Just who exactly is this man posing as President of the United States? That’s a question being asked by a growing number of Americans.
In fact, a recent poll by CNN — a news organization that has been downright gushing in its praise of Barack Obama — showed that six out of 10 people are uncertain the President was even born in the U.S. And that includes about one-third of all Democrats.
It’s troubling that so many question Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President but that so few of the elected class and those of national prominence will even broach the issue. It demonstrates what a superb job Obama’s team and the Democrat party have done in casting those who question his status as a natural born citizen as the lunatic fringe.
In fact, if you are a “birther” — a term coined by the mainstream press to disparage those who doubt Obama’s eligibility to hold office based on his citizenship — even so-called conservative icons like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck consider you a nut.
All this proves is that the elitists who shape messages are a clique interested not in seeing that the U.S. Constitution is upheld, but in maintaining their power and protecting their own. This was demonstrated once before, when the House of Representatives voted to impeach Bill Clinton for lying to a grand jury, but the Senate voted 100-0 not to remove him.
When was the last time the Senate was unanimous on anything? Democrats and Republicans never agree unanimously. The fix was in from the beginning.
I have read several articles lately rightfully claiming the Obama should be impeached. The power grab upon the United States parallels the likes of Hugo Chavez. Any one of these acts should be ground for impeachment, but our current Congress refuses to take action. Just about everything this administration has done goes against the Constitution, against states rights, against American citizens, against court rulings and against the will of the people. But he continues to march on destroying this country, transforming it into his socialist/Marxist vision with Obama being dictator-in-chief. He holds border security hostage for amnesty for illegals and threatens to use executive powers to achieve what Congress won’t pass, and then sues the state of Arizona for attempting to stop the invasion from Mexico. Then there is the takeover of the auto industry, banking industry, Wall Street, health care system…where do you stop.
The problem – the current Congress can’t impeach Obama on these issues because they are also guilty of the same crimes! If they found Obama guilty they would be implicating themselves in the same treasonous activities. So this Congress will do nothing to stop the traitor-in-chief from continuing his destruction of the United States because to co-conspirators are playing judge and jury.
But the destruction of this country must stop and it can. Many have looked into the background of Obama and is blatant refusal to produce the long form birth certificate proving his eligibility to be president in the first place. I couldn’t obtain my passport with a properly certified birth certificate. I had the original birth certificate with a stamped notarized seal, but that wasn’t good enough. I had to order a new certified copy with the embossed seal just to get a passport. My daughter has to produce her birth certificate, drivers license, social security card and two additional forms of proof of residency just to obtain a drivers license in Indiana! So why is it unreasonable for the president of the United States to produce a valid, certified, long-form birth certificate. Why has he spent millions of dollars protecting that document as well as others? No one would spend that much money trying to cover up the truth if they were not guilty!
So, Congress needs to go after this usurper on the grounds that he is constitutionally not eligible to hold the office of the President at all. Does this implicate others in a cover-up – absolutely. But this country will be better off without Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano. So if that ship sinks it needs to take the trash with it!
Many are concerned about the fallout should it be determined that Obama was never eligible to be president. The country will survive! Those of us around during Watergate know what the country can recover from. We lost the President and Vice-President during the Watergate scandal, as well as a number of others, but the country survived. The Constitution was developed by our founding fathers to preserve the country. Yes, there will be consequences. The laws passed in the middle of the night without Congress actually reading them and through backroom deals would not be valid. But when you think of the abuse of power and unconstitutional standing these laws were based on then the only recourse is to remove these laws that should never have been passed in the first place.
We face tough times ahead of us, but if this country is going to survive as the republic it was formed to be, then drastic measures will need to take place in November and the months following to right the wrong that should never have been allowed in the first place. We can survive!
This commentary was posted as a comment on this site, but is too important to be hidden among the comments. So here it is. Thanks for sharing and I hope everyone takes note.
WHO AM I?
I was born in one country, raised in another.
My father was born in another country.
I was not his only child.
He fathered several children with numerous women.
I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me.
My mother died at an early age from cancer.
Although my father deserted me and my mother raised me,
I later wrote a book idolizing my father not my mother.
