Obama Is Not An American!!! - Obama Is A Fraud!!! - Obama Is A Muslim!!!

Obama Is An Embarrassment To The Presidency, and To AMERICA!

Scroll Down And Check Out The Links List On The Lower Right Side of The Page

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Obama Recruiting Radicals In High School

From Big Government

Obama Recruiting Radicals In High School
By Pamela Geller(Atlas Shrugs)

Barack Obama is using our public school system to recruit for his Alinsky-inspired private army.

Organizing for America (OFA), formerly Obama For America, is recruiting in our high schools to “build on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda” – that is, his agenda of socialism for the United States of America.

Chuck, a reader of my website AtlasShrugs.com, has a daughter in the eleventh grade in a public high school, Perry Local in Massillon, Ohio.

The teacher in her government class passed out a propaganda recruiting paper – headed with Obama’s distinctive “O” logo — asking students to sign up as interns for Organizing for America. You can see the entire intern recruiting form at AtlasShrugs.com.

And what will these “interns” be force-fed? The mother’s milk of the left — anti-war agitation, anti-capitalism, Marx, Lenin, Ayers, LGBT agenda promotion, global warming, pro-jihad, and illegal immigration. For starters.

Maybe “Ellie Light,” who has in the last few weeks published the same Letter to the Editor supporting and defending Obama in over a dozen newspapers across the country, can give lessons in astroturfing.

The form carries a recommended reading list, including Rules for Radicals by the notorious hard left community organizer and Obama mentor Saul Alinsky; two Huffington Post articles by Zack Exley, “The New Organizers” and “Obama Field Organizers Plot a Miracle.”

The first of those, published in October 2008, enthuses about “an insurgent generation of organizers” inside the Obama campaign that has, “almost without anyone noticing … built the Progressive movement a brand new and potentially durable people’s organization, in a dozen states, rooted at the neighborhood level.”

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Exley operated the website www.gwbush.com, which was filled with lies about George W. Bush that were designed to kill his chance to become President. The site’s headline was “Just Say ‘No’ to a Former Cocaine User for President.”

Also included on the OFA internship recommended reading list are Stir It Up: Lessons from Community Organizing and Advocacy by the leftist activist Rinku Sen, and sections of Obama’s book Dreams from My Father dealing with his days as a community organizer in Chicago.

And what is the point of all this propaganda and community organizing?
To elect more Democrats, of course.

This internship program is geared towards the 2010 elections, using our kids as the Democrats’ goons.

The internship form begins with a nakedly partisan and propagandistic appeal: “Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is building on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda of change.

OFA is launching a national internship program connecting students all over the country with our organization on the ground – working to make the change we fought so hard for in 2008 a reality in 2010 and beyond.”

Can you imagine if the Republicans attempted such a stunt?

Obama is using the public school system to help ensure Democratic victories in 2010, 2012, and thereafter.

This is incredible.

And evil.
And it is no accident.
Obama is poisoning our public school system.
He acts as if it’s his own private recruiting farm.

This isn’t the first time, either. In September 2009, all public school students were forced to listen to his creepy speech about working hard in school. During the campaign the Obama camp had “Kids for Obama Parades.” And public school teachers more than once were caught indoctrinating children into the Obama cult.

Remember the uniformed children chanting about how Obama had motivated them to succeed? P.J. Gladnick wrote about that video at Newsbusters in October 2008 that it was “reminiscent of North Korean kids chanting out their praises for the ‘Dear Leader.’” And don’t forget those many videos of public school kids singing brainwashed tunes of Obama praise.

Long before he was President, Obama’s camp had targeted children and started building a cult of adulation around their hero.

The children’s book Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope by Nikki Grimes sets Obama up as a demigod: “Ever since Barack Obama was young, Hope has lived inside him. From the beaches of Hawaii to the streets of Chicago, from the jungles of Indonesia to the plains of Kenya, he has held on to Hope. Even as a boy, Barack knew he wasn’t quite like anybody else, but through his journeys he found the ability to listen to Hope and become what he was meant to be: a bridge to bring people together.”

And now once again our perverse public school system abandons academic standards and achievement, replacing them with radical leftist activism from leftwing Alinsky indoctrinators.

Children must be advised to expose this ugly propaganda.

Children must tell their parents how they are being used and manipulated.
Parents, warn your kids.
Better yet, home school.
Don’t let Barack Obama recruit his drones from your family.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

U.S. Cancels No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Democratic Donor

If it weren't for FOX news we likely would not have even heard about this... And these jerks would continue to pay off their cronies at will!
You just KNOW there's more to come...
I can't wait!
Chicago-style politics at it's finest!

