HAVING BEEN A BRITISH CITIZEN AT BIRTH, OBAMA WAS THEREFORE A NATURAL BORN SUBJECT OF GREAT BRITAIN

Our current US President

was a Great British citizen at the time of his birth.

He then became a Kenyan citizen

followed by what appears to be citizenship in Indonesia.

Perhaps he is currently a citizen or subject of a nation other than the US.

(That question will be the focus of my next article.)

Obama’s own web site carried an admission that his birth status

was governed by Great Britain.

That admission was published by Obama’s Fight The Smears web site as quoted from a discussion of Obama’s UK citizenship written by Factcheck.org.

The Factcheck.org essay went even further than the admission quoted by Obama’s site. It further stated:

“In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC…Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived.”

Neither Obama nor Factcheck.org dispute that Obama was a British citizen at birth. As you can see, it has been admitted. All those who continue to dispute this fact are delusional. Obama was a British citizen at birth. Fact. Checked. Established. The only question that remains on the issue is whether he’s still a British citizen or subject. (And that’s the topic of my next post.)

Having been a British citizen at birth, Obama was therefore a natural born subject of Great Britain. Justice Gray – writing for the Supreme Court majority in Wong Kim Ark – quoted the following from a prior US District Court decision:

“In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. ”

Birth and allegiance go together. Obama’s father conveyed British citizenship upon his son at birth. His son, Obama Jr., was a natural born subject of the British monarchy. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii and was a US citizen at birth, nothing can change the fact that he was also a natural born subject of Great Britain as well as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

The fact that Obama is a natural born subject has – up until this article – gone largely unnoticed. According to Blackstone’s Commentaries:

“all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;”

Obama’s allegiance was – at the time of his birth – divided. And the framers would never have considered him eligible to be President. The same can be said for the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark which also indicated that the native born son of an alien was not natural born.

Now we shall turn our attention to the fears expressed by our founding fathers as to the possibility that foreigners might gain political footholds in our federal government. The issue was discussed explicitly by Alexander Hamilton in Essay 68 of the Federalist Papers wherein he stated:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? (Emphasis added.)

In George Washington’s farewell address in 1796, he stated these most important words which today would be soundly ridiculed by the propaganda of political correct sarcasm:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism…

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another…

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government...

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…(Emphasis added.)

The main stream media would have you believe that a natural born subject – a citizen at birth of Great Britain – entangled closely with the nation of Kenya where he was a citizen until at least the age of 21 – and still may be according to Kenyan law – would be eligible to the office of President of the United States and to be its Commander In Chief. And they push this propaganda down your throat as if it weren’t even a serious issue.

They are lying to you and the depths of their lies betray their genuine recognition that a Constitutional crime has been committed against the Document and the judgment of the founders.

Your press, members of Congress, Senate and current Supreme Court have sold you out, America.

Something wicked this way comes.

And that wickedness comes in the form of a “citizen of the world” who declares our Constitution a flawed document out of one side of his mouth, while allegedly declaring an oath to protect it from the other. (Although the oath was taken in private, so who really knows.) When I recently said I wasn’t worried about Obama, what I meant was that I wasn’t worried about him anymore than the Bush cabal or the Clintons. They all perpetrated crimes against the Constitution.

So many of you are now so very very concerned about our Constitution. Your patriotic fervor has been stoked by Hamilton and Washington just now as you wipe those Constitutional tears away. Your heart burns for the Constitution and the nation, doesn’t it.

But let me take this chance to tell those of you who supported torture, unconstitutional wars and the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians – children, mothers, grandmothers – by the last administration – you don’t deserve the protections of our Constitution.

The Iraq war isn’t Constitutional. There was no declaration of war by Congress. And the war on terror is a myth. “War” is only declared against a foreign state – not an ideology. Terrorism is a crime and 911 should have been handled as a crime scene. But the forensic evidence was shipped out to China. And the case was solved in 24 hours by the same people who allegedly failed to stop it.

I’m not saying 911 was an “inside job” because nobody really knows the whole story. But anyone who denies that elements of the crime have been covered up is lying or just ignorant of basic facts.

And we’re not supposed to do torture. But Scalia would have you believe that torture isn’t a form of punishment. He might just consider it punishment if he were subjected to it. Scalia knows with absolute certainty that torture is punishment. But the Constitution protects against cruel and unusual punishment, so Scalia has to play word games to get the desired ruling he seeks. This makes him an enemy of the Constitution too.

There are many enemies of the Constitution in high places. But you only care about Obama? None of the above bothered so many of you. But now you want to preserve the Constitution?

You’re too late.

This nation will not exist as a Constitutional republic for much longer. Nothing can be done to stop the utter dismantling of the Constitution. It will continue in name only. But the protections it once granted will be ancient relics of a failed experiment in liberty: not failed because our founding fathers didn’t prepare us – failed because we prostituted our ethics for revenge.

I’ve made the legal case that Obama is not a natural born citizen and should not be President. But he is President and Commander In Chief. Nothing will change that.

This country does not have the will power to change it. The country sold its soul to Bush, Clinton, Bush… You didn’t care about the Constitution then and you’re gonna get what you got coming to you now.

CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA.

