UNDER OBAMACARE, MARRIAGE IS OUT AND COHABITATION IS IN

ObamaCare vs. Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

BY Stephen Moore

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE /POLITICAL DIARY

THURSDAY, 14 JANUARY 10

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

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

-- Stephen Moore

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

Harry Reid's racial imbroglio

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
January 13, 2010

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

Send

RSS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reid under fire

Editorial Exegesis

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

The Demo-gogues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upright

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

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

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

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

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

THE PATRIOT POST

WEDNESDAY, 12 JANUARY 10

THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION - YOU NEED IT AND IT NEEDS YOU!

IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE SO,
NOW IS THE TIME TO SIGN UP ON THE
MANHATTAN DECLARATION!


It is off to an amazing start - over 370,000 signers and growing.

And it is indeed historic: Evangelicals, Catholics, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox Christians uniting to give common witness to the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage, and religious liberty for all persons.

But we need your help: our goal is one million signatures.

The marketing pros tell us we will never get to a million signatures without expensive advertising. But we want to prove them wrong. And we can: just think if each person who has signed the Declaration were to get just two others to sign. That would be one million people standing arm in arm in defense of the most vital moral truths in our society.

Remember, too, we are not just collecting signatures; we seek a movement of people defending the truth in the public square. We are already witnessing signs of this: Christians in Mobile, Alabama called us 13 days before Christmas to tell us they were planning a large ecumenical gathering for the 23rd of December. I (Chuck Colson) agreed to speak. At 6:00 AM on December 23, 2,000 citizens, led by clergy from all over the city, gathered in a packed hall in the Convention Center for a rousing rally. Seldom have I seen so much excitement in one room - and all of this was accomplished just by word of mouth with only 11 days to organize!

Just ten days ago, Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, Archbishop Wuerl of Washington, DC, Archbishop Dolan of New York and Archbishop Kurtz of Louisville reached out to all of their brother Catholic bishops asking them to spread this document throughout their dioceses and encourage their clergy and faithful to study it and join as signatories.

The Archbishop of Detroit has planned a grassroots effort throughout his archdiocese. The Bishop of Phoenix has already organized a grassroots effort there.

We are also receiving many reports of evangelical gatherings in a number of areas - and many evangelical pastors referring to the Manhattan Declaration in their sermons.

This bold and exciting movement needs to reach 100 or 200 cities in America. Why not? Can you help? We are urging you to encourage your pastors and community leaders to do what these other cities are doing. Organize ecumenical meetings organized around the Manhattan Declaration; get other concerned citizens to join the effort. Get on the internet or phone and ask friends to join you. If you let us know you want to organize something we can help link you up with others in your area.

As with any grassroots movement, the strength and energy has to come from the people. We have no staff and limited budget. We're people who care passionately and deeply about life, marriage, and liberty. So here's what we are asking you to do.

1. Pray fervently. Great movements of faith have always spread on the wings of prayer.
2. Know the issues. If you study this Declaration - and a study guide is available on our website - then you can winsomely explain and defend it to your neighbors and friends. The document itself makes a great apologetic defense for these moral truths.
3. Look for resources on this website as we're able to post them, and search the websites of the Christian organizations that offer resources in these three areas. You can see the names of the various leaders who have signed the Declaration and then visit their websites.
4. Of utmost importance, get your own church involved. As pastors preach, the movement will spread. Prayer meetings and Bible studies on the Declaration are being conducted in many churches, which is a great step.
5. Make full use of Facebook, Twitter, and all the devices available today for social networking. Or just go to gatherings in your own community and speak out on this issue. Cultures are changed over the backyard fence, the barbeque grill, and in hair salons - always from the bottom up. Do everything you can possibly do to educate others.
6. Organize local gatherings like the one in Mobile. If you want an audio or video of Chuck Colson's talk at the event, you will be able to see it on the website in the next few days. You can also read a firsthand report on how they did this.
7. If you are a pastor or ministry leader let us know if you would like to be added to the Additional Signers list on the website.

