Sarah and Barack, peas in everyone's pod

What is the single, common(est) denominator between Sarah Palin and Hussein Obama? In a comment to the VFR entry, The Freepers on Laura Wood on Sarah Palin, frequent commenter Clark Coleman explains his recent epiphany of sorts about Sarah Palin,

It suddenly occurred to me when reading this blog entry that Sarah Palin is the conservative version of Barack Obama. Many of us (even Obama himself) noted that Obama was a blank canvas on which his followers could project their political hopes. Why? Not because of his political experience or capabilities or clearly stated policy positions, but because of his personal life story. E.g., Obama is going to be a post-racial unifier. What was there in his past to indicate such a thing? Nothing. In fact, just the opposite. But his followers had hopes, you see. Ditto for numerous other policy areas where people had hopes not based on his statements or past actions.

Sarah Palin is a dyed in the wool conservative who will lead the GOP out of the mushy moderate wilderness. How do we know this? By reading her pronouncements on immigration, feminism, etc.? Obviously not. Rather, it is because of her personal life story. She is a small town girl, one of us flyover-country types, who identifies with us and not the Beltway elite. We can project all our conservative hopes on her. Because of her personal qualities, she is a conservative political blank canvas, ready for us to paint to our liking, just as Obama was for white liberals.

LA replies to Clark Coleman:

I think this is an important, basic insight into the Palin phenomenon..

Further, your analysis also explains the left's overwrought reaction to her. Earlier today I was saying to a friend, "Why do people love her so much, and why do people hate her so much? Neither makes sense." In fact, as your comment makes me realize, the left loathes and fears her for the same illusory reason that the right loves and adores her: both sides imagine her to be some super conservative. Both sides are taking her biography, her symbology, as representing something real about her politics.

The right and the left are having this huge, bloody battle over Sarah Palin in Plato's Cave, fighting over illusory images.

In a short follow-on entry directing readers to comments in the discussion, LA boils it down even further:

Clark Coleman has a good explanation of why so many conservatives believe—without any evidence or record to back up the belief—that Sarah Palin is a great conservative. She is the conservative version of Barack Obama, a blank screen on which people project their hopes. I add that liberals hate her for the same reason that conservatives love her. (emphasis mine)

It's a good point and it ought to be stated with as much simplicity as often as opportunity arises. Liberals hate Sarah Palin for the exact same reason that conservatives love her, and without what?, without any evidence or record to back up the belief about her that they both hold in common.

Not to toot my own horn (I wouldn't do that! ;-)), but I said as much very early on in one of several short exchanges between Auster and I in the Great Palin Debate of 2008:

TM to LA:

Here's the subject line of an email I received yesterday from Dr. Dobson's CitizenLink newsletter:

Dr. Dobson: McCain's choice of Palin: "Outstanding."

Outstanding?

I don't get the immediate display of enthusiasm among "conservatives" for this choice. Not only does she not have a political record to speak of, but nobody really knows anything of substance about her. Is it that they were just so dismayed and disgruntled by their nominee that McCain's choice of a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-homosexual rights (female) running mate far exceeded all their expectations?

It seems like President Bush's phrase "the soft bigotry of low expectations" could be easily customized to fit this situation.

LA replied:

It's not true that she does not have a political record to speak of, and that nobody really knows anything of substance about her. The issue is whether she has the background to be president, not whether she has a political record to speak of.

TM replied:

Okay, she has a political record that consists of her time as governor of Alaska, and as mayor of the city of Wasilla (population: ten thousand).

You're right about what the issue is. And in my opinion she definitely does not have the background to be president. But who does in this race?

By the way, I never did, that I recall anyway, follow up on my statement in the exchange where I said that Bush's phrase could be easily customized to fit this situation, so allow me to do so here. We may call it, if you like, "The false conservatism of high expectations."

As has been said so many times before, modern Americans are so utterly steeped in liberalism that very often they don't know that they're liberals; that their words and actions are almost altogether liberal. Which is probably a good partial explanation for why study after study has shown that most Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal. And yet. But then again, I don't put too much stock in the results of most "studies" anyhow. So the point, at least as far as I'm concerned, is probably a moot one. Which begs the question, why'd I raise it in the first place? :-)

End of initial entry.

**********

I should like to add that we now know quite a bit more about Sarah Palin, her politics, her family life and so on, than we did during the initial stages of the Great Sarah Palin Debate conducted between August and September of 2008. Indeed, the debate itself revealed, or helped to reveal, or put in proper perspective, a lot about Sarah Palin that was not formerly known or understood by the average American, conservative and liberal alike. It's one of the things I most appreciate about VFR, and why I read and participate in the discussions there on a daily basis.