---

Obama Was A Natural Born Subject: the Founders’ Greatest Fear As To Commander In Chief.

by Leo Donofrio
Posted in Uncategorized on August 7, 2009
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

********************************************************




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.

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.

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?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

GO WEST YOUNG MAN! BUT DON'T GO ALL THE WAY TO THE WEST COAST OR YOU WILL BE IN DANGER OF LOSING YOUR LIFE AND YOUR SOUL

MOUNT HOOD


I visited the city of Portland, Oregon several times back in the last Century. I had a wonderful time. The city is beautiful.
The region is beautiful.

The last time I was there I was retracing the footsteps of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. I visited the campsite on the coast where they almost died of starvation after having finally arrived at the Pacific Ocean.

Something happened to Oregon and the City of Portland after I last visited it. What happened was that thousands and thousands of radical-left liberals fled the economic disaster that California had become and moved to Oregon. And they moved to the State of Washington and they moved to Colorado. Those three states have now become infected with the culture of California, and they are in danger of dying.

If Lewis and Clark could have known what Portland would be like in 2009 they probably would have turned back at the Lolo Pass and not continued on their hazardous journey.

Scipio, with his gift of social analysis and his usual bluntness presents us with a picture of the City and State that has given us, among other things, assisted suicide.

- Leo Rugiens

***************

I am spending two weeks in Portland

with my brother and his family.

They are about the finest people on the planet.

They live and thrive here, but after just a few days I miss my revolvers.

It is probably a good thing I left them at home.

Really,

it is hardly possible to imagine a city

more different from Oklahoma City than Portland.

This place is chock full of crazy folks,

and offers all sorts of things nearly unavailable in Oklahoma City.

The usual signs of decay are present,

including in abbreviated form all the moral depravity exhibited in San Francisco.

Aggressive, alcoholic, drug-addicted and urine-stained homeless;

public fountains used as lavatories;

parades of homosexuals working their obscenities in broad daylight;

gaggles of teens festooned with tattoos and piercings;

used needles (and other used devices) littering streets and byways;

parks rendered unsafe when the sun goes down.

Welcome to Portland!

The reasons for this public depravity are the usual ones.

Since the 1950s, if not earlier, Portland has strongly favored the Democratic Party at all levels of government. Although local elections are nonpartisan, most of the city’s elected officials are Democrats. Democrats also dominate the city’s delegation to the Oregon Legislature.

Are we surprised?

Some mayors of this madhouse deserve special mention. The present one is Sam Adams. He is an outspoken sodomite. He likes little boys whether or not they like him. He has the habit of exposing himself to random folks just passing by his house. Another mayor, Neil Goldschmidt, liked little girls whether or not they liked him. Both Goldschmidt and Adams have a great deal of political power here, of course. They are among their own kind.

Quick: Guess their political party! Hint: It is the same as that of sodomite Barney Frank, girlfriend drowner Ted Kennedy and socialist liar Barack Obama.

What is it with Portland? There must be something in the water here.

Perhaps we should do a mind game. Imagine a child raised on natural spring water. Around the age of 5 the parents begin to place a drop of urine into his water every day, increasing the amount of urine over the years. By the time the child is an adult he is drinking pure urine. So accustomed to urine does he become that the taste of spring water becomes unpleasant. He cannot understand why some people drink spring water, and he believes them crazy for doing so. He also thinks that the legions of illnesses he gets from drinking urine are not really illnesses, but rather signs of a healthy mind and body.

Such is the current state of much of the good and true people of Portland. They are really urine drinkers, and have been for a long time. So many Portlanders have been drinking cultural urine that they have lost the ability to discern disease from health, good from evil and truth from falsehood. The result is confusion everywhere and at all points—moral, political and theological.

Need I add that Portland has the lowest church attendance of any mid-size city in the US? And that there are more strip bars and sex shops per capita here than any major city in the world? And that entire sections of the city are given over to sodomites and lesbians? You can observe them working their depravities in public, if you have a strong stomach.

Who would choose to raise children in this grotesque and cut-rate Gomorrah? Actually, this is not a worry, for every year schools are closing due to lack of kids. Lesbians and sodomites are not known for their ability to generate children, though they do on occasion resort to the adoption agency and the test tube.

And just as naturally Portland is a haven for all the political idiocy known to man. The urine drinkers here are in lock step with the media and the current regime in Washington DC—and pardon that redundancy. Portlanders think themselves sophisticated because they all agree among themselves on the essentials of what passes for educated opinion on: the role of he UN, multilateralism, religion in the public square, US foreign policy, the military, the Kyoto Treaty, public education, abortion, environmentalism, global warming, conservative thought, liberal thought, affirmative action, the death penalty and the 2nd Amendment. Portlanders affirm each other, refer to each other and congratulate each other. There are no real public dissenting voices here. None could survive without a titanic struggle, but local radio guy Lars Larson soldiers on, right in the belly of the beast.

When Christ comes back, He will have it out with this city. It will well deserve its fate.

Anyway, I am thoroughly enjoying my time here. The company is the best around, the food is good and the talk is refreshing. And I have lots of beer.

---

The Urine Drinkers

by Scipio
TheReturnofScipio.blogspot.com
Posted on August 6th, 2009

**************************************




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.

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.

