THE GULF OIL SPILL IT TOO MUNDANE A MATTER TO OCCUPY THE ATTENTION OF OBAMA. NOW GOLF? THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER

Barack Obama doesn't do the mundane.
He was sent to us to do larger things.
You could see that plainly in his Oval Office address on the gulf oil spill.
He could barely get himself through the pedestrian first half:
a bit of BP-bashing, a bit of faux-Clintonian "I feel your pain," a bit of recovery and economic mitigation accounting.

It wasn't until the end of the speech -- the let-no-crisis-go-to-waste part that tried to leverage the Gulf Coast devastation to advance his cap-and-trade climate-change agenda -- that Obama warmed to his task.

Pedestrian is beneath Obama. Mr. Fix-It he is not. He is world-historical, the visionary, come to make the oceans recede and the planet heal.

How? By creating a glorious, new, clean green economy. And how exactly to do that? From Washington, by presidential command and with tens of billions of dollars thrown around. With the liberal (and professorial) conceit that scientific breakthroughs can be legislated into existence, Obama proposes to give us a new industrial economy.

But is this not what we've been trying to do for decades with ethanol, which remains a monumental boondoggle, economically unviable and environmentally damaging to boot? As with yesterday's panacea, synfuels, into which Jimmy Carter poured billions.

Notice that Obama no longer talks about Spain, which until recently he repeatedly cited for its visionary subsidies of a blossoming new clean energy industry. That's because Spain, now on the verge of bankruptcy, is pledged to reverse its disastrously bloated public spending, including radical cuts in subsidies to its uneconomical photovoltaic industry.

There's a reason petroleum is such a durable fuel. It's not, as Obama fatuously suggested, because of oil company lobbying but because it is very portable, energy-dense and easy to use.

But this doesn't stop Obama from thinking that he can mandate into being a superior substitute. His argument: Well, if we can put a man on the moon, why not this?

Aside from the irony that this most tiresome of cliches comes from a president who is canceling our program to return to the moon, it is utterly meaningless. The wars on cancer and on poverty have been similarly sold. They remain unwon. Why? Because we knew how to land on the moon. We had the physics to do it. Cancer cells, on the other hand, are far more complex than the Newtonian equations that govern a moon landing. Equally daunting are the laws of social interaction -- even assuming there are any -- that sustain a culture of poverty.

Similarly, we don't know how to make renewables that match the efficiency of fossil fuels. In the interim, it is Obama and his Democratic allies who, as they dream of such scientific leaps, are unwilling to use existing technologies to reduce our dependence on foreign (i.e., imported) and risky (i.e., deep-water) sources of oil -- twin dependencies that Obama decried in Tuesday's speech.

"Part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean," said Obama, is "because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water."

Running out of places on land? What about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the less-known National Petroleum Reserve -- 23 million acres of Alaska's North Slope, near the existing pipeline and designated nearly a century ago for petroleum development -- that have been shut down by the federal government?

Running out of shallow-water sources? How about the Pacific Ocean, a not inconsiderable body of water, and its vast U.S. coastline? That's been off-limits to new drilling for three decades.

We haven't run out of safer and more easily accessible sources of oil. We've been run off them by environmentalists. They prefer to dream green instead.

Obama is dreamer in chief: He wants to take us to this green future "even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet precisely know how we're going to get there." Here's the offer: Tax carbon, spend trillions and put government in control of the energy economy -- and he will take you he knows not where, by way of a road he knows not which.

That's why Tuesday's speech was received with such consternation. It was so untethered from reality. The gulf is gushing, and the president is talking mystery roads to unknown destinations. That passes for vision, and vision is Obama's thing. It sure beats cleaning up beaches.

...........................

OBAMA AND THE VISION THING
by Charles Krauthammer
THE WASHINGTON POST
Friday, 18 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

GENERAL McCHRYSTAL IS NOT GENERAL McARTHUR

General Stanley McChrystal was indiscreet in making his comments about the personality of his Commander in Chief, but he was not insubordinate as was General Douglas McArthur with President Harry Truman. McArthur publicly disagreed with the President over the conduct of the Korean War. Truman had no choice but to fire him. Being summoned to the Oval Office is reprimand enough for McChrystal; if Obama fires him it will offer further evidence of his
incompetence as Commander in Chief.

Here is James Taranto's take on the conflict written in his daily column, THE BEST OF THE WEB TODAY, in the Wall Street Journal:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Gen. Stanley McChrystal's job appeared in grave jeopardy Tuesday as an infuriated President Barack Obama summoned the Afghanistan war's U.S. commander to Washington to explain his extraordinary complaints about the president and his aides," the Associated Press reports:

Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs said "the magnitude and greatness of the mistake here are profound" and repeatedly declined to say McChrystal's job was safe. "All options are on the table," he said.

Seems to us that's what they used to say about Iran, though we imagine Obama is more apt to get tough in this case.

McChrystal's comments appear in a profile for Rolling Stone magazine; The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder has highlights. In quite colorful terms, McChrystal and his aides criticize and mock Vice President Biden, special envoy Richard Holbrooke, ambassador to Kabul Karl Eikenberry, White House national security adviser Jim Jones--and the president himself:

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f---ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

The suggestion that Obama was "intimidated" must sting, especially given the president's recent weakness in the face of the BP accident. And while the source of this quote appears to be someone other than McChrystal himself, a military officer is responsible for enforcing discipline among the men under his command.

CNN notes that McChrystal was quick to apologize: ""I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened. Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard."

This apparently wasn't good enough for the president, who summoned McChrystal to "explain"--a rather humorous description of what Obama is seeking from the meeting. ("Sir, let me tell you exactly what I meant when I said you seemed 'intimidated' . . .") Presumably the president's real objective is to extract a further show of contrition--that is, to humiliate the wayward general.

