Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Obama's Global Incompetence by Alan Caruba

Alan Caruba

Obama's Global Incompetence

By Alan Caruba

All Presidents have had to deal with events around the world that seemed to call for a military response, but it was President Eisenhower who laid down the doctrine to avoid which he called “brushfire wars”, outbreaks such as we have seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and, in particular, Libya.

Eisenhower had directed the defeat of Germany in World War Two as the Supreme Allied Commander before being urged to run for president. He would serve two terms and was doubtless the right man at the right time in the nascent years of the Cold War.

President Obama seems to lack any kind of a doctrine or plan to deal with a Middle East where many are fed up with its dictators, combined with the realization of how far behind the rest of the world the region is.

It is an irony of history that, after Eisenhower squelched the British, French and Israeli plans to retake the Suez Canal following Nasser’s nationalization in 1956, in rather rapid succession, Nasser died, was replaced by Sadat who was assassinated, and a 28-year-old Mubarack then ruled Egypt until the Maghreb and Middle East exploded with turmoil this year.

Why did Obama feel compelled to say anything? Earlier he was reluctant to support the Iranians protesting the ayatollahs in Tehran, but he rushed to the Tele-Prompter to tell, not ask, Egyptian President Mubarak to step aside.

Curently, the Egyptian decision to open its borders with Gaza and Hamas bodes ill for Israel, but just about everything in the Middle East right now fits that description. And, of course, Obama took the opportunity to launch a verbal attack on our only real ally in the region with an overt mention of “1967 borders”.

The payback was a joint session of Congress in which Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu delivered a speech to which both Democrats and Republicans repeatedly gave standing ovations. It made Obama look lame, but just about everything does these days.

Will there be a surge of democracy in Egypt? No. The military will find a way to retain power, most likely coalescing behind a new president/dictator. After that, large numbers of the Muslim Brotherhood will be jailed and killed until they crawl back into their holes.

In Libya, Obama could have simply let the resistance succeed or fail. There was no compelling reason to demand Gadhafi step aside and the embrace of “humanitarian concerns” rings hollow given events in Syria. So far the only thing that Libya has demonstrated is that NATO is ill prepared to wage a war.

Reports have it that Obama and the Russians have decided Gadhafi must go, but Assad of Syria can stay despite the fact that he is currently killing that nation’s people by the score.

Obama has returned from a European tour in which he exhorted them to give the emerging Arab states billions in aid to facilitate democracy, but Obama does not seem to grasp the fact that the only state in the Middle East that is a real democracy is Israel. The rest are controlled by dominant tribal groups in one fashion or another. They always have been and they always will be.

It has apparently escaped Obama’s notice that neither the U.S., nor any of the European nations have any money to throw at a bunch of unhappy Arabs. The Saudis have lots of money, but they are too concerned about the threat that Iran poses and too smart to get involved in the shifting sands of Middle Eastern power struggles.

The U.S. has a little problem called “a debt ceiling” to resolve so it can continue to borrow money just to pay interest on the money it already has borrowed.

Unlike Eisenhower, Obama is the wrong man at the wrong time. He is poorly advised by a pack of anti-Semites and lacks any experience, military or otherwise, to make decisions about the Middle East. His knowledge of that region’s history appears to come from brief quotes off the back of a cereal box.

In over two years in office, Obama has become a massive embarrassment to America whenever he goes abroad, whether it is to prattle about global warming in Copenhagen or to insult the Queen of England.

The result is a serious deterioration of confidence that America can be relied upon to support allies. In Eastern Europe, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary are creating a regional framework for their mutual defense, fearing that neither NATO, nor the European Union, will be of much use to them if Russia gets frisky.

And you might recall that Obama denied Poland (and Europe) a missile shield, thus sending a signal to Russia that he actually trusted them. Nobody, but nobody, trusts the Russians. And it should be noted that Iran has missles that can hit Europe.

All of this invites trouble in a dangerous world because, more and more, nobody trusts America so long as Obama is in the Oval Office.

Criminal complaint charges Obama birth record 'forged'

Bad boy bad boy, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?


Posted: May 31, 2011
8:09 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WND

This is the first of three articles on the criminal complaint that scanner-expert Doug Vogt filed last week with the FBI.
An international expert on scanners and document-imaging software filed a 22-page criminal complaint with the FBI, charging that the long-form birth certificate released by the White House is criminally fraudulent.
"What the Obama administration released is a PDF image that they are trying to pass off as a Certificate of Live Birth Long Form printed on green security paper by the Hawaiian Health Department," Doug Vogt writes, "but this form is a created forgery."

22-page brief filed with FBI claims 'irrefutable proof' document a fraud

Our first lady: Bitter harridan...by Mychal Massie

Our first lady: Bitter harridan...a Must Read!

Our first lady: Bitter harridan

The axiom, "Show me a man's friends and I'll show you the man," is nowhere more evident than with Barack Obama. In my column "Michelle Obama's inner demons," I wrote "[Obama] claims two mentors and two people of greatest influence in his life – the race-baiting, hate-filled, Jeremiah Wright and his race-conscious, bitter wife." Nothing more need be said of Wright, but not enough can be said about his wife.
Anger and resentment have been her constant companions in search of a home to be cultivated into a more centered hatred. We should be very concerned that she has the unfettered ear of the person who occupies the most powerful office in the world

Be Sure to Read Complete Article...Very Interesting Information!!
Read more: Our first lady: Bitter harridan http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=305257#ixzz1NxDK9JpS

LIBERALS - Intelligent - Well Educated - Idealistic

VIDEO done by our son - "And I Hit The Ground In My Stocking Feet"

From: Libertybelleb17  | May 31, 2011  | 37 views
The Liberty Foundation Honors our Veterans.
Lt. William Massey of the 401st bombgroup came out to see the Liberty Belle on our stop in Birmingham Alabama. I asked Lt. Massey to tell me about the last time he flew a B-17 in combat and like most veterans his story is nothing short of amazing. It is in hearing his story that we can get perhaps a small idea of what our our men and women sacrificed for our freedom in WWII. This is dedicated to all of our men and women of service. It is because of you that we are free. The B-17 "Liberty Belle" provides passengers an opportunity to take a step back-in-time and gain respect for the men and women who gave so much to protect our freedoms. Flight participants receive a historical briefing about the significance of the B-17 then take to the air for a scenic tour around the local area. Please see the schedule for more details.

Just who is Herman Cain? And what does his presidential run mean for the GOP?