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?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

DO NOT LOOK AT THIS US DEBT CLOCK FOR MORE THAN THIRTY SECONDS

DO NOT LOOK
AT
THIS CLOCK
FOR MORE THAN
30 SECONDS!
IT WILL MAKE YOU
DIZZY!

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

WHY ARE LIBERALS SO FILLED WITH ANGER AND HATRED THAT THEY CANNOT ENGAGE IN CIVIL DISCOURSE?

I am not a 'birther', but I do believe
that Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama
is a usurper because he is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because his father was a British citizen and
Barack was born a British citizen
as he himself admitted on his website
during the 2008 campaign.

What is interesting about this whole controversy
is the anger aroused in liberals by the mere
suggestion that Barack is ineligible to be
President of the United States because
he is not a natural born citizen
as that term was understood by the
framers of the U.S. Constitution.

That anger is manifested by liberals who
comment on any post on any blog
that mentions eligibility.
I have yet to read a comment by any person
identifying themself as conservative
that is offensive.
Whereas comments by liberal commentors
are frequently obscene, profane, filled with
invective and are offensive.

Whatever happened to civil discourse?

- Leo Rugiens

*****************************

Tardy though they are,

we welcome MSNBC to finally joining every major conservative news outlet

-- including Fox News, The American Spectator, Human Events, National Review and Sweetness & Light --

in discrediting the idea that President Obama wasn't born in this country and, therefore, is ineligible to be president.

Now the big question: Was Joe Biden born on this planet?

Inasmuch as the "birther" movement

was hatched in the station wagon of MSNBC's favorite left-wing fantasist,

Larry Johnson,

maybe the mainstream media can stop acting as if it's a creation of the Republican National Committee.

Which party contains 99 percent of the people who believe (or believed):

-- O.J. is innocent;

-- Bush shirked his National Guard duty;

-- Sarah Palin's infant child, Trig, was actually the child of her daughter;

-- Justice Antonin Scalia threw the 2000 election to Bush so that his son could get a legal job with the Labor Department;

-- The spectacularly guilty Mumia Abu-Jamal was framed;

-- The Diebold Corp. secretly stole thousands of Kerry votes in 2004;

-- Duke lacrosse players gang-raped a stripper;

-- Bill Clinton did not have sex with "that woman";

-- Heterosexuals are just as likely to contract AIDS as gays;

-- John Edwards didn't have an affair with Rielle Hunter;

-- John Edwards' campaign aide Andrew Young is the father of Rielle Hunter's child.

And as has been recently noted, a 2007 Rasmussen poll showed that 35 percent of Democrats believe Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, while 26 percent aren't sure ...

Holy mackerel.

Another favorite MSNBC guest, Janeane Garofalo, believes Enron's Ken Lay faked his own death. It's weird that Keith Olbermann didn't ask her about that when she was on his show a couple of months ago, given his sudden interest in stamping out conspiracy theories.

Also trying to revive his failing TV show, MSNBC'S Chris Matthews has been denouncing the birthers on "Hardball" nightly and demanding that every elected Republican who appears on his show do the same.

How many times has Matthews forced Democratic officeholders to denounce Al Sharpton for the Tawana Brawley hoax? Or for that matter, how many times has he forced Sharpton -- a frequent guest on his show -- to admit the case was a fraud?

Sharpton has veto power over all Democratic presidential candidates. Even Al Gore, a former vice president of the United States, was required to kiss Sharpton's ring.

If there ever comes a time when Republican presidential candidates have to get the blessing of the head of the birther movement to run, I'll say: I'm wrong -- Republicans do have as many conspiracy nuts as the Democrats.

Not content with merely humoring their nuts, Democratic officeholders promote conspiracy theories themselves.

In 2003, Democratic presidential candidate and future Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean approvingly cited the left-wing lunacy that Saudi Arabia had warned Bush in advance about the 9/11 attacks. He promised a caller to National Public Radio that, if elected, he would investigate.

In the fall of 2004, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said she believed Bush was holding Osama bin Laden and planned to release him just before the election. (She later claimed she was joking -- a surprise to all three witnesses who heard her say it.)

Sen. Barbara Boxer officially objected to the certification of Ohio's votes in the 2004 election -- on the Senate floor -- and demanded an investigation into the "Diebold stole Kerry votes" conspiracy theory.

And, of course, a Democratic House and Senate actually used official government proceedings to investigate the original nut-job conspiracy theory, the "October Surprise," maintaining that Reagan struck a secret deal with the Iranians not to release the hostages until after the 1980 election.

Now, the only October surprise will come under ObamaCare: Order an MRI in April and get it by ... October -- surprise!

Rosie O'Donnell -- who has headlined many a Democratic fundraiser -- is a prominent 9/11 "truther." She believes the World Trade Center was blown up with explosives, not taken down by terrorists in airplanes.

Most shockingly, the Democrats have a hand-in-glove relationship with Michael Moore, crackpot documentarian, whose "Fahrenheit 9/11" is chock-a-block with demented conspiracy theories, including:

-- the 2000 election was stolen;

-- the Bush family clandestinely spirited the bin Laden family out of the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks; and

-- Bush went to war in Afghanistan, not to avenge the 9/11 terrorist attack, but to help the Unocal Corp. obtain a natural gas pipeline in Afghanistan.