U.S. Cancels No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Democratic Donor

The U.S. canceled a $25 million federal contract for working in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor that was awarded without entertaining competitive bids.

The U.S. has canceled a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan awarded to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids.

The cancellation comes after Fox News first reported on the details of the contract last week, prompting lawmakers to make inquiries into the deal. State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley told Fox News that USAID terminated the award and is now working on an appropriate resolution.

The contract had been awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi that was hired to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.

A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site said Checchi & Company would "train the next generation of legal professionals" throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby "develop the capacity of Afghanistan's justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair."

The legality of the arrangement as a "sole source," or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator.

When Checchi was contacted by Fox News for its earlier report, he confirmed that his company had indeed received the nearly $25 million contract but declined to say why it had been awarded on a no-bid basis, referring a reporter to USAID.

Asked if he or his firm had been aware that the contract was awarded without competitive bids, Checchi replied: "After it was awarded to us, sure. Before, we had no idea."

Joseph A. Fredericks, director of public information at USAID, told Fox News the Checchi deal was actually a renewal of an existing contract, awarded in 2004 by the Bush administration after a competitive bid process.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Fox News the no-bid contract in this case "disturbed" him.

Issa had written to USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah requesting that the agency "produce all documents related to the Checchi contract" on or before Feb. 5. Citing the waiver that enabled USAID to award the contract on a no-bid basis, Issa noted that the exemption was intended to speed up the provision of services in a crisis environment.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, told Fox News she, too, was seeking answers about the Checchi contract.

As a candidate for president in 2008, Obama, then a senator, frequently derided the Bush administration for the awarding of federal contracts without competitive bidding.

Less than two months after he was sworn into office, President Obama signed a memorandum that he claimed would "dramatically reform the way we do business on contracts across the entire government."

"If you want to say this violates the basis on which this administration came into office and campaigned, fair enough," Crowley told Fox News.

Federal campaign records show Checchi has been a frequent contributor to liberal and Democratic causes and candidates in recent years, including to Obama's presidential campaign. The records show Checchi has given at least $4,400 to Obama dating back to March 2007, close to the maximum amount allowed.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Friday, January 22, 2010

The Meaning of Brown

From Townhall.Com

The Meaning of Brown
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health care reform.

"If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have."

The bravado lasted three days.

When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health care bill.
When your candidate is sinking, you don't throw her a millstone.

After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration
"not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

Let's get this straight:

The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that ... it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts?
Why, the man is omnipotent.

And the Democrats are delusional:

Scott Brown won by running against Obama not Bush.
He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare.
Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.


An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to Rasmussen, called health care their top issue.
In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare.
Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent resentment you expect in bad economic times.

Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda.

Stop health care.
Don't Mirandize terrorists.
Don't raise taxes; cut them.
And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.

These deals -- the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback -- had engendered a national disgust with the corruption and arrogance of one-party rule.

The final straw was the union payoff -- in which labor bosses smugly walked out of the White House with a five-year exemption from a ("Cadillac") health insurance tax Democrats were imposing on the 92 percent of private-sector workers who are not unionized.

The reason both wings of American liberalism -- congressional and mainstream media -- were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they'd spent Obama's first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer.

With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.

You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year's two gubernatorial elections.

The evidence was unmistakable:

Independents, who in 2008 had elected Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in Virginia, 21 in New Jersey.

On Tuesday, it was even worse:
Independents, who had gone 2-to-1 Republican in Virginia and New Jersey, now went 3-to-1 Republican in hyper-blue Massachusetts.

Nor was this an expression of the more agitated elements who vote in obscure low-turnout elections. The turnout on Tuesday was the highest for any nonpresidential Massachusetts election in 20 years.

Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to diss Curt Schilling.

True, Brown had Schilling.
But Coakley had Obama.
When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal -- of a man who had them swooning only a year ago -- something is going on beyond personality.

That something is substance -- political ideas and legislative agendas.

Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger.

That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power -- even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can't even see is in your own interest.

Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don't want it, could they possibly have a point?

"If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call," said moderate -- and sentient -- Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, "there's no hope of waking up."

I say: Let them sleep.


Mr Krauthammer is one of my all-time favorite commentators...
He has a wonderful feel of America's political pulse!
And, a brilliant mind!