Later in life, questions arose over my real name.
My birth records were sketchy. No one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.
I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my new country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs and didn’t follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.
Suppose we have two groups. Group A believes that women are human beings, just like men are, and that they should be equal partners in their society. Group B believes that women were created by the devil to tempt men, that they have no human rights, and that they must be used to have as many children as possible. If Group A and B live in different parts of the world, each region will develop in a way that reflects their different ways of life.
Group A will have highly productive workforces and individual freedom, high divorce rates and low birth rates. By contrast Group B will have high birth rates, no divorces, weak productivity and no freedom. Both groups enjoy the consequences of living in tune with their worldviews. For a while. But what happens when Group B begins to move its surplus population into the region of Group A? The higher birth rate enjoyed by Group B will make it more aggressive, particularly since a society that devalues women will also cull baby girls and practice polygamy leading to a surplus of young male. But those same qualities will also help keep it backward, making it much less effective militarily against a modern productive and efficient society. Group B will therefore have a great deal of trouble successfully invading Group A’s territory, unless Group A allows it to happen. That of course is the situation we’re faced with today. There are a number of approaches that would balance the demographic scales between Group A and punish Group B. For example, Group A might refuse to share the advanced medical technology that its society develops with Group B, unless the latter agrees to enact certain reforms that will grant rights to women and help lower the birth rate. If it agrees Group B will have a more stable and less threatening society. If it refuses, its high birth retain will have to compete with a high death rate. However if Group A provides Group B with the benefits of its medical technology, without demanding social reforms as the price– then Group B will pose even more of a threat, because its population boom will continue for ideological, rather than biological reasons, no longer to compensate for a high death rate, but on purely competitive grounds. Group B will begin suffering from a population surplus, which it will try to export into the territory of Group A, by force or immigration, collectively or individually. Group A will now begin experiencing demographic competition on its own soil. If like so many empires throughout history, it sees them as a beneficial form of cheap labor that will help keep its own citizens prosperous by making the cost of goods and services cheaper, it will have eventually doomed itself through demographic suicide. By reaping the benefits of Group A’s social setup, without accommodating itself to those same parameters, Group B is engaging in social parasitism, partaking only of the advantages to themselves, while avoiding their natural consequences. Much the same as a welfare recipient benefits from a social safety not paid for by active workers, exploits a system without paying into it– Group B exploits Group A’s social setup that it cannot recreate on its own. Alternatively Group A might prevent Group B from settling in its territory. This would force Group B to live with the consequences of its ideology. Group B would be allowed to fail, and have the chance to learn from that failure, and enact reforms for a more stable society. Forcibly attempting to invade Group A’s territory, would show Group B its own impotence, and force it to contemplate the causes of that impotence. It will probably not draw the right conclusions, much as the Arabs in the aftermath of several lost wars, decided the solution was not a civilized society, but to replace Arab Socialism with Islamism. But they will have the time locked up in their own territory to contemplate and to change. They will have examples of what to become and what not to become. So long as there is distance, both groups can live with the consequences of their social setups. However once Group B migrates into the territory of Group A, so long as Group A tolerates it– it only needs to compete on demographics. And not on anything else. No matter what else Group A achieves, it will eventually be outnumbered by Group B. The resulting society will have the values and laws of Group B, unless Group A tries to maintain a tyranny. Even this will not avail it in the long run, as tyrannies must mimic the values of their subjects to be effective. If they fail, they will be toppled. So if Group A does nothing to change the terms of the competition, it is hopelessly doomed.