Just think what might happen in our land if one million courageous Christians declared their uncompromising allegiance to Jesus Christ and to biblical faithfulness on some of the most urgent moral issues of our day.

May God give us the strength to do what He is so clearly calling us to do. From our perspective, this is a cause worth giving every last ounce of effort and energy we have.

Dr. Robert George
Dr. Timothy George
Chuck Colson

ManhattanDeclaration.org

Go to Contact Us to request addtional information or with questions.
manage your preferences |
Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails.

A CONGRESSMAN HAS ASKED OBAMA TO PROVE HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT

Rep. Nathan Deal

The White House has confirmed that a member of Congress formally has requested that President Obama document information regarding his birth and, therefore, his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

World Net Daily previously reported the letter was sent by Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., and also that neither Deal's office nor the White House was willing to discuss the situation.

Now, according to Jim Galloway, who blogs for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, confirmation has come from two sources that the letter was sent and received.
"The White House on Thursday confirmed receipt of a letter from U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal that formally asks Barack Obama to address questions about his place of birth – and thus, whether he is qualified to be president," the report said. "The letter arrived Dec. 10. Beyond that, no one is willing to say much Galloway wrote, "According to my AJC colleague Bob Keefe in Washington, Todd Smith, Deal's chief of staff, likewise confirmed that the letter had been sent. But neither Smith nor his boss would comment on its content."

Smith told the reporters, "[Deal] just did what he said he was going to do. It's not news."
Galloway reported, "Likewise, White House spokeswoman Gannet Tseggai – while acknowledging receipt of Deal's letter, declined to release a copy or discuss its content, saying that the issue of Obama's birth has been addressed repeatedly."

Deal, who is running for governor, said two months ago he would ask Obama to prove his eligibility. At the time, Deal confirmed there was "no reason to think" Obama is not a "legal citizen" but said because of the questions raised, he should answer.
"I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available, and it leaves many things to be desired," Deal said in November, Galloway reported.

A new media initiative by a group of citizen-journalists reported earlier Deal wrote to Obama. According to the Post and Email, "This forever changes the public discourse."
"What does this mean?" the site asks. "This is probably the first time in 233 years of American history that a sitting member of the House of Representatives has officially challenged the legitimacy of a sitting president … one full year into his term.
"Even if the putative president ignores the challenge, he cannot hide from it, because by doing so he admits his guilt through silence. The question has to be asked near and far, why would a president who has promised greater transparency than any previous administration pay upwards of $2,000,000 of taxpayer money to hide documents that could resolve the matter once and for all time for the cost of $20.00. He has publicly admitted on more than one occasion that his father was NOT an American citizen. This alone disqualifies him from eligibility based on Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, and consequently makes him a usurper," the site said.

Obama's original birth papers have yet to be made available for review, and there are critics who contended he wasn't actually born in Hawaii. Others say that doesn't make any difference, since with a father subject to British rule at the time of his birth, he was at best a dual citizen. The critics contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from designation as a "natural-born citizen," as required by the Constitution.
The "natural-born citizen" issue has been raised in a multitude of lawsuits since before Obama was elected, including some pending at various levels of the judicial system.
Most judges, however, have concluded that U.S. citizens and political candidates simply have no right – or "standing" – to question whether Obama has met the requirements of the Constitution.

But the questions have been exacerbated by other information Obama has chosen not to release.
As WND has reported, other documentation not yet available includes Obama's kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

On the Journal-Constitution website forum page, one participant wrote, "Obviously, there are very many people in this country, some in high positions in government, that have doubts about the birthplace of BO. If the White House has nothing to fear, a neutral panel should be appointed and an investigation begun to find out the truth. Frankly, with all the lies he told during his campaign, I have a hard time believing anything that comes out of BO's mouth. And I know, all you BO fanatics who believe he is the second coming will find fault with this suggestion which will lead me to believe that you too are afraid of what might be found by the panel."

