Thursday, January 21, 2010

NEXT WEDNESDAY OBAMA WILL DELIVER HIS STATE OF DISUNION ADDRESS TO THE NATION

State of Disunion

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." --Article II, Section I, U.S. Constitution

On Wednesday, 27 January, Barack Hussein Obama will deliver his first "State of the Union" speech as president, a self evaluation of his first year's achievements.

Sprinkled between his infamous "let me be clear" or "make no mistake" introduction to his lies, he will, characteristically, attempt to spin a plethora of failures into something including these phony fallback phrases: back from the brink; signs of recovery; restored our reputation; achieved some successes; more work yet to do; fiscal restraint; greed on Wall Street; affordable health care; relief for working families; job creation.

He'll also use the word "inherited," as in "I inherited this mess." He'll speak of "unprecedented" reforms or achievements or challenges. And he'll mention "those who seek to do us harm," but he won't dare utter the term "Islamic terrorists."

In advance of his teleprompted propaganda, then, let's take a reality check on Obama and his first year.

Never before in the history of our great nation has any sitting president held so much disregard and outright contempt for our Constitution and Rule of Law.

Perhaps the operative words in his oath were, "to the best of my ability"?

Of course, what were we to expect from a Marxist, whose views on government and economy were shaped by his surrogate father and communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis; whose first campaign for political office was launched by Maoist anarchists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn; whose political career has been stewarded by the likes of Leftists Richard Daley, Michael Pfleger, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, et al.

And don't forget his religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright, who married Barack and Michelle and baptized their children.

Wright preached hate, plain and simple: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government gives [black people] drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strikes law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, g-d d--- America. G-d d--- America for treating our citizens as less than human. G-d d--- America."

Wright sermonized that our great nation is in fact the "U.S. of KKK-A" and is "controlled by and run by rich white people. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in god. And god has got to be sick of this sh-t!"

How did Obama respond when asked about his pastor's perennial anti-American tirades? "It sounds like he was trying to be provocative," concludes Obama.

At a foundational level, Obama's ability and his agenda have been shaped first and foremost by his condition as a pathological narcissist, a young man driven by a blinding need for acceptance and its coefficient, power -- the result of a childhood characterized by his father's, and then stepfather's, rejection.

It should be noted that the young Barry Obama did not ask for or deserve the hardship he suffered as a child any more than millions of other children abandoned by their fathers today. In that respect, he deserves our compassion.

However, Obama's insatiable pathological need for power renders him a very dangerous person in power.

He was elected on a promise that should have served as a warning sign: "This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

He ran his charismatic campaign on a promise of "hope," but in the words of Patrick Henry, "It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth -- and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts."

As for "fundamentally transforming" our nation, that is a thinly veiled reference to an outright assault on our Constitution and our Essential Liberty, one that thrusts an ever more powerful central government upon us.

Not since 1860 has the Union been at such odds with the fundamental rights of the States and the People.

Obama's effort to endow the central government with absolute authority follows his Socialist political playbook, Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."

Obama was elected just weeks after an economic collapse which can be tied directly to Leftist economic policies.

His effort to "Reclaim America" involves taxing and borrowing more than a trillion dollars from the private sector, sifting it through the bureaucracies of his political appointees, then "investing" it into the public sector to grow government and pay off his special interest constituencies and other benefactors.

He is plundering private sector resources under the pretense of private sector "job creation."

He has attempted, with some success, to nationalize, by way of regulation, coercion or "investment," the major industrial and service segments of the economy -- including energy, banking, investment, education, insurance, automotive and real estate -- and he has supplanted free enterprise with Socialism.

He is endeavoring to nationalize our nation's largest single economic sector, health care, and he laughs off any suggestion that there is no constitutional authority for such folly. Moreover, the House version creates 111 new oversight bureaucracies. (1)

He has attempted to advance his domestic agenda on a global scale under the guise of "climate change."

Further, Obama's national security failures present even greater peril to life and liberty.

Coddling Islamic extremists, bowing to Saudi kings, apologizing to the world, politicizing terrorist interrogation methods at Gitmo, treating terrorism as "criminal activity" and moving the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York, using Operation Enduring Freedom as campaign fodder and setting a timeframe for withdrawal from Afghanistan -- these and many more grossly errant policy decisions served only to hinder and demoralize us and our allies while empowering and emboldening our enemies, thus enabling jihadi attacks such as the murder of 12 soldiers, one civilian, and an unborn baby at Ft. Hood, and the narrowly averted bombing of a U.S. airliner this past Christmas Day.

Of course, there were other ridiculous gaffes, like the one at his last public press conference (six months ago), when he offered his impromptu assessment of the arrest of his friend, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, by claiming that the Cambridge Police "acted stupidly." His subsequent "beer summit" was a forced and feeble attempt at damage control.