Terry McAuliffe, then chairman of the Democratic National Committee attended the glittering Washington, D.C., premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11" and emerged endorsing Moore's wacko Unocal conspiracy theory. "I believe it after seeing that," McAuliffe said.

Show me RNC Chairman Michael Steele saying "I believe the birthers" and I'll give 10 percent of my book profits to Air America, raising their profits to -- let's see ... about 10 percent of my book profits.

Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark proudly accepted Moore's endorsement in 2004, and Moore was an honored guest at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, sitting with former President Carter.

What is the likelihood that a birther will be sitting with former President Bush at the 2012 Republican National Convention?

Other Democrats who attended Moore's movie screening included Sens. Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, Max Baucus, Ernest Hollings, Debbie Stabenow, Bill Nelson, and representatives Charles Rangel and Jim McDermott.

Show me a half-dozen Republican senators attending a birther movie premiere, and I'll pretend to believe that Olbermann went to the Ivy League Cornell.

---

Obama Birth Certificate Spotted in Bogus Moon Landing Footage

By Ann Coulter

Thursday, 6 August 2009

**************************************

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.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards, AND further, as Obama himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Obama 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.

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?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

CRAZY LIBERALS WANT TO EMPTY OUR JAILS BECAUSE IT IS INHUMAN TO SENTENCE PRISIONERS TO LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE

OF THE 2.3 million people incarcerated in prisons and jails in the United States,

roughly 140,000, or 6 percent, are serving life sentences.

Of that number, about 41,000

-- i.e., 29 percent of the lifers, or 1.8 percent of all inmates --

were sentenced to life without parole.

Both numbers are at an all-time high.

Should Americans be troubled by this?

The Sentencing Project thinks so.

In a new report, the liberal advocacy group

-- which describes itself as a promoter of "alternatives to incarceration" --

complains that the growth in life sentences has been costly and unjust.

It "challenges the supposition that all life sentences are necessary to keep the public safe."

It particularly disapproves of life-without-parole sentences,

which, it claims

"often represent a misuse of limited correctional resources and discount the capacity for personal growth and rehabilitation that comes with the passage of time."

As a matter of policy,

the Sentencing Project supports abolition of both the death penalty

and life without parole.

In its view, even a vicious mass murderer deserves a chance at parole.

That is an eccentric position that most Americans clearly don't share.

Nevertheless, the group's new report --

"No Exit: The Expanding Use of Life Sentences in America" --

has drawn media attention;

stories have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, and Agence France-Presse, among other outlets.

But good PR is not a substitute for sound analysis.

The problems with "No Exit" begin with the first paragraph,

which asserts that the high incarceration rate in the United States

is the result of "three decades of 'tough on crime' policies

that have made little impact on crime."

America's prison population has indisputably grown in recent years,

as prison sentences have lengthened and more criminals have been locked up.

But far from negligible, the "impact on crime" has been dramatic.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Americans experienced 44 million crimes in 1973.

By 2007, the number of criminal victimizations had dropped to 23 million.

During those "three decades of 'tough on crime' policies," in other words, crime in America was nearly halved

-- and this even as the population grew by more than 75 million.

Since the mid-1990s, the plunge in violent crime has been especially steep:

from more than 51 crimes of violence per 1,000 US residents in 1994 to 21 in 2005

-- a 59 percent reduction.

Research analyst Ashley Nellis, lead author of the Sentencing Project's new report,

concedes that it is "intuitive" to attribute the striking reduction in crime

to the fact that many more criminals are behind bars.

But some researchers, she told me yesterday, have determined

that incarceration rates account for no more than one-fourth of the drop in crime.

Among those she mentioned was economist Steven Levitt,

who is perhaps best known for his controversial

Freakonomics

argument that the legalizing of abortion in the 1970s helps explain the crime reduction of the

1990s.

Yet even Levitt has estimated that for each additional criminal locked up, there is "a reduction of between five and six reported crimes." In a 2004 paper, he identified "increases in the prison population" as more significant than any other factor in explaining the drop in homicide and other violent crimes. The Sentencing Project may insist that incapacitating criminals through more and longer prison sentences has "made little impact on crime," but those prison sentences have spared countless Americans from being assaulted, robbed, raped, and murdered.

Nowhere in "No Exit" is there any breakdown of the crimes that led to the 140,000 life sentences now being served. Yet the report devotes almost obsessive attention -- including five statistical tables -- to the alleged racial disparity those sentences reflect. About 48 percent of lifers are black, 33 percent are white, and 14 percent are Hispanic. "These figures are consistent with a larger pattern in the criminal justice system," the report notes, "in which African Americans are represented at an increasingly disproportionate rate across the continuum from arrest through incarceration."

Yet the report mentions only in passing another striking disparity: Nearly 97 percent of inmates serving life terms are men. If it is noteworthy that blacks, who account for 12 percent of the general population, make up 48 percent of lifers, shouldn't it be even more significant that men, who comprise less than half the population at large, represent nearly all those sentenced to life?

The explanation, of course, is that men commit the vast majority of serious crime; that hard fact, not sexism, explains the disproportionate male incarceration rate.

