SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE AL GORE A FUR COAT BEFORE HE FREEZES

After a year of hype, the "Copenhagen Accord" didn't live up to its billing.

December's UN summit on climate change quickly disintegrated into a battle of competing national interests, culminating with the 200 participating nations leaving without a binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

In addition, there is no current plan to reach such an agreement, just a vague reference to the next major UN climate change conference, scheduled to take place late this year in Mexico, where it should be warmer than Copenhagen in December turned out to be.

The Accord was hurriedly hammered out in the eleventh hour after infighting had threatened to scuttle negotiations and thereby rain on the parade of the late-arriving Barack Obama. In the end, the main players were Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, leaving many other nations feeling as though they had been shut out of the process altogether.

While that may be the case, it is all but irrelevant, given that the final document does not obligate anyone to do anything. In essence, the agreement calls for both wealthy and developing nations to make a list of common goals (which is unlikely, given the fact that they could not agree at the conference), with some means for an international bureaucracy to oversee "progress."

Wealthy nations also pledged to give $30 billion to help developing nations deal with climate change, with an eye to giving $100 billion annually by 2020. Leaders, however, were vague (not surprising in this economic climate) about the sources for this money.

Finally, the pièce de résistance: a "vow" to keep the global average temperature from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over estimated pre-industrial levels. Of course, if we could control that, the summit would have been completely unnecessary.

This is a big blow to those hoping for a financial windfall. Climate change has become big business (as Al Gore's growing bank account will attest), and those with money to invest in lower-carbon technologies are not going to be so quick to put their hands in their pockets for a pact that isn't legally binding.

About That Carbon Dioxide...

The e-mail scandal at the University of East Anglia; Al Gore's misstatements of fact in Copenhagen; the coldest winter since little Algore pulled on his first pair of 'jammies -- the myth of man-made climate change is falling apart piece by piece, and the latest blow is a new study out of England, where scientists are relying not on computer-generated models of the Earth, but the real thing.

Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol's Department of Earth Sciences has found that in the past 160 years the Earth's absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2) has remained unchanged. In fact, Knorr's study found that only 45 percent of carbon emissions caused by man's progression (including industrialization) remains in the atmosphere as opposed to the 100 percent that the warmers are claiming.

Warming "science" is based largely on the supposition that the Earth can take only so much CO2, and that once its limit has been reached, we're cooked. But more and more dissenters, who had been silenced for several years by the media and ostracized by colleagues, are now stepping forward. Their position is that the Earth's ecosystems are much more complex and robust than we understand, and that computer systems used by scientists crying climate change are limited in their comprehension -- better known by people with common sense as garbage in, garbage out.




Meanwhile, with winter hardly a month old, just as in March 2009, when a snowstorm buried the "civil disobedience" climate change protest in Washington, DC, Mother Nature is weighing in now with record cold temperatures and snowfall around the nation. In fact, Joe Bastardi of Accuweather.com is predicting that the winter of 2010 will be the most severe in 25 years. Gore had better schedule the next protest during the summer.




THE PATRIOT POST
FRIDAY, 08 JANUARY 10

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



BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

WHAT A SURPRISE! GUN SALES UP / CRIME DOWN

It looks as if a correlation between gun ownership and murder rates exists after all --
but not the one gun-control crusaders claim.

According to 2009 data, more guns mean fewer murders.
The FBI's preliminary 2009 crime report shows that murders from January to June 2009 fell 10 percent from the same period in 2008.

Granted, correlation doesn't always equal causation, but the number of privately owned guns rose in 2009 by about 2 percent. During the first six months of last year, national instant background checks jumped by 24.5 percent over the first six months of 2008.

According to one gun store owner, the problem, even amid the economic downturn, hasn't been keeping customers; it's been keeping up with customers. "For most of the year we couldn't even find guns to sell," says Kevin Miller of K&D Gunsmithing in San Bernardino, California. "The manufacturers don't have guns. They say sales are so high in the United States they can't keep up." Indeed, gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger, & Co. reported that first quarter 2009 production skyrocketed by 69.3 percent over first quarter 2008 levels. The most popular guns purchased were those most commonly used for self defense.

Hmm, gun ownership translating into personal safety and lower crime rates. Maybe our Founding Fathers were onto something after all.

To Keep and Bear Arms

Late last month, two men wearing masks broke into the home of a family in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the wee hours of the morning.

