TWO MIDGETS IN THE PRESENCE OF GIANTS

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

So, a man swept into office on an unprecedented tide of delirious fawning is watching his presidency sink in an unstoppable gush. That's almost too apt. Unfortunately, in the real world, a disastrous presidency has consequences. So let me begin by citing the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in Canada. Whoa, whoa, don't stampede for the exits. The Canadian thing's just a starting point, I promise. If I'm still droning on about inside-Ottawa stuff five paragraphs down, feel free to turn the page to our exclusive 12-page pictorial preview of "Sex and the City 3," starring Estelle Getty as Kim Cattrall.
Anyway, a couple of years back, Michael Ignatieff, a professor at Harvard University and previously a BBC late-night intellectual telly host, returned to his native land of Canada in order to become prime minister, and to that end, got himself elected as leader of the Liberal Party. As is the fashion nowadays, he cranked out a quickie tome laying out his political "vision." Having spent his entire adult life abroad, he was aware that some of the natives were uncertain about his commitment to the land of his birth. So he was careful to issue a sort of pledge of a kind of allegiance, explaining that writing a book about Canada had "deepened my attachment to the place on earth that, if I needed one, I would call home."
Gee, that's awfully big of you. As John Robson commented in the Ottawa Citizen: "I'm worried that a man so postmodern he doesn't need a home wants to lead my country. Why? Is it quaint? An interesting sociological experiment?"
Indeed. But there's a lot of it about. Many Americans are beginning to pick up the strange vibe that for Barack Obama, governing America is "an interesting sociological experiment," too. He doubtless would agree that the United States is "the place on earth that, if I needed one, I would call home." But he doesn't, not really.
It is hard to imagine Mr. Obama wandering along to watch a Memorial Day or Fourth of July parade until the job required him to do so. That's not to say he's un-American or anti-American, but merely that he's beyond all that. Way beyond. He's the first president to give off the pronounced whiff that he's condescending to the job - that it's really too small for him and he's just killing time until something more commensurate with his stature comes along.
And so the Gulf spill was an irritation, but he dutifully went through the motions of flying in to be photographed looking presidentially concerned. As he wearily explained to Matt Lauer, "I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain, talking." Good grief, what more do you people want? Alas, he's not a good enough actor to fake it. So the more desperately he butchers up the rhetoric - "Plug the damn hole ... I know whose ass to kick" - the more pathetically unconvincing it all sounds.
No doubt my observations about Mr. Obama's remoteness from the rhythms of American life will be seen by his dwindling band of beleaguered cheerleaders as just another racist, right-wing attempt to whip up the backwoods, knuckle-dragging swamp dwellers of America by playing on their fears of "the other" - the sophisticated, worldly cosmopolitan for whom France is more than a reliable punch line. But in fact, my complaint is exactly the opposite: Mr. Obama's postmodern detachment is feeble and parochial. It's true that he hadn't seen much of America until he ran for president, but he hadn't seen much of anywhere else, either. Like most multiculturalists, he has passed his entire adulthood in a very narrow unicultural environment where your ideological worldview doesn't depend on anything so tedious as actually viewing the world.
The aforementioned Michael Ignatieff, who actually has viewed the world, gets close to the psychology in his response to criticisms of him for spending so much time abroad. Deploring such "provincialism," he replied: "They say it makes me less of a Canadian. It makes me more of a Canadian."
Well, yes, you can see what he's getting at. Today, to be an educated citizen of a mature Western democracy - Canada or Germany, England or Sweden - is not to feel Canadian or German, English or Swedish, heaven forbid, but rather to regard oneself as a "citoyen du monde" (global citizen). Obviously, if being "more Canadian" requires one literally to be a Harvard professor or a BBC TV host or an essayist for the Guardian, then very few Canadians would pass the test. What he really means is that in a post-national, postmodern Western world, the definition of "Canadian" (and Dutch and Belgian and Irish) is how multicultural and globalized you feel. The United Nations, Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Bono: These are the colors a progressive, worldly Westerner nails to his mast. You don't need to go anywhere or do anything: You just need to pick up the general groove, which you can do very easily at almost any college campus.
This Mr. Obama did brilliantly. A man who speaks fewer languages than the famously moronic George W. Bush, he has nevertheless grasped the essential lingo of the European transnationalist: Continental leaders strike attitudes rather than effect action - which is, frankly, beneath them. One thinks of the insistence a few years ago by Louis Michel, the then-Belgian foreign minister, that the so-called European Rapid Reaction Force "must declare itself operational without such a declaration being based on any true capability." As even The Washington Post drily remarked, "Apparently in Europe this works."
Apparently. Thus, Barack Obama: He declared himself operational without such a declaration being based on any true capability. But, if it works for the EU, why not America? Like many of his background here and there, Mr. Obama is engaged mostly by abstractions and generalities. Indeed, he is the very model of a modern major generalist. He has grand plans for "the environment" - all of it, wherever it may be. Why should the great eco-Gulliver be ensnared by some Lilliputian oil spill lapping 'round his boots? He flew into Cairo to give one of the most historically historic speeches in history to the Muslim world. Why should such a colossus lower his visionary gaze to contemplate some no-account nickel-'n'-dime racket like the Iranian nuclear program? With one stroke of his pen, he has transformed the health care of 300 million people. But I suppose if there's some killer flu epidemic or a cholera outbreak in New Mexico, you losers will be whining at Mr. Obama to do something about that, too.
In recent months, a lot of Americans have said to me that they had no idea the new president would feel so "weird." But, in fact, he's not weird. True, he's not, even in Democrat terms, a political figure - as, say, Bill Clinton or Joe Biden are. Instead, he's the product of the broader culture: There are millions of people like Mr. Obama, the eternal students of a vast lethargic, transnational campus for whom global compassion and the multicultural pose are merely the modish gloss on a cult of radical, grandiose narcissism. As someone once said, "We are the ones we've been waiting for." When you've spent that long waiting in line for yourself, it's bound to be a disappointment.

LEADERSHIP IN THE ABSTRACT
OBAMA SLIPS ON THE OIL WHILE
BESTRIDING THE GLOBE
BY MARK STEYN
11 JUNE 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?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FlEbBZLzo0

If you really want to understand the difference between the technical terms natural born citizen, native born citizen, naturalized citizen and just plain citizen, go to:

http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

And if you really want to understand why it is necessary for a man to be a natural born citizen of the United States in order to be President of the United States, read the essay by Leo Donofrio at:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881



And if you did not know that in additional to Obama being ineligible to be president because of his nationality, did you
know that he is a Muslim:


http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

LEO RUGIENS

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

OBAMA TO THE RESCUE OF THE GULF STATES

AN ANTI-INCUMBENT WAVE? DON'T COUNT ON IT! MOST INCUMBENTS WILL NOT EVEN GET WET!

