CAN OUR CONSTITUIONAL REPUBLIC BE SAVED FROM TOTAL CONVERSION INTO A SOCIALIST AUTOCRACY? HERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF HOPE THAT IS NOT OBAMA STYLE HOPE

Thursday, June 11th, 2009


"Last week one of our local soldiers, Sargeant First Class John C. Beale, fell during action in Afghanistan and will be returning home tomorrow, June 11, 2009. Members of the community have been asked to line the escort route as Sargeant First Class John C. Beale’s body is escorted from Falcon Field to the Cannon-Cleveland Funeral Home by the Henry County Police Department. The expected arrival time at Falcon Field is 6:00 p.m. and the procession is expected to begin..."

*****************************

With each passing week since the November General Election last year
my heart has grown heavier and heavier
as I witnessed the destruction of our
Constitutional Republic.
I have begun to wonder if it will be possible to turn
this steep decline around and save our Nation.
The elections which will take place in 2010
seem to offer the first real opportunity to
reverse the slide into oblivion.
But, there are so many counter signs.
The sheer audacity, not of hope, but of abuse of power
by the Obama, Pelosi, Reid Oligarchy
by means of which they prevent the seemingly hapless
Republican minority from serving in any way
as a brake on their speeding towards the wreck
of our Nation.
Now comes one very small, but not insignificant sign
of hope.
It was the response of ordinary people in Georgia
to the return of the body of a soldier to Georgia for burial.
Granted, Georgia is not the whole nation, and it is certainly not
Massachusetts and the rest of Blue New England, but
the patriotism of the people of Georgia may exist
in enough other states to make a difference in 2010.

- Leo Rugiens

**************************

http://blip.tv/play/AYGJ5h6YgmE

*******************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
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.

However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even 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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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

WOMEN AND CHILDREN ABDUCTED IN SLAVE RAIDS ARE ROPED BY THE NECK AND MARCHED NORTH; ALONG THE WAY MANY WOMEN AND GIRLS ARE REPEATEDLY GANG-RAPED.

IN THIS ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE PHOTO
DATED 27 AUGUST 2006
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS SHOWN BEING DRESSED IN THE
TRADITIONAL GARB OF A SOMALI ELDER
BY SHEIKH MAHMED HASSAN
IN THE VILLAGE OF WAJIR
IN NORTHEAST KENYA
NEAR THE BORDER OF
SOMALIA AND ETHIOPIA

********

Barack Hussein Obama is visiting Africa.

He will do there what he does here,

blather endlessly and say nothing of consequence.

["Words, just words." Obama, 2008]

If he or someone among the troupe of sycophants

who travel with him still has hope for the place,

I would advise him to consider these words written four years ago.

After decades of mismanagement and corruption,

most African states have became hollowed out.

They are no longer instruments capable of serving the public good.

Indeed, far from being able to provide aid and protection to their citizens,

African governments and the vampire-like politicians who run them

are regarded by the populations they rule as yet another burden they have to bear

in the struggle for survival.

Whatever your thoughts about the rest of the world,

the politics and economics of Africa will leave you stupefied.

There has been no progress but regress—and the place is getting worse. The best one can say about Africa is that it is “a continent of illiterates governed by the semi-educated.” No amount of hope mongering, pretense or fantasy indulging will make it other wise.

This is both a surprise and a pity. Africa simply groans with natural wealth and economic promise. But it has been infected by that curse of modern times, the professional politician. You may recognize the type in our own nation—the man whose entire life is spent in the cocoon of government, the man who never has had to work in the private sector, the man who has never created anything tangible outside of policy papers, the man who believes wealth creation derives from government, the man who believes that all rights come from government. You know, a man like B. Hussein Obama.

Africa is a collection of 53 nations where every fantasy of Obama has been put into place. The result is all around. Even Obama’s narcissism and arrogance is reflected in the African political reality of “one man, one vote, one time” and “president for life.” No doubt Obama would like such a title.

A man who does indeed have the title in fact if not in law is Sudanese “president” Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, now in power 20 years.

In so many aspects he is typical of the type of creature who infects Africa and her people. It is he who is responsible for one of the world’s great genocides, that of Darfur. What can one say of the horrors there except that the horror of slavery has been added to them? It is a slavery and genocide inflicted by the Muslim north upon the animist and Christian south.

Women and children abducted in slave raids are roped by the neck or strapped to animals and then marched north. Along the way, many women and girls are repeatedly gang-raped. Children who will not be silent are shot on the spot. In the north, slaves are either kept by individual militia soldiers or sold in markets.

Such events continue there today.

But Africa offers more examples of horror than the Sudan. Consider the Congo. This was written 6 years ago, the nightmares there have not ended.

Reports of cannibalism circulated in troubled northeastern Congo, with terrified witnesses on Monday describing the mutilation and eating of the dead during more than week of bloody tribal fighting. Church leaders and residents in Bunia, the capital of the Ituri district, said Monday that Lendu tribal fighters killed civilians and combatants, cutting open their chests and ripping out hearts, livers and lungs, which they ate while they were still warm.

Such terrors were also noted by Stanley while he cut his way through the region 150 years ago.

This child lives in the Congo.

Here is a description of what his childhood and that of his fellows is like:

The war has shuttered their schools, left them lame and hungry killed their parents before their eyes. It has turned children into merciless killers and haunted them with memories of mayhem unfitting for the most hard-bitten grown-ups. Girls have been raped, toddlers have been butchered, babies left crying among dead bodies.

Any guess as to what type of society such children will make when they grow up? And such a series of nightmares have occurred in almost every African nation at one time or another. They are occurring today in Zimbabwe.

This is the Africa of reality, not the Africa of Economic Development seminars and the blathering of politicians. What is to be done—what can be done—about the place? The best and the brightest in our own nation cannot even come up with a solution to the problems of Detroit. How much less can they solve the problems of Africa?

One thing that might work for Africa—or at least it would do no more damage—is to take every politician and hang him by the neck from the nearest tree. Such a plan might also work for Detroit.

If it works there we could do the same thing in Washington DC.

---

Africa Adio

July 11th, 2009
by Scipio
TheReturnofScipio.blogspot.com

************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
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.

However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even 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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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

APOLOGIES, AS EVERY WAYWARD HUSBAND KNOWS, ARE PLENTIFUL AND CHEAP, BUT RARELY EFFECTIVE

What the country needs now
is a new bureaucracy
to manage the growing appetite for apologies,
amends and remedies f
or various other slights.
The apology could be the lasting legacy of Barack Obama.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of oppressed people
are no doubt eager to line up for their apology,
waiting to be rewarded for slights real and imaginary,
ranging from inability to find a parking space
to ancient indignities suffered by long-forgotten ancestors.
Everybody likes buttered bread, and it's even better with a little jelly on it.

Some appeals are more legitimate than others.
Congress is considering a resolution thanking the slaves,
most of them dead and gone beyond the reach of Congress since late in the 19th century, for their work on building the Capitol.
There will be a plaque to be put up somewhere.
This is only right; every workman, the Bible tells us, is worthy of his hire.
But a resolution apologizing for "the peculiar institution" is threatened by the Senate's insistence that an apology must exclude anything about reparations for descendants of slaves.

Apologies, as every wayward husband knows, are plentiful and cheap (and rarely effective). President Obama's major accomplishment so far is a speech apologizing to the Islamic world for nobody is quite sure what. Maybe it was for building the Twin Towers so tall that Al Qaeda just couldn't resist the temptation to take them down. Maybe it was an apology for saving Sunni Muslims in Bosnia, which offended Shi'ites. Or maybe it was for saving the Shi'ites, which irritated Sunnis. Maybe it was just for being an American in the first place; shame is the default position on the leftmost fringe of his party.

