The Threat We Face

obama33Below is a speech given by David Horowitz at the Kohler conference of the Bradley Foundation. It has been revised and edited for publication as an article.

I was born at the beginning of the Second World War into a family of high school teachers who were members of the Communist Party, and therefore were actually part of a vast conspiracy dedicated to the destruction of this country, although they would never have looked at it that way, and so-called liberals would be the first to deny it.

In those days, the schools were old fashioned enough that my parents did not use their classrooms to indoctrinate students as tens of thousands of university professors and even more K-12 teachers regularly do today. It is also an unhappy but hugely important fact that the conspiracy to which my parents belonged has steadily migrated into the heart of the Democratic Party until it now occupies the Oval Office in the person of our president, Barack Obama, and his closest advisors.

The president, his chief operative Valerie Jarrett and his chief political strategist David Axelrod all came out of the same Communist left and the same radical new left as I did, and all have remained heart and soul a part of it. As someone who turned his back on that destructive movement, I can say with confidence that they have not. If a person belongs to an organization or is the supporter of an idea that they come to see as destructive or evil, the first thing they will want to do when they leave is to warn others against it, to warn them of the dangers it represents. If a person does not do this – that tells me that he or she hasn’t left the destructive movement or abandoned the pernicious idea but has just put another face on them. Instead of calling themselves communists or socialists they call themselves liberals and progressives. This camouflage is very old. I never once heard my parents and their party friends refer to themselves as Communists. They were progressives – and registered Democrats.

This is why – to take one disturbing example, I know that Hillary Clinton’s right hand, Huma Abedin, the former deputy secretary of state, and chief foreign policy adviser on Muslim Affairs is a Muslim Brotherhood operative. Huma Abedin’s late father was a Muslim Brotherhood leader, and her mother and brother still are. For 12 years until the moment she was hired by Hillary, Huma Abedin worked for Abdullah Omar Naseef, one of the top three funders of Osama Bin Laden who is still wanted by our government for his role in the 9/11 attacks.

Huma Abedin has never to my knowledge uttered a word of disapproval about the Muslim Brotherhood’s desire to rid the world of Christians and Jews or to bring all infidels under the heel of totalitarian Islamic law. Her spiritual adviser Yusef al-Qaradawi is the spiritual leader of the Brotherhood. Qaradawi has publicly said that the Holocaust of the Jews was God’s punishment for their corruption, and that it would come again, and when it did, “Allah willing it will be at the hands of the believers.” Huma Abedin has not broken her relations with this evil man or dissociated herself from his genocidal remarks. Nor has she opposed the policies enacted by Obama and Hillary, which have supported the Muslim Brotherhood at home and in the Middle East.

On the contrary. when the Obama administration supported the Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt, Huma Abedin was our government’s key adviser on Muslim affairs. She was at Hillary’s side when security was not provided to our diplomatic complex in Benghazi and when al-Qaeda fanatics murdered our Ambassador. The murder of Ambassador Stevens led to the most shameful presidential act in our history when the President turned his back on the cries for help of three American heroes who served him and who were in a desperate fight for their lives. It is a time honored American code never to abandon our warriors on the field of battle. But America’s commander-in-chief turned his back on these brave fighting men and left them to die; and then lied to the American people to cover up his crime.

Ever since Barack Obama was elected and began his radical course, American conservatives have been in a state of shock, as though they couldn’t quite believe what was happening. Until then there had been a general collusion in the practiced deceptions of the left as commentators on all sides would refer to unrepentant radicals, and dedicated socialists as “liberals,” and turn half blind eyes to their anti-American agendas. What is “liberal” about the mean-spirited intolerant people of the left, except their attitude to hard drugs, sex, and criminal behavior? Oh yes, and spending other people’s money?

Today the Obama juggernaut is systematically bankrupting our country, and undoing our constitutional arrangements. Its contempt for consultative and representative government is relentlessly on display. This week Senate Majority leader Harry Reid defended his refusal to negotiate with Republicans over Obamacare and the debt in these words: “We are here to support the federal government. That’s our job.” End quote. Forget about representing the people whom our Founders made sovereign. Forget what America is about.

The fact that I had a radical past allowed me to see much of this coming. But even I never thought we would be looking so soon at the prospect of a one-party state. Those words may sound hyperbolic, but take a moment to think about it. If you have transformed the taxing agency of the state into a political weapon – and Obama has; if you are setting up a massive government program to gather the financial and health information of every citizen, and control their access to care; and if you have a spy agency that can read the mail and listen to the communications of every individual in the country, you don’t really need a secret police to destroy your political opponents. Once you have silenced them, you can proceed with your plans to remake the world in your image.

The good news is that the bad five years we have just been through have aroused a sleeping giant among Americans who didn’t see it coming and couldn’t imagine that it would. For the first time since the Cold War, people with a public voice are calling socialists by their right name; conservatives are finally organizing at the grassroots to defend their freedom; and at last we have leaders who are willing to stand up to the thuggery of the left and who have the spine not to back down.

As a sometime Jonah freed from the whale let me offer some intelligence about the political forces arrayed against us. Do not make the mistake of thinking that progressives and conservatives are people who merely differ about practical agendas. There are four defining features of the left, which distinguish it as a movement of individuals who approach politics quite differently from pragmatically-minded conservatives.

The first of these features is their alienation from country: If you ask progressives about their patriotic feeling, they will tell you that they don’t think of themselves first as Americans but as “citizens of the world.” That even has a Harvard imprimatur. They are, in fact, so profoundly alienated from their country as to be in some sense foreigners to it. They are hostile to its history and to its core values, which they see as reflections of a society that has been guilty of racism and oppression on an epic scale. And they are fundamentally opposed to its constitutional arrangements which the framers specifically designed to thwart what they deemed “wicked projects” to redistribute income and share individual wealth.

This is perhaps the hardest feature of their progressive adversaries for conservatives to comprehend. It is difficult to imagine that people as privileged by America’s generosity as Barack Obama and his entourage of despoilers should be so alienated from their country as to feel themselves in it but not of it. And there is no more shocking example of this than Benghazi. No matter what your politics, or what solutions you propose to the problems that confront this nation, ask yourself this: Could you have done what Barack Obama did that night? Could you as commander-in-chief abandon three Americans fighting for their lives under your command? These men had served their country for more than a decade. For seven hours they cried out for help from their government, but you refused to give it.

How, as a fellow American, could Obama have just left these men to die? No one with an ounce of patriotic feeling could. But he did. Even Alexei Kosygin, the Soviet premier of a Communist dictatorship, maintained contact with his astronaut as he burned up in space. But not our president. When the attack on our embassy in Benghazi began, he hung up the phone and went to bed, and then on to a fundraiser with Beyonce and Jay-Z in Las Vegas in the morning. This, with four Americans including our ambassador dead.

As a nation we are now confronted by mortal enemies in Iran and Syria, in Hizbollah and Hamas – enemies who have openly declared that we are the devil’s party and should be erased from the face of the earth. How could an American president deliberately set out to appease such enemies? How in the face of such threats could he reduce our country to an international laughing stock, no longer respected by our friends, no longer feared by our foes? How could he be so cavalier about having failed so miserably to have defended his country’s security and uphold its honor? How could an American commander-in-chief then put himself in a position to be snubbed by the Iranian Hitlerites, which is what they are, and which is what Obama did? How could he snub our Israeli allies and at the same time grovel before our Islamic enemies? But he did. How could he create a vacuum in the Middle East allowing Russia to become the new regional power? How could he make himself an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood, which slaughters Christians, and promises the extermination of the Jews and spawns terrorist armies like al-Qaeda and Hamas?

The answer to all these questions is that Obama doesn’t identify with our country. He sees himself as a “citizen of the world,” and a redresser of grievances for the suffering he imagines America has inflicted on our adversaries, including Hitlerite Iran.

The second feature of the progressive left that is key to understanding it is its instinctive, practiced, and indispensable dishonesty. As I previously noted, the Communists in the circles I frequented in my youth never identified themselves as Communists but always as “progressives” and “Jeffersonian democrats” (which is the last thing they were). When I was a young man and Stalin was alive, the goal of the Communist Party U.S.A. was a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and a “Soviet America.” But under Stalin’s inspiration the official slogan of the Communist Party was “Peace, Jobs, and Democracy.”

The lesson? People on the left may be delusional but they are not stupid. They know what they can say and get away with, and what they can’t. Barack Obama is a born and bred member of the left and not coincidentally is the most brazen and compulsive liar ever to occupy the American White House. What other politician could have successfully explained away the fact that two of his closest political confidantes over a twenty-year period were an anti-American racist, Jeremiah Wright and an anti-American terrorist William Ayers?

There is a marked difference between the radicals of the Sixties and the radical movement Obama is part of. In the Sixties, as radicals we said what we thought and blurted out what we wanted. We wanted a revolution, and we wanted it now. It was actually very decent of us to warn others as to what we intended. But because we blurted out our goal, we didn’t get very far. Americans were onto us. Those who remained on the left when the Sixties were over, learned from their experience. They learned to lie. The strategy of the lie is progressives’ new gospel. It is what the progressive bible — Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals — is all about. Alinsky is the acknowledged political mentor to Obama and Hillary, to the service and teacher unions, and to the progressive rank and file. Alinsky understood the mistake Sixties’ radicals had made. His message to this generation is easily summed up: Don’t telegraph your goals; infiltrate their institutions and subvert them; moral principles are disposable fictions; the end justifies the means; and never forget that your political goal is always power.

An SDS radical wrote in the Sixties: “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” The Alinsky version is this: The issue is never the issue; the issue is always power: How to wring power out of the democratic process, how turn the process into an instrument of progressive control. How to use it to fundamentally transform the United States of America — which is exactly what Barack Obama warned he would do on the eve of his election.

The chosen legislative instrument to begin this transformation was Obamacare. It was presented as an act of charity, a plan to cover the uninsured. That was the “issue” as they presented it. But the actual goal of Obamacare’s socialist sponsors was a “single payer system” – government healthcare — which would put the state in control of the lives of every American, man, woman and child. That is the reason that none of the promises made about Obamacare was true, beginning with his campaign lie that Obamacare government health care was not a program he would support. Obamacare will not cover 30 million uninsured Americans, as Obama and the Democrats said it would; Obamacare will not lower costs, as they promised it would; Obamacare will deprive many Americans of their doctors and healthcare plans, as they assured everyone it would not; Obamacare is a new tax, as they swore it wouldn’t be. All these promises Obama and the Democrats made were false because they were only a camouflage for their real goal actual goal, which was universal control.

A third feature of progressives that defines their politics is that they regard the past, which is real, with contempt, and are focused exclusively on a future, which is imaginary.

To understand why this is important, think of progressives as a species of religious fundamentalists planning a redemption. Like fundamentalists they look at the world as fallen – a place corrupted by racism, sexism and class division. But the truly religious understand that we are the source of corruption and that redemption is only possible through the work of a Divinity. In contrast, progressives see themselves as the redeemers, which is why they are so dangerous. Because they regard those who oppose them as the eternally damned. Progressives are on a mission to create the kingdom of heaven on earth by redistributing income and using the state to enforce politically correct attitudes and practices in everyone’s life. They want to control what you do, and who you are, and even what you eat. For your own good, of course.

The fact that they see themselves as saving the world – or “saving the planet” as they would prefer — results in a fourth key characteristic of their politics, which is that they regard politics as a religious war. This explains why they are so rude and nasty when you disagree with them or resist their panaceas (and of course if they had the power, the punishments would be more severe); that is why the politics of personal destruction is their favorite variety, why they are verbal assassins and go directly for the jugular, and why they think nothing of destroying the reputations of their opponents and burying them permanently. And that is why they can perform their character assassinations without regrets – or did I miss Obama’s  apology to Romney for accusing him of killing a woman with cancer during the campaign? Why apologize when you did it for the good of a world transforming cause?

To sum this up: Progressives see themselves as an army of the saints, and their opponents as the party of Satan; and that will justify almost anything you can get away with.

An appalling episode of their Machiavellian politics has shaped the international conflict in which we find ourselves currently impotent in the Middle East. The root of that impotence lies in the way Democrats turned the issue of the Iraq war against the Republican president George Bush. The Democrats’ case against Bush was that he acted unilaterally, deceptively and in haste.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The policy to remove Iraq’s government by force was put in place by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, when he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act and fired 450 cruise missiles into that sovereign country. He did it, by the way, not only unilaterally but without consulting anyone.

