Tuesday, June 23, 2009

The Gov. Mark Sanford Mystery (2nd Update)

When Fox News had reported that Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina (who had been missing for several days and even his wife didn't know where he was!) was now "found" and the story given was that he was hiking in the Appalachian Mountains; the story just didn't seem plausible to me.

However, the blogger at RepubX has a post up that shares a Russian conspiracy theory that explains Sanford's disappearance over the course of several days.

It is quite a fantastic story; one that is hard to believe, actually. Who would go to a Socialist Russian embassy in Canada to seek help to escape from the Socialist/Marxist tyranny of the ObamaFRAUD Administration? Does that seem weird to anyone else?

But who knows whether or not it's the truth?

I have often been accused of being a "conspiracy theorist" by my detractors here at this blog. I've been labeled as a "tin foil hat" member, a "birther" and several other crude descriptions that I'd rather not repeat. However, the "natural born citizen" questions about Obama are growing by leaps and bounds in the minds of thousands of Americans each and every day. They are all are waking up to notice the truth of the matter - that Obama can't be a natural born citizen of the United States because his father was a British Subject and never naturalized to the U.S. For this obvious reason (despite what the sealed COLB says), many more people want to know the truth about Obama's eligibility.

Back to the subject at hand.

I wasn't previously aware that Governor Mark Sanford wanted to secede from the United States government. That was news to me. However, I did know that he didn't want to take Stimulus money from the ObamaFRAUD administration. Thus, I had my own suspicions when I learned that Sanford had gone missing.

Here is my comment at RepubX blog:


So....I guess this means that Sanford wasn't really hiking when he went missing? Who believed such a bogus story anyway?

The theory posed here is way beyond what I thought had happened. I figured that ObamaFraud's goons got ahold of Sanford and scared the hell out of him over the course of several days. Among other things (like discouraging him from challenging Obama in the next election) the ObamaBORG Bots made Sanford "see the light" regarding taking the Stimulus funds. That way, the ObamaBORG has power over him.

But this Russian conspiracy theory? Seems way out there, to me.

However, living in America today is like being trapped in a raging Twilight Zone with the lunatic fringe in charge! So, is the Russian conspiracy theory plausible? I don't know. But I guess anything is possible.

There is a movement going on in Texas to secede. Saw this on Glenn Beck. There are 250,000 people who have already signed on to do so.

Hope it doesn't come down to all of this. I'm still praying that one of the eligibility cases against Obama gets a hearing by a judge.


There are some commentators at the blog who refuse to believe in the Russian conspiracy angle. Who could blame their disbelief? It's so hard to know the truth anymore.

However, one commentator named "ij" wrote a comment that sent chills up my spine:


Just seen this and was wondering if this story in any way connected to the story you just put up? Weird stuff going on everywhere, that's for sure... Nothing is impossible anymore, and I think everyone is questioning everything these days.

Unexpected death of Attorney General of S.C?
www.thestate.com/.../835842.html


The State: Prosecutor Evans’ death shocks S.C.
Renowned state official dies unexpectedly


Note this excerpt:


“It was completely unexpected,” said McMaster, who confirmed her death to The State, saying it was a health issue, but didn’t confirm any details. He had talked to family members.


How suspiciously vague can you get!!!??? Stay tuned for further information.

Chilling....absolutely chilling....

Hat Tips:

RepubX

The State

*******
6/23/09 Update:

Fox News Channel is now reporting:

Report: Missing South Carolina Governor Traveled to Argentina, Not Appalachian Trail

Well, at least I was correct to not believe the bogus "hiking the Appalachian Trail" story!!

Also, the RepubX story sounded to far out there to be believed.

So, what was Gov. Sanford's trip to Argentina all about? The T.V. broadcast on this story didn't give those details.

Excerpt:


As it turns out, Sanford was nowhere near the Appalachian Trail. He was in Buenos Aires, Argentina, thousands of miles away in South America.