Just who is Herman Cain? And what does his presidential run mean for the GOP?

Cain supports the Tea Party.  Will the Tea Party support Cain?

"Cain said his former neighbor’s reaction was common among blacks who “are shocked that I have become a tea party guy because they have drunk the Kool-Aid on this racist thing.” Cain, who describes himself as an “American black conservative” but also the party’s “dark horse,” said any talk about racism in the movement was “bull feathers.”

“Herman generates incredible excitement,” said Mark Meckler, co-founder and national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, which has more than 3,500 chapters around the country and does not endorse candidates. “He is a lot more like us than anyone who has run for president in our lifetimes.”

Given the source, I expected this to be a “hit piece”.  I have been interviewed by Jason Horowitz when he worked for the NY Observer.  He seemed like a good journalist (if that isn’t an oxymoron)

STOCKBRIDGE, Ga. –Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain sipped from a glass of chardonnay at an Italian restaurant near his campaign headquarters here and explained why he found Mitt Romney’s pizza delivery ploy so troubling.

“It’s trivial,” Cain, 65, said of Romney sending his leftover pizza to Obama headquarters last week, an apparent dig that has left the political world scratching its head. “It means nothing.”

As the former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza, Cain is something of an authority on pie crusts and toppings. But in the embryonic stages of the Republican presidential primary, Cain’s unexpectedly strong showing in early polls and enthusiastic support of the tea party, with which his fiscal uber-conservatism perfectly aligns, have also lent him the clout to weigh in on his fellow contenders.

Not surprisingly, the radio show host, inspirational speaker and Fox contributor who in a rumbling baritone calls himself the “Herminator,” considers the field thick with lifetime politicians who are thin on credibility. By contrast, Cain says he’s always been consistent and is not beholden to political operatives. “I’m just myself,” he said.

That’s standard stuff for a protest candidate. Except that a surprising percentage of party activists seem to like Herman Cain.

On Sunday afternoon, before a Memorial Day sweep through New Hampshire and his close-up in the media glare, Cain, wearing a purple shirt, black slacks and with a closely cropped graying mustache, argued that his popularity, tracked by Gallup and CNN polls, was the real thing. He said his dismissal as “entertainment” by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer or as unserious by former George W. Bush strategist Karl Rove was indicative of the gulf that existed between the establishment and the “real world.”

The reality is that it is far too early to accept Cain’s typically brash view of himself as a serious contender. History says he isn’t. But while his supporters like to talk about “Raising Cain,” his momentary blip is, more than anything, raising some serious questions for the GOP.

Who’s calling the shots in the Republican Party — the elite establishment or the grass-roots activists? What does the popularity of a black tea party hero say about the movement’s relationship with race? Is the goal of the upstarts in the Republican field the presidency or a cushy Fox news gig? And in the tea party era, do quixotic candidates tilt at windmills or reap electoral windfalls?

Surveying the field
Cain drove his Lexus down streets named Country Club and Executive Center to get to his campaign headquarters, tucked in an office park that is separated from his home by a golf course. On the wall of his communications director’s office hung a list of Republican rivals, with lines through Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels and others who took a pass. The hallways were festooned with American flags and “Save Me Herman” bumper stickers, the floors piled with Cain’s books, including “CEO of Self” and “Speak as a Leader: Develop the Better Speaker in You.”

Cain’s own office, adjacent to his former radio studio, was decorated with political tomes and crystal entrepreneur awards. On a chair by his desk, a “prayer bear” sat as a testament to his beating stage four cancer in 2006. Cain looked out a picture window at a golfer teeing off on the first hole below. “This is what I was supposed to be doing,” he said with a burst of laughter. He’s chuckling a lot these days. And talking a lot, too.

Romney and Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, he said, “tend to be much more risk-averse.” His fellow Georgian, Newt Gingrich, is brilliant, but perhaps his “time has come and gone.” He said he could understand why Fox television personalities Huckabee and Sarah Palin “would be reluctant to get back into that pressure cooker and back into that fire when they are now discovering a whole new career.”
Cain, who refers to himself in the third person and goes as THEHermancain on Twitter, acknowledged that there was no downside to his own campaign. “A lot more people know who Herman Cain is,” he said, regardless of the outcome. “I don’t have this long-term ambition of I want my own show on Fox,” he said. “I want to be president.”

Challenging Hillary Care
Earlier that morning hardly any cars rolled in front of Cain’s childhood home, a low-slung brick house outside of downtown Atlanta with a front lawn buzzing with bees and hopping with robins.
Decades earlier, when Cain was in the eighth grade, his father drove the family up to the house and declared that it was their new home.

“My brother and I just about went crazy,” Cain recalled.

Cain’s father worked as a chauffeur to Robert Woodruff, the president of Coca-Cola, who tipped his driver with stocks. Those shares helped send Cain to Morehouse College in 1967, where he majored in math and became the first member of his family to earn a degree. Being an overachiever, Cain said, “is an understatement.” He earned an advanced degree in computer science from Purdue University in 1971 and then, like his father, went to work for Coca-Cola, but as a business analyst. Later, in the 1970s, at the age of 31, he joined Pillsbury and focused on its subsidiary Burger King, turning a low-performing Philadelphia region into the best in the country.

“It is possible to screw up the Whopper,” Cain said.

His break came when he joined the fledgling Godfather’s Pizza as CEO and president. He said he was brought on to “oversee its death,” but instead he made it profitable and then bought the chain with investors.
It was as Godfather’s CEO, and head of the National Restaurant Association, that Cain had his first brush with politics. At a 1994 nationally televised town hall event, he challenged President Bill Clinton on his health-care proposal. “If I’m forced to do this, what will I tell those people whose jobs I will have to eliminate?” Cain asked the president.

Cain, who today thinks he was a “catalyst” in the killing of so-called Hillary Care, became a conservative sensation and parlayed his star turn into political opportunities. Gingrich gave Cain a slot on Congress’s flat-tax study group. Jack Kemp marveled at his courage standing up to the president and said he had “the voice of Othello.” In 1996, Cain joined the Dole/Kemp campaign as an adviser. He then co-chaired Steve Forbes’s “flat tax” presidential campaign in 2000. In 2004, he lost a bid for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia to Johnny Isakson and then focused his energies on a second career espousing his conservative views as an Atlanta radio personality.

