Don't hold your breath...but maybe...just maybe...

CAN OBAMA BE PRESIDENT?
It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president after all for the following reason:
Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between "December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986? Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal . US Law very clearly stipulates: ".If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawaii being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn't matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawaii. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.
*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. *** Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia. Now you can see why Obama's aides stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states, because it would have led to this discovery. This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. election law. I think the Gov. of California would be very interested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. citizen, and it would set precedence. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days.

Thomas Sowell
Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow
The Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305

Who Is Obama? Where Is The Press?
By Tony Blankley
June 11, 2008

How would one sneak a left-wing radical into the Oval Office in broad daylight? Perhaps the same way that President George W. Bush got two strong conservatives on the Supreme Court: Find a candidate without a paper trail on the most controversial issues. For those of us who suspect but cannot yet prove that Barack Obama is a genuine radical leftist, his lack of much of a voting record is going to make it difficult to prove what his real values, policies and motives are to be president.

This is particularly the case because the media is so obviously going to give Obama cover not only for his current revelatory gaffes but also for embarrassing bits from his past.

For example, back on June 2, National Review Online ran an extraordinary article by Stanley Kurtz that closely assessed a 1995 article about Obama by Hank De Zutter titled "What Makes Obama Run?" The essence of his thesis is the following:

"De Zutter's article shows us that the full story of Obama's ties to Pfleger and Wright is both more disturbing and more politically relevant than we've realized up to now. On Obama's own account, the rhetoric and vision of Chicago's most politically radical black churches are exactly what he wants to see more of. True, when discussing Louis Farrakhan with De Zutter, Obama makes a point of repudiating anti-white, anti-Semitic, and anti-Asian sermons. Yet having laid down that proviso, Obama seems to relish the radicalism of preachers like Pfleger and Wright. In 1995, Obama didn't want Trinity's political show to stop. His plan was to spread it to other black churches, and harness its power to an alliance of leftist groups and sympathetic elected officials.

"So Obama's political interest in Trinity went far beyond merely gaining a respectable public Christian identity. On his own account, Obama hoped to use the untapped power of the black church to supercharge hard-left politics in Chicago, creating a personal and institutional political base that would be free to part with conventional Democratic politics. By his own testimony, Obama would seem to have allied himself with Wright and Pfleger, not in spite of, but precisely because of their radical left-wing politics. It follows that Obama's ties to Trinity reflect on far more than his judgment and character (although they certainly implicate that). Contrary to common wisdom, then, Obama's religious history has everything to do with his political values and policy positions, since it confirms his affinity for leftist radicalism."

Now, given how much the media has covered both the Pfleger and Wright matters, when a respectable journal, such as National Review, runs an article by a journalist of established credibility, such as Stanley Kurtz, that suggests a different and far more disturbing interpretation of Obama's relationships with Wright and Pfleger, a responsible mainstream media would seek out Obama and, at the minimum, ask him whether the things the 1995 De Sutter article quotes him as saying are, in fact, things he said. They might even ask him to explain himself. Because if the 1995 article is an accurate reflection of what Obama said, then most of what he has said in the past few months about the Wright affair and Trinity United Church of Christ could not continue to be viewed as believable.

A much more recent example of the media not even going through the motions of being responsible is their almost complete avoidance of a recent statement Obama made:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Is there absolutely no curiosity at The Washington Post, The Associated Press or even The New York Times about the assertion by the man who is considered likely to be president of the United States come noon Jan. 20, 2009, that letting Americans eat as much as they want is "not going to happen"? Doesn't that shockingly dictatorial assertion deserve comment and inquiry? Yes, it is true that Obama was saying explicitly that what wasn't going to happen was "other countries (saying) OK" to Americans eating as much as we want. But a fair reading of the whole passage suggests that Obama agrees with those other countries. And as president, what exactly would he try to do regarding Americans who want to eat as much as they want (or drive SUVs or set their own thermostats)?

Dictator or democrat? Radical or liberal? Who in the world is this man? Where in the world is the responsible media? What's going on?

My Reply

06-11-2008, 09:47 AM

WhoBeen Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3

Re: Who Is Obama? Where Is The Press? Haven't you guys figured it out? It's right there in front of you; like the forest before the trees. The New York Times and the left wing media have a global agenda...their Brave New World or New World Order, if you will. Obama is just another Saul Alinsky platitude distributor that fits the needs of the Times (and/or times...with a small 't'). I first recognized this trend (and you should have also) back in the 90's when the New York Times' Hedrick Smith admitted their global agenda (see "The New Russians" in the introductory). This is a well concieved plan...a long time in the making and not just some simple conspiracy theory;it's real!

"...the cancer of Islam" GO GET 'EM BB !

Wednesday, 4 June 2008

Brigitte Bardot found guilty of speaking the truth

Even when she was young, Brigitte never went clubbing

Brigitte Bardot, who some of you older guys will certainly remember, has been fined £11,500 and ordered to pay damages to two anti-free speech groups in Paris.

The court said that BB, had been found guilty of racial hatred when she wrote to Nicolas Sarkozy before he was President of France saying that the Moslems were destroying France. She also wrote;

"tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts."

A few sites have spoken out about the courage of Ms Bardot who has campaigned for many years against "France invaded by sheep slaughtering Muslims" and against the the cruel and barbaric practice of Halal in which the animals throat is hacked through whilst still conscious.

Ms Bardot has now been fined four times for speaking the truth/inciting racial hatred since 1997 and Dhimmi Prosecutor Anne de Fontette told the court she was seeking a tougher sentence than usual, adding: "I am a little tired of prosecuting Mrs Bardot."

