Monday, May 31, 2010

asking Daddy O . . .

President Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Obama revealed at his press conference last week that "When I woke this morning and I'm shaving and Malia (his 11-year-old daughter) knocks on my bathroom door and she peeks in her head and she says, '"Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?" In the spirit of the President's daughter innocent questioning of her father as to when he was going to plug up the oil leak, Martha Dudley on twitter had a few additional questions for the President ... Hat tip goes to Martha!


"Daddy, why did you ask Uncle Billy to offer Mr. Sestak a job if he would stop campaigning?"

" Daddy, will you go to jail if they find out you asked Uncle Billy to offer Mr. Sestak a job to stop campaigning?"

"Daddy, if you get 'peached, will we all get peaches too?"


"Daddy, why did you say that golf was more important than the gulf?"

"Daddy, if one agency failed at regulating the oil rig, how will 3 new agencies do any better?"


"Daddy, why are you encouraging illegal aliens to break our immigration laws?"

"Daddy, why don't you just enforce the immigration laws so Arizona won't have to?"

"Daddy, how come Oklahoma can enforce its immigration laws but you don't want Arizona to?"


“Daddy, why does Uncle Rahmmy hate Jews?”


"Daddy, when we have fewer old nukes and the Russians have more new, shiny ones, will we be safe?"


"Daddy, can I go see the hospital where you were born?"


"Daddy, are you going to let Mr. Ayers write another book for you?"

"Daddy, when is Uncle Fidel going to come visit us?"

"Daddy, can we go visit Uncle Hugo again?"


"Daddy, have you made enough money yet?

"Daddy, why is socialism better than free markets?"

"Daddy, when are we going to have a socialist utopia?"

"When are you going to get rid of those greedy old capitalists?"

"Daddy, what industry are you going to take over today?"


"Daddy, when you take away everyone's guns, will I be safe?"


"Daddy, when you take over the Internet, will you name it after me?"

TruthfulTweets added another question:


"Daddy, if FoxNews isn't a real news station why do you watch it so much?

I added a few of my own questions for Daddy O:


“Daddy, why do you want to weaken and destroy our military by permitting open homosexuality in the military?”

"Daddy, why do want homosexuals to weaken and destroy the military by repealing


“Daddy, why do you support the funding for and the killing of babies, even babies born in botched abortions?”


“Daddy, why do you keep spending money that we don't have?”

They make it memorable

Hat tip goes to T.D. who forwarded this respectful reminder of the sacrifices of brave men and women now and through the years who help keep America free.

It is the VETERAN,
not the preacher,
who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the VETERAN,
not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the VETERAN,
not the poet,
\who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the VETERAN,
not the campus (or community) organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.
It is the VETERAN,
not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the VETERAN,
not the politician,
who has given us the right to vote.

It is the VETERAN,
who salutes the Flag.

It is the VETERAN,

who served under the Flag.

Sunday, May 30, 2010

What Gender is God?

Last Sunday, May 23, 2010, my pastor was preaching on the topic of 'God' and said, “God is neither male nor female” and I didn’t think anything of it. So, a friend of mine said to me, “Where does the pastor get that God is neither male nor female?” I replied with great insight, “I don’t know”. We figured he must have got it from another pastor and not from scripture.

I had been told once by a pastor that almost had his Doctorate of Theology, “Scholars don’t know for sure whether or not God has testicles so referring to Him in the masculine is just a figure of speech.” My instinct was to not discuss theology with a person so ignorant so I stopped speaking with him and never went back to that church.

Not wanting to stop attending where I now attend church, I decided to challenge the pastor on the topic of God’s gender. Last Wednesday I asked him where he got the information that God was neither male nor female and I gave him a full page of 28 Bible references showing that God is masculine. He went to his office but could not find his sermon. When he came back he said, “I have your phone number I’ll call you.” This is now next Sunday and I didn’t hear from him until I saw him in Sunday school.

At church the pastor said he had found the passage which was Deuteronomy 4:14-18 and tried to put it on my voicemail but it was full. When God spoke to Israel out of the fire they saw no manner of form and were not supposed to make anything resembling a male or female person. This, the pastor took to mean that God was neither male nor female; and he had taken the information from another pastor off the internet. After explaining my argument to him he agreed I was correct. From the pulpit the pastor said he had been in error last Sunday and that even though God is spirit he is still masculine and explained. On Mount Sinai, God showed His backside to Moses when He passed by in front of him.