A block away from Cain’s sleepy childhood street, congregants arrived at the Greater Fair Hills Baptist Church. Most had never heard of Cain. But Saunja Lawson, 69, lived across the street from him growing up. She called Cain a “beautiful person” who wouldn’t get her vote. His tea party association, she said, had proved vexing. “A lot of people in the community are very shocked because of the upbringing he had,” she said.

Cain said his former neighbor’s reaction was common among blacks who “are shocked that I have become a tea party guy because they have drunk the Kool-Aid on this racist thing.” Cain, who describes himself as an “American black conservative” but also the party’s “dark horse,” said any talk about racism in the movement was “bull feathers.”

Taking his star turn
Cain may be a convenient rebuttal to charges of racism in the tea party’s ranks, but he is also a genuine star.
“Herman generates incredible excitement,” said Mark Meckler, co-founder and national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, which has more than 3,500 chapters around the country and does not endorse candidates. “He is a lot more like us than anyone who has run for president in our lifetimes.”

Meckler, whose organization was such a fan of Cain and his business experience that it tried to hire him to its board in late 2009, said Cain’s consistency stood out in the field. “All the candidates are being forced to talk the talk,” Meckler said. “Herman is somewhat unique because he has long-term credibility.”

“He’s not to be underestimated,” said Ryan Rhodes, chairman of the Iowa Tea Party, who is hosting Cain, along with several other candidates, on a bus tour through the state next month.

Like Ron Paul, whom Cain stood beside at a recent Fox debate, all of the attributes that make Cain attractive to the hard-core activists make him an anomaly to a wider audience. He advocates a “Chilean model” of Social Se­cu­rity, supports a flat tax and speaks with reverence of the gold standard. In a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace on May 22, the day after he announced his bid, Cain seemed ignorant of the notion of the “right of return,” a centerpiece issue in the Middle East peace process.

“It would have helped if he would have said Palestinian right of return,” said Cain, adding, “Return to the bar? Return home?” Cain said he was focused in the interview on pronouncing Benjamin Netanyahu’s “name right.” He is currently reading a book on Israel.

In the Fox debate, Cain offered no Afghanistan position, saying he’d depend on “the experts and their advice and their input.” On Sunday, Cain stuck to that non-position, saying he would develop a plan “between Election Day and swearing-in.”

Yet for all his shortcomings and the “gaffes” he is sure he will make, Cain is, momentarily at least, enjoying a level of support that requires attention, even as he compares character in politics with fresh ingredients in pizza. He also confides, as though it is big news, that he will give everyone on his campaign corporate titles. Cain is enjoying himself, and he hopes his giddiness is infectious.

“It’s taking off!” he said excitedly to the manager as he entered the Italian Oven Restaurant. “It’s really taking off.”

Seductive Beliefs (Thomas Sowell)

One of the painfully revealing episodes in Barack Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" describes his early experience listening to a sermon by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Among the things said in that sermon was that "white folks' greed runs a world in need." Obama was literally moved to tears by that sermon.
This sermon may have been like a revelation to Barack Obama but its explanation of economic and other differences was among the oldest-- and most factually discredited-- explanations of such difference among all sorts of peoples in all sorts of places. Yet it is an explanation that has long been politically seductive, in countries around the world.
What could be more emotionally satisfying than seeing others who have done better in the world as the villains responsible for your not having done as well? It is the ideal political explanation, from the standpoint of mass appeal, whether or not it makes any sense otherwise.
That has been the politically preferred explanation for economic differences between the Malay majority and the more prosperous Chinese minority in Malaysia, or between the Gentile majority and the Jewish minority in various countries in Europe between the two World Wars.
At various other times and places, it has been the preferred explanation for the economic differences between the Sinhalese and the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, the Africans and the Lebanese in Sierra Leone, the Czechs and the Germans in Bohemia and numerous other groups in countries around the world.
The idea that the rich have gotten rich by making the poor poor has been an ideological theme that has played well in Third World countries, to explain why they lag so far behind the West.
None of this was original with Jeremiah Wright. All he added was his own colorful gutter style of expressing it, which so captivated the man who is now President of the United States.
There is obviously something there with very deep emotional appeal. Moreover, because nothing is easier to find than sins among human beings, there will never be a lack of evil deeds to make that explanation seem plausible.
Because the Western culture has been ascendant in the world in recent centuries, the image of rich white people and poor non-white people has made a deep impression, whether in theories of racial superiority-- which were big among "progressives" in the early 20th century-- or in theories of exploitation among "progressives" later on.
In a wider view of history, however, it becomes clear that, for centuries before the European ascendancy, Europe lagged far behind China in many achievements. Since neither of them changed much genetically between those times and the later rise of Europe, it is hard to reconcile this role reversal with racial theories.
More important, the Chinese were not to blame for Europe's problems-- which would not be solved until the Europeans themselves finally got their own act together, instead of blaming others. If they had listened to people like Jeremiah Wright, Europe might still be in the Dark Ages.
It is hard to reconcile "exploitation" theories with the facts. While there have been conquered peoples made poorer by their conquerors, especially by Spanish conquerors in the Western Hemisphere, in general most poor countries were poor for reasons that existed before the conquerors arrived. Some Third World countries are poorer today than they were when they were ruled by Western countries, generations ago.
False theories are not just an intellectual problem to be discussed around a seminar table in some ivy-covered building. When millions of people believe those theories, including people in high places, with the fate of nations in their hands, that is a serious and potentially disastrous fact of life.
Despite a carefully choreographed image of affability and cool, Barack Obama's decisions and appointments as President betray an alienation from the values and the people of this country that are too disturbing to be answered by showing his birth certificate.
Too many of his appointees exhibit a similar alienation, including Attorney General Eric Holder, under whom the Dept. of Justice could more accurately be described as the Dept. of Payback.

It’s All Over: Kyoto Protocol Loses Four Big Nations

It’s All Over: Kyoto Protocol Loses Four Big Nations

Image: Sierra Club Compass
Saturday, 28 May 2011 16:58 Agence France-Presse
DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.

The future of the Kyoto Protocol has become central to efforts to negotiate reductions of carbon emissions under the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, whose annual meeting will take place in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9.
Developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. They agreed to legally binding commitments on curbing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.
Those pledges expire at the end of next year. Developing countries say a second round is essential to secure global agreements.
But the leaders of Russian, Japan and Canada confirmed they would not join a new Kyoto agreement, the diplomats said.
They argued that the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world’s No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts.
At last Thursday’s G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol, the diplomats said.
The US, the second-largest carbon emitter, signed the protocol in 1997 but in 2001 the then president, George W. Bush, said he would not put it to the Senate for ratification.