And then there was the Nobel Peace Prize, a ridiculous Euro-leftist albatross of an award that was bestowed upon Obama just days after he ascended to the presidency.

Were it not for the threat of unbridled laughter, Obama's SotU address might also reflect on some of the most egregious prevarications from his brief tenure.

On his plans for massive government expansion: "Not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't."

On his grand Socialist schemes: "I've never bought into these Malthusian, woe, Chicken Little, the earth is falling -- I tend to be pretty optimistic."

On the so-called "stimulus package" (i.e., record debt): "Less than one month after taking office, we enacted the most sweeping recovery package in history, and we did so without any of the earmarks, pork-barrel projects that are usually accompanying these big -- these big bills."

On bailouts for behemoth auto producers: "Let me be clear. The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM."

On his friends at ACORN: "You know, it's -- frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely. I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money."

On blame shifting: "You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans."

On taxes: "I will tax just the rich. I want to give a tax cut to the middle class."

On the cost of ObamaCare: "It won't add to the deficit. And I mean it! ... It's designed to lower it!" And how about this one: "I have not said I am in favor of a single-payer system."

On the transparency of his health care "reform" deliberations: "It's going to be on C-SPAN."

On jobs (record unemployment): "My administration has created or saved... [ad nauseam]." (2)

On the political influence of grassroots Tea Party participants: "Those people waving their little tea bags around..."

Clearly, Obama has underestimated the influence of those who support America's First Principles. In addition, he has also grossly misread his mandate as the heir of the once-noble Democratic Party.

These miscalculations were manifest in the recent Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections, and again this week in Massachusetts.

Who woulda thunk it -- that in the most liberal state of the union, whose legislature hastily amended laws so the governor could immediately appoint a Demo replacement for the seat vacated by the U.S. Senate's most liberal member, Ted Kennedy, who had occupied the seat for 47 years since the departure of his brother, JFK, and whose life ambition was to nationalize health care, whose designated replacement, Martha Coakley ran on his platform -- who woulda thunk that a Democrat who just weeks ago held a 30-point lead in the polls would be defeated by Scott Brown, a moderate Republican state legislator of the Mitt Romney variety, who ran on a platform against nationalized health care?

Clearly, the loss of a Senate seat in Massachusetts is a major reality check for Obama. When asked about the rising rejection of his "vision" for America, Obama responded, "I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we're making a good rational decision here, then people will get it."

In other words, "The people are just too dumb."

And speaking of "the people," when Scott Brown was asked in his last debate with Coakley if he would be willing to "sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat" and vote against the health care bill, he responded, "Well, with all due respect, it's not the Kennedy seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."

Every Republican and Independent running for election or re-election in 2010 should, first, take that cue from Brown -- the seats they seek belong to the people. Second, they should take a cue from Ronald Reagan, who left a timeless template for success: Run on a platform that, first and foremost, insists on the re-establishment of constitutional Rule of Law, and then governs accordingly.

For too long, too many Americans have been complacent about liberty, believing it to be their birthright and the birthright of generations to come. They have enjoyed the fruit of liberty defended by others, taking rights for granted and knowing nothing of the obligations for maintaining that blessing.

Most Americans have never had to fight for liberty and, thus, have little concept of its value or any sense of gratitude for its accumulated cost -- a cost paid by generations of Patriots who have pledged their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama was an egregious affront to our legacy of Essential Liberty, and a clarion call to action for the many good citizens who honor the rights and obligations of citizenship.

As was the case with the first American Revolution, we now face a crucial battle for liberty. The upcoming elections, more than any other in recent history, are about the restoration of constitutional integrity.

Indeed, fellow Patriots, this is our time. The road to recovery is long, but the momentum is with us.

Footnotes: 1. With the election of Brown, ObamaCare in its present form is dead, but expect Obama to call for passage of revised legislation, which has support of both Republicans and Democrats. Once passed, it can then be readily amended.

2. Credit where credit due -- Obama's recovery plan has not created any real jobs, but it did secure new employment for at least three Republicans: One in Virginia, one in New Jersey and now one in Massachusetts.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

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

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.

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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

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

Monday, January 18, 2010

AT LEXINGTON AND CONCORD TOMORROW FIRE A SHOT THAT WILL BE HEARD AROUND THE NATION

As the sun rose on the morning of April 16, 1775 American militiamen opened fire on advancing British Regulars and, in the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, "fired the shot that was heard around the world."

Tomorrow morning, January 19, 2010 voters in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will begin going to the polls to vote to elect a United States Senator to a full six year term replacing the temporary occupant of the seat in the United States Senate occupied for more than thirty years by Ted Kennedy. By casting their votes for SCOTT BROWN voters in Massachusetts will in effect be 'firing a shot' that will be heard around the Nation.