PRESIDENT OBAMA has been criticized in some quarters for showing insufficient emotion over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but resorting to a vulgarism on the Today Show -- he told Matt Lauer he was consulting with experts "so I know whose ass to kick" -- came across as unconvincing coarseness, not righteous anger. Until now, even presidents known for their blistering use of expletives in private had always avoided any hint of gutter language when speaking publicly. "Whose ass to kick" may not be English at its crudest, but when it comes from the head of state in a televised interview, the potty-mouthing of American culture advances another notch.

Rather than heeding those who urge him to act angry, Obama might consider the example of George Washington, who had a famous temper that he took great pains not to display. Washington kept a hand-copied list of 110 rules of civility, several of which emphasized keeping anger reined in. "In reproving show no sign of choler" was one of them. Another advised: "Use no reproachful language against any one; neither curse nor revile." The first president took such counsel to heart. The 44^th, like the rest of us, could profit from his example.

* * * *

Jewish refugees from Iraq arrive in Israel, 1951

WHEN HELEN THOMAS sniped that Israel's Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" to Poland and Germany, she displayed more than just hostility for the Jewish state. She also revealed her ignorance of basic Israeli demography.

Contrary to the anti-Zionist stereotype, Israel is not primarily a nation of Europeans and their descendants: The largest share of Israel's population is ethnically Middle Eastern and North African. Some Jewish survivors from "Poland and Germany" did find haven in Israel after the Holocaust, but a far greater number of Israeli Jews were refugees from the Arab world. "Jews In Grave Danger In All Moslem Lands," reported the New York Times in May 1948, "Nine Hundred Thousand in Africa and Asia Face Wrath of Their Foes." In the years that followed Israel's creation, ancient Jewish communities in Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere were decimated as their inhabitants fled from anti-Semitic violence and terror. Israel absorbed most of those refugees, and they and their descendants -- the Jews indigenous to the region -- became the core of the country's population.

* * * *

A NEW Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that only 29 percent of Americans are prepared to re-elect their incumbent representative in the US House this fall, while fully 60 percent say they are "inclined to look around for someone else to vote for." In a new Rasmussen poll, 65 percent of respondents say it would be better for the country if most congressional incumbents are thrown out this November. Not surprisingly, The Post reports that "anti-incumbent sentiment [is] at an all-time high."

This, of course, is the political flavor-of-the-month. "Anti-incumbent mood as US voters pick candidates" was how Reuters headlined its election-day story last week. "Anti-incumbent wave has Washington on the ropes," NBC's David Gregory advised his Twitter followers. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded at a press conference that "there's no question" about the anti-incumbent resolve of American voters this year.

Don't bet on it.

According to Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, no more than 100 of the 435 US House seats on the ballot this November can by any stretch of the imagination be considered "competitive." Of them, only 24 are rated genuine toss-ups, and only 16 more are held by one party in a district that leans to the other party. Assuming Sabato is right -- and granting that anything can happen between now and November -- only 40 House seats are truly in play. In other words, roughly 90 percent of US House seats are safe.

Sad to say, roughly 90 percent of US House seats are always safe. In the 23 congressional elections between 1964 and 2008, the re-election rate of US representatives dropped below 90 percent only five times -- and only once in the last 30 years. In 2006, a Democratic surge swept Republicans from their House majority -- yet 94 percent of the House was reelected. In 1994, an even larger Republican surge washed the Democrats from control -- but the overall reelection rate was 90 percent nonetheless.

"Nothing is so essential to the preservation of a republican government as a periodical rotation," declared Virginia statesman George Mason during the debate over ratification of the Constitution. Voters routinely say they agree, but alas, that isn't how they vote. An "anti-incumbent wave?" Most congressmen won't even get wet.

JEFF JACOBY

THE BOSTON GLOBE

SUNDAY, 13 JUNE 10

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

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

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?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FlEbBZLzo0

If you really want to understand the difference between the technical terms natural born citizen, native born citizen, naturalized citizen and just plain citizen, go to:

http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

And if you really want to understand why it is necessary for a man to be a natural born citizen of the United States in order to be President of the United States, read the essay by Leo Donofrio at:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881



And if you did not know that in additional to Obama being ineligible to be president because of his nationality, did you
know that he is a Muslim:


http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

LEO RUGIENS

"THE PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM IS AT A CROSSROADS"

• THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
  
• OPINION: THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW
• JUNE 5, 2010

Storming the School Barricades

A new documentary by a 27-year-old filmmaker could change the national debate about public education.

By BARI WEISS

New York

'What's funny," says Madeleine Sackler, "is that I'm not really a political person." Yet the petite 27-year-old is the force behind "The Lottery"—an explosive new documentary about the battle over the future of public education opening nationwide this Tuesday.

In the spring of 2008, Ms. Sackler, then a freelance film editor, caught a segment on the local news about New York's biggest lottery. It wasn't the Powerball. It was a chance for 475 lucky kids to get into one of the city's best charter schools (publicly funded schools that aren't subject to union rules).

"I was blown away by the number of parents that were there," Ms. Sackler tells me over coffee on Manhattan's Upper West Side, recalling the thousands of people packed into the Harlem Armory that day for the drawing. "I wanted to know why so many parents were entering their kids into the lottery and what it would mean for them." And so Ms. Sackler did what any aspiring filmmaker would do: She grabbed her camera.

Her initial aim was simple. "Going into the film I was excited just to tell a story," she says. "A vérité film, a really beautiful, independent story about four families that you wouldn't know otherwise" in the months leading up to the lottery for the Harlem Success Academy.

But on the way to making the film she imagined, she "stumbled on this political mayhem—really like a turf war about the future of public education." Or more accurately, she happened upon a raucous protest outside of a failing public school in which Harlem Success, already filled to capacity, had requested space.

View Full Image

Zina Saunders

"We drove by that protest," Ms. Sackler recalls. "We were on our way to another interview and we jumped out of the van and started filming." There she discovered that the majority of those protesting the proliferation of charter schools were not even from the neighborhood. They'd come from the Bronx and Queens.