Upon hearing the noise, the owner of the home grabbed his gun and made his way towards the intruders. Upon confrontation, both parties exchanged fire. One of the attackers was hit and killed while his partner fled the scene.

The ensuing investigation by the Corpus Christi Police Department revealed "an occupant, a resident, defending his home," according to Lt. Isaac Valencia, who further stated, "If you apply the Castle [doctrine], you have a right to defend your home." And, as noted in the previous story, gun owners do just that.

THE PATRIOT POST
FRIDAY, 08 JANUARY 10

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



BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

OBAMA'S OBVIOUS OBSESSION OBLIGES OPEN OPPOSITION BY ALL

Detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison pray inside the exercise yard. (Brennan Linsley/associated Press)

On Wednesday, Nigerian would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
was indicted by a Michigan grand jury
The previous day, the State Department announced that his visa had been revoked.
The system worked.

Well, it did for Abdulmutallab.
What he lost in flying privileges he gained in Miranda rights.
He was singing quite freely when seized after trying to bring down Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit.
But the Obama administration decided to give him a lawyer and the right to remain silent.

We are now forced to purchase information from this attempted terrorist in the coin of leniency. Absurdly, Abdulmutallab is now in control.

And this is no ordinary information. He was trained by al-Qaeda in Yemen, and just days after he was lawyered up and shut up, the United States was forced to close its embassy in Yemen because of active threats from the same people who had trained and sent Abdulmutallab.
This is nuts. Even if you wanted ultimately to try him as an ordinary criminal, he could have been detained in military custody -- and thus subject to military interrogation -- without prejudicing his ultimate disposition. After all, every Guantanamo detainee was first treated as an enemy combatant and presumably interrogated. But some (most notoriously Khalid Sheik Mohammed) are going to civilian trial. That determination can be made later.
John Brennan, President Obama's counterterrorism adviser, professes an inability to see any "downsides" to treating Abdulmutallab as an ordinary criminal -- with a right to remain silent -- a view with which 71 percent of likely voters sensibly disagree.
The administration likes to defend itself by invoking a Bush precedent: Wasn't the shoe bomber treated the same way?
Yes. And it was a mistake, but in the context of the time understandable. That context does not remotely exist today.
Richard Reid struck three months after 9/11. The current anti-terror apparatus was not in place. Remember: This was barely a month after President Bush authorized the creation of military commissions and before that system had been even set up. Moreover, the Pentagon at the time was preoccupied with the Afghan campaign that brought down the Taliban in two months. The last major Taliban city, Kandahar, fell just two weeks before Reid tried to ignite his shoe on an airplane.


To be sure, after a few initial misguided statements, Obama did get somewhat serious about the Christmas Day attack. First, he instituted high-level special screening for passengers from 14 countries, the vast majority of which are Muslim with significant Islamist elements. This is the first rational step away from today's idiotic random screening and toward, yes, a measure of profiling -- i.e., focusing on the population most overwhelmingly likely to be harboring a suicide bomber.
Obama also sensibly suspended all transfers of Yemenis from Guantanamo. Nonetheless, Obama insisted on repeating his determination to close the prison, invoking his usual rationale of eliminating a rallying cry and recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.
Imagine that Guantanamo were to disappear tomorrow, swallowed in a giant tsunami. Do you think there'd be any less recruiting for al-Qaeda in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, London?
Jihadism's list of grievances against the West is not only self-replenishing but endlessly creative. Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa commanding universal jihad against America cited as its two top grievances our stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraqi suffering under anti-Saddam sanctions.
Today, there are virtually no U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. And the sanctions regime against Iraq was abolished years ago. Has al-Qaeda stopped recruiting? Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's No. 2, often invokes Andalusia in his speeches. For those not steeped in the multivolume lexicon of Islamist grievances, Andalusia refers to Iberia, lost by Islam to Christendom -- in 1492.
This is a fanatical religious sect dedicated to establishing the most oppressive medieval theocracy and therefore committed to unending war with America not just because it is infidel but because it represents modernity with its individual liberty, social equality (especially for women) and profound tolerance (religious, sexual, philosophical). You going to change that by evacuating Guantanamo?
Nevertheless, Obama will not change his determination to close Guantanamo. He is too politically committed. The only hope is that perhaps now he is offering his "recruiting" rationale out of political expediency rather than real belief. With suicide bombers in the air, cynicism is far less dangerous to the country than naivete.