How about you? Are you smarter that a scholar? Does God have testicles? The answer is, of course He does. He even acts like it. He created the universe from nothing. He rained on the earth 40 days and nights destroying all life except for one family. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. He will judge everyone. He allowed Jesus to be crucified. God sired a Son. Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col.1:15) and was circumcised (Luke 2:21). Jesus was considered a male at birth (Luke 2:23) and males have testicles.

Jesus said to Philip, “Have I been such a long time with you, and still you have not known me. Philip, he that has seen me has seen the Father; so how do you say, show us the Father?” (John 14:9)

Saturday, May 29, 2010 Sing-a-Long Song

Hat tip goes to the Blue Ridge Messenger blog for their 'Video of the Day' for Friday, May 28, 2010. The video along with the YouTube description of the video is posted below.

SecureTheBorderAZ — May 21, 2010 — Two weeks ago, Governor Jan Brewer took President (Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack) Obama to task for making Arizonas unsecured borders and illegal immigration crisis a laughing matter. However, since then, Washington's comedy of errors has grown far worse, with top cabinet officials admitting that they havent even read Arizona's new immigration law. Broken borders are not a laughing matter, but the failure by Obama's trusted officials to read Arizona's law before commenting and condemning it is laughable. Read the law for yourself at:

Y'all Come to America ...

Hat tip goes to RayStevensMusic (from the YouTube video description — May 13, 2010Ray's new song about the illegal immigration debate! Album out now. Hear clips at

Thoughtfulness or TelePrompter freeze?

Deep in thought or something else?


"In his recent appearance on the Today Show Jonahan Alter (of the very liberal Newsweek) said you have to respect President (Barry Soetoro aka Barack) Obama for his thoughtfulness.

"Sorry, Jonathan, that's not thoughtfulness you see, that's (Soetoro alias) Obama's teleprompter freezing up!"

- - NewsBusted, Episode 5/28/10

NewsBusted is a conservative comedy webcast about the news of the day, uploaded every Tuesday and every Friday. Their newest NewBusted episode includes the excerpt above.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The liberal news media is jumping on Rand Paul for his comment about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He is saying that he opposes the portion of the bill which forbids business owners from refusing to do business with people on the basis of race, though he himself is against such racial discrimination, has no plans to introduce legislation to repeal it, and supports the other portions of it banning discrimination by the government. So what’s the deal with this? Is he right or wrong? What does the Constitution say? What does the Bible say? Does this it give American more or less freedoms? Has this well-intended legislation caused more harm than good?

The Bible teaches that governments are instituted by God among men to punish evil. But there is clear evidence from the Scriptures and in practice that it is impossible to punish every evil act. One would find it hard to find a definitive set of Biblical rules that would distinguish those acts which should be punished in way that would include racial discrimination.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution clearly indicates that Congress has only powers which have been delegated to it by the Constitution. Why have a 14th amendment, then? Why say in the 14th amendment that Congress has the “power to enforce the provisions of this article” if they could enforce it without that language being added? Why not just pass it as a federal law in Congress? Why try to pass an Equal Rights Amendment if this already what the Constitution says??? Liberals like Chris Matthews of Hardball understand this, but they believe it is impractical to follow the Constitution that closely. (Yet some liberals like Rachel Maddow take this position and then complain about the government violating the Constitution in other instances.)

Though there are a lot of amendments which give Congress the authority to act in matters of civil rights, there is clearly is no place in the Constitution which grants the Congress to make anti-discriminatory laws against private citizens. Unlike Rand Paul, I would go further and say that they don’t even have the authority to ban racial discrimination by state and local governments*, though I would favor a Constitutional amendment which would ban this practice.

As Rand has pointed out (being silent on the above arguments, unfortunately) such legislation against business owners deprives them of the free use of their property. The moment the legislature begins to say, “you can only use your property how we want you to use it”, you no longer own your property. Even though such discrimination is a damnable sin, the passage of this legislation continued a precedent which allows the government to take away your property any time they think that you are “using it for evil”. This is clearly tyrannical.

The portion of the Civil Rights Act which applies to the citizens has clearly done more harm than good. If you knew that a business owner was a racist, why would you want to patronize his establishment anyway? If it were not for this law, you could easily boycott businesses owned by racists, because you would know it before you walk through the door. But because of this law, you don’t always know. The liberals put less faith in the people to convince their fellow citizens to repent of such behavior, than in civil government. What should be done with these racists? Put them in jail? Do you think that that is really going to do anybody any good? The government’s definition of what is “equal treatment” has been extended to absurdity, forbidding barbers from having male customers only or charging them less.