That was in 1998, which is five years before Bush sent American troops into Iraq. Ten months before Bush did that he warned Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, to obey the Gulf War truce he had signed in 1991 and then repeatedly violated over the next ten years. Seven months before sending our troops into Iraq Bush went personally to the UN and got a unanimous Security Council ultimatum to Saddam. UN Resolution 1447 said: Obey the terms of the Gulf War truce by December 7, 2002 – or else.

Two months before that deadline Bush went to Congress and requested an authorization to use force in the event that Saddam did not voluntarily observe the terms of the UN Resolution, and the Gulf War truce he had signed and then violated.  Both houses of Congress including a majority of the Democrats in the Senate voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq. He also got an authorization from NATO and he also formed a coalition of 40 nations, including America’s oldest allies, the Brits, to enforce the UN Security Council ultimatum.

Not only was the decision not made in haste, and not made without consultation, as the Democrats claimed. The truth was just the opposite. The process of making the decision to go to war took 10 months and every significant authority was consulted. But once U.S. troops entered Iraq on March 19, 2003, it took only three months for the Democrats to betray them and their president, to turn their backs on the war they had authorized and supported, and claim it was – to use the words of former Vice President Al Gore, “unnecessary, immoral and illegal.” Or in the words of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, “the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.”

Why did the Democrats betray the war they had supported? It was not because of any fact on the ground in Iraq, or any principles Bush had allegedly violated. They betrayed our troops and turned on their commander-in-chief for one reason and one reason alone: to gain political power at home.

At the very moment of their treachery a Democratic primary was in progress. An anti-war Democrat – a Sixties leftist named Howard Dean — was on the verge of winning their presidential nomination, burying other candidates like John Kerry and John Edwards in the polls. Until then, Kerry and Edwards were full-throated supporters of the war. Kerry made a speech on the floor of the Senate in support of the bill authorizing the use of force. He explained why the forcible removal of Saddam was necessary to defend the country and secure the peace.

But that was before the anti-war candidate Howard Dean had surged ahead in the polls. When that happened, and Kerry saw that he was going to lose the party nomination, he decided to switch sides. He turned his back on everything he had said in defense of the war, and the necessity of using force, and he turned his back on our troops in the field, and attacked their commander-in-chief. He did it for one reason, and one reason only. He did it because he saw it as the only way to win the Democratic nomination and have a chance of winning the presidency in 2004.

Kerry and the Democrats betrayed the war they had authorized; they betrayed the young Americans they sent into harms way; they betrayed the country they had sworn to serve. They did it to win the political power they were going to use to change the world. No conservative in his right mind would behave like this. No conservative would regard a political administration in Washington as a stepping stone on the way to a brave new world, and therefore something to justify opposing a war they had authorized and supported.

What were the issues the Democrats used to make their case against the president and the war in Iraq? It didn’t really matter, because the issues were never the issue. The Democrats opposed Bush and the war because both stood in the way of their quest for power.

The Democrats attacked Bush for acting in haste and acting unilaterally. Both charges were false. Worse, the Democrats claimed that the war was about weapons of mass destruction, ignoring the fact that Saddam had violated the Gulf War truce and had failed to comply with sixteen Security Council resolutions attempting to bring him into line, including the ultimatum of December 7. To make their case they claimed that Bush falsified the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction and lied in order to fool them into supporting the war. This was the biggest lie of the entire war. CIA chief George Tenet was a Clinton appointee. John Kerry sat on the intelligence committees with other Democrats like Feinstein and Rockefeller. The Democrats had access to all the intelligence information that Bush did. Bush could not have persuaded them to support the war by lying about the data, even if he had wanted to.

Why did they accuse him of lying? Because they could not admit the actual reason they had betrayed the war and the young men and women they sent to battle. They did it for partisan political gain. Unfortunately neither the White House nor any Republican had the political courage to hold them to account, and we are all paying the price for that.

For five years the Democrats conducted a scorched earth campaign against their country and its commander in the midst of a war. The harm they did is irreparable. Their sabotage of the war crippled our efforts to prosecute it – for example to follow Saddam’s weapons and generals into Syria, where they had fled; to take the war to Iran which supplied the IEDs which killed most of our troops; to close the border with Syria across which jihadists entered Iraq to fight our troops. The Democrats’ sabotage of the war created the power vacuum in the Middle East, which the terrorists and the Russians have now filled. And it most certainly inflicted casualties on our troops, though no one has had the political courage to say so.

The Democrats sabotaged the war in Iraq for the worst of reasons. They claimed it was for principle, but it was really – and only — to save their political skins.

Once the Democrats recaptured the presidency, it took no time at all for events to expose this destructive farce. Unlike the majority of his Democratic colleagues, Senator Barack Obama had always opposed the war in Iraq. He was against American interventions in sovereign countries, and he was against presidents who acted unilaterally, and in haste. Or so he said.

But when Obama became president and had the power to do so, he invaded Libya: unilaterally, and without authorization, and with no national security interest at stake. And he lied about the cause. There was no prospect of massacres as he claimed, and it was not a human rights intervention. If it were, Libya would not now be in chaos with al-Qaeda resurgent, and in a worse state than before.

Obama’s invasion of Libya was not merely unilateral. It was egomaniacal. Obama consulted no one outside his White House inner circle, not his own party, not the Congress, not the United Nations. Unlike Bush, he acted without constitutional authority and he acted alone. Yet there was not one Democratic leader who stood up for the principles they had all invoked to cripple America’s war against the jihadists in Iraq. Not one Democratic leader opposed the Democratic president, or criticized his aggression. They abandoned the principles of multilaterialism, consultation with Congress, and support from the U.N. because it would have been bad for their leader if they didn’t; it would have jeopardized their power.

The political consequences of the differences between conservatives and progressives is not only not small, it affects the way both sides conduct their political battles. Progressives focus on an impossible future, a utopia of promises, and this justifies for them their unscrupulous means. Issues for them are merely instruments for accumulating political power.  Conservatives look to the past as a guide to what is possible and humanly practical, and what is not. Issues for them are problems that need to be fixed, and they take seriously the policies they devise to address them. This puts conservatives at a huge political disadvantage. It causes them to argue policy as though they were debating a party with whom they shared goals and only differed on the means to get there. But that is far from the case.

Take the present debate about a government shutdown. A statement from Boehner’s office explains, “The entire government is shut down right now because Washington Democrats refuse to even talk about fairness for all Americans under ObamaCare.” This is a proposal for compromise and is designed to portray Republicans as reasonable. We’re all part of the same social contract, and we need to give on both sides to resolve the impasse. We’re all interested in fairness, when all is said and done. If individuals were to be given a year’s extension under Obamacare, as corporations already have been, that would be fair. But since when is Obamacare about fairness? That’s a Democratic façade and talking point, courtesy of the Republican Speaker. By way of contrast, this is how the Democrats make their argument: “Republicans are trying to shut down the government so they can prevent us from providing all Americans with affordable healthcare.” In other words, Democrats are standing up for fairness and ordinary Americans, against the selfish Republicans who want deny them affordable care and shut down their government. This is three lies in one sentence. But who do you think wins that vote?

If you want to fight the left you have to fight fire with fire. That means first and foremost you have to hold them to account for hurting the people they are pretending to help. Whose opportunities are going to be wrecked by Obamacare? Health care taxes will go up for those who pay taxes – the middle class — while their incomes will go down. Already Obamacare is cutting the workweek to 30 hours. Whose pocket books do you think that is hitting?

They claim conservatives are conducting a war against minorities; we need to throw the truth back in their faces. We need to tell the people that progressives are the principal oppressors and exploiters of minorities and the poor in this country. Progressives control the inner cities, which are teeming with the nation’s minorities and poor; and they run the broken public school systems that have become dumping grounds for those who cannot afford a private education.

The city of Milwaukee has been run by liberals and progressives without interruption for more than 100 years. What is the consequence of this progressive rule? Milwaukee’s median household income is forty percent below the rest of the country. The black unemployment rate is 27%, three times the national average for everyone. Milwaukee’s population is majority black and Hispanic, and 30% of it lives below the poverty line. A third of Milwaukee’s public school children drop out before they graduate; those who do are barely literate. That’s what progressive policies achieve. Don’t let them forget it.

Conservatives need to put the human disasters of progressive policies in front of people every chance they get. We need to confront progressives with the misery they have created in America’s bankrupt cities, Detroit and Chicago, Philadelphia and Cincinnati, St. Louis, and the nation’s capital, and every city they have controlled for 25, 50 and 100 years, without interruption.

Conservatives need to talk less to the voters’ heads and more to their hearts. Government debt is not just an accountant’s nightmare. Debt is a form of economic slavery. If you add up all the taxes Americans pay — federal, state, local, income, sales — Americans already work half the year for government rather than for themselves. Like Obamacare and the political use of the I.R.S., debt is a threat to individual freedom.

Freedom is what our cause is about not just fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility has no emotional appeal except to people who already understand what it means. Fiscal responsibility is a means to an end. The end is freedom, and that is what inspires commitment and sacrifice and the passion necessary to win. Because it speaks to the heart.

Conservatives need to speak up as champions of the little guys, the underdogs, whose lives are being steadily constricted – made less free — by the ongoing destruction of a system that once afforded more opportunity for more people than any other in the history of the world. Conservatives need to speak up for the young whose future horizons are being rapidly diminished as the trillion dollar Obama deficits pile higher and higher. Conservatives need to speak for all Americans whose security under Obama has been degraded to the most dangerous levels since the end of the Cold War.

This is the threat we face, and the sooner we grapple with it the greater our chances to survive it. The most important battle in the world today is not being waged in the Middle East but here at home in the United States. If we lose this battle, everything is lost. But if we will take the measure of the enemies of freedom and prepare ourselves to fight them, we have a better than even chance to win.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Beebee

    I stopped reading at “Horowitz” , LOL

    • Ben Ghazi Butcher
    • John West

      LOL? really? are you 12 years old or what? You are the perfect recruit for Obamas civilian force … you are stupid enough to kill your own if told to.

    • June Clinkenbeard

      You are proud of the fact you are close minded and uninformed? Another sheep to lead all the way to the slaughter. Wake up!

  • robotnik

    Best piece I’ve read in years!

  • B Jenkum

    Thank you David, you are appreciated.

  • Ginger Rogers7

    What goes unsaid here is that BO is the puppet of the Clinton Global Initiative
    AND
    the Clintons are the highest ranking Americans in The Illuminati.

    BO was manufactured by The Illuminati
    BECAUSE
    the US was not sufficiently brainwashed in 2008 to elect Hillary Clinton.

    Q: Who are The Illuminati?
    A: They are the highest ranking satanworshippers & witches in the world.

    It only makes sense that
    The Illuminati and the Muslims would form a global coalition.
    Q: Why?
    A: Because both grps hate the God of the Bible
    WHICH
    filters down to hating Christians and Jews.

  • Timothy Vds

    Nice manifesto. Looks like David Horowitz and Ted Kaczynski are cut from the same cloth.

    • John West

      You are confused. You must be really stupid if you think those two individuals are similar. DH said the left was delusional, but not stupid. I disagree, the left is stupid. If they were smart they would know that their goals will destroy them as well as the rest of us.

    • June Clinkenbeard

      Ooh look! A Tip O’Neill fan crawled out of the woodwork to drop a pithy little turd of nonsense. You are a sheep. Go on back to your ivy covered pasture.

  • Jim

    The only Conservative TV is Fox and it is successfully Demonized by the Progressives. Most in America watch CNN because they naively think it is down the middle trustworthy. Everyday hard working Americans that are forced to work two jobs do not have the time to search multiple media outlets to find a shred of truth. It’s like they are slaves and they don’t even know it. I can see why Fox is gun-shy, because if they reported this column, CNN would bastardize them even more than they have been in the past. Americans are so in the dark about this, they would not believe this if it slapped them in the face. It’ getting worse by the day.

    • 123z

      What are we in the dark about that no one will tell us? In my efforts to find a shred of truth, I regularly watch BBC news and read the Canadian papers, but they also leave me in the dark. For God’s sake, tell us what is going on that no one is talking about.

      • runsinquicksand

        Hopeless.

    • melloe

      Fox propaganda machine with lies they went to court to tell, misinformation, dis-information,. carped statements, edited videos, and some people say at 0900 beings “news” at 2100 run by a foreigner who hates the US and a Saudi prince is one of the worst for facts. But since Reagen changed the FCC rules and regulations the 50 plus media have almost all been gobbled up by 5 or 6 rich dudes or corporate entities, and are going to spout the corporate line and “entertainment”.. actual news is far a fine between if it hurts the individual corporate. Anyone who listens to one media source exclusively has no idea what is actually going on. A good example, MSNBC will give more actual factual data, but only if it don’t hurt the corporate master. Have you ever heard them knock the Oil Companies as an example. Not that Fox is very good with facts or lies when it comes to Oil companies either.