A federal Ministry of Apology, Amends and Reparations could send out Certificates of Apology by the millions, trimmed in imitation gold frill, suitable for framing. Reparations, on the other hand, would be difficult to execute. Who would get what? And how much? Would African-Americans with white ancestors, even including slave owners, be entitled to get as much as African-Americans with only slave ancestors? Only a Ministry of Apology, Amends and Reparations could decide what's fair.

The congressional apology for slavery is in jeopardy not only because the Senate resists the idea of reparations, but because the Congressional Black Caucus smells a rat, or at least a large mouse. The man pushing the slavery apology hardest is Rep. Steve Cohen, who represents a Memphis district that is 98 percent black. He expects a strong black opponent next year and pushing a slavery apology is his best means of survival. He envisions presiding over an apology ceremony at the Capitol, perhaps in the Rotunda (if he can't stand atop the Dome, waving the resolution). Mr. Cohen once tried to join the Congressional Black Caucus, but was told the caucus was only for black folks. He cites his boyhood admiration for Martin Luther King as further qualification, but even that might not be enough to save his seat. Willie Herenton, the popular black mayor of predominantly black Memphis, has quit to run against him because, His Honor says, taking the Cohen seat "provides the only real opportunity to elect a qualified African-American to the all-white 11-member delegation representing Tennessee."

There's a lot of work for a Ministry of Apology, Amends and Reparations. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (no kin to either Stonewall Jackson or Robert E. Lee) wants Congress to memorialize Michael Jackson for his work as a "global humanitarian." So far this is getting no traction in Congress, in either House or Senate. Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid relish a roll-call vote, which certain party-poopers would demand. Michael Jackson hysteria is fading. "Between high stakes fights over climate change and health-care reform," observes Politico, the Capitol Hill political daily, "Democrats will now have to moonwalk through the minefield of [Mr.] Jackson's oddball behavior, drug abuse and relationships with young children - all in the perilous geography of race relations in America."

Mrs. Jackson Lee held aloft a copy of her proposed congressional resolution, also suitable for framing, at the Jackson funeral. Her resolution runs to 1,500 words, citing every contribution the King of Pop made to a charity over the last 25 years of his life. (There's nothing in it about oddball behavior.) We've always reserved national holidays to honor authentic American heroes like Washington, Lincoln and Martin Luther King, but hey! We live in an enlightened oddball culture now. Michael Jackson's birthday could be celebrated as a day to molest little children.
---

Ministry of Apology would cure all ills

By Wesley Pruden
Friday, July 10, 2009
Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

OBAMA GAVE AWAY THE STORE IN MOSCOW - GOODBYE POLAND, CZZECHOSLOVAKIA, UKRAINE AND GEORGIA

The signing ceremony in Moscow was a grand affair.

For Barack Obama, foreign policy neophyte and "reset" man,

the arms reduction agreement had a Kissingerian air.

A fine feather in his cap.

And our president likes his plumage.

Unfortunately for the United States,

the country Obama represents, the prospective treaty is useless at best,

detrimental at worst.

Useless because the level of offensive nuclear weaponry,

the subject of the U.S.-Russia "Joint Understanding," is an irrelevance.

We could today terminate all such negotiations, invite the Russians to build as many warheads as they want, and profitably watch them spend themselves into penury, as did their Soviet predecessors, stockpiling weapons that do nothing more than, as Churchill put it, make the rubble bounce.

Obama says that his START will be a great boon, setting an example to enable us to better pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs. That a man of Obama's intelligence can believe such nonsense is beyond comprehension.

There is not a shred of evidence that cuts by the great powers — the INF treaty, START I, the Treaty of Moscow (2002) — induced the curtailment of anyone's programs.

Moammar Gadhafi gave up his nukes the week we pulled Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole. No treaty involved. The very notion that Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will suddenly abjure nukes because of yet another U.S.-Russian treaty is comical.

The pursuit of such an offensive weapons treaty could nonetheless be detrimental to us. Why? Because Obama's hunger for a diplomatic success, such as it is, allowed the Russians to exact a price: linkage between offensive and defensive nuclear weapons.

This is important for Russia because of the huge American technological advantage in defensive weaponry. We can reliably shoot down an intercontinental ballistic missile. They cannot. And since defensive weaponry will be the decisive strategic factor of the 21st century, Russia has striven mightily for a quarter-century to halt its development.

Gorbachev tried to swindle Reagan out of the Strategic Defense Initiative at Reykjavik in 1986. Reagan refused. As did his successors — Bush I, Clinton, Bush II. Obama, who seeks to banish nuclear weapons entirely, has little use for such prosaic contrivances.

First, the Obama budget actually cuts spending on missile defense, at a time when federal spending is a riot of extravagance and trillion-dollar deficits. Then comes the "pause" (as Russia's president appreciatively noted) in the planned establishment of a missile shield in Eastern Europe. And now the "Joint Understanding" commits us to a new treaty that includes "a provision on the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms."

Obama further said that the East European missile shield "will be the subject of extensive negotiations" between the United States and Russia.

Obama doesn't even seem to understand the ramifications of this concession. Poland and the Czech Republic thought they were regaining their independence when they joined NATO under the protection of the United States. They now see that the shield negotiated with us and subsequently ratified by all of NATO is in limbo.

Russia and America will first have to "come to terms" on the issue, explained President Dmitry Medvedev. This is precisely the kind of compromised sovereignty that Russia wants to impose on its ex-Soviet colonies — and that U.S. presidents of both parties for the last 20 years have resisted.

Resistance, however, is not part of Obama's repertoire. Hence his eagerness for arcane negotiations over MIRV'd missiles, the perfect distraction from the major issue between the two countries: Vladimir Putin's unapologetic and relentless drive to restore Moscow's hegemony over the sovereign states that used to be Soviet satrapies.

That — not nukes — is the chief cause of the friction between the U.S. and Russia. You wouldn't know it to hear Obama in Moscow pledging to halt the "drift" in U.S.-Russian relations.

Drift? The decline in relations came from Putin's desire to undo what he considers "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century — the collapse of the Soviet empire. Hence his squeezing Ukraine's energy supplies. His overt threats against Poland and the Czech Republic for daring to make sovereign agreements with the United States. And finally, less than a year ago, his invading a small neighbor, detaching and then effectively annexing two of Georgia's provinces to Mother Russia.

That's the cause of the collapse of our relations. Not drift, but aggression. Or, as the reset man referred to it with such delicacy in his Kremlin news conference: "our disagreements on Georgia's borders."

---

'Reset' Man Doesn't Catch Putin's Drift

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Washington Post Writers Group

****************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
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.

However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even 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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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

TIME NOR TIDE WAIT FOR NO MAN - IS IT POSSIBLE THAT OBAMA'S APPROVAL RATING IS TURNING NEGATIVE; IF TRUE THAT IS INDEED GOOD NEWS.

Rasmussen Reports public may be awakening from slumber

Last week,
scores of Americans were mesmerized by an event
they believed would have consequences of epic proportions for the nation.
No, I'm not referring to the passage of the colossal CO2 "cap and trade" legislation,
but the MSM's endless and equally mindless tributes to,
um, well I can't recall his name
but I think he was a black artiste who somehow morphed into a white performer
-- but then, hybrids are all the rage these days.

Meanwhile, as the masses slumbered,
the House passed H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey
version of Barack Hussein Obama's Orwellian legislation to regulate and tax CO2
-- a gas byproduct of cellular synthesis and industrial output,
ostensibly responsible for global climate change.
The measure, all 310 pages of it, passed by a narrow vote of 219-212.
Some 44 Democrats voted against the legislation,
but eight Republicans voted for it, giving BHO the first leg of a cap-n-tax victory.

