriosity, what would your explanation be for the two Hawaiian newspapers publishing the Presidents birth announcement within days of his birthin 1961 based upon information that the local hospital provided????

  31. Martha Trowbridge said at 6:33 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    “what would your explanation be for the two Hawaiian newspapers publishing the Presidents birth announcement within days of his birthin 1961”

    These alleged ‘newspaper announcements’ are forgeries, badly done; then inserted into existing records.

    Same foolish m.o., same amateurish work as employed with the alleged ‘birth certificate’, and ‘selective service registration’.

    My opinion is not what’s important, though. Criminal forensic analysis is.

  32. Michael Borg said at 6:40 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    If he is born in the United States, neither of his parents have to be US Citizens, even though one was (his mother), that would still make him a USC. Many people come from other countries legally and illegally to have their kids born here, they automatically derive US citizenship, the legal principle is called Jus Soli (right of soil), neither parent needs to be a USC. We need to change the law; it is derived from the 14 ammendment. The UK had the same law, as many countries do, the UK rescinded the law in the late 70’s/80’s, other nations have done the same. The other principle by which citizenship is derived is Jus Sanguinis (rule of blood); citizenship is derived by the nationality of the individuals parentage. The Jus Soli principle does not apply to foreign diplomats or military. But, just being on vacation and having a child here under this law grants USC status, then these children can petition for their parents to become USC’s.

  33. ArtGallagher said at 7:33 pm on April 7th, 2012:


    Your explanation of citizenship is what I understood the truth to be.

    The Objectors are making a distinction between citizenship and natural born citizenship under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

    They say that because Obama’s father was Kenyan and a British subject, that Obama had dual citizenship at birth, if he was born on US soil. They argue that even if he was born in the U.S. that he is not natural born under the Constitution.

    The Objectors lawyer, Mario Appuzzo, and Martha Trowbridge who posted here today, argue elsewhere that Obama may be Malcolm X’s natural born son. Check the second link that Martha posted.

    It would seem to me that if Obama is Malcolm X’s biological son, that he would be a natural born citizen.

  34. Bob English said at 7:35 pm on April 7th, 2012:

    Martha…just so I understand what you are saying and please correct me if I am wrong…..do you believe that the Presidents birth announcement was not in the newspapers published in 1961 but somehow secret agents have tracked down every copy of the paper and copies of the birth announcemtns that people tore out (for family scrapbooks) from those dates and “inserted” a fake birth announcement in hard copy originals of the paper and all microfilm copies on file in libraries, in newspaers acheives and in family scrapbooks??? Please tell me you do not actually believe that which by the way would be a massive “conspiracy”.

    FYI, would it not strike you as strange that not one person has come forward with an origianl copy of the paper from that day or the birth announcements to back up the claim that it was faked??

  35. Martha Trowbridge said at 9:12 am on April 8th, 2012:

    “would it not strike you as strange that not one person has come forward with an origianl copy of the paper from that day or the birth announcements to back up the claim that it was faked??”

    Would it not strike you as strange that not one person has come forward WITH the original paper copy?

    It is my understanding that a sizable monetary reward was offered for this very item.

  36. TR said at 10:47 am on April 8th, 2012:

    Crap, Ambrosia and English are the only ones making sense. I have fallen into a freaking Rabbit hole.
    I need an aspirin and some bourbon.

  37. Silly Martha said at 12:20 pm on April 8th, 2012:

    Martha Trowbridge wants to sell you something. In order to do that, Martha first needs for you to look at her. Martha is desperately trying to make a name for herself. Martha craves attention — any attention — even the attention that comes from being crazy in public. I understand Martha. I also pity Martha.

    Silly Martha

  38. Martha Trowbridge said at 12:30 pm on April 8th, 2012:

    “Martha first needs for you to look at her. Martha is desperately trying to make a name for herself. Martha craves attention”

    Au contraire. I have no interest in ‘making a name’, nor do I crave attention. I actually find it disturbing to delve through and report this monumental deceit.

    “Martha Trowbridge wants to sell you something. ”

    What, pray tell, am I selling?

  39. Martha Trowbridge said at 12:55 pm on April 8th, 2012:

    “Silly Martha”:

    I just discovered something at the site [obamarecords.com ] to which you have referred readers.