Intel report: Kenyans honor Obama's 'birthplace'

Intel report: Kenyans honor Obama's 'birthplace'

Cultural museum commissioned in family's African village

Posted: May 30, 2011
4:37 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WND

Barack Obama in visit with Kenyan relatives
An internal bulletin from the Kenyan National Security Intelligence Service, or NSIS, states that the Kenyan government in 2009 commissioned a cultural museum in the Obama home village of Kogelo to honor the "birthplace of President Barack Obama" and rededicate the tomb of his father, Barack Obama Sr.
The 2009 NSIS bulletin report said:
The ministry of national heritage this month hosted a cultural festival in Kogelo and commissioned a cultural museum on a plot donated by a member of the Kogelo community. The cultural festival was attended by the minister for national heritage, William ole Ntimama and U.S. ambassador, Michael Ranneberger. This was to honour the birthplace of President Obama and re-dedicate the tomb of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., the president's late father. But the project had been delayed because of ownership wrangles surrounding the plot.
According to an article in the Kenyan Daily Nation newspaper July 5, 2010, the Kenyan government's plans to build a 112 million Kenyan Schilling ($1.3 million) cultural center at Kogelo was locked in a dispute over who should donate land to the government for the project.
(Story continues below)
Read more: Intel report: Kenyans honor Obama's 'birthplace' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=303165#ixzz1NtxG9jh1
communist obama marxist socialist maoist progressiveProposed "Ancestral Home"

Obama’s ineligibility: Prepare for the fall

By Lawrence Sellin  Monday, May 30, 2011
The United States is in a Constitutional and political crisis without precedent.
What can ordinary Americans do when a large number of politicians are corrupt and an even larger portion of the national political leadership is complicit in a cover-up of that corruption?
Do we petition those leaders to investigate and punish themselves?
George Will, for whom I have great respect as a commentator, recently wrote a scholarly, but an unintentionally satirical article entitled “Is Obama above the law?” about his violation of the War Powers Act in regard to the Libyan War.
Mr. Will ended his commentary with what must have been deliberate satire:
“‘No president,’ says Sen. John McCain, ‘has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and neither do I. So I don’t feel bound by any deadline.’ Oh? No law is actually a law if presidents and senators do not “recognize” it? Now, there is an interesting alternative to judicial review, and an indicator of how executive aggrandizement and legislative dereliction of duty degrade the rule of law.”
The evident bewilderment displayed by Will is prima facie evidence of the depth of denial now prevalent in Washington, D.C.
It is an equivalent to writing an article after the Pearl Harbor attack entitled “The Japanese might not like us.”
The arrogance of the permanent political class is both shocking and out of control.
Having been born in Panama and not eligible to run for the Presidency, McCain obviously doesn’t recognize the Constitution either.
For me, the uncertainty about McCain’s ineligibility was resolved by the bogus, non-binding Senate Resolution 511, co-sponsored by Obama, which declared McCain a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
The fact that Congress has no authority to do such a thing was apparently completely irrelevant to that majestic body. Maybe I’m a cynic, but it sounds to me like just another crooked, backroom deal.
If McCain and Obama both didn’t need the “cover”, why go through that elaborate Senate charade?
Andrew Napolitano once asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care.
Clyburn replied: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.” Then he shot back: “How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?”
Rep. Clyburn, like many in Congress, has conveniently forgotten that, according to the Constitution, the federal government has only specific enumerated powers.
As Mr. Napolitano correctly noted, Congress has gone from upholding the Constitution to evading it.
Basically, the permanent political class is saying to the American people: “we’ll do whatever we want and you prove that we can’t do it.”
That is exactly how Barack Obama has been operating and why no one in Washington, D.C. will challenge him.
Our political royals want the option of evading the Constitution or any law they deem inconvenient, like, most recently, what appears to be Congressional insider stock trading and the distribution of Obamacare waivers as political favors.
If the people at the highest levels of government believe that they can, whenever they wish, commit law evasion, what can ordinary citizens do?
We can hope that the cover-up surrounding Obama’s alleged crimes begins to unravel and honest, courageous and patriotic leaders step forward to root out those complicit, eliminate the endemic corruption and guide the country back on the right course.
Otherwise, left with no alternatives, open dissent will grow and chaos will ensue.
Keep your powder dry.

Monday, May 30, 2011

The Royalist GOP

The Royalist GOP

By Mr. Curmudgeon
Something strange is going on within the GOP. First, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich calls Rep. Paul Ryan’s pittance of a budget cut “right-wing social engineering.” Then Karl Rove appears on Fox and Friends, dismissing conservative presidential candidate Herman Cain as simply a “talk radio guy in Atlanta,” a “former head of a national pizza chain.” Rove then warns fellow Republicans that it’s “not just your narrative on Obama. It’s not just your own personal narrative” that wins the presidency.
Last March, the Associated Press reported that Rove established two political action committees to raise $120 million “ahead of the 2012 elections to help make President Barrack Obama a one-term leader and elect Republicans.”
The obvious question – one the mainstream media refuses to ask – is: “Exactly what kind of Republicans does Karl Rove expect to elect?”
I don’t think the GOP’s establishmentarians are nearly as worried about President Obama’s re-election as the media would have us believe. As Gingrich and Rove have clearly indicated, their enemy is Tea Party activists and the candidates they hope will end the careers of me-too, big-government Republican incumbents.
Back in October, Rove told POLITICO.com that Tea Party supporters aren’t “sophisticated” and “It’s not like these people have read the economist Friedrich August von Hayek.”
Rove and his fellow establishment hacks believe “We the People” aren’t nearly as sophisticated as the Hayek readers among the GOP’s establishment smart set. You know, the guys who passed “no child left behind,” saddled us with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, lost the GOP majorities in Congress and started the bailout snowball rolling down the hill.
But it is far more likely Hayek’s free market ideas will be implemented under a Tea Party-controlled House and Senate than under the GOP establishment’s well-read harem eunuchs.
According to Rove, a politician needs “to convince people that, ‘I’ve got something in by background that gives you confidence I can actually do these things I’m talking about.”
Will somebody tell me what was in Barrack Obama’s background that qualified him to radically transform America, saddling it with an authoritarian health care law?
Say what you will about the man, he had a vision for America and the will to push it through no matter the political costs to him or his party.
It’s not that establishment Republicans aren’t well read or educated. It’s that they are empty suits devoid of even the slightest hint of imagination. And this gets to the heart of the matter.
Tea Party America is growing increasingly frustrated and angry by the inaction of the GOP establishment’s small thinkers. Tea Partiers actually believe America can return to a system of laws and not men. That makes them radicals – as radical as the Tea Party Founders who established this great country.
What Karl Rove is telling Herman Cain – and by extension the nation – is that pedigree and not ideas determine legitimacy. King George III would agree.
In 1782, Lewis Nicola, a colonel in the Continental Army, wrote Gen. George Washington a letter expressing his hope that should the Revolutionary War conclude in America’s favor, Washington might become its king.
“I am much at a loss to conceive what part of my conduct could have given encouragement to an address which to me seems big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my Country,” wrote Washington to Nicola. “Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your Country, concern for yourself and posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your Mind, and never communicate, as from yourself, or anyone else, a sentiment of the like Nature.”
That’s quite a statement from a rebel without a country. Washington was offended by the royalist notion Americans could not govern themselves. That the cause he and his army were fighting and bleeding for, founding a nation where liberty flourished under a restrained government, was far too radical to be taken seriously.
Rove and Gingrich hope to preserve today’s soulless Republican Party. And that’s quite understandable. You see, nonentities like Rove and Gingrich can only flourish in an environment where bold ideas never leave the bookshelf. Where a man’s family lineage or business résumé are all that sets him apart from his fellow men.
In the minds of Rove and his fellow GOP stiffs, George Washington would never make it on their short list for king. After all, the man was nothing more than a tobacco planter and a failed commander in the Virginia militia – hardly the breeding or record that screams, “I’ve got something in my background that gives you confidence I can actually do these things I’m talking about.”