The Washington Examiner's Byron York writes that McChrystal was, in the headline writer's words, "an accident waiting to happen." York quotes an unidentified "retired military man" as saying of the general: "He had great disdain for anyone, as he said, 'in a suit.' . . . He is probably one of the more arrogant, cocksure military guys I have run across. That in itself is not necessarily a character flaw, but when you couple it with his great disdain for civilians, it's a very volatile combination."

The president is in a "bind," York argues:

There's no doubt Obama would be fully justified in firing his top general. But at the same time Obama has committed himself to a rigid timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Changing commanders could complicate that enormously. Right now, because of his own policy decisions, the president has no good choice.

There's another problem for Obama here: While McChrystal's comments were highly improper, they will strike many observers as having a ring of truth. Even if the president gives the general the ax, the whole episode is further grist for the developing media narrative of an administration that is incompetent and adrift.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

IS OBAMA A SNAKEBIT PRESIDENT ?

The president is starting to look snakebit.

He's starting to look unlucky, like Jimmy Carter.

It wasn't Mr. Carter's fault that the American diplomats were taken hostage in Tehran,
but he handled it badly, and suffered. He defied the rule of the King in "Pippin," the Broadway show of Carter's era, who spoke of "the rule that every general knows by heart, that it's smarter to be lucky than it's lucky to be smart."

Mr. Carter's opposite was Bill Clinton, on whom fortune smiled with eight years of relative peace and a worldwide economic boom. What misfortune Mr. Clinton experienced he mostly created himself. History didn't impose it.

But Mr. Obama is starting to look unlucky, and–file this under Mysteries of Leadership–that is dangerous for him because Americans get nervous when they have a snakebit president. They want presidents on whom the sun shines.

Joe Rago and James Freeman discuss BP's caving to the Obama administration, the president's pivot to cap and trade, and securities litigation reform. It isn't Mr. Obama's fault that an oil rig blew in the Gulf and a gusher resulted. He already had two wars and the great recession. But the lack of adequate federal government response appropriately redounds on him.

In a Wall Street Journal investigation published Thursday, reporters Jeffrey Ball and Jonathan Weisman wrote the federal government at first moved quickly, but soon "faltered." "The federal government, which under the law is in charge of fighting large spills, had to make things up as it went along." It hadn't anticipated a spill this big.

The first weekend in May, when water was rough, contractors hired by BP to lay boom "mostly stayed ashore," according to a local official. "Shrimpers took matters into their own hands, laying 18,000 feet of boom," compared to about 4,000 feet by BP's contractors.

The administration's failure to take impressive action after the spill dinged its reputation for competence. The president's failure to turn things around Tuesday night with a speech damaged his reputation as a man whose rhetorical powers are such that he can turn things around with a speech. He lessened his own mystique. Reaction among his usual supporters was, in the words of Time's Mark Halperin, "fierce, unforeseen disappointment." Dan Froomkin of the Huffington Post called the speech "profoundly underwhelming," a "feeble call to action." Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich called the speech "vapid." Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times said the president looked "awkward and robotic." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann famously said "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days." Chris Matthews scored "a lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk." Mr. Olbermann, on Mr. Obama's well-written peroration: "It's nice but, again, how? Where was the 'how' in this speech when the nation is crying out for 'how'?"
The right didn't like the speech either.
As for the center, Nielsen reported that 32 million people watched the speech, as compared to 48 million viewers that watched the State of the Union. Ronald Reagan once said you should never confuse the reviews with the box office. This was the box office voting with its clickers.
No reason to join the pile on, but some small points. Two growing weaknesses showed up in small phrases. The president said he had consulted among others "experts in academia" on what to do about the calamity. This while noting, again, that his energy secretary has a Nobel Prize. There is a growing meme that Mr. Obama is too impressed by credentialism, by the meritocracy, by those who hold forth in the faculty lounge, and too strongly identifies with them. He should be more impressed by those with real-world experience. It was the "small people" in the shrimp boats who laid the boom.
And when speaking of why proper precautions and safety measures were not in place, the president sternly declared, "I want to know why." But two months in he should know. And he should be telling us. Such empty sternness is . . . empty.
Throughout the speech the president gestured showily, distractingly, with his hands. Politicians do this now because they're told by media specialists that it helps them look natural. They don't look natural, they look like Ann Bancroft gesticulating to Patty Duke in "The Miracle Worker."
The president could move his hands because he was not holding a hard copy of his speech. Normally presidents have had a printed copy of the speech in their hands or on the desk, in case the teleprompter freezes or fails. Mr. Obama's desk was shiny and empty. A White House aide says the director of Oval Office operations had a hard copy just off camera, and was following along as the president spoke so that if the prompter broke he'd be able to give it to the president at the spot he left off.
But that would look a little startling, an arm suddenly darting into the frame to hand the president a script. And the pages could fall. If one were in the mood for a cheap metaphor one would say this is an example of the White House's tendency not to anticipate trouble.
There is still a sense about Mr. Obama that he needs George W. Bush in order to give his presidency full shape and meaning. In this he is like Jimmy Carter, who needed Richard Nixon, or rather the Watergate scandal, which made him president. Mr. Carter needed Richard Nixon standing in the corner looking like he'd spent the night sleeping in his suit as it hangs in the closet. The image is from Joe McGinnis's "The Selling of the President, 1968." Mr. Carter needed to be able to point at Nixon and say, "I'm not him. He dirty, me clean. You hate him, like me." Carter's presidency was given coherence and meaning by Nixon, Watergate, and without it that presidency seemed formless. Mr. Obama, in the same way, needs Mr. Bush standing in the corner like Boo Radley, saying "Let's invade something!" But Mr. Bush is wisely back home in Texas finishing a book, and the president never sounds weaker than when he suggests his predicament is all his predecessor's fault.
Mr. Obama needs Mr. Bush in the corner and doesn't have him. That's part of why he looks so alone out there.
And seems so snakebit, so at the mercy of forces. When you're snakebit you get some sympathy, and some will come. With all the president's woe there will be some counter-reaction among commentators, journalists and others. There will likely be among the Democratic leadership, too. "Love him or not he's what we've got, and he's what we have for the next two years. Help the guy, cool the criticism, punch back for him." But it's also true that among Democrats—and others—when the talk turns to the presidency it turns more and more to Hillary Clinton. "We may have made a mistake. She would have been better." Sooner or later the secretary of state is going to come under fairly consistent pressure to begin to consider 2012. A hunch: She won't really want to. Because she has enjoyed being loyal. She didn't only prove to others she could be loyal, a team player. She proved it to herself. And it has only added to her luster.
As for the president, the great question is what you do when you start to feel snakebit. Maybe he'll start to doubt his own moves and instincts. Maybe not. Jimmy Carter didn't. He fought hard for re-election in 1980, and until near the end thought he'd win. He trusted the American people, and in an odd way he trusted his luck.