Group A’s problem is that its sophistication causes it to have a wider definition of cooperative groups than Group B does. Where Group B’s nexus of loyalty is blood kin, Group A compensates for the lesser role of the family by providing for multiple levels of social interdependency. Group B’s families can exploit these systems for the benefit of their own families, while retaining their blood ties as the primary nexus of loyalty. Its second nexus of loyalty is an ideology that encompasses all members of Group B, but none of Group A. So while Group A’s cooperation values lead it to try and cooperate with Group B, Group B has no such value system. When Group A looks at Group B it sees human beings, when Group B looks at Group A, it sees outsiders. So Group A will cooperate with Group B even at a loss for itself, but Group B will not cooperate with Group A unless there is a direct benefit to it, and sometimes not even then. As a result Group A keeps trying to cooperate with Group B, which instead of cooperating takes but doesn’t give, thereby destabilizing the social setup. If Group A continues to tolerate such behavior, members of Group A will try to begin joining Group B, to protect themselves or to gain advantages in the competition for resources. While members of Group A cannot be part of Group B’s primary nexus of loyalty, they can become part of its secondary nexus of loyalty. Within Group B, people who are protected by the secondary nexus, but are not blood kin, have a second class status. But within Group A, those who are members of Group A already hold third class status, because they have obligations to Group B, which has none to them. Since ordinary Group A citizens have become third class, those who are even part of Group B’s secondary nexus of loyalty are already a step ahead of them in the shifting landscape of the country. Since Group A’s society is cooperation based, it will try to accommodate Group B. However since Group B’s society is authoritarian based, it will refuse to accommodate Group A. The less clearly Group A insists on reciprocity in its social contract, the less Group B will cooperate with it, since it does not cooperate without gain for its nexus of primary loyalty. Group B’s rejection of interoperability cripples it socially, but not demographically. Group A’s openness enhances its skills, creativity and knowledge; but dooms it in the demographic competition. While Group A thinks that the net result of their interaction will be Group AB, Group B thinks that the net result will be Group BB. And while Group B is not entirely right, Group is entirely wrong, because while Group B will be influenced by Group A, it will still absorb it. Group A allows itself to be defeated by failing to meaningfully leverage its strengths, instead relying on a social and political model that is no longer relevant to the problem it faces. That is because like most societies and cultures, it has a blind spot when it comes to its own weaknesses, either refusing to recognize them, or insisting that they are actually strengths. Group B is doing the same thing, but by exploiting Group A, it has actually managed to take its greatest weakness and turn it into a limited strength. Group A has no one to exploit but itself. Its own system insures that its limited attempt to exploit Group B will cost it, more than it will cost Group B.
Group B’s authoritarian nature, its willingness to use force and its birth rates insure its victory, unless Group A changes the terms of the conflict, not through denial, but through a realistic assessment of the situation. Group A can either choose to submit and become part of the secondary nexus of loyalty in Group B, or even accept a lower status than that, or resist the occupation of its territory and its culture by Group B. Which means working to reverse the facts on the ground created by the invasion, loosening the social and economic footholds of Group B, and removing as much of Group B’s population from its territory as possible, while preventing further migrations. Like many cultures, the self-images of Group A and Group B vacillate between omnipotence and impotence. In the omnipotent state of mind, the group believes that it is invulnerable and destined to succeed. In the impotent state, it believes that it is doomed and completely incapable of doing anything to change that. This cultural form of manic depressive thinking can actually lead from one to the other. Both however are misguided and dangerous. A culture which feels that it has hit bottom, may rebound with a sense of false omnipotence by seizing on an old or new idea to reinvigorate its identity. And a culture which is cloaked in its own sense of omnipotence may be unwilling and incapable of recognizing how bad things have gotten, only to sink into impotence when it does. In this scenario Group A is suffering from impotence, while Group B is experiencing omnipotence. And few in either group understand how quickly the tables can be turned. But a cultural rebound can be just as destructive, because desperate people will seize on anything that offers them hope, without thinking it through. And hope without reason can be a very dangerous thing.
The Obama administration is backing legislation that would require United States businesses to provide to the government data about employee pay as it relates to sex, race and national origin of employees.
It’s not enough that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) already has all your work data. Now other government departments want to snoop deeper into your life. Under the guise of trying to ensure pay equity for women and minorities, Obama wants to have even more of your information.
In addition to giving the Federal government more data to mine about its citizens, this legislation puts more onerous regulations on businesses at a time when businesses need a break. This is further evidence the current administration is no friend to business or the American people.
Even more amazing is this comes from a man who won’t release a valid copy of birth certificate—not a certificate of live birth that anyone could obtain in Hawaii but a real birth certificate that names the delivering physician and can be used as an official document—his passport records or his college transcripts.
