Of course you realize this means war ~ By Erik Rush

Assuming we have enough willing representation among those who took office yesterday, our job has just begun. Keeping this administration at bay while we work toward ousting as many more Washington elites as possible in 2012 will not be easy. But keep them at bay we must, and we must educate our neighbors, so they understand the imperative.

Our job has just begun, and as Erik Rush mentions, we need to keep up our vigilance. There are many signs that Obama and elitist cronies in Washington D.C. are not about to give up on their radical left agenda, even though Obama got "shellacked" on November 2, 2010.

Like his key staff who have left, or are leaving. Just yesterday, the White House announced that press secretary Robert Gibbs would step down next month. It goes without saying that we can't expect the sort of analysis from the press that we used to; once upon a time, such defections would signal the death knell for an administration. The list of those staff members who started out with Obama and will remain with the president when he finishes his term is growing very short, but we're not to surmise it's like rats fleeing a sinking ship or anything.

So, is there any significance to the number of people leaving the Obama administration? Watch the following video, and then you decide.

Please note:  To see the following video, you must be logged in to Facebook.

Post by Johnny2k's America.

It seems that Obama wants to change his appearance to look like a moderate, for the benefit of the Press. But look out, that may not be what is really happening! It may be to just get the Democrat machine rolling for 2012. Oh, wait... Make that the Chicago Machine.

Of course you realize this means war

ERIK RUSH

By Erik Rush

January 06, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Shortly after the midterm election in November, the host of a news-analysis show asked me if I thought that President Obama would move to the center – or at least appear to do so – given the outcome of the election, or if I thought he didn't have it in him.

I responded emphatically that I believed the latter was the case, likening the president to some sort of B-movie genetically engineered creature who was bred expressly for the purpose of rendering the coup de grâce to a wounded America.

No, he didn't have it in him, and whatever his devices – even if his modus operandi were modified – the goals would remain the same.

And that's how things are turning out. The only conciliations this president appears to have made are in his words, and even many of those contain equivocation and sinister allusion to his intention to adhere to his unpopular – and more importantly, radical – agenda.

With respect to GOP overtures to repeal Obamacare, for example, the president said that he expects Republicans to "play to their base for a certain period of time." This infers a mere divergence in policy and political maneuvering on the part of the Democrats and the GOP.

But those days are over.

In short, it is war – a war between factions of socialist elites and constitutionalist, liberty-loving Americans. If this sounds a bit trite to you, that's fine, but if it sounds over-the-top, you're still hitting the snooze button.

It has never been more clear that all but a handful of politicians in Washington are America's enemies, and that these factions of ruling elites have no care for the fact that they are operating outside of the law. Obama's attitude belies the life-and-death struggle currently in progress. Rest assured that many career politicians do suppose that after this "certain period of time," they can all get back to politics as usual: Communists, socialists and plain old self-aggrandizing, avaricious politicians will resume gulping greedy draughts at the public teat, while hastily constructing arks of political and pecuniary means for their future escape.

It has also never been clearer that this administration, their kindred cronies and lawmakers intend to utterly disregard those who would preserve a semblance of this republic; the dialogue they employ for public consumption is, at this point, only for those who are already buying their lies. Our protestations are as irrelevant to them as a screaming toddler's insistence that he be allowed to drink from a bottle of bleach.

The record is replete with indicators of where President Obama intends to go, indicators that he has given even since November. From recess appointment, to net neutrality, to continued outrageous recreational expenditures, it is apparent (at least to many of us) that Obama and congressional Democrats intend to operate with all the arrogance of the preceding two years.

And then there are the subtler indicators that Obama will continue his effort to bring about a wholesale collapse of our economy and a rending of our social fabric – all the while blaming it on his predecessors.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!

Please note:  To see the johnny2k’s America videos on this blog, you must be logged in to Facebook.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

The boy who cried 'racist' ~ By Burt Prelutsky

Burt explains the one thing that the leftists do that is actually working (99.9% of their ideas NEVER work, but I digress), and it is as he writes, "One of the sneakiest, most despicable things left-wingers do is play racial politics, and when you call them on it, they get to brand you as racists." It seems so true, as we have learned. In fact, have you ever figured out why the Progressives like to call Tea Partiers, or for that matter, anyone that doesn't like President Obama, racist? It's kind of weird, isn't it? How many black people that didn't like George W. Bush were ever called racist? Just sayin'...