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

3 Dozen Lawmakers Want Proof of Obama Eligibility

Well I'll be darned! FINALLY!
Somebody is taking some interest in this charlatan's background!

From WND

3 Dozen Lawmakers Want Proof of Obama Eligibility
Proposal would demand state officials independently verify information
By Bob Unruh

Lawmakers in Arizona have proposed a law that would require state officials to begin independently verifying the accuracy of newly required documents affirming the constitutional eligibility of any candidate for the U.S. presidency.

"Certainly, there has been controversy over President Obama and his birth certificate, where he was born, etc.," state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, told the Arizona Capitol Times. "It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen."

She is one of about three dozen lawmakers to sign on as co-sponsors.
The plan would essentially have the same effect as the federal law proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

The provisions of Posey's H.R. 1503 are straightforward:

"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

The bill also provides:

"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."

The sponsors' goal is to have the bill become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.

But whatever support it does have, it faces massive obstacles in a House and Senate dominated by Democrats, as well as a president whose own status could be impacted by its requirements.

Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, earlier told the East Valley Tribune her plan is not aimed directly at Obama, although she does have concerns about his loyalties.

"When someone bows to the king of Saudi Arabia and they apologize for our country around the world, I have a problem with that," she told the newspaper.

"We want to make sure that we have candidates that are going to stand up for the United States of America. This is my home. I want to leave my children a better country than I inherited," she said.

"Obama has a book and it said, when it came down to it, he would be on the Muslim side," Burges said. "Doesn't that bother you just a little bit?"

Any state adopting – and enforcing – requirements similar to the federal plan would have an equal impact, since the information submitted to meet the requirements presumably would be public.

Democrats in the state already are arguing that the plan to demand all presidential candidates submit proof they were born in the U.S. and sign an affidavit stating they are a U.S. citizen is not needed.

"He [Obama] clearly met the standards to run for president and hold office as president because the federal government installed him as president in January of last year," said Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat. "The question has been asked and answered."

As WND has reported, however, no controlling legal authority ever directly addressed the question of whether Obama met the U.S. Constitution's requirements to be president, that is being 35 years of age, a resident for at least 14 years and a "natural born citizen."

The proposal, H2442, also would require that the secretary of state in Arizona independently verify that the documents submitted are correct. Any failure could cause the candidate's name to be withheld from the ballot, officials said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in excess of $1.7 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.


Yeah, us 'birthers' are very rude and hateful folks...

Never mind that all we want is the truth... everyone on The Left and EVERY Obama supporter has accused us of being deranged zealots refusing to accept the obvious truth of his birth and citizenship.

Just produce the legal, authentic documents and we'll go away... It's really that simple.


Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Rep Todd Tiahrt: Mayors Wrong About Tiahrt Amendment

From The Wichitah Eagle, Kansas

Rep Todd Tiahrt: Mayors Wrong About Tiahrt Amendment
By Rep. Todd Tiahrt

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg knows a lot, and what he knows has helped bring him success on many levels. But when it comes to federal firearm laws and the Second Amendment, Bloomberg is either uninformed or intentionally deceptive.

In recent weeks, Bloomberg and his organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, have used victims of the Fort Hood massacre as political tools to seek repeal of a law known as the Tiahrt amendment. This law protects the privacy rights of legal firearm owners and ensures undercover agents and their investigations are not compromised.

Bloomberg's inability to overturn the Tiahrt amendment has led to a series of brash accusations, wild theories and deceitful self-financed smear campaigns.

Bloomberg has brazenly charged that investigators were "blocked" from searching alleged terror suspect Maj. Nidal Hasan's records — and that maintaining records beyond the 24 hours permitted by the Tiahrt amendment "could have saved lives." One of his solutions to prevent another Fort Hood tragedy: repeal the Tiahrt amendment.

There's just one problem with Bloomberg's so-called solution — the FBI already has 90 days to maintain and investigate firearm sale records related to suspects on the FBI's terrorist watch list. Not only are the FBI and counterterrorism agents notified when a suspect tries to purchase a firearm, but they can and do place holds on transactions to allow further review by field agents.

If Hasan was on the FBI's terrorist watch list, the agency would have had direct knowledge about his firearm purchase. If Hasan was not on the FBI watch list, that raises ample questions as to why not.

But it should not lead us to dangerously conclude that owning or purchasing a firearm makes you suspect for committing an act of terrorism.

The FBI is not restricted by the Tiahrt amendment in its ability to monitor actions of suspects being watched for terrorist activity. The recent attacks on the Tiahrt amendment and use of American deaths to achieve a solution that already exists are a disgrace on the mayors' reputations as public servants.