Ever since he was beaten up by some black kids as a kid, my now deceased uncle hated black people. He was a landlord and rented only to whites. After the Civil Rights Act passed, he was forced to rent to blacks. This made him even more embittered and it seemed harder to change his mind. He never repented. Since the Bible teaches that he who hates his brother is a murderer, and that murderers will be tormented in hell forever, it seems unlikely to me that my uncle will escape this judgment.

*Section 1 of the 14th amendment prohibits a state from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.” This would, I suppose, prohibit states from passing laws which would deny blacks from being able to go to a certain school, drink from a certain drinking fountain, or getting a certain job. (Even though it was dumb, I don’t see why they wouldn’t be allowed to have “separate but equal” accommodations under this language.) Section 5 would give Congress the right to enforce “equal protection” against the states. Even though I agree with the “equal protection” principle (and I oppose the “separate but equal position”), I don’t believe that Congress should be given the authority to enforce it on the states in this way (to see a better way click here), and I don’t believe that 14th amendment was properly ratified. Also keep in mind that the original constitution prohibited both the states and the Congress from passing bills of attainder, i.e., laws which punish a a certain person or certain group of people.

Pelosi's Hypocrisy

"I want you to speak about it (passing immigration reform legislation) from the pulpit", says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The above video illustrates the hypocrisy of the ruling class. I say that they are the ruling class, not because they have been given this distinction by the People, but because they seem to believe that they are above the law. With all the scrutiny of churches for promoting political causes by liberals, here have in the example of the queen of liberals one who is calling on churches to preach her position on a certain political issue. Its not that I would disagree with her that illegal immigration is an important issue (see this accompanying article for proof of that). It’s not that I don’t think that politics shouldn’t be discussed in churches (but watch it if you’re a 501(c)(3)). It’s just that somehow I don’t think Pelosi would use equivalent latitude to churches when their preachers are preaching against abortion (for "the dignity and worth of every person"), same-sex marriage or even the wars. What do you think? Is it time for Pelosi to retire?

Articles of Freedom, part 15

This is a series of posts concerning the works of the 2009 Continental Congress. Two weeks ago I wrote about Article 13 of the Articles of Freedom, which was about the natural born citizen clause and lack of action taken by courts to resolve the issue of our current federal executive’s eligibility.

This week’s topic is a hot one as you can see if you watch the above video on illegal immigration. The video features Jeff Lewis, National Director of the Federal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Coalition (“FIRE”), Cory Voorhis and John Sampson, former agents, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)- and the provocative film Drug Wars: Silver or Lead. Many conversations on this issue often lead to name calling. (The liberals accuse the conservatives of racism and the conservatives accuse the liberals of lawlessness and unfairness. The libertarians accuse both of big government heavy-handedness.) Regardless of your position on this issue, you know that this is something that just can’t be ignored. Something has to be done. For this reason, the Continental Congress has offered Article 14, of the Articles of Freedom, which presents issues such as this in light of the Constitution, the text of which follows my further comments.

I am not sure how to take the statement, “it is well settled in American jurisprudence that silence is an admission”. Assuming that this applies only to the government (individuals having the right to remain silent on accusations against them according to 5th amendment), this would obligate the government to respond to any and all such accusations which could be frivolous in nature and designed with the mere intent to disrupt the proper operations of the government. One wonders if sufficient numbers or other factors were intended to be required for this citizen action.

The claim has often been made and is insinuated in this article that this in not merely illegal immigration, but an invasion. The liberals don’t like to here this and the use of the word invasion tends to set off thoughts that this is a racist characterization of the problem. But the above video shows that this, in fact, is an accurate description of what is going on and the issue is really about saving lives and property of innocent Americans being terrorized by a particular segment of those who are coming into America illegally (not all Hispanics or even all illegal aliens by any means).

Obviously, if you have been reading these articles, you know that these accusations aren’t just being leveled at the Obama administration when it talks of calling for impeachment. Every President in recent memory (including even Reagan) has been guilty of failure to execute the laws of the United States in this regard.

With all of the emotional reactions that come with discussion of this issue, one would hope that the Constitution would be a uniting force.





The Constitution of the United States of America is being violated. It has been violated over many years, by many administrations, by every branch of government, by each party.

