Friday, October 23, 2009


Pelosi: "Are you serious?"

Government & Politics

A Serious Question

We have known for many years that Democrats view the Constitution

as an obstacle to their goals,

not as something to be revered or upheld

-- despite their repeated oaths to do just that.

And as Mark Alexander warned last week, our Constitution is on life support.

More evidence of the trauma inflicted by our elected "representatives"

surfaced this week when

asked the only truly relevant question in the health care debate:

Where in the Constitution is the authority to mandate that Americans buy health insurance?

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was befuddled and deflected: Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?

Leahy: We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority? I'm asking-

Leahy: Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there's no question there's authority, nobody questions that.

While Leahy's answer is both defensive and outrageously arrogant, in a sense, he's right: Not enough voters question the constitutional authority for anything Congress does. Even Republicans too often simply declare, "Me too, only a little less," instead of abiding by the Constitution.

The interviewer persisted, however, and again asked the question. Leahy dodged, saying, "Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway? The federal government does that on federal highways." He then walked away.

So to get this straight, Leahy defended Congress' unconstitutional attempt to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy by citing another unconstitutional law that was justly repealed 14 years ago.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) answered the question by saying, "Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect [a mandate that individuals must buy health insurance]. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility."

On the contrary, in 1994, the Congressional Budget Office reported that a mandate forcing Americans to buy insurance would be an "unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

According to Hoyer and his accomplices, however, the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution empowers Congress not only to "promote the general Welfare," but to provide it, demand it and enforce it.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was the worst offender. "Madam Speaker," asked, "where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Her brief reply spoke volumes about the Left's contempt for the Constitution and the Rule of Law: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" She then ignored the question and moved on to the next one. Her spokesman later added, "You can put this on the record: That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."

Even in light of the current recession, we live in a day of unprecedented prosperity and, as a result, we have become complacent. Unfortunately, the likes of Leahy, Hoyer and Pelosi, who mock the Constitution instead of keeping their oaths, have almost completely robbed us of the "Blessings of Liberty" which our Founding Fathers pledged "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" to defend.

Though questions concerning constitutional authority are finally being asked inside the Beltway, they have been asked with ever-louder voices across the nation since Ronald Reagan reinvigorated that debate. Of course, since the last election, the national debate chorus has become much more unified.

For example, in The Patriot's home state of Tennessee (which Al Gore claims as "home" but which gave its electoral votes to Bush, twice, and then to McCain), there is a 10th Amendment battle underway, and not a minute too soon.

State Republicans are organizing a state sovereignty campaign in opposition to the federal government's abuse of states' rights. This week, a legislative committee approved a motion to invite representatives from the legislatures of the other 49 states to join a "working group ... to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of its assumption of powers."

Can you say, "Constitutional Convention"?

Predictably, Obama's state cadre of Democrat sycophants are huffing and puffing. State Democrat Chairman Chip Forrester says, "It's unfortunate that Republican members of the state Legislature have jumped on this crazy train. This is nothing short of lunacy. The Tea Party organizers and their ultra-right wing cronies began this ridiculous issue to disrupt civil debate about how to move this state and nation forward. I hope they are not suggesting we fight another Civil War."

No, we should give the Convention a chance before taking up arms. And if it comes to the latter, I suggest Mr. Forrester say goodbye to the sun and slither down a very deep hole.

News From the Swamp: Health Care Budget Hijinks

The Senate Finance Committee submitted its 1,500-page health care bill this week. S. 1796, the brainchild of Chairman Max Baucus, has drawn the ire of Republicans and some Democrats because it includes a 40 percent tax on so-called "Cadillac" health insurance plans valued at $8,000 or more for individuals and $21,000 for families. This tax is supposed to help fund the bill and is targeted at the wealthy, but, just like the Alternative Minimum Tax, it will inevitably hit the middle class as time passes.

There are additional tricks that Democrats have relied on to make the bill seem more affordable than it really is, including front-loading it with revenue proposals and back-loading it with spending measures. Taxes on the pharmaceutical industry, medical device manufacturers and insurance companies will kick in almost immediately, while the costly elements of the bill, namely coverage for the uninsured, will not begin until 2013. In short, Obama tells us that "Now is the season for action," but we won't be able to assess the full consequences of such action until after he's stood for re-election.