Read More

Salient Point

One of the big topics of discussion of late over at Alan Keyes's Loyal to Liberty site has been the issue of Hussein Obama's eligibility. Dr. Keyes has tackled the issue today in a new article entitled Biden's Gridiron Humor- Is Obama Laughing? in which he discusses the ridicule Congressman Posey is being subjected to for daring to propose legislation which would require that future presidential candidates document their eligibility.

Why the ridicule from the left over a proposal for a piece of legislation that makes as much sense as Congressman Posey's simple, Constitution respecting proposal makes?

Dr. Keyes observes:

Ridicule is a standard tactic of deceivers trying to discredit anyone who draws attention to their dishonesty. With respect to the eligibility issue, however, it requires very little thought and just a modicum of common sense to see through the ploy. The reason for mobilizing the jeering section is also clear. Admitting that in future it would be appropriate to verify the eligibility of candidates for President strongly implies that it would be appropriate to do so now.

An outstanding and a salient point indeed! And one that all of us should be making every time one of these leftist hacks jeers and ridicules anyone who respects the constitution enough to try and prevent its being trampled upon like last week's newspaper.

Incidentally, an Oklahoma Congressman has introduced similar legislation in our state legislature. I haven't kept up with the progress of the bill, nor with its popularity among our legislators. But given the controversial nature of some of the measures they've taken up over the last couple of legislative sessions, with jeering and ridicule from the usual suspects on virtually all sides, I imagine they won't shy away from tackling this issue head-on either.

I'll get on it, though. Promise.

Read More

D.C. man gives judge whut fer; rewarded for his trouble with visit from federal marshals

You'll have to pardon my getting a good laugh out of this story, but this guy really lets this judge have it, something along the lines of the way Vicki Weaver gave a federal judge a written piece of her mind just before an FBI sniper-thug, working under rules developed from an FBI profile of Vicki worked up from her letter, ensured that she wouldn't live to do it again.

In that sense the story isn't at all funny. It is hilariously funny, however, the way this person sarcastically rips this judge apart. But I guess some people just can't see the humor in it:

Jesse Merrell told WND he was reacting to Judge James Robertson's decision to throw out a case challenging Obama's eligibility because the issue had been thoroughly "twittered."

Merrell sarcastically gave the judge a "good-for-you."

"How dare people use a flimsy thing like the Constitution to darken your sanctimonious door!" he wrote to the judge. "The insane idea that a blue-gum baboon slashing our Constitution has to prove U.S. citizenship – as our silly old Constitution demands – is too absurd to consider in the sacred chambers of the tiny tin gods of the Potomac, adorning the royal purple and sipping Jim Jones Kool-Aid [TM: That's poison laden Kool-Aid, for anyone that doesn't know].

"Thanks to smug, slimy shysters like you, Obama gets a free ride – snootily stomping on our foolish Constitution, which supercilious idiots like you have long ago shredded for their own stupid opinions!" Merrell continued in the letter, a copy of which he provided to WND.

He finished with his speculation on what "ought" to happen to the judge, a physical act not appropriate for a family-oriented report.

That last bit there about Merrill's speculation on what ought to happen to this judge, and WND's pronouncing it to be "not appropriate" for a family-oriented report, having read what had preceded it, was the initial line that had me laughing out loud. I quickly regained my composure and proceeded to read on, not expecting that the story would get even better, but simply that I would learn more about what caused the extent of Merrill's anger towards the judge.

Boy was I in for a pleasant surprise! Jesse Merrill apparently had a few choice words for the federal marshals that visited him at his home, after which visit he quickly fired off yet another scathing letter to the judge in question, excerpts from which are also posted in the WND article. Be sure to read it.

I don't know about you, but I'm just dying to learn what exactly Merrill's thoughts were as to what ought to happen to this judge. I guess we'll never know, but it probably relates in some way to what happened to Merrill's fourth great grandfather. Personally I think a good public tarring and feathering would suffice to do the job in most cases. As related in the story, Merrill's anger at this judge's decision is a direct result of the judge's insolently trampling on the constitution, using for his excuse to do so a blatant lie concerning the public's awareness of Barack Obama's eligibility issues two years prior to his running for the presidency. And he expects to be able to get away with this with impunity? Yeah, a good tarring and feathering would work wonders in his case.

Read More

What's up with Janet Napolitano?

What's up with her is this, she's taking the exact position on illegal immigration and border security that she took as Governor of Arizona - leave the flood gates open wide until you're dragged kicking and screaming, three years ex post facto in the case of her governorship, to begin the process of closing them. This woman doesn't belong within a thousand miles of the homeland security department, which ought to tell us something about the judgment, and/or the intentions of Barack Hussein Obama, and the distance that ought to forever separate him and his kind from the presidency.

Read More

What's really behind BHO's refusal to release his vaulted birth certificate?