Obama's Guantanamo obsession
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 8, 2010
THE WASHINGTON POST


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



BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

HUGH HEWITT WRITES A LETTER TO ALL MASSACHUSETTS VOTERS

Dear Massachusetts Voter:

Long ago and far away, I was one of you. I actually campaigned for Gerald Ford in Fall River, so I know what it is like to try and get an old JFK Democrat to even listen to an appeal from a Republican. But especially if you are an old Democrat, you should be listening. A vote for Scott Brown in the upcoming special election to fill Teddy Kennedy's seat for a brief period of time will save your Medicare. You don't have to tell your family. You can pretend to have voted Democratic again. But if you want to save Medicare from the massive cuts that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have planned, you need to vote for Scott Brown.

It isn't forever. In fact you can vote Scott Brown out very soon, and perhaps a Kennedy will even run in the next election and you can get the seat back into the family's hands. Sure, all the Kennedys are dutifully endorsing her, but you know they feel this is very wrong. This is the Kennedy seat, and if it passes out of the family to another Democrat there's no telling when another one of the family will get back to the chamber which was once home to JFK, Bobby and Ted. You don't really admire Coakley now, do you? She is part of Team Patrick, and they have done a worse job in the Bay State than President Obama has done nationally. She hates the Red Sox. Well, maybe not, but she still is setting the worst example of any candidate in modern Massachusetts history by refusing to campaign and ask for your vote.

The key though is the message you can send to the D.C. Democratic elites. if you vote for Scott Brown, the message received in Washington will be loud and clear: The D.C. Democrats have gone to far to the left and are threatening FDR's legacy and the senior citizens the Democrats used to protect and serve. Democrats are fleeing D.C. with Senators Dorgan and Dodd quitting just this week. But the hard left leadership simply won't listen, simply won't push the president back to the center.

To make that happen and stave off disaster for Medicare and for Democrats in the fall, the party needs a sharp slap in the face. You can give them just that. Massachusetts can send a message heard not just in D.C. but around the world. Again. Scott Brown. Think about it.

Sincerely,

Hugh Hewitt

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



BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

MICHAEL S. STEELE HAS GOT TO BE FIRED, NOW !!!!!

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele,
under fire this week for a string of controversial statements
he has made while promoting his new book,
has so angered the party's congressional leaders
that their aides said they told Steele's handlers to "get him to stop."

Steele, who has been making regular television appearances, said Monday that he did not believe Republicans could win back their congressional majorities in 2010. "Not this year," Steele told Fox News Channel, saying he was just beginning to look at races, even though the party has been recruiting candidates for many months.
Believing that Steele's off-the-cuff remarks threaten to damage the party's brand -- at the very time when Republicans are trying to capitalize on a national political environment that may hurt Democrats -- senior aides to top Republican leaders confronted Steele's staff on a conference call Wednesday.
"You really just have to get him to stop. It's too much," a top congressional aide said on the call, according to others on the call, adding that Steele was hurting morale among Republican members of Congress and candidates.
The call turned into "a bickering match," aides said Thursday, as one top congressional staffer accused Steele of launching "a Republican apology tour at the exact wrong time." Another congressional aide said Steele was appearing on television "unprepared and unknowledgeable."
Steele's aides said on the call that their boss had hired an outside public relations firm to handle his book promotions and acknowledged that they have "no control" over booking his interviews or what he says in them. They noted that Steele had dialed back his comments about Republicans' chances in 2010 on Tuesday by telling MSNBC that he is "playing to win."
The call came as discontent with Steele seems to be spreading among some major GOP donors, who have publicly questioned whether the party chairman is focusing more on his own image -- delivering paid speeches and promoting his book, "Right Now: A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda" -- than on rebuilding the party and helping its candidates. The Washington Times reported Thursday that some prominent party fundraisers are withholding donations from the RNC because of unhappiness with Steele.
"It's real," a GOP strategist, speaking only on the condition of anonymity, said of the donor frustration.
Steele's spokeswoman did not return a call for comment Thursday. But in an interview Thursday, Steele lashed back at his Republican critics by telling them to "shut up."
"I tell them to get a life," Steele told ABC News Radio. "I'm looking them in the eye and say, 'I've had enough of it. If you don't want me in the job, fire me. But until then, shut up. Get with the program or get out of the way.' "
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) came to Steele's defense Thursday, telling a group of reporters in Atlanta that he is "a fan of Steele's" even though the chairman "makes a number of old-time Republicans very nervous."
"He comes out of a different background," Gingrich said, according to the Associated Press. " . . . But I think he's pretty close to what we need. He's different, he's gutsy and he's going to make a number of Republicans mad."
Democrats have seized on Steele's statements. The Democratic National Committee circulated an e-mail to reporters late Thursday titled, "Spiraling OUT-OF-CONTROL!!" And DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse called Steele "the gift that keeps on giving."
"If there is a move afoot to get rid of him, we would not at all be in favor of that," Woodhouse said. "In all seriousness, the Republican Party has got bigger problems than Michael Steele."
Of the public criticism, Steele said his fellow Republicans should "cut it out."
"All I'm saying is 'cut it out,' " Steele told ABC. "If we have party differences that are inside the party, let's deal with them inside the party. You don't see the Democrats running around trying to beat up their national chairman or embarrass him."