Global Warming Charlatans Feel the HeatPosted by Alan Caruba

Global Warming Charlatans Feel the Heat

By Alan Caruba

The University of Virginia, after vigorously resisting a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request for data related to the emails of Michael Mann, was the subject of a court order to make them available. While global warming is known worldwide for its claim that manmade warming would doom the Earth, the names and machinations behind the fraud are far less well known.

Mann, a climatologist, was part of a relatively small clique of charlatans who, working for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), conjured up all manner of “proof” that the Earth was on dangerous trajectory, heating up. Mann invented the “hockey stick” graph that demonstrated this bit of climate magic.

With Al Gore as the most famous face of global warming, Mann and others lent credibility to the IPCC that called for massive reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions resulting from energy use of fossil fuels, primarily oil and coal.

Mann’s problem began when the “hockey stick” graph was debunked and demolished as bogus. All this occurred while Mann was on the faculty of the University of Virginia and while large amounts of research grant money were being received by the University to support Mann and others.

Since 1990, it is estimated that $100 billion of taxpayer’s funding went to support “climate research” by thousands of scientists who, it turned out, were unable to find and certainly not measure any evidence of human influence on global temperature.

The same thing was occurring across the Atlantic in England where the University of East Anglia was home to Mann’s IPCC co-conspirators. On May 25th, the Guardian reported that Nobel Laureate, Sir. Paul Nurse, complained that the British version of FOI was being used to “harass” some climate scientists by requesting data and other research materials.

Given the collusion of both the University of Virginia and of East Anglia, it should come as no surprise that both institutions held their own boards of inquiry and cleared the climate scientists on their staffs of any wrongdoing. That explains why the court had to have had dragged them into demonstrating the probity of their activities.

This is far from a spat between some universities and their scientists, and "skeptics" challenging the global warming fraud. It most certainly is a fraud when global warming claims are used to impose a huge cost to consumers when utilities and other large emitters of carbon dioxide are required by law to utilize “alternative” sources such as wind and solar power or to install multi-million dollar technologies to needlessly reduce CO2 emissions.

Plainly stated, CO2 emissions have zero effect on the weather or the climate.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, who have brought a law suit, American Electric Power v. Connecticut, all the way to the Supreme Court, note that “It is impossible to determine whether emissions by any particular power plant—or U.S. electricity production as a whole—have affected warming trends and, if so, how.” A decision is pending.

The global warming hoax, which at one point involved a scheme to sell “carbon credits” to industry and businesses so they could continue to emit CO2, enriched those selling the credits in both the U.S. and Europe until the global warming hoax began to implode in November 2009. The exchanges selling the credits closed their doors.

It was in November 2009 that a huge cache of emails between Mann and other IPCC scientists was imported to the Internet where it rapidly became clear that they were very worried that the Earth had entered a natural cooling cycle in 1998 and discussed how to pressure scientific journals to not publish the research of skeptics refuting the hoax.

The IPCC continues to propagate global warming lies, only now it is called “climate change.” Any pubic figure that uses the term “climate change” is lying if for no other reason than the climate of the Earth has been and is always in a state of change.

As courts in the U.S. and England continue to require the global warming charlatans and their universities to make known their alleged “scientific research” and email exchanges to further the hoax, a larger question looms. Should not such activity be deemed a deliberate fraud and should not injured parties, including the whole populations of America and England have a standing in court to see that they are punished?

Unanswered is the role that the mass media played in spreading and defending the global warming hoax. On Memorial Day, when we celebrate the sacrifice of fallen heroes to preserve liberty, the Washington Post published a bizarre editorial criticizing “climate skeptics” for using the FOIA to find out why Mann and the University of Virginia received funding while participating in a massive deception. Unmentioned were comparable Greenpeace FOIA efforts against climate skeptics.

It's worth noting that the global warming/climate change fraud is still being perpetrated in American schools from coast to coast.

Already, a number of Republican candidates for the presidency have refuted global warming or an earlier role in advocating it. For too long, politicians have not just been wrong, but often deliberately ignorant of the truth.

Justice may be slow, but it will be served and that is a lesson the entire scientific community should take note. As more revelations occur, even the mainstream media will be unable to protect the global warming/climate change perpetrators or to be their co-conspirators.

Veterans and Active duty give Obama lower marks than civilians

Barack Obama Job Approval, by Veteran/Active-Duty Status and Age, January 2010-April 2011

Memorial Day Thoughts: Does Barack Obama Honor our Fallen Soldiers ?

Memorial Day Thoughts: Does Barack Obama Honor our Fallen Soldiers ?