There has been a lot of speculation on this question, and I've personally been involved in several online conversations where individuals offer their own theories as to why, apart from the possibility that there may be something damaging to Obama in this document, Obama would continue to refuse to release it. Devvy Kidd touches on one such speculation in an article she wrote for NewsWithViews.com.

Devvy Kidd writes:

Obama has controlled the birth certificate issue from day one. He continues to do so. This keeps all of us wondering, filing Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits. I think even to the most staunch Obama supporter, it's obvious by now that Obama refuses to release his vault birth certificate because he has something to hide. Or, maybe not. Maybe Obama's refusal is simply to keep everyone running around chasing lawsuits. Remember, he can pull it out for release to the media anytime he wants. Timing in life is everything as they say - especially in politics. (emphasis mine)

I think Devvy is wrong about Obama supporters who know about this issue believing his having something to hide as the reason he refuses to release the vaulted birth certificate. But the scenario I've highlighted in italics is a possibility that I and many others have speculated on before. I personally think it a rather remote possibility given that the "timing" Devvy speaks of would need to be near perfect on Obama's part, which would require an almost prophetic knowledge of future events which would eventually lead to the moment of truth at which Obama would suddenly, after having spent millions of dollars and countless hours in the courts preventing it, release the document.

Then, of course, there is the little matter of the supposed COLB image posted at Factcheck.org and elsewhere, which is almost certainly a forgery. The questions surrounding that matter - which are legion - are not simply going to vanish the moment Obama produces his vaulted birth certificate, assuming that he ever will under any circumstances, and I'm sure that he and his inner circle must know this.

The very best way for Hussein to undermine and destroy his seemingly flawless image would be, to my mind, releasing his vaulted birth certificate to the public thus raising more questions about why he concealed it for so long to begin with even if (or particularly so) there's nothing damaging, to him or a family member, on it. But perhaps I'm missing something. In any event, I think the greater likelihood is that there is, in fact, something on the document that is damaging to Obama himself, whether it be his actual place of birth, that his father is not actually Barack Hussein Obama I, or whatever.

Besides, who can trust a president who incessantly compares himself to Lincoln, and that, at the same time, has, for political purposes intentionally devised and perpetrated this elaborate diversion to keep his political opponents, including those of us among the common citizenry, occupied chasing after bird's eggs? Now why would he do that and risk the fallout that would certainly follow once the scheme had been exposed?

If I'm missing something important here, please let me know.

Read More

Update to the previous entry

Something was mentioned in the comments to the Loyal to Liberty post linked in the previous entry about Alan Keyes's lawsuit challenging Obama's eligibility to serve as POTUS being dismissed in a CA court. Predictably another poster - The Silent Consensus - responded asserting dogmatically that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen citing factcheck.org as the last word on the issue, and calling lawsuits challenging his eligibility "ridiculous," which is, of course, itself ridiculous. When I challenged this individual's assertions, saying that, given the evidence we have available to us at the moment, the best he can possibly do is to admit he has no way of knowing either way whether Obama meets the natural born citizen requirement, this individual responded by saying that me and others who question Obama's natural born citizen status should bring lawsuits against Obama presenting our evidence in courts of law.

Wait a minute!, didn't this person say before that to raise questions about Obama's eligibility is ridiculous speculation, and that those who do so should immediately cease and desist? Why then the sudden change in his response to my reply to him? Because he realized, after I replied to his fallacious assertions, that he was engaging in the very act itself that he was complaining about in, albeit misapplying to, others his opponents, i.e., pure speculation on Obama's natural born citizen status stated as fact. In other words, he does not and cannot know, given the information available to us, whether Obama meets the natural born citizen requirement or not, as I've stated since day one when I first became aware of this issue. Where this individul carelessly and wrongly projects his own mistake on those who have an opposing view is in that he accuses us of claiming to know whether Obama is a natural born citizen or not. That isn't the case at all. We're not saying we know he's not a natural born citizen, we're saying we do not know whether he is or not, and that it is up to him (Obama) to prove that he is. Otherwise the Article II natural born citizen requirement is made, for all intents and purposes, null and void. That's one reason Alan Keyes and others have called it a "Constitutional Crisis", because, by extension, if that particular stipulation can simply be ignored, then any other constitutional stipulation imposed on the President or anyone else can also be ignored, thus making the entire U.S. Constitution and the reason for its existence null and void.