For all Bloomberg's pretenses about wanting to fight crime and stop illegal guns, maybe he should stop listening to his front organization and start paying attention to the one organization that really understands this issue — the Fraternal Order of Police.

As the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, the FOP supports the Tiahrt amendment. That's because, contrary to what Mayors Against Illegal Guns asserts, the Tiahrt amendment does not affect background-check outcomes, does not affect who is permitted to own a firearm, and does not restrict local law enforcement officials or the FBI from accessing all available firearm data for criminal investigations.

What is clear from the political smears is that gun-control advocates are willing to ignore the truth if it helps them achieve their objectives of establishing a national firearm registry and, ultimately, being able to sue firearm owners and manufacturers for crimes committed by criminals and terrorists.
Todd Tiahrt is a Republican member of Congress from Goddard.

So Lucky To Be An American...

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Britt Hume on Eldric Woods

Fom Ann Coulter.Com

January 6, 2010

Someone mentioned Christianity on television recently and liberals reacted with their usual howls of rage and blinking incomprehension.

On a Fox News panel discussing Tiger Woods, Brit Hume said, perfectly accurately:

"The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Hume's words, being 100 percent factually correct, sent liberals into a tizzy of sputtering rage, once again illustrating liberals' copious ignorance of Christianity.
(Also illustrating the words of the Bible: "How is it you do not understand me when I speak? It is because you cannot bear to listen to my words." John 8:43.)

In The Washington Post, Tom Shales demanded that Hume apologize, saying he had "dissed about half a billion Buddhists on the planet."

Is Buddhism about forgiveness?

Because, if so, Buddhists had better start demanding corrections from every book, magazine article and blog posting ever written on the subject, which claims Buddhists don't believe in God, but try to become their own gods.

I can't imagine that anyone thinks Tiger's problem was that he didn't sufficiently think of himself as a god, especially after that final putt in the Arnold Palmer Invitational last year.

In light of Shales' warning Hume about "what people are saying" about him, I hope Hume's a Christian, but that's not apparent from his inarguable description of Christianity. Of course, given the reaction to his remarks, apparently one has to be a regular New Testament scholar to have so much as a passing familiarity with the basic concept of Christianity.

On MSNBC, David Shuster invoked the "separation of church and television" (a phrase that also doesn't appear in the Constitution), bitterly complaining that Hume had brought up Christianity "out-of-the-blue" on "a political talk show."

Why on earth would Hume mention religion while discussing a public figure who had fallen from grace and was in need of redemption and forgiveness? Boy, talk about coming out of left field.

What religion -- what topic -- induces this sort of babbling idiocy? (If liberals really want to keep people from hearing about God, they should give Him his own show on MSNBC.)

Most perplexing was columnist Dan Savage's indignant accusation that Hume was claiming that Christianity
"offers the best deal -- it gives you the get-out-of-adultery-free card that other religions just can't."

In fact, that's exactly what Christianity does.
It's the best deal in the universe. (I know it seems strange that a self-described atheist and "radical sex advice columnist faggot" like Savage would miss the central point of Christianity, but there it is.)

God sent his only son to get the crap beaten out of him, die for our sins and rise from the dead. If you believe that, you're in. Your sins are washed away from you -- sins even worse than adultery! -- because of the cross.

"He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross." Colossians 2:14.

Surely you remember the cross, liberals -- the symbol banned by ACLU lawsuits from public property throughout the land?

Christianity is simultaneously the easiest religion in the world and the hardest religion in the world.

In the no-frills, economy-class version, you don't need a church, a teacher, candles, incense, special food or clothing; you don't need to pass a test or prove yourself in any way. All you'll need is a Bible (in order to grasp the amazing deal you're getting) and probably a water baptism, though even that's disputed.

You can be washing the dishes or walking your dog or just sitting there minding your business hating Susan Sarandon and accept that God sent his only son to die for your sins and rise from the dead ... and you're in!

"Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9.

If you do that, every rotten, sinful thing you've ever done is gone from you. You're every bit as much a Christian as the pope or Billy Graham.

No fine print, no "your mileage may vary," no blackout dates. God ought to do a TV spot: "I'm God Almighty, and if you can find a better deal than the one I'm offering, take it."

The Gospel makes this point approximately 1,000 times. Here are a few examples at random:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:8.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23.

In a boiling rage, liberals constantly accuse Christians of being "judgmental."
No, we're relieved.