Hat Tip to Ridgerunner
Today is really a quite solemn occasion. A time to honor those who gave their lives for their country. That country -the United States of America- meant a lot to those people. What did it mean? It meant a lot of things. Freedom of speech, worship and travel. A people of differenct ethnicities and backgrounds that were of one mind. With all the "diversity" in this country everyone believed in a few simple ideas:

1-That we were one people under one set of laws.
2-That though our country had flaws it was a force for much good and the best in the world.
3-That we were unique in offering freedom.
4-That we could all pull together to defend the borders and future of this country against tyranny.

So, on this day, while you are cooking on the grill, I ask you to think about these ideas and the people who died for them.

Then I want you to think about this. Does Barack Obama look likes he believes in any of the above ideas?

Does Barack Obama honor the fallen heros by his actions? 

POLL - Incensed voters 'repudiate' Washington's leadership

"While 84 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents said government spending must be cut to stay below the debt limit, just 39 percent of Democrats agreed with that approach. Among Democrats, 35 percent said taxes should be raised, while just three percent of Republicans and 15 percent of independents agreed with that approach,"
Read more: Incensed voters 'repudiate' Washington's leadership http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=303221#ixzz1NrofWUXt


Monday, May 30, 2011

WND Exclusive

Incensed voters 'repudiate'
Washington's leadership

'Data indicate backlash could sweep
Capitol Hill, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.'

Posted: May 29, 2011
10:37 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh


Editor's note: This is another in a series of "WND/WENZEL POLLS" conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.

Barack Obama

Voters across America are fed up with Washington's behavior, don't believe representatives are getting the message and may just respond with demands for a constitutional amendment that would wrap duct tape around the profligate spending habits in government, according to a new poll.
"An overwhelming percent of 75 percent said they would favor a U.S. constitutional amendment requiring an annual balanced budget from the federal government," said Fritz Wenzel, whose public-opinion research and media consulting company, Wenzel Strategies, conducted the poll.
It was a telephone survey conducted May 18-20 and has a margin of error of 3.01 percentage points.
He said voters jumped onto the bandwagon for GOP candidates in 2010 in Congress to send a message of restrained spending and no more borrowing, and now find that Washington hasn't been listening all that well.
Shock the Washington establishment by participating in the "No More Red Ink" campaign and shut down all new plans for bailouts, "stimulus" spending and even the funding for Obamacare.
"This budget battle has become toxic not just in Washington but nationwide, as the country continues mired in a prolonged economic morass. In fact, because other polling shows a significant minority feels this country in general is headed in the right direction, it is very likely that the continuing bad economy has exacerbated the anger over Washington's out-of-control spending," he said.
"It could easily appear to the average U.S. taxpayer that leaders in D.C. just don't understand what is going on in the rest of the country," he said.
(Story continues below)

The poll revealed that 47.1 percent of all voters say Washington is giving their a "poor" value for their money, and another 27.6 percent said the value is "only fair." The results cut across demographics, with Democrats having the most optimistic outlook. But even there, nearly 59 percent said the federal government's value was "only fair" or "poor."
Among the GOP respondents, almost 89 percent could not agree to rating the government's value as excellent or good, and among independents that was more than 77 percent.
"Last November, voters across the nation sent a clear message to national lawmakers that they wanted solutions to out-of-control spending and government growth. Five months into the new Congress, national discontent appears stronger than ever on the federal government’s budgetary failures," Wenzel said.
"This is a clear repudiation of the prevailing leadership in Washington, and sets up an interesting political dynamic as Democrats and Republicans prepare to fight the final battles over whether or not to increase the limit on how much the national government can borrow to pay its bills," he said.
"Given three options on how to deal with the federal debt limit, the Republican approach appears to have the most public support, as 64 percent of likely voters nationwide said government spending should be cut to stay below the current debt limit. Another 10 percent said the debt limit should be increased to keep the nation solvent, while 18 percent favored increasing taxes to help pay federal bills," Wenzel said.
He said on that question, however, there was "a dramatic disconnect" between Democrats and "everyone else."
"While 84 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents said government spending must be cut to stay below the debt limit, just 39 percent of Democrats agreed with that approach. Among Democrats, 35 percent said taxes should be raised, while just three percent of Republicans and 15 percent of independents agreed with that approach," he said.

"For all of the denigration the so-called tea party members have suffered in the past two years at the hands of the Democrats, the idea that Americans are 'Taxed Enough Already' – the core complaint of the tea partiers – clearly resonates across the country," he warned.
Americans have a sizeable concern over whether the federal debt will hurt the U.S. economy in the coming months, too. More than 55 percent said they are very concerned about the situation; another 27 percent said they are somewhat concerned. Only one in 20 was "not at all concerned."
The federal spending apparently played a role in this question too.
"There was a significant difference in perception depending on a respondent's source of income, as 61 percent of private sector workers were very concerned, compared to just 43 percent of public sector workers who said the same thing," reported Wenzel.
Three in four respondents also opposed printing new money to pay off the federal debt, but Democrats who favor the idea outnumbered Republicans to liked the idea of a flood of cash more than 3-1.
A majority of 56 percent said they are not optimistic the present Washington leaders "will agree on a plan to put the nation back on a path to responsible government spending," the poll showed.
The poll showed that if a solution is not accomplished, 43 percent of the respondents will blame Democrats, 36 percent will blame Republican leaders in the House.
Wenzel said the difference between what happened in 2010, when the GOP took majority control of the House and made significant advances in the Senate, and in 1994, when Republicans swept into power in both houses, is the economy.
"Then [1994], the economy was on the rebound after what was a very short economic downturn. Now, we are deep into the third year of a massive economic recession. As a result, there is a deep hunger across the country for some serious and dramatic changes in how Washington conducts business, and yet Washington appears largely unaware. There are some bold steps taken – Republican Paul Ryan's budget proposal is the most notable – but that plan has been panned by some who apparently fear voter backlash from deep federal cuts," Wenzel saide.
"This polling data indicate, however, that the backlash that could sweep across Capitol Hill and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year may stem from government's failure to take bold steps.
An independent grassroots lobbying effort launched by WND founder Joseph Farah, called the "No More Red Ink" campaign, already has sent some million letters to House Republicans calling on them to oppose any rise in the debt limit, thus shutting off the spigot for more spending beyond the government's revenues.
Though there has been little discussion about it in the national media or even on Capitol Hill, House Republicans hold all the cards on denying a debt-limit increase. With control of the House, they need only 218 votes against it to freeze borrowing and force the federal government to begin living within its means immediately.
Since approval of both houses of Congress is required to raise the debt limit, this is one of the very few meaningful actions the Republican-controlled House can take without the consent of the Senate or the White House, Farah says.
He has called it the Republicans' "secret weapon."

