"In his address to Congress, President Obama made clear that he and his allies know how to spend your health-care money better than you do. It's a matter, you see, of 'shared responsibility': You share your dollars with the feds, and the feds are responsible for making your decisions. ... On 'shared responsibility,' the president brooks no dissent. 'Unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek -- especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions -- just can't be achieved,' he said. 'That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance.' This requirement is known as the 'individual mandate.' The president's proposal is historic -- though not in a good way. Never before has Congress forced Americans to buy a private good or service. In fact, for those with a traditional understanding of the Constitution as a charter of liberty (as opposed to the 'living' version), the list of Congress's powers in Article I, Section 8, grants it no authority to require any such thing. ... Requiring everyone to buy government-specified health insurance, whether they need it or not, is an unacceptable violation of personal liberty. It is a way of taxing healthy people without calling it a tax. Since that is an irresistible temptation to politicians, the list of required benefits would be certain to keep expanding. The choice between freedom and responsibility, as the president and his congressional allies portray it, is a false choice. We can and should have both." --The Heritage Foundation's Robert Moffitt
"The Founding Fathers established a system which meant a radical break from that which preceded it. A written constitution would provide a permanent form of government, limited in scope, but effective in providing both liberty and order. Government was not to be a matter of self-appointed rulers, governing by whim or harsh ideology. It was not to be government by the strongest or for the few. Our principles were revolutionary. We began as a small, weak republic. But we survived. Our example inspired others, imperfectly at times, but it inspired them nevertheless. This constitutional republic, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, prospered and grew strong. To this day, America is still the abiding alternative to tyranny. That is our purpose in the world -- nothing more and nothing less." --Ronald Reagan
"Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. ... Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.'" --Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)
"As Harvard economist Greg Mankiw writes, 'In light of the shifting baseline, it is impossible to hold the administration accountable for whether its policies are achieving their intended effects. The administration, however, has not been particularly forthright in admitting to this lack of accountability. Indeed, the act of releasing quarterly reports on how many jobs have been 'created or saved' gives the illusion of accountability without the reality'. This lack of accountability -- this claim of success no matter what happens -- should surprise no one. Many of us warned about it months ago. Remember, Obama didn't promise to create 3.5 million jobs. He promised to create or save that many. There is no way to test that. If you still have your job, does that mean Obama saved it? If an entrepreneur created a new job, in spite of Obama's destructive anti-business regulatory apparatus, does Obama still deserve the credit?" --columnist John Stossel
FOR THE RECORD
"[T]hough barely reported, Obama made this statement in his U.N. speech: 'We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals.' I'm not sure where he got the authority to make that unilateral declaration, but he nonetheless made it. I guess now that he's president, he can sometimes just issue fiats instead of having to deal with the cumbersome legislative process.... So why do you suppose the evil Bush administration opposed the innocuous-sounding 'Millennium Development Goals'? Well, how about its multi-pronged assault on America's national sovereignty? It commits participating nations to be bound by the International Criminal Court treaty; support regional disarmament measures for small arms and light weapons; and press for the full implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which Wikipedia describes as 'an international legally binding treaty' that includes among its goals a 'fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources,' the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, described as 'an international bill of rights for women,' and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which purports to be a 'legally binding international instrument' that gives children the right to express their own opinions 'freely in all matters affecting the child' and requires those opinions be given 'due weight.' The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as 'the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development.' Indeed, under President Obama, 'We Are the World.'" --columnist David Limbaugh
FAITH AND FAMILY
"In the midst of grappling with a scattering of thorny issues, President Barack Obama took time to lend a fatherly hand this week. Your little Jake, it seems, doesn't spend enough time under the gaze of the state. As it turns out, Jake is at a tragic disadvantage when competing against Yuri from Kazakhstan. If you believe this tale, the administration has an answer for you: Kill summer vacation, and add a few hours to the school day. 'Young people in other countries are going to school 25, 30 percent longer than our students here,' Secretary of Education Arne Duncan claimed. 'I want to just level the playing field.' He, generously, wants to level the playing field for your children. Hey, admittedly, I'm not a product of the dazzling Hungarian school system, yet I can't help but wonder: With the pitiful performance of so many of our school systems -- Duncan left Chicago's schools with a more than 40 percent dropout rate -- doesn't it seem counterintuitive to extend this interaction? Where, after all, is the evidence that longer days translate into smarter kids? We will hear all about Sweden, Belgium and Denmark's longer days and high test scores, but as The Associated Press points out, kids in the U.S. spend more 'hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests -- Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013).' In the U.S., we also piddle away more funding per student on education than nearly any other nation in the world. Employing Duncan's decidedly non-Singaporean calculus, this would necessitate a cut in education spending to achieve higher results and 'even the playing field.'" --columnist David Harsanyi
RE: THE LEFT
"Imagine how much worse our public schools would look -- assuming that were possible -- if we allowed other countries to exclude one-half of their worst performers! That's exactly what liberals are doing when they tout America's rotten infant mortality rate compared to other countries. They look for any category that makes our medical care look worse than the rest of the world -- and then neglect to tell us that the rest of the world counts our premature and low birth-weight babies as 'miscarriages.' As long as American liberals are going to keep announcing that they're embarrassed for their country, how about being embarrassed by our public schools or by our ridiculous trial lawyer culture that other countries find laughable?" --columnist Ann Coulter
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
(To submit reader comments visit our Letters to the Editor page.)
