(I’ve been reading Pynchon’s “Mason and Dixon,” a reference, I suppose.)

Sorry.

Wong said “she’s a pretty educated woman” and a computer programmer.

Has a brother Obama Onyango aka Uncle Omar who lives in the Boston area who is also a fugitive absconder deportee with a ssn , registered to vote, on welfare and owns a business called Wells Market.

Godson Anosike of 79 Winter St, Cambridge, MA 02141, (617)661-0017,has also harbored the fugitive absconder deportee.
LAWS
INA 212(a)(10)(D) aliens voting in elections will have their future citizenship revoked and are inadmissible into the US for any visas including work visas.
INA 212(a)(9)(A)(i) If an alien is ordered removed he or she is not admissible to the US for 10 years.
Grounds for Removal, Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) an alien can be deported for the following reasons:
**Presently in Violation of law—Any alien who is present in the US in violation of this Act, or any other law of the United States. INA sec 237
**Violated Nonimmigrant Status or Condition of Entry INA 237 (a)(1)(C)
**Criminal Offenses INA sec 237(a)(2)(A) and (B)
**Document Fraud INA sec 237 (a)(3)(C)
**Falsely Claiming Citizenship—Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, him or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit. INA sec 237(a)(3)(D).
CONTACT

James T Hayes Jr, Director
Detention and Removal Operations at
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
500 12th SW, 11th Floor
Washington, DC 20536
(202)732-3000
(866)347-2423

The Messiah sounds like Joseph Stalin deciding to run for office after having had all of his enemies disappear and then claiming that there are no restrictions on who the Party delegates can vote for.

Yes, nothing at all like insisting a vote was legitimate when your opponent’s name wasn’t on the ballot.

Seriously, there’s no reason to trust any of the vote-apportionment proposals that came out of Michigan. Going with the vote count, with Obama’s name ommitted? That’s no good. Can’t count a vote without everyone’s name on the ballout. Going with the exit polls? That’s no good. Can’t count a vote that’s not actually a vote.

Senator Clinton was perfectly fine (in fact, she pretty much endorsed) the removal of Michigan’s delegates up until it seemed that Obama was an actual contender, at which point it was tantamount voter supression.

Likewise, Senator Obama was perfectly fine with the restoration of Michigan’s delegates, until it seemed to put his campaign in jeopardy, at which point he started endorsing creative vote accountancy.

Neither campaign’s position is or ever was valid, with the exception of Senator Clinton’s first position: strip all the delegates according to DNC rules, and Michigan voters can turn their wrath upon their state party officials, not either campaign, for having their voices silenced. Florida should be similarly treated. Really, it’s quite simple: the DNC rules were clearly advertised, and everyone in question was aware of them and had plenty of time to fix or propose fixes [i]ahead of time[/i]. No one did, the show-vote was held, the results discarded, all in accordance with the procdure everyone knew was in place, and only afterwards, when the results were suddenly known to truly matter, did anyone care.

Arguing to change clearly laid out rules after the fact isn’t kosher. They rules are the rules; neither state should have their delegates seated. If the voters of Michigan and Florida are displeased, they need to get behind reforming the rules for future cases; arguing about how to apportion votes when there’s no legitimate way to fairly do so is just a way to cause a great deal of trouble. No matter what the decision is, a large swath of Democrats are going to feel very upset; while appealing to the rules laid out beforehand may not cause less upset, it certainly avoids any chance to landing the blame anywhere other than where is squarely belongs: on every single Democrat who refused to institute fairness reforms [i]before[/i] the votes were held.

Every. Last. Democrat.