Pursuant to the First Amendment of the Constitution, the We the People Foundation submitted petitions for Redress of Grievance, not once, but twice (in June of 2008, and again in August of 2009) which were duly served on all members of the Congress of the United States Government, and the Presidents. (Find attached documents A and B)

The recipients, including the President, responded only with silence.

Under these facts and circumstances, it is well settled in American jurisprudence that silence is an admission. By its silence, the government has admitted to its violations of the Constitution.

Wherefore, we the People now find the government to be in violation of the Constitution in the manner described below.

We the People do hereby declare the following:


WHEREAS, the Executive Powers are vested in the President of the United States of America;

WHEREAS, the President must take an Oath or Affirmation before executing his office;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the Oath or Affirmation reads, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”,

WHEREAS, the People have served their government officials with Petitions for Redress regarding the failure of the government to execute the immigration laws, only to have those Petitions ignored;

WHEREAS, Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed”;

WHEREAS, in May of 2007, on the Floor of the House, Representative Ric Keller (R) stated: “It is estimated that there are currently more than 20 million illegal immigrants in this country. The cost of illegal immigration to our health care system, public education system, prison system and social services continues to rise without any sign of stopping or slowing.”;

WHEREAS, the presence of no less than 20 million illegal aliens* in the United States is self-evident that the immigration laws are not being enforced,

*“Definition. For purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any person who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. There are different categories of aliens: resident and nonresident, immigrant and nonimmigrant, asylee and refugee, documented and undocumented ("illegal").” Additionally, “According to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an alien is an individual who does not have U.S. citizenship and is not a U.S. national. The INA defines a national of the United States as one who [sic], while not a citizen, owes permanent allegiance to the United States. One owes personal allegiance to the United States if that person has taken an oath of naturalization.” Cornell University Law School;

WHEREAS, among the laws not being enforced are USC Title 8, Section 237; Section 1324 and Section 1325, and Article IV Section IV which reads: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

WHEREAS, the failure of enforcing these laws has cost the nation hundreds of billions of dollars in the last decade alone, and have put the nation at risk of terrorism, crime, and disease,

THEREFORE, We the People instruct you to fulfill your sworn responsibilities as President to commit the necessary resources to Faithfully Execute all the current immigration laws.


WHEREAS, current statutes prescribe the various penalties for violations of the immigration laws; among those penalties are deportation, which is found at 8 USC § 1227 and INA § 237; anything less than the application of these statutory penalties would constitute a forgiveness of Civil Penalties, and

WHEREAS, the effect of the President’s failure to fulfill his duty has resulted in great cost to the nation due to undue strain on society and the economy in the form of terrorism, crime, and disease. This also results in the blurring of the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, which penalizes those who have gone through the naturalization process lawfully,


1. Congress shall remind the President by whatever means necessary of his mandated duty to take “Care” that the immigration “Laws be faithfully executed” as mandated in Article II Section 3 Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, and

2. Congress shall appoint an Investigative Committee for the purpose of determining whether the President has faithfully upheld the Constitution, in accordance with Article II, Section 3 Clause 5.

3. If the President fails to fulfill said obligation cited above after the instructions from Congress, by default he has violated his Oath of Office as under Article II Section 1 Paragraph 8 of the Constitution and can be subject to impeachment proceedings and criminal or civil action.

4. Congress shall not enact any legislation that provides Social Services or any form of amnesty for illegal aliens.


WHEREAS, the President has demonstrated his failure to faithfully execute the current immigration laws, specifically, 8 USC § 1227 and INA § 237,

WHEREAS, the President and the Executive Branch of the Federal government have failed to enforce the aforementioned immigration laws,

WHEREAS, State Law Enforcement Officers must take an Oath or Affirmation to faithfully execute the Constitution and applicable laws enacted thereto,

WHEREAS, that in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F. 3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F. 3d 1294, 1295), a United States Court of Appeals upheld the Right of the States to enforce Federal immigration laws by stating, “State and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions ‘to investigate and make arrests for violations of Federal law, including immigration laws.’”


1. The Governors of each State shall direct the Law Enforcement Officers of their State, by whatever means necessary, to honor their Oaths of Office and to take “care” that the immigration “laws be faithfully executed” to their fullest extent, and

2. The Legislatures of each State shall take steps to sanction or impeach the Governor, and/or any Law Enforcement Officer who fails to honor his Oath of Office or otherwise fails to fulfill his obligations to enforce State and federal immigration laws.