P.S. By the way, Burt, I love your new profile picture!

The unfortunate thing is that just as the Communists perverted the meaning of "comrade" and homosexuals perverted the meaning of "gay," the self-righteous leftists have perverted "racist." It no longer means a person who is racially intolerant, who would harm or subjugate another human being because of his skin color, but, instead, denotes someone who really is color-blind and who judges people solely on the basis of their character.

By Burt Prelutsky

Posted: May 21, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

By this time, I'm sure we've all seen those posters of George W. Bush captioned "Miss Me Yet?" I, personally, think things have gotten so bad in Obama's America that I wouldn't be surprised if we begin seeing those same posters springing up with Jimmy Carter's picture.

When I read that Sen. Dianne Feinstein had said, "I've gotten over 90,000 e-mails and faxes on the health-care bill and over 85,000 of them are against it. After all the debate we've had, I can't believe so many people still don't get it," I recall wondering if Obama's arrogance was a contagious disease for which there's no known antidote.

That reminds me that William F. Buckley, Jr., once observed that, "Liberals claim they want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." (emphasis my own)

He was also the conservative sage who once told a left-winger, "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting you really believe what you just said." Does a single day go by when most of us haven't wished to say those very words to Robert Gibbs? (emphasis my own)

One of the sneakiest, most despicable things left-wingers do is play racial politics, and when you call them on it, they get to brand you as racists. (emphasis my own)

For instance, affirmative action was created to give racial preferences to blacks to make amends for slavery and Jim Crow laws. But after nearly 50 years, try to suggest it's time to put racial quotas aside, and you will find yourself tarred as a racist.

For the past 30 years, Islamics around the world have targeted Americans, but suggest that they constitute a toxic menace and you're labeled a racist.

For the past quarter century, millions of Mexicans, who were not escaping political oppression, have felt entitled to stream across our border, to take advantage of our schools and hospitals, to fill our streets with drugs and flood our jails with criminals, and if we even complain about it, we're called racists.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Where this is going: Single-payer nightmare ~ By Larry Elder

Larry Elder tries to explain why Democrats want the Health Care plan to be passed. Following the excerpts from Larry's column, is a video that features Rep. Mike Pence, Carl Cameron and several clips of Robert Gibbs. So, are the Democrats just plain delusional? Or is there another reason for ramming the bill through?

Democrats believe that if people are too dumb right now to see the benefits of Obamacare, someday they will. If not, opponents will be powerless to do anything. Some people refuse to see what's best. That's why God created Democrats.

By Larry Elder

Posted: March 18, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Americans resoundingly reject Obamacare. What, then, accounts for the Democrats' determination?

Democrats believe health care is a right. Start with that premise and everything else makes complete sense. Rights – whether the right to vote or to freely assemble or to avoid self-incrimination – exist independent of popular feeling, poll numbers or even, in the case of health care, the Constitution.

Democrats don't care how much Obamacare costs. When President Barack Obama addressed Republicans, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., carefully outlined the costs of this "reform." He explained why costs figure to go up, not down. To someone truly interested in a cost-benefit analysis, these points warrant a rebuttal. But as MSNBC host Ed Schultz said, when it comes to health-care reform and money, "I don't care how much it costs." An owner of an NFL team fired his coach despite the team's winning record. He explained, "I gave him an unlimited expense account – and he exceeded it." To Democrats, "economic justice" knows no price tag.

Democrats consider election losses a small price to pay for health-care "reform." Predictions range from moderate fall election losses to a bloodbath resulting in a Republican takeover of the House and possibly even the Senate. To this Democrats say, "So what?" Once health-care reform becomes law, that's that. Only a Republican charge with a filibuster-proof Republican supermajority in the Senate could undo it. Besides, President Bill Clinton got re-elected when the Republicans took over the House. And although he gives Republicans no credit, Clinton thereafter governed closer to the center, turned House Speaker Newt Gingrich into a convenient whipping boy, cruised to re-election and left office with a budget surplus. Obama, Democrats figure, could do a lot worse.

