Thursday, January 7, 2010



Perry on a Roll

One of the most closely watched political races of the year should be the Republican primary for the governor's office in Texas, pitting incumbent Rick Perry versus Texas U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Both have spent millions already, with potentially tens of millions on tap, but the heavy betting is on Mr. Perry at this point as the March primary approaches. As one lifelong political operative in the state tells me: "Kay Bailey can't get to the right of Perry on a single issue." That's a big problem in a GOP primary in the reddest of states.

On Wednesday, Mr. Perry moved to seal the deal with conservatives by calling for a new constitutional set of protections for taxpayers. Call it a Texas-style "taxpayer bill or rights." Mr. Perry wants the state's constitution amended to require a two-thirds vote requirement of the legislature for any tax hikes. He also wants state spending capped at the rate of annual population growth plus inflation. States like Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada have already adopted such taxpayer protections and the limitations have worked well to repel new spending, according to economist and state budget expert Barry Poulson of the University of Colorado.

Mr. Perry sounded as if his audience for these reforms was just as much the White House and the U.S. Congress as citizens of his home state. As the tax, borrow and spend "mindset holds sway over Washington, D.C.," Mr. Perry said, "it is more important than ever that we take steps to protect our citizens from the excesses of unrestrained government at every level."

Mr. Perry's slate of populist taxpayer protections may well doom Ms. Hutchison's chances. Ms. Hutchison started with a 25-point lead a year ago but Mr. Perry was leading by more than ten points in polls at year-end. In November, 57% of Texas voters told Rasmussen they preferred that Ms. Hutchison remain in the senate. I'm hearing that Senator John Cornyn, who runs the Republican Senatorial Committee, also is trying to persuade Ms. Hutchison to drop out of the governor's race run for reelection to the senate. That would stop the costly internecine warfare in the state and likely end any chance of Democrats picking up her Senate seat. Ms. Hutchison has not ruled out seeking another Senate term.

Mr. Perry is rated one of the top conservative governors in America, winning kudos for turning down federal stimulus funds on grounds that the temporary money would permanently ratchet up state spending. Peggy Venable, Texas director of Americans for Prosperity, says: "Thank goodness we didn't take those funds. We would have had to raise our unemployment insurance tax on employers if the governor had taken stimulus money."

Texas is now ground zero for the revolt against Obamanomics and it's clear that Mr. Perry's stand for states rights against Mr. Obama's constant threats has made him a state hero. "Why would Texas vote out one of the best governors in America?" asks Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. It's a good bet they won't.

by Stephen Moore




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