    • Ray Williams

      Have you seen the ratings lately?

  • AZ BOB

    Talk Talk Talk Good opinions but what does an individual do. How do you reach the Masses of Conservatives and independents. We need solutions.

  • Ilya Shambat

    OK, this is something I know something about. First of all, the progressives are not dishonest; the ones I’ve known were the most honest people out there, whereas Republican leaders, tele-evangelists and radio talk show hosts are completely dishonest. Secondly, while some people disregard the past, the better ones not only learn from the past of the Western civilization but also from the pasts of other places, such as the pre-Columbians and the Chinese. Also, character assassination is something we see much more on the Right than we see on the Left – what came the way of Clinton for one was obscene, and he was an effective president. As for regarding oneself the citizen of the world, given the economic integration of the world it’s a necessity: What happens in say China affects what happens in America, and the more people can deal with other countries the more they can benefit America. I do not know who this person is, but he is about as credible as the US soldier who defected to North Korea during the Korean war. Defections on either side are not new, and that someone has defected does not make him right.

    • Ben Ghazi Butcher

      Masterful job of showing how correct Horowitz is about the dishonesty of regressives. Thanks.

    • John West

      You are very confused. I understand that. It’s the information sources you have been abused by.

    • June Clinkenbeard

      You started with a ridiculous and sweeping generalization that is patently false and it just devolves from there. I can give you voluminous examples of just how wrong you are but I know it would be a waste of my time. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

  • Ilya Shambat

    OK, this is something I know something about. First of all, the progressives are not dishonest; the ones I’ve known were the most honest people out there, whereas Republican leaders, tele-evangelists and radio talk show hosts are completely dishonest. Secondly, while some people disregard the past, the better ones not only learn from the past of the Western civilization but also from the pasts of other places, such as the pre-Columbians and the Chinese. Also, character assassination is something we see much more on the Right than we see on the Left – what came the way of Clinton for one was obscene, and he was an effective president. As for regarding oneself the citizen of the world, given the economic integration of the world it’s a necessity: What happens in say China affects what happens in America, and the more people can deal with other countries the more they can benefit America. I do not know who this person is, but he is about as credible as the US soldier who defected to North Korea during the Korean war. Defections on either side are not new, and that someone has defected does not make him right.

    • prstewart

      Dealing with other countries effectively is an absolute necessity today. Losing our national identity, with all it’s myriad cultures, is an absolute & deadly mistake.

  • mtp

    http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1768-report-security-breakdown-in-americas-nuclear-command-centers
    No doubt.
    Just think what these psychopaths could accomplish with a nuke if this account is accurate.

    Follow the links, draw your own conclusions.

    Sure makes a fellow think what a determined group of psychopaths could accomplish with a device of such destructive power…

    The US military does not loose those things. PERIOD. They fall by mistake from aircraft, sink with naval vessels, and other events of omission and mishap.. Those weapons do not just up and disappear. Just like the incredibly ingenious strong and weak fail safe systems built into them, so too are the checks and balance system built around their storage and handling.
    No, the only way they suddenly get lost is through a complex series of acts of commission.
    And Only through the national command structure, with authority of the commander in chief can those devices be removed from the systems in place to assure control of them to begin with.
    For a device to go up missing in this system is in and of itself all the reason to suspect something diabolical is afoot. What other reasoning or logic is there for a nuclear weapon to disappear from the inventory.
    I’m saying if it is intended for proper purposes there is no need to hide it’s destination. If anything it’s destination is what the entire purpose of traceability is centered on.

    Another alarming aspect of this is the design of most of the more modern upgrades in later Mark types in current inventory. They are literally dial a bombs. They can be set to yield from a fraction of a kiloton to megaton range. A very handy feature indeed the ability to control the destructive effects of use of this device to effect the results in how and why it could be used for nefarious reasons.

    Think about what a high altitude air burst would do as in an electro-magnetic pulse
    Poof good by everything from the underground media to EBT.
    upwards of 300 million people without electricity. Most of the devices of our civilization damaged beyond repair. Food, medicine, water, energy supplies, poof!
    Gone in a blink of the eye.
    Obama’s pal Ole Billyboy Ayers and their ilk gets the wish within a week or so of that magical die-off of the population of 25 million in order to destroy this great nation.
    What better method is there I ask?
    That device is crisis as a means personified.
    It is the perfect answer to a tyrants limitations.
    Is there a false flag event more suited for a usurper “POTUS” to declare Marshal Law?
    Signs of coming Marshal law are everywhere.
    Ain’t there a huge dry run exercise involving Mexico/US/Canadian civil and private authorities in regards to a massive grid down failure in Nov?

    This is some very very serious stuff my friend.

    Interestingly American Thinker posted a piece on Marshal Law this mourning.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/is_obama_creating_a_martial-law-ready_military.html

    I have no doubt if this story is accurate, the megalomaniacs running things will use that device somewhere.
    Look at the trespasses of rule of law, the scale of socio/economic suffering they have purposefully created, and the blood on their hands.
    This a logical next step for these animals.

    There are some really seriously sick crazy people at work here.

  • 123z

    You speak of ‘the biggest scandal in the hixtory of our country’ and ‘this fraudulent criminal activity’, but you do not say what the scandal or the fraudulent activity is. Can’t you tell us what it is?

    • runsinquicksand

      Kidding right?

      • Mark

        Oh REALLY? If Benghazi had happened under either Reagan, Bush 1, or Bush II, can you imagine the Stink the Democrats (or is it Democraps) would have raised? They’d still be obsessed with it, even if it had happened decades ago.

        Yes, the problem is that something was being done that shouldn’t have been. But Ambassador Stevens didn’t bargain for being murdered as part of representing the United States in Libya.

        O and his cronies have been covering the truth to protect their collective @sses.

        The problem for them, is that today, government F ups can’t be covered up as in the past. Instant communication, whether by Facebook, Twitter, and other social media renders old fashioned coverups irrelevant .

        Add to that the fact that events were seen in real time by the CIA, and the Libyan President immediately stated that the “event” was a Terrorist Attack, coupled with the continued denials of this By the Campaigner/Liar in Chief and his administration only increased our distrust of them.

        And because the terrorist won this battle, with deliberate help from Barack, Madame Hillary, and numerous other officials, the fact remains that Chris Stevens and his Marine guards were brutally murdered.

        That none on the left can see this is what makes their reasoning truly SICK!

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      We have a President that has been using fraudulent documents, a fraudulent SS# (042-68-4425) flagged by E-Verify several times; a fraudulent registration with the Selective Service in 2008; a forged birth document he offered as a “long form birth certificate” on April 27th, 2011. That all adds up to a SCANDAL if it helped him hide his true identity. Connecting dots is what investigators are suppose to do, right. Why isn’t anyone connecting the dots (fraudulent documents)?

      • 123z

        How was the social security number flagged? When someonw else was using it? How do you know about it? How was his registration with the Selective service fraudulent? Did he use someone else’s name? We have been through the birth certificate business time and time again and you people have always failed to prove anything is wrong with it Now you are raving about a “long form”: birth certificate, but a few years ago you were raving because he could not produce a long form birth certificate. You must know his true identity, if you know he is hiding it. What IS his true identity? The real SCANDAL is the hatred that is consuming you and your fellow Obama haters. With such venomous hatred burning in your heart, it will probably destroy you. And you are outraged when anyone suggests racism has anything to do with it. Who do you think you are kidding?

        • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

          RACISM – This Fraud in Chief is 50% White and 43.25% Arab (thus all the Arab names on his SUPPOSED Daddy’s side incuding his own damn name), does that make me a White racist or an Arab racist or a 6.75% African-Negro racist. Can fix stupid (LMAO).

          Now for the rest of the crap you wrote. Obama SS# is well known (042-68-4425). It was FLAGGED several times by E-Verify. Isn’t that site in place to find fraudulent SS#s. Can’t fix stupid.

          Here are some of the details about the fraudulent Selective Service Registration. Even stupid folks can see that there is something very fishy about that registration. Obama more than likely registered as an Indonesian citizen at Occidental College and refused to register with the Selective Service using that Indonesian citizenship as an excuse not to register in 1980. See details below. Even you may see the light of deception on display.

          http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/

          • 123z

            You are trying to say that you cannot be called a racist because you don’t now what race Obama belongs to. OK, then you can’t be called a racist.

            I’m glad Obama’s ss number is well known. I never knew that before you said it. How did you happen to get it?. . Somebody gave you a ss number and you put it through E-verify which said it wa fraudulent. So that means Obama has a fraudulent ss number. OK I have no way of proving that it is NOT Obama’s number any more than you have a way of proving that it IS his.. I don’t know what you mean when you say “Can’t fix stupid”. Do you know what you mean?

            I read the whole long thing on Obama’s selective service registration and I can’t say that I understand it. From the outset, the tone of the whole thing is “out to get” Obama so it is obviously not fair and objective. The woman who wrote it is said to rival Anne Coulter.

            I think your senseless phrase “Can’t fix stupid” best sums up the whole issue.

          • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

            I do know what Obama’s (Barry Soetoro) ethnic background is, it is a damn shame that many Americans have fallen for the HOAX that he is our “first black” President. He is indeed 50% White, 43.25% Arab (thus all those Arab names on his SUPPOSED Daddy’s side and his own name) and 6.75% African-Negro. Only in a world of brain dead low information voters does that compute to “first black” President. It would be more logically correct to declare him our “first White/Arab” President. Stop walking around believing everything the media feeds you. If what I am showing folks here is true, does that not prove this person we call Barack Hussein Obama (Barry Soetoro) a FRAUD. There is NO evidence to be found where Barack Hussein Obama changed his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama. He even signed his name Barry Obama which adds to the confusion. He lied on his application for the Illinois Bar when asked if he had any aliases and was disbarred for doing so. Are you enjoying this update?

          • 123z

            In this country there is virtually no such thing as a 100% black person. However is is our custom to call them black. You arer simply lying to say that Obama iis some 40% Arab. Where did you get that story?. jHis father may have been a Moslem but that in no way whatever means he was an Arab. The country with the largest Moslem population is Indonesia and no one but an idiot like you thinks they are Arab. It is not necessary to be an Arab to be a Moslem. Even you can be a Moslem..

            Obama’s legal name when his mother married in Indonesian and they lived in Indonesia was Sotero. He did not change his name. This was the name given to him in Indonesia by the Indonesian authorities. There is no fraud involved. He wsas not disbarred in Illinois. This is an internet legend started by his enemies.. He dropped his license to practice law in Ilinois because he is not practicing law there. So did his wife. .Both of them are in good standing with respect to the bar in Illinois and may resume practicing law whenever they wish. You could have looked this up as easily as I did but because of the evil and venom in your heart, you prefer to spread false rumors, Shame on you!

          • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

            We don’t deal with customs, we deal with facts. Obama is 43.25% Arab (that does not mean they are Muslims, they may be Christians – has nothing to do with religion, you made it a religious issue). Do the damn math, can’t fix stupid. My son-in-law is ten shades darker than Obama and he is a Dominican. If he were the first dark skinned person to become President would have been considered our “first black President” or our “first Dominican President.” I think the Dominicans would be first in line to crucify the media for attempting to call him the ‘first black President.” While in Southeast Asia for 30 months there were all shades of skin color but they all bled red American blood.

            The name Soetoro was his step father’s name, it wasn’t given to him by the Indonesian government but by his step father with his mother’s approval. Your right there is “no fraud” in that. In order to change your name in America you have to do it legally in the courts, not just do it any time you damn well please. Do you know of any record of his name being changed (Barry Obama is a name change from Barry Soetoro – Barack Hussein Obama is a name change from Barry Soetoro).

            Obama was disbarred no matter what spin you put on it, that has been well researched and well documented. The media just don’t want to be bothered with it because it doesn’t affect the present day mess. Bill Clinton was disbarred and no one gave a crap. It is a symptom of how corrupt our politicians have become.

            The true evil exists in your heart, I am only interested in TRANSPARENCY that was PROMISED by your hero Barack Hussein Obama. How is that hope and change working for you.

