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

Thursday, May 27, 2010

America, When Are You Going To Stand Up?

We've watched this "Chicago Charade" on Capitol Hill for well over a year now.

And, even though we knew this guy was a charlatan and a fraud... and we knew this guy was wrong for America, we still gave him the benefit of the doubt, and waited...

After all, that's what Americans do... We give you an opportunity to prove yourself.

Well, the experiment has gone on long enough.

The guy presently sitting in The White House is KILLING The American Dream!

We have to stop this madness!

Somehow, we have to stop this power hungry, elitist, Socialist 'Mob Boss' before he does any more damage!

We MUST throw this Un-American, arrogant buffoon and his Chicago-style machine out of office!

When are Americans going to stand up and say ENOUGH?

I say the time is NOW!

Stand Up America!
Throw the bum out!

Impeach Obama! NOW!

Monday, May 24, 2010

America Rising

I posted this before, but it's still a timely video.

We ALL need reminding now and then...

... It is only 6 months 'till November!

Is This Just a Nightmare, or Did It Really Happen?

Is This Just a Nightmare, or Did It Really Happen?
By Jared Peterson

Over the past week we witnessed presidential and congressional disloyalty without precedent in American history, events that should be indelibly imprinted on the American electorate's collective memory.

For the first time (at least to this writer's knowledge), a foreign head of state who is promoting an ongoing, aggressive, illegal, and often violent invasion of America came to our country, met with our president, and, from the White House itself, received our president's implicit but obvious public support for that invasion; and that same foreign leader spoke to Congress and received a standing ovation from its Democrat members' for his country's war on America's borders.

Is this just a nightmare, or did it really happen?

During Barrack Hussein Obama's May 19, 2010 joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderón, our president -- constitutionally charged with the duty to defend America from all enemies, foreign and domestic -- earned the scarlet "D": By silence he aligned himself with the invaders of our country and their leader against the citizens of America's own state of Arizona who have been forced by his dereliction to defend themselves.

Nearly as amazing, on Thursday, May 20, 2010, that same foreign president, speaking from where Churchill stood during World War II, received a standing ovation from the Democrat members of Congress when he reviled the citizens of Arizona for daring to try to fashion a defense of their part of the American-Mexican border. And the Republicans did not walk out or offer any other visible, dramatic objection.

An aside: The feckless Republican non-response to the Mexican President's May 20 congressional rant is probably the least astounding of the week's events. Our stodgy Republican opposition, with a few exceptions (e.g., see Congressman Tom McClintock's superlative speech) is notable for its lack of leadership, courage, eloquence, timing, and political prescience.

That a foreign head of state who insults the overwhelming majority of America's citizens from a congressional podium might require a dramatic response from them, and at the same time might present a perfect opportunity to make clear which party is aligned with the American people on illegal immigration, would not occur to most of the timid and unimaginative mediocrities in this bunch.

But to return to the point: Consider carefully the stain of disloyalty that President Obama indelibly affixed to himself during the week just past.

On Wednesday, May 19, 2010, Felipe Calderón, President of politically and economically failed Mexico, stood on the South Lawn of the White House as a guest of America. He proceeded to claim that Arizona's recently enacted immigration law "is forcing our people there to face discrimination," and thereby he publicly trashed the State of Arizona, its legislators and governor, and, if polls are accurate, about 70% of its residents (and probably nearly the same percentage of all Americans) who unambiguously want the border sealed and support Arizona's benign efforts to accomplish that goal. He said more, but that was enough.

Standing next to this boor, the President of the United States (sic) responded to the tirade against America with silence. Or as the rest of the world will interpret Obama's muteness, "I agree with everything you just said." Can anyone imagine similar complicit disloyalty from Lincoln, Roosevelt (T. or F.D.), Truman, Kennedy, or Reagan?

Rather than defend the reasonable actions of his countrymen, our president joined in the foreigner's indictment of them. Later, on television, while the offensive Mexican president was still in the country, Obama added his own condemnation of those vile Americans he risibly claims to lead and protect: Of the Arizona statute, he said, "The Justice Department is looking at the legislation to make sure it's consistent with 'our core values' and 'existing legal precedent.'" Again, code-speak for "I agree with El Presedente. The people of Arizona, their legislators and governor, and all those who support them are despicable bigots."