"They all said 'We're not allowed to talk to you. We're just here to support the parents.'" But there were only two parents there, says Ms. Sackler, and both were members of Acorn. And so, "after not a lot of digging," she discovered that the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) had paid Acorn, the controversial community organizing group, "half a million dollars for the year." (It cost less to make the film.)

Finding out that the teachers union had hired a rent-a-mob to protest on its behalf was "the turn for us in the process." That story—of self-interested adults trying to deny poor parents choice for their children—provided an answer to Ms. Sackler's fundamental question: "If there are these high-performing schools that are closing the achievement gap, why aren't there more of them?"

The reason is what Eva Moskowitz, founder of the Harlem Success Academy network and a key character in the film, calls the "union-political-educational complex." That's a fancy term for the web of unions and politicians who defend the status quo in order to protect their jobs.

In the course of making "The Lottery," Ms. Sackler got to know the nature of that coalition intimately. "On day one, of course, I was very interested in all sides. I was in no way affiliated." From the beginning, she requested meetings with then UFT President Randi Weingarten, or anyone representing the union position. They refused. Harlem's public schools weren't much more accessible. "It was easier to film in a maximum security prison"—something Ms. Sackler did to interview a parent—"than it was to film in a traditional public school."

Viewers still get a sense of the union's position, but it comes from the mouths of some unsavory New York pols. Take, for example, a scene from the film featuring a City Council hearing on charter school expansion. "The UFT was exposed at this particular City Council hearing," she says, "because they were caught giving out scripted cue cards with specific questions for City Council members to ask charter representatives in the city." Unlike many of the politicians, who came and went from the chamber during the seven-hour hearing, Ms. Sackler remained. And she watched as the scripted questions were repeated and repeated and repeated.

"It was just a colossal waste of time," she says. "And it was incredibly frustrating as a citizen to be sitting there. Out of all the things they could be talking about—like the fact . . . that at the majority of schools in Harlem kids aren't passing the state exams—instead of talking about this stuff, they were cycling through those questions."'

Evasion is one tactic. So is propagating myths about Harlem Success—that it only succeeds because it has smaller class sizes; or that its children's test scores are so high because it gets more money. The truth is that the school gets superior results with the same or slightly bigger class sizes and less state money per pupil. In 2009, 95% of third-graders at Harlem Success passed the state's English Language Arts exam. Only 51% of third graders in P.S. 149, the traditional public school that shares the same building, did. That same year, Harlem Success was No. 1 in math out of 3,500 public schools in New York State.

The unions and the politicians also play on Harlemites' fears by alleging that charters divide the community and are a "tool for gentrification." This canard only holds up if you think uniforms and longer school days are a sign of cultural imperialism.

In a particularly cringe-inducing exchange captured on film, Councilwoman Maria Del Carmen Arroyo of the Bronx accuses Ms. Moskowitz of lying when the charter school leader talks about being a parent in Harlem (the neighborhood where she grew up, where she attended public school, and where she is raising her children, who attend the charter). The subtext, of course, is that Ms. Moskowitz is white and well-off.

This is par for the course, Ms. Sackler tells me. Harlem Success Academy is "protested more than any other charter school in this city—and there are some bad charter schools. So you would wonder why that would be."

Those wondering why need look no further than 2002, the year that Ms. Moskowitz, then a Democratic City Council member, became chair of the city's education committee. "She held a lot of hearings on the union contract—and the custodian contract, and the principal contract," says Ms. Sackler. New Yorkers learned that the teachers' contract is hundreds of pages long and littered with rules mandating every detail of how teachers will spend their workday.

The union was not pleased. So when Evil Moskowitz, as she was dubbed, ran for Manhattan borough president in 2005, the UFT campaigned hard for her opponent, Scott Stringer, who won.

Ms. Moskowitz, who confirmed in an interview that she has mayoral aspirations, was surely disappointed by the defeat. But her loss was Harlemites' gain. As one mother says of Ms. Moskowitz at a town hall meeting in Harlem, "She's our Obama. She brought change to our kids, okay?"

Some parents in the film do not know what exactly a charter school is. And the truth, as the film implicitly points out, is that such technical designations don't much matter. What these parents know is that they desperately want their children to have the best possible education, and to have opportunities that they themselves could only imagine. Winning a spot in Harlem Success Academy—or another high-performing school—is critical to reaching that goal.

"Going into it one of the goals was to expose one myth . . . which is that some parents don't care," says Ms. Sackler. "The reason for telling the parents' stories is that I never thought that was true."

In "The Lottery," we are introduced to Eric Roachford, who, like his father, works as a bus driver. As an MTA employee, Mr. Roachford is a "union man, but at the same time, we want our child to learn." He believes that going to college "is the difference between a job and a career." That's why his wife, Shawna, has taken time off to home school their two young sons.

Nadiyah Horne, a single mother who is also deaf, is raising 5-year-old Ammenah. "If others don't like this school, I don't care," she says, using sign language. "I want my child to get the best education." So does Emil Yoanson, who is raising his son Christian alone, and who prays to God that his name will be drawn.

"Being a single mom is very, very hard" says Laurie Brown-Goodwine, who has applied to several charters for her son, Gregory Jr. Her husband is serving 25 years to life in prison for a third-strike felony.

These are parents who don't have the means to move to a richer neighborhood with better public schools, so instead they have to rely on luck. When demand for a charter school exceeds supply, the random drawing is required by law. Some schools inform parents by mail, but Harlem Success holds a public lottery. "Harlem Success is very explicit about why they do it," Ms. Sackler says. They want to show demand. "I've heard them say to parents 'We hope that you'll come and show that this is something that you want. Because if you don't, we're not going to get more schools.'"

In the film, Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker says he can't go to lotteries anymore because they break his heart. "A child's destiny should not be determined on the pull of a draw." Nothing drives home this point more than seeing the parents and kids, perched at the edge of their chairs, hoping their names flash on the big screen.

Critics of "The Lottery" will probably contend that the absence of anti-charter voices hurts its credibility. But the scene Thursday night at Harlem's legendary Apollo Theater, where the film was screened, underscored the film's fundamental point about parents' apolitical dedication to educating their kids. After the documentary played, the film's parents took to the stage to answer questions from the theater's packed audience. Their message: Research options early and ignore labels—all that matters is the school's results. It's the same message, the parents said, that they now regularly share in neighborhood grocery markets and libraries.