Just as the colonials rebelled against the tyranny of taxation without representation, so the voters of Massachusetts have the opportunity to rebel against the tyranny of taxation by one party rule in Washington.

The battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War.^[8]^[9] They were fought on April 19, 1775, in Middlesex County, Province of Massachusetts Bay, within the towns of Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, Menotomy (present-day Arlington), and Cambridge, near Boston. The battles marked the outbreak of open armed conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and its thirteen colonies in the mainland of British North America.

About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. Through effective intelligence gathering, Patriot colonials had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk, and had moved most of them to other locations. They also received details about British plans on the night before the battle, and were able to rapidly notify the area militias of the military movement.

The first shots were fired just as the sun was rising at Lexington. The militia were outnumbered and fell back, and the regulars proceeded on to Concord, where they searched for the supplies. At the North Bridge in Concord, several hundred militiamen fought and defeated three companies of the King's troops. The outnumbered regulars fell back from the Minutemen after a pitched battle in open territory.

More militiamen arrived soon thereafter and inflicted heavy damage on the regulars as they marched back towards Boston. Upon returning to Lexington, Smith's expedition was rescued by reinforcements under Lieutenant-General Hugh Percy. The combined force, now of about 1,700 men, marched back to Boston under heavy fire in a tactical withdrawal and eventually reached the safety of Charlestown. The accumulated militias blockaded the narrow land accesses to Charlestown and Boston, starting the Siege of Boston.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his "Concord Hymn", described the first shot fired by the Patriots at the North Bridge as the "shot heard 'round the world," even though it was not the first shot of the war.^[10]

[WIKIPEDIA]

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

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.

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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

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

MARTIN LUTHER KING, THE NON-OBAMA

Martin Luther King Jr.

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' ... I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. ... And if America is to be a great nation this must become true." --Martin Luther King Jr.
Historian Shelby Steele observed, "There is an awful lot of conservative sentiment in black America, but at the moment, the party line is ruthlessly enforced." Indeed, some of King's chief lieutenants, like Jesse Jackson, tolerate no dissension from their liberal ranks now. They have abandoned King's dream, and aligned themselves with political and social agendas obsessed with color at the expense of character.
Black conservatives of national stature, such as Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, Michael Steele, Jesse Lee Peterson, Alan Keyes, Don Scoggins, Alvin Williams, Ken Blackwell, Thomas Sowell, Star Parker and Walter Williams are routinely castigated by the Black Supremacists, as "Uncle Toms" and "puppets." Yet these are the men and women who really understand King's central message about character.
Today, Barack Obama will be waxing eloquently about King's legacy. But it is worth noting that prior to his murder in 1968, Martin King went to Obama's hometown of Chicago to meet with Mayor Richard Daley, father of the current Windy City Don. Chicago was a hotbed of racial hatred under Daley, and not much has changed.
King observed of that enmity, "This is the most tragic picture of man's inhumanity to man. I've been to Mississippi and Alabama and I can tell you that the hatred and hostility in Chicago are really deeper than in Alabama and Mississippi."
Chicago was not only a denizen of racial hatred but the violent black supremacist movement was born there. King said, "Those who are associated with 'Black Power' and black supremacy are wrong."
It is that very racial hatred and hostility in which Obama has been steeped, particularly by mentors such as Jeremiah Wright.
At King's funeral, one Bible passage, Matthew 5:9, summed up his life's mission: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."
Obama was not stewarded by peacemakers.
Finally, irrespective of one's conclusion about Martin Luther King's proper place in history (given the historical account of his sometimes-lacking personal integrity and character), the two texts cited below (from The Patriot's Historic Documents section) are well worth reading -- for each of them proclaim truth.
"I have a dream"
Letter from a Birmingham jail
The Gipper
"In 1968 Martin Luther King was gunned down by a brutal assassin, his life cut short at the age of 39. But those 39 short years had changed America forever. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had guaranteed all Americans equal use of public accommodations, equal access to programs financed by federal funds, and the right to compete for employment on the sole basis of individual merit. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 had made certain that from then on black Americans would get to vote. But most important, there was not just a change of law; there was a change of heart. The conscience of America had been touched. Across the land, people had begun to treat each other not as blacks and whites, but as fellow Americans. ... Now our nation has decided to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by setting aside a day each year to remember him and the just cause he stood for. We've made historic strides since Rosa Parks refused to go to the back of the bus. As a democratic people, we can take pride in the knowledge that we Americans recognized a grave injustice and took action to correct it. And we should remember that in far too many countries, people like Dr. King never have the opportunity to speak out at all." --Ronald Reagan

THE PATRIOT POST
MONDAY, 18 JANUARY 10
****************************************************

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.