Democrats blame Americans' confusion about Obamacare's virtues on Republican "lies." Democrats claim that Obamacare would decrease costs while retaining the same or better health-care quality. Republicans say the opposite. Massachusetts' Romneycare, which is similar to Obamacare, has failed to reduce costs. The three big entitlement programs – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – are all in deep financial trouble. At inception, the programs' cost estimates were wildly underestimated. None of this provides cautionary lessons. Republicans lie.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

RELATED VIDEO:
March 17, 2010 - Ramming it through: Why the Democrats are so desperate to get HCR passed

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Obama's prayer: 'Don't question my citizenship'

From WorldNetDaily

Raises issue of eligibility in speech at annual breakfast gathering Posted: February 04, 2010 ~ 11:34 am Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily President Obama today at the National Prayer Breakfast raised the issue of his own eligibility for office – saying that people shouldn't be questioning his "citizenship." Talking about the issue of "civility," he said, "Now, I am the first to confess I am not always right. Michelle will testify to that. But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship." The video: (See below) Obama continues, "Challenging each other's ideas can renew our democracy. But when we challenge each other's motives, it becomes harder to see what we hold in common. We forget that we share at some deep level the same dreams – even when we don't share the same plans on how to fulfill them." The questions, however, over Obama's "citizenship," actually go to the core of the American republic. Multiple lawsuits have challenged that he is not qualified for the Oval Office under the Constitution's requirement that U.S. presidents be a "natural born citizen." The plaintiffs – who run into the hundreds so far and who still have a number of cases pending at the appellate level – have alleged that failing to meet that constitutional requirement means he actually is a usurper, with no actual authority to be president. On a forum page at The Hill newspaper, one commenter wrote that the president has only himself to blame for the questions. "Personally I am no birther … but I am curious as to why Obama continues to beat on this issue .. is it a political ploy by his handlers to continue to use this as a divisive issue? To try and embarrass a certain segment of the population? And if not, why doesn't he just provide the certificate and end all the speculation for the conspirators once and for all? Obama has certainly been a little less than forthcoming on his grades, his Harvard review publications and many other accomplishments…" The reference apparently was the first time the issue has been addressed by Obama, even though he did not provide any answers. His press secretary, Robert Gibbs, repeatedly has ridiculed questions related to the subject, and the White House itself has declined to respond to any of a multitude of questions submitted by WND over months on the issue. READ FULL STORY >

February 4, 2010 - civility questions Video provided by jojonews32

His 'highness' or his 'highhandedness'? ~ By David Limbaugh

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By David Limbaugh Posted: January 08, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 The more we read about Obama's health-care scheme and his handling of it the more obvious his arrogance and contempt for the people become. This is stunning behavior, really, for any administration (and his party), but especially one that holds itself out as a servant of the people and a model of transparency. Just consider headlines from the past few days: "Obama reneges on health-care transparency: As a candidate, President Obama promised to put health-care reform negotiations on C-Span," "White House REFUSES to discuss broken C-Span promise," "Dems will bypass conference committee to get health care passed," "Sources: Obama, Dems to sidestep GOP on health care," "Hatch: Health-care bill 'rich' for challenges on constitutionality," "AP sources: Obama OKs taxing high-end health plans," "Obama pushes for quick health-care deal," "Conference committee bypassed," "House will vote on pro-abortion Senate bill" and – get this one – "Pelosi: 'There has never been a more open process.'" Seriously, who do these people think they are? No wonder they always assumed the worst of former President George W. Bush and then accused him of sinister motives he never had and actions he never committed. As I've noted before, they were projecting. They knew how they would behave if in power. Now, once again, they're proving it. Think about it. Obama promised at least eight times – memorialized in video recordings – that he would air health-care debates and negotiations on C-SPAN for all to see. If you watch the videos, you'll notice that he was even wearing that smug, self-righteous look as he made his deceitful pledge, as if to say: "When I take over, we are finally going to return power to the people. We'll be open and transparent. We won't behave as Washington politicians are used to behaving. We're better than that. We're morally superior." But now, his highness is not only not going to air the negotiations on television; he and his party are making sure to negotiate behind closed doors, period. Even the Republicans – you know, that other political party – will not be invited or permitted to participate in the discussions. It gets worse. When pressed to respond to the open-and-shut claim that he deceived the people in promising a transparent process, he simply says – through his disgraceful surrogates – that he isn't going to be bothered to discuss it. He doesn't have to explain himself. He's the messiah. Who are we to doubt – much less question – him? READ FULL STORY >