JUNE 18, 2010
A Snakebit President
Americans want leaders on whom the sun shines.
By PEGGY NOONAN
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



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 WAS HE THINKING WHEN HE SAW THE BILLBOARD?

You'll never guess what Obama saw at Gulf
Motorcade drove past electronic billboard: 'Where's the birth certificate?

---

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

NAVARRE, Fla. – Barack Obama had a close encounter of the eligibility kind today as his motorcade drove past an electronic billboard here on Highway 98 asking the question, "Where's the birth certificate?"

The trip was part of Obama's tour of areas hit by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the billboard was courtesy of WND's 13-month continuing campaign to raise the issue of the president's constitutional eligibility for office.

"We were able to get this billboard up in a hurry because it is electronic," explained Joseph Farah, chief executive officer of WND and the mastermind of the advertising campaign that has visited more than 50 cities in the past year. "This is the first time we believe Obama has actually had to drive by one of our boards."

Farah attributes widespread interest in the great "birth certificate controversy" to the billboard campaign that began in May 2009. That's when he launched what became something of a national sensation and, he believes, rekindled the debate about Obama's constitutional eligibility for office – the billboard campaign that asks the simple but unanswered question, "Where's the birth certificate?"

The campaign has been sustained by contributions from WND visitors and others who have discovered it from simply driving past a billboard as Obama did today.

"It has certainly changed my life," explains Farah. "A year ago I was still getting regular invitations to be on cable TV shows and talk about the issues of the day. The minute I was labeled a 'birther,' I became radioactive – just like Lou Dobbs."

But, Farah says, even though "the establishment media" are in lockstep on the issue, the billboard campaign has fundamentally changed the public's mind to the point at which all the polls are shocking the elite, and state legislatures are passing bills to ensure this never happens again in future presidential elections.

"There's no denying it," says Farah. "No matter how hard my colleagues try to make the public forget about this issue, no matter how hard they attempt to ridicule anyone who wants to see the proof, no matter how much they demean even decorated military officers who take their own oaths seriously, this issue will not go away. It's going to be around in 2012. It may even be the defining issue in 2012."

Farah says he could not have pulled off the campaign without the support of WND's visitors. The cost of the billboards has been offset by donations – and Farah says he wants to step up the campaign because it's winning.

The latest CBS–New York Times poll showed only 58 percent of Americans even think Obama was born in the USA.

"I'm quite sure based on our own polls that if those people were asked whether they would like to see Obama release his birth certificate, more than half the country would say 'yes' – and all the other personal papers he has refused to disclose," Farah said.

Farah says the billboards have had a lot to do with changing popular opinion – even if the media don't get it.

"People simply shouldn't have to conjecture about where they think their president was born," he says. "It ought to be a matter of public record – and it clearly is not."

Aside from the billboard campaign, WND has devoted more investigative reporting to the issue of eligibility than "all other media outlets combined," says Farah.

In addition, the billboard campaign was rejected by three major billboard companies all owned by major media outlets – CBS, Clear Channel and Lamar.

SINCERITY WILL NOT STOP MURDERS, AND NEITHER WILL BANNING GUNS

Kim Odom, mother of 13-year-old shooting victim Steven Odom,

displays a photo of her killed son during a rally in front of the State House in Boston.

Steven Odom was shot to death in October of 2007

by a gunman who police say was aiming at someone else.

................................................................................................................


It was one of the creepier stories of the week gone by:
The town administrator in Shirley, Mass., was arrested on charges of illegally recording and photographing his town hall co-workers by (among other things) planting a miniature video camera above a toilet stall in the women's bathroom.

Reaction to the Town Hall Peeping Tom was what you would expect. Residents expressed outrage and distress, the accused was arraigned, locks on town buildings were ordered changed, and selectmen began the process of finding a new administrator. But one reaction nobody had was to call for banning or restricting the sale of miniature video cameras. No such call would have been taken seriously, and for good reason: The fact that some criminals might use a camcorder maliciously is not a good reason to penalize the vast majority of people who wouldn't.

By the same token, when someone uses a car to carry out a deadly crime, nobody proposes stringent new curbs on car sales. Nearly 50 homicides in Massachusetts were committed with knives in 2008, according to FBI data, but no lawmaker introduced legislation making it harder for citizens to buy knives. And though each year in the United States, dog bites man (or woman or child) nearly 5 million times, sometimes fatally, anyone can buy a pet dog.