When America is being invaded by a foreign power, one expects the President of the United States to be on America's side. That's how it's worked in the past, anyway.

If that's too steep a demand, could we ask that our president not publicly endorse the enemy's characterization of modest defensive efforts as "discriminatory"? If even that decent silence is too much, could our president at least not provide the invaders' leader with a White House venue to denounce our people and our laws?

Note to those Americans who have not yet noticed: Barrack Hussein Obama does not like or sympathize with this country.

His instinctual affinities are with others, particularly if they come from the southern hemisphere or call themselves Muslims, and especially if they vote Democrat when they get here. For a long time, some have known this about America's first anti-American president. Many have not yet perceived it. Had most Republican members of Congress not been asleep, confused, or afraid, the events of last week could have cast a brilliant light on this awful truth.

But exposing the charlatan when he allows the truth to spill out, as he did last week, requires a courageous, clear-thinking, and articulate opposition. Other than Representative McClintock and a few more, who among key GOP officeholders possesses these traits?

An effective, courageous, and astute opposition lacking, the only course for loyal Americans is never to let last week's outrages be forgotten.

Any Republican candidate who fails to remind the November electorate that Barrack Hussein Obama, and the congressional Democrats en masse, endorsed and applauded America's invaders and condemned its defenders, does not have the requisite qualities of intellect and courage to be helpful in the struggle to reclaim our country.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Miss Oklahoma Sandbagged By Racist Judge

In The Miss USA contest last night, Miss Oklahoma (a blonde), was sandbagged by a racist judge...

But the winner, Miss Michigan was given a total pass.
She was asked about 'the pill' and said it should be regulated because it was a controlled substance.
Sorry babe, 'the pill' is not a controlled substance.

Plus, she ISN'T blonde!
She's a Lebanese Arab-American...
I'm sure her Muslim buddies are very proud of these photos...

Now, we're hearing that she won a pole dancing contest a while back!

Yeah... pole dancing... real character building stuff...

The story is HERE

Answer The Lesbian Question, Ms Legal Eagle

The Brits always seem to have the right answer regarding these 'sensitive' issues... Don't you think?

Answer The Lesbian Question, Ms Legal Eagle
By Andrew Sullivan

The nominee to be the next justice of the Supreme Court has no opinion on anything. Well, that’s not entirely true.

She did believe in providing free coffee for students when she was dean of Harvard Law School. She once publicly protested against the ban on honest homosexuals serving in the US military — but that is genuinely the only controversial statement she has ever made in public.

How do such people exist?

Well, the truth is they have existed on the career ladder for the US Supreme Court since Robert Bork was crucified by the Senate when Ronald Reagan nominated him.

Bork had written on everything, had opinions on everything and was a thoroughly interesting, even riveting, intellectual character. He was done in by the radicalism of his views on the limits of judicial power — and even, in some part, because of his religious agnosticism.

It was a spectacle almost as ugly as Bork himself. And ever since, every judicial nominee has maintained an almost comic poker face when describing their views and opinions in front of the senators, who have the power to consent (or not) to their appointment.

But it is fair to say that nobody has been as blank a slate as Elena Kagan.

Although she has been solicitor-general for more than a year, she has never been a judge, so it is impossible to examine her rulings and her reasoning.

She has barely written a thing, despite being an obviously brilliant and accomplished legal mind. Liberals worry that she is another wimpy, namby-pamby Democratic nominee and no match for the firebrands of the right that the second Bush appointed. Conservatives worry that she is a stealth leftist, an almost textbook case of a left-liberal marching silently and stealthily through the institutions of American power.
But the truth is: none of us outside her circles has a clue.

What we do know is that everyone in America’s legal and constitutional elite — a rarefied world that seems to include Yale, Harvard, Washington and not much else — thinks she’s the bee’s knees.

Reading their quotes in the press this past week is like reading academic references for a Rhodes scholarship. Take this classic piece of blather from an icon of the liberal legal establishment, Walter Dellinger: “Her open-mindedness may disappoint some who want a sure liberal vote on almost every issue. Her pragmatism may disappoint those who believe that mechanical logic can decide all cases. And her progressive personal values will not endear her to the hard right. But that is exactly the combination the president was seeking.”