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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

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

Sunday, January 17, 2010

THE MASSACHUSETTS SENATORIAL ELECTION IS A REFERENDUM ON THE OBAMA DEMOCRAT OLIGARCHY IN WASHINGTON

Blame Obama for the bluest state's blues

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
January 17, 2010

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6841/blame-obama-for-the-bluest-states-blues

Send

RSS

EDWARD M. KENNEDY has been gone less than five months, but in political terms he is already ancient history. For 47 years he represented Massachusetts in the US Senate; in his home state, no one wielded greater influence or cast a longer shadow. As recently as a few weeks ago, it was taken for granted that the race for the seat he occupied for so long would be shaped unmistakably by his legacy.

But that's not the way this campaign has worked out. As Tuesday's special election approaches, Massachusetts voters are not being driven by their esteem for Kennedy's memory or by affection for his family. Indeed, far from advancing what Kennedy called the cause of his life -- universal health care -- hundreds of thousands of Bay State voters are fired up in supporting a candidate who promises to derail it.

For the first time in two generations, the outcome of a US Senate campaign in Massachusetts is not a foregone conclusion. Whatever happens on Tuesday, this much is clear: Democrat Martha Coakley will not win in a cakewalk, and Republican Scott Brown will not be a sacrificial lamb. Heading into the final weekend, two of the country's most respected political handicappers -- Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook -- pronounced the Bay State Senate contest a "toss-up." A new Suffolk University poll showed Brown surging into the lead, with 50 percent of likely voters supporting him vs. 46 percent for Coakley.

How can this be happening? This is the bluest state of them all -- a state without a single Republican in Congress or in statewide office, a state Barack Obama won in a landslide. How can the Senate race be too close to call?

Part of the answer, of course, is that Brown has proved an engaging, upbeat, and indefatigable candidate, while Coakley's campaign has been plagued with gaffes and missteps. Her claim in last week's televised debate that the terrorists in Afghanistan are "not there anymore" suggested a dangerous naiveté on national security, while her huffy response when asked why she has been such a passive campaigner -- "As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?" -- came across as sneering and elitist.

Political skill and local issues are certainly important. But ultimately the Massachusetts Senate campaign is not about Brown's personal appeal or Coakley's shortcomings on the stump. It is about something bigger. This race is a referendum on Barack Obama and the Democratic ascendancy in Washington.

When Obama was inaugurated a year ago this week, he was hailed by his supporters as a political messiah who would transform American politics, ushering in a new era of hope and goodwill. Never had a new administration been greeted with such rapturous enthusiasm. "Obama's standing above the country, above the world," Newsweek editor Evan Thomas marveled. "He's sort of God."

What Obama and the Democrats delivered, however, was not uplifting and transparent bipartisanship.

It was trillion-dollar increases in government spending and debt. It was party-line votes on 2,000-page bills. It was "cash-for-cloture" backroom deals. It was tone-deaf boasts about millions of jobs "created or saved," even as unemployment soared into double digits and millions of American jobs disappeared.

Above all, it was the attempt to force through a radical health-care overhaul that would drive up the cost of medical insurance, slash Medicare by half a trillion dollars, sharply curtail individual autonomy, and subject one-seventh of the US economy to government micromanagement.

The more insistently Democrats in Congress and the White House have pushed ObamaCare, the more unpopular it has become -- and the more the president's approval ratings have sunk. In a CNN poll released last week, 48 percent of respondents say Obama's presidency has so far been a failure, while just 47 percent judge it a success. The latest CBS News survey measures only 46 percent approval for Obama -- his lowest rating to date, and a drop of 22 points since April. On his signature issue -- health care -- he has the support of a mere 36 percent of the public. Massachusetts residents are no exception: According to the new Suffolk poll, they oppose the health-care legislation by a ratio of 51 to 36.

A year ago, Americans were enchanted with their new president. Today they are suffering from severe buyer's remorse. Massachusetts may be the bluest state, but voters here are fed up too.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).

Friday, January 15, 2010

MASSACHUSETTS, HOME OF MANY OF THE FOUNDERS OF OUR REPUBLIC, MAY REJOIN THE UNION

"Just days after claiming there are no more
terrorists in Afghanistan, Martha Coakley has
found that she has no more campaign in
Massachusettts."
Croakley

Democratic candidate Martha Coakley has run such a clueless race for Senate in Massachusetts that Democrats are already comparing her to Creigh Deeds, their hapless nominee for governor of Virginia who lost last year in a landslide.

But other comparisons are even more cutting. Michael Barone, co-author of the Almanac of Americans Politics, wrote yesterday: "If Republican Scott Brown wins this election -- and every day his chances look better -- Democrats might conclude that Martha Coakley was a Republican plant, a Manchurian candidate inserted into the race in order to deprive Democrats of their 60th vote in the Senate."