Why Obama can't go to Berlin ~ By Ellis Washington

From WorldNetDaily

By Ellis Washington Posted: November 07, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! ~ Ronald Reagan

Three American statesmen made trips to deliver historical speeches in Berlin: 1) JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech in 1963, 2) Ronald Reagan's "Tear down this wall!" speech in 1987, and 3) Barack Obama's 2009 non-speech speech which in a revelatory article by National Review's Rich Lowry could be titled, "Ich bin beschäftigt" – i.e., I'm busy. Although Barack Obama, after only one year in office, has visited more countries than any other U.S. president in history, he does not have time to accept German Chancellor Angela Merkel's invitation to speak in Berlin next week in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which Stalin built in 1961 to keep East German citizens separate from the West and mired in the hopeless abyss of communism. What was Obama doing the night the election returns were coming in? According to his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, Obama was enjoying a sycophantic HBO documentary about himself and his presidential campaign rather than watching the election returns. If the Roman despot Nero fiddled while Rome burned, then surely it can be said that Obama watched TV while the Democrat Party crashed and burned in the special elections Nov. 3. Most political experts think that the devastating losses in Virginia and New Jersey are omens of even more galling losses to come for the Democratic Party in the 2010 and 2012 elections. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

President Obama, time to make a decision ~ By Chuck Norris

From WorldNetDaily

By Chuck Norris Posted: November 02, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Let me see if I have the facts straight. Last May, President Obama removed Gen. David D. McKiernan as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan and replaced him with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who in September issued a dire report warning that, without as many as 40,000 more troops for the fight in Afghanistan, the mission "will likely result in failure." President Obama rebuffed that he would make no quick decision but take as long as needed to do a broad study first on the issue. Is this about genuine concern, or could this delay simply be a politically driven tactic for upcoming state elections? Meanwhile, more U.S. troops died at the hands of our enemies. Roughly a month after McChrystal's requests, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel continued to blame the Bush administration for the chaos in the war. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs blamed former Vice President Cheney. Vice President Biden blamed the generals for a bad military plan. And presidential adviser David Axelrod blamed Fox News! Meanwhile, more U.S. troops died at the hands of our enemies. Two weeks ago, when asked about Obama's indecisiveness about McChrystal's requests, White House Press Secretary Gibbs rebuffed, "The president will make a decision in the next few weeks, in the coming weeks. I don't know when that decision will be – it could be before the (Afghanistan political) run off (on Nov. 7), it might be after the run off." Meanwhile, more U.S. troops died at the hands of our enemies. Last Friday, the president met with the joint chiefs of staff and discussed the Afghan-Pakistani situation some more and then said he wants another meeting. It has been almost two months since Gen. McChrystal first warned the president of the dire situation in Afghanistan, and yet our commander in chief continues to delay a response. Meanwhile, record numbers of U.S. troop casualties mount in Afghanistan. When our president and his administration go to war against the former administration and Fox News channel, but do not give our generals on the ground the troops that they need to win the war, something is definitely amiss. Instead of a trip to Dover Air Force Base to greet the dead coming home, Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan to protect them from dying. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

