Thursday, February 26, 2009
One of the big controversies that just won't seem to go away concerning Barack Hussein Obama is the one about his citizenship, and thus, his qualification to be President of the United States.
Dr. Alan Keyes is one of many who have filed suit alleging Obama is not an American citizen.
If Barack Hussein Obama was not born in the United States as some have charged, is he qualified to be President or not?
I have said I have always thought as long as one has at least one parent who is an American citizen, one is considered a naturally born American citizen and that should settle the issue, but upon researching what the Constitution actually has to say about it, I can now see why there is some confusion.
From Article II, Section I of the Constitution of the United States of America:
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; 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.
What constitutes a “natural born” Citizen?
For that, we have to look at the fourteenth Amendment, to wit:
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
That's it. That's all it says. That doesn't yet tell us everything we need to know, does it?
A President cannot be a naturalized citizen. He must be “natural born”, but the Constitution does not specify exactly what defines “natural born“.
I had always believed one only had to be born of at least one parent who is an American citizen, no matter what country he was born in to be a natural born American citizen, but the Constitution makes no such specification.
So, there must be a more specific definition of what constitutes an American citizen somewhere, shouldn't there?.
There is. In the U.S. Code.
According to the U.S. Code § 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(this provision covers Sen. John McCain's qualification, regardless of what the Liberals say)
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person.
I don’t know if some of these provisions apply to Obama’s qualifications to be President, but, at least one of them would, regardless. Unless Obama’s mother didn’t satisfy the requirements pertaining to the length of continuous time spent in the United States, and that, I don’t know.
Q.E.D. It would appear that Obama is indeed a natural born American citizen, his suspect forged “certificate of live birth” notwithstanding.
If we need legal justification for removing Obama from the Presidency (and I believe he needs to be removed), it might be better to read further into the fourteenth amendment. There does appear to be a justification for questioning the qualifications of Obama to be President, to wit:
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Obama has absolutely offered aid and comfort to America’s enemies with his overtures to Hamas and Iran, and his seeming commitment to facilitating further terrorists attacks on America, by dismantling the safeguards set up by the Bush administration, and cutting the budget for the military.
That alone should disqualify him to be President, depending on how one interprets the phrase “aid or comfort”.
Of course, if the multiple lawsuits raising questions about Obama's citizenship are successful in removing him from office, I would be comfortable with that as well.
As long as he goes.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
I read this piece over at Trader Rick's blog. Rick often posts things he received through e-mail. At first, I did nothing with it. Often times, things sent through e-mail are simply not true. So, I initially dismissed it, thinking it either wasn't important, or worse, not factual.
But, I couldn't get it out of my mind. So I looked up Dr. Samuel Vaknin on Google and found a wealth of information about him. He is what he portrays himself to be. An expert on Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He knows what he's talking about.
Disclaimer: This entire article was not written by Dr. Vaknin. Only the parts in italics are actual quotes from Dr. Vaknin. He is not a Doctor of Psychology, but he has written several books and papers on the subject of narcissism. The author of the article referenced by the e-mail, on Trader Rick's blog, that was quoted in the e-mail, as it has been pointed out, is Ali Sina.
Dr. Vaknin States:
"I must confess I was impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first, I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness, but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words."
Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi 'religious' impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming...
Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact, he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. Barack Obama is a narcissist.
Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of "The Malignant Self Love" believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist."
Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens.
Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children - was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom.
When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations," says Vaknin.
"Mixed-race marriages were even less common, then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then, his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995."
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing Personality that it overwhelms those around them.
Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents.
Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention. (remember how Obama ignored the victims of last month's ice storm in the south?)
If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong.
Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.
Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what?
His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book "Dreams from My Father." Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist, no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?
Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why?
Because his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power.
A narcissist cares for no one but himself. This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake.
What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?
I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed.
Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others...They are simply self serving and selfish.
Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw.
Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.
Today, the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party.
The great majority of blacks have also voted for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple. The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster - I predict he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites.
The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's. Obama will set the clock back decades.
America is the bastion of freedom.
The peace of the world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America - are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House.
This is an important revelation. I believe Obama is as dangerous to America as Hitler was to Germany, as Stalin was to Russia, as Chairman Mao was to China, etc.