How bad has Ms. Coakley's effort been? This week she took time off from her desultory campaigning to go to a Washington, D.C. wine bar and collect $10,000 in checks from health care lobbyists. Afterwards, an aide shoved a reporter to the ground for trying to ask the candidate a question (an action the aide has now apologized for). The Weekly Standard reporter had been trying to ask Ms. Coakley about her incredible statement in a debate this week that there were no longer any terrorists in Afghanistan.

But perhaps her worst error was appearing to have dissed baseball fans who congregate at Boston's Fenway Park, a Massachusetts shrine even in the off-season. Asked to answer charges that she wasn't campaigning hard enough, she fired back: "As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?" (An ad for her GOP opponent Mr. Brown showed him shaking hands in front of the ballpark.)

The crack drew an instant response from former Red Sox star Curt Schilling, who attacked Ms. Coakley for being one of those pols who are "so far out of touch with their constituents it's laughable and pathetic."

Ms. Coakley's campaign has indeed been a disaster, and that's certainly what Democrats will emphasize should she lose. Democrats will studiously ignore the fact that her cookie-cutter liberal ideas were viewed by many independents as out-of-date and conventional. Her inability to talk about issues such as jobs that are a pressing concern to voters will be every bit as much to blame as her innumerable tactical missteps.

-- John Fund

A Tea Party in the Tea Party State

Of course, the uber-intense Massachusetts Senate race is about health care and the fact that a victory by Scott Brown would give the GOP the 41st vote to stop the bill now before Congress -- a bill that a new Suffolk University poll shows is opposed by 51% of Massachusetts residents.

But many other factors explain why Bay State voters -- especially independents -- are mad as hell and joining a "pitchfork populist" revolution fueling the Brown candidacy.

A Boston Globe poll found that, by 49% to 45%, independent voters feel that Democratic domination of all levers of power in the state is a problem. The check on political arrogance and corruption that competitive elections create in many states is pretty much non-existent in Massachusetts. Three successive speakers of the Massachusetts House have been convicted of crimes in recent years. Undercover tapes recently showed a Boston state legislator stuffing a bribe into her bra. Then there's Boston's Big Dig construction project, which has featured numerous horror stories of corruption.

If that weren't enough, much of the establishment's political arrogance has been focused directly on voters. The state legislature ignored hundreds of thousands who signed petitions to place a referendum on gay marriage on the ballot by simply running out the clock and refusing to allow it to go before the electorate. After Senator Ted Kennedy died, the legislature also changed state law in a matter of days to allow the sitting Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim Senator -- a Kennedy family retainer named Paul Kirk -- so Democrats would have the 60 needed votes to pass health care without Massachusetts voters getting in the way.

Democrats have also reacted badly to the Brown surge in the polls. Senator Kirk ignored specific instructions from the legislature that approved his appointment when he endorsed Ms. Coakley in the race. Senator Kirk also announced he would vote for the ObamaCare bill even if Mr. Brown wins on Tuesday and is on the brink of being sworn in. Likewise, Secretary of State William Galvin, Massachusetts' top election official, told a Boston paper that certification of a Brown victory could be delayed until mid-February to permit Mr. Kirk to vote on health care.

No wonder Mr. Brown has made headway by arguing he's running against "the machine" in the Bay State. The American Revolution began in Massachusetts. Democrats, who have adopted a royalist entitlement mentality towards their political power there, seem to have forgotten that and are now facing a sudden uprising by a rebel army called the voting public.

-- John Fund

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL / POLITICAL DIARY ONLINE
FRIDAY, 15 JANUARY 10

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

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.

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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

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

DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS PAY OFF THEIR UNION SUPPORTERS

