The left likes to call it the “birther” issue. The term birther is used as a derisive term by the left, much as truther is. Of course the difference is truthers beliefs are based on a paranoid ideology, where as the birther issue is based on facts.
I prefer to call it the eligibility issue, not the birther issue. Whether you agree or not, the people who are pushing the eligibility issue are on our side. It is certainly counter-productive to deride them like liberals do.
Recently a whole stream of Republicans have come out, at the prompting of the drive by media, to reassure us that Obama is a citizen and oh, yes, he is a Christian too.
Last Sunday, at the prodding of David Gregory on Meet the Press, or as Rush likes to call it, Meet the depressed, Boehner said, the State of Hawaii had said he was born there, that was good enough for him.
Karl Rove, not a friend of the Tea Party, pushed the RINO line that Obama is a citizen and Sarah Palin, at a meeting in Long Island, a few days ago, also denounced the eligibility issue. Palin ended her remarks on the subject by saying, “let’s stick with what really matters.”
This issue does matter.
There are three variations on the eligibility issue. Two are based on undisputed facts. The third is in dispute.
The most commonly reported of the eligibility challenges is the claim that Obama was actually born in Kenya, not Hawaii. I believe, based on the available evidence, that it is more likely than not, Obama was actually born in Hawaii. Obama has spent a lot of time and (other people’s) money, keeping his original birth certificate out of sight.
Jack Cashill is one of my favorite writers and he has a theory which I think makes sense, that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, but there is something else on his birth certificate that would destroy the myth of Barack Obama. (See his website, Cashill.com). In the law, there is a presumption that if a party has exclusive access to a piece of evidence and will not release it, the evidence must be adverse to their position.
The second eligibility issue is the claim that because Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan, a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth, he is not a natural born citizen.
The third is the argument that because Barack Obama was adopted as a child by an Indonesian and moved to Indonesia, he is not an American citizen. Under the law at that time, if an American child was adopted by a citizen of another country and moved to that country, he lost his citizenship. He could regain his citizenship by applying at an American Embassy when he was 18, but would then be treated as a naturalized citizen and thus ineligible to be President.
What is stunning about all of this is the mainstream Republican reaction to the eligibility issues.
The RINOs turn their noses up at the people who want the answers, which, incidentally is 60% of Republican voters. They turn their noses up at the Tea Party movement. Yet, they do not take a moment to consider why this is important.
If Barack Obama is proved to be ineligible to be President, everything he has done is wiped out. Obamacare is gone. The START treaty is gone. The liberal lunatics Obama has appointed to the Federal Judiciary, including the two he has put on the Supreme Court are gone.
Much of the damage Obama has done to this country can be undone. Unfortunately, the Country Club Republicans remain clueless. In their minds, the Democrats are simply the lower class versions of themselves. They do not understand that if the party of treason has its way, America will be forever changed and ultimately destroyed.
The Courts have so far brushed aside all of the eligibility claims. None have been addressed on the merits under the claim that Americans lack standing to challenge the issue. Recently, the Supreme Court has given some indication it may consider one of the issues. We can only hope.
What are the chances of success? Who knows?
Why do football teams run the flea flicker play? It does not work all of the time, but when it does, the results are spectacular. Why should conservatives all hope this works out? Because this wipes out almost everything the Obama regime has done. We get a do over.
You would think, even the RINOs who want to denigrate the eligibility issue could figure this one out.
Hank Williams Jr.: ‘We’ve Got a Muslim President Who Hates Farming, Hates the Military, Hates the U.S. and We Hate Him!’
NEWSWEEK: OBAMA'S GOTTA GO!
by Niall Ferguson
Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it's clear that the GOP ticket's parh to prosperity is our only hope.
Every conservative, heck, every American needs to go out and buy this mag if for no other reason than to send a message to the "lame stream"--start reporting the "truth" about BHO if you want to make a profit and be relevant! (oops, sorry, I forgot "profit" is a bad word nowadays in America-lol!!!)
The Defiant Ones
By Clarice Feldman
This week we saw one of the neatest political plays ever. Obama biographer Ed Klein says that about two weeks ago Valerie Jarrett, Obama's brain trust and manager of his Acme Campaign Strategy, offered Hillary Clinton a slot on the ticket as Obama's running mate and she turned it down. Perhaps Sarah Palin got wind of the offer and rejection, or maybe she intuited the White House was thinking of such a thing (as I did last week). In any event, shortly after the Jarrett-Clinton tête-à-tête, Joe Biden made another of his many classic goofy statements, telling a crowd his opponents would put "y'all in chains." (In the same week he indicated he thought we were in the 20th century and that Virginia was North Carolina.)
Timing is everything, and seeing her opening. Sarah suggested Obama replace Biden with Hillary.
Once again, she demonstrated her superb political skills. Her jibe locked Obama into running with Biden again; reminded Hillary supporters how much better a choice she would have been than Joe; showed how much smarter Sarah was than Biden, the dummy Obama ran with and whose constant gaffes (like Obama's) had been downplayed or covered up by a then love struck press.