Harlem Success, meanwhile, is trying to keep pace with parents' demand. Right now the network has four schools, but in 10 years it hopes to operate 40, with some 20,000 kids enrolled. Even then, there would be more work ahead: This year, some 40,000 New York kids will end up on charter school waiting lists.

"The public education system is at a crossroads," Ms. Sackler says. "Do we want to go back to the time when children are forced to attend their district school no matter how underperforming it is? Or do we want to let parents choose what's best for their kids and provide a lot of options? Sometimes those options might fail. But . . . I don't see how you could choose to settle for what we've been doing for half a century when it's been systemically screwing over the same kids—over and over and over."

Ms. Weiss is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A13

WELCOME TO THE POLICE STATE

EDITORIAL: YouTube justice

Video helps hold police accountable

Screen capture from YouTube video of motorcyclist Anthony Graber's arrest.

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

7:35 p.m., Thursday, June 3, 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ

Police in Maryland are in a tiff over an unflattering YouTube video, and prosecutors are working overtime to suppress it. Harford County prosecutors have filed felony charges against 25-year-old motorcyclist Anthony Graber, who taped a traffic stop in March and shared it on the popular website.

Mr. Graber was stopped by police after he made a high-speed trip down Interstate 95 with a video camera mounted on his helmet. Had the officers involved issued a simple speeding ticket and provided a stern roadside counseling session, the matter would have ended there. As seen by nearly a quarter-million viewers online, however, Maryland State Trooper Joseph David Uhler had other ideas. Clad in jeans, sneakers and a grey pullover, Trooper Uhler jumped out of his unmarked Chevy, gun drawn, yelling for Mr. Graber to "get off the motorcycle" - almost forgetting to identify himself as a peace officer. While drawing a deadly weapon over a minor traffic infraction may seem a bit extreme, Trooper Uhler kept it pointed at the ground with his finger off the trigger. The decision was made in the heat of the moment.

The truly outrageous conduct happened days later, after Trooper Uhler was "made aware" of the YouTube video and the negative comments from the public. State police responded with a dawn raid on Mr. Graber's home, confiscating all computers, hard drives and video equipment from the residence. Mr. Graber was charged with three counts of felony wiretapping because he had failed to obtain permission to tape his own arrest.

Maryland's wiretapping statute, intended to protect telephone conversations from eavesdroppers, requires consent from all parties to a private conversation. For the law to apply to a traffic stop, the officer working on a public highway would have to assert that he had an "expectation of privacy." That would be a rather absurd position to hold in a state that uses speed cameras on its interstate highways to record and ticket passing motorists without their permission.

Mr. Graber is being represented by a legal team assembled by the Maryland branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. In an interview with The Washington Times, staff attorney David Rocah expressed concern over the implications of the case. "To use a statute designed to protect people's privacy - including significantly their privacy from government intrusion - as a sword to suppress the truth about official behavior is really turning the statute on its head."

The sword in question is particularly heavy in this case, as Mr. Graber faces up to 16 years in jail. Prosecutors went out of their way to include a charge based on an obscure 2006 law imposing sanctions on anyone who commits a crime with the intent to film it. The wiretap counts include a charge for the possession and use of a "surreptitious" wiretap device - although it is unclear how a large camera mounted on top of a helmet could be considered hidden.

While Mr. Graber is fortunate to have pro-bono legal assistance, it is troubling that police and prosecutors have the ability to lob such serious charges against citizens for exposing questionable official conduct to public scrutiny. The legislature should strip prosecutors of this authority by clarifying that the public has the right to use video to hold public servants accountable for their official conduct.

The Washington Times, LLC.

HERE COMES "SESTAK-GATE"

A Congressman, a Former President and an Intern Walk Into a Bar...

Sestak

The plot thickens over the job offer to sitting Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), and it may be only a matter of time before "Sestak-gate" enters the political corruption lexicon. Late last Friday, as the news cycle wound down going into the holiday weekend, the White House issued a memo declaring that its internal investigation of the alleged job offer to Sestak revealed no improprieties. This finding was certainly no surprise, but the administration's lame explanation raises more questions than it answers.

According to the official account, Bill Clinton approached Sestak in 2009 about accepting an uncompensated position on a presidential advisory board -- this in return for Sestak's commitment to refrain from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter (D-R-D-PA) in their state's Democrat Senate primary. Sestak promptly rejected the offer and went on to win the primary last month.

There are several problems with this story, however, not the least of which is that it differs significantly from Sestak's. When Sestak first stated publicly in February that the administration had tried to get him out of the Senate primary, he claimed that he had been offered a "high-ranking job" -- not an unpaid position on an obscure presidential advisory board. Furthermore, the only board for which Sestak might qualify is the Intelligence Advisory Board, but because he's a sitting member of Congress, he cannot lawfully take part. For the administration's explanation to hold water, we would have to believe that Joe Sestak would give up a Senate run and a current House seat to take a role on an advisory board that offers no pay, no political clout and virtually no future career opportunities. Or at least none compared to being a former congressman or senator. Sestak, a liberal Democrat and retired Navy vice-admiral, has built his campaign around issues of trust and integrity; needless to say, this episode certainly could tarnish his race in the fall.

Clinton

Nor will the White House escape the matter by bringing in scandal magnet Bill Clinton. It's suspected that Clinton's involvement is supposed to somehow absolve the administration of any wrongdoing because it puts them at arm's length. That's not the case, however, as Clinton still appears to have acted as an agent of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who, in sending Clinton, just may have violated the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act states that no federal employee may exert pressure to participate or not participate in political activity.

In related news, Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina may soon be facing similar questions with regard to a job offer to Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff of Colorado. Romanoff's offer to drop his bid to challenge administration favorite Michael Bennet has resurfaced this week thanks to the Sestak affair.

Romanoff

Romanoff was rather vocal about his desire for a federal job during the Obama transition. He also expressed interest in a Senate appointment, which went to Bennet instead, or a shot at the lieutenant governorship slot when that opened up. It was only after he came up short all around that Romanoff turned to a Senate challenge of Bennet. (Apparently, making an honest living in the private sector never occurred to him.) Romanoff filed his papers as a candidate on Sept. 10, 2009, and the next day he received a call from Messina, who offered three separate opportunities with the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. Trade Development Agency. Romanoff claims that none of the positions were guaranteed, but they would be available only if he was not already a candidate.

Since Obama's first attempt to sweep this under the rug seems to have failed, it will be interesting to see what future memos and documents have to say about what transpired in the ham-fisted political machine, er, "most transparent administration in history." To paraphrase the great political sage Forrest Gump, transparency is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get.