FIRST YEAR: FAILURE / SECOND YEAR: DEPARTURE OF THE USURPER

What went wrong?
A year ago, he was king of the world.
Now President Obama's approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46 percent
-- and his disapproval rating is the highest ever recorded by Gallup
at the beginning of an (elected) president's second year.
A year ago, he was leader of a liberal ascendancy that would last 40 years (James Carville). A year ago, conservatism was dead (Sam Tanenhaus). Now the race to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in bluest of blue Massachusetts is surprisingly close, with a virtually unknown state senator bursting on the scene by turning the election into a mini-referendum on Obama and his agenda, most particularly health-care reform.
A year ago, Obama was the most charismatic politician on Earth. Today the thrill is gone, the doubts growing -- even among erstwhile believers.
Liberals try to attribute Obama's political decline to matters of style. He's too cool, detached, uninvolved. He's not tough, angry or aggressive enough with opponents. He's contracted out too much of his agenda to Congress.
These stylistic and tactical complaints may be true, but they miss the major point: The reason for today's vast discontent, presaged by spontaneous national Tea Party opposition, is not that Obama is too cool or compliant but that he's too left.
It's not about style; it's about substance. About which Obama has been admirably candid. This out-of-nowhere, least-known of presidents dropped the veil most dramatically in the single most important political event of 2009, his Feb. 24 first address to Congress. With remarkable political honesty and courage, Obama unveiled the most radical (in American terms) ideological agenda since the New Deal: the fundamental restructuring of three pillars of American society -- health care, education and energy.
Then began the descent -- when, more amazingly still, Obama devoted himself to turning these statist visions into legislative reality. First energy, with cap-and-trade, an unprecedented federal intrusion into American industry and commerce. It got through the House, with its Democratic majority and Supreme Soviet-style rules. But it will never get out of the Senate.
Then, the keystone: a health-care revolution in which the federal government will regulate in crushing detail one-sixth of the U.S. economy. By essentially abolishing medical underwriting (actuarially based risk assessment) and replacing it with government fiat, Obamacare turns the health insurance companies into utilities, their every significant move dictated by government regulators. The public option was a sideshow. As many on the right have long been arguing, and as the more astute on the left (such as The New Yorker's James Surowiecki) understand, Obamacare is government health care by proxy, single-payer through a facade of nominally "private" insurers.
At first, health-care reform was sustained politically by Obama's own popularity. But then gravity took hold, and Obamacare's profound unpopularity dragged him down with it. After 29 speeches and a fortune in squandered political capital, it still will not sell.
The health-care drive is the most important reason Obama has sunk to 46 percent. But this reflects something larger. In the end, what matters is not the persona but the agenda. In a country where politics is fought between the 40-yard lines, Obama has insisted on pushing hard for the 30. And the American people -- disorganized and unled but nonetheless agitated and mobilized -- have put up a stout defense somewhere just left of midfield.
Ideas matter. Legislative proposals matter. Slick campaigns and dazzling speeches can work for a while, but the magic always wears off.
It's inherently risky for any charismatic politician to legislate. To act is to choose and to choose is to disappoint the expectations of many who had poured their hopes into the empty vessel -- of which candidate Obama was the greatest representative in recent American political history.
Obama did not just act, however. He acted ideologically. To his credit, Obama didn't just come to Washington to be someone. Like Reagan, he came to Washington to do something -- to introduce a powerful social democratic stream into America's deeply and historically individualist polity.
Perhaps Obama thought he'd been sent to the White House to do just that. If so, he vastly over-read his mandate. His own electoral success -- twinned with handy victories and large majorities in both houses of Congress -- was a referendum on his predecessor's governance and the post-Lehman financial collapse. It was not an endorsement of European-style social democracy.
Hence the resistance. Hence the fall. The system may not always work, but it does take its revenge.
One year out: President Obama's fall
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 15, 2010

THE WASHINGTON POST
FRIDAY, 15 JANUARY 10
****************************************************

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.

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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

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

Thursday, January 14, 2010

NEVER CONSULT SNOPES AGAIN

http://projectbradford.com/adaptations/hyaena.jpg

I've been saying this about snopes for a few years now. I've noticed mistakes in their "facts" now and then, but their liberal bias really started to show at the beginning of the Obama campaign. They really have that "Hear, Speak and Say no evil" thing down pat as far as Obama and the democrats are concerned.

THIS MAY SURPRISE YOU    For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it as the 'tell-all, final word' on any comment, claim and e-mail..   But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com . Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kind of makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers.. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the web site about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticism's - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issues, when in fact, they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues.   When I saw that Snopes had falsely claimed that Obama's Birth Certificate had been properly validated, I realized something was wrong with either their research and/or their credibility. It seems something is seriously wrong with both.   Then a few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet. Supposedly the Mikkelsons claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ever took place.   I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this, and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers. Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it.. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things. Not!   Then it has been learned the Mikkelsons are very Democrat and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelsons liberalism revealing itself in their web site findings.   Gee, what a shock!   So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts: Proceed with caution. Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself.   Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelsons do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.

BY Joseph Klee

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

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.

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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

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

UNDER OBAMACARE, MARRIAGE IS OUT AND COHABITATION IS IN

ObamaCare vs. Marriage

Marriage is a revered institution in America but not apparently under the Congressional health care legislation, which contains steep "marriage penalty" taxes, i.e. tax burdens that only get heavier when a couple says, "I do."

Under the Senate bill, if family income rises above a certain level, couples lose benefits or have to pay higher taxes. That's an incentive for dual-income couples to skip the marriage ceremony altogether and continue to file as singles. For cohabitators, the savings could amount to thousands of dollars a year.

Take two low-wage workers who are considering marriage. In 2016, if each has an income $11,800, they would each have to pay $248 as singles for government-approved health insurance. Married, their joint income climbs to $23,600 and they would have to pay $1,109 -- a ding of more than $600 annually.

Middle-class workers could get hit even harder. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a single individual earning $35,400 -- three times the poverty rate -- would be obligated to pay $3,611 for mandatory health insurance. But two such individuals, if married, would lose their eligibility for government subsidies and their mandatory health insurance payments would rise to $13,100 -- a whopping $5,878 annual marriage penalty.