    Its sub-header now reads:
    Detailing The No Record Fraud Barack H. Obama Aka Barry Soetoro / Bâri′ M. Shabazz

    I am the person who identified the actual birth identity of “Barack Obama” as Bari M. Shabazz, in my 2 November 2011 post

    The post to which you link apparently has been ‘overturned’ by the blog owner.

  40. Justified Right said at 11:14 am on April 9th, 2012:

    It’s too bad the objection has so much about the birth certificate. That ship has sailed.

    I’m proud to have been exactly right about that issue everytime I wrote about it, and I await my apology from Media Matters who twice wrote about me and were wrong.

    Obama withheld the Birth Cert not because anything was wrong with it, but because he was scoring politcal points by doing so. The whole controversy was fueled by him.

    When Trump turned the political tide, he released it.

    The objection filed here in NJ should have been limited to Minor v Happersett, 8 US162 (1975).

    That case says a “natural born citizen” is a person who is the offspring of two parents, both citizens of the US.

    It is undisputed that Obama’s father was not.

    Like the case or hate it, it is a Supreme Court decision.

    The only question of course will be what, exactly, did the Supreme Court say in that case?

    From my reading, they said:

    Born of two citizens – definately a citizen.

    Born here not of two citizen parents – there is some doubt, but the Court is not answering it.

    That means, there really is no Supreme Court precedent on it.

    That’s the only avenue left to unseat the Prez on eligibility – a Supreme Court decision on that question.

    But I doubt they ever hear it.

  41. Bob English said at 4:10 pm on April 9th, 2012:

    Justified: I would disgree with your sentance that “the whole controversy was fueled by him (the Pesident”). It was fueled by the birthers. The President was under no obligation to request that the state of Hawaii release his long form birth certificate when the short form had already been provided. Regarding Trump and the other birthers, I think the President waited until they had dug themselves into a nice deep pit and than asked for the long form to be released. Have not heard much from Trumps detectives either since than.

    It is interesting how “natural born citizen” was never defined in the Constitution. Just my opinion but I dont think there is anyway that the Supreme Court would ever find that someone who was born in the United States and who has one parent (his mother) that is a US citizen born in the United States, would not be considered a natural born citizen.

  42. Justified Right said at 5:40 pm on April 9th, 2012:

    Bob English I’m going to have to double down on my assertion of it being Obama’s doing.

    He spent quite amount of time, money and effort defending lawsuits to not show his birth certificiate. He could have wone them all for free by showing it. As we know now (and I had suspected then) there was nothing wrong with his long form cert and no embarrassing info on it.

    He saw the polls were in his favor and decided the cost of the suits was worth the political fortune he gained by keeping it hidden.

    Trump turned the polls around. That’s why he released it.

    I don’t really know what the Court would ultimately do with natural born citizen. the 1875 case noted that there was support in the common law for the requirement being both parents are citizen, not that there wasn’t.

    They simply didn’t answer the question definitively, opting instead to leave it open.

    Wish they had not!

  43. ArtGallagher said at 5:59 pm on April 9th, 2012:

    As we know now (and I had suspected then) there was nothing wrong with his long form cert and no embarrassing info on it.

    Tommy, Have you looked at the Sheriff Arpaio video that asserts that the long form is a forgery?

    I’m not saying Arpaio is right. I don’t know enough about the software he uses to “prove” it. However, to my knowledge, no one has challenged his findings.

    Today, Arpaio complained that the GOP is not taking up the issue: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/joe-arpaio-gop-presidential-candidates-birthers_n_1412259.html

  44. Rick Ambrosia said at 8:34 pm on April 9th, 2012:

    Art, maybe no one has challenged it because Arpaio is a bonafide nutcase who has nothing but contempt for this President and would stoop at nothing for some attention. He is a proven racist by his actions against inmates and is under investigation by the Justice dept. He doesn’t have a shred of credibility, except for birthers like yourself that will cling to anything that would embarrass this President, whether true or not. You and he play to the extemists in your party for political points and it really is disturbing that you are party to this farce.

  45. ArtGallagher said at 8:54 pm on April 9th, 2012:

    There it is again, the old reliable race card, accompanied by the newer crazy card.

    Don’t deal with the accusations, just call the accusers racist and/or crazy.

    I guess we should get used to that between now and November.