We, the Continental Congress 2009, declare that the President of the United States of America has failed to “take care to faithfully execute the laws”, and we encourage the People of the several States, in their legitimate capacity, to engage in the following civic actions:

1. Educate yourself, your family, and your community about your government officials’ duties and all of the current immigration laws.

2. Meet with your county Sheriff and ask him to execute the current Federal and State immigration laws for which he is authorized.

3. Lobby your State legislator/legislature to demand your State Governor to execute all of the current immigration laws, where applicable.

4. Lobby your Congressman to bring impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States of America for failing to assure execution all of the current immigration laws.

Learn more about the subject matter of this Article. Read the OATH OF OFFICE and the FAITHFULLY EXECUTE Clauses. Read the PETITION for Redress of Grievances Regarding the Failure of the President to Enforce the Immigration Laws.

(from Articles of Freedom, the Works of the Continental Congress 2009)

For the next article, click here.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

The Blind Side (2009)

I was loaned The Blind Side DVD a few weeks ago and watched it. Unlike the majority of movies these days, it had a very powerful and important message. Here is a brief review of this excellent film.

More than the actors and actresses including Sandra Bullock, the movie is the star. Actually, the movie is a five star affair. It is based on a true story (the best kind of movie from my point of view).

The Blind Side is a truly American story. It’s the story of poor black kid from the projects being helped by a successful white family. The mother takes a personal interest in this young man out of pure Christian love and helps him to develop his full potential. She provides and opportunity and the resources. The movie in many ways in antithetical to the horrors of life being lived in much of the inner cities today.

Although the movie is not political, I must make the following observation. Ever since the meddling misguided Great Society welfare system was birthed, which actually helped to destroy the black family making the father expendable and actually constructed a system that encouraged his absence, there has been an assault on the minority community. Welfare is not working. Education is deplorable and even contributes to keeping most of the children in public schools from escaping the ghetto. Add to it the modern day eugenic Planned Parenthood clinics hell-bent on destroying black babies, you have a serious problem. Someone breaking free from these shackles is a miracle.

One lone mother along with her children and family showered this young black man with love and helped to lift him out of the gang and drug infested environment. That is the story of The Blind Side. It shows the potential of one person going out of her or his way to help another human being to reach his God-ordained purpose and potential in life. Wow, what a exemplary case study!

The Blind Side is more than a sports story. It is more than a social commentary. It is more than a feel good flick. Yes, the story ends with a gifted athlete becoming an NFL football player, but it more that financial success, more than the accolades and glory that come with stardom. It is the story of demonstrating a godly concern for one’s neighbor. It is a demonstration of unselfish charity, hope and faith. It is a powerful modern day parable of the good soccer mom who thinks and acts out of the box. It is a story of what a family can accomplish through simple sharing, love and unity.

I would highly recommend this uplifting and inspiring movie to all ages and every family. In many respects it runs counter to our present godless, self-absorbed culture. However, it shows what love, respect, and honor can do. It demonstrates the genuine Christian and a genuine American value system, which seems so foreign today.


I would rate The Blind Side movie ***** out of ***** for the solid, inspiring, authentic and moral message that it brings. It is worth purchasing and re-watching many times.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Presidential showboating

“Right after he signed the Freedom of the Press Act into law, President (Barry Soetoro ak/a Barack) Obama refused to take any questions from the press.

"Looks like for (Soetoro, alias) Obama, freedom of the press is just that - an act!’”

- - - NewsBusted, Episode 5/25/10

NewsBusted is a conservative comedy webcast about the news of the day, uploaded every Tuesday and every Friday. Their newest NewBusted episode includes the excerpt above.See right panel of this blog and click on the picture to watch this 2-3 minute comedy YouTube video.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Late Night Takes – Lies & Lobbyists

Late Night Humor

The Tonight Show With Jay Leno
● A very embarrassing moment for Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who was running for the Senate. He’s the guy who lied about his war record (a la John Kerry). He was overheard telling his wife, “After the campaign, let’s take a vacation and go somewhere I’ve never been.” She said, “How about Vietnam?”

Jimmy Kimmel Live!

● They put a cap on ATM transaction fees, though a lot of the senators didn’t want to discuss it because they’ve never used an ATM. The Senate has mobile cash machines they’re called “lobbyists.”