Open Query

"[W]hy do so many Bill Clinton stories end with the words 'nothing improper happened'?" --columnist Ann Coulter

From the Left: Blagojevich Has His Day in Court

After 19 months of delays, former Illinois Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich finally appeared in court Wednesday. Blagojevich is charged with using his office to obtain money, campaign contributions and other benefits while trying to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama when the latter ascended to the White House. The former governor was caught on tape discussing the Senate seat with such playful phrases as, "I've got this thing and it's [expletive] golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for [expletive] nothing." Typical of Chicago's pay-to-play politics. The lucky winner of Blago's choosing was Roland Burris, who is retiring rather than face the voters.

Among those expected to take the stand are White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL). The defense requested that Obama himself testify, but District Judge James Zagel ruled that out. Besides, The Transparent One has an airtight alibi: "I had no contact with the governor what -- or, uhhh -- or his office, uhhh, and so we -- I -- I -- I was not aware of, uh, what was happening. And as I said, uh, it's a sad day for Illinois. Uh, beyond that, I don't think it's appropriate to comment." And so clearly he was innocent.

New & Notable Legislation

Before jetting off for Memorial Day recess, the House passed two spending bills that will -- surprise -- increase the deficit. The Wall Street Journal notes that Democrats "approved another $116 billion in new welfare and other spending, raised $82 billion in new taxes on investment and business, and increased the national debt by another $54.7 billion. None of this was offset with spending cuts." The original "jobs bill" was priced at $191 billion -- a bit steep for Democrats facing voters this fall. So the leadership split the bill in two. One to extend welfare spending supposedly paid for by $82 billion in business tax hikes passed with 215 votes. Second came the infamous "doc fix" bill that raised Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, which passed with 245 votes. The bill's $21 billion price tag was lower than originally planned because, instead of extending the fix for four years, the extension is good for only two years.

Hope 'n' Change: Pelosi Cracks Down on Perks

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is cracking down on congressional travel perks -- well, sort of. Going forward, taxpayers will not be billed for business or first-class airfare for flights under 14 hours. It's not clear whether round trips or connecting flights will count in this total. Even shorter trips are hitting the taxpayers hard, however. Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) took a $9,950 round trip flight to London on the people's business, and his excuse was that he couldn't find cheaper tickets. ABC News searched the Internet and found Washington-to-London flights starting at $700. That was easy.

The travel per-diem also has been changed -- sort of. House members are allotted $200 a day to spend in any manner they choose. Now, they will be required to return the unused portion of the cash, but no receipts will be required. No word on whether the Senate plans to follow suit.

Primary Updates

Tuesday's primary in Alabama wasn't kind to another party switcher. Rep. Parker Griffith was first elected to northern Alabama's 5th district as a Democrat but switched parties last year after opposing ObamaCare. Still, he couldn't convince voters of his Republican credentials and was defeated handily by challenger Mo Brooks. Griffith joins the growing list of incumbents tossed out during primaries: Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) and Sen. Arlen Specter (D-R-D-PA) lost their respective primaries, while Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) was ousted in the state's GOP caucus and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) faces a June 8 runoff against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.

In Hawaii, former Rep. Ed Case dropped out of the Democrat primary race to allow undivided support for establishment candidate and state senate president Colleen Hanabusa. Might he have also been offered a position on an unpaid presidential advisory board? In a special election last month, Republican Charles Djou won a Hawaii House seat by defeating Hanabusa and Case with a plurality. Both Djou and Case ran as fiscal conservatives and together garnered 67 percent of the vote, meaning that leftist darling Hanabusa may not be a lock to retake a traditionally Democrat seat.

Ronald Reagan, 1911-2004

Sunday marks the sixth anniversary of President Ronald Wilson Reagan's death. His passing was a bittersweet event for all American Patriots, especially those of us who knew him and were honored to be mentored by him. Though he is now in the most shining city of all, his spirit and legacy in this life are eternal. As noted in our mission statement, The Patriot Post was founded, in part, to honor the legacy of President Reagan. To read Mark Alexander's tribute to the Gipper, link to "The Twilight's Last Gleaming."

National Security

The Hamas Love Boat

We have it on good authority -- from the ever-reliable Leftmedia, of course -- that malice-toward-none pacifists were mercilessly gunned down by ruthless Israeli commandos this week aboard a Turkish-flagged ship bound for the Gaza Strip on a humanitarian mission to deliver food, blankets and world peace to the tranquility-lovers of that region. The hate-mongering Israelis were, of course, armed with the deadliest of weapons -- the dreaded paintball cannon, a non-lethal riot-dispersion weapon -- while the peaceniks had mere steel rods, clubs, knives, fire-bombs and glass-marble-armed slingshots. Oh yeah: did we mention the "peace activists" were equipped with night-vision goggles, as well? "Pacifists," indeed. Nope, nothing to see here, folks, move along.

What actually happened? A radical Turkish group having close ties to terrorist organizations al-Qa'ida and Hamas -- the terrorist group whose stated mission is "eternal war until Israel is destroyed" -- attempted to run a blockade imposed by Israel for vessels bound for Gaza. The blockade was imposed in the wake of Hamas' incessant smuggling of thousands of Iranian rockets, missiles and other weaponry into Gaza and subsequent use of them on Israel's cities. The blockade allows humanitarian supplies to pass upon inspection, but prevents arms shipments and the like. Only after the commandos were viciously set upon by an awaiting mob did they radio for and receive self-defense, live-fire authorization. Nine Islamist mobsters died (including one American citizen/useful idiot) and dozens were seriously injured, including several commandos.

From a strategic perspective, Hamas is testing Israel's resolve to enforce its blockade. Especially in light of Hamas' determination to wipe Israel off the face of the planet, we strongly support Israel's inherent right of self-defense. Besides, claims that this incident was simply a "misunderstanding" just don't pass a straight-face test. Commandos boarded the ship only after it ignored multiple orders to allow inspection or to turn back, and five other Gaza-bound vessels had been inspected and had passed without issue prior to this incident. No, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu observed, this confrontation arose from a fundamental truth: "This wasn't a love boat. This was a hate boat."

Same Story, Different Year

On Monday, the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors finalized its report on Iran's (non)compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the five UN Security Council resolutions passed since 2006. Any idea what it said? If you guessed, "Iran has not provided the Agency with the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities," you are correct! Of course, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce this -- it's the same thing the IAEA has said every time since 2004.