Caution: it'll restore your pride in the USA

Caution: it'll restore your pride in the USA

*This video was released by Vance AFB the day we got Bin Laden.*

*Caution: it'll restore your pride in the USA and get your blood stirring.

(Funny how it takes the U.S.military to do that; our politicians just
get us pissed off and depressed)** **

They’re “Just Doing Their Job and They Do It Well!”

Obama Nullifies and Ends US Constitution

Obama Nullifies and Ends US Constitution

-           Sher Zieve  

“Sometime in May 2011, the United States Constitution was rendered null and void by then “President” Barack Hussein Obama.  Although it was later accepted that Mr. Obama was ineligible to be President of the United States, due to his not meeting the US Constitution’s requirement of “natural born citizen,” (and some speculated this was the primary reason he had to destroy the former USA’s original requisite legal document) he, nevertheless,  threatened war against a sovereign US State.
With the vernacular of the times, Mr. Obama illegally threatened the then-sovereign State of Texas with the US government’s establishment of a “No Fly Zone” (a term previously used by the US government to enact wars against enemy countries) over Texas if the State leaders and its population refused to go along with illegal sexual groping intimidation techniques delivered by a US government entity misnamed as the “Transportation Safety Agency.” 
“As this illegal act by the Obama regime (also see “Obama Syndicate”) was never met by any real or lasting resistance from US Congressional leaders or the old Marxist-Leninist court system, the US Constitution was effectively rendered null and void and the United States of America—along with the world—entered into what has come to be known as the “Second Dark Age” of mankind.  The legislators and bulk of the US population’s inattention to this criminal act and others regarding both the country’s dissolution of additional liberties and individual economic wealth are said to be the principal reasons the USA was topple—from within—as a world power.  This is believed to have been the beginning of the rise of humanity’s forceful suppression and enslavement worldwide.”
With the current lack of any truthful reporting by the Obama-run media and lack of attention from a preponderance of US citizens, the above may very well be what is written at some point in the future.  Obama has already eliminated many of the protections of the US Constitution via either executive fiat or policies.  Although this is illegal, remember that as long as he’s allowed to get away with it, it’s as if the law dos not exist. 
Test cases designed to lead towards and finally effect the end of the US Constitution—and the USA—by usurper and Dictator-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama have been prevalent.  Now-former LTC Terence Lakin was court-martialed—after his kangaroo-court styled military “trial”—and placed in Leavenworth prison for questioning the tyrant’s authority to command.  He was recently released.  Note:  Remember that this was before The Obama’s minions produced the now-exposed-as-fraud “long-form birth certificate.” 
Obama’s DOJ has ruled that voter suppression by the New Black Panthers and others against white people and non-Obama supporters will be tolerated and accepted.  Criminal convictions against perpetrators of electorate suppression will be overturned.  Senior Obama political appointee Julie Fernandes instructed DOJ attorneys that “cases are not going to be brought against black defendants (for) the benefit of white victims” and that the “Civil Rights Division wasn’t going to be bringing them.”  This is illegal and flies in the face of everything this country used to be…including the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection under the law.”  That Amendment has already been overturned by the Obama Syndicate’s lawless totalitarian indulgences.  Obama’s unions (who heavily contributed to his 2008 campaign) are now filing court cases to effectively shut down businesses that open new divisions in right to work States.  The latest is Boeing.  Due to these thug tactics, those businesses that have not already done so may now be forced to relocate to other countries.  Under the Obama totalitarian collective no one except his favorites have any rights or liberties.  And, if he doesn’t like you or your questions—as was the case with LTC Lakin—he’ll make sure you go to prison for daring to question him.
The supplementary tragedy is that, along with the rest of us, even those who voted for Obama will eventually be enslaved.  But, I suppose they are already embracing their own forced servitude under the tyrant and the other ruling elites.   

Obama’s Enablers Put Forth Another Straw Man Argument: One’s Parents Do Not Have to Be Born in the U.S. to Be a “Natural Born Citizen”

Obama’s Enablers Put Forth Another Straw Man Argument: One’s Parents Do Not Have to Be Born in the U.S. to Be a “Natural Born Citizen”

Obama’s Enablers Put Forth Another Straw Man Argument: One’s Parents Do Not Have to Be Born in the U.S. to Be a “Natural Born Citizen”


                                                        By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                              May 29, 2011

Putative President Barack Obama’s enablers are out and about making their straw man arguments in order to win the presidential eligibility issue. “A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To ‘attack a straw man’ is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the ‘straw man’), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.

In arguing that putative President Barack Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen, his defenders maintain that the “birthers” are wrong in believing otherwise because there is no requirement that one’s parents must be born in the U.S. to be a "natural born Citizen." This is a straw man argument given that it suggests that this is the “birthers’” argument when in fact it is not. This is not the only straw man argument that we have seen Obama’s enablers advance. We have seen their effort to win the Obama eligibility issue by misrepresenting the constitutional argument (e.g., they argue that a “natural born citizen” is the same as a “citizen” and then they set out to show what historically a “citizen” is and publicly concentrate on the place of birth issue but suppress from the same public the constitutional argument on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen”); they present for public display “birthers” who may defend the constitutional position poorly as best defenders of that position; they invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then ridiculed and criticized (they have invented the “birther” who they attack as being a racists and/or attached to nothing but conspiracy theories or in the words of Obama himself: "We're not going to solve our problems if we get distracted by carnival barkers and sideshows." [Barack Obama, April 27, 2011, in reference to Donald Trump]); and they oversimplify our constitutional position and attack that position (e.g. they mock the “birthers” for saying that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents and add that a simple facial reading of the Constitution’s text contains no such requirement). They also use the slippery slope fallacy, saying that there is no reason for Obama to release any medical or other evidence proving his Hawaiian birth because the “birthers” will never be satisfied with no matter how much documentary evidence of his alleged Hawaiian birth Obama may present to the public. None of this is even to mention the unfounded charges of racism and other and various ad hominem attacks against anyone who would dare question Obama’s Article II constitutional eligibility to be President.