"In Alexander's essay, 'Not yours to give', he wrote, 'Today, there are but a handful of Senate and House incumbents who dare support and defend the Constitution as Crockett did. But there are candidates emerging around the nation who, with our support, will deliver orations as brazen and eloquent, and stand firm behind those words.' Please, Sir, tell us who they are and we'll vote for them!" --Westby, Wisconsin Editor's Reply: See the Republican Study Committee's members list and the American Conservative Union's Congressional Ratings.
"The provenance of the Ellis account of Crockett's statements is questionable. Did Crockett say what Ellis attributed to him in 'Not yours to give'?" --Los Angeles, California Editor's Reply: Ellis undoubtedly researched his account of Crockett's years in Congress, and his character in general, but as Alexander noted, "While the exact text of [Crockett's] speech was not transcribed (not the practice in those years), the spirit of his words in regard to those proceedings was captured in an 1867 Harper's Magazine article entitled 'Not yours to give' by Edward Ellis. There is, in fact, a congressional record of Crocket opposing a welfare bill similar to that referenced by Ellis. It is not known how much of Ellis's account is fact mixed with the annals of Crockett legend, but it is known that the account is consistent with Crockett's character, and his support for our Constitution."
"Alexander wrote a fine article about David Crockett and his friend Sam Houston. Houston did serve as Governor of Texas, but prior to that he held two terms as PRESIDENT of the Republic of Texas. Texas is the only state authorized to fly it's flag at the same height (to the left of course) as the National Flag, because it is the only state to have been recognized as an independent nation by the United States government (for a period of 10 years). Keep up the good work!"
"David Crockett said, he could 'eat a Mexican just put plenty of butter on his head.' Well, let me tell you, as much as I like Crockett, I disagree with him on eating a Mexican. I am a Mexican and I am full of real hot pepper. I eat hot pepper with my refried beans, my tortillas and my tacos. I eat very hot salsa in my pancakes and on eggs, and I eat four or five time a day. If he tried to eat me up, he would light up on fire." --Houston, Texas Editor's Note: We did not make this up.
THE LAST WORD
"It's hard out there for a first lady of the United States. Take it from travel-weary Michelle Obama. On Tuesday night, she boarded a luxury 757 for Copenhagen. Think of the stairs she had to climb. Oh, the agony of the feet! Upon arrival, Mrs. O, her 'chit-chat buddy,' Chicago-based talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey, and Chicago powerbroker/interest-conflicted real estate mogul/senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett immediately embarked on a grueling, grip-and-grin campaign to secure the Olympics for their hometown. Our smile muscles ache in sympathy. You will be comforted to know that the gracious FLOTUS feels your pain for her pain. 'As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days,' the first lady told a group of fellow Chicago 2016 boosters, 'so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home.' Translation: Thank me, thank you, for all we do. Never has self-congratulatory gratitude been raised to such an art form, but there was no time for loyal subjects to dwell." --columnist Michelle Malkin
Veritas vos Liberabit -- Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot's editors and staff.
THE PATRIOT POST. COM
MONDAY, 05 OCTOBER 09
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