The two most invasive means our central government has at its disposal to control American lives and livelihoods are taxation and regulation, and this bill is a double header. It authorizes BHO's government to collect substantial new taxes and to exercise unprecedented economic control via new environmental regulations, all against a backdrop of the worst economic decline since Jimmy Carter was at the helm. (Fortunately Ronald Reagan implemented the right formula for economic recovery -- BO's "solution" is Carter's formula.)

After the bill's passage, Obama trotted out this whopper: "Thanks to members of Congress who were willing to place America's progress before the usual Washington politics, this bill will create new businesses, new industries, and millions of new jobs, all without imposing untenable new burdens on the American people or America's businesses."

Of course, that depends on what the definition of "untenable" is. In January 2008, Obama proclaimed, "[U]nder my plan of a cap and trade [sic] system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket ... because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas ... you name it ... whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. ... [T]hey will pass that money on to the consumers."

Sidebar: Anyone interested in retaining what remains of the legacy of liberty bequeathed to us by our Founders might take pause to consider what BHO meant by "you name it," since you and everyone you know are emitters of CO2. Think about it: An American president is regulating and taxing carbon dioxide, the very thing we exhale, and the very thing that green plants on this planet use to generate the oxygen which sustains us.

Cap-n-tax requires American manufacturers to reduce by 2020 carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases by 17 percent from their 2005 emission levels. Even more egregiously, it requires an 80 percent cut by 2050. Industries would be "allocated" government permits specifying allowances for these gases. About 15 percent of these permits would be auctioned to the highest bidders and the resulting revenues would be transferred to offset energy expenses for Obama's low-income constituents.

And you thought the U.S. Tax Code was convoluted?

Now, if you're still under the illusion that Waxman's Malarkey is about saving the planet, you're either: A) a card-carrying member of BHO's sycophantic socialists; B) a true-believing disciple of AlGore's eco-theology; or C) too distracted by coverage of that chameleon-guy's funeral.

Here, at least the socialists are intellectually honest about their objectives. Albert Arnold Gore's minions, on the other hand, are still hooked on phony assumptions about the relationship between CO2 and climate change -- as if our planet's climate is supposed to remain utterly unchanged for all time. (Of course, Gore's objectives are the same as BHO's.)

However, the climate debate (yes, there is one) is far from over.

It is not for me to suggest that the extremely complex ecology of our planet -- its trillions of organisms and ecosystems and its interaction with the Sun -- is beyond the scope of what human scientists can understand so conclusively as to project how the restriction of one small contributory element, among all environmental influences, will affect our climate 100 years from now. After all, my advanced degrees are limited to psychology and public affairs.

Instead, you can read what some of the planets most renowned scientists have to say about climate change in "Global Warming: Fact, Fiction and Political Endgame" (update coming soon).

Or start with an open letter to Congress delivered last week, from academicians including Princeton physicists Will Happer and Robert Austin, and climatologist Richard Lindzen of MIT, in which they insist, "The sky is not falling ... the Earth has been cooling for 10 years [a trend that] was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them."

Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman aptly sums up the current state of climate change hysteria. "Both the seriousness and imminence of anthropogenic global warming has been overstated. [H.R. 2454] would have a trivial impact on future concentrations of greenhouse gases. ...[It is projected to] reduce the earth's future temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree C by 2100, an amount too small to even notice." (For the record, it would do this at an average annual cost of $2,979 per family of four. So much for BHO's pledge not to raise our taxes.)

A recent MIT study likewise concludes, "The different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO2 concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead. ... The Developed Only scenario cuts only about 0.5 °C of the warming from the reference, again illustrating the importance of developing country participation."

Two of the biggest producers of CO2, China and India, will continue industrial production unencumbered by this self-mutilating sham. Indeed, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson confessed in a Senate hearing this week, "I believe that ... U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels."

As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich explains, "The sponsors of Waxman-Markey are telling Americans that not only will the legislation save us from calamitous climate change, it will also produce new jobs and new prosperity by transitioning America to new forms of 'green' energy. In other words, there's no trade-off necessary to save the planet; no price to be paid. It's a win-win-win. Right. And 2+2=5. The reality is that the bill before the House today imposes what could be the largest tax increase in history on the American people. And every single one of us who heats a home, drives a car, and manufactures or consumes products made in America will pay the price."

Of course, Gingrich could be wrong. BHO's cap-n-tax plan could be as economically successful as his "stimulus" package. Oh, wait, that hasn't produced a single private sector job -- and the ranks of the unemployed have still soared. But maybe it "saved" some jobs that might have been cut, and it has certainly funded countless marginal government jobs occupied by the marginally employable in order to swell the ranks of government unions -- the Left's permanent constituency.

And at the expense of incomprehensible deficit accumulation that exceeds all previous presidents combined -- but I digress.

Cap-n-tax is nothing more than a well-executed piece of BHO's socialist playbook, which seeks to ratify central government administration of the economy by way of regulation and taxation.

This unbearable piece of legislation is now on its way to the Senate, where Obama has a filibuster-proof majority with the arrival of that "clown from Minnesota." It is likely to face opposition from some centrist Democrats, but, regretfully, there are still enough wayward Republicans left in the Senate to give Obama a victory.

Here, I would challenge the members of that august body to find anything in our Constitution's prescription for Rule of Law authorizing the central government to administer any and all elements of commerce that produce some amount of CO2. But then, who pays homage to the credence of that venerable old document, other than the 65 or 70 million modern-day Patriots standing at the ready to restore constitutional Rule of Law?

Next up -- ObamaCare -- and you thought cap-n-tax was bad. Again, I'm quite sure that there isn't a word in our Constitution authorizing the central government to administer healthcare, but then...

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

****************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
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.

However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even 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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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

WE MUST HASTEN THE DAY WHEN THE OBAMACRATS RETURN TO JUST BEING MEMBERS OF OUR SOCIETY SO THAT THEY CAN HELP SHARE THE BURDENS THEY HAVE PLACED ON US

"NOTHING SO STRONGLY IMPELS
A MAN TO REGARD THE INTERESTS OF HIS
CONSTITUENTS, AS THE CERTAINTY
OF RETURNING TO THE GENERAL MASS
OF THE PEOPLE, FROM WHENCE
HE WAS TAKEN,
WHERE HE MUST PARTICIPATE
IN THEIR BURDENS"

- George Mason

Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention

June 17, 1788

************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
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.

However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even 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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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

NEW DEAL, OLD DEAL, GOOD DEAL, BAD DEAL, MISDEAL!!!!!!

I grew up in the New Deal.
When I was growing up it was a Big Deal.
Now that I am a man I have put aside the things of my childhood.
I now know that the New Deal, while it did many good things for America,
was a Bad Deal in terms of the revolution in government it
brought to America.
The New Deal brought us big government.
The Democrats of the depression have begot
the Obamacrats of the present repression.
Thomas Sowell has the New Deal in proper
perspective!
- Leo Rugiens

*******************

Today on Uncommon Knowledge, economist Thomas Sowell, author of The Housing Boom and Bust. Sowell explains why New Deal economics flopped eight decades ago and will fail again today.

PETER ROBINSON: What is it about the New Deal that permits people to cite it as a model with a straight face eight decades after it was enacted?

THOMAS SOWELL: Because of the widespread belief that it was the New Deal which saved the country and got us out of the depression. What actually got us out of the depression was the Second World War, and it did so by ending the New Deal.

THER CORNER

NationalReviewOnline.com

Thursday

July 9, 2009

*************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
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.

