Back to Basics

But first; does one actually exist in our country?  From all appearances it would not seem that a judge who would rule fairly and constitutionally on the question of eligibility of Barack H. Obama to rule as President and Commander in Chief of our armed services can be found.

As reported online in the American Grand Jury article “Md. Judge Denies Request for Obama’s School Records” (that could include a copy of Obama’s birth certificate) September 02, 2010 it becomes obvious there are none.

Our collection of judges may have many, if not all, who could be in a position of being able to rule fairly and Constitutionally on such a question as Obama’s eligibility but finding just one who is not in fear of making such a ruling or is not in the pockets of those who favor leaving the question unanswered, as the presidential usurper does, is doubtful.  Just ask attorneys Phillip Berg or Orly Taitz who have seen judges turn on them for trying.

I am of the opinion that most of our judges who swear to uphold the Constitution before they can become a judge, rapidly determine not to uphold it once they have their plum of acceptance because if they practiced law in accordance with that all-important document they could not legislate from their position on the bench as they all do once the ego factor consumes any common sense they may have once had.

Now we have another self-important judge, Army Col. Denise R. Lind, ruling against a decorated veteran of our military forces, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin; an 18 year career of bravery and honor and unconditional service to our country, and an obviously intimidated and cowardly court official in fear of ruling against a sitting president, deciding that it was “not relevant” for the military to be considering such claims.

Basically, what that means is that if you are in the military you no longer have protection under the Constitution; that very document that you swore to uphold on entry into military service.  This spineless dispenser of judicial equality feels that the chain of command in the military that led up to the Pentagon should have been sufficient for Lt. Col. Lakin.  Apparently overlooked by this judge was that Obama, as Commander in Chief, is the overall authority for all the military services.

To say that the authority ends at the Pentagon is grossly incorrect.  That is like saying that the chain of command for family discipline leads up to the oldest son, instead of the father.  Obama makes a big point of being the Commander in Chief and though never having had to render a salute in all of his life before, now relishes in returning the salute from the military people as he debarks from Air Force One.

And if Judge Lind is correct, what is the purpose in having people entering the military service swear to uphold the Constitution?  Why swear to uphold something that does not apply to you?

This morning, President Obama was asked if he regrets his administration branding the past three months of economic misery as “Recovery Summer.”

His answer: “I don’t…”

I can’t blame him, really. Who couldn’t be fully recovered after this kind of a summer:

I feel more rested & recovered just looking at the pictures.

When they dubbed it “Recovery Summer,” nobody thought they were talking about us, did they?

Update: By way of HotAir, here’s an actual Time headline: What’s good about rising unemployment

Note the distinct lack of a question mark at the end.

Update II: Robert Reich didn’t get the memo that Recovery Summer was a huge success.

Whether it’s Newsweek being sold to the husband of a Democratic congresswoman for a dollar, or ABC deciding to turn This Week into a BBC program by turning over to Christiane Amanpour, last week the dying media itself provided us with two examples of why it’s dying. By choosing radicalism over readers, the media continues narrowing its own readership and viewership, pursuing ideological purity, not only over integrity, but even over its own profits and future viability.

Take ABC’s news division, which has always been notorious for its political radicalism and distaste for the average American viewer. Whether it was Peter Jennings comparing American voters to “a nation two-year olds” throwing a tantrum for voting in a Republican congress in 1994 (expect this metaphor to make a comeback after these midterm elections) or Ted Koppel turning the names of dead servicemen into an anti-war statement (Koppel was the alternative candidate to take over This Week), this has been the ABC way. But turning over This Week to Christiane Amanpour is part of the growing blend of ABC News and the BBC.

The question though is who is Christiane Amanpour meant to appeal to? To viewers who wanted another foreign talking head snootily reading the news at them, not to them. Who were desperately longing for an ABC News on air personality sympathetic to Islamic terrorists? And why would those people even bother with ABC News, when they already have the BBC.

The problem with the American media is that it doesn’t speak to Americans. That’s why FOX News is successful, and CNN is in the basement. Network news exists underwritten by medication and mutual fund commercials, and even so it’s losing money. ABC News is making severe cutbacks even while cutting Amanpour a 2 million dollar paycheck for a show hardly anyone watches anymore. And despite investing in a splashy media rollout for the Amanpour branded This Week, she finished a distant third, well behind Meet the Press. While viewers normally tune in to see a new host, the addition of Amanpour couldn’t even compete with CBS or NBC’s own similarly decaying programs on the day of her own debut.