Likewise the racial disparity: Though blacks account for just one-eighth of the US population, they are six times more likely than whites to be murdered, and seven times more likely to commit murder. That hard fact, not racism, explains the high proportion of lifers who are black. But such inconvenient facts appear nowhere in the Sentencing Project's report. "No Exit" brims over with information and statistics -- but only the ones that reinforce its sponsor's preconceived views.

---

With imprisonment up, crime is down

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
August 5, 2009

***
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.

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.

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?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY IS SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE

A dangerous precedent is being set
by Obama being President.
Obama’s father was never a US citizen,
nor was he ever permanently domiciled in the US.
At birth, Obama was a British citizen.
[He's also been a Kenyan citizen and perhaps a citizen of Indonesia as well.]
Obama admits his birth status was governed by Great Britain.

The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.

For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice – John Jay – to suggest to George Washington the following:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

This letter was written on July 25, 1787. It is in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier – on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.

Contrary to media lies, you will find not one single statute in current US law which uses the words “natural born citizen” in code provisions which grant citizenship. For no statute can make one a natural born citizen. It’s a status, not a right. And that status is necessary for only one purpose under the sun – to be Commander In Chief of the US armed forces.

Any citizen can hold any office in the entire Government of the United States except for Commander In Chief. And for good reason, as John Jay made clear all those years ago. This doesn’t mean that immigrants from all nations can’t one day be President. They can. But they need to have two generations of US citizenship to do that – not one.

If we decide to ignore the natural born citizen provision, we open the door to the possibility of a person with strong ties to foreign nations – possibly stronger than to our own – to be the sole commander of our military men and women who protect us. And they also deserve our protection – AT ALL COSTS – from such a treasonous scenario.

We shouldn’t let our Constitutional guard down for the sake of allowing one very popular man to endanger all future generations. Is it not possible that persons such as Kim Jong Il or Osama Bin Laden might imgregnate a US citizen woman? And if this woman gives birth on US soil the precedent set by Obama would allow that child to be Commander In Chief. ....

I’m worried about who comes next because of the precedent he sets. The same fear caused me to challenge McCain on the ballot as well.

This is the issue before the nation - and it’s right from the mouth of John Jay’s more restrictive requirement that it was “wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The framers wisely provided us with that check.

By weakening the natural born citizen check, we dangerously enlarge the pool of candidates who can be Commander In Chief or our armed forces.
---
by Leo Donofrio
NaturalBornCitizen.wordpress.com
Tuesday
04 August 09

*********************************



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.

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.

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?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

CALVIN COOLIDGE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS NOT; AMERICA IS THE WORSE FOR IT

By the light of a kerosene lamp, Calvin Coolidge is sworn is as president, Aug. 3, 1923

SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO
this week,
Calvin Coolidge was sworn in
as the 30th president of the United States.
The anniversary has not gone unmarked. In Boston,
the John F. Kennedy Library hosted 600 historians, educators, and amateur scholars for a superb two-day conference on Coolidge's life and times.
Robert Sobel's absorbing new biography,
Coolidge: An American Enigma,
has just been published by Regnery.
And on Sunday,
the late president's sudden inauguration was reenacted at the Calvin Coolidge Historic Site in Plymouth Notch, Vt.

That summer night, back in 1923,
was one of high drama.
As President Warren G. Harding lay dying in San Francisco, Vice President Coolidge was visiting his father and stepmother in the lonely Vermont village where he had grown up. There was no electricity in the house, no plumbing, no telephone. Light was provided by a kerosene lamp.

Word of Harding's death reached White River Junction, the nearest sizable town, by telegram. By the time someone got the news to Plymouth Notch, it was extremely late. John Coolidge, the vice president's father, answered the knock at the door. In a trembling voice he called upstairs to his son.

"Coolidge and his wife returned to the bedroom," Sobel writes. "They washed, dressed, and knelt by the bed to pray. Then they went downstairs, where Coolidge dictated a message of sympathy to Mrs. Harding. The house was now crowded with reporters and others."

The attorney general urged Coolidge to take the oath of office without delay. He "went across the street to the general store and telephoned Secretary of State [Charles Evans] Hughes, who informed him the oath could be administered by a notary. Coolidge told Hughes his father was a notary. Coolidge returned home, and in the downstairs sitting room John Coolidge, using the family Bible, swore his son in as president. The time was 2:47 a.m."

The modesty of Coolidge's inauguration befit his style. He was a frugal man, with words no less than with money. Indeed, about all he is popularly remembered for is his reticence. As the story goes, the matron seated next to him at a dinner said that she had wagered she could get the famously nontalkative president to say more than two words. Coolidge replied: "You lose."

The story may have been apocryphal. But it was certainly true that Coolidge didn't believe in wasting words. In a profile written when he was still governor of Massachusetts, the New York World called him a "sphinx." He "talks little," the paper noted. "It is his silences which seem to speak loudest, for when one ventures to put a question to him, the answer comes in a tightening of the governor's lean face and the closing of his lips."

Yet he wasn't shy when he had something to say. He delivered more speeches than any of his predecessors. He held 520 press conferences. He was the first president to address the nation by radio and did so about once a month, paving the way for FDR's fireside chats.