Fortunately, conservatives won a small victory by preventing the so-called "Doc Fix" bill from coming to the floor. It would have frozen $247 billion in Medicare payment cuts in order to garner support from doctors for the overall bill, but 13 Democrats defected. Apparently adding a quarter-trillion dollars to the $1.4 trillion deficit was too big a pill for even some Democrats to swallow.

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"Republicans will do everything in their power to stop [health care] reform this time because for many on the other side there will never be a good time to reform health insurance. As former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole said a few days ago, and I quote, 'Sometimes people fight you just to fight you,' end quote. That might be true but it won't be tolerated. Congress will not be sidetracked by those who devise strategies only to trip up progress rather than contribute in good faith. This country has no place for those who hope for failure." --Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Too bad there's such a large place for those who usurp the Constitution.

New & Notable Legislation

Democrats in the Senate want to increase the national debt ceiling to more than $13 trillion, though, as usual, they're seeking political cover rather than being "transparent." The Democrat strategy appears to be to add a provision increasing the debt to a must-pass piece of legislation, such as the Defense Department spending bill. That would allow them to "support the troops" while masking their absolute profligacy. The House has already increased the limit above $12.1 trillion, but Senate Democrats figure they should just ask for more now rather than revisiting the issue again before the 2010 elections.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) has proposed legislation to regulate the volume of commercials on television. The Federal Communications Commission already prohibits commercials being broadcast at "louder volumes than the program material they accompany," and the organization that sets technical standards for television broadcasters, the Advanced Television Systems Committee, is on the job getting such technology voluntarily implemented. Why let the industry fix itself when government can save the day?

The Senate voted to expand so-called hate crime protections to those with gender-disorientation pathology Thursday and the bill now heads to the White House for Obama's signature. You used to be able to get a penny for your thoughts. Now it'll be a few years in prison.

Hope 'n' Change: War on Fox Continues

The White House fight with Fox News Channel continued this week as Senior White House Adviser David Axelrod and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel hit the Sunday talk shows with claims that Fox does not produce news. Comrade Axelrod went so far as to tell ABC News on "This Week" not to treat Fox as a news organization.

Such an assault on the free press is, to borrow one of the Democrats' favorite adjectives, positively Nixonian. Even ABC's Jake Tapper came to Fox's defense. He asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, "It's escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations 'not a news organization' and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it's appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one?" Gibbs was typically evasive.

Furthermore, the arrogance of the administration was on full display when it came to light that its Mao-admiring communications director, Anita Dunn, told the Dominican government during a videoconference that Obama's presidential campaign rarely communicated with the press unless it "controlled" the message. Referring to campaign manager David Plouffe's talking points, Comrade Dunn bragged, "We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it." That's community organizing, and Marxism, 101.

From the Left: ACORN Lies Exposed Again

Just when you thought it was safe to visit an ACORN office again, yet another video was released this week at James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, the young conservative activists who posed as a pimp and prostitute in order to get ACORN's advice on tax evasion and other illegal activities, released a sixth video putting the lie to the organization's claim to have "thrown out" the pair from its Philadelphia office. The same employee who claimed she showed them the door is on camera in the newest video giving them the same advice on illegal activities that they received at five other ACORN offices -- and the conversation lasted for 32 minutes.

The audio is frequently muted because of ACORN's legal action against O'Keefe and Giles, but Andrew Breitbart, whose Web site first aired the videos, has challenged ACORN to allow him to play the full audio. O'Keefe said, "We call upon ACORN to state publicly now that it has no objection to the public release of any of its employees' oral statements to us. If they are interested in the truth, why wouldn't they do so?" Furthermore, O'Keefe asks, "Why did the Philadelphia press report that we were kicked out? Will those reporters now print corrections? [Will the] Washington Post print a second correction?" Don't hold your breath.