-

Steele comments have GOP aides pleading, 'Get him to stop'
By Philip Rucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 7, 2010; 8:19 PM

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



BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

PERRY, YES! HUTCHISON, NO!

TEXAS GOVERNOR RICK PERRY

Perry on a Roll

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Stephen Moore

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL / POLITICAL DIARY ONLINE

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

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

TRANSPARENCY? NOT IN THIS OPAQUE WHITEHOUSE AND CONGRESS

LIBERALISM USUALLY MEANS AN EGOCENTRIC QUEST FOR POWER

I have been asked on occasion what most defines the difference between conservatives and liberals.

There are, of course, many clear delineations between our diametrically opposed philosophies, but there is one that is defining.

Conservatives, The Patriot variety, serve a higher calling -- First Principles -- a calling superior to their own self-interest -- with the objective of enhancing individual and national liberty for the benefit of all.

Ideological liberals, on the other hand, no matter what the cause, tend to be motivated by pathological egocentrism, which generally correlates with the acquisition of power and the suppression of liberty.

The opposition between these competing philosophies is an expression of the light and dark sides of humanity.

The struggle between liberty and tyranny is as old as mankind, and though our nation was founded on constitutional Rule of Law -- republican government in support of liberty -- the assault on freedom has been constant since our founding.

However, while this attack is more vigorous today than at anytime in our history, liberty will prevail.

BY MARK ALEXANDER

THE PATRIOT POST

THURSDAY, 07 JANUARY 10

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

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

PELOSI-REID LIKE MOST CRIMINALS PREFER TO OPERATE IN THE DARK

Pelosi lies about transparency

"Democratic leaders reportedly plan to forge a final reform bill behind closed doors.

They should not be able to get away with hiding public policy from the public it will adversely affect.

Both the House and Senate must pass identical bills before the president can sign the legislation into law.

When differences pop up, as with separate health care bills, the legislation traditionally goes to a conference committee where lawmakers iron them out.

The committees are made up of members from both chambers and often from both parties. The committee meetings have typically been conducted in public, as they should be. They can be moved out of public view only when a majority of conferees, in a vote in an open session, agree to hold closed meetings.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has called the Democrats' plan to bypass a conference committee a 'shady backroom deal.' An overstatement? Hardly. One House Democratic aide told a blogger that 'this process cuts out the Republicans.' The Democrats fear that if they follow the traditional route, the GOP could use the Senate filibuster rule to shut down the process of organizing the committee.

Bypassing a conference committee also cuts out a public that will suffer losses from whatever monstrosity is produced by the cover of darkness.

Americans stand to lose their power of choice over health care decisions and be stripped of a significant portion of their earnings to pay for a plan most don't want. They deserve to see in an open forum what is being done to them. Instead, they're likely to get whatever the Democrats want to force on them." --Investor's Business Daily

The Demo-gogues

"There has never been a more open process for any legislation." --House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on the "transparency" of legislating the health care bill (The only thing transparent about the process is Democrats' motive to nationalize private health care.)