If he is allowed to continue to manipulate America and Americans so recklessly unchecked he will destroy America.
h/t: Trader Rick
Monday, February 23, 2009
I've just added another blog to my blogroll. It is hosted by Dr. Alan Keyes, former Ambassador to the UN, and (at least) two time unsuccessful candidate for President. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Keyes, and would have voted for him for President years ago if I thought he had any viable solutions. By that I mean, he was dead on in diagnosing what was wrong with American politics and ideologies, but he didn't seem to know what to do to solve them. At least, he failed to offer solutions to the problems. In short, he had plenty of thought provoking questions but not enough answers to win my vote.
Be that as it may, Dr. Keyes has a clear view of what is wrong with the Obama administration and Liberal politics in general.
Dr. Keyes is also one of many plantiffs in lawsuits brought that seek definite proof of Obama's citizenship in regard to his qualifications to serve as President of these United States of America.
Personally, I believe Obama is a legal citizen by virtue of the fact that he was born to an American citizen, his mother. There is no doubt she was a citizen, so by law, he is also an American citizen. Like it or not.
I don't always agree with Dr. Keyes on some issues, but I deeply respect and admire the man for his dedication to Liberty. And, I believe he is sincere, a quality rarely seen in politicians today.
Please visit his site.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
That opening statement from Laura Ingraham's book, "Shut Up and Sing" has never been better demonstrated than it is now with Barack Hussein Obama.
On Election day, last November, 52% (reportedly) of Americans proved Obama was at least partially correct. Apparently, at least 52% of Americans really are stupid.
They voted for Obama despite all the evidence that he has no experience, no substance, no pride in America, and no qualifications. And yet 52% believed he was preferable to a genuine American hero.
He has demonstrated for years that he is a Marxist, and that he intends to create a Marxist state of the United States, but still 52% of Americans voted for him.
All the evidence was there in his questionable associations, his grandiose promises of "hope and change", while offering no glimpse of how he was going to accomplish these miracles, plus, most Conservatives such as myself, warned Americans that he is a danger to the American way of life, but to no avail. 52% ignored the warnings and the evidence.
He relied heavily on his belief that most Americans are willfully uninformed. And 52% of them obviously are.
Now that he is ensconced as President, we are witnessing the Socialization of America right before our very eyes in the form of this so-called stimulus bill.
They (Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, etc) trumpeted the benefits of this bill, citing the creation of millions of jobs, and the free flow of money into our economy that somehow was going to kick start the faltering economy and get it up and running like a well-oiled machine again.
Now, the language of his adoring minions in the media has changed somewhat. Now, they are saying the bill will create or "save" millions of existing jobs.
Note the subtle change. Now, maybe the bill won't actually create jobs. Now, maybe it will only save existing jobs. Maybe it will do both. Maybe it will do neither. None of us can be sure.
But, we are being asked to throw caution to the winds and blindly accept this concept, which is a crap shoot at best.
One thing I'm sure of, is that our nation, if this bill is implemented, will become a Communist collective, and our freedom and liberties will fall by the wayside. Once Obama gets to decide who gets what, there will be no stopping him. He will create an obligation in us to which we must acquiesce.
"If I give you x amount of money, you must in turn, do as I say. That is the price of my generosity".
His goal is complete, total, control.
Why don't Obama's fawning supporters see what he's doing? With this bill, he is in effect taking over control of every business in America. He will set the prices on goods and services. He will decide how much the workers earn. He will decide how much and what we can buy for our families. He will kill some industries such as oil and coal. He will dismantle our military. He will repeal the legislation that has kept us safe from terrorists attacks since 9/11. He will legitimize infanticide. He will ban the ownership of any type of firearm. He will squelch any speech that voices opposition to him or his policies.
The wheels are already in motion to accomplish those last two.
From there, it is a small step to re-education camps, forced labor, abolishing all dissension, purges, executions, and "dictator for life".
Fasten your seat belts. We're in for a bumpy ride. But, this time, we may not survive.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
I might have missed it, or maybe the media isn't covering it out of embarrassment or something, but I believe Barack Hussein Obama's so-called stimulus bill has yet to pass the Senate.
It really doesn't matter if it has or hasn't. Since nobody who can make an actual difference reads this blog anyway, I can go ahead and offer my plan for stimulating the economy.
Perhaps the damage has already been done, but I'm going to offer my poorly thought out economic stimulus plan anyway:
As long as Obama's adoring Liberal Democrat lawmakers are going to allocate spending around 1.2 trillion dollars anyway, I think I have a better idea as to who should receive the money than the various pork projects currently being considered.