The arrogance is breathtaking ~ By Patrice Lewis

From WorldNetDaily

By Patrice Lewis Posted: September 19, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I think I've finally figured it out. What is it about this administration and the mainstream media that grates on people's nerves? Why are folks so angry that they're holding heated town hall meetings, rallies and tea parties from coast to coast? Why do we object so strongly to current policies that we're willing to travel great distances at our own expense to protest, only to be called loathsome names? Is it that the government is trying to shove health-care reform down our throats despite the fact that 83 percent of Americans are satisfied with what they have? Is it the cap-and-trade farce that will skyrocket prices on every conceivable good and service for no discernible benefit? Is it Obama's goal to spread our hard-earned wealth to those who haven't earned it? It's all of those things, of course, and more. But the objections of many Americans can be summed up in one single word: ARROGANCE. Have you noticed the arrogance of this administration and its media? If you combine a liberal president with a liberal Senate and Congress, reported by a liberal press … the result is a degree of egotism and superiority toward the citizens of this country seldom equaled in any presidential term. Consider Rep. Joe Wilson's shout of "You lie!" during Obama's address to a joint session of Congress. Putting aside the fact that the president was lying (on the issue of whether illegal immigrants would have access to government-run health care), it seems the administration is determined to make an example of Wilson by demanding multiple apologies in various locations and under assorted conditions (standing on his head, hopping on one foot, walking while chewing gum, that kind of thing). [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

White House Battle Against Free Speech Grows

From The Heritage Foundation: The Foundry

Posted August 13th, 2009 at 4.51pm in Ongoing Priorities. Author: Rory Cooper Yesterday, White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said on Fox News: “This White House supports free speech.” Now, it is hardly comforting to know we have a White House that feels it has to defend that position. It’s akin to saying, ‘this White House supports oxygen,’ but the behavior of senior White House officials over the past few weeks has brought us to this point. A concerted and coordinated effort against cable news channels and their personalities; radio hosts and regular citizens from every walk of life has made Americans across the country fearful of a vengeful Obama administration. By now, it is common knowledge that the White House asked neighbors to report other neighbors who may disagree. They defended their White House “list” by saying that names wouldn’t be kept. Well, either they’re keeping a list or they’re destroying public records, but either way something wrong is occurring. America agreed. Then the White House introduced the term “Astro Turf” into our August lexicon by accusing soccer moms, senior citizens, students and regular concerned Americans of getting on buses and disrupting the left’s attempt to overhaul one sixth of our economy without opposition. Speaker Pelosi jumped in on this attack referencing swastikas, and Congressman Brian Baird (D-WA) calling protesters “brown shirts.” Townhalls are apparently supposed to be lovefests as demonstrated by the President’s pep rally yesterday in Portsmouth, NH. Well these attacks didn’t work either. Instead, townhalls grew more crowded and those folks were able to capture on video Members of Congress taking cell phone calls during questions, refusing to speak to their constituents and union intimidation. So now what? Well if you can’t silence the people, silence the news. The White House yesterday pivoted to blaming Fox News and cable networks for the problem of dissent. A straw man that they have successfully attacked in the past. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Van Jones To Continue Working For Obama?

From The Right Perspective

By NewsGuy – September 6, 2009 Despite having announced his resignation as so-called “Green Czar” in the Obama Administration, admitted Communist and self-described “rowdy Black Nationalist” Van Jones will reportedly continue to work for the White House. “He [Van Jones] continues to work for the administration,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Friday when asked about the infamous activist. Gibbs struck a different tone Sunday after the announcement of Jones’ resignation was released earlier that morning at 1am. “What Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual. The president thanks Van Jones for his service in the first eight months,” Gibbs said on political show This Week. [CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE STORY]

WND brings down the 'red czar' ~ By Joseph Farah

From WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: September 06, 2009 ~ 1:47 am Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily When the White House press corps finally grilled White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones last Friday, a reporter asked how the administration could reject "conspiracy theories" about his birth certificate while employing someone who previously charged the U.S. government with masterminding Sept. 11. I found that to be an interesting juxtaposition. Could the answer be as simple as the White House has no respect for truth? Will reporters and even some clamoring to position themselves as respectable "conservatives" and critics of Barack Obama figure out that deception and deceit are at the very core of this regime? Do you expect those so ferociously attacking WND as a "conspiracy site" to recognize it was this news agency that first broke the Van Jones story in April and relentlessly pursued it for five months to the bitter end? [CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE COLUMN]

No time for Constitution ~ By Joseph Farah

By Joseph Farah Posted: August 15, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Barack Obama's mouthpiece, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, says his boss doesn't have any time to waste on questions about his constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land. He's got too many important things to do – like taking away your right to choose the doctor of your choice and seek the kind of medical care you and your doctor believe is appropriate, fighting the phantom problem of "global warming," compiling databases on dissenters, funding ACORN with your taxpayer dollars, conducting intrusive Census interrogations about the most intimate details of your life, devising the next trillion-dollar stimulus program, etc. While he may not have the time or inclination to simply release the birth certificate that would either confirm or repudiate his claim to constitutional eligibility, he does, however, have the money to spend fighting more than a dozen lawsuits demanding he live up to the spirit of his oath of office. His legal tab is up to at least $1.4 million, according to the latest tally by WND. Obama's strategy is simple – stonewall.