"I wanted to do something exotic," Sanford told The State. "It's a great city."

The governor plans to hold a press conference Wednesday afternoon.

It appears there was a sliver of truth to Sawyer's explanation. Sanford said he had considered hiking the Appalachian Trail, and told his staff he might do so, before bailing for South America.

But he said he didn't know why his staff provided that explanation to the media and that he couldn't figure out why his disappearance drew so much attention.


What??? He wanted to "do something exotic?" ON FATHER'S DAY WEEKEND??? Most fathers spend time with their families on that day.

This is still a very strange, developing story. Will the public ever really know the truth about it?

Sanford back from South America; press conference at 2 p.m.
Governor says he never hiked Appalachian Trail; says he cruised along the coast of Buenos Aires to unwind after stressful legislative session


This governor WAS FORCED by the ObamaFRAUD BORG BULLIES and the clueless Dems in that state's Congress to take Stimulus money that he didn't want to take!!

What's wrong with this picture, people?

It appears that the focus is now off of this battle and now aimed at Sanford's "disappearance." I would bet that if he told anyone where he was going, the OBAMABORG would have followed. Just a guess, on my part.

However, what I'd like to know is why did he go to Argentina? What was there that may have been helpful to this man and his current dilemma?

Was he threatened in some way? Was he escaping an assassination attempt?

Time will tell as the story unravels - that is - if we can get any kind of truth from the SLOBBERING LOVE AFFAIR Obama Media of Mass Deception.

P.S. Have you noticed how many conservatives are being targeted, verbally abused and attacked by the liberal left political hacks and in the media?

Sarah Palin (STILL!! Even after the election is over! She scares them...)

Rush Limbaugh

Sean Hannity

Glenn Beck

Gov. Mark Sanford

and...there are many more.

*******
Update @ 3:45 p.m. PT

By now, everyone has heard of "the affair" that Gov. Mark Sanford is having with "a woman from Argentina" and that was the excuse for his five day absense.

On Special Report, Charles Krauthammer just stated that this is so bizarre that it smells of an "intentional political suicide."

RepubX expresses doubt about this story: How convenient - Gov. Stanford resigns from chair of Gov association

Copy of the post:

Governor Stanford admits "alleged" affair, and as convenience would once again have it, he has resigned from the chair of the Republican Governors association.

As you may know, Governor Stanford was suing the Obama administration for intrusive actions into making states' dependent on Federal government through the so-called Stimulus package.

So, now we've happened to have two Republicans just come out with having a affairs.

This wreaks of Chicago-style "dirty politics" written all over it. Threaten with intimidation and give the Governor an official way out to step down. How much you want to bet the Republican Governors Association gets an "Obama administration" friendly new chair person?

And .. how much you want to bet Stanford will resign from his Governor position as well. The threat of seceding and suing for the stimulus package has been removed from SC - at least temporarily.


Did you notice that his wife didn't appear at the news conference? Did you hear that she is willing (already) to work things out with her husband?

Did anyone find Mr. Sanford's rambling during the news conference very strange??

Does this whole so-called affair sound plausible? Maybe it is. I don't know for sure.

However, we may get hints of whether it is true or just a set-up if we find out that RepubX is right - that a "friendly to the Obama Admin. new chair person" will fill in for Sanford. If that happens, then I think it might be evidence that the suspicions of RepubX, me, and Charles Krauthammer might very well be valid. Again, time will tell.

One closing thought. Who would ever want to get into politics in this kind of atmosphere?

16 comments:

John said...

"I figured that ObamaFraud's goons got ahold of Sanford and scared the hell out of him over the course of several days. Among other things (like discouraging him from challenging Obama in the next election) the ObamaBORG Bots made Sanford "see the light" regarding taking the Stimulus funds. That way, the ObamaBORG has power over him."

"This governor WAS FORCED by the ObamaFRAUD BORG BULLIES and the clueless Dems in that state's Congress to take Stimulus money that he didn't want to take!!"