          • 123z

            If Obama’s mother remarried and both she and her son took the husband’s name, maybe that is the custom in Indonesia. Why do you think a foreign country should have to comply with American law and do it in the courts. Are you crazy? Foreign countries do not have to comply with United States law. If Obama’s being disbarred was the subject of so much research and is so well documented, how come you don’t have ay document or proof beyond word of mouth? You are just a slander monger. I Googled the matter of both of the Obamas losing their law licenses and this is the answerI got: A court official confirms that no public
            disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought against either ofthem, contrary to a false Internet rumor. By
            voluntarily inactivating their licenses, they avoid a requirement to take continuing education classes and pay hundreds of dollars in annual fees. Both could practice law again if they chose to do so. (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/)

        • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

          That April 27th, 2011 computer generated nine layered document is NOT a “long form birth certificate.” Recently a man from one of Obama’s own frequently used law firms Perkins & Coi, a document expert, Reed Hayes submitted a 40 page affidavit giving all the reasons why the April 27th document is a complete and utter forgery and he is willing to testify anywhere to that FACT. There has been NO discussion about any birth certificate in any court or in any media outlet. That is the problem, there is no platform to use, everything has to be done through the back door. If this were any Republican we are talking about he would have been LONG GONE and you know it.

          • Guest

            Forged birth certificates, working under multiple aliases, and multiple fraudulent SS. #s, and not releasing his College Transcripts. .. Just what is Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, (provided that is his real name), hiding?

            We, the concerned People of the United States MUST know this.

            So who’s going to collect all of the information, and write the expose that reveals how much of a fraud. . . .What’s his Name really is? Without having a fatal “Accident”, before releasing it, of course.

          • Mark

            Forged birth certificates, working under multiple aliases, using multiple fraudulent Soc. Sec. #s, using a fraudulent Selective Service Registration number, and not releasing his College Transcripts. . .

            Why is President Barack Hussein Obama trying to hide so much of his past?

            We, the concerned People of the United States MUST know this.

            And what does this reveal about our the trustworthiness of our multiple forms of identification, that under normal circumstances would verify each other?

            So who’s going to collect all of the information, and write the expose that reveals how much of a fraud. . . .What’s his Name really is?Without having a fatal “Accident”, before releasing it, of course.

          • 123z

            You ask who is going to collect information about Obama and write about it. It seems that there is already a sufficient number of people collecting information and writing about it. You want more?

          • 123z

            Do you question that Obama’s mother was an American citizen? Do you question that the law says that the child of an American citizen is an American citizen at birth regardless of where he is born? Therefore, it doesn’t make any difference where he was born. Even if born in Kenya or wherever you wish to allege, he would still be an American citizen. John McCain was born of American citizen parents in Panama, and nothing was made of it, so I guess your comments about how a Republican would have never survived such a question is meaningless. The fact is that Obama has been subjected to all this “birther” nonsense simply because some people want to “get” him for whatever reason. You say there has been no discussion of this issue in any media outlet. Here is a talk forum where this issue has been discussed for years:

            http://www.politicalforum.com/other-miscellaneous/312862-obama-birth-certificate-scandal-reed-hayes-report.html
            I would say the issue has been discussed too much. There is no merit in it whatsoever. No matter where he was born, Obama is an American citizen. What is your problem anyway?

          • JoeBotz

            The problem is his no show typical black father was a “Subject” of the Crown, since Kenya was a Brit colony at the time! Our founding Fathers feared a Citizen who had one Parent who was loyal to the Crown/England!

          • 123z

            Whatever your feeling is about his father being a British subject, it irrelevant because our law is that the child of an American citizen born abroad is born an American citizen. You may not like that law so you can write your Congressman to have it changed. But just because you don’t like Obama doesn’t mean you can make things up as you go along. You can make up whatever you want to say about our Founding fathers but it does not change the fact that the child of an American citizen born abroad is born an American citizen.

          • Dale Nye

            I am guessing that you make up stuff about our founding fathers all the time. Seems that is okay with you. But boy, don’t be making stuff up about Obama…sort of gets to you doesn’t it? If Obama wanted to end all this he would unseal all his documents, but he does not want to do that. Why? Maybe because as he said about others, it is because he has something to hide.

          • Rod Brubeck

            What documents? School records? Why. Nobody has ever asked a candidate or POTUS for their school transcripts before until now. Can’t imagine why…har har.

          • 123z

            Are you replying to something I wrote about our founding fathers? I can’t recall what that might be. I don’t normally write about founding fathers so I don’t know why you think I am making up stuff about them. Why do you say I think it is OK to make stuff up about them? Right now, you are making up some stuff yourself about me.. With regard to Obama, I don’t know why he needs to unseal his records at Harvard Law School when his record there has already received so much favorable publicity. http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/obama-at-hls.html. He has nothing to hide but that doesn’t make any difference because you would make stuff up anyway.

          • Rod Brubeck

            He was born in Hawaii. He’s a US citizen. You people here are scary, paranoid and delusional. Are you 9/11 “truthers” as well? Thank God you are and will remain a shrinking minority. Die off already or use the ACA to seek professional mental help before you hurt yourself or others.

          • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

            First of all we are not sure where Obama was born, the April 27th, 2011 document is a forgery. That being said we are not sure who his father is, it may have been marked “unknown” given Obama’s mother’s sordid past. There is also a bunch of material that has declared Obama was born in Kenya. I am not saying that is true, but there is just as much evidence to support that theory. A simple search will prove that point.

            If Barry Obama was indeed registered as a Indonesian citizen at Occidental College he would be a Dual Citizen, doesn’t that shed new light on the topic of eligibility? The records will someday clear that up, they are sealed today and there is no way to get at the information thus all the questions. I believe the records will show Obama did indeed register as a Indonesian citizen, thus the need for a fraudulent registration with Sel. Ser. in 2008.

            The fact that you say “nothing was made of John McCain’s birth” tells me you know nothing about the subject. There was an entire month where the left wing ORIGINAL “birthers” did all they could to prove McCain was NOT a “natural born Citizen” so much so that the U.S. Congress took up the issue. McCain surrendered his birth certificate in a week (not THREE years later). All the left wing news papers, blogs, SNOPES, Constitutional Professors, etc.took up the issue. The Senate issued a Resolution for crying out loud . If the sorry ass Republicans had demanded the same for Obama we wouldn’t be here discussing the issue because Obama does NOT HAVE a legitimate American Birth Certificate.

            As I said there has been NO discussion about the forged April 27th, 2011 document, YET. There has been NO discussion about the fraudulent Sel. Ser. registration. There has been NO discussion about the flagged SS# (042-68-4425). So I don’t know what you are talking about. However, this scandal will be big news in the months leading up to the Mid Term elections with Lt. Mike Zullo leading the way with plenty of help from a few Congresspersons.

            I don’t recall anyone calling those looking for John McCain’s “natural born Citizen” status “birthers”. DO YOU? Typical libtard way of doing business.

            Now, here is a blog for you to spend some time on so that you can become more updated on the entire “natural born Citizen” issue. Big hint, BOTH parents have to be American Citizens, in particular the FATHER.

            Applying LOGIC to the issue.

            http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html

          • SummerSands

            You are 100% wrong. POTUS can only be a “Natural Born Citizen,” meaning both parents must be Citizens of the U.S.A.

            Based on Minor vs. Hapersett, 88 U.S. 162, the Supreme Court defined “natural born citizens” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”

            “Natural born citizen” is defined as the purest form of citizenship, requiring both jus soli (“law of the soil”) citizenship and jus sanguinis (“law of the blood”) citizenship—with BOTH parents being citizens.

            US citizens, even if born in the US to parents who were both US citizens, who have any foreign citizenship, no matter when or how acquired, are not eligible to be President. This issue has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It’s a question of loyalty and avoidance of even the appearance of conflict of interest. Nothing more, and nothing less.

            The only explicit definition of “Natural Born Citizen” in the historical record, that was provided by one of the Founders, defines it as meaning a person born in the country to citizen parents. No testimony from any other Founder or delegate of the Constitutional Convention exists that claims any other definition.

            Obviously obama was not vetted properly and by his own admitted parentage, he’s ineligible to legally hold the office of POTUS.

            Minor vs. Hapersett used the 14th Amendment as the basis for its second principal holding concerning the right to vote, but not for its first principal holding concerning whether or not the petitioner was a US citizen (court decisions can involve multiple holdings, which are the precedent-setting decisions the court makes in order to decide the legal and/or factual issues before the court in a particular case.)

            The Court in Minor determined that before it could decide the issue of whether the petitioner (who was an adult White woman) had any Federal right to vote based on the 14th Amendment, it first had to decide whether or not she was a citizen, and if so on what basis?

            The Court held that the petitioner was in fact a US citizen, and had been such from birth, before the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The reasoning the Court used to reach that holding is actually central to the question of the Supreme Court’s definition of “natural born citizen.”

            AND…that definition is pivotal regarding obama’s legitimacy to hold the office of POTUS…reason why? Re-read above.

          • 123z

            I just finished reading Minor vs. Hapersett and find that it says on Page 88 U. S. 168 “the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens” which is EXACTLY what I already knew and is not consistent with the fraudulent garbage you are trying to peddle. You people have no shame whatsoever and will stop at nothing to perpetuate and reinforce the lies and slander which you continuously put forth. The very court ruling which you claim proves Obama not to be a native born citizen does the EXACT OPPOSITE.

          • Ray Williams

            Who was running for President in that ruling?Minor, or Hapersett? The Constitution spells out the requirement for POTUS quite clearly.

          • Mary

            We know Obama’s father was born in Kenya and not a U.S. citizen, but it’s his mother who’s citizenship is being called in to question here because she too was not born in the U.S. but was a U.S. ‘citizen.’ Even if a person was born to a parent who was a U.S. ‘natural born citizen’ abroad in another country that would only makes them a U.S. ‘citizen.’ In order for them to be considered a ‘natural born citizen’ they would of had to have been born to a ‘natural born citizen’ AND lived in the U.S for a required consecutive amount of years…, therefore, there is a BIG question out there whether Obama’s mother actually lived in the U.S. for the consecutive amount of years required? If she did not, this would affect whether Obama’s is in fact a ‘natural born citizen’ or not, so actually it wouldn’t matter where Obama was born Kenya, the U.S. etc. he still would not be a ‘natural born citizen.’ It even looks worse for him if he wasn’t at the very least born in the here in the U.S. So if true and neither of his parents were ‘natural born citizens,’ Obama, also would not be a ‘natural born citizen’ either, therefore, be disqualify to run for the office of President of the U.S.
            Do you see now the seriousness of the problem and why he might be so secretive about his records??

          • Mary

            It’s more complex than you think to be considered a ‘natural born citizen’ when born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States to protect our Country from people who’s loyalties are not really with the U.S. of America and do not have our best interest at heart…At least one of your parents have be ‘natural born citizen’ of the U.S. AND you have to meet the live in the U.S. for the required amount of time before you are considered ‘natural born citizen’ otherwise you’re just a citizen and not lawfully qualified to run for office of President of the United States of America.

          • DLinz

            One parent is enough Summer, even if the child is born out of the US. Please don’t feed the trolls like 123 with bad information. It just serves to make them rant like a spoiled child even more.

          • ArmyRules

            Hey genius, the law says that BOTH parents must be citizens for a child born abroad to be American born and thus, a citizen themselves.

          • 123z

            Why don’t you give me a reference to the law you are talking about? Or maybe you simply don’t know what you are talking about?

            Can we agree that Obama was born AFTER May 24, 1934?

            Prior to May 24, 1934, U.S. citizen mothers were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the “1934 Statute”) gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not
            acquire U.S. citizenship.

            On or after May 24, 1934, a child born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother (or both) was a citizen of the United States at the time of the child’s birth, would be considered a United States citizen provided that the U.S. citizen parent had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child.

          • Tree Rat

            Obama has admitted on several occasions, AND in his own autobiography that he was born in Kenya. And this article reveals some other interesting facts.http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-not-a-citizen-thanks-to-his-own-mother/ Check it out, folks.

          • 123z

            Then we must return to the birth certificate from Hawaii. Or you might prefer if we return to the allegation that Obama is really Malcolm X’s love child. If Malcolm X was his father, there is no question about his citizenship because Malsolm X was surely an American citizsen.

            Snopes.com is a prize winning fact-checking website. Here is what they have to say about Obama’s birth certificate;

            http://www.snopes.com/politics

          • 123z

            I just learned that on e-bay you can get genuine, authentic birth certificates from Kenya recording Obama’s birth there. They won’t last long so you had better hurry to get some for yourself and for Christmas presents for your friends and family. These are really nice official birth certificates,not like the shoddy makeover of an Australian birth certificate taken from the genealogical website Bomford.net that was used previously.

          • Paul Yoder

            I believe O is a citizen. The real issue about his birth is why he claimed foreign citizenry to receive college grants, and never after that reapplied to have his citizen’s status reinstated? Can you say fraud?