So Dellinger testifies to her “progressive personal values”.

How does he know? Because he’s her friend.

How are we supposed to know, when she has never articulated any such progressive values in, you know, public? Well, we just have to take Barack Obama’s word for it.

Jeffrey Toobin, the brilliant legal correspondent for The New Yorker, says he’s a close friend, but has no idea what her views are on anything.

The New York Times ran a 4,500-word profile last week in which — again — not a single stand of any note could be discerned. The piece was full of anecdotes — she argued with her rabbi at her bat mitzvah, she left her car engine running in her garage overnight because she was so absent-minded, she smokes cigars, she plays softball — that were so artfully constructed to make her seem wonderful without revealing anything of any substance that another of the paper’s writers noted: “She seems to be smart, impressive and honest — and in her willingness to suppress so much of her mind for the sake of her career, kind of disturbing.”

There was one other strange thing about 4,500 words of profile — no mention of any private life.

She is unmarried, and apparently has no anecdotes of dates, no ex-boyfriends or girlfriends, no romantic interludes ... nothing.

In 4,500 words, we do not find out even where she lives or has lived or if she lives alone. (But we do know what her brothers do for a living — teaching). The far right has already identified her as a “lesbian homosexual”; and the gay blogosphere openly discussed her alleged lesbianism weeks ago.

But there is no confirmation of that anywhere and the White House reiterated last week that questions about sexual orientation “have no place” in judging a nominee (but her gender most certainly does). Quite how you defend this argument — from a president whose own criterion for nominees is a real experience of how law can affect ordinary people — is beyond me. It is also beyond most ordinary people out there.

If you type Elena Kagan into Google, you will get “elena kagan husband” and “elena kagan personal life” among the prompts for the most likely search terms.

But my own attempt to inquire in as positive a way as possible last week — I’d be thrilled to have a gay Supreme Court justice — was simply ignored by the Obama press operation and smacked down elsewhere as an outrageous and unethical question. She is not only a blank slate as an intellectual and public figure; she is also a blank slate in other respects as well.

We are left guessing.

The good news is that everyone has an interest in finding out; and we may have a set of hearings in which real questions are asked. In a rare moment of opining, she did once write that she found the hearings process since Bork oddly empty — and so she has opened herself up to a more rigorous set of questions than usual.

She will, after all, assume a lifelong position with immense power. It is not crazy to ask questions that would help us judge how she sees the world and the law and the core issues of public moment she will have to address in the future.

My best bet is that she is quite hardcore in her left-liberalism but, like Obama, has managed to placate so many conservatives and independents on her way up the greasy pole that she will sail through.

At Harvard Law School she hired many right-of-centre scholars, just as Obama engaged many right-of-centre thinkers at the Harvard Law Review. Never showing her hand, she wooed them with universal success.

Obama is answerable every day to the voters and to Congress and to the press. Once Kagan gets on the court, she will answer to nobody for the rest of her life. Better get some answers now, then, don’t you think?

Or does that too “have no place” in such a process?

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Congressman King Questions AG Holder On Arizona Immigration Law & ACORN

This stuff is far too bizarre to be conjured up by anyone!
The reality of our life at your fingertips!

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Holder Hasn't Read The AZ Law!

Holder Admits to Not Reading Arizona's Immigration Law Despite Criticizing It!

Despite repeatedly voicing concerns about Arizona's new immigration enforcement law in recent weeks and threatening to challenge it, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday he has not yet read the law -- which is only 10 pages long.

"I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it," Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked had he read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Holder told reporters last month that he fears the new law is subject to abuse and that the Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department are in the midst of conducting a review.

The Arizona law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

The law has sparked protests across the country, including a City Council-approved boycott of Arizona businesses by Los Angeles. But proponents deny that the law encourages racial profilng, with some saying the local controversy is a symptom of a broken federal immigration system.

Holder said last month that a number of options are under consideration, including the possibility of a court challenge.

On Thursday, Holder said he plans to read the law before reaching a decision on whether he thinks it's constitutional.