Another key finding: "The Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities, involving military organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. There are indications that certain of these activities may have continued beyond 2004." Next up in the ongoing kabuki dance with Iran is the UN Security Council shaping and then voting on a new round of sanctions. While this vote could happen soon, it's unlikely to produce anything strong enough to get Iran's attention.

Meanwhile, in the fantasyland that is the United Nations, last week's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference concluded by focusing not on the urgent problem of Iran and its seven years of cheating, but instead on the pressing issue of ... Israel. That's right, the only flourishing democracy in the Middle East and a nation that has never been party to the NPT. The conference's final report calls on Israel to join the NPT and place its nuclear facilities under IAEA review. Will the UN amend the NPT charter and acknowledge Israel as the sixth nuclear weapons state? It must either do so, or call on Israel to give up its nuclear weapons. In seeking a "nuclear-free Middle East," the UN will try to convince Israel to accept the latter. This is a farce wrapped in an absurdity wrapped in a delusion. Naturally, the Obama administration has put its seal of approval on this nonsense, although National Security Adviser James Jones expressed "serious reservations." Well then. November 2012 can't arrive soon enough.

Warfront With Jihadistan: Al-Qa'ida No. 3 Pushing Up Poppies

Help wanted: Chief Operating Officer with small international concern. Must be willing to travel frequently in remote locales, and to move at a moment's notice. Knowledge of clandestine money transfers and acceptance of arcane interpretations of certain religious books required. Must be physically fit and morally ambiguous. Proficiency in AK-47 preferred. Non-drinker and willing to sleep in cave is prerequisite. Benefits include all the tea you can drink and, in the event of death for the cause, 72 virgins. Apply to Mr. O. B. Laden, P.O. Box 1, Jihadistan.

The help is wanted because al-Qa'ida's No. 3 leader, Sheik Sa'id al-Masri, was terminated by a U.S. missile strike. (Note to Eric Holder: No Miranda warnings or due process provided.) The applicant pool is shrinking, and bin Laden and all jihadis should realize that it's only a matter of time before a smoking hole marks their burial site.

If there's a down side to this triumph of intelligence and technology, it's the possibility that this thug's family was foolish enough to stay near him. While we hope claims of children's deaths are not true, we are nonetheless pleased to see that this top leader of multiple terror acts has finally gotten his due.

Profiles of Valor: John Finn, 1909-2010

With Memorial Day memories still fresh, and the 66th anniversary of D-Day this coming Sunday, it's certainly worthwhile to spend a few more minutes reflecting on the courage and valor of America's fighting forces, both past and present. Last Thursday, May 27, the man who was America's oldest Medal of Honor recipient died at the age of 100 at the Veterans Home of California in Chula Vista. Retired Navy officer John Finn had received America's highest medal of valor for bravery during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Awakened by the first bombs from the attack, Finn found a .50-caliber machine gun, mounted it on a platform, which gave him no protection, and began firing at the Japanese planes that were on their way to Pearl Harbor. Despite numerous wounds (a bullet wound in his left arm, shrapnel in his chest and stomach, a broken left foot and a laceration on his scalp), he kept reloading and firing for more than two hours, giving heart to his fellow sailors, dazed from being suddenly thrown into a world war. Finn didn't leave his post for treatment until directly ordered, and even then soon returned to help rearm planes. As with most U.S. warriors, Finn was humble about his exploits, saying he just "did what I was being paid for."

Finn's story also shines a light on the current, and possibly scandalous, Medal of Honor situation. As The Patriot Post regularly highlights, there is no shortage of courage and valor among America's current crop of warriors. Yet, only six Medals of Honor have been awarded for service in Iraq or Afghanistan, a rate of one MoH recipient per one million service members. The rate from WWI through Vietnam was between 23 to 26 recipients per one million. Is a top-heavy military bureaucracy stalling awards, or is the politically correct leftist view of downplaying our military heroes influencing the brass? Regardless, our valiant warriors deserve better. But still they fight.

Business & Economy

Regulatory Commissars: Administration to Investigate BP

The Obama administration on Tuesday announced a criminal investigation into the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig and the ensuing oil spill that is endangering the Gulf Coast from Louisiana to Florida. The administration is obligated to "investigate what went wrong and to determine what reforms are needed so that we never have to experience a crisis like this again," Barack Obama opportunistically said. "If our laws were broken, leading to this death and destruction, my solemn pledge is that we will bring those responsible to justice on behalf of the victims of this catastrophe and the people of the Gulf region." The Justice Department will look into possible violations of the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The federal government also will send a $69 million bill to BP to cover its cleanup expenses so far.

As we have pointed out before and must do so again, however, White House Chief of Staff once opined that they should "never let a serious crisis go to waste" because "it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." Like hiking taxes on every barrel of oil retroactive to the beginning of the year? Or as reported by the Associated Press, "The Obama administration is blocking all new offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, a day after regulators approved a new permit for drilling in shallow water." Since leftists are generally opposed to drilling anywhere, this comes as little surprise.

On Cross-Examination

"Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place? Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico." --columnist Charles Krauthammer

The BIG Lie

"[A] good deal of the other party's opposition to our agenda has also been rooted in their sincere and fundamental belief about government. It's a belief that government has little or no role to play in helping this nation meet our collective challenges. It's an agenda that basically offers two answers to every problem we face: more tax breaks for the wealthy and fewer rules for corporations." --Barack Obama

Immigration Front: Administration to Investigate Arizona

Last week, the Obama administration escalated its war against states' rights, specifically Arizona's right to deal with the problem of illegal immigration within its borders. On May 28, the Office of the Solicitor General issued a brief asking the Supreme Court to review not Arizona Senate bill 1070 (which makes illegal immigration a state crime and has sparked protests throughout the country), but the two-year-old Legal Arizona Worker's Act, which penalizes Arizona businesses that knowingly hire illegals. Both the U.S. District Court in Arizona and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have already upheld this law as constitutional, but if the Supreme Court finds that this law is unconstitutional, it will certainly affect 1070, as well as the ability of other states seeking to pass similar laws.

The feds are arguing that the Legal Arizona Worker's Act "disrupts a delicate balance" between controlling illegal immigration and preventing racial discrimination of those legally here that "Congress struck 25 years ago." The problem is, of course, that the burdens imposed upon this country by illegal immigration have gotten worse in the past two-and-a-half decades -- especially for border states like Arizona -- and the federal government has done nothing about it.