In fact, he was a superb politician. He stands as one of the great vote-getters in Massachusetts history -- he was elected state representative, state senator, lieutenant governor, and governor -- and one of the most popular men ever to run for president. After finishing Harding's term, he was elected in his own right in a landslide in 1924. A second full term would have been his for the asking. Never, perhaps, has anyone been so admired while in the White House -- and so disdained afterward.






Coolidge's reputation plummeted after 1929 because the first reviews of his career were written by hostile New Deal historians. Lionizing Franklin Roosevelt for sharply expanding the role of the federal government in Americans' lives, they painted the conservative Coolidge by contrast as a do-nothing who had failed to foresee the Depression. Unable to defend himself -- he died in 1933 -- Coolidge slipped from the ranks of the nation's most esteemed figures to the level of its most disparaged.

Now, belatedly, his fine record is getting the clear look it deserves. The first hint of a Coolidge rehabilitation came in 1981, when Ronald Reagan ordered Coolidge's portrait to take the place of Harry Truman's in the Cabinet Room. At the Kennedy Library conference, Time columnist Hugh Sidey recalled the buzz that went through the press corps when the Coolidge painting appeared. Reporters thought the custodian must have fetched the wrong portrait.

But Reagan's instincts were solid. In the judgment of Robert D. Novak, the veteran political commentator, Coolidge's "personal integrity, faith in the market system, and concern for the ordinary citizen" made him "the model of American conservatism." His White House years were distinguished not only by unstained honesty but by a fierce drive to reduce taxes and slash the national debt. Coolidge was the last president until Reagan who grasped in his bones the importance of limiting government. "It is much more important," he insisted, "to kill bad bills than to pass good ones."

Quiet, modest, careful, the thoughtful New Englander raised to the presidency in that hasty ceremony 75 years ago turns out to have been one of the most honorable public servants ever to hold the job. What a pity that he has gone so long without the credit he deserves. What a blessing it would be to have his like in the White House again.
---
SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS OF UNDERESTIMATING
CALVIN COOLIDGE
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
August 6, 1998
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6035/75-years-of-underestimating-calvin-coolidge
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe. To follow him on Twitter, click here.)

**************************

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.

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.

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?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

ENVIORNMENTALISM IS A RELIGION, A FALSE RELIGION WHICH WILL CRUCIFY AMERICA AS A PARTICIPANT IN THE WORLD ECONOMY

Hugh Hewitt interviews
Charles Krauthammer on cars for clunkers, and the clunker health care for bills.
Saturday, August 01, 2009 at 2:09 AM

---

HH: Friday means a Fox News all-star, and today it is Charles Krauthammer of Washington Post columnist fame, and of course the Fox News all stars. Charles, welcome back, always a pleasure to talk to you.

CK: Pleasure to be with you.

HH: I’d like to start by asking you the cash for clunkers program succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dream. They blew through their billion dollars in like a week. Doesn’t that prove yet again that people respond to incentives, economic incentives, and that therefore if the government plan, the public option makes money for employers, they’re going to dump their employees into it?

CK: Oh, I think that’s true. This is about as quick and obvious and easy a stimulus as you can get. You pay people to give up, well, it’s essentially to prematurely change their cars. These are cars that over a year or two or three, people would be trading in anyway, but you want to speed it up, because we’re in the depths of a recession. It’s not a plan you’d want to keep up in the future. But there are two problems. Yes, it is stimulative, and I’m not particularly against it. However, number one, why autos? I mean, after all, we’re already putting $80 billion into auto and subsidies. Why not furniture? The housing industry is dying. Why not get cash for couches. But secondly, here’s the real problem. The liberals in the Congress have insisted that the cars that you trade in have to be scrapped in two days, turned into a block of steel. That’s it. You cannot keep the car or use it as parts, which means there’s going to be artificially imposed scarcity of used cars and parts, which means that poor people, immigrants, students, young people who need a starter car are going to have higher prices. And this is all in the name of the Earth goddess as a way to reduce global warming. It will cause a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a decrease in CO2 emissions of what China emits on a Wednesday afternoon. So it’s of no use ecologically, and yes, it’s a complete waste of hundreds of thousands of perfectly good cars.

HH: You know, Charles, I just finished an hour long conversation with one of the environmental activists behind the listing of the Delta Smelt [as an endangered species], and the cut off of water to the California Delta, which has caused massive unemployment in the Central Valley. And so she just made up statistics about well, 40,000 fishermen have lost their jobs because of the Delta decline. I sometimes wonder about the environmental left, if they are fact-based at all.

CK: It’s a religion, Hugh. It’s not facts, it’s not science. It’s a religion. And they’ll do human sacrifice if they have to. The numbers are made up. They know, for example, I mean all of the cap and trade stuff, which would really destroy our economy, they know would be swallowed up in a week or two of India and Chinese emissions. China is starting a coal fired plant every week on average, and that is just throwing all that CO2 into the atmosphere, of which our reductions would be negligible. It would simply end up as a great transfer of wealth out of the West into the third world on a scale never seen. But it’s a religion. So they are impervious to empirical evidence.

HH: Let’s switch over to the health care issue, which I do believe the government plan will get an enormous number of people dumped into it, because it will make employers a lot more money than cash for clunkers make individual car owners, and so they’ll respond to it. But here is Nancy Pelosi two days ago talking about the insurance industry.