Give it directly to the American people. Simple as that.
There are approximately 305,787,883 people in the United States now, a little more since I started writing this post.
That's $3,934.00 more or less for every man, woman, and child in America. Now, everyone has almost $4,000.00 to do whatever they want to do with the money.
This should stimulate the economy.
We could buy things we need, or only want. We can get health care. We can get educations. We can collect fine works of art. We can pay our mortgage payments. We can build buildings. Or move into new buildings. Even if all we do is stick the money into a savings account and don't touch it for years.
The banks can use that money to pay their executive's salaries.
In short, we, as a people can use that money to accomplish everything Obama and his Democrat buddies want to accomplish. The only difference is, it will be accomplished freely and voluntarily by the American people, and not be extracted from our already light pockets by force.
Families with many children would get more than single people or families with no children. But that's how it should be, right? The more people in a family, the more money it takes to feed them. That money-grubbing woman in California who has multiple children merely to capitalize on Americans generosity will get $60,000.00.
That should keep her in diapers for a couple of years, leaving her welfare checks to buy food and clothing.
The rich will get $3900+. The poor will get $3900+. All God's children get $3900+.
I could get a used car in better shape than the one I currently drive. That helps the used car dealers. And, it helps me.
Best of all, this idea comes as close to Obama's Socialist idea of redistribution of wealth as we could ever hope.
The only way we could realize Obama's dream of a level playing field is to take all the money away from all the people first, and then divide it evenly among every man, woman, and child in America, but that would be problematic at best. Impossible at worst.
This idea is much simpler.
And if Obama has proven anything, it is that he is simple.
Friday, February 06, 2009
I'm sorry I haven't posted any entries the last few days. The fact is, besides being distracted by economic problems here at home, which I can't seem to solve, I have been completely overwhelmed with the frightening amount of egregious acts and statements issuing from the Oval office. I suspect my personal economic problems and Obama's "change" are connected, but that connection as yet, remains to be proven.
There are simply too many things going on with Barack Hussein Obama, I can't focus on just one of them. Any one of his decisions have the potential for driving the United States of America over the cliff to our doom. And amazingly, he has accomplished this much in less than two weeks!
At this rate we will have a full blown Marxist dictatorship inside of two years.
I don't know what to comment on first.
I fear we are witnessing the final death throes of the United States of America.
Obama is intent on change, alright. He wants to change this country from the United States of America to the United Soviet States of America.
From his first day, every thing he has done is a disaster in the making. From signing the order to close GITMO, suspending trials for the terrorists, cutting our military budget by 10% (that's just the beginning of the dismantling of the military, mark my words), threatening to abolish free speech, to the capping of Wall Street executive's salaries.
What gives Obama the right to dictate (key word)how much executives can make? What gives him the right to limit how much any one can make? Today it's the Wall street executives. Tomorrow it may be you. That's Marxism at it's worst!
Can't the American people see what he's doing?
He has the power and he has the political backing of the other Marxists in the two houses of Congress, and if he stays in office long enough, and has the opportunity, he will pack the Supreme Court with Marxist judges.
He is taking us further into Socialism with every executive order, with every pronouncement, and with every concession he makes to the enemies of our country. And I include on that list enemies of America who call themselves Americans while actively trying to undermine America's security and freedoms.
What has to happen for Americans to rise up and throw this Marxist bum out on his ear? Does he have to declare himself "Dictator for Life" before the American people wake up and see what he's doing?
So. What can we do? We need to clean house, that much is certain. But, how do we do it?
I don't have anywhere enough of a readership to accomplish anything. I feel as if I'm talking to a wall. I have no power to lead a grassroots movement against this traitorous government.
But we need to act. Now. We need to let our voices be heard. Now. We need to throw these bums out, and the sooner, the better. Perhaps, if we move quickly enough, we can salvage what's left of our liberty.
Make no mistake. Obama is systematically destroying our country. And he's not even being subtle. He is blatantly dismantling the Constitution before our very eyes and we seem to be powerless to stop him.
We can write our Representatives in Congress. We can jam the Congressional switchboards with our calls. We can take to the streets and shout our frustration to the world. But the problem with that is this:
The media are in the tank for Obama, and our protests will not be heard. The Democrats in Congress are backing Obama, and will back him all the way to our death, and most of the Republican Representatives are spineless. They will sit back, watch, and complain.
