The presidential eligibility question no doubt has reached a critical mass, what with the spate of news including the declaration from Hawaii's director of health that she has seen the president's original birth records and that he is a "natural-born citizen." But don't bring out the fat lady to sing just yet, folks.

For one thing, the health director, "I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino," may have broken state law -- twice -- in commenting on this issue: http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

Secondly, by what authority can she make such a claim that Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro meets the "natural-born citizen" qualification to be president? Has she suddenly added "constitutional lawyer" to her resume? Even if she turns out to be right about him being born in Hawaii and having the records to prove it, it won't end the controversy. There would still be the matter of whether he meets the constitutional requirements. One businessman who is offering a grand of Benjamins for proof of eligibility sums it up nicely in the fourth paragraph: http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

But even more damning is what an astute lawyer and crack poker player -- Leo Donofrio, who believes Obama was born in Hawaii -- has to say about it all. He had went into hiatus after failing to get SCOTUS to take up his case before the inauguration, but re-emerged in recent days to say that the potential usurper to the presidency is guilty on at least one count of false swearing: http://naturalborncitizen.w...

He then followed up on that posting the next day to say that it may have struck a raw nerve with Team Obama, since Fukino came out with her statement shortly afterward, prompting him to say that we should "all hail the great legal oracle from Hawaii": http://naturalborncitizen.w...

I'd highly recommend that you folks read the preceding two links. Donofrio lays out the cold, hard facts based on the Constitution and the Supreme Court's sole review of the "natural born" issue. One of our commenters here, JFrancais, is going to find his 14th Amendment arguments in tatters as the SCOTUS ruling came several years after the amendment came into being, saying that the answer to the "natural born" issue can only be found elsewhere as it is NOT in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment refers to "native born citizens," which is not even nearly the same thing as "natural-born citizen." In summary, the president, ironically a consitutional lawyer himself, should've taken care of this matter before it all got out of hand. But, oh no, he just recklessly forges ahead and hopes that it'll all work out somehow or that the sheeple won't notice or care.

Even if nothing gets done about it this time around, then who's with me and several congressional lawmakers in making sure we have no more of this shenanigan in future elections? http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

By the way, it's edifying to see Lou Dobbs stick to his guns http://www.wnd.com/index.ph... in urging the prez to come clean on this issue (mind you, he believes Obama is a citizen) despite the left becoming unglued and screaming for his head: http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

I'll let World Net Daily's founder, Joseph Farah, have the last word on this with his latest column in which he finds it quite bizarre that the movers and shakers from all sides are pooh-poohing all this. Like Farah, I can only wonder how is it that not one of them is "capable of uttering even one articulate, coherent statement that would help me understand how Obama established his constitutional eligibility for office?": http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

Farah continues:

Why are the rest of the media in apoplectic hysterics over the fact that Americans actually want to see the Constitution honored to the letter of the law?

It hasn't been yet with regard to Obama's qualifications. That is simply a fact. It is undeniable. No controlling legal authority has examined this issue – not the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, the Federal Elections Commission or any state election officials.

Since when do we as a civil society outsource our constitutional vetting to Snopes.com, a husband-wife rumor-busting team whose research is limited to online searches, and the Annenberg-associated FactCheck.org? Are these unimpeachable sources? Are they incapable of error or being led by their own political biases?

Why is everyone so afraid of asking Obama simply to release his birth certificate – and, for that matter, everything else he is hiding?

Oh, and if anyone wonders just what is it that the "birthers" would like for the prez to spend a mere $12.50 on for release to the public -- rather than wasting a million bucks on lawyers to keep it hidden -- it is this: http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

World Net Daily comes through as usual in sniffing out whoppers, this time getting Hawaii to shoot down the CNN chief's contention that his news agency's researchers learned that the state destroyed the original birth certificates when it went electronic in 2001: http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

This comes on the heels of what I posted earlier about the CNN chief and others telling Lou Dobbs to shut his trap on this issue: http://people.bakersfield.c...

larger view

Gee willikers, Batman! Did Lou Dobbs stir up a hornet's nest or what? And just for simply suggesting that the Big Zero end the questions over his eligibility to be president once and for all just by showing us his original birth certificate. Now he's being told to STFU even by his own boss: http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

Ol' Lou is not alone. An AOL poll shows that 82 percent of Americans want this man suspected of being a shyster to fork over the real thing that he has spent scores of Benjamins to keep under wraps: http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

And to think a naturalized citizen is having a devil of a time trying to cross a river to see his folks because he cannot get a passport by using the same kind of "birth document" that the potential usurper to the presidency had posted on the Web to pull a fast one on us: http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

Well, if this keeps up and a constitutional crisis results as one editor fears might happen, the Obamessiah is going to need to start cracking and pull off a miracle like walking on the water or feeding the masses from five loaves of bread and two fish. To hear him so incisively put it:

Obama should have balked during his cam­paign when sup­porters and his cap­tive media com­pared him to the Mes­siah. Every­body hailed Jesus Christ when he appeared in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, but less than three days later, they demanded his execution.

