When Congressman Joe Wilson’s shouted “You lie!”
directed at Barack Hussein Obama, the Usurper,
during his speech to the joint-session of Congress last Wednesday
he followed in the long tradition of heckling of presidents of both parties at such events.
So it was not the fact that he heckled that shocked me and everyone else that heard him, but what he said. As Mark Steyn points out in the transcript of his interview with Hugh Hewitt on Hewitt’s radio program, parliamentarians can shout almost anything except “fire” and “you lie.” Steyn also comments on the shocking revelation that ACORN workers actually engaged in felonious activity when they helped a young couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute buy a house to open up a brothel employing minor girls from Central America as prostitutes. [http://www.biggovernment.com/] I suspect that there is no kind of illegal activity ACORN workers are capable of in addition to the many cases of voter fraud with which they have been charged. The scary thing is that now that the most famous community organizer, Barack Hussein Obama, who himself once worked for ACORN now occupies the Oval Office and with the millions of dollars his administration is pouring into the coffers of ACORN
it may be next to impossible to dislodge the Obamacrats from office in any election.
Here is a transcript of Mark Steyn’s interview with Hugh Hewitt yesterday.
- Leo Rugiens
Mark Steyn on presidents, prostitutes, & the post-American world
Friday, September 11, 2009 at 12:38 AM
HH: We begin as we do every Thursday when we’re lucky with a man who does not lie, Mark Steyn, Columnist To the World. You can read all of Mark’s work at www.steynonline.com. Mark, by British standards, Congressman Wilson was rather tame last night. But he’s apologized, and the President has accepted it, and I’m glad that happened. What did you think?
MS: Well, in fairness, I think under
HH: Oh, so he even crossed the British line? Ok.
MS: Yes, so you can say pretty much anything other than that they lied. But in this case, you know, given that the consistent feature of the President throughout this debate, including in his joint address to Congress is that those of us who happen to have a different view of the best way of providing for health care in an advanced society are arguing from bad faith, and spreading misinformation, and lying, and all the rest of it. Given that he imputes bad faith to his political opponents consistently, around the clock, week in, week out, I mean, I’m inclined to give your guest a pass on this business.
HH: Well, I think he should have shouted out wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, because the fact of the matter is, Mark Steyn, at every hospital in America, both now and after any bill passes on the Congressional side, no matter what’s in it, illegal immigrants will receive health care, and they will not be billed for it, and that vast gap in our health care financing system will not be closed.
MS: No, and I think in certain parts of the country, that may well overwhelm the system as it’s already doing, for example, in emergency rooms in California. This explains, I think, broadly speaking, the amazing audacity, to use his word, of the President in his speech last night, reducing the number of uninsured in
HH: Now Mark Steyn, I do not believe this speech effectively changed a single mind in
MS: No, I would agree on that. For a start, I thought it was the wrong setting, because I think this is personal for many Americans. It’s understandable when you look back that most presidents use joint addresses, generally speaking, for foreign policy, for affairs of state. This isn’t an affair of state for most Americans. It’s something, it’s not like war with some foreign country you’ve barely heard of on the other side of the Earth. This is personal. It’s about you and your body. What the President has done through his glib and evasive rhetoric these last couple of months has put a big question mark over what most people feel are their own personal health care arrangements. And that’s nothing to do with moderate Republicans, blue dog Democrats. It’s not essentially a Congressional problem of parliamentary finesse. He’s lost touch with a big swathe of moderate, centrist Americans on this, because he’s put a big, big question mark over something that’s very personal, and very central to their lives, and he didn’t do anything to reassure them on that last night.
HH: Mark Steyn, he closed with an evocation of Ted Kennedy, and the character of
MS: Yes. Basically, everybody who likes Ted Kennedy is already on board with this plan. Ted Kennedy, the idea that Ted Kennedy, who is one of the most controversial and divisive figures in American politics…
MS: …is going to posthumously reunite the country in a bipartisan stampede toward government health care is preposterous. Now you say the President must be really in a bubble, and I think to a certain extent, he is. He and his advisors, as Peggy Noonan wrote a few days ago, are generally young and to some extent, they lack a kind of wise, old bird among them to counsel caution, if you like. But I think actually in some ways, that’s their advantage, that if they’re young and ruthless and determined enough to ram this thing down the throats of America in some form or other, they may get away with it. And Karl Rove was positing that scenario in the Wall Street Journal today, and saying it would be a huge mistake. I agree with Karl up to a point. I think that is what Obama is considering, but it may not be a mistake. He may just pull it off. He may be prepared to take the hit in 2010, and ram this thing through, and change the American political landscape forever.
HH: I think you’re right. It will come down to whether or not there are enough Democrats who will lemming-like go over the cliff for the benefit of President Obama’s vision for
HH: What do you make of this?
MS: Well, this is a story in which he’s got some amazing footage of ACORN officials telling [a couple posing as] a pimp and a prostitute how to lie to the IRS, and how to claim mythical, underage dependents in exotic lands as dependents for taxation purposes and various other things. It’s fascinating stuff, because it’s a glimpse of what community organization is in action. Community organization means bigging up your base. And if necessary, that means conscripting all kinds of peculiar figures, including pimps, prostitutes and their various fictional or real dependents in foreign lands, and claiming benefits for them. And it’s absolutely outrageous that actually more of this wasn’t exposed in the campaign, because Obama’s connection to ACORN, and his willingness to give ACORN a role in the United States Census, puts a huge question mark over the reliability of government data, and over U.S. elections, not so much in blue and red states, but in purple states, it puts a big question mark over the integrity of those elections.
HH: It was the second ACORN story this week. There was one in
HH: As it is, I don’t know that it moves farther. But if there are other shoes that dropped, does this become a major scandal?
MS: Yes, I think so, because what is odd to me, if you look for example at the way Republicans are always being called on to distance themselves from their so-called lunatic fringe, the pattern here is that on the other side of the aisle, there is a lunatic mainstream. ACORN should not be a respectable group, and should not be anywhere near the United States Census. But as we saw with the Van Jones story, no matter how radical you are, on the left, it’s very easy for the most extreme radical to get right up close to the levers of power in the
HH: Mark Steyn, always bracing, thank you, friend.
End of interview.
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