The left is furiously blasting Washington Post TV Critic Tom Shales for stating what was obvious to everyone, that Amanpour is out of place, completely clueless about US politics and insists on internationalizing domestic issues. But shooting the messenger won’t save Amanpour. Her hiring is only the latest manifestation of a media that is too radicalized to save itself. Bringing in a personality from the sinking ship that is CNN was obviously a bad idea on commercial grounds alone. Amanpour left CNN, for the same reason that Campbell Brown did. And ABC News taking Amanpour in, demonstrates that they share CNN’s bad judgment.

Unlike ABC producers, Americans are not interested in an “outsider’s perspective” on American politics. They can get that from the White House. Threatening to stab Tom Shales with a knife won’t change that either.

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.

So, too, is the issue of Obama’s citizenship and eligibility. The fix is in, even though the evidence that he is not a natural-born citizen, and therefore ineligible to hold the office, far exceeds evidence that he is.

The Republican governor in Hawaii says a birth certificate exists but she has sealed access to it, thereby eliminating one avenue of determining whether he was born in Hawaii, as he says, or in Kenya, as Michelle Obama, several of Obama’s Kenyan relatives (his paternal grandmother, half sister and half brother) and a couple of Kenyan officials have said. And for you Obama sycophants, don’t even bring up the certificate of live birth (COLB) posted online as proof. The COLB was available to anyone. It is not a legal document, does not list the attending physician, does not include his fingerprints or footprints, could not have been used to obtain his passport and is only a diversion to a weak-minded press and public.

Earlier this year a senior Honolulu elections clerk went on local television and said that it was common knowledge among election officials that no official birth certificate — he called it the long-form birth record — exits in Hawaii, despite what Governor Linda Lingle has said.

The whole situation remains a muddle, just as Obama and his handlers want it. Documents disappear. Other documents crop up — some that cast more doubt on his story and some that seem at first glance to support his claims but simply serve to send the discussion on a tangent.

Not too long ago, school teacher Jason Levin founded the “Crash the Tea Party” movement — and from that point on it backfired on him like a poorly maintained 1971 Buick Skylark (Michelle covered the crashclowns here, here and here).

With the future of Levin’s school teaching career in question, he resigned from his job this past week and is now unemployed:

Beaverton middle school teacher Jason Levin, who founded the now notorious “Crash the Tea Party” website, is no longer a teacher.

Share District officials would not say why Levin was facing dismissal, but that it followed an internal investigation into his use of public resources and time spent at school.

“There was some question whether that conduct occurred during the work day,” Osterink said of Levin’s work on the website.

Reached today, Levin said, “My attorney has advised me not to comment.”

Levin, a media lab technology teacher at Conestoga Middle School, drew international attention last spring after creating crashtheteaparty.org. The now defunct site had said it was part of a national movement to “dismantle and demolish the tea party by any nonviolent means necessary.”

The site encouraged people to infiltrate the tea party, then misspell protest signs, make wild claims during interviews and perform other public actions that would damage the public’s opinion of the tea party.

Poor guy probably started out thinking that it didn’t matter if he lost his teaching job because he’d be heading up a large national organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of Hope & Change by now. Instead, he’s missed out on another “teacher stimulus” served up by the people he was protecting from the evil Teabaggers, and because he resigned from his job instead of waiting to be fired, he may have prevented himself from getting a cut of unemployment benefits that have been extended to the Second Coming. Come on, pal, Obama can only help those who help themselves.

Reasons for the rapid extinction of “Crash the Tea Party”? Overkill is one:

Another problem was that the “infiltrators” were just plain idiots.

Maybe Levin can get a job as the next spokesman for Geico. What? Oh, nevermind.

When I consider the brouhaha over the mosque at Ground Zero, the question that springs to mind isn’t why Islamics chose such a provocative site, but, rather, why so many Americans feel compelled to pander to Muslims.

Now, I understand that Mayor Bloomberg, being a New York liberal, assumes he is the perfect person to lecture the rest of us about religious tolerance. Lecturing, after all, is what liberals think they’re best at, be it from a political dais, a college lectern, a judicial bench or the editorial page of the New York Times. Still, with the enthusiastic endorsement of his colleagues in the media, Bloomberg takes idiocy to new levels. He actually believes that Muslims should be encouraged to erect a 13-story victory structure on sacred ground because we live in a democracy. On the other hand, this lover of freedom and liberty, Nanny Bloomberg, has taken it upon himself to deprive New Yorkers of their right to consume trans fats and salt.