Yet when guns are used with tragic or criminal results, cries for tougher gun control routinely follow.

On the same day the Shirley story broke, a rally was held at the State House to support Governor Deval Patrick's proposed bill limiting Massachusetts gun buyers to one firearm per month. The featured speaker was Kim Odom, whose 13-year-old son Steven was shot dead by a gang member in Dorchester in 2007.

"We are not going to accept the fact that our children die on the sidewalk and it ends there," Odom said with understandable emotion. She invoked the memory of Jaewon Martin and Nicholas Fomby-Davis, two 14-year-old Boston boys who were shot dead just last month. As she spoke, gun-control advocates held signs bearing the image of a handgun with blood dripping from the barrel.

Anyone's heart must go out to Odom; as a parent, I can only imagine the permanent heartbreak of losing a son to murder. I respect Odom's determination to change the conditions that led to her son's death, and honor her for channeling her grief into action.

But if Steven, Jaewon, and Nicholas had been bludgeoned to death with stainless steel pipe or strangled with an extension cord, Odom would not be demanding limits on the right to buy metal pipe or power cords.

It is illogical and unreasonable to treat guns any differently. Like power cords and knives, the vast majority of guns owned by Americans will never be used to take a life. Even when guns are used in crime, overwhelmingly it is not to kill; and against the criminal use of firearms must be set the use of guns to defend against crime. According to Gallup, nearly one of every four Americans keep a gun to protect themselves or their homes. While the frequency with which guns are used defensively is much debated; estimates range from about 110,000 to 2.5 million times per year.

The notion that urban gangs can be deprived of guns by laws limiting their legal sale to one a month is wishful thinking. Criminals can always get guns. They buy them on the black market, they get them out of state, they steal them. Almost by definition, the impact of gun-control laws falls primarily on the law-abiding. That is why gun bans don't prevent murder, and why homicides decline when gun bans are lifted. John Lott, the economist and author of More Guns, Less Crime, notes that the murder rate in Washington, DC, soared after the city banned handguns in 1977. Yet in the two years since the Supreme Court struck down that ban as unconstitutional, murders in DC have plummeted.

To be sure, a one-gun-per-month limit is not an outright ban, and if it's unlikely to have much impact on criminal gangs, it's also unlikely to hinder most honest gun buyers. Lott says he knows of no peer-reviewed study documenting a decrease in crime as a result of one-gun-per-month laws. The effect of enacting such a law in Massachusetts will almost certainly be marginal at best.
Anti-gun rallies and extra layers of gun control may make some people feel good, but they are not the way to suppress gang violence. No one can doubt Kim Odom's sincerity. But sincerity won't stop thugs who murder kids. Futile new gun restrictions won't either.
.................................................................................................

INSTRUMENTS OF CRIME ARE INSTRUMENTS,
NOT CRIMES
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
June 20, 2010
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/7628/instruments-of-crime-are-instruments-not-crimes
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).

GULF WAR III - OBAMA VERSUS BRITISH PETROLEUM. IF WORDS COULD KILL!

Illustration: Obama fragmenting
by Greg Groesch for The Washington Times

.......................................................................


I believe it was Jean Giraudoux who first said,
"Only the mediocre are always at their best."

Barack Obama was supposed to be the best, the very best,
and yet he is always, reliably, consistently mediocre.

His speech on oil was no better or worse than his speech on race.
Yet the Obammyboppers who once squealed with delight are weary of last year's boy band.
At the end of the big Oval Office address, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and the rest of the MSNBC gang jeered the president. For a bewildered President Obama, it must have felt like his Ceausescu balcony moment. Had they caught up with him in the White House parking lot, they would have put him up against the wall and clubbed him to a pulp with Mr. Matthews' no-longer-tingling leg.

For the first time, I felt a wee bit sorry for the poor fellow.
What had he done to so enrage his full supporting chorus?
In The Washington Post, the reaction of longtime Obammysoxer Eugene Robinson was headlined "Obama disappoints from the beginning of his speech."
So what? He always "disappoints."
What would have been startling would have been if he hadn't "disappointed."
His eve-of-election rally for Martha Coakley "disappointed" the Massachusetts electorate so much it gave Ted Kennedy's seat to a Republican.
His speech for Chicago's Olympic bid "disappointed" the Oslo committee so much it gave the games to Pyongyang, or Ougadougou, or any city offering to build a stadium with electrical outlets incompatible with Mr. Obama's teleprompter.
Be honest, guys, his inaugural address "disappointed," too, didn't it?
Oh, in those days, you still did your best to make the case for it.
"He carries us from meditative bead to meditative bead, and invites us to contemplate,"
wrote Stanley Fish in the New York Times.

"There is a technical term for this kind of writing - parataxis, defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as 'the placing of propositions or clauses one after the other without indicating ... the relation of co-ordination or subordination between them.'"

Gotcha.
To a fool, His Majesty's new clothes appear invisible.
But, to a wise man, the placing of buttons and pockets without indicating the relation of co-ordination is a fascinating exercise in parataxical couture.
And so Mr. Obama bounded out to knock 'em dead with another chorus of "I'll be down to get you in a parataxis, honey," only to find himself pelted with dead fish rather than Stanley Fish.

The Times' Maureen Dowd deplored his "bloodless quality" and "emotional detachment." This is the same Maureen Dowd who in 2009 hailed the new presidency with a column titled "Spock at the Bridge" - and she meant it as a compliment. Back then, this administration was supposed to be the new technocracy - cool, calm and credentialed chaps who would sit down, use their mighty intellects to provide a rigorous, post-partisan, forensic analysis of the problem and then break for their Vanity Fair photo shoot.