White House mum on eligibility demand
Congressman's question to president confirmed

---

Posted: January 12, 2010
10:10 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh

---

WorldNetDaily

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


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

HARRY REID TO RETIRE AND RUN A CHICKEN RANCH IN NEVADA

Harry Reid's Swansong

In the end, I don't believe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will run for re-election. Whether or not the health care bill he muscled through the Senate becomes law, the 70-year-old will bow out of his race for a fifth term.

The major reason has nothing to do with his many verbal gaffes, the latest of which exploded over the weekend. The simple fact is that he probably can't win re-election -- almost no incumbent senator as far down in the polls has come back to win. Asked if Mr. Reid is finished, NBC Political Director Chuck Todd said yesterday, "I think so. I do -- absolutely."

A new Mason-Dixon survey of Nevada voters finds Mr. Reid's favorable rating at just 33%, with 60% of voters disapproving of his role in the health-care debate. He trails three major GOP opponents jostling to run against him in their party's primary. He loses 50% to 40% to former GOP state chair Sue Lowden, to real estate developer Danny Tarkanian by 49% to 41%, and by 45% to 40% to former state legislator Sharron Angle. Extensive media buys by Mr. Reid to showcase his record of Senate accomplishment have done nothing to move his poll numbers.

Nevada political observers say Democrats are making contingency plans in case Mr. Reid leaves office, possibly recruiting one of the state's two Democratic congresswomen to replace him. There's even talk of coaxing former Democratic Senator and Nevada Governor Richard Bryan out of retirement to run.

Even worse, Mr. Reid's weakness is dragging down the candidacy of his son Rory, a local Las Vegas official and the unopposed Democratic candidate for governor. In polls, the younger Reid loses to former judge Brian Sandoval, his likely Republican opponent, by 22 points. Should Las Vegas' flamboyant Mayor Oscar Goodman run as an independent, Mr. Reid would place third with just 20% of the vote.

Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston says the prospect of having two Reids holding statewide office strikes many state voters as "very strange," and the attempt to create a dynasty is hurting both men's political chances. It's "reverse symbiosis," he told the Washington Post. Despite attempts to keep their political paths separate, the two men share a growing frustration that the family name no longer is a desirable brand.

Rory Reid insists he's in the race to stay, and says his father will also press on: "My father is a fighter." But that's what they said about scandal-plagued Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, who was said to resist strongly any suggestion that he retire given that his father lost his Senate seat in 1970 under a similar ethical cloud. Yet last week the 68-year-old Mr. Dodd recognized political reality and announced his retirement.

Mr. Reid must know that his candidacy is dragging down his son's chances of political advancement. His political weakness and missteps are also stirring rumblings of discontent inside the Democratic caucus. Two Democratic Senators have told me that it's no secret that New York Senator Chuck Schumer is maneuvering to take over from Mr. Reid as Majority Leader, and that even should Mr. Reid win another term, he faces a possible challenge for his leadership post. Such a challenge would be conducted by secret ballot, putting Mr. Reid in the position of potentially suffering an ignominious defeat at the hands of his colleagues.

Because he's from a gambling state like Nevada, Mr. Reid knows all about the country song that says "You have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em." Look for Mr. Reid to find an opportune moment to fold his hand in the next few months.

BY JOHN FUND

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL / POLITICAL DIARY ONLINE

TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2010

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

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

IS MASSACHUSETTS ABOUT TO BE SAVED FROM THE KENNEDY SCOURGE?

Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley are running for the US Senate seat long occupied by Ted Kennedy.

THE POLICY DIFFERENCES between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown were as clear during last night's debate as they have been throughout this short special-election campaign.

Coakley supports ObamaCare, opposes the war in Afghanistan, and favors higher taxes on the wealthy. Brown is against the health-care legislation, backs the president's troop surge in Afghanistan, and wants across-the-board tax cuts à la JFK. Coakley is an EMILY's List pro-choice hardliner; Brown condemns partial-birth abortion and is backed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Coakley has no problem with civilian trials for the likes of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Brown thinks it reckless to treat enemy combatants as if they were ordinary defendants.