I certainly understand why Barack Obama’s initial instinct was to back the building of the mosque, and it certainly wasn’t just because he was addressing a group of Muslims at a Ramadan dinner. That was certainly the venue, and Obama, like most people, enjoys applause, which is why we always get to see him addressing union members and deep-pocket Democrats at fund-raising events. But the main reason he backed the mosque is because, no matter where he may have been born, there is a basic disconnect between him and this nation.

That may sound far-fetched, considering that he was elected president of the United States less than two years ago, garnering about 63 million votes. But that was after he and the MSM had successfully pulled the wool over a great many eyes. He has now had time to show his true colors in his America-bashing speeches; by his banishing the little statue of Churchill, while kowtowing to Saudi royalty; by his assuming with no facts at hand that a white Cambridge police officer was stupid and clearly in the wrong; by refusing to connect the Fort Hood assassin or any of the other terrorists with Islam; declining even to prosecute the New Black Panthers for intimidating white voters. Heck, this clown won’t even cross his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

I used to be so naïve that I assumed the reason that Obama attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s racist church for 20 years was merely a means to worm his way into Chicago’s black community so that he could pursue a career in politics. I have since come to believe that Obama shares Wright’s disgusting beliefs. I believe the reason that he, unlike most Americans, Democrats included, think it’s a swell idea for the 13-story mosque to be erected is because, like his religious mentor, he is convinced that 9/11 was a case of America’s chickens coming home to roost.

Michigan State University seems to have a problem. It has failed to teach its student agitators how to engage in civil discourse with opponents.

Flashback: December 1, 2006 – Mob rule at Michigan State University

Flashback: January 26, 2009 – 3 students arrested in Gaza protest

Two of those students, who were charged with trespassing during an anti-Israel protest at Michigan Democrat Sen. Carl Levin’s office in the incident last year, have now been implicated in an appalling assault on Levin today, via the Detroit Free Press:

U.S. Sen. Carl Levin got an apple pie – no whipped cream or ice cream on top either – in the face this morning during a question-and-answer session for the Mecosta County Democrats at a Big Rapids deli after being criticized by a young man for his stance on foreign policy and defense of Israel.

Witnesses at Pepper’s Café and Deli said as the Detroit Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee asked the audience to let the man have his say, a young woman circled behind him and squashed a pie into the 76-year-old Levin’s face.

…Big Rapids police said the woman, 22-year-old Ahlam Mohsen of Coldwater was arrested not far from the deli and charged with assault and disorderly conduct. It was not immediately clear this afternoon if she was still being held.

Nico Rubello, a reporter for the Big Rapids Pioneer, said Levin stuck around and answered more questions after the incident. His newspaper reported that the man who asked the question was Max Kantar, 23, of Big Rapids. It also quoted Mohsen as saying, “We wanted to target Levin today to send a message that liberals and Democrats are just as implicated in the violence (of war) as the Republicans.”

Pathetic. Levin issued a statement noting that these punks only hurt themselves — a point I’ve made for years after repeated physical assaults by the Left on conservative speakers and public figures.

But don’t look for any hysterical columns from Krugman or Rich on the “insane rage” of campus Israel-haters any time soon.

***

Flashback: Tomato Man: Another addition to the Unhinged mugshot collection

Never missing an opportunity to apologize for, or demean, America, President Barack Obama has decided to send an envoy to commemorate the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima 65 years ago tomorrow, August 6.

As reported at Breitbart.com, in part:

“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday that US President Barack Obama “thought it appropriate” to recognize Japan’s atomic bomb anniversary as he wants to rid the world of nuclear arms.

“The United States, 65 years after a mushroom cloud rose over Hiroshima, will for the first time send an envoy this Friday to commemorate the bombing that rang in the nuclear age.

“President Obama is very committed to working toward a world without nuclear weapons,” even if he sees it as a “long-term goal,” Clinton told reporters when asked for comment on the anniversary.

“I think that the Obama administration and President Obama himself believe that it would be appropriate for us to recognize this anniversary and has proceeded to do so,” she said.”

Like Osama bin Laden, that other world famous anti-American Muslim lunatic, Obama sees all issues through his “I hate America” eyes.

A question for the president seems appropriate: If the nation of Japan had won the race to develop the A-bomb, would the Japanese have refused to use the weapon against America out of humanitarian concern?