However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even 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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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

SARAH PALIN HAS DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED HER ENEMIES; PEOPLE WHO HATE HER GUTS FEEL SHE HAS REALLY LET THEM DOWN BY RESIGNING

Sarah Palin has deeply disappointed her enemies.

People who hate her guts feel she's really let them down by resigning.

She's like the ex-girlfriend they're SO over, never want to see again,

have already forgotten about

– really, it's O-ver –

but they just can't stop talking about her.

+++

Liberal: Ha, ha ... Sarah who? She's over, she's toast, a future Trivial Pursuit answer, nothing more.

Normal person: Whatever. How about the North Korean missiles?

Liberal: Can you believe she just resigned the governorship like that? What a quitter!

Normal person: Speaking of quitting, how's work?

Liberal: Did you hear she might get a TV show? There's no way Sarah Palin's getting a TV show! No way! I can't believe stupid Sarah Palin could get her own stupid TV show now. Well, I'm sure not gonna watch it – that's for sure!

Normal person: Have you seen all the Michael Jackson coverage on TV?

Liberal: How does she think she can run for president in 2012 if she can't finish her term as governor of a Podunk state? She's finished.

Normal person: OK, then! You won't have to vote for her.

Liberal: I was never going to vote for her! But now I'm not going to vote for her twice. And I will never watch her TV show. I am so over her.

+++

Reporters had already written their stories on Palin's press conference – "rambling!" "incoherent!" – before she even stepped to the podium.

Whatever you think of Palin, her argument for resigning was the opposite of "rambling" and "incoherent."

Palin's basketball analogy couldn't have been clearer, even to prissy liberal pundits who get uncomfortable when the subject turns to sports: She decided to destroy the other team's game plan, which has been to obsessively focus on her, by resigning.

This is particularly apt here – she's passing the ball to a fantastic right-wing lieutenant governor, who shares her principles but doesn't set off the left's neuroses.

This is better for him, better for the state, better for the conservative program and better for Palin personally, whose family is sick of all the crap. Now she can make a lot of money and promote conservatism on a national stage.

It certainly won't be held against Palin by people who don't already loathe her. (On the other hand, her approval ratings among people who think she's worse than Hitler are down to 48 percent.)

With the left frenetically filing ethics complaint after ethics complaint against Palin, costing her state millions of dollars and her personally half a million dollars, citizens of Alaska must be asking, "Can we please have our state back?"

But to read the news reports – which actually were rambling and incoherent – you would think Palin was speaking in tongues.

The truth is liberals are furious they won't have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore – at least not with Palin's hands tied behind her back by her public office.

Something tells me Keith Olbermann isn't going to be pulling any big numbers this summer attacking Eric Cantor and Michele Bachmann. I don't anticipate any sudden outbreaks of "Mitch McConnell Derangement Syndrome."

Soon we'll only hear about Keith when his creepy e-mails using his mother's death to hit on chicks start making the rounds again. (Tip to Keith: When a girl refuses to give you her phone number, her assistant's phone number or her personal e-mail address, and only gives you her assistant's e-mail address, you're not halfway in the sack.)

Bonus: If Olbermann gets canceled as a result of Palin's resignation, that will put her in a really good position for 2012.

But instead of being honest and saying, "Oh well, it was a good ride while it lasted," liberal chatterers indignantly demand: "Is this not the greatest betrayal a public servant ever committed against the people?"

On one hand, liberals are enraged at the heinousness of Mark Sanford – whom they didn't vote for – for not resigning and, on the other, they're enraged at Palin – whom they also didn't vote for – for resigning.

The peculiarly venomous hatred of Palin is driven by women of the left and their whipped consorts. All that needs to happen is for a feminist to overhear two Nation readers saying, "I hate to admit it, but Palin is kind of hot" and ...

WHAT??????????? YOU CALL THAT HOT? I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW WE'VE GOT A MEGA-SUPER HOTTIE IN DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. AND NEED I REMIND YOU AGAIN OF THE RAW SEX APPEAL OF RACHEL MADDOW?

Democrats are a party of women, and nothing drives them off their gourds like a beautiful
Christian conservative. (How much money has that other beautiful born-again, Carrie Prejean, been forced to spend on lawyers to respond to liberal hysteria?)

So the motives are clear, but the money is not. Who is paying the rent for the losers filing all these frivolous complaints against Palin?

At least when Richard Mellon Scaife was funding investigations of Bill Clinton, we knew who Scaife was, he was an American citizen, and his money was accessible to U.S. tax authorities and not stashed in offshore accounts like a certain Hungarian Nazi-collaborator I can name.

How about some modern-day Scaife investigate the investigators?

---
FORGETTING SARAH PALIN
by Ann Coulter
WorldNetDaily.com
July 08, 2009
6:05 pm Eastern
© 2009
Ann Coulter, well-known for her TV appearances as a political analyst, is an attorney and author.

*************************************

Move Over, Sarah: Washington Quit Too

By PAUL WHITFIELD | Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 4:20 PM PT

In 1754, Lt. Col. George Washington quit the Virginia militia, an obscure fact that now seems a bit more interesting in the wake of Gov. Sarah Palin's resignation in Alaska.

Historians differ on the reason for Washington's resignation. Some say he didn't like the way British soldiers treated him. Others say he was upset because a planned reorganization of the unit would've meant a reduction in rank.

Imagine if you will how the media would've handled the story, if only our modern news creatures had been there to impart their instant wisdom to colonial America.

"Georgy Porgy is one nutty puppy," pundit Maureen Dowd wrote on hearing the news. "George wanted everyone to know that he's not having fun in the Virginia militia and people are being mean to him and he doesn't feel like serving anymore."

Todd Purdum, reporting for Vanity Fair, said the soldier's behavior has been a source of concern.

"Several told me, independently of one another," Purdum wrote, "that they had consulted the definition of 'narcissistic personality disorder' — a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration and lack of empathy — in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and thought it fit Washington perfectly."

Not to be outdone by speculative "reporting," Colonialist News Network anchor Rick Sanchez asked on the air: "Is there anything going on with him that perhaps may lead him to want to quit the Virginia militia, and the one thing that's still left out there, hey, could young George have gotten a girl pregnant?"

Richard Cohen, writing for the Washington Post, which is not owned by George Washington's family, cleared his throat for 20 paragraphs, put on his most pompous air and announced:

"When the chuckling is over, you have to ask yourself what in the world Washington was doing as a lieutenant colonel in the Virginia militia and what would have happened if a guy like Washington ever became leader of the Colonies — a frightening reality."

Political strategist Ed Rollins said: "Everyone is shocked by this and everyone assumes there's another story. You just don't quit the Virginia militia. You certainly don't do this as a steppingstone to anything else. This makes George look terribly inept. I think that's one of the questions that people have about him. Is Washington substantive enough to be a serious candidate for anything else? This just doesn't make sense. It goes against common sense."

Other journalists in the 13 Colonies agreed that George Washington was finished as a military leader. Among the old, dull journalists with one less thought each year, it was decided beyond a reasonable doubt that Washington by dropping out of the militia had ended what might have been a promising career.

"Nobody would follow this guy anywhere now," as one curator of the conventional wisdom solemnly observed.

A few commentators disagreed.

America's sweetheart, Ann Coulter, said George was too big for the Virginia militia. "I think his quitting was a brilliant move, and I'm baffled by people being baffled. He's a huge, huge star, and meanwhile he's stuck in the Virginia militia when he should be a commander of an entire Colonial Army or something big like that."

William Kristol took it a step further: "This unusual move might be the right move for Washington to become president of the United States, if we had such a position."

Whitfield is an INVESTORS' BUSINESS DAILY market writer.

*************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
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.