With respect to the other assertions he makes in his reply to me, I don't even care to touch on the ridiculousness of The Silent Consensus' assertion that I, as a private citizen, should file a lawsuit challenging Obama's eligibility except to say that that's not up to me to do for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the straining on an already overstressed legal system such lawsuits would place upon it. And, of course, that he doesn't seem to understand that citizen support of properly conducted lawsuits in this vein is the very best, most viable way for private citizens like myself to see them through to their conclusions. Had The Silent Consensus offered a more commonsensical, constitutionally consistent suggestion such as alerting our elected representatives in our state and national Congresses to our concerns on this issue, effectively asking them to conduct our business in this regard in our steads, which is, of course, the reason we elect them to begin with, then I would have no basis on which to question his motives or his ability to reason through such questions, and the correct methods for dealing with them, properly. But, of course, many of us who have these concerns and do have the ability to reason through this correctly have already alerted our elected representatives to our concerns on this issue, so his extra-constitutional suggestion is just insulting, and that's as nicely as I can possibly put it.

Notwithstanding all of that, and as has been said many, many times before, the solution to this is very, very simple: Produce the birth certificate, either voluntarily on Obama's part, or by compelling him to do so on ours. Until he does so voluntarily (with or without a little nudging on our parts), Mr. Obama is himself THE fuel which supplies the fire of speculation, in effect supercharging it with the money and effort he seems to be willing to expend making sure his vaulted birth certificate never sees the light of day. Which makes any and all calls to cease raising the question the most ridiculous appeal, not to mention the single biggest waste of time, that was ever made in the history of the United States.

So I say to the "Silent Consensuses" of the world, please stop wasting everyone's time with appeals that will never go anywhere until Obama does the one thing necessary to end the speculation. Otherwise, not only do you raise questions about your motives, but also about your ability to approach this subject objectively. Which makes anything you have to say on the issue utterly useless nonsense which no rational person is obliged to take seriously or lend any serious consideration to other than in the way I've done here, which is to say to correct false premises and false assertions, which, as we all know, invariably wind up leading to false conclusions.

Read More

Quote of the day

Senator Martinez, RINO-Fla, on Obama's eligibility issue:

Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president.

Article VI, U.S. Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Question for Senator Martinez:

Exactly where does the constitution stipulate that [majority] voter opinion in either case supersedes the Constitution?

Additionally, I'd like to know where Senator Coburn - arguably the most consistently conservative member of the U.S. legislature - stands on this issue (and why), so I've written him to this effect. Stay tuned.

Read More

Is Wikipedia politically neutral?

When it comes to its biographical article on Barack Hussein Obama, some are saying not. Indeed, if you access the current Wiki piece on Obama you will find a note at the top of the page declaring that the article has been closed to editing pending the resolution of disputes over the inclusion in the article of less than glowing facts about Obama's questionable past associations, political, religious and otherwise.

Okay, okay, they don't quite put it that way, but what else are we to make of this protection of the page as it now exists given the glowing nature of the article but that the page is being "protected" from the inclusion of facts about Obama's past that don't speak particularly well of him? The principle expressed in the adage "birds of a feather flock together" is universal, thus it applies equally to Barack Hussein Obama and George W. Bush. What then is a supposedly objective information outlet doing whitewashing the associations of one high profile individual while not granting the same privelege to the other, if indeed it is objective and strives to be objective?

Otherwise, however, the article seems to be a pretty good biographical sketch of Barack Hussein Obama, his personal life and professional and political careers. So it's not that the article is completely useless. It's just not very reliable as a source for Obama's questionable activities and past associations. And I personally have my doubts that it ever will be. Liberalism again wins the day, which is precisely what one would expect in liberal dominated society.

So it is that Wikipedia is yet one more example among many that liberalism is the dominant and ruling ideology in modern America.

Read More

On Obama's speech and Governor Jindal's response

I watched the entirety of the president's speech last night, and, of course, the president is in a league of his own when it comes to speechifiying. Let there be no doubt, he is made for public speaking, or is it that public speaking is made for him? I can certainly see how people can be drawn into his web of deceit.

Contrast the President's speech with Governor Jindal's response, and, well, you get the impression of a rank amateur (Jindal) going up against a seasoned professional (Obama). Hey!, I'm just being honest here. Certainly my positions are more in line with Governor Jindal's than they will ever be with President Obama's. An ability to speak well doesn't equal an ability to govern well, and vice versa. But all the hype about this guy Jindal being some kind of Reagan incarnate was quickly laid to waste last night, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Did anyone else get the impression from Jindal's delivery that he thought he was telling a bedtime story to a bunch of kindergartners? Was anyone else insulted by this mode of delivery? Forget about his tacit embrace of open immigration and multiculturalism, his delivery ... sucked!; he bombed it bigtime! I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but I guarantee you she would have delivered a much better, much more adult-like response. And by the way, conservatives are, in the truest sense of the word, adults. Therefore they require an adult message, for all you juvenile republicans out there.

Read More

Mixed up President for a Mixed up America

At the National Prayer Breakfast held yesterday morning in Washington, President Obama - Mr. A woman's right to choose his own self - uttered these memorable words:

There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.