When asked by Rep.Ted Poe, R-Texas, how he could have constitutional concerns about a law he has not read, Holder said: "Well, what I've said is that I've not made up my mind. I've only made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel...looking at the law."

On Sunday, Holder said he does not think Arizona's law is racially motivated but voiced concern that its enforcement could lead to racial profiling.

Holder said he understands the frustration behind the Arizona law, but he warned during an appearance on ABC's "This Week" that "we could potentially get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done."


Simply amazing!

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

The Incredible Diminishing Presidency

Susan Dale has written an interesting article on our current Commander-In-Chief.
You can find the entire article over at Human Events...
But here's a portion of it for your reading pleasure -

The Incredible Diminishing Presidency
... The tenancy of Barack Hussein Obama has diminished perhaps for all time the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America, an Office our Founders endeavored to make an honored and dignified position, inspirational and imbued with great authority and grace.

In his short tenure so far, Obama has made his contempt for the rules of this nation, the U.S. Constitution, quite clear, and has made his contempt for the majority of the American people abundantly clear, as well. He has been thoroughly corrupt in his legislative dealings, demonstrating his determination to slam through his increasingly unpopular agenda at any cost, using any means, no matter how unconstitutional, venal and damaging to the American people and the nation the majority of these people love.

This tragically elected 44th President has humiliated his nation and its people again and again on the world stage, not only by his ‘foreign policy’ decisions, but by his consistent apologies for the wretchedness of the country he leads, and he has done so in every international venue he can find. He has magnified this humiliation by continually hugging and bowing to the dictators ruling over our nation’s enemies, while publically and quite purposefully humiliating those who lead our nation’s former allies.

Obama has proven that he cannot govern; all he is able to do is talk, and then only in front of pre-programmed audiences guaranteed to be friendly to him, and ably assisted by his teleprompters. He also goes to lots of meetings, all either destructive or useless, and all costing the American people yet another massive amount of money that we do not have and do not want to spend if we did have it.

But that is what community organizers do, don’t you know?

Where but in the alternate universe of the Obama Administration would the ‘Safe Schools’ czar be a well-known homosexual activist and child-man sex advocate?

Where else but under the rule of this person would our ‘Science’ czar advocate forced abortion as an acceptable method of population control?

Where else but in Obama’s regime would one find the individual responsible for overall national health policy calling for use of euthanasia for those deemed to be no longer useful to the state?

Where else but in this insane leftist utopia currently in Washington today would there be contemplation of an appointment of a Justice to the Supreme Court based on that person’s sexual preference?

I must have missed that particular requirement in the section of the Constitution defining selection of Supreme Court Associate Justices.

In his inelegant and classless fashion, Obama continually behaves like an African colonial despot, all too frequently using our White House to entertain rap stars and the like, and using Air Force One for international shopping trips for various members of his family. His manners and behavior are deplorable – “wee-weed up,” “the police have behaved stupidly,” “corpseman,” “they should thank me,” “anyone can buy a truck,” “tea baggers,” “bitterly clinging to their guns and religion,” “whether we like it or not, we are still the world’s largest superpower,” and in his most recent stunner, “I think there comes a time when you have made enough money.”

Yes, that was the President of the United States of America who made those last two remarks. About America, and about Americans.

There is a recent photo of Obama, taken on a golf course, where he had adjourned after blowing off the funeral of the Polish President. In this cringe-inducing picture, our 44th President seems to have purposely donned attire that looked as disrespectful as possible, on a day on which dignitaries from all over Washington were going to the Polish Embassy to pay their respects to the fallen Polish leader. The nation of Poland was a brave and stalwart former ally of the United States of America.

The way Obama looks, the way he behaves, the things he says, the policies he is enacting, the people he is truly representing, are in no way related to the parts of the Constitution that define the Office of the President of the United States that came to us from our Founders in 1787 after such lengthy and serious deliberation.

It’s almost is as if Barack Hussein Obama is purposely trying to forever diminish the Office of the Presidency of the United States.
Do you think?

Saturday, May 8, 2010

CNN Talks About The Eligibility Issue!