However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even 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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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

HISTORY IS REPEATING ITSELF IN CENTRAL AMERICA, DEMOCRACY IS BEING OVERTHROWN AND TYRANNY IS BEING SUPPORTED BY THE OBAMACRATS.

Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez embracing.

*****************

It is impossible for me to describe my schock, horror and anger over
the reaction and actions of our government,
Obama and Hillary,
in joining forces with Hugo Chavez to reinstall
President Zelaya in Honduras after the
Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court
had ordered the military to exile Zelaya.
Zelaya was attempting to force a plebecite which
would have changed the Hondural Constitution
in a way that would allow him to become
President-for-Life just like his buddy,
Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela.
Zelaya went so far as to have the ballots
for the plebecite printed in Venezuela by Chavez
and flown to Honduras for distribution by the army, which
refused to do it.
I know the Honduras.
In 1985 I traveled to Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatamala
interviewing patriots and revolutionaries alike.
In Nicaragua I spoke with Daniel Ortega and his cabinet ministers.
I came back to the US convinced that if we did not support the
patriots against the revolutionaries we would eventually
be faced with a solid bloc of communist nations to the south.
I went to Washington where I met with the Hispanic Caucus
of the House.
There I was mocked and ridiculed by Bill Richardson, Charles Rangel and
other left-liberals for my views on the situation in Central America.
Now, 25 years later, the President of the United States and
the Secretary of State have joined forces with Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega
and the Organization of American States to
install a dictator, Zelaya, in the Honduras, all in the
name of restoring 'law and order' in that Country
after Zelaya tried to subvert its democracy.
Now, try to understand this -
Obama waited weeks before he said anything even
remotely supportive of the Green Revolutionaries fighting
in the street of Teheran for democracy. Also Obama was
silent for weeks on end before he said anything even
remotely against North Korea's rockets aimed at Hawaii.
YET IT TOOK HIM LESS THAN 24 HOURS TO
SPEAK UP IN SUPPORT OF CHAVEZ AND ZELAYA.
What does that tell us about his agenda?
WHERE WILL IT ALL END?
- Leo Rugiens

***********************************************

Who could have guessed that one day

little Honduras

would be in the news?

Who could have guessed that one day

little Honduras

would be seen as a bulwark against tyranny?

Who could have guessed that one day

Honduras

would stand firm against pressure from the OAS, the UN and the US?

Yet all these things have happened in the last two weeks.

We live in marvelous times, full of outlandish surprises and astounding terrors.

Honduras is reliving the ancient struggle between liberty and tyranny. In all of our 6000 years of history liberty has almost always gone down to defeat. Simply put, tyranny has had too much in its favor. Laws were written by tyrants to ensure their hold on power. States would create an apparatus of prisons and police and spies to prop up any dictatorship. All media were placed under the direct scrutiny of those who ruled. These things were as true for Ashurbanipal as they are true for Hugo Chavez.

Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

The most earth shaking event in secular world history was the creation of the United States of America. It was quite literally “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Nothing like it had ever come about. From the start she presented to the world a frightening thing, the possibility that the citizens of a nation might actually control the levers of power in a state. If she succeeded she would become a “dangerous nation” and a threat to tyranny around the world. Thus the hatred that European nations had for the new nation. None of them even believed that the US could possibly survive. It was a good thing for them that she did.

The United States did indeed become a dangerous nation—dangerous to tyrants, that is. Here is a list of nations freed by her—and some of these were freed more than once: France, Germany, Norway, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Algeria, Morocco, Romania, Kosovo, Panama, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Denmark, Kuwait, Iraq, Egypt, Montenegro, New Guinea, Indonesia, Thailand, Greece, Tunisia, Ukraine, Albania, Hungary, Belgium, Austria, Libya, Korea, Japan, Italy.

As a comparison, take a look at some of the players upon the stage of the world who are in the news today—China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela. How many nations have they freed? None. And why should they free any nations? They are not in the business of freedom. They are in the business of slavery.

And how odd is it that the United States under her current regime is no longer in the business of freedom either. It is engaged is cozying up to the ruling elites of the slavers just mentioned. It is now in fact joining the likes of Chavez and Castro and Ortega—slavers all—to destroy liberty in Honduras.

Just as Obama and his minions are destroying liberty for Americans here at home, they are destroying liberty for peoples abroad. It was useless for the Iranian people to petition Obama for help, for his heart was with the tyrannical mullahs. It is as well useless for the Hondurans to petition Obama, for his heart is with Chavez.

What a fellow we have in the White House, a creature whose natural inclination always runs with the tyrants of the world, never for those who fight against them. He supports and defends his own kind, naturally.

And as for the Honduran people and all others who cry out for liberty, who will now speak for them?

My advice for those foreigners who love liberty is to hunker down until Obama is gone. We can hope that this marvelous event happens as soon as God allows it.

---

Tyranny At Home. Tyranny Abroad.

Posted on July 8th, 2009 by Scipio

TheReturnofScipio.blogspot.com

****************************************

U.S. Interests In Honduras Matter

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Diplomacy: Outsourcing U.S. foreign policy to the OAS may sound good, but the reality remains that all nations, including ours, have interests. That may be why the U.S. is now shifting to a more workable stance on Honduras.

---

Related Topics: Latin America & Caribbean

---

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday announced a realistic plan to resolve the Honduras crisis by forging a deal with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias to mediate a solution to the issue of who rules the Central American country.

Acting after meeting with ousted President Mel Zelaya, who was thrown out June 28 in a constitutional process, her initiative shows just how badly relying on the Organization of American States (OAS) has failed for the U.S. The new Arias plan may just succeed.

It couldn't come at a better time. Last Friday, OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza strutted like a colonial grandee into Tegucigalpa, threatening sanctions and the expulsion of Honduras if it didn't restore Zelaya. He refused to meet President Roberto Micheletti, warning: "We are not going to Honduras to negotiate."

It only strengthened Honduras' resolve against letting Zelaya return. After Insulza raised the stakes, Zelaya tried to fly into Tegucigalpa's airport, setting off riots that left two dead.

Government support strengthened though, with the Church, businesses and crowds in the streets all holding together.

"Honduras is an example to the world. We don't have money. We don't have oil. We have balls," read a hand-lettered sign from a defiant street protester in support of his government.

With sentiment like this, Hondurans signaled they would set their own course, follow their own constitution and pay whatever price, no matter what the OAS did. "Better six months of isolation than 20 years of Chavez," Micheletti said.

Arias isn't impartial as a mediator, given his vote to condemn and expel Honduras from the OAS. But he has a record of successful mediation in El Salvador, winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987, and is willing to engage all parties instead of dictate a solution. The existing government in Honduras is still free to reject anything outrageous, which couldn't be any worse for Honduras than OAS threats.

For Clinton, it's a sign that reality has sunk in and Zelaya, an unpopular, vainglorious and anti-U.S. leader, is unlikely to be returned to power. Not only does Honduras' constitution forbid it, but Hondurans don't want it, and time is running out. Instead, elections may be moved forward, or amnesties issued as talks start Thursday.

Maybe history is forcing the new Clinton stance: The last time the U.S. tried to reinsert a deposed leader, in 1994 with Haiti's Jean Bertrand Aristide, the result was chaos. Clinton was first lady then.

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, of course, thrives on chaos and is doing all he can to stoke it. But the U.S. in particular doesn't need chaos in Honduras, given the country's strategic location as a transit point for illegal drugs and the threat that criminal cartels pose to the political stability of regional governments.

The new Clinton plan also serves to strengthen the interests of Honduras' neighbors in the emerging bloc of Panama, Colombia and Mexico, all of which do not want a chaotic Honduras.