But the most striking thing about the final televised debate before next Tuesday's election was not that the very liberal Democrat and the not-especially-conservative Republican disagreed on the issues. It is that they are both viable candidates in a US Senate race too competitive to call. In Massachusetts!

"I don't know what's going to happen on January 19^th," Coakley said toward the end of last night's encounter. She wasn't being coy. Nobody knows what's going to happen next week.

When Ted Kennedy died less than six months ago, who would have guessed that the contest to win the seat he occupied for 47 years would be anything but a slam-dunk for the Democratic nominee? Yet there was no slam-dunk on that stage last night, and the race certainly doesn't feel like a slam-dunk now.

"It's not the 'Kennedy Seat,'" Brown has been reminding Coakley. "It's not the Democrats' seat. It's the people's seat." Amazing thing is, he could be right.

IT'S THE PEOPLE'S SEAT

By Jeff Jacoby

THE BOSTON GLOBE

Tuesday, 12 January 10

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

When Democrats aren't raising the specter of the unpopular Bush administration, they're trying to tie Mr. Brown to Sarah Palin. The Democratic National Committee dispatched its top political spin artist, Hari Sevugan, to Massachusetts yesterday to help out the struggling Coakley campaign. He promptly sent out an email taunting Ms. Palin for not coming to Massachusetts to endorse Mr. Brown: "Come on, Sarah, why are you being so shy?" Within hours, he sent out another message headlined: "Has the Pit Bull lost her bark?" A third salvo late in the day demanded that reporters ask Mr. Brown a simple question: "Will you accept Sarah Palin's endorsement or won't you?"

There was no discussion of issues from Mr. Sevugan, much less any evidence that Mr. Brown has ever expressed an interest in having outsiders come into the state on his behalf. Democrats have apparently decided that hauling out fright masks beats trying to defend President Obama's record, much less Ms. Coakley's conventionally liberal positions.

by John Fund

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL / POLITICAL DIARY ONLINE

TUESDAY, 12 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

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

WARNING: DO NOT CLICK ON THE HYPERLINK SHOWN BELOW IF YOU HAVE A WEAK STOMACH

WHEN I CLICKED ON THIS HYPERLINK AND WATCHED THE VIDEO I ALMOST BECAME
PHYSICALLY ILL. NORMALLY I THINK OF MYSELF AS A MAN WITH A STRONG STOMACH SINCE, AS A VETERAN OF WORLD WAR II, I HAVE SEEN IT ALL. HOWEVER, THIS IS TOO MUCH. TRULY, THE BARBARIANS ARE AT THE GATE!

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/muslim-child-and-friends-behead-man-while-praising-allah-video/#comment-13599

HOW MUCH MONEY HAVE LABOR UNIONS CONTRIBUTED TO SENATOR DORGAN'S CAMPAIGNS

Byron Dorgan, a leading Senate protectionist, will not run for re-election in 2010.

WHEN SENATOR BYRON DORGAN of North Dakota announced his support for Barack Obama's presidential campaign early in 2008, he told reporters that a key factor in his endorsement was that Obama "has always opposed NAFTA" – the North American Free Trade Agreement linking Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Dorgan is a strident protectionist, so there was nothing unusual about his slap at NAFTA. Except this: The same week that Dorgan came out for Obama, the US Commercial Service reported that North Dakota had ranked first in the nation for export growth the previous year. And the top destinations for the North Dakota merchandise exported in 2007 went to Canada and Mexico.

International commerce has been good to Dorgan's state. According to the International Trade Administration, exports sustain one-seventh of all manufacturing jobs in North Dakota, and foreign companies employ another 8,300 people there. In 2008, nearly 900 North Dakota firms, the great majority of them small- to medium-sized, earned revenues of $2.8 billion from sales to customers in other countries. Why would a senator whose state has benefited so handsomely from trading across borders believe that opposition to free trade is somehow in his constituents' interest? Or a quality to seek in presidential candidates?