Per­haps Obama was con­vinced by his han­dlers that nobody would care about this nat­ural born cit­izen thing. Or, per­haps they con­vinced him that he could get away with it even if they did care.

What Obama may not know is that these same han­dlers might soon offer him up as a cheap sac­ri­fice in order to force a Con­sti­tu­tional crisis.

Why? Because it would almost cer­tainly require a Con­sti­tu­tional Con­ven­tion to straighten out the mess. Every Pres­i­den­tial act would be inval­i­dated. Civil unrest would be ram­pant. Chaos would reign, and chaos is the desired envi­ron­ment for the powers behind Obama.

With every passing day that the birth issue is not resolved in Obama’s favor, the odds will per­sis­tently increase that a Con­sti­tu­tional crisis will soon unfold, and that America will be polar­ized like never before in history.

Joseph Farah, whose World Net Daily news agency that he founded has been virtually alone in covering this issue, has a thrill going up his leg a la Chris Matthews now that, as he put it, "there isn't a news agency left in America not covering the story – or, more precisely, covering it up": http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

Lastly, another pundit precisely echoes my thoughts regarding the significance of it all:

If Obama is going to cause the destruction of America and Israel, I at least want to know that he was constitutionally empowered as a “Natural Born Citizen” serving as President of the United States to destroy us.  I hate to think all this could have been prevented by some state official somewhere doing their job and asking to see proof that Obama was eligible to run for office. That never happened.

About time the talk shows and media outlets are taking the eligibility questions seriously. Phil at The Right Side of Life blog reports on these developments that show how one paper is bucking the sagging fortunes of its peers simply by going where the others are too chicken to go: http://www.therightsideofli...

Tick ... tock ... tick ... tock ...

Oh, and columnist Vox Day has some interesting things to say about a "get out of war free" card that just might be the ticket for anyone dreading to tango with the Taliban: http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

Wait till Infowar gets a whiff of this. I had an inkling that Cronkite may be a wolf in sheep's clothing when the Iraq War got stuck in his craw and he spoke out against it. Well, it looks like he showed his true colors on several other occasions: http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

Read and weep:

July 17, 2009

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the fate of African American women, and their children, in the nation’s capital:

Following the lead of President Barack Obama, the House of Representatives passed a bill yesterday that would allow the District of Columbia to fund abortions. Also following Obama’s wishes, the same bill affirmed the earlier congressional decision to end school vouchers there.

Something doesn’t add up. Last night in New York, Obama spoke at the 100th anniversary celebration of the NAACP, saying, “No one has written your destiny for you.” That’s certainly true of the crowd “clad in tuxedos and ball gowns,” as the New York Times described them. But what about the African American children in the nation’s capital about to be born? Thanks to what happened yesterday, the road is being paved to insure that publicly financed abortionists will control the destiny of a large segment of the black poor.

Here’s what it comes down to: indigent African American pregnant woman in D.C. will be told that if they decide to abort their baby, the government will pay for it. But if they persist in bringing their baby to term, the government will not help them to avoid the same lousy public schools that Barack and Michelle shunned for Sasha and Malia.

Either way, this sounds like a death warrant. That this cruel concept of choice—public funds for aborting the children of the poor but not a dime for school choice—is coming from the “champions” of the poor is all the more despicable. By contrast, they make ordinary rednecks look positively harmless.

"President" Obama sure caught a lot of flak over the wimpy pitch he made to open the All-Star Game a couple of nights ago. His team apparently asked for Fox to shoot from a certain angle in case he completely missed the mark. Contrast that to his predecessor, who smartly threw it right over the plate for a strike.

This video gives us the breakdown. At least he wasn't as pathetic as Mariah Carey, and to think she had the handicap of wearing those goofy high-heeled shoes: http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Gotta admire the wit of Ann Coulter. She comes through yet again in sniffing out the blatant hypocrisies and double standards reeking out left field in her latest column.:

Every time a Democrat senator has talked during the Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor this week, I felt lousy about my country. Not for the usual reasons when a Democrat talks, but because Democrats revel in telling us what a racist country this is.