Keeping Kinston Voters on the Plantation

Non-partisan local elections are the rule in North Carolina, so when Kinston voters overwhelming approved non-partisan elections for the town, the result should have been non-controversial. However, the Obama Justice Department overruled the change on the ground that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democrat Party prominently displayed on a ballot.

Justice's rationale was that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that, therefore, the city cannot drop party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect their "candidates of choice." This in a city where blacks account for more than 60 percent of registered voters and where no one can recall a Republican winning office.

A Justice Department spokesman denied that the decision was intended to help the Democrat Party. However, the decision was made by the same Justice official (Voting Czar?) who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia. So much for "post-partisanship."

RINO Lashes Out

The already newsworthy special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District took a turn for the ugly last week when RINO candidate Dede Scozzafava called local police on a reporter questioning her.

John McCormack, a blogger for the Weekly Standard, found himself on the receiving end of questions from local police in Lowville, New York, after a GOP event featured Scozzafava beseeching Republicans to vote for her and not Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. The police were called in because McCormack was making Scozzafava "scared ... a little bit" with his persistent but polite questioning both during and after the event, though he wasn't charged with any criminal offense.

Scozzafava has alienated GOP voters in a district that elected former Republican Congressman John McHugh (who resigned to become Secretary of the Army) by a nearly 2-to-1 margin. Among her far-left positions, the New York state Assemblywoman reliably voted for higher taxes, supported abortion rights, flipped back and forth about card check, and was endorsed by none other than the far-left Daily Kos blog. As word got out about her political positions, she has dropped down to third in recent polling in this three-way race behind Democrat Bill Owens and Hoffman.

Scozzafava was selected for the Congressional nomination by local GOP officials over a field that included Hoffman, and she has also received backing from the national Republican Party and an endorsement from Newt Gingrich. They say politics creates strange bedfellows. This race has provided some of the strangest in memory.

National Security

Warfront With Jihadistan: Whither Will He Dither?

It has been nearly three months since General Stanley McChrystal asked President Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan, and still the "commander in chief" has declined to make a decision. Several media outlets, including the London Times, have blasted his inaction, and politicians on both sides of the aisle are decrying the administration's handling of the war. Of course, some are making more relevant points than others.

"Does it really take 100,000 troops to find Osama bin Laden?" Sen. Robert Byrd (D-Pangea) demanded. "And how much will this cost? How much in terms of more dollars? How much in terms of American blood?"

Byrd's statement shows again how far out of touch Democrats are. Last weekend the Pakistani government sent 28,000 troops to seek and destroy the Taliban living along the porous border shared with Afghanistan. In addition to hosting a potpourri of Islamofascist groups, the area is also apparently a favorite location for terrorist training camps. One graduate is none other than Najibullah Zazi, who was planning to bomb New York City subways until his plot was foiled by the FBI. The Pakistani offensive will no doubt lead to a migration into Afghanistan, where our troops are stationed. The problem, it appears, is a wee bit larger than bin Laden. As good as capturing the flag would be, it won't win the war.

Yet there are still those making excuses. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently stated that the situation in Afghanistan is an "evolutionary process," and the president is going to make his decision about a troop increase "in that context." Perhaps Gates should tell this to our troops over there, understaffed and looking death in the eye.

The 'New' Missile Defense in Poland

On Sept. 17, President Obama stabbed our NATO allies Poland and the Czech Republic in the back when he unilaterally cancelled plans for basing in those countries a defense shield against long range missiles. Ironically, Sept. 17 was the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland that helped kick off Europe's version of World War II, a little fact that our Eurocentric Dear Leader had somehow missed (or not). By previously accepting President George W. Bush's request to host the missile defense system, both Poland and the Czech Republic took enormous risks, as Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin considers Eastern Europe to still be under Russia's boot and who, in his quieter moments, probably dreams of another Sept. 17 moment.

In an apparent attempt to make up for that treachery, this week Obama sent Vice President Joe Biden to Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania with a "new" proposal for hosting a missile defense system against shorter range missiles. According to Biden, the new plan "will cover more of Europe, including Poland, and will do it more efficiently than the previous system." Apparently, this "new" system is better solely because Obama proposed it and not Bush.