The world's oldest profession: "I don't know if there is a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them. And if they don't have something in it important to them, then it doesn't speak well of them." --Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Godfather) on making offers that Democrats couldn't refuse

That's racist: "Why all this discord and discourtesy, all this unprecedented destructive action? All to break the momentum of our new young president. [Republicans] are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one." --Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) calling opponents of the health care bill racists

The BIG Lie on all counts: "I listened to you and took a common-sense approach to improve the bill. Now it lowers costs for families and small business, protects Medicare, finally guarantees coverage for pre-existing conditions and reduces the deficit. And it's not run by the government. I'm convinced this is right for Nebraska." --Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) on voting for the health care bill after a grand show of playing hard to get

Principled Democrats? "They think I shouldn't be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language [on an abortion compromise]. Well, I don't need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I've seen it. I've worked with it. I know what it says. I don't need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here. ... A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage. ... We're getting a lot of pressure not to say anything, to try to compromise this principle or belief. ... We are not just going to abandon it in the name of health care." --Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)

On the undi-bomber: "This was a screw up that could have been disastrous. We dodged a bullet but just barely. It was averted by brave individuals -- not because the system worked -- and that is not acceptable. While there will be a tendency for finger pointing, I will not tolerate it." --Barack Obama, who tolerates the blame game well enough when his finger is forever pointed at George W. Bush

Savior of the world: "The most important thing we did this year was to ensure that the financial system did not collapse." --Barack Obama

Insight

"We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality." --philosopher and writer Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

"There should be a tax on every man that wanted to get a government appointment, or be elected to office. In two years that tax alone would pay our national debt." --American humorist Will Rogers (1879-1935)

Upright

"Barack Obama's quest for historic health care legislation has turned into a parody of leadership. We usually associate presidential leadership with the pursuit of goals that, though initially unpopular, serve America's long-term interests. Obama has reversed this. He's championing increasingly unpopular legislation that threatens the country's long-term interests. 'This isn't about me,' he likes to say, 'I have great health insurance.' But of course, it is about him: about the legacy he covets as the president who achieved 'universal' health insurance." --columnist Robert Samuelson

"The president's health care monstrosity is an even more unwieldy government effort than Homeland Security. Its goals are more various and vaguer. Its protocols are already in chaos. The lesson the president should have learned from last week's 'systemic failure' is that government is a very imperfect instrument. A government that takes over 16 percent of our economy promising to bring us good health at a reasonable cost is an instrument doomed to failure and at a catastrophic cost." --American Spectator editor in chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.

"It's a (literally) bloody disgrace that our ragtag enemies innovate faster and more effectively than our armed forces and the legion of overpaid contractors behind them. They ask themselves, 'What works?' We ask ourselves what the lawyers will say. The crucial difference? Our enemies believe in victory, even if we don't." --columnist Ralph Peters

"The question should not be how to make terrorists like us, but how to find them, eliminate them and, most important of all, keep them from entering the country in the first place. The Obama administration, like the Clinton administration, continues to view terrorists as criminals who ought to be subject to the American judicial system. In fact, they are soldiers in a war unlike any this country has ever faced. Until we start treating these people as soldiers and not criminals, there will be more incidents like this, as there have been previous ones. Without a serious approach to domestic terrorism, the next attempted attack on an airliner might succeed, as did the ones during another less serious time which gave us 9-11." --columnist Cal Thomas

"For its part, the Obama administration should frankly acknowledge that the 'war on terror' wasn't a Bush-Cheney construct to scare and manipulate the American public. The same Napolitano who initially portrayed the near-miss on Christmas as a vindication did her utmost to avoid even uttering the word 'terror' at a congressional hearing earlier this year, preferring the absurd neologism 'man-caused disaster.' That's a phrase best applied to the shoeless shuffle at the airport security lines, not the heinous acts of war plotted by Abdulmutallab and his inevitable successors." --National Review editor Rich Lowry

"[A]s we approach this new year and reflect upon 2009 and think of ways to improve our situations in 2010, I ask that my fellow Republicans join together to have a respectful debate during our upcoming primary process and then give their full support to our selected nominees even if there remain some philosophical differences. I know this is the approach my father personally took and I cannot think of a better beacon of light than his legacy to help us once again find our way." --radio talk-show host Michael Reagan

Dezinformatsia

Alpha Jackass: "What ... if terrorists were killing 45,000 people every year in this country? Well, the current health care system, the insurance companies, and those who support them are doing just that. ... Those fighting health care reform -- not those debating its shape or its nuance -- people who demand the status quo, they are killing 45,000 Americans a year. ... Remind me again, who are the terrorists?" --MSNBC's Keith Olbermann