“The hope that fired up the election of Barack Obama has flickered out, leaving a national mood of despair and disappointment. Americans are dispirited over how wrong things are and uncertain they can be made right again. Hope may have been a quick breakfast, but it has proved a poor supper.” — Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief, US News & World Report, July 2, 2010
This from a man who on Fox News recently said he voted for Obama, his newspaper, the New York Daily News, endorsed Obama, and that he even helped one of his speeches!
The problem is an ancient one. How to remove from office a king or, in a republic, an elected leader who has broken the law and/or is perceived to be a threat to both the present and future of the nation? In earlier eras, the solution was usually bloody.
“Who will rid me of this meddling priest?” England’s King Henry II was reputed to have said of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1170, his complaint was obliged when Becket was murdered on a cold December evening.
I cite this famous quote only because the tide is rising among Americans who would be rid of Barack Obama. I would never suggest or condone the sword, but surely one would think we the People might have recourse to the courts or Congress.
The fear in both the courts and Congress is the torturous process involved and, of course, the outcome.
Twice in our history, impeachment has been tried and failed, first with Andrew Johnson whose Reconstruction policies following the Civil War were in much disfavor and, in more recent times, with Bill Clinton whose perjuries and other problems were not deemed to rise to a level worthy of removing him from office. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
As we head into Independence Day weekend, my column today reflects on the other “A” word missing from the immigration debate: Assimilation.
***
Assimilation and the Founding Fathers
by Michelle Malkin Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010
In his immigration speech on Thursday, President Obama heralded America as a “nation of immigrants” defined not by blood or birth, but by “fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear.” If only it were so. Left-wing academics and activists spurned assimilation as a common goal long ago. Their fidelity lies with bilingualism (a euphemism for native language maintenance over English-first instruction), identity politics, ethnic militancy and a borderless continent.
Obama blames “politics” for the intractable immigration debate. Whose politics? The amnesty mob has taken to ambushing congressional offices this week to scream at lawmakers to choose “reform” (giving a blanket path to citizenship to millions of illegal aliens) or “racism” (their description of any and every legislative measure to stiffen sanctions for and deter the acts of border-jumping, visa-overstaying and deportation-evading).
Is there no middle ground for all sides to agree that clearing naturalization application backlogs should take priority over expanding illegal alien benefits, or that tracking and deporting violent illegal alien criminals should take precedence over handing out driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, or that streamlining the employee citizenship verification process for businesses (E-verify) and fixing outdated visa tracking databases should come before indiscriminately expanding temporary visa and guest worker programs?
Must every response to even the most modest of immigration enforcement measures be “RAAAAACIST”?
Is Barack Obama an illegal president? Why has the long form birth certificate not been produced? Why is Obama using a social security number issued in the state of Connecticut when he never lived in that state? How did he work at Baskins Robbins in Hawaii years before obtaining this social security number? Why would someone spend $1 million to hide information if they weren’t guilty? Why is the MSM ignoring this issue? What are the secrets behind this president and who is involved in this cover-up? If you thought Watergate was bad, Obamagate could make it look like child’s play.
Tim Adams, the former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, says President Obama was "definitely" not born in Hawaii, and a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not exist in the state.
Video: Hawaii Election Clerk story grows on YouTube
Posted by Patrick on June 14, 2010 – Western Journalism
The Hawaii Election Clerk story has now broken in on YouTube, where thousands are beginning to watch.
Last week a former Hawaiian election official named Tim Adams, who now teaches in Kentucky, electrified the eligibility debate by claiming that it is an open secret in Honolulu that Obama was not born there. In addition, Adams was informed by his boss that they have no birth record for Obama.
In a further update today, Adams is now confirming that he is (willing to testify)… about these facts. Watch the video below and forward this page to anyone you know to get the word out. We will not let the media and the Obama administration cover this up.