Initial reaction from the Poles is understandably muted. Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski said, "We expect details of the offer and will react in light of these, but please do not expect any dramatic or momentous events." And Polish President Lech Kaczynski said, "Today we know one thing -- Poland's role in the new plan will not be as big as the role it was to have in the Bush plan." We can't blame the Poles for feeling betrayed, because they were. And is Babblin' Joe Biden really the best man to send when fences need mending?

In other snub-our-allies news, BO couldn't squeeze in a visit to Berlin on Nov. 9 for the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. He's sending Hillary instead, as he's too busy these days attending fundraisers for Democrat congressional candidates.

Detainee D├ętente

The Senate voted 79-19 Tuesday to remove an obstacle to Barack Obama's plan to close the jihadi prison at Guantanamo Bay. The measure would allow the administration to bring foreign terrorism suspects to the U.S., though only if they are to be prosecuted here. The measure was attached to a $43 billion bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. It passed the House last week and now heads to the White House for Obama's signature. About 220 prisoners remain at the facility.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of 17 Chinese Muslims being held at Guantanamo. The men, Uighurs from western China, were captured in Afghanistan. According to The Hill, "A federal judge ordered the men released last October, but the appeals court reversed that ruling in February, determining that judges do not have the authority to override immigration laws and force the executive branch to release the detainees into the country." Some of the men have already been sent to Bermuda, while the Pacific island nation of Palau has agreed to accept most of the rest, leaving just one seeking a place to go. They fear persecution if returned to China -- a legitimate concern.

Speaking of counterterrorism, a report by UN Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin complains that security measures taken against terrorists "risk unduly penalizing transgender persons whose personal appearance and data are subject to change." Scheinin adds, "This jeopardizes the right of persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities to recognition before the law." Next time a terrorist attack kills Americans, the UN can tell their families it happened because we couldn't offend a guy running around dressed in drag.

Business & Economy

Regulatory Commissars: About Those Attached Strings...

The Washington Post reports, "The Federal Reserve joined the Treasury Department on Thursday in imposing new limits on executive pay, extending the government's control over compensation at taxpayer-owned companies to institutions that are merely government regulated."

Reread that and let it sink in for a minute. To put it in perspective, political analyst Rich Galen points out, "Putting aside defense firms -- which exist on government funds -- there are thousands and thousands of companies which get local, county, state or federal contracts. Does every executive of each of those companies fall under the same rule?" And oh by the way, what was the constitutional basis for taking over those companies? Oh, sorry, we already asked that question...

Comrade Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department Pay Czar, announced the plan Thursday. As for the details, according to The New York Times, "The plan, for the 25 top earners at seven companies that received exceptional help, will on average cut total compensation this year by about 50 percent. The companies are Citigroup, Bank of America, American International Group, General Motors, Chrysler and the financing arms of the two automakers." The Associated Press reports that the decision will "slash the base salaries of their top executives by an average of 90 percent and cut their total compensation in half."

The Wall Street Journal summed it up: "These companies -- and executives -- owe their survival to political intervention, and the price of such taxpayer help is inevitably some populist retribution."

But surely, this move by the Obama Politburo is worth it for the benefit to the economy, right? Not so fast. Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general in charge of oversight for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), says last fall's bailout came at great cost to taxpayers with little to show for it. "Despite the aspects of TARP that could reasonably be viewed as a substantial success," he wrote, "Treasury's actions in this regard have contributed to damage the credibility of the program and of the government itself, and the anger, cynicism and distrust created must be chalked up as one of the substantial, albeit unnecessary, costs of TARP."

So far, Treasury has spent more than $454 billion through TARP programs, and the administration is expected to announce a plan to extend $5 billion more to small banks. To date, 47 recipients have paid back about $73 billion. Despite promises to the contrary, however, Barofsky admits that "it's unrealistic to think we're going to get all of that money back." Keen sense of the obvious.