Meanwhile, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer actually was granted an audience with Barack Obama to discuss the law. Brewer has stood her ground, saying that if the administration chooses to file suit, "We'll see [Obama] in court."

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"Over the last decade these [middle-class] families saw their incomes decline. They saw the cost of things like health care and college tuition reach record highs. They've lived through a so-called economic 'expansion' that generated slower job growth than at any price year expansion since World War II. Some people have called the last 10 years 'the lost decade.' So the anxiety that's out there today isn't new. The recession has certainly made it worse, but that feeling of not being in control of your own economic future, the sense that the American dream might slowly be slipping away, that has been around for some time now." --Barack Obama, doing his best Jimmy Carter "malaise" impersonation in remarks at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh

On the jobs front, the Associated Press reports, "A wave of census hiring lifted payrolls by 431,000 in May, but job creation by private companies grew at the slowest pace since the start of the year. The unemployment rate dipped to 9.7 percent as people gave up searching for work." That "wave of census hiring" accounts for 411,000 of those added (temporary) jobs. How's that "stimulus" working again, Barack?

Income Redistribution: Canadian Health Care Warning

Canada's socialist health care system certainly served as a warning for those willing to heed it in the push to do similar mischief here in the U.S. Unfortunately, the voices of fiscal responsibility were drowned out by cries of "Hope 'n' Change." The warning persists, however. Reuters headlined this week "Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model."

Reuters reports, "Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada's provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system." Despite the fact that the system is preferred by 82 percent of Canadians, "popular" must be taken with a grain of salt. Ask those who have been denied care, or those who languish on months- or years-long waiting lists for procedures routine in the U.S. (at least for now), or those who travel to the U.S. for the best care (as did Danny Williams, Premiere of Newfoundland and Labrador). Lives have been shortened and the quality of life has deteriorated under Canada's "popular" system.

Furthermore, costs are exploding. Ontario estimates that in 12 years health care could consume 70 percent of its budget. Provinces now spend about 40 percent of their budgets on health care versus roughly 7 percent in the 1970s. It's as if we Americans can see the future being played out before our eyes.

Culture & Policy

Climate Change This Week: Confessions Are Hard

After years of toting the global warming line, The New York Times and Newsweek have finally (almost, kinda sorta) admitted that the "consensus" of global warming isn't all it's cracked up to be. Pointing to the "series of climate science controversies unearthed and highlighted by skeptics since November," the Times cited a February BBC survey that "found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that 'climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,' down from 41 percent in November 2009."

Naturally, the Times is none too happy about this, referring to the "anguished question" of why "so many people [have] turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet," and lamenting that dwindling support "will make it harder to pass legislation like a fuel tax increase and to persuade people to make sacrifices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

Meanwhile, Newsweek's Stefan Theil writes, "Blame economic worries, another freezing winter, or the cascade of scandals emerging from the world's leading climate-research body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But concern over global warming has cooled down dramatically." Theil dutifully recites the benefits of cutting emissions, but then dares to discount global warming as a motivating factor for doing so.

Reporting the reality that the debate is far from over must have been painful for the liberal duo, but perhaps they realized the mounting evidence was too much even for them to ignore.

Around the Nation: State Licensed Journalists?

Michigan State Senator Bruce Patterson, a Republican, is introducing a bill that would require the state's journalists to be licensed by the state. If Patterson gets his way, journalists would have to prove that they have "good moral character" and "ethics standards acceptable to the board," a degree in journalism, three years experience as a reporter (as well as awards), and three writing samples. The moral character (or intelligence) of many journalists notwithstanding, this law advocates outright government control of the press, pure and simple.

Patterson, who ironically also practices constitutional law, claims that the law would protect the public from begin barraged with misinformation from "an increasing amount of media outlets -- traditional, online and citizen generated." Of course the law wouldn't stop people from going online or watching cable channels to get news originating from outside the state, but clearly his aim is to get the ball rolling down that slippery slope by inviting other proponents of censorship to jump on his bandwagon.

To Keep and Bear Arms

Craig Kizer had been hired to do some renovation work on a home in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, but found himself in jail after attempting to rape a teenage girl. The mother of the teen is being praised for stopping the crime. Early one morning, the 51-year-old suspect, armed with a knife, entered the girl's room while she was sleeping and attempted to rape her. After he laid the knife down, however, the girl immediately picked it up and began screaming. Her mother, armed with a gun, rushed into the room and pointed it at Kizer, ordering him to leave. Shortly afterward, police arrested him and he faces charges of attempted rape, armed criminal action and burglary.

And Last...

Al and Tipper Gore announced this week that they're separating after 40 years of marriage. Apparently, even the populist potentate of eco-theology couldn't keep the warmth in their relationship. Just a few weeks ago, the Gores purchased a new earth-warming $8.8 million ocean-view villa in Montecito, California. This is just one symbol of their enormous wealth, which has grown exponentially -- from $1 million to $100 million -- since 2000 and which will now have to be split. Apparently, the two aren't aware that divorce is also bad for the planet.

News coverage, predictably, has been of the shocked-and-dismayed sort, with some commentators wondering if any marriage can last. Most amusing, however, was the fact that others blamed -- you guessed it -- George W. Bush. "It's been 10 years since that oddly public passionate kiss at the Democratic convention," said CBS's Sharyl Attkisson. "That was followed by Gore winning the popular vote for president but losing the electoral vote. Family friend Sally Quinn says that may have done the marriage irreparable harm." Quinn agreed: "He obviously suffered a lot and still is suffering. He'll never get over that and neither will she."

Needless to say, we don't buy it. If you can think of a better reason, by all means let us know. For our part, we think Al discovered that Tipper was the email hacker in the Climategate scandal.

THE PATRIOT POST.COM

FRIDAY, 04 JUNE 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?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FlEbBZLzo0

If you really want to understand the difference between the technical terms natural born citizen, native born citizen, naturalized citizen and just plain citizen, go to:

http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

And if you really want to understand why it is necessary for a man to be a natural born citizen of the United States in order to be President of the United States, read the essay by Leo Donofrio at:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881



And if you did not know that in additional to Obama being ineligible to be president because of his nationality, did you
know that he is a Muslim:


http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

LEO RUGIENS

WHAT'S WITH THE JEWS? ARE THEY BY NATURE SELF-DESTRUCTIVE?

AS READERS OF THIS BLOG SURELY KNOW BY THIS TIME, I am not antisemitic.

