Birth Certificate? Obama ain’t got no Birth Certificate. Obama don’t need no Birth Certificate. Obama don’t have to show you any stinking Birth Certificate.

Birth Certificate? Obama ain’t got no Birth Certificate. Obama don’t need no Birth Certificate. Obama don’t have to show you any stinking Birth Certificate.

     It’s a new height in arrogance.

     Team Obama and Obama’s allies in the liberal media are having a huge chuckle when it comes to the United States Constitution.

     And apparently, the truth is a laughing matter as well.

     When the question regarding Obama’s eligibility under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution was posed at a White House press conference, White House mouth-piece, Roberts Gibbs actually smirked derisively and issued two consecutive incredulous and false statements.

      But to make matters worse, when Gibbs made his factually inaccurate assertions, members of the liberal elitist media… instead of pressing Gibbs on his outrageous statements… openly laughed.

      Here’s what happened. correspondent Lester Kinsolving posed the following question to Gibbs at a White House Press Conference:

“Thank you, thank you, very much. Just one question concerning what the president said in his speech on Thursday, and I quote, ‘I ran for president promising transparency, and I meant what I said. This is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.’ End of quote. Do you remember that statement?”

      Gibbs interrupted Kinsolving and derisively asked: “Are you looking for the President’s birth certificate?”

      When Kinsolving answered in the affirmative, Gibbs told his first lie: “It’s on the Internet, Lester.”

      Kinsolving tried to give Gibbs’ the chance to amend his false assertion, and stated: “No, no, no – the long form listing his hospital and physician,” and members of the elitist liberal media could be heard laughing.

      And Gibbs quickly interrupted with his second false statement: “I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people – (laughter again) – that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president’s birth there, but it’s on the Internet because we put it on the Internet….”

      And before Gibbs could be pressed to explain his two totally inaccurate statements, he called an end to the press conference and slinked out of the room.

Global-warming: Another religion of peace?

Global-warming: Another religion of peace?

Ben-Peter Terpstra
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is soft on the other “religion of peace,” global-warming. June 16, 2009: The Age Newspaper, Melbourne, Australia reports:

Victoria is considering tougher laws to crack down on eco-terrorist attacks on power stations after a threat to a Melbourne power company executive by an extremist US group.
The FBI has described the group as America’s top domestic terrorist threat.
The hardline  hand-delivered a menacing letter to the eastern suburbs home of Graeme York, head of the Hazelwood power plant in Gippsland.
In it, the group told Mr York he was responsible for the dirtiest power station in Australia, and the most polluting in the industrialised world.
“We hold you personally accountable for this assault against our Earth,” the letter said. “We do not take lightly to the perpetual destruction of our land-base for the selfish and short-term objective of fattening your bank account.
 The Earth Liberation Front says “direct action” – vandalism or arson – is needed to stop environmentally harmful acts.
The FBI says the group is responsible for more than 1200 acts of terrorism in the US, causing more than $US100 million ($A125 million) damage. The acts have included fire-bombing housing developments, torching car yards and attacking forestry research centres.


Admit it. Janet Napolitano’s brown shirts are probably too busy frisking pro-life Catholic soccer moms to pin real terrorists. Are green fundamentalists responsible for their own actions?  Yes, but when Team Obama downplays their crimes and/or fuels their apocalyptic fears we all lose.


More: green jihadists are fired up by know-it-all elites as this September 2008 piece demonstrates:


NEW YORK (Reuters) – Nobel Peace Prize winner and environmental crusader Al Gore urged young people on Wednesday to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants without the ability to store carbon.
The former U.S. vice president, whose climate change documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” won an Academy Award, told a philanthropic meeting in New York City that “the world has lost ground to the climate crisis.”
“If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration,” Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause.


This is classic Armageddon chic: the liberal leader has authority as an “environmental crusader” with his Big Hollywood film. There’s always an environmental “crisis” just around the corner, but the all-knowing leader holds the “answers”.


In the eco-fascist’s mind too, there’s no debating. The “debate” is always over to make way for the new green world order. His followers are often young, and terribly impressionable. Gore, the father-figure and other assorted green nuts, however, urge the young to the hands-on-work evangelism.


In addition to rewinding the industrial revolution, calls for “civil disobedience” against coal plants are stepping stones to more extremist acts, as Australians are finding out. Remember too that the “crisis” is always here or near and self-praising actors commit dangerous acts for the “greater good.”


Gore cleverly flatters his followers and potential recruits. Typical of a number of hysterical warmists in the movement, is Joe Green, who tells himself, “Global warming is bigger than World War II, and therefore I’m braver than a soldier or resister.” Gore’s teachings reinforce very similar narratives.