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"We get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults-only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao [Tse-tung] that political 'power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.'" --Comrade Ron Bloom, the White House manufacturing czar, in February 2008 when he was president of the United Steelworkers Union

While we in our humble shop have yet to determine how paying "a lot of money" equates to a "free lunch," Bloom is the second Obama czar (that we know of) to praise China's Communist dictator, who was responsible for more than 70 million deaths.

Around the Nation: Jobs in Detoilet

Having proven to be educated beyond her capacity, Michigan's Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm is set to demonstrate her astonishing lack of command of Econ 101 yet again. Her previous exploit in 2007 -- levying the largest tax increase in Michigan history ($1.4 billion) -- was apparently just a warm-up for her latest feat.

That would be upping the ante $600 million more to reduce Michigan's projected $2.8 billion deficit -- this, despite the governor's promise never again to raise taxes after the disaster that followed her record-breaking '07 tax hike. In a state in which a 15.2 percent unemployment rate leads the nation and in which its population -- including business -- is leaving at a two-to-one rate over those entering, the liberals' poster child has decided that the best way to fix these problems is to raise taxes.

More than 750,000 private-sector jobs have fled the state since the decade began and by the time Granholm's current term expires, that number is projected to be well over a million. Worse, at 637,000 strong, government jobs now eclipse manufacturing jobs (which total less than 500,000) in a state that used to be one of the world's top manufacturing dynamos. Government is also now the state's largest employer. (Around the nation, since the "stimulus" was enacted, 49 of 50 states have lost jobs.)

Showcasing her lack of understanding of the underlying issues, Gov. Granholm recently went toe-to-toe with multi-billionaire casino mogul Steve Wynn on Fox News. Wynn had declared, "Government has never increased the standard of living of one single human being in civilization's history. For some reason that simple truth has evaded everybody." He went on to explain, "The biggest obstacle that working middle-class America has is government spending." Both statements stirred a visceral reaction from the governor.

Attempting to cast the savvy tycoon as a rube, Granholm countered, "It's just so simplistic to say that ... you know, I mean there are a lot of people who are grateful that in this country we have a minimum wage ... that they have access to Medicare and Medicaid. ... I mean, there is a balance here. To say that government is all evil ... this is a democracy! It's the greatest country in the world!"

Wynn, realizing he was in a gunfight with an unarmed opponent, shot back: "I didn't say that at all. I'm saying that the source of government revenue -- the source of well-being in this country -- is employment. That allows companies to pay taxes, employees to pay taxes ... and believe me, ma'am, I've got 20,000 employees. I've had as many as 150,000 families that I've been self-insuring. There's nothing 'simplistic' about my approach to this problem."

No, the simpleton in this exchange was obvious. Unfortunately, Granholm's errant thinking has done nothing to create jobs, and in fact has only put more people on the street, giving ample support for many who now label Detroit "Detoilet."

Income Redistribution: More Mortgage Money

"The Obama administration today announced a new effort to help battered state and local housing agencies provide mortgage help to hundreds of thousands of homeowners," ABC News reports. "The administration said the new plan will help keep mortgage rates low, and increase resources for low and middle income borrowers to buy or rent homes." ABC then gives the details: "The administration's new two-pronged initiative, operating under a law passed by Congress last year, will consist of a bond purchase program to support new lending by these agencies, and a temporary credit and liquidity program to boost agency access to credit sources for their existing bonds. The eventual size of the program will be set according to agency demand, but it does have a ceiling." Federal spending with a ceiling? Couldn't happen.

That's not the real knee-slapper, though. Michael Barr, Treasury Department Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions, provided the punch line, saying, "There will be strong taxpayer protections," and the "expected cost to the federal government is zero." We're glad to know they can have their cake and eat it too.

In other mortgage news, the IRS is investigating more than 100,000 dubious claims of an $8,000 tax credit intended for first-time homebuyers. The credit was part of the so-called "stimulus" passed in February. We're shocked -- shocked -- to hear that people might be gaming the system.