          • 123z

            How do you know he applied for a student loan as a foreigner? Have you seen the application? How can he reapply to have his citizenship reinstated if he never renounced it in the first place. Renouncing your citizenship is a formal legal procedure which could be reversed. However, there is nothing which can be done to reverse a lot of unfounded gossip, which seems to be Obama’s problem. You cannot very well say fraud when you cannot prove what it is that is supposed to be fraudulent.

          • Paul Yoder

            As I said, I believe BO is American, the son of two Americans. The father would be in jail if he admitted to having sex with his mother while underage. I think fraud is the real issue.
            http://conservativeangle.com/imposter-proof-occidental-recalls-barry-obama-with-records-to-prove-it/

          • John Talbert

            Even if Obama is a citizen, which I believe he is and that he was born in Hawaii, the issue about his birth isn’t about being born on foreign soil. It’s about being a natural born citizen, which the Supreme Court has never ruled on the definition of that term. If one parent is a U. S. citizen, then you are a citizen, but not necessarily a natural born citizen. The term natural born was uniquely used by the Founders and is not defined anywhere. The closest we come is in an unrelated Supreme Court case in the 19th century where it was said that to be natural born both parents must be U. S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Barack Obama, Sr. was a Kenyan which, at that time, was under British rule and made him a British subject, not a U. S. citizen. And he never became an American citizen. So, until the Supreme Court rules on the definition it will technically never be known whether President Obama is truly eligible to be president. And since the Supreme Court is controlled by political motives you can be sure they would never vote against him being a natural born citizen because of the political fallout that would occur if that were to be decided. It explains why Justice Thomas said they were avoiding the topic altogether. They know it’s a mess and there’s no easy way to fix it.

            But setting all of that aside and assuming you’re right in what you said, what really proves there is a problem is the birth certificate he released. No, I’m not going to even get into the discussion of people who’ve said there’s proof it’s a forgery. What I am going to raise is one simple issue that proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that it is a fraud. When you look at that certificate it asks for the parents’ race. For his father it says “African.” First, there is no such race as African. People who are African can be a multiple of different races. And in 1961 Jesse Jackson had not yet introduced the idea of blacks calling themselves African Americans. In those days blacks were called Nego or colored. If used in the question of race it would be most common to say Negroid. And there is no evidence of ANY black person having listed on their birth certificate in Hawaii or any other U. S. state at that time in history as African. Yet the president’s so called “real” birth certificate lists his father as African. It’s a very politically correct answer to the question and yet proves without a doubt that something is wrong with the document. That, and that alone, should be cause for questions.

          • 123z

            Here is a complete discussion of Obama’s birth certificate. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

        • Mark

          Probably all true. However, I’m also familiar with the accusation that Komrade Obama actually used multiple fraudulent SS #s before becoming President.

          Think what would happen to the average person, if he or she were convicted of working under falsified I.D.

          If he truly did that, and it hasn’t been reported, than isn’t that another part of the Scandal of Obama, Obama, who is Obama?

          And if so, why shouldn’t it be proven?

          There’s the Freedom of Information Act,. under which all of this information should be released when requested.

          If it isn’t released until after he’s completed his 2nd Term, then it’ll be useless information.

          Once again, please correct me if I’ve missed something, which I suspect I haven’t.

          Oops, I shouldn’t have said “suspect.” After all, he’s only a “person of interest,” right?

          • 123z

            Has the accusation that Obama used multiple social security numbers been proven? Why would Obama have wanted to work under a false ID? Yes, indeed, it he worked under a false ss number I think it should be proven. But what are you going to ask for under the freedom of information act. How many soci8al security numbers has Obama worked under? Where would this information be filed? You people are so consumed with hatred that you think you can just make up any allegation that suits you and suspect the government of withholding information. if there is no “proof” .You say “if this or that were true, it would add to the SCANDAL of Obama”. You just make it up as you go along.

          • Mark

            This isn’t about Hating B.H.O. It’s about holding the President of the United States accountable under the laws of the United States, as We the People are held accountable under them.

            As for the SS #s, they’d be recorded in the records of the Social Security Administration.

            And his Selective Service Registrations would be with the Records of the Selective Service System.

            Why do Liberals choose to “Selectively” apply the laws, so that their chosen leaders can “overlook” the rules when it’s convenient for them to do so?

            Yes, sadly, most politicians are discovered to be law breakers at some point in their lives. that doesn’t mean that some should be excluded from following the Laws of the Land, while others are completely destroyed when their deceptions are discovered and revealed.

            “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

            Or as someone once directed us, “You Shall not Lie.”

            Not “You shall not lie,. .. . unless. . . . ‘

          • 123z

            Of course the social security admiistration has records on all social security numbers. But which ones are the ones you want to know about? How is it you know that Obama falsely used them? You cannot simply stand there and make up stuff that you think Obama probably did and expect somebody to look up the records when you provide no specific information. I think you yourself are using selectivity in accusing Obama rather than some Republicans for misusing social security numbers. What was Obama’s motivation to use false social security numbers? And how do you know Obama is lying when you do not provide us with what he said and what the truth actually is. Do you know what slander is?

        • SmartChickie

          you didn’t read the article, did you? Lots of common sense. Why would anyone protect and defend someone so strongly…someone they don’t even know? It’s like defending a celebrity….you don’t know them at all. But, we think we do, from movies. At least show yourself that you are using critical thinking……read the article…and know that there is a possibility that this is scary stuff. I know people who have lived through the Holocaust and wars…….and they fear these actions. It is true about Obamacare…it really did lessen work hours to 30 hours and your healthcare information is all being sent to the government. My Dr. told it was all going there…..that’s scary, but totally true. So listen with open ears……don’t just defend…..think “What if”…….it’s better to have all the info, than to just blindly follow anyone. Not left, not right…….stay in the middle. People don’t hate Obama……people fear him. Big difference.

          • 123z

            What article are you talking about that I did not read? If you mean the Snopes article, I think YOU are the one who did not read it. Yes indeed,it is better to have all the info rather than just blindly follow an ignorant crowd of hate-mongers. You are correct that people who lived through the Holocaust recognize this as something to be feared. It is this kind of thing that started in Holocaust in Germany. I have relatives who lived in Europe throughout the war so I have heard all about it. Take your own advice and start thinking “What if….” What if Obamacare represents nothing more than an effort to provide this country with a national health system such as every advanced country in the world already has.

          • Robert

            If the real goal of Obamacare is a sincere effort to provide this country with more plentiful, and therefore inexpensive health care, it is failing badly. Already it is piling on numerous costs to insurers still in business, which they will have to recoup if they are to survive. Many insurers see that they will not be able to survive, so they’re cutting their losses before they lose everything, leaving monopolies in some cases. And in every state outside of New York, premiums are soaring, doubling or tripling in some cases. If the real goal is to make medical care more affordable, this makes no sense whatsoever.

            If, on the other hand, the real goal of Obamacare is an evil-intentioned means to impose chains upon us and jerk us all around like slaves, engineering a future government shut-down, partial or total, and then using that future shut-down as an excuse to close all the hospitals and other places to obtain medical care, until the (ransom) demands of Obama (or another like him) are capitulated to, then Obamacare a.k.a. the “Affordable Care Act” makes PERFECT sense. And that is MUCH more likely, especially considering that having life and death control over every citizen has been the goal of every Marxist tyrant, whether Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Chavez, Kim, or Mao. There is NO reason to believe that the goal of Obama the Marxist is any different.

        • DLinz

          123z: No…….we’re not kidding. Watch this if you can, and try to be objective in viewing it, and do some critical thinking. If you come away with your blind obedience to Obama opinion intact, please seek immediate professional help. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UAg2f3dP1g

        • Dale Nye

          Yeah, all of a sudden there are just millions more racists in America if the progressives are to be believed. The idea that it is hatred of a man is shallow. It is his policies, his disregard for our Constitution, his blaming others for everything wrong which shows a real lack of leadership. The list goes on and on. But the man himself, we do not even know enough to hate. It sounds more like you projecting than any truth. Who do you think is being kidded?

          • Mark

            Correct. I remember hearing that the problem with Pres. Clinton wasn’t that he didn’t have a foreign Policy, it was that his Policies were “Foreign.”

            Now, fast forward to He. B.H.O. His policies are completely anti-America.

            And that includes his “Policy” called Obama Care. Health Insurance reform is needed. Subjecting the American People to punishment, and prison if we refuse to take part in his health care destruction program IS Un-American.

            Possibly forcing the U.S. to default on it’s financial Obligations is Un American.

            Telling our business leaders that “You didn’t create that,” and expecting them, and the majority of the American People to believe his drivel, just because he deplores American Exceptionalism, and believes that we’d be “better off” is un American.

            If anything I’ve said is racist according to others, than they don’t understand what racism is.

            Contrary to what they believe, I’ve never said that this *#&$^ Black *&#^ is destroying this country.

            I’ve only tried to point out the facts that Pres. B.H.O and his administration refuse to be “confused” by.

            Foreign Policies which damage the credibility of the United States in any way, and a strong Foreign Policy, which protects the best interests of the American People are two VASTLY DIFFERENT things.

            O’s overall Polices are totally FOREIGN to the best interests of We the People of the United States of America.

            Until he’s impeached, and all of his Communist Cronies in D.C. are removed, we shall continue to be beset by our present problems.

            I love my Country, and I truly FEAR The present Leaders who constitute our Federal Government!

        • Tree Rat

          His “s.s.#” is a number used in Connecticut, a number from a long-ago DEAD man. ( If born in Hawaii, why doesn’t his s.s. come from Hawaii?) His birth cert. has been PROVEN to be a forgery by MANY sources who examine these items for a living ! He lied when sworn in as a lawyer saying he never used any other name, when in fact he has used several different names. The list is endless. But as they say, there are none so blind as those who will not see!

          • 123z

            The other day I posted this story from the Jacksonville Times Union on Obama’s social security number, but WND butchered the website reference so that the article did not come up. Here it is again:

            By Carole Fader

            Many Times-Union readers want to know:

            Recently, there has been an email circulating on the
            Internet concerning President Barack Obama’s Social Security number. It appears that the number was originally issued to Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France and died in Hawaii. Can you confirm this?

            We can confirm that the email has been circulating, but we can’t confirm what it states as fact.

            The viral email says that Ludwig spent the last months of his life in Hawaii, where he died in 1981. It states that Obama received the SSN from his grandmother, who worked part-time at a Honolulu courthouse, where she would have access to deceased individuals’
            Social Security numbers.

            The email goes on: The suspicion is that Obama’s grandmother, knowing he was not a U.S. citizen, simply scoured the probate records until she found someone who died who was not receiving Social Security benefits, and selected Mr. Ludwig’s Connecticut SSN for Obama.

            But this is where the claim breaks down.

            The Social Security Death Index allows you to search a database of people who have been issued Social Security numbers and whose deaths were reported to the Social Security Administration beginning about
            1962.

            The information comes from the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File, which contains deaths after 1936 and which is not available online. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the SSA is
            required to disclose a Public Death Master File, but that one doesn’t include all deaths. Some genealogy sites allow searches of this death index, but many of them, such as Ancestry.com, have put access to
            Social Security numbers behind a pay wall to help prevent identity theft.

            You can search the death index for free at Family Search (tinyurl.com/bjom3d). You will find Ludwig listed there.

            The email says that the SSA was never informed of Ludwig’s death. And it states that Obama has been illegally using the SSN assigned to Ludwig, 042-68-4425.

            But the death index shows that the SSA was informed of Ludwig’s death. The Jean Paul Ludwig referred to in the email — born in 1890, lived in Connecticut, died in Hawaii — looks to be the same one listed in the database (born on Feb. 17, 1890; SSN issued in
            Connecticut; death benefits issued in Hawaii).

            But the Social Security number listed for Ludwig is 045-26-8722, not 042-68-4425.

            Finally, since non-citizens can legally obtain Social Security numbers, Snopes.com points out, the issue is moot — even if you believe that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. Having a Social Security number is hardly an indication of citizenship.

            carole.fader@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4635

            There is a fact-checker review of almost every urban legend about Obama, but, as you say, there is no one so blind as those who will not see. You are caught up in an example of mass hysteria which will be written about for years to come in history books.

      • Mark

        In addition to these points, he refuses to release his college transcripts from a prestigious law School.

        Correct me if I’ve missed something here, but If I’d graduated from Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, or Yale Law School, or from any other division of one of these Ivy League Universities, I’d want people to have access, to my transcripts, to prove that I had the credentials for whatever position I applied for, or was elected to fill.