What was it all the smart set said about Mr. Bush? Lazy and incurious?
Had President Obama or his speechwriters chanced upon last week's fish wrap, they might have noticed that I described the president as "the very model of a modern major generalist," and they might have considered whether it might not be time to try something new. For example, he could have demonstrated, as he and his energy secretary (whoops, Nobel Prize-winning energy secretary) have so signally failed to do, an understanding of what is actually happening 5,000 feet underwater and why it's hard to stop. Instead, lazy and incurious, this is what the technocratic mastermind offered:

"Just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge - a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's secretary of energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.
"As a result of these efforts, we've directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology."

Excellent. The president directed his Nobel Prize-winning head of meetings to assemble a meeting to tackle the challenge of mobilizing the assembling of the tackling of the challenge of mobilization, at the end of which they directed BP to order up some new tackle and connect it to the thingummy next to the whachamacallit. Thank you, Mr. President. That and $4.95 will get you a venti at Starbucks.

The boring technocrat stuff out of the way, he then did his usual shtick.

In the race speech, invited to address specific points about his pastor's two-decade pattern of ugly anti-American rhetoric and his opportunist peddling of paranoid conspiracies to his gullible congregants about AIDS being invented by the U.S. government to wipe them out, Mr. Obama preferred to talk about race in general - you know, blacks, whites, that sort of thing. The media loved it.

This time around, invited to address specific points about an unstoppable spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Mr. Obama retreated to more generalities - the environment, land, air, that sort of thing. "President Obama said he is going to use the Gulf disaster to push a new energy bill through Congress," observed Jay Leno. "How about using the Gulf disaster to fix the Gulf disaster?"

When he did get specific, he sounded faintly surreal.

"As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows. . . ."

Energy-efficient windows?

That's a great line - if Mr. Obama's auditioning to play himself on "Saturday Night Live" parodies.

And hang on - isn't this the same guy who was promising to start kicking "ass" just a few days ago? You may find yourself recalling the moment in the film "In and Out" when Kevin Kline is trying to master the "How to Be Manly" audiotape and accidentally says, "What an interesting window treatment."

But, as Rahm Emmanuel shrewdly noted, never let a crisis go to waste, not when you can get a new window treatment out of it.

My colleague Rich Lowry suggested the other day that most people not on the Gulf Coast aren't really that bothered about the spill, and that Mr. Obama has allowed himself to be blown off course entirely unnecessarily. There may be some truth to this: For most of America, this is a Potemkin crisis. But what better kind to trip up a Potemkin leader? So the president has now declared war on the great BP spill - Gulf War III - and in this epic conflict, the speechgiver-in-chief will surely be his own unmanned drone:

"I fired off a speech
But the British kept a-spillin'
Twice as many barrels as there was a month ago
I fired off a speech
But the British kept a-spillin'
Up the Mississippi from the Gulf of Mexico. ..."

Chris Matthews and the other leg-tinglers invented a Barack Obama that doesn't exist. Unfortunately, they're stuck with the one who does, and it will be interesting to see whether he's capable of plugging the leak in his own support. If not, who knows what the tide might wash up?

Memo to Secretary Rodham Clinton: Do you find yourself on a quiet evening with a strange craving for chicken dinners and county fairs in Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe next summer? Need one of those relaunch books to explain why you're getting back in the game in your country's hour of need?

"It Takes a Spillage."

....

The epitome of mediocrity
Oleaginous Obama is even making fans queasy
By Mark Steyn
Friday, June 18, 2010
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

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



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

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

- Leo Rugiens

HAPPY THE NATION THAT HAS A PRESIDENT WHO HAD A FATHER WHILE GROWING UP

Alexander's Essay – June 17, 2010

The Centennial of Father's Day

And a case study in the fate of the fatherless Barack Obama

"It is the duty of parents to maintain their children decently, and according to their circumstances; to protect them according to the dictates of prudence; and to educate them according to the suggestions of a judicious and zealous regard for their usefulness, their respectability and happiness." --James Wilson

Father's Day was first celebrated the third Sunday in June in the year 1910.

The original observance was in honor of William Jackson Smart, an Arkansas veteran of the War Between the States, who raised a daughter and five sons on his own, after his wife died giving birth to their sixth child. Smart was devoted to his children, as they were to him, and his daughter, Sonora Smart Dodd, wanted to honor her father for that devotion.

Though Mother's Day had been observed in one form or another for centuries, Fathers Day was a fitting complement, and within a few years following the first ceremony, it became a national rite.

While this first formal recognition came about just a century ago, it was abundantly clear to our Founding Fathers that families with both mothers and fathers were critical to the well-being of children.

John Adams wrote, "The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families.... How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers?"

His wife, Abigail, wrote, "What is it that affectionate parents require of their Children; for all their care, anxiety, and toil on their accounts? Only that they would be wise and virtuous, Benevolent and kind."

The vital role of fathers has been extolled throughout history, in virtually every religion and culture. No less, it is now well understood that the foundation of our nation is "laid in private families," and that this foundation is critical if the next generation is to be "wise and virtuous, Benevolent and kind."

Unfortunately, there is an epidemic of negligence among fathers today, and consequently (according to the CDC, DoJ, DHHS and the Bureau of the Census) the 30 percent of children who live apart from their fathers will account for 63 percent of teen suicides, 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions, 71 percent of high-school dropouts, 75 percent of children in chemical-abuse centers, 80 percent of rapists, 85 percent of youths in prison, 85 percent of children who exhibit behavioral disorders, and 90 percent of homeless and runaway children.