Now watch the red-hot eligibility story on DVD: "The Question of Eligibility: Is Barack Obama's presidency constitutionally legitimate?" He and his minions in government and media ridicule those Americans who expect him to do the right thing – or, alternatively, expect Congress and the Supreme Court and the press to force him to do it. It's amazing how effective this strategy has been. When it didn't work to label "birthers" as kooky, they started labeling the people who place the Constitution over a president as "racists." Nobody wants to be called "kooky" or "racist." So very few in politics or the media have dared to demand Obama live up to his pledge to run the most open and transparent administration in American history. But the questions and doubts are not subsiding. In fact, the more Obama insists he will never release the one document that would reveal the truth about his parentage, his birthplace, the timing of his birth and other precise details of his origins recorded by independent eyewitnesses, the more the questions and doubts grow. The protesters at congressional town halls are not just angry about plans to socialize medicine, destroy the free-enterprise system, use taxpayer money to commit election fraud and to saddle out great-grandchildren with massive debt; they are also asking the most sensitive question of all: "Where's the birth certificate?" It's a question that goes right to heart of Obama's legitimacy as president. And that's why it hurts. Disturbing new questions keep arising as Obama's carefully crafted life story continues to show cracks – not just with regard to where he was born, but to whom and when. [READ COMPLETE COLUMN]

What Obama and my wife have in common ~ By Chuck Norris

I agree with most of what Chuck Norris wrote in the following column today, the main point being that those people - like me - just want to be satisfied that the Constitution of the United States is being followed, and that there is no question that Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States. Obama should just allow us to see his LONG-FORM birth certificate and end the controversy so that we can all move on (if possible).

By Chuck Norris Posted: August 03, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009

Dear Mr. President: First, happy birthday. I do hope Aug. 4 is an enjoyable day for you and your family. Coincidentally, I also will be celebrating this week the birth of someone dear to me, my beloved wife, Gena, whose birthday is on Aug. 9. Speaking of birthdays, I couldn't help but hear and read all over the news last week about the fresh attention to your constitutional eligibility and natural born citizen status. I can hardly believe that individuals are now offering bounty – one for $100,000 – for any personal witness or sufficient evidence to your American birth. For nearly two years, this debate continues to grow despite all your administration's attempts to diffuse it. And those who are raising concerns aren't just those on the right, but moderate law-abiding citizens like a retired CIA officer who commissioned an investigator to look into the issue. Still, your press secretary, Robert Gibbs, continues to glibly brush aside the issue by calling it "fictional nonsense." But, in so doing, he devalues the grievance passage of the First Amendment and insults those who are genuinely concerned and inquisitive by categorizing them all as political quacks. He needs to learn that you can't model tolerance for certain minorities while belittling and quarantining those who don't blindly follow your lead. Believe it or not, I'm not writing you to challenge whether you were born in America, though I see nothing wrong with the American public voicing that constitutionally based grievance with someone in your esteemed position. As one blogger wrote, after all, "We aren't talking about a 12-year-old qualifying to play Little League here." Or as Ronald Reagan once said, "Trust but verify." Personally, I must admit that I find it a bit of a groundless stretch not to believe in the birth announcements in two major Hawaiian newspapers in August of 1961, in which the Hawaiian Health Department would have been required to post information they received directly from hospitals: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4." Nevertheless, that proof still doesn't answer why you refuse to reveal your original birth certificate and end the growing tides of controversy. [emphasis mine] I'm writing you because this is no longer a matter merely about proving a presidential prerequisite in the Constitution. Refusing to post a copy of your original birth certificate is an unwise political and leadership decision that is enabling the birther controversy. The nation you are called to lead is experiencing a growing swell of conspirators who are convinced that you are covering up something. So why just prove them wrong and shut them up? [CONTINUE READING]