What are we waiting for? "The law [in Switzerland], finally approved in a 1994 national referendum, guaranteed health care for everyone by requiring everyone to have insurance. It amounted to a law recognizing health care as a human right.... They choose their own doctors and their own insurance company, and the whole country is covered. True to its national reputation, Switzerland devised a health care system that's been praised as efficient and neutral. Basic insurance is the same price for everyone. Also true to the Swiss reputation, it's turned out to be expensive. ... Given an aging population and high-tech medicine, some say costs are bound to rise three percent or four percent a year. Health care reform [in Switzerland] has been more expensive than reformers predicted." --CBS's Richard Roth

From the Commie Pinko Department: "The most overrated [political concept] is freedom. When faced with economic uncertainty, people don't want freedom. When they can't see their economic future, they want the nanny state." --John McLaughlin, long-time moderator of 'The McLaughlin Group'

Poor guy: "[Obama] had hoped to spend this vacation recharging his batteries, but now he appears to be spending most of it working. For New Year's Eve, he'll be reviewing nearly a dozen new reports from homeland security agencies, all part of a massive effort to figure out what went wrong." --CBS's Chip Reid, lamenting that Obama actually has to do the job he signed up for

Sometimes they get it right: "If we can't catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn't check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch? We are headed toward the moment when screeners will watch watch-listers sashay through while we have to come to the airport in hospital gowns, flapping open in the back." --New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd

Newspulper Headlines:

Life Imitates the Onion: "Suicide Bombing a Cry for Help, Vengeance Against the Infidel" --The Onion, April 28, 2004 ++ "Web Posts Suggest Lonely, Depressed Terror Suspect" --Associated Press, Dec. 30, 2009

What Would We Do Without Sources?: "Explosives in Detroit Terror Case Could Have Blown Hole in Airplane, Sources Say" --The Washington Post

Yes We Can: "Obama: We Can't Treat Tax Dollars Like 'Monopoly Money'" --RealClearPolitics.com

We Blame Global Warming: "Earth's Upper Atmosphere Cooling Dramatically" --Space.com

News You Can Use: "Meat May Be the Reason Humans Outlive Apes" --MSNBC.com

Bottom Story of the Year: "Democrats See Greater Role for Government in Health Care" --New York Times Web site

(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto)

Village Idiots

Trust her! "The system worked." ++ "In many ways, this system has worked." ++ "Once the incident occurred, the system worked." --Homeland "Security" chief Janet Napolitano on the undi-bomber's attempt to blow up an American airliner on Christmas

Then again... "Why wasn't he flagged at a higher screening level? How did he get an explosive substance on to the plane? All of those are serious questions that we are now looking at. ... Our system did not work in this instance. No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way." --Janet Napolitano

Welcome to the job: "I want to know how this individual got on this plane with this material. I want to know so we can figure out what we should be doing to defeat that." --Janet Napolitano (How about profiling?)

Can't we all just get along? "This should not be a tug-of-war between the two political parties. I hope that everyone will resolve in the new year to make protecting our nation a nonpartisan issue." --White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (It's a partisan issue because Democrats are completely wrong, not because Republicans are just "mean-spirited.")

Village Idiot, California style -- with an accent: "When it comes to effort, [Obama] should get a straight A. He's out there with tremendous energy and he's selling his ideas. And he has great enthusiasm there. He's a great speaker, a great communicator. He has to hang in there, be tough, just continue on, never give up, eventually he's going to get all those things done." --California RINO Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

Short Cuts

"Put enough money on the table and just about any Democratic U.S. Senator will think, gulp, blink, and drag the pot with the rationalization that 'this is all for the greater good.' Pelican Pellets. This is no different than putting a horse's head into Jack Woltz' bed to force him into giving Johnny Fontaine a part in his movie in The Godfather. It was a deal [Senator Ben] Nelson couldn't refuse." --political analyst Rich Galen

"And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term 'war on terror.' It's over -- that is, if it ever existed. Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately al-Qa'ida has not. Which gives new meaning to the term 'asymmetric warfare.' ... More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a 'suspect' who 'allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device.' You can hear the echo of FDR: 'Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor.'" --columnist Charles Krauthammer

"President Obama was ripped Tuesday for responding slowly to the failed airline bombing. He did everything he could. When word got to him on the fifteenth hole that the country had been attacked he asked the next three groups if he could play through." --comedian Argus Hamilton

"All I know is that at my age, I can do without blankets, pillows and even honey-roasted peanuts. But I think the airlines better rethink those bathroom restrictions. The last thing they're going to want is a planeload of seniors sounding like cranky four-year-olds, screaming for the last 500 miles of the flight, 'Are we there yet?'" --columnist Burt Prelutsky

THE PATRIOT POST

THURSDAY, 07 JANUARY 10

Veritas vos Liberabit -- Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot's editors and staff.