The causal link between fatherless children and crime "is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime," notes social researcher Barbara Dafoe Whitehead.

More to the point, a counselor at a juvenile-detention facility in California, which has the nation's highest juvenile-incarceration rate, protested, "[If] you find a gang member who comes from a complete nuclear family, I'd like to meet him. ... I don't think that kid exists."

Arguably, the vast majority of social problems confronting our nation today originate in homes without fathers, including those without functioning or effective fathers. (It should be noted here that an increasing number of fatherless homes are the result of mothers who separate from fathers without reasonable grounds for severance.)

"Maturity does not come with age, but with the accepting of responsibility for one's actions," writes Dr. Edwin Cole. "The lack of effective, functioning fathers is the root cause of America's social, economic and spiritual crises."

Of course, there are young people who were raised by a single parent, or in critically dysfunctional or impoverished homes, but who overcame that impediment. Either they were blessed with a parent who, against all but insurmountable odds, instilled their children with the values and virtues of good citizenship or, somewhere along the way, those children were lifted out of their misery by the grace of God -- often in the form of a significant mentor who modeled individual responsibility and character.

As a result, they have been empowered to internalize their locus of responsibility, to take responsibility for the consequences of their choices and behavior.

However, the vast majority of those from homes without fathers externalize responsibility for problems and solutions, holding others to blame for their ills, and bestowing upon the state the duty of providing basic needs and, ultimately, of arbitrating proper conduct.

The failure of fatherhood is more than just a social problem; it is a menacing national security threat. The collective social pathology of the fatherless has dire consequences for the future of Liberty, free enterprise and the survival of our republican form of government as outlined by our Constitution.

One may rightly conclude that most "liberalism," the rejection of Essential Liberty and Rule of Law, is rooted in pathology that runs much deeper than topical ideological indoctrination. Indeed, psychopathology dictates, or frames, worldview, and worldview is manifested in such expressions as political affiliation.

In this respect, the pathology of the Left is transparent.

This pathology tends to result in mental rigidity, fear, anger, aggression and insecurity, the result of low self-esteem and arrested emotional development associated, predominantly, with fatherless households or critically dysfunctional families in which children were not adequately affirmed. Such individuals harbor contempt for those who are self-sufficient for much the same reason. They believe that conforming to a code of non-conformity is a sign of individualism, when it is nothing more than an extreme form of conformism for those who are truly insecure. Though they feign concern for the less fortunate and the primacy of individual liberty, they are ardent statists.

They fear loss because most have suffered significant loss. They often come from socially or economically deprived single-parent homes, though inheritance-welfare trust-babies (see Gore, Kerry, the Kennedys, et al.) manifest similar insecurities about helplessness without external sustenance (their trust funds). They reject individual and social responsibility because such principles were not modeled for them as children -- and the generational implications for Liberty are ominous.

Some of the fatherless (or those with ineffectual fathers), seek to compensate for the resulting insecurities through overachievement, which is to say they are case studies of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders -- the standard reference used for psychiatric evaluation. These deprived children are relentlessly driven by self-interest, narcissism and visions of grandiosity.

The more notorious of narcissists in the last century include Adolf Hitler, Iosif Vissarionouich Djugashvili (Joseph Stalin), Mao Zedong and Saddam Hussein.

The more seemingly benign of the fatherless in recent U.S. political history include Bill Clinton, Albert Gore, John Kerry, and the textbook case of Barack Hussein Obama.

On the official White House website, the bio for Obama begins, "His story is the American story -- values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a strong family..."

That is certainly the image Obama would like to project, but it is most certainly not accurate.

Like so many Leftists, his roots are shallow and broken, and they are in no way a reflection of "values from the heartland."

"Barry," as he was called when a youngster, was born in 1961 to Stanley "Ann" Dunham, an atheist anthropologist, and Barack Obama Sr., a Muslim from the Luo tribe in Kenya. When he was just two, Obama's parents separated and later divorced. Obama's mother then married another Muslim, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian national. Barack took his stepfather's name and he and his mother moved with Lolo to Jakarta, where he spent four years in local Islamic schools. Ann and Lolo also divorced, but not before sending Barry to Hawaii to reside with his maternal grandparents and attend the exclusive Punahou School.

In those years, young Obama was greatly influenced by others, most notably an avowed Marxist, Frank Marshall Davis, and later a "spiritual mentor," Jeremiah Wright, who spewed racial hatred.

Barry Obama's search for identity

Often accompanying narcissistic pathology, as in the case of Obama, are strong charismatic abilities, which attract a cult of sycophantic followers, or as Obama put it in the opening pages of his political autobiography, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."

It's no coincidence that Obama's most loyal constituencies are the product of the social, cultural and economic blight in many urban settings, breeding grounds for legions of disenfranchised Leftists, those who are largely dependent on the state for all manner of their welfare, protection and sustenance.

When campaigning for president, Obama proclaimed, "What Washington needs is adult supervision." Unfortunately, young Barry never received enough of it himself that he might provide it to anyone else, much less an entire nation.

To be sure, all good-hearted Americans should possess a measure of compassion for young Barry Obama, whose bizarre formative years were marked by complete familial disintegration.

Unfortunately, misplaced empathy has played a key role in his unchecked rapid rise through the ranks to the most powerful political seat in the world -- at great peril to the future of liberty. Actions have consequences, and the grossly negligent act of electing a "community organizer" to the presidency -- is producing devastating consequences, as even many leftists are now discovering.

So where to go from here?

In regard to fatherhood, the foundational future of our nation will spring from our homes, as John and Abigail Adams understood.