An analysis done by Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, finds that the Senate health bill "will cause the 7% of Americans who are eligible to receive the subsidy to pay more for health insurance just by getting married." Call it marital non-bliss.

"I've always argued," fumes former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, "that our tax code rewards vice and punishes virtue," with the marriage penalty being a typically perverse example. And ObamaCare would only make it worse.

BY Stephen Moore

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE /POLITICAL DIARY

THURSDAY, 14 JANUARY 10

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

-- Stephen Moore

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

HARRY REID IS NOT A RACIST, ITS JUST THAT HE THINKS EVERYONE ELSE IS A RACIST

Harry Reid's racial imbroglio

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
January 13, 2010

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6813/harry-reids-racial-imbroglio

Send

RSS

YOU CAN WRITE A CHECK to the United Negro College Fund. You can sow off your collection of Negro Leagues baseball cards. You can discourse learnedly on the significance of the "magical negro" in film and fiction, identify yourself as "Negro" on the 2010 Census, or register for a course on Negro spirituals.

But you cannot talk up the presidential prospects of a biracial US senator by expressing the opinion that American voters would embrace a "light-skinned" African American who speaks "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Is that the lesson we're supposed to learn from Harry Reid's racial imbroglio?

The Senate Majority Leader made those comments in 2008, in the course of privately telling fellow Democrats why he thought Barack Obama should run for president. When his remarks, quoted in Game Change, a new book on the 2008 presidential campaign, became public over the weekend, Reid immediately apologized for "using such a poor choice of words" and "for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans."

But how many Americans are really offended -- genuinely upset -- by Reid's admittedly "poor choice of words"? Granted, the word "negro" has long been politically incorrect, but Reid is 70 years old and the speech habits of a lifetime can be hard to break, especially when speaking in private. Granted, too, that a political figure today would have to be remarkably obtuse to discuss publicly whether a black candidate might benefit from being light-skinned or able to turn a "blaccent" on and off at will. But is anyone shocked to learn that there are practical politicians who weigh such factors when talking behind closed doors?

Nevertheless, the news of Reid's gaffe had no sooner broken than some Republicans were reaching for feathers and hot tar. "These are clearly racist comments," Liz Cheney declared on ABC's "This Week" program. Frances Rice, the chairman of the National Black Republican Association, quickly distributed a screed titled "Harry Reid Must Resign!" At PowerLine, a widely-read conservative blog, John Hinderaker fumed over Reid's "absurdly racist comments about Barack Obama."

Before the weekend was out, Texas Senator John Cornyn, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee, had called on Reid to step down. So had GOP Chairman Michael Steele, who decried the double standard by which an apology suffices "when Democrats get caught saying racist things," while a Republican's racial blunder becomes a hanging offense.

The plain fact, however, is that Reid didn't "get caught saying racist things." He got caught presuming that most Americans are racial bigots. He got caught in the condescending attitude that white voters are so biased that they will refuse to vote for a candidate because of the color of his skin. He got caught, in other words, peddling the lie that America is still a racist nation.

The real trouble with Harry isn't that he's a racist. It's that he is so quick to hang that label on others -- particularly others who don't share his liberal views.

In 2006, for example, Reid took to the Senate floor to denounce legislation declaring English the national language of the United States. "This amendment is racist," he barked, thereby slandering not only the 63 senators who voted for it, but the large majority of Americans who agreed with them.

Just last month, Reid likened Republicans who oppose Democratic health-care legislation to the 19^th-century white supremacists who supported black slavery. "If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'Slow down. It's too early. Let's wait.'"

It isn't Reid's "poor choice of words" that is so scandalous; it is his willingness to fan racial resentment for partisan political purposes. It is not for using the archaic word "Negro" that Reid owes his countrymen an apology; it is for practicing the archaic identity politics that insists on sorting Americans by race, class, and gender, rather than judging them on the basis of character and integrity.

Politics is rough-and-tumble, but some things should be beyond the pale. The use of racism as a tactic is one of them. Americans can live with a Senate leader who comments privately on a candidate's "Negro dialect." A leader who casually paints his political opponents as racists is – or should be -- a different matter entirely.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).