3 more years of eligibility doubts? ~ By Joseph Farah

By Joseph Farah Posted: June 03, 2009 © 2009 "I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we'll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy." That was the highly unusual concluding statement by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs in his attempt to brush off a question about why his boss, Barack Obama, continues to stonewall the public's right to know with certainty that the man residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is actually constitutionally eligible to be there. When WND's veteran White House correspondent Les Kinsolving last week asked Gibbs why Obama refuses to release his long-form birth certificate, the only document that would demonstrate that he was actually born in the U.S., Gibbs tried to mock and ridicule the question – to the apparent amusement of many reporters. He concluded his characteristically evasive, unresponsive retort with the sentence above. Now what does that sentence suggest to you?

That it may take at least another three years before the White House will do the right thing and release the long-form birth certificate; That the Obama administration acknowledges that this controversy is not going away – and, in fact, that it is "burgeoning."

Why is it burgeoning? In recent weeks and months, I have made it my personal mission to see that it does. [Continue reading]

Digg story

Rush mum on call for his death

"Wanda Sykes is a black, female, lesbian, liberal. Rush Limbaugh is a white, male, heterosexual, conservative. Therefore, his criticism of Barack Obama's policies are considered hate speech, while her calling Rush a murderer who she wished death upon is considered comedy," Robert Gibbs said today the subject was not appropriate for a comedy routine. read more | digg story ~ Submitted by lookingforHim

Obama – 'moderate, coalition-builder' ~ By Joseph Farah

Sometimes what passes for news is funnier than "Saturday Night Live" – more hilarious even than a Robert Gibbs press briefing. In a Bloomberg "news" article: "President Barack Obama, weighing advice from both the left and right on his first Supreme Court choice, is likely to seek a judicial version of himself: a moderate coalition-builder." read more | digg story

Addicted to that Rush - By ilana mercer

Desperate times call for desperate distractions. The Steele-Limbaugh spat fell into Obama's lap. The president is losing it, and he is now realizing that he is not the magic man he imagined he was. Democratic henchmen – Paul Begala, Stanley Greenberg, James Carville and Robert Gibbs – began picking a fight with Limbaugh. And it's good for the GOP.

read more | digg story

CNBC's Rick Santelli Responds to White House Attack

CNBC's Rick Santelli Responds to White House Attack

See Santelli's response below, or click here.

Video provided by heathr456

Obama hits back at 'tea party' rant

The White House apparently noticed yesterday when a CNBC analyst's impassioned critique of President Obama's mortgage-rescue plan became an Internet phenomenon. At the presidential press briefing today, press secretary Robert Gibbs eagerly responded to a reporter's question about Rick Santelli's rant. Gibbs says Santelli should drink decaf coffee.

Spokesman says CNBC analyst should switch to drinking decaf © 2009 WorldNetDaily The White House apparently noticed yesterday when a CNBC analyst's impassioned critique of President Obama's mortgage-rescue plan became an Internet phenomenon. At the presidential press briefing today, press secretary Robert Gibbs eagerly responded to a reporter's question about Rick Santelli's rant amid sympathetic, angry traders at the CME Group in Chicago. "I've watched Mr. Santelli on cable the past 24 hours or so," Gibbs said, according to an account by the newssite Politico. "I'm not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives or in what house he lives, but the American people are struggling every day to meet their mortgages, stay in their jobs, pay their bills, send their kids to school. "I think we left a few months ago the adage that if it was good for a derivatives trader that it was good for Main Street," the White House spokesman continued. "I think the verdict is in on that." Santelli later responded to Gibbs in an MSNBC interview, pointing out his complaint was based more on philosophical differences than on details of the plan. Gibbs contended Santelli "has argued, I think quite wrongly, that this plan won't help everyone." "This plan helps people who have been playing by the rules. ... I would encourage him to read the president's plan. ... I'd be more than happy to have him come here to read it. I'd be happy to buy him a cup of coffee – decaf," Gibbs said with a smile in an obvious reference to Santelli's passion.

read more | digg story