"I would bet that if he told anyone where he was going, the OBAMABORG would have followed."

"Was he threatened in some way? Was he escaping an assassination attempt?"

"Time will tell as the story unravels - that is - if we can get any kind of truth from the SLOBBERING LOVE AFFAIR Obama Media of Mass Deception."

If you don't feel like a complete and utter fool for even publishing this nonsense, than you have absolutely no shame.

I particularly like this one...
"P.S. Have you noticed how many conservatives are being targeted, verbally abused and attacked by the liberal left political hacks and in the media? "

Maybe it's because these slimy conservative republicans have earned it. I guess it wasn't "that ObamaFraud's goons got ahold of Sanford and scared the hell out of him over the course of several days" No, the lying hypocrite went to Argentina to be with his mistress instead of staying home to be with his wife and children on Father's Day!...great family values.

Is it any wonder that less than 20% of Americans identify as republican with such great role models as this guy.

Yet another blatantly hypocritic republican! It seems to be a trend.

More please.

Christinewjc said...

Ah! I was wondering when the first ObamaBORG Bot would show up and rant against me!

I wonder. Did you write that comment before you read my second update?

I still say that this whole thing looks very fishy. Even Charles Krauthammer said that it looked like, "intentional political suicide."

The question is - just who drove him to that point? Perhaps it was just a result of his own indescretion. Maybe Obama thugs found out about it an made him admit to this affair to get rid of him politically? Maybe the entire thing was made up to cover for this "intentional political suicide?"

I guess we will have to have a wait and see attitude about it.

P.S. And...the truth is YES - he was forced into taking the Stimulus money. But that fact doesn't bother you at all, does it.

Anonymous said...

I think you're definitely on to something here. It is pretty obvious that the Obama Administration caused Gov. Samford to cheat on his wife somehow. I'm thinking perhaps some type of mind-control drug.

Gary Baker said...

"Yet another blatantly hypocritic republican! It seems to be a trend."

One of the problems of having standards is that, if they are the slightest bit challenging, you will eventually fall short and the lynch mob immediately begins to yell "hypocrit." As bad as that is, however, the modern liberal solution of abandoning all standards, at least as applied to themselves, is even more appalling. Were that not the case, Obama would have already been denounced as the new Fuhrer considering how many rights he has already trampled compared to Bush who was frequently decried as Hitler.

John said...

Yes, in fact I did write my comment before your second update. What difference does that make. Your second update is as laughable and paranoid as your first update. The fact remains, you can pull any conspiracy theory out of the air that you like..."intentional political suicide.", "Obama thugs found out about it an made him admit to this affair to get rid of him politically" (that's a good one...points for lunacy), it simply doesn't change the fact that Sanford is as big a hypocrite as most do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do republicans.

Like I said...more please!

PS...and no, it doesn't bother me that he was "forced" to take stimulus money. It may not have been good for his political aspirations, but it's very good for the people of SC, who are truly suffering.

Christinewjc said...

Good point, Gary.

There are those on the political left (far left, most likely) who will NEVER admit that Obama's socialitic/Marxist tyrannical policies, exorbitant spending, porkulus bills, payback to those cronies (like ACORN) who helped get him elected with taxpayer "stimuWASTE" money, running up trillions of dollars of deficit that our children and grandchildren will be stuck with, 21 "czars" that are unconstitutional, closing Gitmo, releasing terrorists, ending the trials of the USS Cole bombing perpetrators, (I could go on and on!!) but not least of which - sealing the COLB that would prove whether or not he is a natural born citizen and eligible for the position he now has usurped (he's not natural born due to his father never being a U.S. citizen) and all the other documents in his life (he's hiding SOMETHING to do this) is far more egregious than anything that Gov. Mark Sanford has done.

Sanford had an affair.

Obama has done too many illegal activities (yet gets away with them all because the media loves him and won't report them) to even count anymore.

John is an example of a bigger type of hypocrite. He backs Obama - despite all that the bogus POTUS is doing to destroy our Constitutional Republic.