These jokes are courtesy of (Hat Tip!), which periodically sends out an email compilation of late night jokes, few of which are worth repeating … these two were the exception in the latest batch.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Defining Liberal


"A liberal used to be one who was generous with his own money."

--- Will Rogers


"The trouble with socialism (or liberalism) is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

--- Margaret Thatcher

Djou (R, HI-1) wins Hawaii Special Election

For the first time in 20 years, a Republican, Charles Djou, (although not a social conservative) in a special election yesterday won the Congressional District 1 seat. This is significant because this district is the home district of President Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Obama where he was raised in Hawaii. Djou ran on a strong fiscal conservative platform. Unfortunately, his victory is dampened or overshadowed by his apparent support for abortion and homosexuality.

He will have to run again in the regular election in November. This time he will face only one Democratic opponent. The two strong Democratic opponents in yesterday’s election helped to split the vote giving the election to the Republican.

Nonetheless, Djou’s victory, like Scott Brown’s upset win in Massachusetts, is a sign that real change and hope will be the outcome of the November election. What we need are more real social and fiscal conservatives in Congress. Also, Djou may bring greater attention to the grave fiscal situation our nation now faces. He may make his voice heard over the next six months. He is enthusiastic and passionate personality.

Read more at “
GOP’s Djou Wins Hawaii Special Election for Congress” which is posted on the HotAirPundit blog. Hat tip to the HotAirPundit for posting this story.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

With Apologies


Our President speaks at home and abroad belittling America and condoning global socialism. He and his leftist comrades condemn capitalism, but practice crony capitalism, enriching themselves, their supporters, etc. The President 'earned' $5 million dollars in 2009, yet says
Americans may be making too much money. Does he include himself in that lot? I bet not. He condemns capitalism and the free enterprise system, yet he says nary a word about the outrageous earnings of seedy entertainers, rappers, movie-makers, and athletes.

America is a relative light on a hill compared to the rest of the world. We should not emulate Europe in its failed socialist ways. America aids people all around the world. Anytime there is a natural disaster, America is one of the first responders. It is an almost natural and Christian response that we show time and time again.

You claim, Mr. President, that America is not a Christian nation, yet has a large Muslim presence. Are you out of your mind? You and revisionist historians reject the fact this nation is rooted in a rich Christian foundation in its very governmental structure and laws.

In Congress the Democrats stood and applauded, while you, Mr. President, stood by or maybe even put the Mexican President Calderon up to it - his denunciation and condemnation of the new Illegal Immigration Enforcement law in Arizona. You seem to side more with the global community, than with the American community, which you supposedly serve.


If anything, America should apologize to the world for exporting its perverse entertainment – its pornography and its x-rated films – which poison the minds of people worldwide. Another really gross injustice is our willful killing of pre-born babies to the tune of some 50 million since 1973. We now even export practice as part of population control which operates under the guise of helping to combat AIDS and poverty.

Mr. President if you want to beg forgiveness, those senseless murders are something we should be absolutely ashamed of. You, in fact, have authorized the funding of foreign infanticide shortly after taking office. You have insured abortion be a part of your socialistic comprehensive health care ‘reform’ law.

You and your policies advocate granting special rights, privileges and protections to a special group of people practicing abhorrent behavior – homosexuals, lesbians, ‘transgendered’ and bisexuals. That is another thing America should apologize for – supporting such unnatural, unhealthy and immoral lifestyles.

We should apologize for the widespread extremist environmentalists that we have permitted - poisonous policies, agencies, and regulations. We have allowed Al Gore and so-called scientists to lie about global warming. All this is done to enrich Al Gore and to gain lucrative grants for major universities. That is something for which we should apologize.

I do not hear the President condemn any of the real evils of the world – abortion, homosexual behavior, radical Islamic terrorism, and extreme environmentalism. These are the real societal threats and culture killers. These are the things we should condemn, discourage and stop doing.

Friday, May 21, 2010

The President is made of the wrong Wright stuff!

“President (Barry Soetoro aka Barack) Obama denies that he has reacted slowly during the first weeks of the Gulf oil spill.

“Which is true considering it took him over 20 years to react to ‘Rev.’ Wright!”

- - - NewsBusted, Episode 5/21/10

NewsBusted is a conservative comedy webcast about the news of the day, uploaded every Tuesday and every Friday. Their newest NewBusted episode includes the excerpt above.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Articles of Freedom, part 14

This is a series of posts concerning the works of the 2009 Continental Congress. Two weeks ago I wrote about Article 12 of the Articles of Freedom, which was about the public debt. Now I will continue with Article 13 and the Presentment, the text of which follows my comments.