NP: The insurance companies are out there in full force carpetbombing, shock and awe against a public option.

HH: Now here is Joel Benenson, the President’s pollster, talking in Canada to a group of businessmen.

JB: One example of this is right now, a big debate in America over whether we should create a public plan option for health care, that people could buy into, that would compete with the insurance industry. The Republicans are still locked into the language they used fifteen years ago to call it government-run health insurance, whereas people like the idea of having a public plan that can compete with insurance companies, because they think insurance companies have been the villain here, not the government.

HH: And so you see, Charles, he comes up with the villain language, the Speaker picks it up, and they go after the insurance business hammer and tong.

CK: Well, they’re being entirely disingenuous. They’re trying to tart up the public plan as being simply as a way to compete with, and therefore to keep honest the insurance companies. In fact, the cat was let out of the bag by Barney Frank this week, when he said publicly that the public option is the way to achieve a single payer system, meaning a government-run system as you have in Canada or in Britain. He said it openly and publicly. It’s the only way to get it, America would not support it if it were presented as an option, a Canadian-type system. Therefore, you want to institute a public option. And you know that it would be infinitely subsidized out of the U.S. Treasury. In the end, insurance companies would not be able to offer any competition. In the end, everybody would end up in the public option, because it would be subsidized in a way that the private companies are not. So it’s understood as the road to a socialized medicine.

HH: It’s a very steep road, too. I think it will happen very quickly. But here is what the President continues to say. This is from his town hall with AARP members earlier this week, the President’s guarantee.

BHO: Here’s a guarantee that I’ve made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you’ve got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor.

HH: Now Charles, he used the G word, guarantee. Can he make that guarantee?

CK: Of course not, because even if you want to keep your employee-given insurance, if you’re employer is competing, looks at a public option and dumps, and decides he’s going to eliminate the insurance he’s offering because he knows that everybody is entitled to enter the public option, then you’re going to end up in the public option. You’re not going to have the private option. So he can’t guarantee anything. Look, he guaranteed that if we did the stimulus, unemployment, well, he didn’t guarantee, he said the purpose was to keep unemployment at under 8 1/2%, and we’re of course at 9 ½ and rising.

HH: But now, I hate to get into the biased media thing, but I just have a, this guarantee is bothering me. If George W. Bush, or George Herbert Walker Bush, or Ronald Reagan, or Richard Nixon, or even Bill Clinton came out and repeatedly made a guarantee statement that is so patently and obviously false, would they be allowed to get away with it in the fashion that President Obama has been allowed to get away with it?

CK: Oh, of course not. I mean, look, but I accept the bias in the media, the liberal bias is like the air we breathe. It’s there, it always has been, it’s been worse now with Obama because he, in the eyes of the media, is divine, or just perhaps one notch below, and that’s what you have to accept. So what’s remarkable, I think, Hugh, is that over the decades, with the media so much in the tank, American politics is still center-right, which shows that the common sense of Americans in the end is impervious to the media message, which is always a liberal and leftist one. So it really, it’s like water on a rock. I mean, it might have a slight erosive effect, but in the end, it doesn’t work.

HH: Let me read you an e-mail I got today tested against your understanding as a doctor, Charles. Dear Hugh Hewitt, I own a medical billing company specializing in anesthesia billing. I’d like to point out something of grave concern in the new health care bills that nobody seems to be talking about. Medicare pays anesthesiologists about twenty cents on the dollar compared to private insurance company. The health care bills set reimbursement rates at Medicare rates plus 5%. That might be fine for most specialties where Medicare rates and private insurance rates are fairly close. But it will destroy anesthesia. What doctor’s going to take an almost 80% pay cut? It goes on to give statistics. This has been confirmed by other anesthesiologists. Were you aware of this, Charles?

CK: Well, the plans are always, the government and liberal plans are always biased against specialists. Remember Hillarycare? It was going to reduce the number of actual training slots for specialists, and they all want general practitioners. Let me tell you as a doctor. If your kid is sick, and medicine is sophisticated, you might want a general practitioner for a five minute consultation, who will direct you to an infectious disease specialist, or a pediatrician, or even a rheumatologist if it’s an exotic disease. You need specialists. That’s why Americans are living longer and healthier. It’s specialists, and that’s expensive. You’re either going to accept that, or you’re going to ration it out of existence as the government-run systems do.

HH: Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, always a pleasure, thank you for joining me, and thank you for bringing the medical background that is so infrequently displayed on air. I appreciate it very much.

End of interview.
---



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.

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.

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?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

I WOULD RATHER BE FREE TO CHOOSE, EVEN IF I MAKE BAD CHOICES, RATHER THAN HAVE SOME GOVERNMENT BEAUROCRAT MAKE THE CHOICES FOR ME

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.,

laughs as he is handed a copy of H.R. 3200,

America Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,

as he stopped in on the House Energy and Commerce Committee

markup of the bill on Capitol Hill in Washington,

Thursday, July 30, 2009.

Rangel, who does not pay all of his income tax,

is eager to put a surcharge on everyone else's income tax

to pay the $1,300,000,000,000.00 cost of Obamacare.

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

***

My conservative friends

– and even a few media liberals –

are agreed:

The bloom is off the Obama rose.