Yeah, but you ain't God, right Mr. President? And besides, it all depends on what we mean by the term "innocent," doesn't it? Muslims do not consider Christians and Jews, nor anyone otherwise non-Muslim to be "innocent," and Allah doesn't condone the murder of innocent human beings, isn't that right, sir? A human child conceived in a mother's womb is not innocent if the persons determining the definition of the term innocent for our purposes also determines that child, at any stage in the pregnancy, to be a threat to the health and well-being, physical or otherwise, of the "mother", and/or, if the child in question is determined to be a threat to the environment via overpopulation, isn't that right our Sovereign Lord, Barack Hussein Obama I? Then of course there's the little matter of when a blob of human tissue actually becomes a human being, which, of course, is above your weasel paygrade, ain't that so?

One other thing we know about the gods and what they do and do not condone is that they most certainly do not condone any opposition to your policies. That we know for an absolute certainty.

Read More

New CIS report claims Latino move to left part of a "Broader Electoral Movement"

I thought readers might find this CIS report interesting and informative. Here is a summary of the report which makes for much quicker reading if you're short on time. Also, see this angry rebuttal published at a site called America's Voice -- I'm so glad America has a voice, aren't you? It reminds me of the time the GOP sent out to "select" Republicans a questionaire concerning President Bush's "initiatives," in which those select few of us who received the questionaire were informed that we spoke for Republicans in our areas, so it was vitally important that we fill out and return the questionaire so that the voices of the masses might be heard through us. I was so excited to learn that I spoke for hundreds, maybe even thousands of Republicans in my area, and I was so certain that they'd be equally excited to know that I was speaking for them, and that the GOP selected me to be their voice without even consulting them about it, that I sent a nice letter to the GOP telling them how I really felt about it. But I digress...

I question some of the findings in the report, particularly the overarching claim, or conclusion, that the Latino movement to the left in the late election is part of a broader electoral movement to the left; a movement which includes white males among other conservative demographic groups.

With all due respect to Mr. Gimpel, I think he leaves out of his study a couple of important factors. First there is the reality that many Americans like myself abstained in the presidential election, albeit I'm not sure there's a way to measure that number of voters accurately. Second, there is the reality that John McCain was such a poor candidate in virtually every conceivable way; that in terms of appeal he is simply out of Obama's league. When the choice is between two liberals, and everybody knows it, so-called "moderates" are going to go with the leftier and the more attractive of the two candidates every single time.

But my biggest beef with the report is the conclusion drawn from the numbers that Latino voters simply do not care about immigration policy ... as part of a broader electoral attitude. I think that is just naive at best; as if to say that Latinos do not identify with their cultural and ethnic heritage, that when push comes to shove, so to speak, Latinos are culturally and ethnically neutral.

Anyway, here are the concluding paragraphs of the report:

In summary, the 2008 election has no clear implications for immigration policy making and for a very straightforward reason: Neither candidate campaigned on the issue, nor was it clear that their positions were appreciably different.

Over the long term, Republicans can expect to enlarge upon their voting margins among Latinos as Latinos become more prosperous and move into areas of existing Republican Party strength where they can develop ties to other GOP adherents. As it stands, what separates Republican-identifying Latinos from Democrats is primarily religion and income. Involvement in Evangelical church circles is clearly associated with Republican Party gains among Latinos, but promoting religious conversion seems like an unusual and possibly controversial way to go about building a base of party support.

As long as Latinos remain in lower income brackets, an outcome virtually assured by sustained high levels of unskilled immigration, the Democrats will continue to maintain their lopsided edge. American ethnic history has shown that the path to Republican Party identification is a slow and multi-generational one. The greater the education and skills deficit new immigrants arrive with, the longer this political migration process will take.

I'm interested in your take.

**********

I decided to read a bit more at the site presumptuously named "America's Voice," and I ran across this item which is apparently a speech given on August 21, 2008, to the Police Foundation of the city of Phoenix, by the city's Mayor, Phil Gordon who states in his opening remarks:

When this nation was founded, no one ever conceived or imagined that immigration enforcement was an issue that would ever fall to mayors and local police departments. But because of federal neglect -- here we are.

Now there's a politician totally disconnected from his nation's history. And I'm quite certain he isn't alone in this uninformed thinking. In fact, I'll bet he's in the majority among his peers.

Now, it's one thing to argue that the federal government ought to have exclusive authority in the realm of immigration standards and enforcement, but it is quite another to assert, dogmatically even, that no one ever conceived or imagined that local governments and law enforcement agencies would be tasked with enforcing immigration laws in their own backyards. This guy obviously doesn't know squat about the original U.S. Constitution. He obviously thinks that (if he's ever bothered to even read the phrase) the granting of hte power to create a "uniform rule of naturalization" to the national government is the same thing as sole and exclusive federal authority in the realm of immigration law and law enforcement. It is not.