Dorgan – who announced on Tuesday that he will not seek re-election this year -- is far from alone in his antipathy to the free movement of goods and services across borders. In a cab from the airport to my office recently, I listened to a cabbie complain bitterly about all the Toyotas and Hondas on the highway. I tried to assured him that most of the "foreign" cars he was looking at were assembled in the United States, but there was no mollifying him. Americans, he told me, had no business buying cars from Japan.

In my e-mail inbox, meanwhile, the subject line of a new message exhorts me to "BUY AMERICAN!!!" When I open it, I am reminded that "every little thing we buy or do affects someone else -- even their job," and that I should therefore avoid products manufactured abroad and buy only those made in the United States. Among the items to be shunned: Bounce dryer sheets (allegedly made in Canada), GE lightbulbs (Mexico), and Apache hose fittings (China).

Now, it is certainly true that people's jobs are affected by consumers' choices. If customers stay away in droves from the hose attachments made in China, it might well mean more work for an American hose and belting manufacturer. But if that's a sensible approach, why not take it further? In addition to boycotting goods and services made in other countries, let's also avoid spending money on products from other states. Those of us who live in Massachusetts should refuse to buy dryer sheets from California, Ohio lightbulbs, and hoses made in California. My Boston cabbie should be curling his lip at cars made not just by companies headquartered in Japan or Germany, but by those based in Michigan, too.

Crazy? Of course it is. Refusing to trade across state lines wouldn't make us economically stronger. It would make us weaker, condemning us to higher prices, less variety, reduced purchasing power, and inferior quality. Granted, such protectionism might work to the advantage of a few local producers. But it would do so only by depriving everyone else of economic opportunities and improved quality of life. To turn state borders into trade barriers would be irrational and self-defeating.

'Foreign' cars on US highways are mostly made in America

What protectionists never seem to grasp is that it is no less irrational and self-defeating to treat the borders of countries as barriers to trade. Free trade isn't a battle that countries (or states) win or lose. It is a human right -- an aspect of liberty: the liberty to engage in voluntary transactions that leave both participants better off. If John wants to sell something that Mary wants to buy, it should make no difference to the lawfulness of their exchange whether they are residents of different neighborhoods, different states, or different nations.

"Trade barriers," writes the Cato Institute's Dan Griswold in Mad About Trade, an astute and absorbing new book, "rob people of the rightful fruits of their own labor, distributing the spoils to other people with no moral claim to the confiscated wealth other than political power."

Protectionism, an old delusion, enriches the few at the expense of the many, diminishing freedom and eroding choice. The blessings of free trade, by contrast, uplift all of us -- even the departing senator from North Dakota, whether he knows it or not.

The protectionist delusion

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
January 10, 2010

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6775/the-protectionist-delusion

(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?”

---
- Leo Rugiens

OBAMA IS GETTING SERIOIUS ABOUT THIS TERRORISM THING

Obama is getting serious about this terrorism thing!

THE OBAMAS REVEAL THEIR LEFT LIBERAL ALLEGIANCE

Probably 99.9 percent of Americans salute the flag of the United States or the
National Anthem by placing their right hand over their heart.

One cannot but wonder at the significance of Barach Hussein and Michele Obama

placing their left hands over their hearts.

Is there some political significance in their singular conduct?

Are they signifying to Americans and to the world that they are committed to a
left-liberal socialist agenda to transform America from the democratic republic we have
known into an autocratic republic ruled by and oligarchy made up of their left-liberal
friends?

THE OBAMAS REVEAL THEIR LEFT LIBERAL ALLEGIANCE

Probably 99.9 percent of Americans salute the flag of the United States or the
National Anthem by placing their right hand over their heart.

One cannot but wonder at the significance of Barach Hussein and Michele Obama

placing their left hands over their hearts.

Is there some political significance in their singular conduct?

Are they signifying to Americans and to the world that they are committed to a
left-liberal socialist agenda to transform America from the democratic republic we have
known into an autocratic republic ruled by and oligarchy made up of their left-liberal
friends?