The fate of the fatherless is, at best, a broken heart. At worst, it is the root cause of the social entropy we observe in contemporary American culture, because the fate of the fatherless is directly linked to the faith of the fatherless, their relationship with God the Father. Broken trust with earthly fathers often results in a lack of trust in the Heavenly Father.

On this 100th Father's Day, we should pay tribute to the irreplaceable institution of fatherhood -- and the importance of a father's love, discipline, support and protection for his children. Every day, those of us who are fathers should encourage other fathers to be accountable for their marriages and children. (For excellent fathering resources, link to First Things First).

There is much that can be done for the fatherless -- mentoring through Boy Scouts, coaching little-league sports, teaching in Sunday school, tutoring and volunteering to work with high-risk kids through an inner-city ministry, to name just a few. We, as American Patriots, must bridge the gap for these kids.

As for this publisher, it is a privilege beyond all others to be a husband to Ann and father of three. Indeed, no reward could be greater than the close relationship with my children, and to see their progress as Patriots-in-training -- responsible young citizens committed to carrying forward the flame of liberty.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

ITS ALL ABOUT ME

Teleprompter of the United States

Teleprompter of the United States

Teleprompter of the United States

Teleprompter of the United States

The Oval Office Address (Short Version): "I've returned ... I assembled a team ... I'd like to lay out ... I've authorized ... I urge the governors ... I saw and heard ... I've talked ... I've seen ... I've talked ... I refuse ... I will meet ... I make ... I asked ... I approved ... I want to know ... I met with ... I've established ... I've issued ... I know ... I urge ... I expect ... I was a candidate ... I laid out ... I say ... I am happy ... I will not accept ... I will not settle..." --Barack Obama
Never let a crisis go to waste: "[M]ake no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy." --Barack Obama
Wrong conclusions: "[O]ne of the lessons we've learned from this spill is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling." --BO (In other words, more of the same oppressive government that contributed to causing the spill.)
The BIG Lie: "We consume more than 20 percent of the world's oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. And that's part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean -- because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water." --Barack Obama (The reason for deepwater drilling is government putting land and shallow water off limits.)
Non Compos Mentis: "In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11, I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come." --Barack Obama
Surely she can't be serious: "[C]arbon pollution, leading to climate change, will be, over the next 20 years, the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm's way." --Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Keep on blaming Bush: "Well, it runs out when the problems go away.... He brought us to the brink of financial crisis, he brought us to the brink of deep recession, ignoring issues related to climate change." --House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on whether there is a statute of limitations on blaming George W. Bush
Editorial Exegesis
"In a 'fireside chat' to quell concerns about the Gulf oil disaster, the president announced the appointment of an oil czar. Is more bureaucracy the answer to every problem? ... The president on Tuesday evening proved himself tone-deaf to this popular disenchantment, manifested in his sinking public approval ratings. He double-downed on his status as the federal government's expander in chief by announcing the establishment of an oil czar who will join the nearly 30 other czars running various sectors of the American Leviathan absent public accountability. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs described the newest czar as being 'in charge of a recovery plan, putting a recovery plan together ... when we get past the cleanup and response phase of this disaster.' It kind of begs the question: Why not a cleanup czar in the meantime? First things first. This is quintessential Rahm Think. Before the president was inaugurated, incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, cutthroat even by the Chicago machine standards that spawned him, infamously declared that you should 'never let a serious crisis go to waste.' The Democrats in power used a financial crisis -- of their own making, being the culmination of years of politicized housing policy -- to fulfill every taxpayer-funded fantasy on their wish list. Now the president is using the BP oil gusher crisis to justify yet another new taxpayer-funded agency. ... [M]illions of Americans would like to hear a reporter ask this president, 'Can you solve anything without asking for more government?'" --Investor's Business Daily
POSTED ON THE PATRIOT POST .COM
WEDNESDAY, 16 JUNE 10

SOCIALIZED MEDICINE IS GOING TO BE A REALITY

"I am romantic about the (British) National Health Service. I love it."

-- Dr. Donald Berwick, President Obama's choice

for director of the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services.

.............................................................................................................

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA was adamant: His health-care overhaul would not put Americans on the road to British-style, government-run medicine. Speaking to the American Medical Association last June, the president dismissed as "scare tactics and fear-mongering" all talk of "socialized medicine and government takeovers; long lines and rationed care; decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors." A few weeks later he reiterated the message: "I don't believe that government can or should run health care."
But if Obama is as firmly opposed to a government-ruled health sector as he claims, why has he nominated as administrator of Medicare and Medicaid -- far and away the nation's largest health-insurance programs, covering one out of every three Americans at a cost of nearly $1 trillion -- a man who openly adores Britain's socialized health care?

