Wednesday, October 7, 2009



I have always been fascinated and frustrated by the phenomenon in our public dialogue that when we get new information after a “debate” is deemed to be over, that the original dispute is never “reopened.”
For instance, when Barack Obama threw Rev. Jeremiah Wright “under the bus” a month after he was praised lustily by the media for not having done so in his famous “race” speech, the history of that event was never rewritten. Similarly, the dramatic positive impact of the surge in Iraq never came close to altering the media’s premature conclusion that the war there was a “disaster,” and the most recent data on the global temperature drop has done next to nothing to change the notion that the debate of global warming is “over.”

In the past week we have seen two classic examples of this quirk in the unwritten rules of media history.
The Obama/Oprah led flameout for Chicago’s hopes to host the 2016 Olympics certainly fits in this category. Much has already been said about the disastrous nature of this development from the economic and political perspectives. However, not nearly enough has been stated about how this event seems to prove that one of the basic foundations of the argument for Obama’s election was a complete lie.
It was just over a year ago when Obama choose to go to Europe for his grandiose victory lap for having won the Democratic nomination. Hundreds of thousands (allegedly) of enlightened ones flocked to the streets to see and hear the new Messiah promise to bring the now hated United States of George Bush back into the good graces of the “civilized” world.
The message was clear. We elect Obama and the rest of the world will instantly love us again (as if they ever really loved us to begin with). The media hammered this point until even the people who literally couldn’t find Europe on a map (you know, the ones that actually decide elections in this country) understood how vitally important this was.
Well, based on what happened in Copenhagen, how in the world can anyone conclude anything other than that whole concept was just simply made up?
Never before in modern history had a U.S. President needlessly put so much prestige on the line in front of the world community and been so roundly rejected. The fact that Chicago didn’t even get out of the first round eliminates any real ambiguity about what was really happening here and exposed the theory that Obama’s election did anything to elevate our country in the eyes of the world as being completely bogus (keep in mind that all it took for golf to get in 2016 Olympics after a century long absence was for Tiger Woods to appear in front of the IOC via videotape; once again proving that Obama is no Tiger).
And yet, very little has been said that even questions whether we were lied to about this audacious promise. Instead, some have laughably tried to blame the Bush hangover for the embarrassment even though Chicago somehow made it successfully to the final stage while the evil one was still President.
This episode is reminiscent of the Cambridge police flap where Obama’s words and action totally destroyed the obviously phony narrative that our new President was a different kind of black leader and was going to be “post-racial.” The evidence could not be more overwhelming that we were lied to about this as well, and yet (due mostly to rampant media malpractice and conservative wimpiness) in the consciousness of the average American, that slam dunk case is still largely unproven
The other incident which followed this same pattern involved the revelation that David Letterman has apparently had numerous affairs with members of his staff.
This one is particularly personal for me because I somehow found myself at the forefront of the Fire David Letterman “movement” after his inappropriate “jokes” about Sarah Palin and her daughter. At the time, it seemed pretty clear to me that Letterman had “issues” and that the basis of his obsession with Palin and her family was obviously sexual. After all, Letterman had continuously referenced Palin’s attractiveness in a creepy sort of way and had even invited her on his show while urging her husband Todd to stay home.
But when I went on Fox News Channel to discuss this issue and referenced my theory, I was almost mocked by anchorwoman Megyn Kelly.
Now, based on these most recent disclosures, how can you conclude anything other than I was probably right? Heck, even Letterman himself seemed to back up this conclusion when he seemingly bizarrely (though in the context of my supposition perfectly understandable) “apologized” to Sarah Palin in the middle of begging for understanding from his fans and wife for his indiscretions.
This is on top of the numerous previous statements and “jokes” that Letterman had made about Palin just before and after his original “apology” was so eagerly accepted by the news media which cast great doubt about the sincerity of his efforts to make amends.
But has there ever been any reevaluation of what was really going on in the Letterman/Palin flap which, at the time, actually was outrageously a net gain for Dave? No. Instead much of the media focus has been on how Letterman is a “victim” of an extortion attempt as well as how strongly his fans appear to be backing him on this.
I realize that what is about to happen or what may occur in the future is far more exciting and ratings friendly than what has already occurred in even our very recent past, but are our collective attention spans and memories really all so short that we can’t at least correct the record on these significant incidents?
Our side needs to understand the incredible importance of the narrative and when the facts allow us to win these skirmishes (even after they have seemingly been previously lost), we need to take advantage of that. Fortunately, based on recent history we will get plenty of similar opportunities in the future.
So, Now You Tell Us?!
by John Ziegler



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
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:

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:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:

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.


“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?”

- Leo Rugiens

No comments:

Post a Comment