Christianity is also the hardest religion in the world because, if you believe Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead, you have no choice but to give your life entirely over to Him.

No more sexual promiscuity, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no killing inconvenient old people or unborn babies -- no doing what all the other kids do.

And no more caring what the world thinks of you -- because, as Jesus warned in a prophecy constantly fulfilled by liberals: The world will hate you.

With Christianity, your sins are forgiven, the slate is wiped clean and your eternal life is guaranteed through nothing you did yourself, even though you don't deserve it.
It's the best deal in the universe.


Well said Ms. Coulter!

But as for Mr. Woods, he really is a pitiful excuse for a man. But I expect many of us have cut him so much slack because of his tremendous talent on the golf course. But that's where it ends... on the colf course.

Imagine a child of 2 or 3 being given a golf club and told that this was his new toy. That this was the only toy he could play with and that if he mastered the techniques of the complex game of golf, he could become a 'professionial' and neither his father, his mother or anyone else in his family would ever need to work again.

He was raised from the cradle to be a meal ticket. Period!

I've watched his career from his earliest days on The Johnny Carson Show. I don't think he was ever allowed to be a normal kid.

So now he has fortune, fame and a hot Nordic wife... just what daddy wanted for him. Except daddy didn't count on Eldric befriending the likes of other black pro atheletes with their un-seemly habits of illegal drugs, wild parties, and hookers...

Mrs. Tiger Woods...

With a wife like that why would your turn to a hooker?

Not gettin' enough at home?

Oh how the mighty have fallen...
It doesn't take a nuclear scientist to understand that when you give a 20 year old naieve kid millions of dollars, that he'll likely do something untoward... maybe even stupid.

But Mr. Woods is in his 30s now... In the full bloom of MANHOOD. You'd think he would have grown up a little?

I enjoy the game, although I'm not as good as I would like to be at it, but I understand it and empathize with Mr. Woods - but I'm certainly no Pro.

The thing that has always irritated me about Eldric Woods is his 'on course' behavior. The spitting, the throwing of clubs, the cursing, the bad manners... Sure we've all done it at one time or another, but we don't continue to do it. We know it's in poor taste and not 'in the spirit of the gentlemanly game'. So we continue to shoot 20 over par and just enjoy the day in nature's playground, without much regret.

But Pros are different. The get paid for their performances. And whether they like it or not, they ARE role models for youngsters. I just wish more Pros would look in the mirror more often.

But, after all, hanging with hookers is what pro jocks do.
Party, party, party...
What else is there to do, after winning a tournament with a sub-par round of 'professional' golf?

You just can't go home to the Mrs. - That's a complete downer!

I can imagine...
Just give me the remote honey and come over here and sit in daddy's lap!
Today, I'm GOD!

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Rep. Deal Challenges Obama’s Eligibility

The Charlott Conservative;
World Net Daily;
And America Coast To Coast

Rep. Deal (R-Ga), Challenges Obama’s Eligibility

Nathan Deal, U.S. Representative for Georgia, is running for Georgia Governor in 2010.

(Jan. 5, 2010) — The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.

Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America.
The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories.
It originated solely from Representative Deal.

Now, what does this mean?
This is probably the first time in 233 years of American history that a sitting member of the House of Representatives has officially challenged the legitimacy of a sitting president….one full year into his term.
This forever changes the public discourse.

Even if the putative president ignores the challenge, he cannot hide from it, because by doing so he admits his guilt through silence.
The question has to be asked near and far, why would a president who has promised greater transparency than any previous administration pay upwards of $2,000,000 of taxpayer money to hide documents that could resolve the matter once and for all time for the cost of $20.00?
He has publicly admitted on more than one occasion that his father was NOT an American citizen.
This alone disqualifies him from eligibility based on Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, and consequently makes him a usurper.

Representative Deal, understanding full well the magnitude and gravity of the situation and recognizing that it places our country in a national security crisis, has rightfully confronted the issue head-on. The ramifications are so serious that all laws signed by a putative president are null and void, and soldiers sent into war under his command can be tried as war criminals.

Representative Deal is not a “Birther”; rather, he is a “Truther”; one of the millions of others who have been seeking irrefutable proof for over a year and a half!

Obama's original birth papers have yet to be made available for review, and there are critics who contended he wasn't actually born in Hawaii. Others say that doesn't make any difference, since with a father subject to British rule at the time of his birth, he was at best a dual citizen. The critics contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from being called a "natural-born citizen," as required by the Constitution.