Ms Bardot who is not in the best of health, did not attend the trial and wrote saying;

"I'm sickened by how (these organisations) are harassing me.''

"I will not shut up until stunning is carried out on animals before their ritual slaughter."

Well done Brigitte. A pity our own RSPCA did not have the courage to speak out as bravely. But then again the RSPCA has been controlled by the marxists for years and they are only ever going to attack farmers for what they see as class reasons. More about the RSPCA later.

Now I fail to see how Ms Bardot, who also received a two month suspended prison sentence, can be charged with inciting racial hatred. She was attacking the Cult of the Dead Paedophile over the way millions of sheep are slaughtered in France every year at the Moslem celebration of Aid el-Kebir. And the last I heard, the cancer of Islam was a pretend religion, not a race.

For those of you with a strong stomach you can see images over at this French site. Incidentally this festival of death also takes place in Our Country every year at many different locations. Eventually they will consolidate these events and then the slaughter will be on a grand scale. British Farmers have already been approached.

Of course France these days is run by cowards who have caved into the wishes of the five million(conservative estimate) moslems that have been allowed to infect their country. In fact, they caved in quicker than their army did back in 1939.

France, like Our oppressed Country does not have the courage to uphold freedom of speech and neither does any other country in Western Europe today. The only way to get Freedom of Speech back is to vote for the British National Party. Then people, in this country at least will be able to speak their mind without fear of imprisonment and finally outlaw this evil festival from Our Land.

France: Brigitte Bardot convicted of racial hatred
Islam in Europe

No Freedom of Speech in France
No More Spin

France:Young Muslims courted by US
Islam in Europe

France: Prisons Filled With Muslims
Islam in Europe

France: Muslim countries vying for influence on local Muslims
Islam in Europe

Tags: Brigitte Bardot, Aid el-Kebir

Hey you! Yeah, you! You're not paying enough for gasoline...the weasel wants every last dime...

	Reid Energy Tax Increase Bill – Increasing Taxes and Prices

With energy prices reaching record highs, Congress continues its attempts to manipulate healthy market forces through additional tax increases. The Senate will vote TODAY, June 10th, on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) "Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008." This bill is a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, signed by 41 current Senators.

The Reid Energy Tax Increase Bill invokes a 1970's-era windfall profit tax on domestic energy companies. Congress should not look to the dismal economic period of the 1970's for guidance. After successful deregulation and shrinking of government control in this sector, Congress, through this bill, seeks to increase price controls in order to further micromanage domestic energy markets. The Reid Energy Tax Increase Bill does not place consumers first. In fact, the bill will hurt American energy consumers directly through higher energy prices and indirectly through increased taxes.

Take action here: http://capwiz.com/atr/issues/alert/?alertid=11470691&type=CO
Right now! Today!

You say you're not complacent...

Then why is this TRAITOR still in office?

Another time, another place this poor excuse for an American would be brought before firing squad.

From :http://www.nypost.com/seven/06092008/postopinion/letters/pelosis_putdown__playing_nice_with_iran_114669.htm

PELOSI'S PUTDOWN: PLAYING NICE WITH IRAN


June 9, 2008 -- If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks that we're now winning in Iraq because of "the good will of [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad," maybe she thinks we won Word War II because Hitler became compassionate ("Nancy's Iran Nonsense," Editorial, June 3).
David Farbman

Manhattan


Pelosi, hallway heroine of the Capitol, is a disaster, pure and simple.

A doyen of the Iraq defeatists, this Democratic leader now credits the mad mullahs of Iran for the remarkable progress our troops and Iraqi allies have made in the war against our terrorist enemies.

We should have expected this servile posturing toward our enemies. It was on display early in her tenure as speaker when she went to pay obeisance to the anti-American Syrian dictator, cooing about how all roads lead to Damascus.

Is there not a clear-thinking Democrat left who will censure this embarrassing politician?

Paul Bloustein

Cincinnati

Pelosi is an airhead, elected by nitwits. She should do nothing more challenging than play tiddlywinks.

James J. Ring

Ossining


Once again, the Democrats prove that the word "Democrat" is synonymous with "traitor." Pelosi is the latest Democrat to verge on committing treason.

Her comments about Iran prove that Democrats do indeed hate the military and their country.

What other conclusion can you come up with when she praises Iran, but not Gen. David Petraeus?

Bret Wallach

Hicksville

Thinking as far back as the Eisenhower administration, I don't remember any politician, on either side of the aisle, hating America and praising the enemy as much as Pelosi does.

Such foolish and disparaging remarks embolden our enemy's propaganda machine.

Pelosi obviously made an error in judgment in January 2007 when she condemned the surge in Iraq and sent a letter to President Bush. She claimed that "there is no purely military solution in Iraq" and that the way forward is to begin a phased redeployment of our forces - not exactly words to live by when uttered by people who have a vested interest in an American defeat.

Pelosi's gaffe is the reason why military matters should be left in the hands of military personnel and not in the hands of incompetent mouthpieces.

Expect Pelosi to continue her efforts to discredit our military, since an American victory on the battlefield amounts to a Pelosi defeat at home.

Elio Valenti

Brooklyn


Pelosi is an idiot and should not be in the House.

She is an embarrassment and knows nothing about foreign policy or war. But she's still pretty hot for a 60-something grandmother. Charlie Honadel

Staten Island

The New York Times can run story after story on isolated acts of misconduct by our troops and denigrate them, their mission and the commander-in-chief, and the Congressional Democrats also don't celebrate the military's heroic acts around the world.

So why any thoughtful American with any common sense would continue to support or vote for today's Democratic Party is beyond me.

John LaPorte

Whitestone