Birther Mania! Or How Obama Vetted Obama on His Own Birth Certificate

Like all important decisions of this administration, Obama dithered on whether or not to come out as a natural born U.S. citizen before releasing his birth certificate. I can't say I'm surprised that he finally gave in to the pressure, only that he didn't appoint a special commission to do a study and make the recommendation for him. Then again, maybe that's why it took three years.

With the release of the "long form" certificate, proving Barack was indeed born this way (to a woman named Stanley nonetheless), the president has lost the greatest race-baiting tool at his disposal since Van Jones left the White House. Is the document real or all part of a grand conspiracy? Depends on who you believe, which blogs you read, and how wrapped up you are in the whole birther movement.


I'm not wrapped up in it at all. Never took the time to write a word about it. Admittedly, I'm less interested in Obama's birth certificate and more interested in the expiration date of his presidency. I figure even if the president did manage to pull the wool over our eyes and get elected with questionable documentation, it's the least damaging aspect of his legacy.

What Obama's done to the country since he got elected is another story. That's where the meat is, so to speak, and what Republicans or third party candidates (if we end up with any) will hammer the president on. Record deficits. High unemployment. Three wars. Skyrocketing inflation and gas prices. Fading prosperity.

The real question is why does President Obama get to keep vetting Obama? Couldn't the mainstream media just do their jobs for once? We know less about our president's formative years than we know about the dressmakers from William and Kate's royal wedding.

There is an interesting aspect to why this story has legs. It's not because the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has a funny name or doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills. No, the truth is a large portion of Americans have watched President Obama in action and concluded, rightfully, that he acts unlike any American president before him. Well, okay maybe a little like Nixon, but only the tricky parts.

President Obama doesn't act like he has the best interests of Americans at heart, but instead those of some imaginary world citizen, not the innocent Iranian or Syrian protesters being shot in the streets for democracy mind you, and certainly not our allies like Great Britain or Israel, but some transnational, downtrodden, pseudo-Marxist out there somewhere, you know, the kind Rev. Wright spent 20 years defending in his quest for social justice (assuming you believe millionaire pastors can defend anyone other than their own selfish interests).

The lowly, helpless peasant Barack Obama and his ilk think they are championing is a fictional character, one they have invented to inflate their own egos and give their leftist policies purpose. When such helpless figures do actually reveal themselves, in desperate need of aid and moral clarity, the would-be heroes never recognize them, preferring instead to prop up those who can offer them the most politically. And as it turns out, the downtrodden always have the least political clout.

You'll notice the Left never offers assistance until you line their coffers, it's never enough for them to make do with what they have, and in fact, they demand more be taken from others as a condition of their charity. Such is the Left's altruistic nature, desperate to steal in order to give, mostly to their friends and donors. A leftist leader always pretends to look out for the worker, while really looking down on them, pitying them most for having to work. They wouldn't be caught dead in the same room with most of the people they claim to represent, at least not for longer than thirty minutes.

Barack Obama is no different than the typical leftist, but he is atypical when it comes to American presidents. In the last election, American voters sought to choose a leader who would steer the nation through difficult waters, who could shore up our finances, reduce our debt, and make our nation stronger. When that leader instead plays 70 rounds of golf in the middle of a recession, goes around the world apologizing for America, and enacts policies that reward other nations at our expense, then given the unique circumstances of his birth to a foreign father, it's not outlandish to ask: Is our president really American?

The birth certificate says yes. His policies say no. Most people believe in President Obama's American birth, but they don't know if President Obama believes in the birth of America as founded under the Constitution. And politics aside, that's all that really matters.

President Obama's Working Class Tour Hits the Millionaire Fundraising Circuit

There's nothing like standing in front of a room full of millionaires, some who paid as much as $35,800 a ticket to hear the president speak, and waxing on about how the wealthy don't pay their "fair share." If only we raised the tax rates of the richest, the economy would rebound and the deficit would decrease and the so-called "working class" would have pain-free lives of rainbows, unicorns, and free health care.

This is the state of modern Leftism. Talk about the sham of all shams.

How many of these fat cat contributors to the president do you think paid the maximum amount on their income tax without taking any deductions? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the same number who wrote checks to the U.S. Treasury above what they owed. Big Fat Zero. The way the income tax is currently structured, it truly favors the uber-wealthy, and yes, they like it that way. They're the only ones who can afford the accountants and lobbyists and offshore accounts to move and hide their assets and minimize what they pay the government through loopholes. The middle class can't and so individuals making $90,000 a year end up being taxed at a higher rate than those making a million or more.

Meanwhile, successful companies who would like to create jobs here are forced to keep more profits overseas while struggling, unprofitable companies are granted subsidies by Obama and friends. The president appears to not only favor this status quo system, he is ready to double down on crony capitalism.

When Hollywood and Silicon Valley rock stars stand up and applaud the president's proposal to soak them, beware the wolves cloaked in sheep's clothing. What they are really celebrating is the fact that they are all phonies getting credit for making a sacrifice none of them plans to make, pretending to care for the downtrodden while knowing damn well they are going to seek every measure possible to avoid paying out one dollar that doesn't promise a return on their investment. If a rich person demands big government, it's because big government is making them rich.