        But since that’s common sense, and sense isn’t always “:common” to everyone, i guess the point is moot.

      • 123z

        In attempting to track down so,me of the information in this story which no one seems to have any interest in doing, I have found that the social security number 042-68-4425 is the wrong social security number. it is not the one which was flagged by e-verify, etc. Here is a story from the Jacksonville newspaper about it; (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-02-18/story/fact-check-obamas-ssn-not-ame-dead-man ) Maybe, however, you were talking abut ANOTHER social security number and ANOTHER email giving another TRUE story

        Recently, there has been an email circulating on the Internet concerning President Barack Obama’s Social Security number. It appears that the number was originally issued to Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born
        in France and died in Hawaii. Can you confirm this?

        We can confirm that the email has been circulating, but we can’t confirm what it states as fact.

        The viral email says that Ludwig spent the last months of his life in Hawaii, where he died in 1981. It states that Obama received the SSN from his grandmother, who worked part-time at a Honolulu courthouse, where she would have access to deceased individuals’ Social Security numbers.

        The email goes on: The suspicion is that Obama’s grandmother, knowing he was not a U.S. citizen, simply scoured the probate records until she found someone who died who was not receiving Social Security benefits,
        and selected Mr. Ludwig’s Connecticut SSN for Obama.

        But this is where the claim breaks down.

        The Social Security Death Index allows you to search a database of people who have been issued Social Security numbers and whose deaths were reported to the Social Security Administration beginning about
        1962.

        The information comes from the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File, which contains deaths after 1936 and which is not available online. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the SSA is
        required to disclose a Public Death Master File, but that one doesn’t include all deaths. Some genealogy sites allow searches of this death index, but many of them, such as Ancestry.com, have put access to Social
        Security numbers behind a pay wall to help prevent identity theft.

        You can search the death index for free at Family Search (tinyurl.com/bjom3d). You will find Ludwig listed there.

        The email says that the SSA was never informed of Ludwig’s death. Andit states that Obama has been illegally using the SSN assigned to Ludwig, 042-68-4425.

        But the death index shows that the SSA was informed of Ludwig’s death. The Jean Paul Ludwig referred to in the email — born in 1890, lived in Connecticut, died in Hawaii — looks to be the same one listed in the database (born on Feb. 17, 1890; SSN issued in Connecticut; death benefits issued in Hawaii).

        But the Social Security number listed for Ludwig is 045-26-8722, not 042-68-4425.

        Finally, since non-citizens can legally obtain Social Security numbers, Snopes.com points out, the issue is moot — even if you believe that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. Having a Social Security
        number is hardly an indication of citizenship.

        Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-02-18/story/fact-check-obamas-ssn-not-same-dead-man#ixzz2i08vsNYR

    • melloe

      That is because what they are talking about mostly are manufactured crisis jimmied up by Issa trying to find a way to hurt the administration. One thing after another about which if you get the facts, it may be be bad, but not what they promote for their own nefarious reasons. “Benghazi” Benghazi Benghazi …4 US people, and quite a few locals gave their lives, but a fairly minor event compared to the 16 or so events under Bush, and the 306 who died in one event under Reagan. The biggest problem with Benghazi was he was where he should not have been, and the CIA was involved. People sent to aid got hung up at the airport PPPP on their leaders part. And no one wanted to release data at first because the CIA was still trying to piece the facts ( or at least what they wanted us to believe were the facts ) .. which made for a field day with the pundits. When some one on the right wants to belittle someone on the left they say “Benghazi”, or some comment about the left don’t care about those 4 people. When someone on the left wants to jab someone on the right, they say “Benghazi” Sick in both cases.

  • mountainaires

    These days–especially these days–the reaction of conservatives to Leftist rhetorical slashing and burning is best summed up as “deer caught in the headlights.” They are first shocked, then baffled, then confused, then alarmed. Oh, yes, they are afraid, very afraid. Because they can see that their opponent will not moderate their rhetoric or their tactics in any way; and such an opponent justifies fear in reasonable men. We really need to stop trying to be “reasonable” men. We really need to learn the slash and burn strategy; don’t be afraid to call it like you see it–Marxists, Totalitarians, Tyrannical, whatever. I see conservatives being so cautious, so civil, so reasonable, so respectful that we are constantly on the defensive, trying to explain. Just today, one conservative, responding to an epithet about conservatives being racist, PROCEEDED TO APPEASE A LEFTIST hurling yet another charge of “racism” and stereotype an entire ideological group because there was a confederate flag at a rally. Now, this “conservative” proceeded to denounce the confederate flag on twitter, in order to differentiate himself from the target of the Leftists racist charge. The proper response SHOULD HAVE BEEN to point out to the leftist that she is nothing but a totalitarian in the same vein as Stalin. Why do we always give them ammunition against us, by helping them further their nasty narratives about us?

    • CoweringCoward

      Insanity only fears GREATER INSANITY.

  • BHOHG2G

    What I see happening in Gvt now is two parties trying to attain entirely different goals. Now most people would think that the two parties are trying to reach the same goal, but just go about it taking different paths, because , hey we’re all Americans right? WRONG!
    The goals of the left and the right couldn’t be farther apart.
    This is like trying to come to a compromise between NAZIS and Jews.
    The problem on our end is extreme media bias for the left and the everyday low info person on the street that thinks they are well informed.
    The more the communists tear down the country , the more blame they heap on conservatives and the low info types just fall into line.
    They have a huge advantage by doing this.
    I really do see an armed conflict coming in this country.

    • CoweringCoward

      Yep, voting is not going to fix this one, not with the elites electing a new people (with us paying for our own dispossession) right out from under us.

      3% wanted the American Revolution, I am betting we can still muster an informed and motivated 3%.

      Matt Bracken made a comment in an article recently that I just cannot stop quoting, “Plans to ride a tiger and actually riding a tiger are not the same thing”

  • John West

    When you say ‘fight’ …. I trust you mean with guns and bombs and whatever it takes to win a revolution and depose all who are presently in power.

    The only other way to achieve it is to nuke them from space. I suggest the former as more doable. And that is what it is going to take. The time for talk is over, the left doesn’t talk, they scream and rant and want to kill you for being conservative.

    So to quote a great American General, “We need to kill the bastards before they kill us”.

  • Ashley Ann Thomas

    Obama and his minions will be left here to go through the armegeddon meat grinder. And there will be NO escape.

    • CoweringCoward

      O’benito will hopefully find his lamp post along with his buddies.

  • 4Pip

    I’ve known O.is evil for some time,his latest actions are just more proof of it. While he stops the Military from getting their pay,he is making sure Mexico gets our money. One piece I read said how he was taking $100.00 to give their Gov’t so their economy would get better. This man has even been setting up Jihadist traing camps around our country,there are 17 states with 35 camps. Allof them are traiining to kidnap and fight us here.

  • Wizardofoz

    It is no wonder this great country is on its way to becoming a banana republic with the contorted thinking and political power of the so called conservative movement. It’s easy to spot someone who believes in the paranoid thinking and clinging onto the fears of the Cold War – another contrivance of the fear mongers – with your hyperbole and wanting to yell down an educated point of view. It’s all one big conspiracy in your little, delusional mind. Of course, your insanity is not complete without a reference to Hitler. I support the duly elected President and believe in the powers set forth by the Constitution. You are a fascist who would have done well in the ore-civil war south – assuming your skin color wasn’t black.

    • Rose215

      You have not done a good job of explaining your quarrel with the arguments put forward by Horowitz. For you it’s just that they are “paranoid” and their arguments “hyperbole”. Pray tell, what is the “educated point of view” that you think Horowitz is “yelling down”? Seriously, your comment is totally without substance. Horowitz may not be correct on all of the points he brings forward, but all of them provide a potentially accurate perspective and as such need to be given serious consideration.

      • June Clinkenbeard

        I should have read your reply before replying myself. You said exactly what I was thinking but couldn’t formulate. I long for someone with intelligence to make the Liberal argument but alas, there doesn’t seem to be anyone available, or capable for that matter. It’s always the same screeds.

        I am reminded of the people who were treading water, begging Noah to let them onto the Ark…

        • prstewart

          Exactly. Never ever do I hear a reasonable, substantive or logical rebuttal to anything… just hate and marginalization. Oh and mocking. Can’t forget that, their favorite quick reply tool. Alinsky’s Rules for all of them and most don’t even know who Alinsky was.

    • CoweringCoward

      One word comes to mind. “IDIOT”

    • 1redcent

      Oh, so you’re just a stinking MARXIST, who isn’t just an ignorant lefty git, but STUPID to boot.

      The COLD WAR was and still is REAL, not some paranoid contortion; however, because you are a “useful tool” of a MARXIST, you babble on, drooling and spewing the stale, puerile, perverse old talking points!

      Of course you support Obama, he’s a tyrannical dictator who HAS set America on the path to be another ZIMBABWE !

      And no matter WHAT you imagine you know………….HITLER AND THE NAZIS WERE LEFTY SOCIALISTS !

      You only support Obama because you’re an anti-American, COMMIE TROLL !

      • prstewart

        Thing is…. the trolls, haters and minions will be right down in the bread line with us… shackled to a weight they’ll never be without in their lifetime.

    • Ratt Stone

      And you are from Oz and don’t believe in conspiracies ?

    • June Clinkenbeard

      There are so many fallacies in your argument, as well as liberal constructs based on fairy dust, that I don’t know where to start. Way to inject yourself into a discussion and add absolutely nothing to it.

    • Infidel51

      Your comment is a perfect example of the backwards prog thinking expplained in the article. Thank you for your impeccable timing.

    • dusel1

      US Revolutionary War – An Awakening1
      US Civil War – A Nightmare1
      Obama Elected as Putative President – A Nightmare2
      Obama Arrested, Convicted, and Executed for treason – An Awakening2

  • timmycrw91

    I was reading this, pumping my fist in the air! It was THAT good. Thank you, David!

  • Wartface

    Horowitz leaves out the judges of America… They are communist too. They are more than willing to legislate from the bench too. John Roberts is the only reson we have OWEbamacare. John Roberts is a communist operative for sure.

    • Mark

      This Is why the Following Liberty Amendment, by mark Levin is so Timely:

      An Amendment to Establish Term Limits For Supreme Court Justices, and Super Majority Legislative Override.

      Section 1 No Person shall serve as Chief or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of 12 years.

      Section 2: Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, Congress shall organize the justices of the Supreme Court, as equally as possible into three classes, with the justices assigned to each class
      in reverse seniority order; with the most senior justices in the 1st Class; and their Terms shall expire at the end of the fourth Year following the ratification of this Amendment.

      The Terms for the justices on the Second Class shall expire at the end of the eight Year; and of the Third Class, ad the end of the 12th Year; so that one-third of the justices may be chosen every fourth Year.

      Section 3 When a Vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a new justice, who with the approval of a majority of the Senate shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for longer than half of an expired term shall not be renominated to a full term.

      Section 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.

      Section 5: The Congressional Override under Section 1 is not subject to a Presidential veto, and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State Court.

      Section 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures, the
      States my override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme court.

      Section 7: The States’ override under Section 3 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal of State court, or oversight interference by Congress or the President.

      Section 8: Congressional or State override authority under Sections 3 and 4 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Supreme Court rendering its majority opinion. , after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from the override.

      Section 9: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year following its ratification.

      If you’re interested in his other Amendments, then buy or download “The Liberty Amendments, Restoring the American Republic.”

      I know he’s 100% Correct. See what you think.

  • Robert

    If the goal of Obamacare were more plentiful, and therefore cheaper, medical care, the act makes no sense whatsoever. If the real goal of Obamacare is an evil-intentioned scheme to block citizens from getting medical care when needed in a bid to lord over, control, and enslave them, until they kiss the Democrat party’s ring in abject submission, then the act makes PERFECT sense. Lording over, controlling, and enslaving man, and forcing him to bow down in submission is the ambition of Satan, The Adversary. Coincidence? I think not. Just look at all the other Adversarial ways the “progressives” treat normal humanity – constantly deceiving, maligning, traducing, and calumniating those who want to live their lives their own way. They even talk about the people and those who truly represent them as adversaries and enemies. Progressives who see a war between saints and Satan are right in one sense – but they are the forces of Satan against all of humanity.

  • funkyonion

    In God We Trust as ONE in the balance between control and freedom. Without truth, there is no validity.