  46. Reality Check said at 9:16 pm on April 9th, 2012:

    Typical, limp-wristed liberal drivel from R.A. The good sheriff is a true patriot, a master detective and a legend to his constituents. He has instilled law and order in an otherwise world of chaos. His treatment of prisoners is brilliant and fair to every taxpayer. The reason no one has challenged him is simple – he is on to something. The reason our Muslim president’s place of birth issue doesn’t go away is because the questions have merit. Hey Rick, how do you explain Hussein Obama’s grandma telling people she was in the room in Kenya when he was born? How about the marker the Kenyans erected outside the hospital he was born in? Why did his “birth certificate” say “African American” 40 years before the term came into use? Start splainin Ricky. Hey, that’s funny.

  47. Rick Ambrosia said at 6:45 am on April 10th, 2012:


  48. ArtGallagher said at 7:08 am on April 10th, 2012:


    You’re posting a three year old site from a failed campaign against Arpaio?

    Here’s Arpaio’s site. He’s going to be 80 soon and he’s running for another term.


    Rick, have you viewed Apraio’s presentation on the long form birth certificate? I doubt you have.

  49. Rick Ambrosia said at 9:03 am on April 10th, 2012:

    Because this is a little older, does it make the facts about this racist sheriff any less real? I don’t think so. And you’re right, I have no desire to watch anything that this person has to show. He’s not exactly credible in my view.

  50. ArtGallagher said at 9:14 am on April 10th, 2012:

    Because this is a little older, does it make the facts about this racist sheriff any less real?

    Yes. That is not a “factual” site. Its a campaign site. Since that site started, Apraio survived a recall and was reelected. That’s two elections won since that silly site was started. He continues to enjoy approval ratings in the high 50’s.

    I admit that my first impression of Apraio was that he is a crazy yahoo. “Oh, not this shit again,” was my first reaction when I heard about his investigation into the birth certificate. Yet, I listened anyway. There is enough there to make me wonder. Open my curiosity.

    Rick, you don’t know that he is racist or crazy. You’ve bought the media spin because it fits with your own prejudices.

    I used to think you were somewhat open minded Rick. Now you appear to be a sheep of the Obama spin machine.

  51. Rick Ambrosia said at 9:37 am on April 10th, 2012:

    “Spin Machine”…funny coming from you Art. You would never, ever endorse a Democrat…so don’t talk to me about sheep. You have attacked everything that any democrat has put forth, and you continually truss up any and all republicans. I can hear you bleating all the way to Colts Neck.

    And you don’t think what Arpaio is doing has anything to do with campaigning to his base in Arizona? Its all politics Art…you, of all people should know that.

    Also, I have never shied away from supporting the President, never. And, I will support him this time around because I know that if we elect a republican, that it will be the end of the America I know and love.

  52. Bob English said at 10:24 am on April 10th, 2012:

    RC: No matter how many times people keep repeating it, on the Presidents birth certificate the term “African American” deos not appear.

    The President “grandmother” that you refer to is actually a step grandmother and I believe she is/was the 3rd wife of his grandfather. There has been a tape floating around the internet for years however there are many questions regarding the reliability of the translation of the questions/answers she was given.

  53. ArtGallagher said at 10:33 am on April 10th, 2012:

    You would never, ever endorse a Democrat

    I hereby endorse Bill Pascrell in the CD-9 primary, Nina Gill in the CD-10 primary and Randall Terry in the Democratic presidential primary.

  54. Rick Ambrosia said at 10:57 am on April 10th, 2012:

    LOL…yeah, and I endorse The Newt for the republican nomination…

  55. TR said at 12:25 pm on April 10th, 2012:

    RA said “I know that if we elect a republican, that it will be the end of the America I know and love.”

    AHH thats better. Thats the Ambrosiac I know and have disdain for. All is right in the world.

    My hope if a Republican is elected is that we get back the America I know and love. An America the way it is supposed to be. An America where the Government doesn’t tell us what to do and we all stand on our own two feet.

  56. Rick Ambrosia said at 12:51 pm on April 10th, 2012:

    Right TR…those republicans will stay out of your way….unless, of course, your gay or a woman..then those rascally republicans are more than happy to tell you what you can and can’t do.

  57. Rick Ambrosia said at 1:20 pm on April 10th, 2012:


  58. I am woman, hear me roar. said at 3:04 pm on April 10th, 2012:

    “…those republicans will stay out of your way….unless, of course, your gay or a woman..then those rascally republicans are more than happy to tell you what you can and can’t do.” -says Rick Ambrosia.