Interestingly, the Democrats' examples of ethnic prejudice did not include Clarence Thomas, whose nomination hearings began with the Democrats saying, "You may now uncuff the defendant."

Their examples did not include Miguel Estrada, the brilliant Harvard-educated lawyer who was blocked from an appellate court judgeship by Senate Democrats expressly on the grounds that he is a Hispanic – as stated in Democratic staff memos that became public.

No, they had to go back to Roger Taney – confirmed in 1836 – who was allegedly attacked for being a Catholic (and who authored the Dred Scott decision), and Louis Brandeis – confirmed in 1916 – allegedly a victim of anti-Semitism.

Indeed, Sen. Patrick Leahy lied about Estrada's nomination, blaming it on Republicans: "He was not given a hearing when the Republicans were in charge. He was given a hearing when the Democrats were in charge."

The Republicans were "in charge" for precisely 14 days between Estrada's nomination on May 9, 2001, and May 24, 2001, when Sen. Jim Jeffords switched parties, giving Democrats control of the Senate. The Democrats then refused to hold a hearing on Estrada's nomination for approximately 480 days, shortly before the 2002 election.

Even after Republicans won back a narrow majority in 2003, Estrada was blocked "by an extraordinary filibuster mounted by Senate Democrats" – as the New York Times put it.

Memos from the Democratic staff of the Judiciary Committee were later unearthed, revealing that they considered Estrada "especially dangerous" – as stated in a memo by a Sen. Dick Durbin staffer – because "he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."

Sandy Berger wasn't available to steal back the memos, so Durbin ordered Capitol Police to seize the documents from Senate computer servers and lock them in a police vault.

Led by Sens. Leahy and Chuck Schumer, Democrats ferociously opposed Estrada, who would have been the first Hispanic to sit on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They were so determined to keep him off the Supreme Court that Leahy and Schumer introduced legislation at one point to construct a fence around Estrada's house.

In frustration, Estrada finally withdrew his name on Sept. 5, 2003.

At the time, liberal historian David Garrow predicted that if the Democrats blocked Estrada, they would be "handing Bush a campaign issue to use in the Hispanic community."

Alas, today Democrats can't really place Estrada – James Carville confuses him with that other Hispanic, Alberto Gonzales. On MSNBC they laugh about his obscurity, asking if he was the cop on "CHiPs." They also can't recall the name "Anita Hill." Nor can anyone remember African-American Janice Rogers Brown or what the Democrats did to her.

Only the indignities suffered by Justices Taney and Brandeis still burn in liberal hearts!

So when Republicans treat Sotomayor with respect and Sen. Lindsey Graham says his "hope" is that "if we ever get a conservative president and they nominate someone who has an equal passion on the other side, that we will not forget this moment," I think it's a lovely speech.

It might even persuade me if I were born yesterday.

But Democrats treat judicial nominations like war – while Republicans keep being gracious, hoping Democrats will learn by example.

Sen. Teddy Kennedy accused Reagan nominee Robert Bork of trying to murder women, segregate blacks, institute a police state and censor speech – everything short of driving a woman into a lake! – within an hour of Reagan's announcing Bork's nomination.

To defend "the right to privacy," liberals investigated Bork's video rentals. (Alfred Hitchcock, the Marx Brothers' movies and "Ruthless People" – the last one supposedly a primer for dealing with the Democrats.)

Liberals unleashed scorned woman Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas in the 11th hour of his hearings to accuse him of sexual harassment – charges that were believed by no one who knew both Thomas and Hill, or by the vast majority of Americans watching the hearings.

But when the tables were turned and Bill Clinton nominated left-wing extremist/ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republicans lavished her with praise and voted overwhelmingly to confirm her, in a 96-to-3 vote. (Poor Ruth. If Sotomayor is confirmed, Ginsburg will no longer be known as "the hot one in the robe.")

The next Clinton nominee, Stephen Breyer, was also treated gallantly – no video rental records or perjurious testimony was adduced against him – and confirmed in an 87-to-9 vote.

As Mrs. Sam Alito can attest, the magnanimity was not returned to Bush's Supreme Court nominees. She was driven from the hearings in tears by the Democrats' vicious attacks on her husband's character. The great "uniter" Barack Obama voted against both nominees.

Even Justice Ginsburg recently remarked to the New York Times that her and Justice Breyer's hearings were "unusual" in how "civil" they were.