I guess they took all the videos of Orly Taitz’s presentation on the issue of Barack Hussein Obama’s natural born citizenship (or lack thereof) off of the and websites. Maybe they didn’t want to get sued. I can't find it on YouTube (I found the deliberations, but not the presentation). So that is why there is no video this week. I completely and wholeheartedly agree this article.







WHEREAS, the Continental Congress 2009 (CC 2009) was convened to defend, and not amend, the Constitution for the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, the CC 2009 has examined, among other things, the Constitutional requirements for the office of the President as originally and precisely articulated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

“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”; and

WHEREAS, the CC 2009 finds that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution requires a specific class of citizenship to be eligible to hold the office of the President, as indicated by the fact that Article II includes two adjectives before the first use of the word ‘Citizen’, but not in front of the second ‘Citizen’; and

WHEREAS, the CC 2009 finds that Article II has not been amended to alter or change these words, nor their meaning, and that no Federal Court has ruled on the direct meaning of this clause; and

WHEREAS, the CC 2009 finds that until the Supreme Court rules on the natural born citizen eligibility clause, or the Congress and the Several States amend the Constitution, the acceptable definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is derived from that body of law referred to as the ‘Law of Nations’, referenced in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; and

WHEREAS, the reference to the Law of Nations in Article I is a direct recognition that the Founders respected this body of law; and

WHEREAS, in writing about that body of law, Emmich Vattel defined a natural born citizen:

“To be a natural born citizen means one must be born on the soil of parents who themselves are citizens.” (SeeEmmich Vattel, 1797. The Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter XIX, pp 103‐104; London).

WHEREAS, the CC 2009 further finds that the term ‘natural born Citizen,’ as specified only for the office of the President, is chiefly concerned that the President have a singular allegiance to the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, the CC 2009 finds that the natural born citizen clause does not establish a superior form of citizenship, but instead establishes a national security safeguard against foreign invasion of the White House and takeover of the United States Armed Forces; and

WHEREAS, the CC 2009 finds that the life, liberty, and property interests of Americans could be irrevocably injured, harmed, and threatened should a foreign national or one with split allegiance usurp the office of the Presidency; and

WHEREAS, the CC 2009 further finds that no regular or established administrative mechanism exists at any level to ensure that the President meets the eligibility requirements of Article II; and

WHEREAS, the CC 2009 finds that there is an immediate need to establish such a mechanism,



In coordination with the several States, establish regular administrative mechanisms and procedures for the verification of the natural born citizenship qualifications and birthplace of candidates or nominees for the office of the Presidency using original birth certificates, passports and any and all other identification documents necessary to establish birth within US territories to parents who do not owe allegiance to other sovereignties, such procedures shall provide for the verification of all nominees for the office of the President and his successor, and provide for making the determinations available to the public.


The CC2009 instructs the several States to enact legislation to provide for the verification of a candidate for President as a condition for participating in the State general election for President and to provide for the dissemination of the information to the public.


The Delegates of the Continental Congress 2009, in recognition of the extreme importance of having a constitutionally-eligible President, hereby:

1. Remind the citizenry that the protection of Life, Liberty, and Property guaranteed under our Constitution depends heavily on an informed public, and that our Constitutional Republic cannot survive without it.

2. Remind the citizenry that in the 21st Century, America faces significant security threats, and that it is important to ensure that holders of every elected public office, especially the President of the United States, understand their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

3. Encourage the citizenry to study the attached instructions to Congress and the States, and the Presentment of the CC2009, and to use every tool to ensure for themselves and activate their State legislatures to verify that a Presidential candidate is eligible to serve under Article II of the Constitution.



By and of

The Continental Congress of 2009


Raising a question of the Article II Eligibility of Mr. Obama

WHEREAS, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution for the United States says that “no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;” and

WHEREAS, in our Constitutional Republic, government is an indispensable necessity and, that whenever and however it is instituted, the People must place trust in and rely upon their representatives in order to vest it with requisite powers; and,

WHEREAS, all branches of government in the United States of America have the duty and obligation to protect the People from usurpation and foreign influence, and to ensure that deceptive practices in the determination of eligibility and election of our federal public servants in positions of influence and power are fully and thoroughly investigated; and

