ONE OF THE MOST DISCOURAGING ASPECTS
of the crisis the Nation has been plunged into since the election and inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama, the Usurper, has been the continuing support and adulation lavished on the Obama Administration by the Main Stream Media. The conservative talk show radio commentators have always been hostile to Obama and the extreme left-liberal policies he seeks to implement, but, aside from Fox News there are few dissenting voices to be found in the broadcast and cable electronic media. In the print media the lonely voices of The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times and The Investors’ Business Daily have hardly had a chance to influence public opinion given the preponderance of the liberal voices in publication such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe and most of the remaining print media.
Yet, in spite of the popularity of the Left-Liberal blogs, such as The Huffington Post (the number one blog in the world) the wee voice of conservative blogs like this Blog, joined to the other conservative voices have begun to have an impact on the American public. Current polls show the dramatic shift in public opinion away from approval of Obama and his programs.Of course, part of the reason (perhaps the major part) for the shift is Obama himself. In the first 200 days of his administration Obama has given over 230 speeches plus innumerable other public utterances. People have finally begun to see through his rhetoric and to realize that ‘the emperor has not clothes.‘
In two areas especially the vacuum of leadership of Obama has become increasingly apparent. First, his abdicating to Congress (especially to Nancy Pelosi) full responsibility for the drafting of the health care reform legislation has brought us to the present stalemate. Second, his love affair with Hugo Chavez has caused him to alienate many Americans who value freedom for us and for others because of his walking lock-step with Chavez in supporting the ex-President of the Honduras who was legally removed from office by the Legislature and Supreme Court of that Country for violating that Country’s Constitution. Obama, who has said that our own Constitution is a “flawed document” thus demonstrated that he really does not have any respect for the limitations imposed by any constitution.
We can begin to have a little more hope that the American people will continue to lose confidence in the Obama administration when the left-liberal main stream press begins to comment on the danger Obama’s policies pose for the United States and the world. Is such a trend beginning? Two editorials in today’s WASHINGTON POST give me some hope that it has begun. I pray that it will continue and will accelerate.
- Leo Rugiens
Mr. Obama's Prescriptions
The president offers more specifics on health reform but still leaves key questions unanswered.
The Washington Post
Thursday, 10 September 09
"THE TIME for bickering is over," President Obama declared Wednesday night. Perhaps that will work better on members of Congress than it does in some families of our acquaintance, but we have our doubts. Mr. Obama spoke Wednesday night to a nation skeptical of his health-care plans and a Congress divided, within the Democratic Party as well as between Democrats and Republicans, about the proper approach. The president was more prescriptive than he has been previously in detailing what he wants the legislation to contain and how it should be paid for; this specificity was welcome, and much of the president's approach is sensible.
But he chose again to duck the biggest dispute of all: whether the new insurance exchange must contain a government-run "public option." Mr. Obama once again outlined the arguments for a public plan and once again said it was not essential. Perhaps the president's advisers made the right political calculation in determining that Wednesday night was not the time to embrace a particular alternative, such as nonprofit cooperatives or a trigger under which a plan would be created only if private insurers do not reduce premium costs to a certain level. But this laissez-faire strategy guarantees that the rather peripheral debate over the public option will continue to dominate the health-care discussion.
Mr. Obama sketched out a measure that would cost $900 billion over the next decade -- about three-fourths the size that the administration initially envisioned but still containing the basic elements of universal coverage. The money would come from an amalgam of savings in federal health spending programs and a new tax on insurance companies that offer plans costing more than a set amount. This is an ungainly and inefficient, but politically safe, way to approach the goal of limiting the amount of health benefits that can be offered tax-free.
The president extended something of an olive branch to conservatives pressing for limits on malpractice lawsuits, but it remains to be seen whether his proposed demonstration projects are a sturdy limb or mere twig. The medical malpractice system is an expensive lottery that does a poor job of both assigning blame and compensating victims; the threat of liability encourages some doctors to order unnecessary tests and procedures. Mr. Obama's pilot projects -- which the Bush administration discussed but never got around to implementing -- may be useful but are hardly a major overhaul of a flawed system.
Likewise, the president's suggestion for a "fiscal trigger" strikes us as contrived. Mr. Obama announced a mechanism by which the president would have to certify, before the measure goes into effect in 2013, that the planned expansion of coverage remains fully paid for. If not, additional savings would have to be found, or spending scaled back. This doesn't seem like a major means of restraint -- especially when the president's Office of Management and Budget would do the calculating. The real need for a trigger mechanism arises once the plan goes into effect. How can the brakes be put on if planned savings don't materialize or if costs are higher than anticipated?
On that score, a new study of the projected costs of the House version of reform offers some chilling numbers. During the second 10 years in which the measure would be in effect, the Lewin Group study found, the expanded coverage would add more than $1 trillion to the deficit. In that case, the cure would be worse than the disease. It is essential, in the coming weeks, that the president hew to his promise that whatever plan emerges won't make the country's dire fiscal situation even worse.
A Friend to Iran
Does the Obama administration know what Venezuela is doing to assist Tehran's weapons programs?
THE WASHINGTON POST
Thursday, 10 September 09
DEBATES IN Washington about Hugo Chávez often end with the dismissive conclusion that the Venezuelan strongman poses no threat to the United States. If that's right, it's not because he isn't trying. For years he has been traveling the world in an effort to build alliances with present or former U.S. enemies, from Cuba to Vietnam. He dreams of standing at the head of a global anti-American military alliance. Most of his efforts have been rebuffed; some have produced mere buffoonery, like his annual, ludicrous love-fest with Belarusan dictator Alexander Lukashenko.
But Mr. Chavez has clearly forged a bond with one leader who is as reckless and ambitious as he is: Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The growing fruits of this relationship, and its potential consequences for U.S. security, have not gotten as much attention as they deserve.
Mr. Chávez was in Tehran again this week and offered his full support for Mr. Ahmadinejad's hard-line faction. As usual, the caudillo made clear that he shares Iran's view of Israel, which he called "a genocidal state." He endorsed Iran's nuclear program and declared that Venezuela would seek Iran's assistance to construct a nuclear complex of its own. He also announced that his government would begin supplying Iran with 20,000 barrels of gasoline a day -- a deal that could directly undercut a possible U.S. effort to curtail Iran's gasoline imports.
Such collaboration is far from new for Venezuela and Iran. In the past several years Iran has opened banks in Caracas and factories in the South American countryside. Manhattan district attorney Robert Morgenthau, who has been investigating the arrangements, says he believes Iran is using the Venezuelan banking system to evade U.S. and U.N. sanctions. He also points out that Iranian factories have been located "in remote and undeveloped parts of Venezuela" that lack infrastructure but that could be "ideal . . . for the illicit production of weapons."
"The opening of Venezuela's banks to the Iranians guarantees the continued development of nuclear technology and long-range missiles," Mr. Morgenthau said in a briefing this week in Washington at the Brookings Institution. "The mysterious manufacturing plants, controlled by Iran deep in the interior of Venezuela, give even greater concern."
Mr. Morgenthau's report was brushed off by the State Department, which is deeply invested in the Chávez-is-no-threat theory. State "will look into" Mr. Morgenthau's allegations, spokesman Ian Kelly said Wednesday. Meanwhile, Mr. Chávez is off to Moscow, where, according to the Russian press, he plans to increase the $4 billion he has already spent on weapons by another $500 million or so. Mr. Chávez recently promised to buy "several battalions" of Russian tanks. Not a threat? Give him time.
BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).
He is not eligible
because he was not born of
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.
Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS
“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”
- Leo Rugiens