The Hawaii Election Clerk story has now broken in on YouTube, where thousands are beginning to watch. Last week a former Hawaiian election official named Tim Adams, who now teaches in Kentucky, electrified the eligibility debate by claiming that it is an open secret in Honolulu that Obama was not born there. In addition, Adams was informed by his boss that they have no birth record for Obama. In a further update today, Adams is now confirming that he is (willing to testify)… about these facts. Watch the video below and forward this page to anyone you know to get the word out. We will not let the media and the Obama administration cover this up.
Gateway Pundit had John Burns as a guest writer discuss the current disposition of the Tea Party and where it is going. The press and liberal pundits like to say that the Tea Party is in decline. Like Mr. Burns writes, that is not true. He brings up a good point in that the Tea Party rallies were the birth of the grass roots conservative, constitutional movement. But we quickly realized that despite our numbers and protests we were not being heard. The statist, socialist agenda was going to be jammed down our collective throats whether we wanted it or not. The majority of the people in this great nation stood behind the Tea Party Patriots. Many joined us. Many stayed out of the fray yet silently supported the movement. But the people of this country do not want the statist agenda. So the Tea Party is adapting as Mr. Burns describes below. And understand, he is only 26 year old. There is a future for this country.
There’s been much ado recently about the decline of the Tea Party Movement. Pundits opine that we’re losing momentum, losing support, losing steam; “they just peaked too soon.”
Not True. Not by a long shot.
Years from now, historians will look back at the Tea Party Movement and divide it into two primary eras. Tea Party 1.0 was about the birth of the first massive, spontaneous grassroots movement in a generation. It was about rallying the troops and waking up America to realize that the inmates are running the asylum; that the first Manchurian Candidate became the first Manchurian President; that government programs and government spending were poised to destroy our children’s future. Tea Party 1.0 was the start of what I believe will prove to be the 4th Great Awakening in America. Tragically, we learned that rallies alone could not stop the powerful river of socialism from surging through our nation and our communities.
We recognized that a new focus was needed. Whereas before we would protest and rally, now we will activate, organize, and build.
This is not the beginning of the end for the Tea Party Movement, but merely the End of the Beginning.
Tea Party 2.0, is characterized by the swift march of Tea Party Patriots into political activism on a permanent basis. Tea Party 2.0 is an unstoppable freight train. Patriots will be just as active on November 3rd as they were on November 2nd. Because, win or lose, we’re fighting to WIN…permanently. Sure, this will take a number of years. But the election of Barack Obama and the hegemony of socialists in our government were not suddenly achieved overnight. After the protests and turmoil of the ‘60s, liberals marched into institutions of higher learning and bureaucracy, and they are now running them. Today, we are living in the world they built. Tomorrow, they shall live in ours.
In St. Louis we’ve just started organizing Block Captain Teams, which are similar to precinct captains, except that the teams don’t rely on a party for their strength, energy, or legitimacy. The teams are decentralized and don’t rely on a pecking order. Anyone can be a leader. And whereas precinct captains are only active during the campaign season, Block Captain Teams are in the field year-round. Anyone can become a Block Captain overnight, and anyone can start a Block Captain Team and start making a difference immediately. The Teams have many projects, including voter registration, Liberty Evangelism, activist trainings, candidate trainings, petition drive projects, volunteering with various candidate campaigns, and on and on.
I have read several articles lately rightfully claiming the Obama should be impeached. The power grab upon the United States parallels the likes of Hugo Chavez. Any one of these acts should be ground for impeachment, but our current Congress refuses to take action. Just about everything this administration has done goes against the Constitution, against states rights, against American citizens, against court rulings and against the will of the people. But he continues to march on destroying this country, transforming it into his socialist/Marxist vision with Obama being dictator-in-chief. He holds border security hostage for amnesty for illegals and threatens to use executive powers to achieve what Congress won’t pass, and then sues the state of Arizona for attempting to stop the invasion from Mexico. Then there is the takeover of the auto industry, banking industry, Wall Street, health care system…where do you stop.
WHO AM I?
“The hope that fired up the election of Barack Obama has flickered out, leaving a national mood of despair and disappointment. Americans are dispirited over how wrong things are and uncertain they can be made right again. Hope may have been a quick breakfast, but it has proved a poor supper.” — Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief, US News & World Report, July 2, 2010