What is worse is that the folks who presumptuously claim to represent "America's Voice" have this tripe posted at their website, as if there is anything factual about it. They don't know or understand the difference either. They have an agenda -- Comprehensive Immigration Reform -- and anything they perceive to be helpful in forwarding that agenda, any "authority" they can cite to push their agenda through, they will.

This is a good example of one of the biggest problems we face in this country. What our Mayor is complaining about is the fact that his state legislature created immigration legislation which, naturally, put it on local authorities to enforce. Just as is so common these days, our Mayor hasn't even given the law time to work; he hasn't even given anyone time to make the proper adjustments, which they will in time. Our Mayor expects instant results, and when they don't come, instantaneously, he screams and yells at the top of his lungs saying stupid things like "no one ever imagined local governments would be tasked with enforcing immigration laws." Then comes along a group presuming to speak for the American People and they publish that crap. It is the same thing that happened shortly after Oklahoma's immigration law went into effect. The first time someone suffered the God-awful inconvenience of having to provide a birth certificate as proof of citizenship for driver license revewal, due to their own neglect no less, people started screaming and hollering about how "unjust" this new law was. These same folks, incidentally, were staunch opponents of Oklahoma's law before it ever went into effect.

Read More

Definitive Proof that I was born in Oklahoma...

...even though I've stated otherwise.

The image you see is a digital scan of an authentic Oklahoma COLB altered to contain false information about myself for purposes of demonstrating the ease with which someone, virtually anyone can change information on such documents by the use of a cheap scanner, free software, through copy and paste techniques, and very little image enhancement. All else that is needed is the will and a couple of hours of time to achieve this level of quality. A much higher level may be achieved given more time and more desire.

Click on the image above (note the embossed seal on the image, which is genuine and unenhanced) to see the full document. If you're somewhat computer savvy and have an eye for detail you can enlarge the image to discover the places where the document has been intentionally forged, as well as intentionally left discoverable as a forgery in certain places. Others are not so easily discoverable, but Dr. Polarik would have no trouble whatsoever taking our forged document apart piece by meticulous piece.

Update: I've included some additional information, as well as a helpful link, concerning the COLB in the comments section of this article.

Read More

Listen up Sean

For the umteenth time, we have a Senate makeup which is virtually filibuster proof.

I was watching Hannity and Colmes the other night, nunoff election eve for Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. Chambliss was a guest on the show and a lot was made (by Hannity) of the fact that the Republicans enlisted the help of Governor Palin while the Democrats kept Obama off stage in Georgia.

As you know by now Chambliss won the runoff by 20 points. The point though is this, while Hannity was beating the drum that Obama's non-appearance in support of the Democrat opponent of Chambliss was some kind of indication that Obama is a coward, given that Obama ought to be doing all in his power to make the U.S. Senate filibuster proof per the cause of the Democrats, he seemed to be completely oblivious to the fact that on the things that matter most -- on the key issues -- the Senate is already, or, as I've said before virtually filibuster proof. Those key issues of which I speak are so-called 'comprehensive immigration reform', reinstatement of the gun ban, etc.

It's not about Democrat vs. Republican per se, it's about Liberalism vs. Conservatism. And there are at least a couple of Democrats in Republican garb (or RINOs if you prefer) who still hold seats in the U.S. Senate, of which John McCain is one. Harry Reid recognizes this, but somehow Sean Hannity doesn't.

Read More

Is the Seal the "smoking gun"?

In Dr. Polarik's final report which I originally linked up here, he's provided the reader with numerous images of authentic Hawaii COLBs by which to compare Hussein Obama's COLB posted at his "Fight the Smears" site, as well as other places. Also in the report is an image of a metal stamper similar to what the state of Hawaii likely uses to create its embossed seal on official Hawaii documents.

Most of us have probably seen such stampers in use before, particularly if we've ever had something notarized at a licensed notary public in our own states. The key operative word here is "embossed", as in raised on one side, depressed on the other; as in convex on the one side, concave on the other; as in highly visible from either side of the document in question, even on a scanned copy.

I was nosing around this morning and look at what I found with regard to the State of Hawaii and this issue with Obama's COLB and the lack of an embossed seal on the document as it appeared back in June, 2008. A spokesman for the state of Hawaii, Janice Okubo explained the absence of the embossed seal on the document this way,

The Hawaii Department of Health receives about a dozen e-mail inquiries a day about Obama’s birth certificate, spokesman Okubo said.

“I guess the big issue that’s being raised is the lack of an embossed seal and a signature,” Okubo said, pointing out that in Hawaii, both those things are on the back of the document. “Because they scanned the front … you wouldn’t see those things.”