The three nations did stress earlier that there should be no foreign interference in Honduran affairs, even as they went with the OAS consensus, and all have moved in this direction. Panama offered mediation. Mexico offered asylum to Zelaya. Colombia stopped a 60-person Venezuelan convoy "battalion" of aid headed to Honduras at its border to ward off Chavista cash and interference.

What it adds up to is U.S. interests — not those of Venezuela or Nicaragua — becoming predominant in ending the crisis in Honduras, and in a way that's acceptable to Hondurans and their neighbors.

This will work far better than letting the OAS continue its grandstanding. Sure, some may say Hillary blinked. But it's a good blink.

****************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
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.

However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even 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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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

GOD BLESS YOU, SARAH PALIN, I HOPE AND PRAY THAT YOU HAVE THE LAST LAUGH AND LEAVE YOUR ENEMIES CRYING

There can be no doubting that
Sarah Palin,
extraordinary woman,
extraordinary mother,
extraordinary Governor,
extraordinary political person,
was driven from office by the harpies
of the mainstream media and the left-liberal activists
who filed 150 lawsuits against her.
A harpy is a mythological creature we learned about in Greek mythology:

"Phineas, a king of Thrace, had the gift of prophecy. Zeus, angry that Phineas revealed too much, punished him by putting him on an island with a buffet of food which he could never eat. The harpies always arrived and stole the food out of his hands right before he could satisfy his hunger, and befouled the remains of his food. This continued until the arrival of Jason and the Argonauts. The Boreads, sons of Boreas, the North Wind, who also could fly, succeeded in driving off the harpies, but without killing any of them, following a request from Iris, who promised that Phineas would not be bothered by the harpies again, and "the dogs of great Zeus" returned to their "cave in Minoan Crete". Thankful for their help, Phineas told the Argonauts how to pass the Symplegades. (Argonautica, book II; Ovid XIII, 710; Virgil III, 211, 245).

"In this form they were agents of punishment who abducted people and tortured them on their way to Tartarus. They were vicious, cruel and violent. They lived on Strophades. They were usually seen as the personifications of the destructive nature of wind. The harpies in this tradition, now thought of as three sisters instead of the original two, were: Aello ("storm swift"), Celaeno ("the dark") — also known as Podarge ("fleet-foot") — and Ocypete ("the swift wing").

"Aeneas encountered harpies on the Strophades as they repeatedly made off with the feast the Trojans were setting. Celaeno cursed them, saying the Trojans will be so hungry they will eat their tables before they reach the end of their journey. The Trojans fled in fear."

Harpies in the infernal wood, from Inferno XIII, by Gustave Doré, 1861

"Harpies remained vivid in the Middle Ages. In his Inferno, XIII, Dante envisages the tortured wood infested with harpies, where the suicides have their punishment in the second ring:

"
Who drove the Trojans from the Strophades
With dire announcements of the coming woe.
They have broad wings, a human neck and face,

Clawed feet and swollen, feathered bellies; they caw
Their lamentations in the eerie trees.^[1]"

^[Wikipedia]

The modern embodiment of the harpies is to be found in the women who are are anchors and reporters for NBC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS etc. They are the pundits and columnists for the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, and soft-core porn magazines like Vanity Fair.

They may have contributed to the campaign to drive Sarah Palin out of public office,
but the pars sanior of the American people will not let her fade into oblivion.
She will be back and she will have the last laugh.

- Leo Rugiens

****************************************

Death by a Thousand FOIAs

People close to Sarah Palin

say national political reporters and pundits

have missed the real reasons for her surprising decision to resign as Alaska governor.

The national media have dismissed or downplayed her real motives,

which had little to do with any plans to run for president in 2012.

Contrary to most reports, her decision had been in the works for months, accelerating recently as it became clear that controversies and endless ethics investigations were threatening to overshadow her legislative agenda. "Attacks inside Alaska and largely invisible to the national media had paralyzed her administration," someone close to the governor told me. "She was fully aware she would be branded a 'quitter.' She did not want to disappoint her constituents, but she was no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself."

This situation developed because Alaska's transparency laws allow anyone to file Freedom of Information Act requests. While normally useful, in the hands of political opponents FOIA requests can become a means to bog down a target in a bureaucratic quagmire, thanks to the need to comb through records and respond by a strict timetable. Similarly, ethics investigations are easily triggered and can drag on for months even if the initial complaint is flimsy. Since Ms. Palin returned to Alaska after the 2008 campaign, some 150 FOIA requests have been filed and her office has been targeted for investigation by everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature. Most have centered on Ms. Palin's use of government resources, and to date have turned up little save for a few state trips that she agreed to reimburse the state for because her children had accompanied her. In the process, though, she accumulated $500,000 in legal fees in just the last nine months, and knew the bill would grow ever larger in the future.

"The Alaska ethics elves had painted such a target on Sarah's forehead that she had begun turning down pretty much every invitation she got -- even though they were pouring in every day by the dozens," a confidant of the governor's told me. "It is not throwing in the towel. It is deciding that she was ineffective in fighting for her principles and could do more in another role."

Family considerations also played a role. Ms. Palin gave birth to a baby with Down's Syndrome in 2008, and also has a six-year old. Everyone in the family was weary of endless personal attacks, including mean-spirited suggestions on liberal blogs that all of her children should have been aborted and that she would run on a presidential platform promoting retardation.

Governor Palin tried hunkering down. She ignored offers of help from outside and kept media outlets at a distance. "Palin had become so suspicious of the media that she rejected hundreds of requests by even friendly reporters to interview her. Her press aides say that before considering interviews, she insists that they comb through reporters' work, even if they write for a friendly, conservative publication," writes Ron Kessler of NewsMax.com. I can also attest to the difficulty of reaching Governor Palin's staff and getting simple requests answered -- the problem is that such standoffishness can sometimes result in more negative coverage rather than less.

Karl Rove acknowledges the unusual battering Ms. Palin has endured in recent months, but told Fox News that GOP leaders are still puzzled by her decision. "If she wanted to escape the ethics investigations and save the taxpayers money, she's now done that," he said. Unfortunately, he added, her decision "sent a signal that if you do this kind of thing to a sitting governor like her, you can drive her out of office."

But Palin friends say such commentary misses the real point. "The Beltway media can't understand someone not consumed with presidential ambition," one told me. "Maybe Sarah Palin won't run for president and maybe her family situation made it tougher to handle the barrage of attacks that come with that territory. The real issue that should be asked is why a mean-spirited system has to treat people who run like that, instead of why someone may choose not to go through it."

All good points, and they lead me to conclude that Ms. Palin mostly likely will not run for president -- in 2012, at least. She made many mistakes after suddenly being thrust into the national spotlight last year, but hasn't merited the sneering contempt visited upon her by national reporters. She simply was not their kind of feminist -- and they disdained the politically incorrect life choices she had made.

In helping to convince Sarah Palin that her road forward in national politics would demand even more sacrifices and pain than exacted from most politicians, the media did nothing to encourage women or people of modest means to participate in politics. By sidestepping her critics, Sarah Palin is now moving to another playing field where she has more control over the rules of the game. Her friends say her critics may call her a "quitter" now, but they should wait and see what new role she decides to fill. She may wind up having the last laugh.

---

by John Fund

The Wall Street Journal's Political Diary Online

Tuesday

07 July 09

**********************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
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.

However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even 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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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

-- John Fund

ONE MUST PITY MAUREEN DOWD, SHE IS A MISERABLY UNHAPPY WOMAN

One must pity Maureen Dowd.

She is a miserably unhappy woman.

As far as I can tell she has been a miserably unhappy woman all her adult life.

She throws a lot of blame around for her condition,

but never finds the source of it.

She should look into the mirror.

