PRESIDENT OBAMA has been criticized in some quarters for showing insufficient emotion over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but resorting to a vulgarism on the Today Show -- he told Matt Lauer he was consulting with experts "so I know whose ass to kick" -- came across as unconvincing coarseness, not righteous anger. Until now, even presidents known for their blistering use of expletives in private had always avoided any hint of gutter language when speaking publicly. "Whose ass to kick" may not be English at its crudest, but when it comes from the head of state in a televised interview, the potty-mouthing of American culture advances another notch.
Rather than heeding those who urge him to act angry, Obama might consider the example of George Washington, who had a famous temper that he took great pains not to display. Washington kept a hand-copied list of 110 rules of civility, several of which emphasized keeping anger reined in. "In reproving show no sign of choler" was one of them. Another advised: "Use no reproachful language against any one; neither curse nor revile." The first president took such counsel to heart. The 44th, like the rest of us, could profit from his example.
* * * *
 Jewish refugees from Iraq arrive in Israel, 1951 |
Contrary to the anti-Zionist stereotype, Israel is not primarily a nation of Europeans and their descendants: The largest share of Israel's population is ethnically Middle Eastern and North African. Some Jewish survivors from "Poland and Germany" did find haven in Israel after the Holocaust, but a far greater number of Israeli Jews were refugees from the Arab world. "Jews In Grave Danger In All Moslem Lands," reported the New York Times in May 1948, "Nine Hundred Thousand in Africa and Asia Face Wrath of Their Foes." In the years that followed Israel's creation, ancient Jewish communities in Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere were decimated as their inhabitants fled from anti-Semitic violence and terror. Israel absorbed most of those refugees, and they and their descendants -- the Jews indigenous to the region -- became the core of the country's population.
* * * *
A NEW Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that only 29 percent of Americans are prepared to re-elect their incumbent representative in the US House this fall, while fully 60 percent say they are "inclined to look around for someone else to vote for." In a new Rasmussen poll, 65 percent of respondents say it would be better for the country if most congressional incumbents are thrown out this November. Not surprisingly, The Post reports that "anti-incumbent sentiment [is] at an all-time high."
This, of course, is the political flavor-of-the-month. "Anti-incumbent mood as US voters pick candidates" was how Reuters headlined its election-day story last week. "Anti-incumbent wave has Washington on the ropes," NBC's David Gregory advised his Twitter followers. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded at a press conference that "there's no question" about the anti-incumbent resolve of American voters this year.
Don't bet on it.
According to Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, no more than 100 of the 435 US House seats on the ballot this November can by any stretch of the imagination be considered "competitive." Of them, only 24 are rated genuine toss-ups, and only 16 more are held by one party in a district that leans to the other party. Assuming Sabato is right -- and granting that anything can happen between now and November -- only 40 House seats are truly in play. In other words, roughly 90 percent of US House seats are safe.
Sad to say, roughly 90 percent of US House seats are always safe. In the 23 congressional elections between 1964 and 2008, the re-election rate of US representatives dropped below 90 percent only five times -- and only once in the last 30 years. In 2006, a Democratic surge swept Republicans from their House majority -- yet 94 percent of the House was reelected. In 1994, an even larger Republican surge washed the Democrats from control -- but the overall reelection rate was 90 percent nonetheless.
"Nothing is so essential to the preservation of a republican government as a periodical rotation," declared Virginia statesman George Mason during the debate over ratification of the Constitution. Voters routinely say they agree, but alas, that isn't how they vote. An "anti-incumbent wave?" Most congressmen won't even get wet.
JEFF JACOBY
THE BOSTON GLOBE
SUNDAY, 13 JUNE 10
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).
***********************************************************
BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER
He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).
He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii
Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.
Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_
HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS
“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FlEbBZLzo0
If you really want to understand the difference between the technical terms natural born citizen, native born citizen, naturalized citizen and just plain citizen, go to:
http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
And if you really want to understand why it is necessary for a man to be a natural born citizen of the United States in order to be President of the United States, read the essay by Leo Donofrio at:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881
And if you did not know that in additional to Obama being ineligible to be president because of his nationality, did you
know that he is a Muslim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28
LEO RUGIENS
No comments:
Post a Comment