Now let us see how Obama’s enablers’ statement that the “birthers” put forth the argument that the President’s parents must be born in the United States is nothing but a straw man argument. First, we do not maintain that the parents need to be American born. Rather, we maintain that they must be "citizens of the United States," which status they can acquire by being "natural born Citizens" or naturalized at birth or after birth. The parents must be “citizens of the United States,” under any one of three scenarios: (1) “natural born Citizens” under Article II by being born in the U.S. or its jurisdictional equivalent to U.S. citizen parents; (2) naturalized at birth, under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) by being born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents or other Congressional Acts by being born out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents; or (3) naturalized after birth under some Congressional Act or treaty when born out of the U.S. to two alien parents.

Second, these same individuals also confuse an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a "born citizen" under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) which as currently interpreted do not require U.S. citizen parents in order declare one a “citizen of the United States” at birth. This latter citizen, lacking the natural quality of being born to two U.S. citizen parents, is actually naturalized at birth by way of Congressional naturalization power at first questionably exercised by Congress through the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then unquestionably exercised by it through the 14th Amendment. Today, we commonly refer to this citizen as a “native-born citizen,” not to be confused with a “native” under natural law and the law of nations which has the same meaning as a “natural born citizen.” On the contrary, to be an Article II "natural born citizen," one must be born in the U.S. (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to a U.S. citizen father and mother. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Sections 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).  See also the many other legal and historical sources cited at this blog site for support for this definition. The Founders and Framers wanted to make sure that no hereditary monarch could ever gain control of the new constitutional republic and to keep foreign influence out of the all-powerful and singular office of the Chief Executive and Commander of the military. These birth circumstances assure that the President and Commander of our military cannot be of royal parents (a U.S. citizen must renounce all titles of nobility) and has sole and undivided natural allegiance to the U.S. from the moment of birth by the child not inheriting any other foreign allegiance by jus soli (citizenship by right of the soil) or jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from one’s parents). Only the President and Vice-President have to be an Article II "natural born Citizen." The great majority of Americans are “natural born Citizens.” For every other citizen in the U.S. who is not a “natural born Citizen,” the clause has no constitutional or other legal effect, for “citizens of the United States” all enjoy equality in rights, privileges, and immunities. Hence, the clause is in place only to protect the United States and its people by assuring that our representative constitutional republic will be lead by a President and Commander in Chief who from birth is attached to the best interests and only that of the United States.

Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He maintains that he was born in Kapi’olani Hospital in Hawaii in 1961. But he has yet to conclusively establish that fact with a valid long-form Certificate of Live Birth or with any medical evidence. Rather, on April 27, 2011, after refusing to do so for over 2 ½ years and spending or causing to be spent countless millions of dollars of public and private funds and resources and even the 6-month imprisonment of a decorated military officer, LTC Terry Lakin, he released on the internet a forged internet image of his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. This computer image is a forgery, as it contains evidence of electronic manipulation. Even if the internet image is a true representation of the alleged underlying Certificate of Live Birth, that underlying paper birth certificate, which is supposed to be a document filled in with a typewriter in 1961, is a forgery, for it contains evidence of kerning (a technique of spacing letters next to each other for aesthetic purposes) which cannot possibly be done on a typewriter in 1961. Also, there exist significant questions regarding whether Obama is using a valid social security number and whether his selective service military registration was also forged.

In any event, assuming the released birth certificate image to be valid, it conclusively establishes that Obama’s legitimate father was Barack Obama Sr. So, even assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii, he can be a “born” “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a), but he cannot be a “natural born” “citizen of the United States” under Article II. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was born in 1961 to Barack Obama Sr., a British citizen father who was born in 1934 or 1936 in the then-British colony of Kenya and by descent from his father he himself was born a British citizen. He was therefore born with conflicting and divided loyalties to the U.S. and Great Britain, which under the Kenya Independence Act of 1963, converted to citizenship and allegiance to Kenya at age 2 which lasted until at least age 23. Consequently, Obama, was naturalized at birth and, like a person who is naturalized after birth is not eligible to be President, was not born with sole and undivided allegiance to the U.S. Obama is thus not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Obama is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 29, 2011

Bombshell: Second CRS Memo Covering for Obama’s Ineligibility Not Released to the Public…Until Now

Bombshell: Second CRS Memo Covering for Obama’s Ineligibility Not Released to the Public…Until Now


by Joseph DeMaio
(May 30, 2011) — Sherlock Holmes once noted that the perfect crime is the one that is never detected.  Those who are now finally discovering the unsolved mystery of Barack Obama’s eligibility under the Constitution as a “natural born Citizen” should read more Sherlock Holmes.
In reality, there is no mystery.  Day-by-day, week-by-week and revelation by revelation, the empirical evidence accumulates that the man now occupying the White House may very well be plainly ineligible to do so.  It only remains for the truth to finally catch up to him, as the truth always does.  And yet legions of his supporters and sycophants are doing all they can to delay and postpone that day of reckoning.
1.      In order for a person to be born a “natural born Citizen” under Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 – the “eligibility clause” of the Constitution as it was understood by the Founders under The Law of Nations by E. de Vattel, a legal scholar during the years the Constitution was conceived, drafted and executed – both such person’s parents must be, at that time, United States citizens and no U.S. Supreme Court case has held otherwise;
2.      An April 3, 2009 Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) Memorandum authored by one  Jack Maskell, a Legislative Attorney in the CRS American Law Division and entitled “Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate” and intended for distribution to members of Congress either (a) innocently, but substantively, misreads, misconstrues and/or misapplies federal appellate and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, or (b) intentionally, and thus improperly (and possibly illegally), alters the meaning of precedent through substantive editing by grammatical ellipsis omission of material words, and thus facts, in two federal documents, to arrive at its conclusion that Barack H. Obama is, purportedly, eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen;”
3.      A June 5, 2009 Congressional Research Service “Transmittal” message to a member of Congress from one Jerry Mansfield, an “Information Research Specialist” in the CRS “Knowledge Services Group,” misinforms the congressman by stating that questions about Mr. Obama’s birth certificate have been “ultimately resolved” in favor of his eligibility based on a series of biased and badly-skewed Internet postings;
4.      A second Congressional Research Service memorandum, dated March 10, 2010 and authored, again, by Mr. Jack Maskell, and entitled “Birth Certificates of Presidential Candidates and Standing to Challenge Eligibility,” but without mentioning or referencing the April 3, 2009 memo, commits the same conceptual errors of the prior April 3, 2009 memo and thus merely compounds and perpetuates the problem;
5.      The issue of Barack H. Obama’s eligibility to serve as president under the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution thus far remains unaddressed on the merits by the U.S. Supreme Court and, accordingly, remains unresolved as well.