Naturally, the miserable hate and envy the happy.

The mere existence of happy and well-adjusted folks

drives the miserable into fits of snark and rage.

And Dowd is filled with snark and rage.

Her latest object of hatred is this chick.

You can read Dowd’s writings on Palin here and here.

All through you will be subjected to her condescension,

her arrogance and her cattiness.

This is what passes for wit and wisdom over at The New York Times.

Poor Maureen can never admit what really drives her batty about Palin.

It is so obvious.

Dowd has the envy the empty wombed have for the fecund.

I remember an unintentionally revealing piece that Dowd wrote some years back

called What’s a Modern Girl to Do?

It pretends to be a lament on the decline of feminism but is really a heartbreaking insight into what is—and what ever shall be—a lonely and embittered woman.

Like all such women Dowd blames her ills on others, and has an unpleasant view of her own gender—at least, those women who are not New York Times columnists and their acolytes—and simply cannot understand why she is still single. Her conclusion is that the modern male is frightened of the modern female—the modern feminist female that is. A male associate of hers

confessed that he had wanted to ask me out on a date when he was between marriages but nixed the idea because my job as a Times columnist made me too intimidating. Men, he explained, prefer women who seem malleable and awed. He predicted that I would never find a mate because if there’s one thing men fear, it’s a woman who uses her critical faculties.

Dowd then asks

Do women get less desirable as they get more successful?

She should have asked Sarah Palin this question.

So Dowd cannot get a man—she means a husband—because she is ’successful and uses her critical facilities?’ Well then, what of her non-feminist sisters—you know, all those millions and millions of moms and wives who ignore what the New York Times thinks of ‘Life, the Universe and Everything’—are they unsuccessful imbeciles? Dowd cannot see the real causes of her unhappiness and so chalks it up to being so smart that men are afraid of her.

And why is Dowd so miserable? Part of the reason is that she hangs out with others equally as miserable and equally as clueless as she:

A few years ago at a White House correspondents’ dinner, I met a very beautiful and successful actress. Within minutes, she blurted out: “I can’t believe I’m 46 and not married…”

The self-blindness startles. How many ‘beautiful and successful actresses’ have loving husbands and children? The usual ‘lifestyle’ of a ‘beautiful and successful actress’ is not one that lends itself to marital happiness and stability. One need merely consult any newspaper or People magazine to find any number of ‘beautiful and successful actresses’ indulging in sexual antics, adulteries, multiple divorces, all sorts of addictions and dressing as prostitutes. Someone should inform that ‘beautiful and successful actress’ that a man would certainly bed her but would never consider her anything other than a useful and attractive whore.

Dowd would have done better to avoid anyone connected with Hollywood. She herself was once the consort of actor Michael Douglas. He never married her nor gave her children—why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? When Douglas tired of her he left her arms to woo the young and fetching—and fertile—Catherine Zeta-Jones. Say what you want about Zeta-Jones, she knew what to do to keep her man: she presented Douglas with children. They since have married. This sad and grotesquely cruel sentence says it all:

Catherine Zeta-Jones Expecting Again
(Maureen Dowd remains bitter and childless)

Dowd consoles herself by seeking out those who move in her own rarified circle. She seldom makes a personal connection with those outside of it. Her view of men and women is derived from spending her entire life with folks just like her:

A friend of mine in her 30’s says…Anne Schroeder, a 26-year-old magazine editor in Washington…Marc Santora, a 30-year-old Metro reporter for The Times, says…One of my girlfriends, a TV producer in New York…When I asked a young man at my gym how he and his lawyer girlfriend…At a party for the Broadway opening of “Sweet Smell of Success,” a top New York producer…A few years ago at a White House correspondents’ dinner…John Schwartz of The New York Times…Or, as Craig Bierko, a musical comedy star and actor who played one of Carrie’s boyfriends on “Sex and the City,” told me…A Harvard economics professor, Claudia Goldin…Kate White, the editor of Cosmopolitan, told me that…Cynthia Russett, a professor of American history at Yale…Helen Gurley Brown, Cosmo’s founding editor told me…Felix Dennis, who created the top-selling Maxim, said…”I have been surprised,” Maxim’s editor, Ed Needham, confessed to me…

From this miserable, wretched and morally bankrupt crowd it is no wonder that Dowd has a miserable, wretched and morally bankrupt view of marriage—and of men:

By the time you swear you’re his,
Shivering and sighing,
And he vows his passion is
Infinite, undying -
Lady, make a note of this:
One of you is lying.

Someone should inform Dowd that a man does not enjoy being called a liar at the outset of the marriage.

Something else a man would not enjoy is a woman known for her ‘acid wit’ and ‘tart tongue.’ We males have a word for such a woman—and it rhymes with ‘rich.’

The simple truths about men are unknown to Dowd. She would have been better off consulting Dr. Laura and reading Ten Stupid Things Women Do to Mess Up Their Lives than fact-checking with the noisome and elitist neurotics who inhabit the byways of Washington and New York.

Dowd tells us more about this motley throng of associates than perhaps she intends:

…as more and more women embrace Botox and implants and stretch and protrude to extreme proportions to satisfy male desires. Now that technology is biology, all women can look like inflatable dolls. It’s clear that American narcissism has trumped American feminism.

This then is one of the results of feminism among the New York and Washington elite: women who chase after Botox and men who chase after inflatable dolls.

And what about Dowd claiming expertise about how to ’satisfy male desires?’ How would she know? She should have consulted Sarah Palin about how to do this. Dowd herself laments about being unable to do any such thing. Else, why the bitterness?

And Dowd, demonstrating that misery loves company, predicts dire consequences for those women who abandon the feminist mystique and retreat into motherhood:

It’s easy to picture a surreally familiar scene when women realize they bought into a raw deal and old trap. With no power or money or independence, they’ll be mere domestic robots, lasering their legs and waxing their floors – or vice versa – and desperately seeking a new Betty Friedan.

So there it is, the feminist ideology all wrapped up: What a woman needs is power and money and independence to avoid becoming a slave to man. But then, why does Dowd complain? She has all of those things in abundance.

And Dowd actually believes that those women who today choose babies over boardrooms will tomorrow lament for a new Betty Friedan—in other words they will seek out the same grotesque ideology that has brought Dowd and her sisters such intense and permanent unhappiness. The results are obvious to those with eyes to see: empty wombs, empty beds, darkened hearts. And poor Dowd would infect all women present and future with the same disease that is killing her.

The sad reality of the life of Maureen Dowd and the lives of all like her—the Gloria Steinems and Betty Friedans and Simone de Beauvoirs—is that they chased the false goddess of feminism. They came to see marriage and children as a form of slavery, and the only way that a woman could be truly free was to pursue a professional career—that of writer, academic, executive and lawyer. But during all that time spent avoiding the misery of marriage and children their own biological clock was tick-ticking away, until that terrible moment when their ability to bear the next generation had passed forever.

This is the horrible pain and the terrible pity of Maureen Dowd, that she suffers for her children that never were and can never be. She rages against the dying of the light that she herself has extinguished.

---

The Emptiness Of Maureen Dowd

Posted on July 6th, 2009 by Scipio

***********************

While doing the research for the Maureen Dowd essay [ABOVE] I came upon other writers who had read Dowd’s piece and wrote their own commentary. They are not pretty to read. All are from women. That is why they are not pretty to read. Woman can be more cruel to other women than to any man. If you do not know this then you do not know women.

From Catholic blogger Amy Welborn:

Dowd’s piece was just too…personal in a creepy, almost pitiful kind of way…It strikes me even her question – Why am I not married? is decidedly un-feminist, a betrayal of the sensibilities she claims to be defending…Her central thesis – that feminism has failed because men don’t like smart, ambitious women and want to marry the maid instead is just stupid. What’s missing from Dowd’s analysis is simple, and takes one word to say: family.