Would Emperor Hirohito have chosen to lose the war if necessary in order to avoid using the bomb on America?

Of course the question is silly. But it serves to point out the childish perspective of our community organizer who has no business being Commander-in-Chief.

The last time I recall the nation being this concerned over the state of the presidency was during the Lewinsky scandal and ensuing impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. Before that it was during the slow revelation of the Watergate scandal that finally forced Richard Nixon’s resignation.

On Thursday, July 22, an editorial opinion by Tom Tancredo in The Washington Times called for the impeachment of President Obama. A column by Jeffrey Kuhner was titled “President’s socialist takeover must be stopped.”

Tancredo, a former five-term member of Congress, is now the chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation. Kuhner, a Times columnist, is president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

Burke, an Irish orator, philosopher and politician (1729-1797) is best known for his warning that “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”, but he also said, “Men have no right to put the well-being of the present generation wholly out of the question. Perhaps the only moral trust with any certainty in our hands is the care of our own time.”

It is the conceit of every generation that those that preceded it were less sophisticated, but it is clear from Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper number 65, published in the New York Packet on March 7, 1788, that the question of impeachment as defined in the Constitution was being debated, the subtleties of the issue were not only understood by the author, but by Americans of his era as well.

Hamilton wrote: “A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.”

The removal of Barack Hussein Obama from the office of the presidency is increasingly spoken of among concerned Americans and now has risen to the level of discussion in print. The two Times articles enumerated the reasons why.

Tancredo began by reminding us that “every citizen elected to serve in Congress or any person appointed to any federal position” must swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

“For the first time in American history,” said Tancredo, “we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.” Going straight to the heart of the issue confronting all Americans, Tancredo said, “Our president is an enemy of the Constitution and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security, and our personal freedoms.”

Kuhner wrote that Obama is “slowly, piece by piece, erecting a socialist dictatorship.

There’s a new outbreak of disorder at the southern border this weekend.

The AP reports on gun battles plaguing the region across from Laredo, Texas:

Late-night gunbattles with gangs who forced citizens from their cars and used the vehicles to block streets paralyzed a border city, sound of gunfire alarmed Texans on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande.

The Nuevo Laredo city government posted messages on Facebook warning citizens to stay indoors as the battles erupted at several intersections in the city across from Laredo, Texas.

Frightened people on the U.S. side of the border called emergency dispatchers after hearing the gunfire, Laredo police spokesman Joe Baeza said Thursday. But he said there was no spillover violence.

“We were getting reports from people who live on the river’s edge that they could hear gunfire and explosions from the Mexico side,” Baeza said.

“We didn’t have any incidents on the American side. It’s hard for people to understand who don’t live here,” he added. “They’re not Vikings, they’re not going to invade us, it doesn’t work that way.”

Nuevo Laredo city officials said they could not immediately confirm witness reports that several gunmen were killed.

Despite those denials, rumors are swirling of a Zetas-led invasion into Texas ranches. Digger’s Realm, a veteran immigration blogger, has the story:

The bloodbath continues along our southern border and now word is coming in that Los Zetas, the highly trained killers formerly with the Gulf Cartel, have crossed into the United States and taken over at least two ranches in the Laredo, Texas area. I am receiving word that the owners of the ranches have evacuated without being harmed. The source is law enforcement in the area.

(Update 2 story is now 100% confirmed by second source within the Laredo Police Department)

Founder of the San Diego Minutemen Jeff Schwilk tipped me off to this story and passes along the following information on the location. The ranches are said to be “near Mines Rd. and Minerales Annex Rd about 10 miles NW of I-35″.

Update 1 (Statement from Mr. Schwilk)

I can personally vouch that this info came in late last night from a reliable police source inside the Laredo PD. There is currently a standoff between the unknown size Zeta forces and U.S. Border Patrol and local law enforcement on two ranches on our side of the Rio Grande. The source tells us he considers this an “act of war” and that the military is needed on the border now!

More from Kimberly Dvorak at the San Diego Examiner.

***

Update: Elizabeth Kilbride has contradictory info from the Laredo PD regarding the rumored ranch seizures:

Individuals who have flooded the switchboards of the Laredo Police Department and the Webb Sheriff’s Department have been asking one question: is there a problem down along the border? They have received the same response just as I received when I asked the same question, “Yes, there is a problem down here and it’s serious,” said one law enforcement source.