On the contrary, I have always had great admiration for the the peculiarly outstanding genius of the Jewish people. l frequently quote my favorite authors Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer and Jeff Jacoby.
The contribution to great music by Jewish composers and musicians is so vast that one cannot begin to enumerate them.

YET, there is something in the mindset of many Jews which has always puzzzled me. It began with the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who betrayed our Nation by selling the secrets of the atomic bomb to Joseph Stalin, who was no lover of the Jewish people. The word “pogrom” will always be associated in my mind with the persecution of Jews in Russia.

That “something” in the mindset of many Jews is the self-contradictory behavior of a people who have suffered so much and yet who seem to embrace those who inflict suffering on others. Take abortion for instance. How is it possible for a people who suffered under Adolf Hitler and his Margaret Sanger inspired program of eugenics that produced his own ‘pogrom’ of the Final Solution of Auschwitz and Dachau, how can a people who suffered the Holocaust, support overwhelmingly the holocaust of abortion-on-demand?

Only God knows the answer!

Here is an interesting article by Jeff Jacoby which seeks to answer the question, “Why do Jews overwhelmingly support Barack Hussein Obama, who is clearly pursuing an anti-Israel foreign policy?”

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama, Israel & American Jews: The Challenge
A symposium
by Jeff Jacoby
Commentary
June 2010
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/7543/obama-israel-american-jews-the-challenge

The editors of Commentary asked 31 American Jews to respond to the following statement:
The open conflict between the Obama administration and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu has created tensions between the United States and Israel of a kind not seen since the days of the administration of the first President Bush. And those tensions are placing unique pressure on American Jews, who voted for Barack Obama by a margin of nearly 4-to-1 in 2008 after being assured by Obama himself and by his supporters in the Jewish community that he was a friend and an ally of the State of Israel despite his long association with, among others, the unabashedly anti-Israel and anti-Semitic Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
We argue that American Jews are facing an unprecedented political challenge, and at a crucial moment, with the need to address the existential threat to Israel—and by extension to the future of the Jewish people as a whole—from a potentially nuclear Iran. How will American Jews handle this challenge? Can Obama's Jewish supporters act in a way that will change the unmistakable direction of current American policy emanating from the White House? Will American Jews accept Barack Obama's view that the state of Israel bears some responsibility for the loss of American "blood and treasure" in the Middle East? Will they continue to extend their support to the Obama administration and to Barack Obama's political party?
My contribution follows. To read those of the other contributors, please visit Commentary.com.
.
LONG BEFORE his election as president, it was clear that Barack Obama felt little of the traditional American warmth for Israel or any particular repugnance for the enemies that Israel and America have in common. As Commentary's editors suggest, his exceptionally close ties to the man he described as his spiritual mentor, the Israel-bashing Reverend Jeremiah Wright, should have given pause to any pro-Israel voter. So should the persistence with which he vowed to undertake direct presidential diplomacy with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- the virulently anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic president of Iran -- "without preconditions." Yet many American Jews chose to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, telling themselves that he could be numbered, as Alan Dershowitz wrote at the time, "among Israel's strongest supporters."
Only the willfully blind could believe that now. And many American Jews are willfully blind.
Time and again, Obama has made clear both his lack of sympathy for the Jewish state and his keen desire to ingratiate himself with Arab and Muslim autocrats. The disparities in the administration's tone and attitude have been striking. For the prime minister of Israel, there have been humiliating snubs and telephoned harangues; for the rulers of Iran, invitations to "engage" and sycophantic New Year greetings. When Damascus was reported to be arming Hezbollah with Scud missiles, Obama's secretary of state observed mildly that the US "would like to have a more balanced and positive relationship with Syria." When Israel announced plans to build more homes in a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem, by contrast, the secretary of state angrily condemned the announcement as "an insult to the United States."
Even more egregious is Obama's insinuation that American troops are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan because Israel won't agree to peace on the Palestinians' terms. The Israeli-Arab conflict "is costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure," the president said in April -- a claim not just false, but recklessly close to a blood libel. No wonder the number of Israeli Jews who see Obama as pro-Israel is minuscule: just 9 percent, according to the Jerusalem Post.
When the first George Bush was in the White House, he evinced a similar anti-Israel animus, and some of his advisers worried that his Mideast policy would hurt the president with Jewish voters. "F--- the Jews," Secretary of State James Baker notoriously responded, "they don't vote for us anyway." They didn't: When Bush ran for re-election in 1992, he drew only 11 percent of the Jewish vote -- less than a third of those who had voted for him in 1988.
Is it likely that two-thirds of the overwhelming majority of Jews who backed Obama in 2008 would abandon him in 2012, assuming he runs for re-election and his animus toward Israel persists? To ask it another way: Would most American Jews vote against a Democratic nominee out of concern for Israel?
There is no reason to think so. American Jews have been stalwart Democrats for nearly a century, and their partisan affiliation shows no sign of weakening -- not even as the Democratic Party's support for Israel grows steadily weaker. When Gallup earlier this year surveyed Americans on their sympathies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 85 percent of Republicans expressed support for Israel -- but only 48 percent of Democrats did so. Reams of data confirm that solidarity with Israel is now far stronger among Republicans and conservatives than among Democrats and liberals.
That is why if they are forced to choose between standing with Israel and standing with the Democratic Party, many American Jews will simply deny that any choice must be made. As evidence, consider a recent Quinnipiac University poll, in which fully 50 percent of Jews described Obama as a "strong supporter of Israel" -- a far higher proportion than the 19 percent of evangelicals, 23 percent of Protestants, and 35 percent of Catholics who said the same. Denial is not an uncommon response to cognitive dissonance, and a goodly number of Jewish Democrats will find it easier to keep telling themselves that Obama is strongly pro-Israel than to re-think their party loyalty.
To be sure, in 2012 Obama is unlikely to duplicate the 78 percent of Jewish votes he drew in 2008. But will American Jews turn away from him en masse? Don't bet on it. "F--- the Jews," Obama's advisers can tell him. "They'll vote for us anyway."
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).

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




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?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FlEbBZLzo0

If you really want to understand the difference between the technical terms natural born citizen, native born citizen, naturalized citizen and just plain citizen, go to:

http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

And if you really want to understand why it is necessary for a man to be a natural born citizen of the United States in order to be President of the United States, read the essay by Leo Donofrio at:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881



And if you did not know that in additional to Obama being ineligible to be president because of his nationality, did you
know that he is a Muslim:


http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

LEO RUGIENS