From Ann Althouse, concerning Dowd’s preference for hanging out with the high, mighty and well-connected rather than engaging in the tough work of being a wife and raising a family:

Ah, who needs to get married if you can go to the White House correspondents’ dinner and hang out with a beautiful actress!

From Slate columnist Katie Roiphe:

Dowd pushes every statement to its most exaggerated form; her column occupies a space somewhere in between the other columns on the New York Times op-ed page and the political cartoons that sometimes run there…It would be one thing if Dowd were writing pure, straightforward polemic, ranting against the people she feels the need to rant against. But Dowd is pretending to cover cultural trends with journalistic accuracy, and it is this pretense that gives her arguments a shoddy feel.

And finally from Kathleen Parker’s Feminism’s Devolution from Hoaxers to Whores—an essay title that says much:

Dowd, herself unmarried and childless, wonders whether being smart and successful explains her status…Men haven’t turned away from smart, successful women because they’re smart and successful. More likely they’ve turned away because the feminist movement that encouraged women to be smart and successful also encouraged them to be hostile and demeaning to men…As far as I can tell, real men don’t have a problem with smart, successful women. But they do mind being castrated. It’s a guy thing. They do mind being told in so many ways that they are superfluous.

Reading those girls, I almost feel sorry for MoDo. Almost.

She is in pain but does not understand why. So she strikes out at men—all men, the suave and the crude—for not performing as she would want. But Dowd is—as are we all—a collection of life choices: the Good ones, the Bad ones, the Ugly ones. She is what she chose to be, and pays today for yesterday’s decisions. She struggles against the bonds of what economists—a remarkably unromantic bunch—call ‘opportunity costs.’ Time and resources being finite, the true cost of a thing is what you sacrificed to get it. Dowd sacrificed marriage and children to become a successful writer and now laments that she is alone.

Be careful what you wish for.

---

When Hens Attack

Posted on July 6th, 2009 by Scipio

******************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
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.

However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even 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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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

STEYN ON PALIN

In states far from the national spotlight,

politics still attracts normal people.

You're a mayor or a state senator or even the governor,

but you lead a normal life.

The local media are tough on you,

but they know you, they live where you live,

they're tough on the real you,

not on some caricature cooked up by a malign alliance of late-night comics

who'd never heard of you a week earlier

and media grandees supposedly on your own side

who pronounce you a "cancer".

Then suddenly you get the call from Washington. You know it'll mean Secret Service, and speechwriters, and minders vetting your wardrobe. But nobody said it would mean a mainstream network comedy host doing statutory rape gags about your 14-year old daughter. You've got a special-needs kid and a son in Iraq and a daughter who's given you your first grandchild in less than ideal circumstances. That would be enough for most of us. But the special-needs kid and the daughter and most everyone else you love are a national joke, and the PC enforcers are entirely cool with it.

Most of those who sneer at Sarah Palin have no desire to live her life. But why not try to - what's the word? - "empathize"? If you like Wasilla and hunting and snowmachining and moose stew and politics, is the last worth giving up everything else in the hopes that one day David Letterman and Maureen Dowd might decide Trig and Bristol and the rest are sufficiently non-risible to enable you to prosper in their world? And, putting aside the odds, would you really like to be the person you'd have to turn into under that scenario?

National office will dwindle down to the unhealthily singleminded (Clinton, Obama), the timeserving emirs of Incumbistan (Biden, McCain) and dynastic heirs (Bush). Our loss.

---
Mark Steyn
The Corner
National Review Online
Friday, 03 July 09
*******************************
BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
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.

However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even 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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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

RUTH BADER GINSBURG WOULD GRANT A VESTED RIGHT TO PROMOTION TO AFRICAN-AMERICANS THEREBY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST WHITES AND HISPANICS

The Supreme Court's ruling on the Ricci case
-- that white firemen suffered illegal discrimination
when a promotional test on which they did well
was thrown out because not enough blacks did well --
will have no effect on Sonia Sotomayor's
nomination to the Supreme Court.
While overturned on Ricci,
she is protected by the four dissenting justices
who upheld the side of the case she had taken as a Circuit Court judge.
Sotomayor was additionally helped by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's
insistence on reading her dissent from the bench,
as if to emphasize the legitimacy of her position
-- and, by implication, Sotomayor's.

Ricci left Sotomayor relatively unscathed.
But not affirmative action.
Ricci raised the bar considerably on overt discrimination against one racial group simply to undo the unintentionally racially skewed results of otherwise fair and objective employment procedures (in this case, examinations).

It's not enough for a city to say, as did New Haven, that it was afraid of being sued by black firefighters. The evidence was irrefutable that the tests were put together in a conscientious, race-neutral way. Not only were minority firefighters over-sampled in devising the questions. The designers established nine oral exam boards, each a three-person panel, each consisting of precisely one white, one black and one Hispanic. (Such is the extreme race consciousness that the Civil Rights Act, of all things, has brought upon us.) Nor will it do, as New Haven tried, to throw out a test on the pretext that another test with less racial impact might theoretically exist out there in the ether.

The defenders of the old racial order, led by Ginsburg, objected sternly, declaring that the white firemen "had no vested right to promotion." Of course they didn't, but they did have a vested right to fairness, to not being denied promotion because of their skin color.

Of course no one has a vested right to promotion. Isn't that why they gave those tests in the first place? Isn't that why for the last, oh, 125 years we have been using objective civil service exams to allocate government jobs not on the basis of right -- or patronage or favoritism or racially discriminatory advantage -- but on the basis of merit and job-related skill?

It's the Ginsburg dissent that, in effect, grants a vested right to promotion -- to African-Americans, simply because of their race -- and makes the frustration of that specious right the basis for denying promotion to white (and Hispanic) firefighters who had objectively qualified for promotion.

The major conundrum of the civil rights age remains. The 14th Amendment bans discrimination on the basis of race. But the Civil Rights Act, which bans "disparate impact" discrimination -- procedures (like exams) that yield racially unbalanced results -- affirmatively mandates racial favoritism to undo those results. The evil day will come, writes Justice Antonin Scalia in his concurrence, when this contradiction will have to be resolved.

He is right. For decades we have been finessing the issue with a mess of compromises, euphemisms, incoherences and pretenses such as banning racial quotas but promoting racial "goals." Anyone who has ever had to make hiring or admission decisions knows that this angel-on-the-head-of-pin distinction is 95 percent a matter of appearances, gestures and lawsuit-avoiding paperwork.

And yet we have muddled our way through, permitting a large dose of intentional discrimination to ameliorate past discrimination -- and present inadvertent imbalances -- without totally abandoning the ideal of colorblindness.

The result? At the near half-century mark of the Civil Rights Act, racial minorities have seen remarkable social advancement. The younger generation is infinitely more racially tolerant and accepting. We've made great racial progress. But the fundamental unfairness that underlies the racial spoils system continues to rankle. That's what animated the Ricci case.

We're 45 years beyond passage of the Civil Rights Act. We have a black attorney general and a black president. As with every passing year we move generationally away from the era of Jim Crow, it becomes less and less justified for the government to mandate "remedial" racial discrimination. Which is why in one of her last opinions, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that "the Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary."

The import of Ricci, which raised the bar on reverse discrimination, is that it heads us once again toward that day -- and back to true colorblindness that was the original vision, and everlasting glory, of the civil rights movement.
---
Friday, July 03, 2009
Charles Krauthammer :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Meaning of Ricci
by Charles Krauthammer

**************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
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.

However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even 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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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