Culture & Policy

Climate Change This Week: RINO Joins Cap-n-Tax Bandwagon

This little tax went to energy, this little tax went to imports from nations that don't cut carbon emissions. Unfortunately, there's nothing "little" about the taxes in the Senate cap-n-tax bill, and the only fairytale related to the legislation is the politically tainted story of pending climate catastrophe. Yet, amid discredited scientific models, strangely disappeared research data, and dishonest rhetoric over a global warming "consensus," Senate Democrats continue to herald cap-n-tax as low-cost environmental salvation.

In reality, as CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf recently testified, cap-n-tax would stunt GDP growth, keeping it up to 3.5 percent lower by 2050 than without the bill. And according to the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, by 2035 cap-n-tax would plummet GDP by $9.4 trillion, drive job losses up to nearly 2.5 million, and spike gas prices by 58 percent. And all for just two-tenths of a degree cooling -- at best -- by 2100, says climatologist Chip Knappenberger.

Despite this, Sen. Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC) has handed himself to Democrats as a feather in their cap-n-tax scheme, joining Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA) in a New York Times op-ed pushing the legislation. Graham imagines Democrats will reciprocate by supporting nuclear power and easing up on offshore drilling and domestic energy production. Right, Lindsey. That's about as likely to happen as global warming.

'Non Compos Mentis' File: Fawning Admiration Award

With all of the favorable press coverage of Barack Obama over the last 18 months, it's no surprise that his mug was plastered on hundreds of magazine covers during that time. In fact, the number is so large that the American Society of Magazine Editors has created a special award category to honor the best magazine cover featuring Obama. (Needless to say, the infamous New Yorker cover featuring Obama dressed as a Muslim and fist-bumping a gun-toting Michelle as the American flag burns in the background didn't come out on top.)

Gushing with praise for the winner and five runners-up, the ASME apparently figured the sheer number of possible entries was such that they couldn't fit the Obama covers into another category such as News and Business, Lifestyle, Entertainment and Celebrity, or even Sexiest.

Certainly Obama is an appropriate topic for a magazine cover; after all, what he's doing to America is news. But the television overexposure that's driving his approval ratings down is matched only by the sheer number of Obama pictures staring out from the newsstands. While one can't judge a book by its cover, the chances are pretty good that if you see Obama on a magazine, you won't see hard questions about his policies inside.

Village Academic Curriculum: Yes, Another Obama-Worship Video

The indoctrination of our children under the Obama Reich continues, as yet another video surfaces of school kids singing praises to our "Dear Leader" -- paid for with your tax dollars. And this time, with more cowbell.

Media Double Standard

CNN has an update on a disturbing crime in West Virginia: "A 22-year-old woman whose claims that she was abused in a trailer in rural West Virginia in 2007 helped send six people to prison now says she made up the story." The victim, who is black, accused her six attackers, who are white, of some pretty heinous crimes for which they are each serving up to 40 years. (The strange thing is that all six confessed, which begs the question: Why is she now recanting?) At the time, Al Sharpton joined in calling it a "hate crime," and the event garnered national media attention.

Obviously, it reminds us of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, the Knoxville couple who, in January 2007, were carjacked, raped and murdered by five black perpetrators. The story received almost no media attention, and Al Sharpton did not denounce it as a hate crime. That crime is still in the trial phase, but it has yet to gain real traction in the media.

And Last...

If you're still looking for that perfect Halloween costume, never fear, your search is over. The illegal alien costume comes complete with an orange jumpsuit that says "illegal alien," a "green card" -- and an alien mask. As the costume's package says, "He didn't just cross a border, he crossed a galaxy!" And, "He's got his green card, but it's from another planet!" Naturally, the costume has caused an uproar from liberals who prefer distorted Nixon, Reagan and Bush masks. They are a sensitive lot, after all. Target even pulled the costume off its shelves after receiving complaints, saying the whole thing was a mistake.

NBC's Los Angeles affiliate headlined the story "Immigrants Not Amused by 'Illegal Alien' Halloween Costume." Memo to NBC: They are illegal immigrants. Do we really have to bow to their feelings on Halloween costumes now?

Of course, if that costume doesn't suit, you can always dress up like Jesse Jackson and head over to MSNBC. They'll think you look just like Al Sharpton!

- Mark Alexander and the Staff of The Patriot Post

Friday, 23 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