CNN places eligibility in primetime spotlight
Anderson Cooper defends computer-generated 'COLB'

Posted: May 07, 2010
11:50 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

CNN, one of the mainstream media outlets that have either belittled or ignored the question of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president since before the 2008 election, tonight gave the topic a primetime spotlight as Anderson Cooper defended the computer-generated online image of a Certification of Live Birth that lists a 1961 Hawaii birth for the president.

Cooper invited onto his "360" program Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, an Army doctor who is facing court-martial because he has told the military he will not follow orders unless Obama can document his eligibility to be commander-in-chief.


The questions he is raising are like those raised in numerous lawsuits and other challenges to Obama – whether he qualifies to occupy the Oval Office under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born" citizen.

While the term is not defined in the Constitution, many legal analysts believe at the time it was written it meant a person born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents. Obama clearly does not qualify under that definition, since he has admitted his father never was a U.S. citizen. Some legal challenges have argued he wasn't even born in Hawaii.

Lakin is not the first officer to raise such a challenge, and in at least one other case the Army rescinded orders so that a confrontation over the dispute would not develop. And a new Washington Post/ABC poll reveals that tens of millions of Americans doubt Obama's eligibility.

Cooper dominated the combative interview, demanding answers from Lakin, telling his lawyer, Paul Rolf Jensen, to let his client answer and then forging ahead with his own arguments.

Lakin was able to explain that it is a constitutional issue that applies to the presidency.

"I submitted Article 138 [requests]," he said. "It was the only way I could research the issue. I was asking and begging my leadership for guidance on how to address this issue.

"It's fundamental to the Constitution. My oath of office is to the Constitution. I believe we need the truth on this matter," he said.

In the absense of substantive responses, Lakin eventually created a situation that he hopes will result ultimately in some answers.

Cooper argued that Lakin previously had taken orders from many officers without demanding their birth verification, and Jensen explained that was because the Constitutions sets the specific requirement for the president, not military officers.

Cooper also cited the online "Certification of Live Birth" as proof of Obama's Hawaii birth. Jensen responded that the law in the state created opportunities for individuals to obtain the Hawaii records – Cooper kept referring to the "Certification" as a "Certificate" – without having been born in the state.

The COLB is "an official document," Cooper claimed.

"That is not correct," said Jensen.

Cooper also accused Lakin of following "false" information about Obama. Jensen urged Cooper to "tell the truth to your viewers."

Eventually Cooper cut off Jensen and Lakin, telling them, "I appreciate you being on this program."

Lakin is working with the SafeguardOurConstitution website, which is generating financial support for him.

He is scheduled to have an Article 32 hearing sometime in the next few weeks, probably in the early part of June. The hearing will begin the court-martial process for him.

The charges against Lakin allege violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Articles 87 and 92.

Lakin publicly had asked the president to document his eligibility and expressed a willingness to deploy with the 32nd Cavalry Regiment to Afghanistan. But he received no response from the White House.

The filing of charges, however, may be part of the still-unrevealed strategy Lakin and his legal counselors are pursuing.

Formally, Lakin is accused of "through design" missing "the movement of US Airways Flight Number 1123, departing from Baltimore/Washington International Airport arriving in Charlotte, North Carolina, in order to deploy for a Temporary Change of Station in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with the 32nd Calvary (sic) Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky, with which he was required in the course of duty to move."

The second charge accuses Lakin of failing to report "to the office of his Brigade Commander, Colonel Gordon R. Roberts, at 1345 hours, or words to that effect, an order which it was his duty to obey."

The SafeguardOurConstitution website explained the first charge, "missing movement," is a serious crime in the nature of a felony. The second is "disobeying a direct order" and includes four specifications.

"Any soldier convicted on all charges and specifications would expect to be sentenced to years at 'hard labor' in the penitentiary," the site said.

Jensen in an earlier interview on the G. Gordon Liddy radio program gave hints as to what he expects.

"In the (Uniform Code of Military Justice), just as you would expect, criminal defendants have the process of the court, for subpoenas and depositions under the rules that are prescribed," Jensen said.

Lakin had posted a YouTube video inviting his own court-martial because he believes military orders under an ineligible president are illegal. He then posted a letter telling Obama it's up to him to provide the proof.