"I am romantic about the National Health Service," Dr. Donald Berwick, the president's pick for director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told a British audience in 2008. "I love it." Not only does he love the NHS, he extols it as "an example for the whole world -- an example ... that the United States needs now."
From all accounts, Berwick, a pediatrician, is respected by his peers. He is the founder of the Cambridge-based Institute for Healthcare Improvement, and an expert on making patient care safer and more efficient. Among his supporters are Bill Frist, a physician and former US Senate majority leader, and several previous directors of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
But if Berwick's credentials cannot be doubted, neither can his ideological commitment to centralized state power over health care, or his disdain for the ability of markets and competition to improve the quality and lower the cost of medical services.
He has publicly saluted Britain's socialized National Health Service for rejecting the "immoral" American system and "the darkness of private enterprise." He declares that "the Holy Grail of universal coverage" cannot be achieved with consumer-centered health care, but only through "collective action overriding some individual self-interest."
And he embraces health-care rationing. "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care," he said in a 2009 interview, "the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open." This is a view Berwick has held for a long time; more than 10 years ago he wrote that "limited resources require decisions about who will have access to care and the extent of their coverage." Accordingly, he praises the NHS for "making tough choices" about the care it administers -- unlike the American system, in which the supply of medical care is not artificially restricted. "Here, you choose a harder path," he said in Britain two years ago. "You plan the supply; you aim a bit low; you prefer slightly too little of a technology or a service to too much; then you search for care bottlenecks and try to relieve them."
But those who have to live with the NHS and its "bottlenecks" don't always find them quite so admirable. For months, the British press has been reporting horror stories about the realities of government-run health care. Some recent headlines give a sense of the coverage:
"Overstretched maternity units mean mothers face a 100-mile journey to have baby."
"Hundreds of patients died needlessly at NHS hospital due to appalling care."
"Cash-strapped NHS trust introduces rationing for common children's conditions."

"Standard of care in some wards 'would shame a third world country.'"
"Stafford Hospital caused 'unimaginable suffering.'"
No one would deny that America's health care system is flawed in many ways. But when it comes to the standard that matters most -- the quality of health care provided -- our haphazard, expensive, insurance-based system towers above the NHS.
"In Britain 36 per cent of patients have to wait more than four months for non-emergency surgery," wrote journalist James Bartholomew in The Spectator. "In the US, a mere 5 per cent do." By one metric after another -- cancer survival rates, performance of diagnostic tests, availability of CT and MRI scanners, consultation with specialists -- US health care is superior. "British state-run healthcare," Bartholomew concluded, "is so amazingly, achingly, miserably, and mortally incompetent."
That's the system that leaves Berwick feeling "romantic" -- the system he proclaims an "example" for the United States. And Obama wants him to run Medicare and Medicaid? Let us hope at least 51 senators say no.
“IN LOVE WITH SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
BY JEFF JACOBY
THE BOSTON GLOBE
JUNE 16, 2010
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/7618/in-love-with-socialized-medicine
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).

................................................................................................

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA was adamant: His health-care overhaul would not put Americans on the road to British-style, government-run medicine. Speaking to the American Medical Association last June, the president dismissed as "scare tactics and fear-mongering" all talk of "socialized medicine and government takeovers; long lines and rationed care; decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors." A few weeks later he reiterated the message: "I don't believe that government can or should run health care."
But if Obama is as firmly opposed to a government-ruled health sector as he claims, why has he nominated as administrator of Medicare and Medicaid -- far and away the nation's largest health-insurance programs, covering one out of every three Americans at a cost of nearly $1 trillion -- a man who openly adores Britain's socialized health care?

"I am romantic about the National Health Service," Dr. Donald Berwick, the president's pick for director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told a British audience in 2008. "I love it." Not only does he love the NHS, he extols it as "an example for the whole world -- an example ... that the United States needs now."
From all accounts, Berwick, a pediatrician, is respected by his peers. He is the founder of the Cambridge-based Institute for Healthcare Improvement, and an expert on making patient care safer and more efficient. Among his supporters are Bill Frist, a physician and former US Senate majority leader, and several previous directors of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
But if Berwick's credentials cannot be doubted, neither can his ideological commitment to centralized state power over health care, or his disdain for the ability of markets and competition to improve the quality and lower the cost of medical services.
He has publicly saluted Britain's socialized National Health Service for rejecting the "immoral" American system and "the darkness of private enterprise." He declares that "the Holy Grail of universal coverage" cannot be achieved with consumer-centered health care, but only through "collective action overriding some individual self-interest."
And he embraces health-care rationing. "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care," he said in a 2009 interview, "the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open." This is a view Berwick has held for a long time; more than 10 years ago he wrote that "limited resources require decisions about who will have access to care and the extent of their coverage." Accordingly, he praises the NHS for "making tough choices" about the care it administers -- unlike the American system, in which the supply of medical care is not artificially restricted. "Here, you choose a harder path," he said in Britain two years ago. "You plan the supply; you aim a bit low; you prefer slightly too little of a technology or a service to too much; then you search for care bottlenecks and try to relieve them."
But those who have to live with the NHS and its "bottlenecks" don't always find them quite so admirable. For months, the British press has been reporting horror stories about the realities of government-run health care. Some recent headlines give a sense of the coverage:
"Overstretched maternity units mean mothers face a 100-mile journey to have baby."
"Hundreds of patients died needlessly at NHS hospital due to appalling care."
"Cash-strapped NHS trust introduces rationing for common children's conditions."

"Standard of care in some wards 'would shame a third world country.'"
"Stafford Hospital caused 'unimaginable suffering.'"
No one would deny that America's health care system is flawed in many ways. But when it comes to the standard that matters most -- the quality of health care provided -- our haphazard, expensive, insurance-based system towers above the NHS.
"In Britain 36 per cent of patients have to wait more than four months for non-emergency surgery," wrote journalist James Bartholomew in The Spectator. "In the US, a mere 5 per cent do." By one metric after another -- cancer survival rates, performance of diagnostic tests, availability of CT and MRI scanners, consultation with specialists -- US health care is superior. "British state-run healthcare," Bartholomew concluded, "is so amazingly, achingly, miserably, and mortally incompetent."
That's the system that leaves Berwick feeling "romantic" -- the system he proclaims an "example" for the United States. And Obama wants him to run Medicare and Medicaid? Let us hope at least 51 senators say no.
“IN LOVE WITH SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
BY JEFF JACOBY
THE BOSTON GLOBE
JUNE 16, 2010
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/7618/in-love-with-socialized-medicine
(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

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz