Well is he or isnt he?

March 9, 2009 Well Is He, or Isn't He? Paul Hollrah It is a popular topic of discussion in political circles these days, and as the weeks pass more and more people are asking, "Is Barack Obama really a natural born citizen of the United States? Is he eligible to serve as President, or isn't he?" If he is, then so be it. We'll just have to grit our teeth until this long dark nightmare comes to an end. one way or another. But what if he is not eligible? What then? Well, in that case we have a problem. a very large problem, the solution to which could tear asunder the fabric of American society. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that, "No person except a natural born citizen. shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." That's pretty straightforward, yet, when confronted with the possibility that the man who sits in the Oval Office may be a usurper, a great many otherwise patriotic Americans can be heard to say, "What difference does it make? The election's over; the people have spoken. Get over it!" Well, it's not quite as simple as all that and the sooner we can all be satisfied that Obama is or is not a natural born citizen, the better. To postpone that finding for a year or two and then find, conclusively, that Obama is not eligible to serve as president would be disastrous. Every new law and every executive order he had signed, every political appointment, every judicial appointment, every order he had given to the military, and every act and every decision of all of his appointees would immediately become null and void. How could we ever undo all of that? The American people would quickly learn that it is not much easier to undo two or three years of history than it is to undo a decade or a century. It is imperative that we get to the bottom of this mystery as quickly as possible so that all Americans, regardless of party affiliation, can finally accept that, like it or not, Barack Obama is our president. In order to do that, and to force Obama to end his stubborn refusal to produce his birth certificate, his passports, his visas, and his college records, we must continue to recruit more and more Americans to insist that he do so. To do that, it is not necessary to prove that he was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii. as his paternal grandmother, a Kenyan half-brother, and a Kenyan half-sister insist. or who his natural father may have been. The proof of Obama's failure to meet the "natural born citizen" standard is much simpler than that. To convert a non-believer. one who insists that the Constitutional requirements must be met, but who believes that questions about Obama's citizenship status are nothing more than sour grapes. it is only necessary to establish the facts surrounding Obama's travel to Indonesia and Pakistan in the summer of 1981. Although Obama fails to mention that trip in either of his memoirs. not in Dreams from My Father and not in The Audacity of Hope. he made a potentially fatal error when he mentioned the Pakistan trip during an April 6, 2008 speech in San Francisco. the same speech in which he referred to rural Pennsylvanians as "bitter" people who "cling to guns or religion." In that speech, Obama explained in an offhand manner the value of that trip, vis-à-vis his knowledge of foreign affairs, saying, "I knew what Sunni and Shia was (sic) before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee." When questioned about that trip, Obama's campaign press secretary, Bill Burton, confirmed to the New York Times, and others, that Obama had visited Pakistan in 1981 on his return from Indonesia, traveling there with a Pakistani friend from Occidental College, Wahid Hamid. According to Burton, Obama stayed in Karachi with the family of another Pakistani friend, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo. Obama has never mentioned the Pakistan trip again. So it is well established that Obama did travel to Indonesia and Pakistan in 1981. What is not established, and what is critically important, is what passport he used during that trip. There are only three possibilities: Obama could have traveled under a U.S. passport. a passport first issued when he and his mother moved from Hawaii to Indonesia in 1967; he could have traveled under an Indonesian passport, issued following his adoption by his Indonesian stepfather; and it is conceivable that, if he was, in fact, born in Kenya in 1961, he could still have been a British subject, traveling with a British passport. So which is it? Unfortunately for Obama, in the present circumstance, Pakistan was under martial law in 1981 and certain undesirables. Christians, Jews, and Americans. were prohibited from entering the country. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list, making a U.S. passport no more valuable than an empty chewing gum wrapper at the Karachi Port of Entry. So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one. Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20? A: Yes, by his own admission. Q: What nationality passport did travel under? A: There are only three possibilities. 1. He traveled with a U.S. passport, 2) He traveled with a British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesian passport. Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. passport in 1981? A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981. Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport. If he was traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. If he was traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967. Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008. Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better. Is he a "natural born" citizen, or isn't he? It seems pretty clear from the available evidence that he is not. If that proves to be the case he should minimize the damage to the country and follow the Nixon example; he should simply resign from office so that we can begin to clean up the mess he leaves behind. FamilySecurityMatters..org Contributing Editor Paul Hollrah is a Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute. You can find this online at: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2700/pub_detail.asp COPYRIGHT 2009 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC

Top 10 ..... Proverty in OUR Major Cities

Top 10..Poverty in Our Major Cities

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit , MI	32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY	29.9%
3. Cincinnati , OH	27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH	27.0%
5. Miami , FL	26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO	26.8%
7. El Paso , TX	26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI	26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA	25.1%
10. Newark , NJ	24.2%

U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati , OH (3rd).....since 1984;

Cleveland , OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St.. Louis , MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee , WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia , PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark , NJ (10th)...since 1907.

Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats---yet they are still ..............POOR

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

Abraham Lincoln

...........................and you, Mr. Obama, are no Abe Lincoln

So much for the hope of the future

WASHINGTON – Calling it an "imperfect" bill, President Barack Obama signed a $410 billion spending package Wednesday that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year's campaign. He insisted the bill must signal an "end to the old way of doing business." The massive measure supporting federal agencies through the fall contains nearly 8,000 pet projects, earmarked by sponsors though denounced by critics. So even though its imperfect, your going to waste my money of this Bull-Shit. Tell again why you are the condutit of change??

Obama defended earmarks when they're "done right," allowing lawmakers to direct money to worthy projects in their districts. But he said they've been abused, and he promised to work with Congress to curb them. Well how about working to curb them with congress NOW???

"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama declared. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change."

In a sign of his discomfort with the bill, Obama signed it in private. He declined to answer a shouted reporter's question about why. Then why sign the mother fucker at all, ooh I know because you have to finish paying off the cock suckers who put you there, well thanks for wasting my money, and where is my help???

Obama also released a "signing statement" in which he said several of the bill's provisions raised constitutional concerns. This week, Obama criticized his predecessor, George W. Bush, for frequently issuing such statements upon signing bills into law. Bush attached the statements to legislation he viewed as placing unconstitutional limits on executive power.

Running for president, Obama denounced the many pet projects as wasteful and open to abuse — and vowed reform. Sure you'll bash Bush for his time in office then you go ahead and do the same crap, so what about your so-called vow to reform??

He said Wednesday that future earmarks must have a "legitimate and worthy public purpose" and that any earmark for a private company should be subject to competitive bidding rules. He said he would "work with Congress" to eliminate any the administration objects to.

He acknowledged that the system of influential lawmakers inserting earmarked projects has bred cynicism, and he declared, "This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business."If you are the change or the hope as you call yourself, then stop signing crap, that hurts the people that you are suppose to be helping......

White House officials in recent weeks have dismissed criticism of the earmarks in the bill, saying the legislation was a remnant of last year and that the president planned to turn his attention to future spending instead of looking backward. are kidding me, "dismissed criticism of earmarks". Earmark's should be criticized, when they do nothing for the everyday day who will gain nothing from the shitty bill...

Obama's modest reform proposals build upon changes initiated by Republicans in 2006 and strengthened by Democrats two years ago. Most importantly, every earmark and its sponsor would have to be made public. So who are they, who is fucking us this time, and are we going to get some flowers for are ass-raping this time??

In new steps — outlined in concert with House Democratic leaders Wednesday morning — the House Appropriations Committee will submit every earmark to the appropriate executive branch agency for a review. And any earmark designed to go to for-profit companies would have to be awarded through competitive bidding.

Obama promised to resurrect a long-defunct process by which the president proposes to cut spending from bills that he has signed into law. Well how about starting now??

Under this "rescissions" process, the White House sends Congress a roster of cuts for its consideration. Congress is free to ignore the cuts, but both Obama and senior members including Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., say they want to use it to clean out bad earmarks that make it through the process.

Obama declined to endorse a stronger process advocated by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others that would require Congress to vote on a presidential rescission earmark package. Senior Democrats dislike the idea even though many of them backed it in the early- to mid-1990s.

During his presidential campaign, Obama promised to force Congress to curb its pork-barrel-spending ways. Yet the bill sent from the Democratic-controlled Congress to the White House on Tuesday contained 7,991 earmarks totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the Republican staff of the House Appropriations Committee.

The 1,132-page bill has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. Among the many earmarks are $485,000 for a boarding school for at-risk native students in western Alaska and $1.2 million for Helen Keller International so the nonprofit can provide eyeglasses to students with poor vision.

Most of the government has been running on a stopgap funding bill set to expire at midnight Wednesday. Refusing to sign the newly completed spending bill would have forced Congress to pass another bill to keep the lights on Thursday or else shut down the massive federal government. That was an unlikely possibility for a president who has spent just seven weeks in office.

The $410 billion bill includes significant increases in food aid for the poor, energy research and other programs. It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush

The Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson

The Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe . Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

And last but not least

In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802: 'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'