Friday, October 16, 2009


Newt Gingrich's support of Dede Scozzafava immediately reminds me of the support of Arlen Spector (The Awful Spectre) by Rick Santorum in the senatorial primary race in Pennsylvania six years ago against Pat Toomey. Santorum will never be able to live down the disgrace. With Santorum's support, Spector won the election only to abandon the conservatism and the Republican Party and switch to the Democrat Party. Now, Pat Toomey, a Republican, is again running against Spector, a Democrat, in the race for Senator. I along with a lot of other people wish that I could vote in the Pennsylvania election (unfortunately I do not belong to ACORN) for Toomey. I hope he wins and I hope that Santorum fades into political oblivion. Gingrich is too
much an unprincipled politician for my taste. I am reminded of Harry Truman's famous statement about Congress: "There is no difference between playing a piano in a brothel and being in Congress." John Fund explains what this is all about:


Republicans are set to do well in the November 3 off-year elections,

but a conspicuous exception may be

the special House election in New York's 23rd Congressional District,

a rural area bordering Canada that covers a quarter of the state's territory.

In a wild three-way race, Republican Dede Scozzafava has fallen behind Democrat Bill Owens, largely because Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman is pulling 23% of the vote.

The disastrous Scozzafava candidacy was born when local GOP party bosses met in July to pick a candidate (state law does not provide for a primary in special elections). Anxious to hold onto a district that Barack Obama won with 52% of the vote, they went with Ms. Scozzafava, a stockbroker who had won several terms in the state legislature. The second-place finisher was accountant Doug Hoffman, a staunch conservative.

Mr. Hoffman promptly took the Conservative Party nomination and mounted a renegade challenge to the GOP candidate. He had a lot of ammunition. Ms. Scozzafava is easily the most liberal member of the GOP caucus in the state legislature, scoring a 15% rating on the Conservative Party's scorecard. She supports abortion rights and the card-check bill that would do away with secret ballot union elections. She has voted consistently for tax increases and backed the Obama stimulus bill that was opposed by every Republican currently serving in the U.S. House.

The election is less than three weeks away, but Mr. Hoffman may be on track to replicate the 1970 showing of Jim Buckley, who won a U.S. Senate seat in New York by convincing voters that both the GOP candidate and the Democratic candidate were too liberal. At this point in the 1970 race, Mr. Buckley was also considered a third-party irritant but gradually convinced voters he was building enough support to be a possible winner.

Republicans in Washington are furious at this turn of events, pointing out that a new Siena College poll has Democrat Owens at 33% and in the lead. President Obama will hold a fundraiser for Mr. Owens next Tuesday in New York City. GOP leaders are urging House Republicans to back Ms. Scozzafava but so far only about one-tenth of them have actually made out checks. "It looks like the whole thing is collapsing around her," one GOP member told me yesterday. "I can't explain to my donors why I'm writing such a liberal candidate a check."

The danger for Republicans is that Ms. Scozzafava will continue to lose support (the Siena College poll shows that her TV ads make voters LESS likely to support her) while still collecting enough GOP cash and votes to prevent Mr. Hoffman from completing his Jim Buckley scenario. Today, GOP leaders hauled out former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to endorse Ms. Scozzafava, but his statement was perfunctory and avoided praising her stands on issues.

The GOP civil war in New York may indeed hand the seat to Democrats, but even if Republican voters somehow push her over the top next month, the GOP could end up losing anyway. Democrats acknowledge that they approached her to switch parties and run as their candidate in the special election, and she entertained the idea. Should she win the seat narrowly and face a bruising primary with Mr. Hoffman again next year, she could well pull an Arlen Specter and switch parties -- joining a party whose policies are more simpatico while embarrassing the GOP at the same time.




Friday, 16 October 09



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