With the number of people the Clintons killed, Obama would never offer the spot to Hillary. Kennedy made the mistake with Johnson. Reagan made the mistake with George HW Bush. You can not give the VP slot to someone with no ethics who longs to be President.
Conservative Offers $20,000 to Anyone Who Can Produce Obama’s College Transcripts
By Doug Giles
If you want to score twenty G’s this summer and garner at least thirty minutes of crazy fame then get busy rooting out Obama’s college transcripts.
This past Friday provocateur Brooks Bayne who runs TheTrenches.us asked me if I’d help get the word out about his offer of 20k to anyone who could produce what the White House does not want us to lay our eyes on, namely: BHO’s college docs.
I told Brooks, “Let me pray about it and I’ll get back with you.” Being a man of my word I knelt and prayed, “Lord, what would thou haveth me to doeth?” No sooner did I finish my supplication than a light shone in my office and an angel from heaven appeared and said in a high-pitched Chinese accent, “Do you really have to pray about this, numb nuts?” I was like, “Okay. I guess that’s a yes. Man, you’re an angry angel.”
The media clearly doesn’t give a rat’s backside about Obama’s international man of mystery status — especially in regard to his college days. What could possibly be in those transcripts that could be freakier than what we already know about the roots of Obama’s rage and his list of friends that makes the Star Wars bar scene look like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir?
There definitely must be some whacked crap in those ‘scripts because they’re being protected more stringently than our special forces military operations have been.
What could be so bad? Did he get a bunch of C’s and D’s? Did he get caught using the girls’ bathroom? Did he get disciplined for smacking his gum too loudly during Advanced Horse Hockey Studies in Alinsky’s Machinations class? What? It’s gotta be some damning stuff because 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue sure ain’t interested in it getting unearthed. And the media is completely dismissive of it as well, which tells me that there’s gold in them ‘thar hills!
Computer translations of several Arabic news websites seem to support WND’s report.
According to the Arabic reports, opponents of Morsi had been crucified and others had been publicly attacked and beaten during a recent rampage by Muslim Brotherhood “partisans.”
The violence apparently began as mobs surrounded a Cairo media center last week in anger about criticism of Morsi’s dismissal of military leaders and the Brotherhood’s securing of power.
According to The Algemeiner, a Jewish newspaper, Egyptian sources reported the following:
“A Sky News Arabic correspondent in Cairo confirmed that protestors belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood crucified those opposing Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi naked on trees in front of the presidential palace while abusing others. Likewise, Muslim Brotherhood supporters locked the doors of the media production facilities of 6-October [a major media region in Cairo], where they proceeded to attack several popular journalists.”
The mob attacks were also documented on the Egyptian website El Balad: “(On Aug. 8) thousands of the Muslim Brotherhood’s supporters” attacked 6-October’s media facilities, beat Khaled Salah—chief editor of the privately-owned and secular Youm 7 newspaper—prevented Yusif al-Hassani, an On TV broadcaster, from entering the building, and generally “terrorized the employees.”
El Balad also reports that when supporters of journalist Tawfik Okasha gathered at the presidential palace, they were surrounded by a Brotherhood mob who “attacked them with sticks, knives, and Molotov cocktails, crucifying some of them on trees, leading to the deaths of two and the wounding of dozens.”
Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy told WND that crucifixion is a punishment commanded by the Quran, Sura 5:33, and is part of Shariah law. “It’s been a traditional punishment within Islam since the beginning. … So, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood haven’t the option not to include crucifixion within their legal code.”
Of Obama, Christians and crucifixions
Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil
By Doug Hagmann
Founder and Director
Like most “average” Americans barraged by a daily onslaught of news headlines, sound bites and printed blurbs in newspapers and on the internet about current events, I’ve found it easy to become rather desensitized to the majority of “white noise” that has become the daily news. As such, it’s easy to lose sight of significant events or “game changers” amid the chatter of everyone behind a microphone, television camera or typing at a news terminal.
Now add to this explosion of news and knowledge one’s own career where we “average” people are busy trying to make a living, keep the lights on, food on the table and the proverbial wolves from our door, it’s easy to lose sight of important events taking place right in front of us. Done by design, it’s also easier to be deceived and fall for big lies as well as the smaller ones.
I’ve recently spoken to several people who, for the reasons stated above, were shocked and horrified about the news reports out of Egypt describing the barbaric crucifixions of opponents to the newly installed President Mohammed Morsi by “radical Muslims.” The people I’ve spoken with include those from both sides of the political divide and naturally have opposing viewpoints about the same headlines. Such dueling views caused me to set out seeking truthful, unbiased answers to the geopolitical movement known as the Arab Spring, the obvious springboard for events taking place across the Middle East.
To that end, I’ve researched and studied everything I could and read so many U.S. foreign policy documents that I thought my eyes would begin to bleed or my head would explode, noting that either scenario would delight my critics. I did not want answers based in partisan politics. I simply wanted the truth, and wanted the truth simply and plainly. I now find myself severely troubled at what I’ve found.