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

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

THE DEATH TAX DIED TWO DAYS AGO, BUT LIKE A VAMPIRE IT WILL RISE AGAIN TO DRAIN THE LIFE BLOOD OUT OF SMALL BUSINESSES AND FAMILY FARMS

DRACULA

NOT ALL DEATHS ARE SAD. The federal estate tax died at 12:01 A.M. on January 1, an occasion of joy if there ever was one. Allowing it to expire was one of the few sensible things Congress accomplished in 2009. Keeping it dead should be a congressional goal for 2010.

Estate-tax repeal was one element of the tax cuts George W. Bush signed into law in his first year as president. But the legislation was perversely drafted. It phased out the tax over 10 years, reducing the rate from 55 percent in 2001 to 45 percent in 2009, and then eliminating it entirely in 2010 – but only for a year. If Congress does nothing else, the estate tax will reappear in 2011, at the old rate of 55 percent on all assets above $1 million.

Needless to say, this temporary vanishing act is wreaking havoc on estate planning, and many analysts expect lawmakers to revive the tax sometime this year, perhaps even making it retroactive to January 1. But if the goal is clarity and certainty in the tax code, a far better option would be to make the repeal permanent.

To class warriors, of course, abolition of the estate tax is a disgrace. The American Prospect's Tim Fernholz wonders why foes of the estate tax are so keen on "lining the pockets of the already-wealthy," and bristles at the thought of not taxing "folks who inherit huge fortunes" when their parents die. "It makes little sense," declaims USA Today in a recent editorial, "to shower tax breaks on a tiny sliver of the nation's wealthiest citizens."

But the nation's wealthiest citizens aren't the ones the estate tax hurts. The Rockefeller, Buffett, and Kennedy fortunes are secure, shielded from the IRS by flocks of tax lawyers and accountants. As Henry J. Aaron of the Brookings Institution and Boston College economist Alicia Munnell have sardonically observed, estate taxes "are penalties on those who neglect to plan ahead or who retain unskilled estate planners." Populist rhetoric notwithstanding, they add, American estate taxes "have failed to achieve their intended purposes. They raise little revenue. They impose large excess burdens. They are unfair."

Far from affecting only billionaires and pampered heiresses -- inheritance tax supporters love to invoke Paris Hilton -- taxes on estates are mostly levied on small- to medium-sized businesses and family-owned farms. Between 1995 and 2004, the congressional Joint Economic Committee noted in a 2006 report, estate taxes were paid by the owners of more than 37,000 "closely-held businesses," as well as 24,000 farms, 50,000 limited partnerships, and nearly 28,000 other non-corporate businesses. "These data clearly indicate," said the JEC, "that the estate tax has broad and significant costs for thousands of family businesses."

Since many such businesses operate without large cash reserves, a hefty tax bill can leave them with no option but to liquidate valuable assets or sell off the business entirely. The cumulative cost to the economy can be measured in lower growth, lost jobs, and diminished entrepreneurship. According to a 2009 study by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, permanent abolition of the estate "would raise the probability of hiring by 8.6 percent, increase payrolls by 2.6 percent, and expand investment by 3 percent. . . . [T]his translates to roughly 1.5 million additional small business jobs." It also translates to higher federal revenues -- not the first time a tax cut would yield an increase in tax dollars collected.

But while the practical and economic arguments against the estate tax are many and strong, it is the moral argument that really hits home.

The estate tax is pernicious because it punishes precisely the kind of behavior society should want to reward -- work, prudence, savings -- and it rewards behavior that should be discouraged -- profligacy, overconsumption, and leisure. The easiest way to avoid all death taxes, after all, is to spend your money before you go. Work hard, reinvest your earnings, and leave your life's savings to your loved ones, on the other hand, and the IRS becomes one of your heirs. As economist Arthur Laffer memorably put it in an essay last year, "Spend It in Vegas, or Die Paying Taxes." That is hardly the message we should want our tax laws to convey.

NOT ALL DEATHS ARE SAD

BY JEFF JACOBY

THE BOSTON GLOBE

SUNDAY, 03 JANUARY 10

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

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

---
- Leo Rugiens