I still think that it is strange that all of this (about Sanford) came out now. Why now? Apparently, his wife knew about it five months ago.

It may only be what the media is reporting - an affair. But it could be something way more sinister, too. (And I'm not the only one who thinks so, John.)

We shall see who gets the Republican Governor's Chair Person position. I can guarantee it won't be Sarah Palin or any other conservative governor - if the ObamaBORG gets its way.

Christinewjc said...

Oh and earth to John? the StimuWASTE bill is not creating any new jobs. Much of the pay- outs were to certain groups and lobbyist interests within the states that helped get Obama elected.

One argument (by governors of each state) against taking the Stimulus money is that when it runs out, the jobs will have to be maintained by the state - which they cannot afford.

Another argument is that taking the money makes the state beholden to the Obama Admin. - what they absolutely DO NOT WANT TO DO!

Another argument is that Obama will exert power over the governors and thus take away a state's sovereignty due to a "you owe us" attitude from the Feds.

Look at what Obama did to CA. He threatened to withhold money (either TARP or Stimulus) from Gov. Arnold if he didn't toe the line on an issue (forget what it was). Obama is like a thug bookie who gets to call the shots once someone is involved with his monetary dealings.

Not good!

But John, you have a totally different political philosophy than I. I am a Christian conservative who believes that our nation is a Constitutional Republic. Therefore, I do not expect you to understand why Obama's politics are dangerous for our nation.

You just keep drinking the Obama Kool-Aid and taking that Obamamatrix "blue pill" which keeps you in bondage to lies, sin and evil - and away from the truth.

Christinewjc said...

Over at RepubX, a commentator agreed that this incident has "political suicide" written all over it.

Quote:

6/24/2009 6:07:14 PM #



@ Christinewjc:

You're right Chrisitine - it has "political suicide" written all over it. A Governor isn't just going to fly out of the country and meet with some Argintine Fem Fatel. He'd have her come here if anything, put her up in an apartment in the states like so many do with foreign women.

Stanford was on the hotseat - the Gov who was strongly opposed to Obama and his administration trying to gain control over the states - something Constitution strongly prohibits.

More Govenors need to come out on this and band together - this way, they can't all have affairs at the same time, or least have it come out publicly like that. When one guy goes it alone, there are all kinds of ways to destroy his credibility and force resignation - you are witnessing the most common method.

<< | < | > | >> | Reply | Quote

undisclosed


Charles Krauthammer stated that it looked like "intentional political suicide." Maybe he knows more about this than the media is currently reporting?

Why would someone so readily - and intentionally destroy their own political future like this? Is it possible that he did this because of threats against his family?

Like I have written before, I don't know what the entire truth is. I am only surmising at this point. But a lot of details don't add up - IMHO.

GMpilot said...

"Marital infidelity by elected figures is only an issue when the politician makes "family values" and the "sanctity of marriage" a cornerstone of their political ideology. Nothing devalues a politician more than sanctimonious rhetoric once they have been caught with their pants down."
Never mind that Sanford left the country without turning over executive command to the LtGov. If, heaven forbid, his plane had crashed and his body found in the wreckage, the mystery would have been greater still. Senators are not expected to go on "secret missions".

Since you're in full conspiracy mode at the moment, Christine, think about this: who stands to gain the most by all these RepubliCANTs falling by the wayside? Not Obama; he already has most of what he wants. Palin? Possibly: she isn't as popular in Alaska as she once was.

I'd take a closer look at Romney if I were as...um...obsessed as you.

Gary Baker said...

Unlike John, GM has a good point. When it comes down to performance as governor, the disappearing act is of far more concern to the people of South Carolina than the affair (though if I were a SC resident, the affair would definitely be enough for me to lose trust in the man).

As for John's load of wet brownies about "do as I say not as I do" types, he has a pretty warped sense of hypocrisy. It isn't defined by having standards and failing to meet them, which most people do at one point or another. Rather, it's saying that it's alright for you or your pet group to do something but not those on the outside. Now, given that the man knew the woman for seven years before consumating the affair, I'm willing to believe that he at least did not intend for it to happen. This makes the act no less deplorable, but I can feel some sympathy for him. He also made a confession that was in no way an excuse. Compare and contrast to Billy Boy Clinton who was on who knows what number affair, committed perjury, suborned perjury, and told everyone in the country a big bunch of hooey right up until the lab report on the dress came back. Or if that isn't hypocrisy enough, we can always go back to the hypocrite-in-chief that said it was so wrong to detain people without trials, but is still detaining and still using military tribunals; who said that he was going to make transparency a priority and has rammed through unprecedented spending with no time for review and is fired at least three inspector generals that were looking into his pet causes.

As a conservative, I'm really disappointed in a lot of things going on in the Republican party, but in terms of hypocrisy and corruption, the worst among them can't hold a candle to Obama, Pelosi, Frank, Reid, etc.

John said...

Gary,
This might be useful information for you:

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary

hypocrite
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

In regards to Gov. Sanford, which definition do you not understand?

Gary Baker said...

John,

This might be useful information for you. From Dictionary.com:

hypocrite - a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Again pointing to the evidence, such as the seven year delay between meeting and consumation, it seems reasonable that the man was not "feigning" anything. As I pointed out above, there is a difference between someone who maintains a high standard a fails and one who seeks to impose standards on others with no intent of maintaining it themselves, such as Obama's stated intent to force others into service that he has no intention of doing himself or Al Gore's stance on carbon reduction as he jets from place to place to collect speaking fees, or John's concern over Republican morals while Democrats get caught in similar situations frequently and still get re-elected time and time again. You get the picture.

GMpilot said...

"As I pointed out above, there is a difference between someone who maintains a high standard a fails and one who seeks to impose standards on others with no intent of maintaining it themselves..."

That is correct, Mr. Baker.
A fine example of such high standards is the famous King David of Israel, whom Governor Sanford compared himself to in his...um...confession. But then, kings don't live the lives their subjects do.
There seem to be so many conservatives who support marriage that they seek to defend it against others...and all the while they betray their own claims of support. (See: Sanford, Mark.) The majority of those conservatives do seem to be Republican, I've noticed.

If the Governor is so keen to not accept federal money, then perhaps the Feds should just dismantle the Air Force and Navy bases in his state and let the private sector close the gap.

"...or John's concern over Republican morals while Democrats get caught in similar situations frequently and still get re-elected time and time again. You get the picture."

Yes, Democrats do get caught in similar situations frequently, and get re-elected time and time again; as often as Republicans, in fact.
But for at least the past three decades or so, it has been the GOP that has been the party of family values. They have led the charge against gay marriage, which they claim will lead to a breakdown of the family. They sought (and got) the impeachment of Bill Clinton for the same offense--although, as we now know, the House Speaker was doing the same thing, at the same time, for a longer time.
Also, Democrats don't usually put their paramours--and their paramours' children--on the government payroll (See: Ensign, John). Sanford is on record for his opinions on Clinton's deed; now, a decade later, his words got bashi. You get the picture, Mr. Baker. It's gotta hurt. It certainly sounds like the definition of "hypocrite".

The fact that seven years went by between meeting and consummation mean very little; that the consummation occurred at all means a lot. Because of it, Sanford abandoned his post, he lied to his staff, who misled the public, and spent Fathers' Day 2009 in the arms of a woman who is NOT the mother of his sons. Way to go!

He says he won't resign. I hope he enjoys living in that big glass house in Columbia for the next 18 months.

Gary Baker said...

GM,

A great deal of your argument seems to be based on the idea that if you fail to maintain a standard you promote, that you are some type of fraud. That certainly can be the case, but it isn't always so. Under your implication, the one with the highest credibility is the one who stands for nothing. Granted, they aren't lying which is a plus, but they have no standards, which is a huge minus.

In the same way, much of the argument against people who oppose gay marriage is that the institution of marriage is already imperfect, therefore they have no right to try and keep it from sliding further. I reject that argument. The only way to make an institution better is to stop the slide and improve it, not embrace further destruction.

Your claims about Republicans and Democrats being reelected for the same types of transgressions are debatable and misleading in many cases. Republicans are much more likely to resign when such problems occur due to pressure from the constituents. In short, Republicans are much more likely to clean their own house.

Your claim about putting paramours on the payroll is also debatable or downright false. A little research shows that. I've read stories recently about Democrats kicking contracts to spouses, relatives, etc. I also seem to recall a story in the northeast about a democrat politician involved in a scandal from a gay lover on the payroll.

The qualifier "usually" is probably correct in that not a majority of either party engages in such dealings outright, but I think a little research would show that Democrats participate at least as often and face far fewer sanctions. The main reason that it seems otherwise is that the media "usually" omits party affiliation when liberals are involved.

Gary Baker said...

"The fact that seven years went by between meeting and consummation mean very little; that the consummation occurred at all means a lot."

I disagree. I would be very surprised if a recent democrat president went a total of seven years showing fidelity. Aside from abandoning his post (and he was certainly unavailable during his "up time" with Monica), he also committed perjury and suborned perjury. The house brought charges. Whee! They showed what they thought of it then, by declaring that it was only "lying about sex," which now seems so oddly important to them. We also got a view on how Democrats feel about jury tampering since Bill Clinton was a very active fundraiser for many senators who later voted to exonerate him.

Anyway, if you really want to go straight to the heart of liberal hypocrisy, it isn't difficult. Every time liberals claim they stand for "tolerance" and slam people who disagree with them, claim they are the party of women, and then call them tramps and b*tches for expressing opinions, every time they say they support minorities, and depict them as house slaves if they don't tow the line, every time they say they are for public education and cow-tow to unions that keep children in ignorance, they show their hypocrisy loud and clear.

Oh, and King David - The reason that he is so cherished in Biblical history is not because he was so good. It's because as much as he screwed up, he kept going back to God. He kept trying to do the right thing. And as punishment for his sins, God had him banished, suffer plagues and droughts on the land, and killed the child of his adultery. No, Christians are not perfect and we know it. But we take our actions seriously and expect consequences. I'll take someone who tries to improve over someone who encourages mediocrity or worse every time.

GMpilot said...

"In the same way, much of the argument against people who oppose gay marriage is that the institution of marriage is already imperfect, therefore they have no right to try and keep it from sliding further. I reject that argument. The only way to make an institution better is to stop the slide and improve it, not embrace further destruction."

Then in addition to preventing gays from partnering, those same people should make marriage much harder to do, and above all, outlaw divorce. No marriage, no divorce.
But since the Bible manages to come down squarely on both sides of the divorce issue, the latter might be difficult to attain.

"Your claims about Republicans and Democrats being reelected for the same types of transgressions are debatable and misleading in many cases. Republicans are much more likely to resign when such problems occur due to pressure from the constituents. In short, Republicans are much more likely to clean their own house."

How much "more likely"? It seems I'm not alone in my use of qualifiers, Mr. Baker.

"Your claim about putting paramours on the payroll is also debatable or downright false. A little research shows that. I've read stories recently about Democrats kicking contracts to spouses, relatives, etc. I also seem to recall a story in the northeast about a democrat politician involved in a scandal from a gay lover on the payroll."

Show me the error, then. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize, and you'll have the thrill of crushing me in public. BTW, the proper term in this case is "Democratic".

"The qualifier 'usually' is probably correct in that not a majority of either party engages in such dealings outright, but I think a little research would show that Democrats participate at least as often and face far fewer sanctions. The main reason that it seems otherwise is that the media 'usually' omits party affiliation when liberals are involved."

See my above reply. You're right; it only "seems" that way.