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

Reid under fire

Editorial Exegesis

"We can think of several reasons for Harry Reid to resign as Senate Majority Leader, though the flap over his obtuse racial comments isn't one of them. The uproar is nonetheless instructive about the perils of identity politics. Mr. Reid is apologizing to all and sundry for saying in private in 2008 that Barack Obama should run for President because he was 'light-skinned' and spoke with 'no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.' Republicans are calling for Mr. Reid to resign, on grounds of the Trent Lott precedent. When the Republican leader in 2002 joked at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond that America might have been better off had the one-time Dixiecrat won his 1948 Presidential campaign, Democrats demanded Mr. Lott's resignation. An Illinois state senator with a big political future went so far as to suggest at the time that Republicans needed to 'drive out' Mr. Lott in order to 'stand for something.' Mr. Lott resigned, notwithstanding his profuse apologies. In contrast, Mr. Obama and various black Democrats have rushed to Mr. Reid's defense. ... In any event, this is hardly Mr. Reid's worst rhetorical offense. That prize goes to his all too public comments in April 2007 that 'the war is lost' in Iraq, even as the surge was finally making victory possible. That was a betrayal of American soldiers risking their lives in Iraq, and to the extent it emboldened the enemy, it may have cost American lives. If Mr. Reid has apologized for that defeatism, we don't recall it. That's reason enough to resign." --The Wall Street Journal

The Demo-gogues

Race bait: "[Harry Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' as he said privately." --excerpt from the book "Game Change," by journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin

But back then: "If you tell ethnic jokes in the back room, it's that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I've always practiced how I play." --Harry Reid in 2002 after Trent Lott's resignation from leadership after similar racially insensitive remarks

Circling the wagons: "I don't know why people are making such a fuss about this. What is the big fuss about the word 'Negro'? I support the United Negro College Fund. I support the National Council of Negro Women. We still use those two terms because they have been a part of our history for a long time. So I don't know what all this fuss is about." --Rep. James Clyburn, former Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and current House Majority Whip

"Senator Reid's record provides a stark contrast to actions of Republicans to block legislation that would benefit poor and minority communities -- most recently reflected in Republican opposition to the Health Bill now under consideration." --Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus

More deep thoughts: "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee." --Bill Clinton in 2008, as reported in "Game Change"

The BIG Lie: "The Senate thinks [their health care bill] is fairer. We think ours is. We'll see which mirror cracks. But we will proceed in a way that is fair to the American people." --House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has anything but fairness to the American people on her mind

You don't say: "This is far from a perfect piece of legislation." --Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) on the health care bill

Hope 'n' Change: "The jobs numbers are reminder that the road to recovery is never straight." --Barack Obama (The road has been straight ... down. The U.S. lost another 85,000 jobs in December.)

Too much information: "I'm not worried about them touching my private parts." --Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) on airport screening procedures

Upright

"White liberals have built a political culture that is little different from the plantations of another generation. African-Americans are given just enough to help them survive, but not opportunity which will allow them to escape and become independent of government programs." --columnist Cal Thomas

"We know two thousand pages of 'gov-speak' is one of the largest compendiums of bribes, favors and pork ever devised. We know that in all two thousand pages, there's not a single word about tort reform because the Democratic party is owned by the trial lawyers. We know the overwhelming majority of Congress won't even bother to read the bill before voting on it. And above all, we know the very same people who are foisting this boondoggle on the rest of us will never be subjected to its mandates, because they have their own Rolls Royce health care coverage. ... 2010 can't come soon enough." --columnist Arnold Ahlert

"The special deals and payoffs are incidental to the [health care] bill in one sense; if they were all removed it would still be a bad bill. But in another sense, they reveal something essential about a government takeover of health care: it is all about looting, about how one group of people can tax and regulate others in an attempt to get something for nothing. All statist programs are rife with this kind of scheming, and they have to be, because whenever wealth is seized by force, there is a battle among the looters over how to divide the spoils." --columnist Robert Tracinski

"The White House is ... being completely dismissive ... concerning legitimate questions about the constitutionality of Obamacare. Consider this: No fewer than 13 state attorneys general signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, expressing their 'grave concern' over the constitutionality of one provision of the bill. This provision would cause the federal government to grant special favors to Nebraska (subsidizing its Medicaid costs) pursuant to the Democrats' bribe to secure Sen. Ben Nelson's support. ... How did the White House respond when asked about this letter? Well, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, after admitting he hadn't even read the letter, said, 'I do not believe that anybody has legitimate constitutional concerns about the legislation.' That settles it then. Chief Justice Gibbs has spoken." --columnist David Limbaugh

"The most startling news since Barack Obama's colossal victory over Hillary Clinton in Iowa was the Democratic poll in Massachusetts the other day showing the little-known Republican Scott Brown beating the state's attorney general, Martha Coakley, in the special contest for the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat by a point. A subsequent poll by the Boston Globe had the Democrat winning by 15. Somebody is very wrong here, obviously, and we won't know until next Tuesday's election which poll got the Massachusetts electorate right. But if the Democratic poll is closer to the truth, and if Coakley can't come up with something to pull Brown's numbers down over the next week, she is going to lose and a Republican is going to win an ineffable symbolic victory against Barack Obama and especially against health care." --columnist John Podhoretz

THE PATRIOT POST

WEDNESDAY, 12 JANUARY 10

The Huffington Riposte