"I'm not going to say what we are going to do other than we are going to do what you would want us to do," Jensen said on the Liddy program.

The attorney avoided broadcasting any specific defense strategy for the case. But he expressed confidence there will be an aggressive discovery phase in preparation for a defense of the charges.

"Every criminal defendant has to be allowed the benefit of doubt to discover information relevant or which may even lead to the discovery of relevant information that could support his case," he said.

"It would be shocking to me that a defendant ... would not be permitted to discover information that would lend itself to proving his [case]," he said.

The discovery issue previously was raised in court by attorney John Hemenway, who was threatened by a federal judge with sanctions for bringing a court challenge to Obama's presidency.

Hemenway is serving in emeritus status with the Safeguard Our Constitution website. He brought the previous court challenge on behalf of a retired military officer, Gregory S. Hollister, who questioned Obama's eligibility.

The Hollister case ultimately was dismissed by Judge James Robertson, who notably ruled during the 2008 election campaign that the federal legal dispute had been "twittered" and, therefore, resolved.

Robertson sarcastically wrote: "The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his commander in chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel's satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.

"The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court," Robertson wrote.

Then the judge suggested sanctions against Hemenway for bringing the case. Hemenway responded that the process then would provide him with a right to a discovery hearing to see documentation regarding the judge's statements – not supported by any evidence introduced into the case – that Obama was properly "vetted."

Hemenway warned at the time, "If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.

"The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery," Hemenway said.

The court ultimately backed off its threat of sanctions.

WND columnist Vox Day earlier wrote about this very scenario, calling it a "get out of war free" card.

The comments followed the case of a reservist who challenged the legality of his deployment orders under Obama. The orders later were canceled by the government.

"Rather than contesting the suit," Day wrote, "the Army took the highly peculiar step of revoking the major's deployment order, suggesting that the Pentagon generals are not entirely confident that they can demonstrate the legitimacy of their purported commander in chief.

"The Pentagon's decision to back down rather than risk exposing Obama's birth records to the public means that every single American soldier, sailor, pilot and Marine now holds a 'get out of war free' card."

Obama's actual response to those who question his eligibility to be president under the Constitution's requirement that the U.S. president be a "natural born citizen" has been to dispatch both private and tax-funded attorneys to prevent anyone from gaining access to his documentation.

Jensen also asserted the information obtained in any trial should be public record.

"There is no reason that I can foresee that classified information would come out [during a prosecution and trial]," he said. "These are public proceedings. I rather think the press will cover any trial and the evidence will be public."

He said the public can support Lakin through prayers and through a legal-defense fund.

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."

WND has covered a multitude of challenges and lawsuits over the issue. Some have alleged that he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has written, or that the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being eligible for the office.

"It's by far the most difficult thing I've ever done," Lakin said during the Liddy show interview. "The Lord blessed me with a great family, wife and good upbringing. I've tried to uphold the principles espoused by my parents and do the right thing and not take the easy way out. I just seek the truth."

"My motivation stems from my oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution," Lakin said. "It's the Constitution. That needs to be upheld."

Lakin earlier released a copy of a letter he sent to Obama saying, "The burden of proof must rest with you."

The letter, posted at the Safeguard Our Constitution website, describes how Lakin tried through his chain of command and his congressional office to get answers to questions about Obama's eligibility.

Lakin originally announced his position with a video stating he would not follow orders because he was not sure of their legality under Obama, who has concealed personal information that could confirm he meets the constitutional requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen."

Lakin is not the first officer to raise questions. Others have included Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook. But Lakin is the first active-duty officer to raise the question.

Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him 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.

So... It looks as if the issue is still alive and kicking?
Will we ever know the truth?

It does seem odd that this man will not put this to rest once and for all, doesn't it?

Friday, May 7, 2010

So... It Has Come To This?

So... we owe the Mexicans FREE healthcare and FREE housing?
FREE Jobs, FREE Food, and NO TAXES?
And they promise to kill more police if they don't get it?

It won't be a CIVIL war, amigos...
If this continues, it will be a RACE war!

These folks need to wake up!