  • John Fryman

    I enjoyed the article until I got to the Libya part where he says O didn’t consult anyone, including the UN.
    While true that he didn’t care enough to get support from the people or congress, the UN is about the only one he DID consult, and NATO is what went into Libya. The running joke after the french were the first planes to go in & drop bombs was people were surprised they hadn’t surrendered yet, hehehe
    Just sayin’, I like the article a lot, but he should have gotten that right too.

    • dusel1

      The USA does not and should not answer to the Union of Nerds (UN).

  • Heidikitty

    Does anyone believe Obama is paying off in one way shape or form all the democrats to stand up for him or did he spy on them and use something against them they do not want to come out? I just cannot believe people would turn against our country that way as they are not that stupid.

    • ARRRGGGHH

      I wonder what happened to Justice Roberts? What would make him vote 180 degrees against his principles? We know from the evidence that the NSA was spying on high-profile government officials and because of that, any data gathered could have been used against him.

    • heykyleinsf

      stock market record high..
      bush soiled a record surplus and record peace time.

      Republicans are done.
      Buh bye

  • RAYAKE

    for the life of me….I can not understand why people would follow a person like this.. all thru history we have seen these people ruin countless countries..KILL million’s and YET there are FOOL’S that follow them like sheep..may GOD have mercy on there FIBBLE mind’s and open there eye’s and ear’s…

    • heykyleinsf

      what’s a fibble mind genius?

      • prstewart

        Stop being a douche douche. oh nvm

    • Robert

      On second thought, may Yahowah judge those dictatorial wannabes, born of poisonous snakes, who would willingly and knowingly reelect such a malicious character as Obama precisely because of his malicious and predatory character to prey upon and victimize the entire country, and condemn those willing accomplices to eternal anguish in the abyss!

  • SummerSands

    The first step to stopping these “demoncratic progressives” is to start calling them what they are, COMMUNISTS! Quit beating around the bush people and say it…COMMUNISTS!!! They are the destroyers of liberty and freedom…they are…

    C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-T-S!

    obutthead is a self-proclaimed marxist, he is a COMMUNIST! pelosi, reid and all the rest of the moronic minions who support him in his endeavor to enslave the American Citizens and make the United States of America a 3rd world country, well, they are COMMUNISTS.

    The only way to get people to disengage their head from the obutthead rectal train is to call them all exactly what they are, COMMUNISTS.

    • heykyleinsf

      D-I-P-S-H-I-T Dipshit

      • SummerSands

        M-O-R-O-N-I-C J-A-C-K-A-S-S…MORONIC JACKASS

      • Suzyqpie

        Thank you for your Excellent scholarship and a valuable contribution to the conversation.

  • heykyleinsf

    conservative cowards. Always something velly skelly.. WTF. Grow up.

    • vutsrq

      Does it hurt to be so stupid?

  • Z54

    It would be nice if Mr. Horowitz had a clue as to what he was mumbling about! But he doesn’t!

    • vutsrq

      What’s your seeing-eye dog’s name?

  • emeraldeyes24

    Where, in all of Barack Obama’s history or actions, has he ever been connected to the Communist party or demonstrated any Communist leanings. For Horowitz, who has defied everything that his” despicable” parents (in his mind now because their political affiliations were different from his now far right leanings), clearly any politics over the centrist line is extreme for this guy. Fact is that Barack Obama is a Liberal with Conservative fiscal views, but socialist where social programs are concerned, socialist to the extent that the rich should pay their fair share into the public coffers of the people, for the people.
    The president has not had a sustained chance to give the people what they need and deserve, since the Republicans have done everything that they could muster to unhinge any initiatives that he has had that would benefit the hundreds of millions who work hard to keep the country going and also pay taxes – big taxes in relation to their earnings and the weight of the burden of their contribution to the country overall. Big percentage of taxes and very big burden of contribution. President Obama told the country that he was coming to Washington to make ”Change”, and up to this point, he has in some small ways, despite the obstruction, games, and lies that the Republicans have played out every day since he was elected x 2 . That could change BIG TIME IF voters return him a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives in 2014. He has proven himself to be a responsible and cautious, careful money manager, not ever given to rash or impulsive decisions. If the government becomes fully Democrat, he will be able to make many, many changes for the good of the country. Being the hardest working president in living memory, he will vastly improve jobs because he will create an environment that fosters an even stronger business and industry relationship, he will be able to improve the Affordable Care Act, to bring it more in line with what the ACA originally looked like, make America the country for the people, all the people, not just the rich!
    Horowitz is just one more Republican whiner who puts money, power and prestige before people, someone who fabricates the truth, outright lies when he feels the need to do so and uses inflammatory language that strikes fear in the nieve and uninformed and riles the Republican base. In the Republican mind, anything that smacks of socialism is evil and definitely the word ”communist” still strikes the fear of Armaggadon in the hearts of the Right. Do your homework Horowitz and be scrupulously honest and fair next time.

    • Rose215

      It is hard to know how to respond to this post, but I do think it is important to at least communicate that those who are skeptical of Obama and worry about a hidden agenda are not just evil minded Republicans, selfishly looking to further their own interests. In my view, raising taxes on the rich is quite o.k., but that will not in anyway address the problem of our massive debt.

      I think there are legitimate and urgent concerns about the economy at this point. The expenditures and the levels of debt are mind-boggling. Obama has increased the debt considerably — and, of course, Obamacare will further increase the debt. I am not sure by what measure you view Obama as fiscally prudent. I also am not sure on what basis you can claim he is “the hardest working president in living memory,” — when he is on the golf course very frequently, visiting talk shows (maybe that counts for work these days). I recall the original urgency with which he pushed for the passing of this gargantuan ACA (just after his initial election). Then, it turned out that the main “urgency” was his need to go on vacation. What President goes to bed when a hostage taking is underway — or plays some game while the Bin Laden capture is happening. It’s bizarre. The bill was prepared well in advance of his assuming office, but I personally doubt that he has even read it. He does not come across as informed or engaged in the processes of the office he occupies.

      Clearly I do not trust Obama — some of it has to do with the murkiness in his background — but I am willing to look carefully and give him credit where credit is due. I am concerned however that with many of his comments he has revealed himself to be weak and ineffectual, rather than inspiring. His message is one that undercuts the American spirit, rather than inspiring striving and accomplishment. (e.g. You didn’t create that business.). He exploits the racial divide — and this I think is particularly hurtful to poor Blacks. He provokes an atmosphere of grievance and entitlement. And too many things are done in secret or away from public scrutiny (like the recent firing of a bunch of generals). I am not sure how all of this will turn out in the end, but the source of the problem is not the Republicans (or those who vote for them). I think that is just scapegoating. Most Democrats are also probably looking for real solutions. As I see it, the problem at this point is that we are being lead off a cliff (maybe change requires that) by someone whom I find difficult to have confidence in.

      • prstewart

        Thx for sane & remarkably polite reply. Tonight I’m just too frustrated (with all the conflicting info and character attacks) to be my usual civil self. I pretty much feel the same but with a much larger cynic lurking inside! =) I personally feel the ‘murky’ past is much more relevant. We are all shaped by our earlier environment and w/out a true pivot rarely change direction. Night and again… thanks!

    • vutsrq

      For an answer to your initial question, do your homework. You can easily find numerous documented examples in 10 minutes. But first, you should probably check out the topic of your question. Get a clue by familiarizing yourself with communist ideology, then do your homework on Obama the Communist. Don’t be scared. The truth will save you, and as an added plus, you’ll then be smarter than your friends.

    • prstewart

      “Where, in all of Barack Obama’s history or actions, has he ever been connected to the Communist party or demonstrated any Communist leanings. ”

      SERIOUSLY? sry caps but ffs learn to read and think for yourself. It was ingrained in him since birth by family, friends and mentors… and that just through his teen years. It got much more ‘real’ after that.

      • AussieBrit

        So, using this logic, Horowitz himself cannot be right wing, he must be left wing or even a Communist, as his family are all left wing, his early activities were on the left,a nd for much of his adult life he was anything but a conservative.
        So, there can’t be any chance he’s changed his mind, decided that he was wrong.
        I think your arguement is very faulty

  • Mr Mike

    The only thing more ridiculously stupid than this article is the level of stupidity expressed in the comments. Conservatives are the enemies of America, you are destroying the American dream for the poor and middle class.

    • vutsrq

      It figures that you used a TV still in an attempt to buttress your insipid opinion. Sitcoms shape the views of the majority of liberal/regressive, progressive morons. Each day the useful idiots sit in front of the telescreen, absorbing the progressive/communist propaganda. Soon you will all be ready for your morning physical jerks.

    • dusel1

      Got question your own intelligence by invoking fake intelligence from Hellywood.

      • Mr Mike

        I have to question your intelligence if you do not understand the concept of a meme.

  • msbets

    It doesn’t take rocket science nor a brain surgeon………I don’t claim to be a scholar, nor am I the sharpest tool, but I could see this comin down the pike in ’08, I begged, pleaded, shouted, screamed, for people to see thru this narcissistic,Ill tempered, evil, vile little man cretin…………..nope I was just a raving lunatic, and called a racist. I hope like hell, we have woke a sleeping giant, if not our country is gone………NOW ANOTHER FORECAST……..hillary IS A MARXIST……..SHE SAID HERSELF IN HER FAILED CAMPAIGN, SHE WAS A PROGRESSIVE….AKA…….MARXIST, COMMIE, WHAT EVER, DON’T VOTE FOR HER IF SHE RUNS, IT WILL LEAD TO NOTHING MORE THAN AN EXTENSION OF THE MONGREL RABID DOG, WE HAVE NOW.

  • melloe

    I found this fantasy fiction piece to be entertaining and in places humorous for the outlandish stupidity. But reading down, it is the sort of thing many here want to read to salve their conscience for what they are doing to the country I suppose. If we could ever get rid of or convert the far left and the far right and find a way to work together, there might be some hope for the country. Reading the comments here and a few far left sites , I wonder. May the Good Lord guide us.

    • vutsrq

      Obama is a communist, as are most liberals/progressives. We do not compromise with communists. We must resist the entire ideology and we must, and will, defeat them.

  • Tucker

    No, Mr. Horowitz. Obama is not destroying our nation. He is merely following in the footsteps of every one of his predecessors, Republicrat and Democrat alike – since 1913, when ethnic parasites who share your DNA manage to establish their privately owned Federal Reserve Bank and took control of the printing presses and start printing worthless slips of paper for the cost of the paper and ink and then ‘lending’ those slips of paper to the US Government and charging INTEREST on those loans.

    So, how about assigning the blame where it rightfully belongs, i.e., on the Vampires who’ve repeated this bloodsucking and plundering criminal enterprise of theirs in every historic White European nation where they’ve managed to seize control of the banking system?

    Blaming Obama for it (and I hate his guts) is about like blaming spoons for Rosey O’Donnell or Chris Christie for being disgustingly fat.

  • feedmeseymour

    Jesus was black and so is your president, get over it already.

    • John Fryman

      Wrong on both accounts….One’s mixed, and the other would have likely been a light tan coming from that part of the world. BTW, We would have been MUCH better off if O really WAS a black man from AMERICA!
      But great job seeing everything only about race though, sheeeesh! :(

    • dusel1

      Go back to math class.
      Obama – or whatever name he has today, is 50% cracker, 34% raghead, and 16% Negro. So get over – whatever IT is.

  • Robert

    So after the Washington fat cats (mostly Democrats, and Establishment Republicans) conspired to enrich themselves by selling our kids $6 trillion further into debt slavery (national debt combined with direct taxes on the fruits of labor), they still aren’t satisfied. Those same Washington fat cats want to turn the health care system into a weapon against the people so that in a future government shut-down, partial or complete, a malicious character like Obama can choose to shut down all the hospitals and other places to get medical care, GENUINELY taking away everybody’s health CARE, and GENUINELY taking the entire country hostage until their “ransom demands” are capitulated to in full. This is exactly why government control over the health care system must absolutely never be so much as tolerated! Hold the line, guys. Block government control over the health care system – our very survival depends on it. This also illustrates vividly why government control over other areas that affect our lives need to be abolished.
    And don’t even believe the b.s. about reaching the debt limit causing a default. Reaching the borrowing limit is not a default. Only failing to pay the interest and principal when due constitutes a default, and the government brings in enough money in just one month to pay all the interest on the debt for an entire year. All that reaching the debt limit really means is that the government FINALLY has to start operating on a balanced budget, like they should have been doing all along. And it also means the government can’t sell our children and grandchildren any deeper into debt slavery than they already have.

  • mallen

    Very scary, but the writing has been on the wall since the day Obama got in office, and told us all that he was going to fundamentally change America, (our first clue) and he immediately spoke as president, not to America, but to the Muslims! That was the second huge clue.