He's not the Obamessiah,

just another 50 percent president.

He tried to do too much too fast, and his numbers are sinking.

The Europeanization of health care is dead.

Fuhgeddabouddit.

I wouldn't be so sure. President Barack Obama has no choice but to move fast, in part because the image he presented during the campaign – a post-partisan, post-racial, post-anything-unpleasant-and-controversial pragmatic centrist – was a total crock. He has a vast transformative domestic agenda and, because most of its elements are not terribly popular, he has to accomplish it at speed or he won't get it done at all.

Health care "reform"? As we've seen this past week in the House of Representatives, put not your trust in "Blue Dog Democrats." And, as we'll no doubt see in the weeks ahead in the Senate, put not your trust in "moderate Republicans" whose urge to "reach across the aisle" is so reflexive it ought to be covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The president needs to get something passed. Anything. The details don't matter. Once it's in place, health care "reform" can be re-reformed endlessly. Indeed, you'll be surprised how little else we talk about. So, for example, public funding for abortions can be discarded now, and written in – as it surely will be by some judge – down the road. What matters is to ram it through, get it done, pass it now – in whatever form.

If this seems a perverse obsession for a nation with a weak economy, rising unemployment and a war on two fronts, it has a very sound strategic logic behind it. As I wrote in National Review a week or two back, health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. That's its attraction for an ambitious president: It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in a way that hands all the advantages to statists – to those who believe government has a legitimate right to regulate human affairs in every particular.

That's not why it's tanking in the polls, of course. It's floundering because Obama sold it initially on the basis of "controlling costs," and then the Congressional Budget Office let the cat out of the bag and pointed out that, au contraire, it would cost $1.6 trillion, and therefore either add to an unsustainable deficit, or require massive tax increases, or (more likely) both.

All of which is true. But to object to the governmentalization of health care on that basis implicitly concedes the argument that, if we could figure out a way to bring the price down, it would be fine and dandy. Right now, there are a lot of wonkish and utilitarian objections to what the Democrats want to do, and they're gaining traction. In The American Spectator, Brandon Crocker points out that this is exactly the way things went over Hillarycare in 1993: Americans took against the plan on practical grounds but not against the underlying principle. "Since we did not win that philosophical argument in 1993," Mr. Crocker writes, "we now have to fight the same battle today." And, if we win on utilitarian grounds today, we'll have to fight it again in 10 years, five years, maybe less – until something passes, and then everything changes, forever: As the IRA famously taunted Margaret Thatcher, we only have to get lucky once; you have to be lucky every day.

On the price tag: It's often argued that, as a proportion of GDP, America spends more on health care than countries with government medical systems. But, as a point of fact, "America" doesn't spend anything on health care: Hundreds of millions of people make hundreds of millions of individual decisions about what they're going to spend on health care. Whereas up north a handful of bureaucrats determine what Canada will spend on health care – and that's that: Health care is a government budget item. If Joe Hoser in Moose Jaw wants to increase Canada's health care spending by $500 drawn from his savings account, he can't: The law prevents it. Unless, as many Canadians do, he drives south and spends it in a U.S. hospital for treatment he can't get in a timely manner in his own country.

You can make the "controlling costs" argument about anything: After all, it's no surprise that millions of free people freely choosing how they spend their own money will spend it in different ways than government bureaucrats would be willing to license on their behalf. America spends more per capita on food than Zimbabwe. America spends more on vacations than North Korea. America spends more on lap-dancing than Saudi Arabia (well, officially). Canada spends more per capita on doughnuts than America, and, given comparative girths, Canucks are clearly not getting as much bang for the buck. Why doesn't Ottawa introduce a National Doughnut Licensing Agency? You'd still see your general dispenser for simple procedures like a lightly sugared cruller but he'd refer you to a specialist if you needed, say, a maple-frosted custard, and it would only be a six-month wait, at the end of which you'd receive a stale cinnamon roll. Under government regulation, eventually every doughnut would be all hole and no doughnut, and the problem would be solved. Even if the hole costs $1.6 trillion.

How did the health-care debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies?

That's the argument that needs to be won. And, if you think I'm being frivolous in positing bureaucratic regulation of doughnuts and vacations, consider that under the all-purpose umbrellas of "health" and "the environment," governments of supposedly free nations are increasingly comfortable straying into areas of diet and leisure. Last year, a British bill attempted to ban Tony the Tiger, longtime pitchman for Frosties, from children's TV because of his malign influence on young persons. Why not just ban Frosties? Or permit it by prescription only? Or make kids stand outside on the sidewalk to eat it? It was also proposed – by the Conservative Party, alas – that, in the interests of saving the planet, each citizen should be permitted to fly a certain number of miles a year, after which he would be subject to punitive eco-surtaxes. Isn't restricting freedom of movement kind of, you know … totalitarian?

Freedom is messy. In free societies, people will fall through the cracks – drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for health care and much else. But the price of being relieved of all those tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high.

Government health care would be wrong even if it "controlled costs." It's a liberty issue. I'd rather be free to choose, even if I make the wrong choices.

Friday, July 31, 2009

Mark Steyn: No turning back from Obamacare

Even a watered-down version of Obama's plan would shift the country permanently to the left.

By MARK STEYN

Syndicated columnist