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Yes, I'm A Bad American!

A good friend sent this article to me.
It seems that this man Walt Turske has posted his feelings on the NET and my friend ran across the post.

I'd like to share it with all of you.


I Am the Liberal-Progressive's Worst Nightmare
I am an American.

I am a Master Mason and believe in God.
I ride Harley Davidson Motorcycles, and believe in American products.

I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some liberal governmental functionary, Democratic or Republican!

I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!

I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer; it makes you a smart American.

I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything. Get over it!

I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, you should do it in English.

I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.

My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and Willie G. Davidson, who makes the Harley Davidson Motorcycles.

I don't hate the rich.. I don't pity the poor.

I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time watching or arguing about it.

I've never owned a slave, or was a slave. I haven't burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks, and neither have you! So, shut up already.

I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country!

This is AMERICA ..We like it the way it is!

If you were born here and don't like it you are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you.
If you moved here from some other country and don’t like things as they are (were?), go back to where you came from!

I want to know which church is it, exactly, where the Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution.
Can I get an AMEN on that one?

I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you are.

And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my driver's license.
I think it's good.... And I'm proud that 'God' is written on my money.

I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don't want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years.

I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making 'donations' to their cause.......Get a Job and do your part!

I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents..

I believe 'illegal' is illegal no matter what the lawyers think. They get paid to think that way.

I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed in AMERICA !

If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD American.

If you are a BAD American too, please forward this to everyone you know ... We want our country back!




Ol' Walt says it pretty well!

Monday, May 3, 2010

State Senator Sylvia Allen Responds to SB1070

State Senator Sylvia Allen Responds to SB1070
By Jim Kelley
The Tucson Citizen

I’m Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen.
I want to explain SB 1070 for which I voted yes.
Rancher Robert Krentz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month ago. I participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence, here is just some of the highlights from those who testified.

The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion of humans who cross their property .

One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles.

Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way.

This was not the only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug trains. One man told of two illegal’s who came upon his property one shot in the back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they can’t leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.

The border patrol is not on the border.

They have set up 60 miles away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run around chasing them, if they get their hands on them then they can take them back across the border.

Federal prisons have over 35% illegal’s and 20% of Arizona prisons are filled with illegal’s. In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.

The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried about. The ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people coming they are not just those who are looking for work and a better life.

The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the border states .

We have been over run and once they are here we have the burden of funding state services that they use. Education costs have been over a billion dollars. The healthcare cost billions of dollars.

Our State is broke, $3.5 billion deficit and we have many serious decisions to make. One is that we do not have the money to care for any who are not here legally.
It has to stop.

The border can be secured. We have the technology and we have the ability to stop this invasion.

We must know who is coming and they must come in an organized manner legally so that we can assimilate them into our population and protect the sovereignty of our country.

We are a nation of laws. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of our country and the government which we live under.

I would give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not do this until the Border is secure. It will do no good to give them amnesty because thousands will come behind them and we will be over run to the point that there will no longer be the United States of America but a North American Union of open borders.

I ask you what form of government will we live under? How long will it be before we will be just like Mexico , Canada or any of the other Central American or South American country? We have already lost our language, everything must be printed in Spanish. We have already lost our history, it is no longer taught in our schools, and we have lost our borders.

The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do.

It is not going to set up a Nazi Germany.
Are you kidding?

The ACLU and the leftist courts will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was an effort to try and stop illegal’s from setting up businesses, and employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to local law enforcement when there is probable cause, like a traffic stop, to determine if they are here legally.

Federal law is very clear, if you are here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is the law.

In Arizona all you need to show you are a legal citizen is a driver license, MVD identification card, Native American Card, or a Military ID. This is what you need to vote or get a hunting license. So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is going to be stopped walking down the street.

The Socialists who are in power in DC are angry because we dare try and do something.The Socialists wants us to just let them come. They want the “Transformation” to continue.

Maybe it is too late to save America .

Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore.
But as an elected official I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic .

Living in America is not a right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility and it comes by respecting and upholding the Constitution, the law of our land, which says what you must do to be a citizen of this country. FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.

Senator Sylvia Allen...

Saturday, May 1, 2010