  • bignasty96

    Jesus Christ, do you idiots actually believe this nonsense??!?!

    • John Fryman

      Why not, it’s mostly all accurate except for the Libya part where he says O didn’t consult anyone, including the UN.While true that he didn’t care enough to get support from the people or congress, the UN is about the only one he DID consult, and NATO is what went into Libya. I remember the running joke after the french were the first planes to go in & drop bombs, people were surprised they hadn’t surrendered yet, hahaha.

    • dusel1

      Yes I do; and don’t call me shirley.

  • cheute79

    Obama is deceptive, but he is not so much a liar. We have what “we” voted for. He repeatedly and boldly stated that, if elected, he would “fundamentally change America”. So very many of his supporters, especially the early ones, told everyone that he would be “the first post-partisan president, the first “post-racial president”, and that he was “a unifier, not a divider”. In Obama’s book he said that people gave him a face, and posted on that face the things they wanted to see. he never disabused them of such things, but he never said he was those things. His handlers did. In fact, I believe that he is a sort of innocent and sort of honest socialist, obviously strongly fascist, raised as such, groomed as such, and doesn’t even know it. Of course he uses the words Horowitz says that socialists and communists use: progressive, liberal, and somehow caring. I suspect that his puppet masters, those who he has placed in strategic positions, recognized his “palate face” and honest socialist views, and new they had their “in”. And we (the collective we, not those who really know and care and see their country and lifestyle being destroyed) got who we voted for. I also suspect that the Republican powers-that-be wanted Obama in place. Why else nominate John McCain to face off against an untested unknown? Almost anyone else would have won the presidency in 2008.

  • 123z

    I think this report clarifies ths birth certificate issue. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      SNOPES!!! REALLY!! Ask David Horowitz what he thinks about your dopey little SNOPES family? Would you really bring SNOPES to court with you (LMAO).

      • 123z

        I think Horowitz would agree with me that the whole birth certificate/false social security numbers/selective service registration issue is a bunch of garbage. You turkeys were complaining that he does not address these issues and seems to try to sweep them under the rug. Why do you suppose he takes such an attitude? Because he thinks they are unworthy issues. Snopes, however, addresses each of your complaints in detail. Maybe you don’t want to see your issues refuted point by point. Whether someone is dopey and little has nothing to do with whether they are right or wrong.

        • roberted

          If you can be born anywhere and still be a natural born citizen, then
          why was this amendment to the Constitution proposed in 2000 as Barney
          Frank tried to grease the path to the presidency for his buddy, Barack
          Hussein Obama?

          http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.htm

          http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pur1.32754070182286;view=1up;seq=1

          There
          were also 8 bills introduced in Congress from 2003 till 2008 trying to
          remove the requirement for being born on American soil from the
          Constitution’s presidential eligibility requirement. They all failed:

          http://www.morningliberty.com/2011/07/04/top-8-attempts-to-approve-barry-soetoro-congress-knew/

          Was he born in Kenya? All these sources think so:

          http://theobamafile.com/_eligibility/WhatToBelieve.htm

          • 123z

            I have no idea why Barney Frank introduced that bill or why anyone else did likewise. However, I do know that anyone who is born abroad with one American citizen parent acquires American citizenship. If you question this, do some research for yourself to find out if it is right or wrong. My father’s sister married and Italian and had two children born in Italy who were both American citizens at birth. There are a lot of other people with similar backgrounds. So if you have some problem with this, then do whatever you want about it. Just stop the screaming and yelling that a person born abroad with one American citizen parent cannot be a citizen. It is your problem, not mine, if you cannot look up the facts for yourself. Maybe you cannot read. This is not my problem.

          • 123z

            Further to my previous response here is an article from legalzoom on children born abroad:

            http://www.legalzoom.com/marriage-divorce-family-law/family-law-basics/is-your-child-us

            Among other things it explains that “Although the “citizenship by birth” rules have been complex, the
            February 2001 Child Citizenship Act (CCA) simplified the process.” I think the introduction of the CCA may be what caused the confusion which some people interpreted as being an attempt to remove the requirement for being born on American soil. Probably just at that time they wanted to simplify this complex issue because both John McCain and Barak Obama were born abroad of American Parents.The traditional rules applying to citizenship were always 1.the rule of place,and 2. rule of parents. Thus, you could either acquire citizenship by reason of the place where you were born, or by reason of your parents. I believe our laws have always allowed for the children born abroad of American citizens to acquire citizenship through their parents. However, whether it had to be one or both parents has changed over time. At one point it was only through an Amerian citizen father. It was the constant changes in the exact nature of these regulations that caused them to be so complex, and the necessity of determining exactly what regulations were in effect at the time of birth.

          • roberted

            You are right, you have no idea, citizenship and natural born citizenship are not the same thing.

            Did you read the eight bills which also attempted to remove the requirement for “natural born citizenship”, (presidential eligibility), that says one must be born on America soil? Or the many worldwide references to “Kenyan born” Senator Obama?

            The reason for the attempts to change the eligibility requirement which I linked is because the many members of Congress who, along with Barney Frank introduced and/or co-sponsored them knew that “citizen” and natural born citizen are not the same thing…..they wanted to change that and they failed, then they just ignored the requirement, like you are doing.

          • 123z

            Ted Cruz wasn’t born in this country, either. I’m sorry you don’t like the law of this land. Get with it and stop all the ranting and raving. I am sure there are enough of you lunatics around to fund a court case so why don’t you go to court to prove that the law of this land is that citizenship is acquired by birth on American soil only. Good luck, jackass.

          • 123z

            Furthermore, Mitt Romney was born in Mexico and Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a State. There have already been lawsuits about Obama’s citizenship and his right to be President and these lawsuits have failed. You are barking up the wrong tree, .

          • roberted

            How is presenting factual information in the form of a federal government proposed amendment to the Constitution, actual bills introduced by Congress and actual news articles from all over the world, “ranting and raving”?

            Did you read all of it…or any of it?

            Your name calling defines you.

          • 123z

            As a matter of fact I did indeed read Barney Frank’s bill which you apparently did not. It has absolutely nothng to do with persons born abroad of American parents being considered natural born citizens. It is a a bill to allow NATURALIZED citizens to become president. There has never been any allegations that Obama is a naturalized citizen. I beg of you. please, please read the bill before you start spouting off. There is a big, big difference between a person who has acquired citizemship through an American citizen parent and a person who is a Naturalized citizen. If you cannot understand this issue, please have someone explain it to you before you make a fool out of yourself again. I have no idea why Barney Frank introduced this bill, but having read it, I can say that wjhatever the reason was, it had nothing to do with Barak Obama. To date, nio one has yet alleged that Barak is a Naturalized citizen.

          • 123z

            Yes indeed they knew that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are not the same thing. Similarly, although “Natural Born Cirizen” and “Naturalized Citizen” are both citizens, they also are not the same thing. Indeed, the Constitution also knew it when it stated: 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. What this means is that Naturalized Citizens are prohibited from becoming President We have a definition of natural born citizen as a person either born in this country or born of American citizens abroad. However, Naturalized citizens are those who come here from overseas and become citizens in a court proceeding. Barney Frank and some other congressman felt it was unfair that a naturalized citizen who had lived hear for many years could not become President. He and others made unsuccessful efforts to change the law for this reason. Now, however, the paranoid maniacs who are out to get Obama’s skin claim that the efforts were made to change the law with respect to Naturalized citizens to enable him to become president. If Obama were in fact a Naturalized citizen he would not be eligible to be President, and if he had indeed been elected despite being a Naturalized citizen, it would be a violation of the constitution. However, he is not a Naturalized citizen and no one has ever alleged that he is a Naturalized citizen You people do not discriminate because of race so likewise I am going to try not to discriminate because of low information. When you people speak about low information voters, however, please look in the mirror..

      • 123z

        The Snopes family was a fictional family in one of William Faulkner’s books. Snopes.com, however, is a prize winning fact-checking internet site. Look up snopes.com while you are laughing.

  • prstewart

    If we get a chance to vote in ’16.

  • Higherstandard13

    We did not vote for him… it is liberals and all those that voted for him are the ones that should be held accountable for the debt and his actions. Obama also murder of Christians and abuse of them in the US military for he is no Christian as he tries to force Christians to change their beliefs.
    Obama is evil and no better than any other mass murdering tyrant in history.

  • Pete

    Fantastic. Insightful and an inspiration. The Left are scurrying like an intruder once the light switch has been turned on.

  • 123z

    An even bigger hint is that if you do your homework, you would find that after May 24, 1934 only one parent has to be an American citizen and the MIOTHER (yes, a female) can also transmit American citizenship. I wish you ignorant jerks knew what you were talking abut before you started screaming and yelling.

  • 123z

    I read the blog you reference. What a pompous jackass! I see that he has all you ignorant fools bamboozled. Why don’t you look things up for yourself and think for yourself instead of swallowing all that endless swill which this fool grinds out, page after page.

  • roberted

    If you can be born anywhere and still be a natural born citizen, then why was this amendment to the Constitution proposed in 2000 as Barney Frank tried to grease the path to the presidency for his buddy, Barack Hussein Obama?

    http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.htm

    http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pur1.32754070182286;view=1up;seq=1

    There were also 8 bills introduced in Congress from 2003 till 2008 trying to remove the requirement for being born on American soil from the Constitution’s presidential eligibility requirement. They all failed:

    http://www.morningliberty.com/2011/07/04/top-8-attempts-to-approve-barry-soetoro-congress-knew/

    Was he born in Kenya? All these sources think so:

    http://theobamafile.com/_eligibility/WhatToBelieve.htm

  • ocarol500

    The ONLY way we Conservatives can educate the Latino community is if we translate articles like this one into Spanish.

    “La batalla más importante en el mundo de hoy no se está librando en el Medio Oriente, pero aquí en casa en los Estados Unidos. Si perdemos esta batalla, todo está perdido. Pero si vamos a tomar la medida de los enemigos de la libertad y preparar nosotros mismos para luchar contra ellos, tenemos un mejor inclusive la posibilidad de ganar “.

  • Tree Rat

    Obama attended school on “foreign student aid” provided by we, the taxpayers. AMERICAN CITIZENS do not used “FOREIGN” aid! He is NOT American, in so many different matters, that I really can’t see how people remain so blind and unbelieving.

  • DONNA LANDS

    This article speaks the truth for I see the same thing. Do not listen to those that attack truth tellers for they walk the evil path of power and treasure seeking from their neighbors. They covet their neighbors property and future.
    There is really nothing you can do that our forefathers were able to do without a government permit,license or regulation for they control everything.
    May God have mercy on this country because of the Demons that are on the left liberal Democrat party. You aught to listen to Paul Harvey, “If I was the Devil” from 1965. His predictions seem to be this countries path to perdition lead by none other then the Democrat party and that is a fact. Reach into your heart and then open your eyes to the awakening of truth and then maybe you will understand.

  • James Simpson

    Leftists don’t argue, they strategize. They are not debating with you, they are considering how best to destroy you. They are not interested in facts except as those facts advance their sole, single cause: absolute power. And as David says, if you think they are vicious now, you cannot imagine how bad it will be if they win. Bill Ayers wasn’t kidding back then when they were trying to figure out how they would murder 25 million recalcitrant Americans. The figure will be larger.

  • Jason Maloney

    Great article here!,,I just question his optimism in his comment “The good news is that the bad five years we have just been through have aroused a sleeping giant among Americans who didn’t see it coming and couldn’t imagine that it would. For the first time since the Cold War, people with a public voice are calling socialists by their right name; conservatives are finally organizing at the grassroots to defend their freedom; and at last we have leaders who are willing to stand up to the thuggery of the left and who have the spine not to back down.”
    I hope that is true,,but I dont see it and cant believe he won 2nd time..Altho I think the voter ID laws and election fraud played a big part.I hope he is right tho,but doubt it.

  • Ginger Rogers7

    The key to understanding “Progressives” is the “2nd feature”:

    “The second feature of the progressive left that is key to understanding
    it is its instinctive, practiced, and indispensable dishonesty.”

    The 2nd feature is the tipoff.
    Jesus: “You belong to your father, the devil. . .
    . . . for there is no truth in him.
    WHEN he lies, he speaks his native language,
    for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:44

    Q: Doesn’t it stand to reason that Satan’s followers would be liars?
    Progressives are really satanworshippers and witches.
    Their aim is to enslave the whole human race under the yoke of socialism.

    LaRaza is a Socialist front grp.
    The mother of the Boston bombers was on welfare.

    The game is to use the lie of socialism to create human misery.