WHEREAS, the framers of our Constitution, and those sworn to uphold it, have historically recognized that the loyalty of the President of the United States, vested with supreme executive power and command of our armed forces, be true and faithful, unfettered by foreign ties, attachments and allegiance; and

WHEREAS, to allow otherwise, affords opportunity to tamper with domestic factions, practice arts of seduction, mislead public opinion, and influence or awe the institutions of government; and

WHEREAS, the traditions of such a Constitutional requirement lay in the common belief that the leader of the executive branch of our Federal government have the breath of life bestowed in the womb of a mother, by a father, both citizens of the United States of America owing no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, and born on sovereign American soil; and

WHEREAS, the definition of a natural born citizen is derived from the Constitutionally accepted and referenced body of law known as the Law of Nations as quoted in the treatise, The Law of Nations, as those born in the country of parents who are citizens; and

WHEREAS, a person born of a foreign minister, consul, citizen, or subject of a foreign State would not be solely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, such person may possess a divided allegiance; and

WHEREAS, it is logical that the founders intended to hold the offices of President and Vice President to a higher standard of citizenship to insure no divided allegiance; if the Founders intended for native born citizens to be eligible for these offices, they would not have distinguished this requirement from that of a Senator; thus, a natural born citizen is necessarily a higher form of citizen than a native born citizen which may have a divided allegiance; and

WHEREAS, the People who framed this nation through the Constitution would not entrust their well being and security to any other type of individual holding such high office, neither shall we, the People, today; and

WHEREAS, it is unreasonable to conclude that every person born within the geographical territory of the United States is a natural born Citizen, irrespective of circumstances, and that the child of a foreigner, happening to be born to him while passing through the country, is eligible to the presidency, while the child of our Citizens, born abroad, is not; and

WHEREAS, the purported President of the United States, Mr. Obama, was allegedly born in the State of Hawaii to a Kenyan father who by his own admission was a British subject from the British Colony of Kenya, only temporarily residing in the United States as a student; and,

WHEREAS, the citizenship status of Mr. Obama upon his birth would have been governed, not only by the laws of the United States, but the British Nationality Act of 1948, which by its language made Mr. Obama a subject of said British colony, thus with dual citizenship at the least; and,

WHEREAS, a concentrated effort has been made by many, including members of Congress entrusted by the People to protect and defend the Constitution, to intentionally subvert the legitimate and patriotic concern that the current President of the United States is ineligible and disabled under the requirements of the Constitution, which created the office which he presently holds and is the only position in federal government in which he may not sit; and

WHEREAS, the Judiciary has willfully infringed upon the unalienable rights of sovereign citizens to have Constitutional questions resolved by denying standing via technicality of law; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Obama has been less than forthcoming to those who have continually and consistently requested certain documentation to ensure his eligibility for the Office of the President under Article II, and

WHEREAS, Mr. Obama, on the contrary, signed Executive Order 13489 claiming executive privilege blocking the release of personal documents by the National Archives and Records Administration immediately following his inauguration, and further, has expended large sums of public money to pay for attorneys necessary to frustrate those who simply wish to ensure that our President is eligible for the Office he holds under the Constitution for the United States, and

WHEREAS, Mr. Obama, with respect, has engaged in conduct unbecoming of the President of the United States, in which reasonable doubt can be raised as to his fidelity to the United States; and

WHEREAS, the delegates of the Continental Congress 2009 believe the People, regardless of their level of support of Mr. Obama, are interested, desirous, and in need of a resolution regarding the eligibility of Mr. Obama under the Constitution for the United States;


1. Call upon State and Federal Judges, Congress, and any others with appropriate power, authority and jurisdiction, to uphold your oath to the Constitution and investigate, to the fullest extent of the law, power and authority vested in you, the truth concerning the natural born citizenship status of Mr. Obama; and

2. Order a Grand Jury investigation of the matter of Mr. Obama’s eligibility and the prosecution of any who may have committed fraud and/or conspired to commit fraud; and

3. Remove Mr. Obama from the Office of President, according to Constitutional provisions available for such action, should it be discovered, in Truth and Substance, that Mr. Obama is not a natural born Citizen.

[1]Learn more about the subject matter of this Article. Read the NATURAL BORN CITIZEN Clause. Read the PETITION for Redress of Grievances Regarding Mr. Obama’s Eligibility (Open Letter published in the Chicago Tribune on December 1 and 3, 2008).

(from Articles of Freedom, the Works of the Continental Congress 2009)

Click here for the next article in this series.