Okubo says she got a copy of her own birth certificate last year and it is identical to the Obama one we received.

And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification? “When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.”

Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.” (emphasis mine)

Once again, we're talking about an embossed seal (Okubo's words, not mine), not a rubber stamped seal. These embossed seals are created with a clamping device such as the one pictured in Dr. Polarik's report, equipped with both male and female dies necessary to create the depression in the paper. And most of us have seen them in use as well as their effects on the documents in question more than once. I can hardly believe that an official spokesman for the state of Hawaii would make such a stupid statement as that above, but there ya go. But there's more...

If the document in question (Hussein O.'s COLB) is authentic, it will have an authentic embossed seal on it made by a machine such as that described above. Obviously the state of Hawaii does not have in its possession innumerable such machines with which they depress official COLBs. The impression left on the document, therefore, will be consistent in great and minute detail with the machine used to create the embossed seal which all of a sudden appeared on the image of Obama's COLB after questions were raised concerning the lack of an embossed seal on the document.

Time to seize the machine(s) and the Obama COLB? ...

Read More

Birth Certificate-Gate cont.; what does it mean?

This whole issue with Hussein O.'s missing, vaulted, sealed, protected, non-existent, whatever, authentic birth certificate is finally beginning to get some attention, even among skeptics. And by the way, I'm not berating anyone for their initial skepticism on this complicated issue. A healthy degree of skepticism concerning an issue as grave as this is never bad. But we should not allow a healthy amount of skepticism on the validity of the claims against the legitimacy of BHO's posted birth certificate to turn extreme and thus prevent us from discovering the truth of the matter, whatever that truth turns out to be. We must realize that there actually are people out there who would literally stop at nothing, including the doctoring (or the actual manufacture) of Obama's COLB, to install him as president.

To paraphrase Mr. Jefferson, our leaders and the people behind them are as honest as anyone else, and not more so.

So you're going to tell me you've not met up with innumerable dishonest people during the course of your lifetime; people capable of forging their own false identification documents for their own perceived self-interested purposes, and others who help them do so for their own purposes? If so I simply say to you that you ain't been around long, and/or, you ain't been paying attention.

But for those of you who have experience enough to better inform you, let us say, hypothetically, that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hussein O. is not a natural born U.S. citizen prior to, or early in his actual presidency. What would be the result? A commenter named Mark has speculated over at Reflecting Light that Congress would quickly initiate an amendment proposal to retroactively qualify Hussein O. for the presidency, and that the requisite number of states (three fourths) would happily ratify it as a show of their non-racism and non-discriminationism.

Well, respectfully to Mark, liberal domination in America notwithstanding, I do not think that is a very likely scenario. Why? Let's just say that the majority of states voted against, not for Obama. Mark's fear reminds me of the fear among many, conservatives in particular, to petition Congress for an Article V Convention to propose amendments. Such fears render us impotent to protect ourselves and our interests, and the provisions of the U.S. Constitution intended for the purpose, effectively null and void.

But I'd be very interested in your take. What do you think would likely happen if the above scenario became reality?

Read More

Have I been vindicated?

I wrote in an entry to this blog back on November 7 that ... well, here's what I wrote:

I predict that under the Hussein Obama administration the new Democrat controlled, virtually filibuster-proof, Congress is going to come to an agreement on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," by and with the aid of that RINO John McCain, and other liberal RINO Senators. What this means effectively is that Oklahoma's H.B. 1804 (and all other state and local immigration restriction laws), while probably remaining on the books for symbolism's sake, will become shortly nothing more than a dead letter as the all-powerful central government will have comprehensively "occupied the field" of immigration, and comprehensively left no doubt that it "intended a complete ouster" ... of the state and local authorities on immigration restrictionism.

Prepare to be overrun by Mexican and other third-worlders, America! Most of you who support immigration restriction to one extent or the other have literally been dragged kicking and screaming to create your own state and local laws on immigration -- kicking and screaming that immigration is a federal issue and a federal responsibility. Well, believe me when I say that the feds have heard you and they will respond to your dependency in fairly short order. (emphasis added)

So have I been vindicated? Well, certain people in certain key positions of power seem to think so, or that I soon will be.

Here is exhibit A and here is exhibit B.

Read More

Final report released

In connection with the entry preceding this one, and for anyone interested, Computer specialist Ron Polarik has released, as promised, his final report here.

I forewarn you, it is a very long piece. I only had time this morning to read about a third of it. I'll have to get back to it later.

Read More

New development in Obama citizenship issue

(Note: The title of this blog post is a bit misleading. Yes, this is a new development for me and probably most of my readers, but certainly not for Mr. Polarik as you shall see if you take the time to read his article linked below.)