Hmmm, why might that be?

To the extent that the Sotomayor hearings have been less than civil, it is, again, liberals who have made it so, launching personal attacks against the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, and even the fireman whose complaint started the Ricci case.

But it was a nice speech.

TWEEEEET! Looks like some of you folks got your wishes granted to have the boom lowered on the Army Reserve major who bucked an order to report to Afghanistan over doubts about the legitimacy of Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro to serve as president. Gotta salute this guy for having the balls to do this. He figured he had nothing to lose for he'd catch hell whether or not he follows the order. By following it, he fears being treated as a criminal if caught by enemies who may not regard the president as legitimate and thus deny him the Geneva Convention protections. It'll be interesting to see if this doesn't boomerang against the powers that be in the form of the Whistleblower Protection Act. Keep staying tuned. Tick ... tock ... tick ... tock ...

http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

NOW things may be starting to heat up for the individual possibly usurping the Oval Office, what with the orders for an Army Reserver major to report to Afghanistan being revoked after he refuses the order, claiming Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro is an illegitimate president. He was scheduled for a hearing Thursday on his request for a temporary restraining order on his deployment, but now he can rest easy: http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

And finally the major media, namely Fox News and the Drudge Report, are taking notice, with Bret Baier and Sean Hannity reporting on this development.

And to quote the major:

"You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth."

Of course, the questions over BO aka BS may have nothing to do with the order being rescinded, but who knows? Stay tuned. Tick ... tock ... tick ... tock ...

For a moment I thought the prez may have thrown a bone for the pro-lifers to chew on with the nomination of a Catholic doctor for the surgeon general post, considering the praise of the selection by Catholic League's Bill Donohue.

I then researched the Internet to see what her views on abortion were, but had no luck. Good thing I sat on this for a while to see what skeletons might come tumbling out of her closet, for it was one of my favorite priests, Fr. Z, who pointed to the disappointing news from LifeNews.com, adding:

So… now we are supposed to give Pres. Obama this appointment high marks. 

And if anyone points out that perhaps the Surgeon General is not quite as important a position as the Sec. of Health and Human Services or a Justice on the Supreme Court, or what he may be doing with the other hand, then we will be criticized. 

They will say, "Look! See?  This is clearly a gesture of ‘common ground’!  See?  The meeting with the Pope really paid off! She got a medal! See? She’s Catholic! SEE?"

No, my children.  That is not what this is.

Oh, well, as they say: close, but no cigar. Wonder if she has any idea how Planned Parenthood's racist and eugenic background has taken a disproportionate toll on people of her race?

larger view

Tick ... tock ... tick ... tock ...

http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

Imagine that -- in this day and age, no less -- a Supreme Court judge musing that she thought Roe v. Wade was set up to do away with "populations that we don't want to have too many of"  http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

Certainly she was channeling that wicked ol' witch who founded Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, when she said that, was she not?

After all, it was Sanger who once said: "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."

Don't believe me? Just check out this website, and be sure to watch Mike Wallace interview Sanger in the second video from the top, replete with his hawking of smokes that are just as shameful as Sanger's views: http://www.blackgenocide.or...

Thank God it wasn't the Republicans who put her on the bench.

Can someone clear up the discrepancy, quickly, before things get a little too warm for our dear leader, Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro?

http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

It won't do any good to ask his grandmother, Sarah Obama, about that. She has claimed he was born in Mombasa, Kenya -- something that is regarded as common knowledge by many others in her country.

Tick ... tock ... tick ... tock ...

Ann Coulter has this, among others, to say about the recent Supreme Court decision that vindicated the firefighters who had their test scores thrown out in the name of racial quota:

Say, if the threat of a lawsuit permits the government to ignore the Constitution, can pro-lifers get New Haven to shut down all abortion clinics by threatening to sue them? There's no question but that abortion clinics have a "disparate impact" on black babies.

To that, all I can say is ... ZzzzOT!

From: http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...

larger view larger view

For those itching to do something that will make San Francisco seem so far away, may I suggest attending the upcoming Values Voter Summit?

Last year's summit had a bit of a kerfuffle instigated by some atheists who made a mountain out of a molehill in claiming that some Obama Waffles being hawked at the summit were racist.

Still there should be plenty of other jokes made at the expense of the lefties and a good time had by all. You may want to check out the "special guest" at the bottom right among the luminaries. Hey, if "President" Obama and his team can use Photoshop to doctor the facsimile of his birth certificate for posting on the web to deceive the sheeple, so can I.