    Sorry Rick. Maybe you don’t realize it because your a guy, but women are smarter than you think. We are not so easily manipulated by your inflammatory rhetoric. Your comment is insulting.

    Frankly put, “it’s the economy stupid”. It’s the slew of very REAL issues facing our families today. It’s the future of our children, and our children’s children, that concerns us.

    The average woman, by our nature, is a far cry from the self-centered bubblehead you’d have us be. Do you really believe some bogus “war on women” (designed solely for the purpose of manipulating our vote) will circumvent our core convictions? If so, once again I am insulted by your misguided misogynistic opinion of women.

  59. Bob English said at 3:15 pm on April 10th, 2012:

    In the poll released earlier this week, the President is running 18 points ahead of Gov. Romney is the 12 battleground states among women voters. Obviously some of the extremist positions that Romney has gotten himself sucked into taking are hurting him with women.

  60. I am woman, hear me roar. said at 4:42 pm on April 10th, 2012:

    Bob English,
    You’ve misrepresented my comment, as it was a direct response to something Rick Ambrosia said here, on this blog. Perhaps you failed to understand what I was saying. Please read it again, testosterone in check.

    As for Gov. Romney’s “extremist positions” regarding women, please regale us. I know of no extreme stance he has personally taken. Enlighten me.

  61. Rick Ambrosia said at 5:00 pm on April 10th, 2012:

    Wow..you’re so enraged, that you hide behind a cliche’d moniker. Nice. Obviously, you like being told what you can and can’t do with your own body…I feel sad for you. As far as Bob’s statement, maybe you’re the one misreading. Apparently, a majority of women don’t like to be told what they can and can’t do with their body. Maybe you like the way the republicans all across this country are denying some women the chance to have medical checkups at clinics, just because a small portion of what they do is abortion related. Like that law that was just passed in Mississippi which closed down the last clinic so that now women who choose to terminate a pregnancy have to either have one done illegally and potentially fatally, or travel out of state to have a safe procedure. And, should we start on same sex marriage now? Because, if you’re gay, republicans will not let you marry. Should we go on cliche woman? If you even are a woman. Who knows since you hide behind your keyboard.

  62. ArtGallagher said at 5:52 pm on April 10th, 2012:

    Thanks Rick,

    Now we know why Republican men make better lovers and why the difference between Republican and Democratic women is so severe.


    Rick, you’ve also given me an insight into why so few women comment here.

  63. Rick Ambrosia said at 7:54 pm on April 10th, 2012:

    Maybe you should put up crazy eyes Bachmann….my wife is a die hard dem, and she’s as hot as they come…wish I could post a pic, but she wouldn’t care for that all that much. She’s much more private than I am.

    Or, maybe you should put up some nice pics of Vetter’s prostitutes, or The Newts wives…all three of them. Does Calista’s hair ever move? Just askin’.

  64. ArtGallagher said at 7:58 pm on April 10th, 2012:

    Ok, humor didn’t work. Scale it back Rick.

  65. Bob English said at 11:03 pm on April 10th, 2012:

    I am woman: I posted my previous comment sighting the huge gender gap to point out that there are women out there (apparently a hell of a lot of them) that do perceive some Republican policies as a war on women.

  66. TR said at 8:14 pm on April 12th, 2012:

    I see a lot of polls floating around most of them are bullshit. The only poll that matters is the one on election day.

    I love the war on women rhetoric. It is a war on women to say they have to pay for their own contraception and they can’t kill their babies. I know a hell of a lot of women who agree with that. Oh and by the way it was Democrats who launched an attack on Romneys wife because she was a stay at home mom. I guess the only choices liberals believe in are the ones they agree with.
    I think most women would love an economy where they actually had a choice of working or staying home with the kids. Thats a choice I bet all women could get behind.

  67. Bob English said at 12:27 am on April 13th, 2012:

    One person said a dumb thing. The Presidnet said today that spouses should always be off limts and Michelle Obama is also a stay at home mom…..give me a break with “the Democrats launching an attack on Romneys wife”

  68. TR said at 1:04 pm on April 15th, 2012:

    See they send out surrogates to do their dirty work and say things thay can’t say but want said. Its called plausable deniability.
    Don’t get me wrong Republicans do it to. It is the dirty side of politics. Take it from someone who knows.