Which is, by the way, the only thing we ordinary freedom loving Americans can do.
God help us all.
Monday, February 02, 2009
U. S. Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat, of Missouri believes she has the solution to Wall Street executives spending their share of the Federal bail-out money on Corporate jets, extravagant vacations, and million dollar bonuses.
That's right, she wants to cap their income at $400,000.00 a year, which just happens to be the same amount President Obama makes. In this way, she believes the Democrat controlled government can force these corporations to spend their free money responsibly.
How would that keep them from using the bail-out money irresponsibly? It seems to me that limiting their salaries would only encourage them to use their free money to pay themselves even bigger bonuses to make up the difference.
Who wouldn't take full advantage of free money? As I've mentioned before, would a starving man turn down a free sandwich?
The fact is, the more money they get, the more they will spend. If irresponsibility got them into their circumstances, handing them more money to spend foolishly won't get them out.
I once worked the customer service counter at a dry cleaner that was a fairly successful mom and pop operation. The cleaners did a bustling business until the owners wife got a taste of the good life. Whenever she wanted a new outfit, a new purse, new shoes, jewelry, or dinner at Ruth Criss', she simply opened the cash drawer and took out whatever amount she needed. Eventually, her extravagance drove her husband out of business.
Nobody bailed them out, nor should they have.
It is called fiscal irresponsibility, and it is this problem that Missouri's Senator means to address.
But, Ms. McCaskill is approaching the problem completely wrong. You don't give money to anyone who you know is going to waste it. That's just common sense.
In the free market system, businesses succeed and fail everyday. They succeed by making intelligent decisions and they fail by making stupid decisions.
Suppose I am behind on my house payment, utility payments, and car payment. If I receive a hefty Income tax refund, and go out and spend my refund on a big screen plasma TV instead of paying those bills, I deserve to lose my house.
Would anyone feel sorry for me? Would anyone feel obligated to send me money to help?
Also, how many of these corporations lobbied for bail out money when they didn't really need it in the first place? Something tells me if they really needed it, they wouldn't be wasting it on frivolous luxuries.
The free market system works best without outside help. It is a perfect model of the survival of the fittest. If a corporation employs sound business practices, re-invests their profits wisely, and keeps their operating costs to a minimum, they will succeed.
If they spend their profits like a drunken sailor on extravagances like corporate jets, vacations, etc, with no regard to the possible consequences, they will fail, as well they should.
If they fail because they spent their profits foolishly, they deserve to fail. They certainly don't deserve help from a government that is already suffering economic woes of it's own. Especially when much of the blame goes to the Government for contributing to such bad financial decisions.
Rest assured, if a corporation fails there will be plenty of other companies perfectly willing to step in and take up the slack. Don't let Claire McCaskill or anyone else tell you that won't happen.
No, the free market system can take care of itself. They don't need free money. The smart executives will find a way to overcome temporary financial setbacks and the foolish corporations will go bankrupt, and that's how the free market works.
Our Government needs to use our money to pay Government debts and let the corporations use their gross income to pay theirs.
That's how it was designed, and that's the best way.
The American way.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
As most of you know, I listen to National Public Radio (NPR) on weekends, when I'm in my car. There is no programming worth listening to on weekends on the Conservative talk radio stations in this area (Unless you think shows about mulch are entertaining), so I listen to NPR, a decidedly non-Conservative radio network, which is partly subsidized by our tax dollars.
Their Liberal bias is even more obvious than MSNBC, if that is possible.
I wonder, how many billions of dollars in the new Porkulus package are earmarked for public radio and television?
But I digress.
There are, believe it or not, some programs on NPR worth listening to, particularly on weekends. There is "Car Talk", "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", and "A Prairie Home Companion". I enjoy the comedy, when it is not specifically directed at Conservatives and Republicans.
Well, sometimes even then.
There are always nuggets of comedy to be found on all of the aforementioned shows.
But this week, the best comedy line wasn't on any of those shows. It was, instead, on a "serious" show called "This American Life".
The host of the program announced a new editorial policy, which was encapsulated in one line, to wit:
"Don't try to force Obama to stop smoking."
But, hold on there!
That isn't the line to which I referred. The line I am referencing as the funniest line of the day came next:
"Smoking is Obama's ONLY flaw."
Who knew NPR was so funny?
Perhaps our tax dollars aren't being wasted by subsidizing Public Radio after all.