The "natural-born citizen" issue has been raised in a multitude of lawsuits since before Obama was elected, including some pending at various levels of the judicial system.

Most judges, however, have concluded that U.S. citizens and political candidates simply have no right – or "standing" – to question whether Obama has met the requirements of the Constitution.

But the questions have been exacerbated by other information Obama has chosen not to release.

Other documentation not yet available includes Obama's kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Not a single lawsuit to date has been decided on the merits of the case, with numerous cases yet to be resolved or dismissed.

To show support for Representative Deal, you may contact him here:
The Honorable Nathan Deal
2133 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1009
DC Phone: 202-225-5211
DC Fax: 202-225-8272
Email Address: http://www.house.gov/deal/contact.shtml
WWW Homepage: http://www.house.gov/deal/
We're with you all the way!

Friday, January 8, 2010

High Treason, No Need For Birth Certificate

From Stand Up America

Gail Tenzer – High Treason, No Need For Birth Certificate
Published on 01/07/10
Also posted by the Gold Coast Chronicle

Other than being relevant to High Treason, it’s no longer even a question of eligibility. At this point, it’s a question of such gross incompetence, fraud, abuse of power and defiance of the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land, that BHO needs to be immediately charged and removed from any decision making.

BHO is attempting to rule and set up a government to replace the U.S. Constitutional Government. That’s not only high treason – it’s also evidence of perjury when he took the oath of office and if consumer laws were applied to his campaign, he committed fraud against the U.S. electorate!

We have never been in this kind of situation before. It is certainly uncharted territory. For starters, we need to remove all his powers for Executive Orders which he is abusing to bypass Congress. There is a violation here wherein BHO, Pelosi and co. are attempting to rule from above like monarchs rather than deriving their power from the people. This was never the intention of our Founding Fathers!

Before anyone is allowed to run for any office again, just as you have to take a driver’s license exam before you can drive a car, I suggest that candidates be vetted by first taking a course on U.S. Government and the Constitution (perhaps using “The 5000 Year Leap” and the Federalist Papers as texts), take a qualifying exam on the material and go through security clearance as if they were going to go to work for the FBI or CIA! Only then should they even be allowed to run for office in order to avoid this from ever happening again. Apparently we cannot continue to allow the Press to be a watchdog for the people!

All citizens must take courses to learn what this Democracy is all about before they can be allowed to vote. Sorry – that means either they get the info from reading or they have to be provided with videos etc. It is irresponsible to allow people to vote when they have no idea what they are or aren’t voting for. That would be as far as voting for candidates and not issues. Naturally, tax payers – all who are affected by a tax or an issue that are citizens should be allowed to vote for those issues that affect their lives.

We need to help avoid people voting for someone just because they are good actors and have “celebrity” qualities rather than people who know the issues they will have to deal with and are competent in those areas with a proven track record, which, by the way, BHO also did not have!


It's time to indeed STAND UP AMERICA!
We need to take our country back! NOW!
(And one slight correction to the above writer... America is not a Democracy, but a Representative Republic.)

This Obama character, this ZERO of a person, is only a puppet. Stop and think about it...
Even an slow 3rd grader can figure it out!

Here comes a man with a name that sounds foreign.
He has for his middle name, the arabic name, Hussein.
But we are not supposed to pay any attention to that because when we do we will be called racist biggots.

Barack Hussein Obama. Let's see... What part of the world names it's children in such a fashion?

Likely those living in the Middle East or some foreign, exotic place? Hindus, Buddists, Jews, Shintos, Jainists, or Taoists don't name their children with such names.

Certainly Christians do not uses such names.

ONLY people of the Muslim faith, ISLAM - use such names for their children. I figured it out over 2 years ago. I'm sure most 3rd graders did as well.

But the media told us to ignore our common sense and accept this person as a true individual and a man of honor. Well, OK. A lot of us did. I didn't, but a heck of a lot of misguided folks did!

So what do you think now? Is this man, this Hussein, a man of honor? Is he what you thought he was?
Is he MORE? Or is he LESS?

I still wonder why he simply doesn't put all this speculation to rest by producing a valid authenticated Birth Certificate?

With so much speculation about his birth and early childhood in Indonesia, why wouldn't a prudent person be skeptical? I believe a 3rd grader would be skeptical?

So yes, this man is GUILTY of lying to The American People, and should be held accountable for his crimes.
Impeachment? Yes!
Incarceration? Yes!

The Zero is an imposter and a criminal!
Arrest him today!