The folks at WorldNetDaily have been covering this issue relentlessly, and seem to have no intention of backing off until the issue is resolved satisfactorily. And I applaud them for their dedication to the cause of holding Hussein O. & Co.'s feet to the fire.

Here's a Nov. 22 WND article in which something of a new development in the case has been revealed. From the concluding statements in the article:

On Janet Porter's Faith2Action radio program today, computer specialist Ron Polarik left no doubt the image posted as Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii was not genuine.

"Here's a smoking gun," he said. "Apparently Hawaii changes its borders [on documentation] every year. In 2007 it had a certain border, and it's got a 2007 border. However if you dig a little deeper you find it has a 2008 signature and seal," he said.

"Whomever did the forgery was not very clever," he said.

Well, I don't know about all that. I've said before that I could produce such a document, computer illiterate that I am. The issue with the border on the certificate posted at Obama's "fight the smears" website is interesting though. If Mr. Polarik is right that Hawaii changes this border every year, then indeed it is very strange that the border on the document is from 2007 and the seal is from 2008.

Update: I have it on reliable information that the methods Mr. Polarik claims were used to doctor Obama's COLB are entirely possible and involve fairly simple procedures, including the use of various lighting techniques to achieve the illusion of a raised seal on the surface of the document. Hey, that's what we send 'em to school for, know what I mean?

Read More

Petition

Sign this WND petition IF you care about the U.S. Constitution and its provision requiring that a U.S. President be a natural born citizen.

Remember, such a provision implies the means to enforce it.

(H/T: OutragedPatriots.com)

**********

In connection with the point of this and related entries let us recall the principle expressed by the Father of our country in his Farewell Speech:

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government. (emphasis mine)

Has the Constitutional provision requiring that a president be a natural born U.S. citizen been changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people? Umm, no. There is a faction out there that would like to change this provision, and I do not think they're particularly inclined to do so by an authentic act of the whole people (i.e., by the provisions of Article V) as they surely understand that this is not possible at this time, albeit the idea seems to be gaining ground at an alarming rate with the continued naturalization of great numbers of incompatible foreigners in America. Nonetheless the provision stands and is sacredly obligatory on all, including you Mr. Obama. Produce the document, sir.

Read More

Hussein O. & Co. swear upon the altar of Deception: We will not produce an autentic birth certificate!

Heading the list of entries under my Recommended Blog Posts section in the upper-right sidebar is a newly added WND article by Joseph Farah on the question of Hussein Obama's citizenship status and the Obama camp's refusal, in the face of these looming questions and speculations, to produce an authentic Hawaii birth certificate for BHO.

Mr. Farah asks the exact question I asked in my initial post on the subject at this blog -- why? What good is it doing anyone, continuing to add fuel to this speculation on Obama's actual country of birth by refusing to produce something as easily aquired upon request as a person's own birth certificate? What can be the motivation behind Obama's refusal to produce the document, the simple production of which would put to an end virtually all speculation on the subject for once and for all time? Well, let me rephrase that last thought: at this point in the game, because of Obama's refusal to produce the document, I doubt that even doing so now would be sufficient to satisfy some people's minds. But can you blame them? Be honest you leftists, if the same questions surrounded a candidate you opposed -- you know, a "radical right-wing nutjob" -- you and your leftist media outlets would be all over this demanding the production of an authentic birth certificate establishing the natural born citizenship qualifications of the "radical right-wing nutjob" candidate in question.

There have been any number of articles written on this subject over the last several months and weeks, some of which I've already linked up at this blog, others of which I have not. In addition to the WND article linked above, I'm adding a couple more from there and other sites below.

While this recent W-4 post has nothing to do with this subject, a short discussion on the topic was set off in the comments to the post, to which I contributed a couple. Zippy Catholic answers my initial question to him by saying to me that everything else about Obama being so bad, he just cannot personally take an interest in this question on Obama's eligibility for the presidency. And I reply. Blackadder interjects assuring me that Phillip Berg is nothing more or less than a crank. Also Blackadder provides the readership with a link to a FactCheck.org article concerning the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. But as others have pointed out, the document the Obama camp produced is not a birth certificate, it is a certificate of live birth.

I read a couple of days ago that Mr. Berg's lawsuit, while it has garnered the most attention throughout media outlets including the blogosphere, is far from the only lawsuit filed demanding the production of an authentic Hussein Obama birth certificate. Several people from various states have filed similar lawsuits. Add to the list Obama's old nemesis from his Senate campaign in 2004, Alan Keyes (scroll to the bottom of this page for other WND articles on this topic.). Is Mr. Keyes a crank too?

Why is it that I'm seeing a similarity here between President Clinton's defiant refusal to answer questions before a Grand Jury investigation of the Monika Lewinsky scandal and the defiant attitude displayed by the Obama campaign on the questions surrounding his constitutional eligibility to the presidency?

Read More