THE OBAMACARE BILL: THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TURNED ON ITS HEAD

After much bribery and arm-twisting,
the Senate managed just before Christmas to pass its version of ObamaCare by a 60-39 vote (amazingly, without a single GOP "aye").

Now, the bill heads for conference deliberation televised by C-SPAN, just as the cable channel offered and Barack Obama promised numerous times.

Or not.

Democrats let slip this week that there would be no typical conference committee on the competing House and Senate versions of the health bill, as "leaders" opted instead for private negotiations with "key" congressmen and senators, none of whom is Republican. Once an agreement is reached, each legislative chamber will vote again and send the unified bill to the president.

Without a conference committee, a rule requiring public access to the conference report for at least 48 hours before a vote would conveniently not apply. That means even more liberty-stealing treachery can be slipped into the bill with little notice. Funny how the "public option" doesn't mean that the public gets to know what's in the bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) nevertheless had the gall to declare, "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who's served here's experience." In response, Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto mocked, "Has a more false or awkwardly worded statement ever come out of anyone who has served as speaker of the House's mouth?"

In spite of Democrats' best efforts at "transparency," there are many extra-special things that we actually do know about the bill. For example, on page 1,020, the Senate bill states: "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." In other words, the bill creates an eternal law by prohibiting future elected Congresses from making changes to this subsection.

What's in the subsection in question? The infamous "death panel" -- the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), whose objective will be to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending" (read: to ration health care).

Meanwhile, the bill contains what amounts to a marriage penalty worth $2,000 or more in insurance premiums each year. The Wall Street Journal explains, "The disparity comes about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from congressional Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines. That has the effect of limiting subsidies for married couples with a combined income, compared to if the individuals are single."

Finally, Obama signaled this week that he's willing to break another campaign promise: The "no tax increases on the middle class" pledge. He threw his support behind the Senate's tax on higher end "Cadillac" insurance plans, something unions and House Democrats oppose.

The more the public learns about this continuing saga, the more vigorously opposed they become to "reform." No wonder Democrats want the process to remain secret.

The BIG Lies

"We will have a public, uh, process for forming this plan. It'll be televised on C-SPAN.... It will be transparent and accountable to the American people." --Barack Obama, November 2007
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process." --Barack Obama, January 2008

"[T]hese negotiations will be on C-SPAN..." --Barack Obama, January 2008

"We're gonna do all these negotiations on C-SPAN so the American people will be able to watch these negotiations." --Barack Obama, March 2008

"All this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." --Barack Obama, April 2008

"I want the negotiations to be taking place on C-SPAN." --Barack Obama, May 2008

"[W]e'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who is, who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." --Barack Obama, August 2008

"We will work on this process publicly. It'll be on C-SPAN. It will be streaming over the Net." --Barack Obama, November 2008

Democrat 'Constitutional Scholars' at It Again

When questioned several weeks back about the constitutional authority for ObamaCare, Obama's publicist, Robert Gibbs, issued this disclaimer: "I don't believe there's a lot of -- I don't believe there's a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity" of questions about constitutional authority.

Ah, yes, "case law." That's code for amending our Constitution by judicial diktat rather than via its prescribed method as stated in Article V.

This week, Gibbs reiterated, "I do not believe that anybody has legitimate constitutional concerns about the [health care] legislation."

Furthermore, when asked where the authority to mandate that Americans buy health insurance -- that they be forced under penalty of fine or imprisonment to engage in a particular commercial enterprise -- is located in the Constitution, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) answered, "Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That's how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs."

Congress too often uses this clause to do whatever it wants to do (the legislative target might, just might, some day engage in interstate commerce, don't you know,) but this incorrect interpretation certainly doesn't make this legislation constitutional.

Quote of the Week

"America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality." --Wall Street Journal op-ed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Liberty University School of Law professor Kenneth Blackwell and American Civil Rights Union senior legal analyst Kenneth Klukowski

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

WELCOME (PANTIBOMBERS) ALL HE WORLD'S POOR TO THE LAND OF THE FREE

"The system worked."
So said of one of Obama's best and brightest smooth-brains --
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano --
following the narrowly averted Christmas Day disaster that was Northwest Flight 253.