Lastly, the urge to act like a global-warming superhero is attractive. Hell. Time magazine may ask you to pose for a heart-warming profile.

Page Printed from: at June 17, 2009 – 04:10:00 PM

The Return of Carterism

The Return of Carterism
By: P. David Hornik
Wednesday, June 17, 2009


Echoes of Carter-style moral blindness in Obama’s Middle East policies.

On June 4, at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Barack Obama told a vast television audience that the “only resolution” for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was “through two states…. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires.”


On June 14, at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv, Binyamin Netanyahu said that “if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state.”  


In 2002—consistent with his view throughout his career—then-Member of Knesset Netanyahu had said: “On the day that we sign an agreement for a state with limited authorities, what will happen if the Palestinians do what the Germans did after World War I, when they nullified the demilitarized zone? The world did nothing then, and the world will do nothing now as well…. the bottom line is that saying ‘Yes’ to a Palestinian state means ‘No’ to a Jewish state, and vice versa.”


There is no reason to think Netanyahu has changed that realistic outlook. Brazen Palestinian violations of their obligations—whether systematic incitement against Israel to the point of instilling a terrorist culture, the bringing in of proscribed weapons, the refusal to amend the Palestinian National Charter, and so on—have to date done nothing to weaken worldwide and, particularly, U.S. administrations’ advocacy of their cause and pursuit of statehood for them.


What has changed is the vehemence with which the Obama administration has embraced that cause, regarding, particularly, the “two-states” and “settlements” issues. On Sunday night, Netanyahu conceded to Obama on the former while holding firm on the latter, saying he would not put an end to construction in existing settlements. That he couched his concession in a stirring speech that affirmed Jewish rights to the land of Israel, and rightly put the onus for the lack of peace on the Palestinian and Arab side, did not mitigate how dramatic, historic, and potentially dangerous a concession it was.


Why, then, the relatively subdued response in Netanyahu’s coalition, including its more right-wing elements? The affirmative nature of the speech had something to do with it, including Netanyahu’s support for the settlement population whom he called “a pioneering, Zionist, principled sector… our brothers and sisters.” But more important, the coalition—like Israel in general—is aware of the severity of Obama’s pressure on Jerusalem and the need to seek harmony with him at a time when Israel faces a growing, unprecedented threat from Tehran.


Obama has shown the world, then, that he can be tough and get results—when it comes to a democratic ally, Israel. Many, though, including Charles Krauthammer, Ralph Peters, Barry Rubin, and others, have noted that when it comes to nondemocratic rivals and outright enemies, Obama is much softer—and gets no results at all.


That holds true whether it’s Moscow’s rebuff of the U.S. offer to drop missile defense plans for Eastern Europe in return for cooperation on Iran, Pyongyang’s ongoing contemptuous saber-rattling and defiance of the latest Security Council resolution condemning it, or Tehran’s apparent rigging of an election in favor of the most radical candidate and brutal crackdown on protest—while continuing to dismiss Obama’s earnest entreaties for “dialogue.”

Obama’s harshness toward an ally and gentleness toward foes is, indeed, disturbingly reminiscent of an earlier U.S. president known for that malady, Jimmy Carter, who happens this week to be making the rounds in Israel. In a visit on Sunday to the Gush Etzion settlement bloc south of Jerusalem, Carter seemed to strike a surprisingly conciliatory note when he said that “This particular settlement area is not one I ever envision being abandoned or changed over into Palestinian territory…. I think [these settlements] will be here forever.”

But the author of Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and relentless champion of all anti-Israeli terror organizations was back in form on Tuesday. In a visit to Gaza—including talks with Hamas, which are banned by the U.S. government, and a reported assassination attempt—he said he had to “hold back my tears at seeing the destruction that was inflicted on your people” in Israel’s Operation Cast Lead.

As Yigal Walt of ynetnews noted,

It is indeed an irony of fate that [Carter’s] comments coincide with the post-election unrest in Iran, as brave civilians in Tehran and elsewhere are being shot on the streets…. Is Carter crying for them too?  

After all, the Iranian revolution that brought the Ayatollahs to power occurred on Carter’s watch. Moreover, the Islamic revolt in Tehran, attributed at least in part to the former president’s actions and misdeeds, epitomizes the grave implications that policies adopted by leaders of Carter’s ilk may bring to the region.

Leaders of—judging by the record so far—Obama’s ilk, too? Except that now the stakes are even higher and the damage could be much greater.

P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at He can be reached at