First Lady Michelle Obama’s pitch to voters last night relied on the premise that she and her husband understand what it is to struggle to make ends meet. She spoke movingly about their early years–about how a young Barack Obama drove a car that was “rusted out” and found his furniture “in a dumpster,” how they both came from families that had to “scrape by.” Her fairy tale–however well-delivered–was one great, big, colorful lie.
On Tuesday, January 25, 2011 our usurper president, Barack Hussein (Soetoro) Obama, son of a foreign national father and an under age American mother, gave a State of the Union (SOTU) address to the country.
It was more notable for the fact that he began to try to appear as though he was once again looking to provide some “CHANGE that you can believe in” as he did on the campaign trail in 2008. The catch this time is that the CHANGE was now projected to appear that he would be moving away from the CHANGE that he wanted to bring in 2008.
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
It long has been documented that when Barack Obama was picked by the Democratic Party to be its 2008 presidential candidate, only one state – Hawaii – was sent a document from Nancy Pelosi certifying that he was qualified under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
Now a series of blogs reports are heating up the issue again, this time revealing documents that showed it apparently was Hawaii’s local Democratic Party that refused to include that certification on its paperwork naming Obama as its candidate.
Even today, the Hawaii Democratic Party was staying mum, declining attempts by WND to obtain a comment on why it handled the 2008 presidential race paperwork as it did.
The American Spectator
WASHINGTON — Not so long ago there arose on the American political scene something called, the Angry Left. It was an indignant group of ritualistic liberals whose appearance the mainstream media apprised us augured well for Democratic victory in 2008, and so it did. The Angry Left turned out the vote for the Prophet Obama. At the time, do you recall any public figure on the right stepping forward and warning against possible violence from the indignados of the Angry Left? Did, say, the Hon. Newt Gingrich step forward at a conservative forum, say the Heritage Foundation, and remind his fellow Americans of the bombings of government buildings, the burning of university libraries, the robbing of banks by angry leftists in years gone by? I cannot recall any such warnings from any conservative eminence.
It is not as though such lawlessness is unknown in American history. Politically motivated bombings, burnings, and bank robberies actually have been committed in America by leftists. Some of those leftists are still with us, for instance, Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn who were fugitives from justice for such antics and went on to become friends of the present president of the United States. In fact, lawlessness on the left is still being committed, for instance at universities where speakers who offend the left — the Angry Left or simply the Fastidious Left — are regularly shouted down or barred from scheduled appearances as Ann Coulter recenly was, at least, in Canada. Yet Newt has remained mum about the danger posed by the Angry Left, and it is not easy for Newt to remain mum.
Now just the other day, ex-President Bill Clinton — some of us still call him The Groper — rose up at the Center for American Progress, and drew parallels between the Tea Partiers (call them the Caffeinated Right) and the homicidal maniacs who participated in the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds more. Clinton’s charge was typically duplicitous. “This Tea Party movement can be a healthy thing if they’re making us justify every penny of taxes we raised and every dollar of public money we spend,” Clinton opined. “But when you get mad, sometimes you wind up producing exactly the reverse result of what you say you are for,” said the president famous for among other things his temper tantrums. He also said, “Before the [Oklahoma] bombing occurred, there was a sort of fever in America,” which I guess depends on the meaning of the word fever. I recall no fever, but then I was not impeached for lying and obstruction of justice.
A longstanding conceit of American liberals has been to lecture conservatives on how to conduct themselves. They are famous for telling us what we can and cannot say. They tell us we cannot call them socialists even when they take over industries and transform the federal budget into a simulacrum of European social democracy. Yet they can call us racists and enemies of the poor when we advance alternatives to such failed policies as affirmative action or welfare. In fact, much of the liberals’ stance toward conservatives in our ongoing dialogue with them is an insult. The most recent politician to dabble in race-baiting was not a conservative but Bill Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries.
What Clinton depicts as a precursor to more bombings modeled on the vile Oklahoma City bombing is nothing more than a civic upheaval inspired by American constitutional liberties. The Tea Partiers are no cause for alarm. For Clinton to suggest that these generally peaceful and good natured libertarians are opening the door to domestic terror is Clinton at his reckless worst. In doing so he has given would-be bombers cover for their evil acts. If more bombings of federal buildings follow, we can thank Clinton for his speech of encouragement. Ironically federal investigators looking for the perpetrators might begin their investigations with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. No Tea Partier I know has their record of violence.