Napolitano's subsequent attempts to remove both feet from her mouth only left her deeper in the hole, as evidenced by the Chosen One's acknowledgment of "systemic failures" that led to the incident. No word yet on whether Napolitano, who heads the organization charged with protecting the nation from such an attack, will soon bear the hypovehicular tread marks from being thrown under the Hope 'n' Change Express.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the "undi-bomber," attempted to ignite PETN, a highly explosive compound used in plastic explosives, during the flight with 288 people on board. The PETN lined Abdulmutallab's underwear, and the terrorist used an acid-filled syringe as the catalyst-detonator.

Fortunately, the reaction was incomplete, resulting in an incendiary, rather than explosive, effect, and Abdulmutallab was severely burned while the plane remained intact. (Considering his injuries, perhaps "eunuch bomber" is a more apt moniker.) Flight attendants quickly put out the fire, and passengers and crew worked together to subdue the terrorist and keep the aircraft safe and secure until landing.

The system worked? Okay, let's recap, adding a few relevant details: A terrorist from Nigeria, trained in Yemen, pays cash for a ticket and boards a flight in Amsterdam for Detroit. He has neither a passport nor any checked bags and was escorted by a man who did not board the plane. His own father visited the U.S. embassy as early as four weeks before the incident, specifically to warn officials that his son had become involved with jihadis, and the U.S. intelligence community knew all of this before the terrorist boarded the flight. If only they had tried profiling...

Here are some other facts regarding the "system" Napolitano thinks worked so well: Like all other terrorists who are lucky enough to touch U.S. soil, Abdulmutallab immediately lawyered up after being taken into custody. No "unlawful enemy combatant" status for him; he'll be treated like any other constitutionally protected domestic criminal. Of course, he could have been even luckier -- some of those held at Guantanamo actually have been released to terrorist-hosting countries, only to return to the front lines of the war on terror, but we digress.

Meanwhile, we're reminded that we can't even use the term "war on terror" -- it's now "overseas contingency operations." Even the term "terrorism" has fallen out of favor, having been replaced by "man-caused disasters." In fact, the seven-page indictment doesn't use the word "terrorism." But at least Abdulmutallab's visa was revoked -- 11 days after the attempted bombing.

No, this "system" -- the "man-caused disaster" that masquerades as Obama's homeland security and counterterrorism policy -- most emphatically did not work. It brought America to within one failed detonator of losing nearly 300 lives; it allowed an individual with red flags hanging all over him to board a flight bound for our shores; and it once again forced flight crew and passengers into roles as ill-equipped counterterrorism and law enforcement surrogates.

Meanwhile, Democrats have mobilized their "truthspeak" (a.k.a. lie-making) apparatus to shift blame away from its true source, The Chosen One, citing holdup by the GOP of Erroll Southers' nomination as Transportation Security Administration Chief -- as if that somehow would have saved the day in this case. Moreover, the "holdup" dodge is an interesting tactic to say the least, considering that the Democrat-controlled Senate finally got around to bringing the nomination up for a vote only on Nov. 19 -- more than 300 days after Obama assumed office. On top of that, there is the small matter of Southers' misuse of confidential records to spy on his estranged wife's boyfriend and then lying about it to Congress. That may have had something to do with any delay that occurred. But then, at least, so far as we know, he isn't a tax cheat.

The truth is that the current system relies on serendipity, divine intervention and a proactive civilian populace to prevent loss of innocent lives. This, in and of itself but especially after the billions of dollars given to TSA over the years, is wholly unacceptable. To be sure, the fault does not lie primarily with intelligence; if anything, that community has succumbed to paralysis as a direct result of policy infected by political correctness. The real failure stems from this administration's denial (in spite of contrived statements to the contrary) that we remain at war against Muslim extremists. As Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer summed it up, "Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately al-Qa'ida has not. Which gives new meaning to the term 'asymmetric warfare.'"

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