The current American era of endless self-promotion, social networking, cries for attention, and celebrity worship could easily be called the Age of Narcissism.

In the Age of Narcissism, giving is considered the smallest reward while expressing concern about how little others receive from the government is considered the height of compassion. Thus, $35,000 donations are made to rub elbows with the president by the same people who contribute as little as $350 to the local food pantry, or better still, to some charity in support of the arts - all to receive adulation while actually avoiding rubbing elbows with the lower members of society. This is a win-win for the phonies who fill the banquet halls of Brother Obama's Wealthy Traveling Salvation Show. It is they who are looking to be saved by Big Government, to avoid being thrown into the swamp of middle class banality by a system based on true meritocracy.

There is no better era for an opportunist like Barack Obama, who has spent a lifetime pretending to make a difference while shamelessly promoting himself to the top. You can count the number of poor people Barack Obama has actually helped on one hand, and I'm pretty sure his brother in Kenya still lives in a hut on $25 a month.


No, President Obama has been the biggest help to the rich and famous. George Soros, Jeffrey Immelt, Steven Wesley, and any of the top executives at Goldman Sachs. All the while, middle class families continue to struggle in an economy with 9% unemployment, where the work force is shrinking and wages remain low, with the price of everything from food to medicine skyrocketing and the gap between rich and poor continuing to widen under the guided hand of socialism.

If you make between $30,000 and $100,000, everything the government claims it's doing is for your benefit, to help you afford more by taking more from somebody else. Yet the only difference you see is in higher gas prices, higher food prices, higher college tuition, higher health care costs, and more restrictions on the type of insurance or light bulb you can purchase.

For the middle class, Obama has not laid out a path to prosperity, but to economic stagnation. That means less opportunity, less disposable income (the president is even telling many Americans that they shouldn't expect to be able to afford a house, that "frankly, they are probably better off renting"), and eventually higher taxes when government programs go further into bankruptcy.

Obama's crowd of limousine liberals isn't looking out for the "working class." They are looking down on them. And they will gladly pay a small fee to keep their distance.

Libyan Oblivion

I have no idea why we're involved in Libya. Does the president?

All I heard for the last eight years, especially from Democrats, is you can't go to war without an exit strategy, that we needed to announce a withdrawal date the week we entered a conflict. Well, what's our exit strategy? This is, after all, the president who felt the need to temper his troop escalation in Afghanistan by announcing half of them would begin coming home in exactly 18 months. I realize this is an idiotic way to run a war, but don't tell that to the Left. They think FDR should have announced an exit date the minute we entered World War II.

The fear now from most pundits is that stopping our assault on Libya without removing Col. Muammar Gadhafi (or is it Gaddafi... or Qaddafi?... this guy has more ways to spell his name than Hanukkah) will only embolden him and other tyrants around the world. Perhaps. Isn't that the reason we had to finish the job in Iraq? Wouldn't it have encouraged terrorists and would-be martyrs if we had allowed them to bully us into leaving prematurely?

Bush and Cheney said yes, and thus the surge was implemented, the one Democrats wrongly predicted would lead to our demise. It didn't, Iraq stabilized, and Obama and Biden are suddenly ready to take credit for our success there.

Have the Democrats learned their lesson from Iraq and suddenly switched to the neocon position? It's doubtful, unless Democrats have learned the wrong lesson.

In fact, Libya isn't Iraq. We aren't worried about weapons of mass destruction there (Gaddafi ceased his chemical and nuclear ambitions and allowed inspectors into the country after he saw what happened to Saddam Hussein). Nor does Gaddafi have a recent history of aggression against neighboring states. We haven't overthrown a regime there, and we aren't leading the reform of their government into a democracy. We certainly aren't battling factions of Al Qaeda in Libya, and might even be arming them by supporting the rebels. In fact, Muammar Gaddafi is quite contained by international standards when compared to other threats around the world.

Meanwhile, it's hard to say that folks like Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il haven't been emboldened by Obama's kowtowing already. Who's to say whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood or Iran isn't behind the rebel uprisings against Gadhafi? In fact, there is strong evidence to suggest they are connected. We could be emboldening militant Islam by helping them overthrow a dictator who hasn't been militant enough in instituting Sharia law.

Now I'm willing to argue we don't want that, as I think are most proponents for human rights, but the president seems reluctant.

If the goal is simply to enforce a No-Fly Zone in Libya and weaken Gaddafi's military, making it harder for his regime to assault innocent civilians, we have achieved our objective. Let's announce victory and focus on a containment strategy to keep Gaddafi in check. The real question is what to do in other Arab nations facing similar uprisings. Are we prepared to intervene to protect their civilians, in particular the brave demonstrators in Syria who are standing up to an authoritarian government unfriendly to U.S. interests and whose leader represents a proxy of Iran?

I get the feeling from the president's statements that we are only prepared to make war in Libya, and even there he has promised to do it nicely. Oh right. I forgot. This isn't war. It's kinetic military action. In truth, the only kinetic action seems to be the indecisiveness pulling America further away from a leadership role in the world and into international oblivion.