Ex-CIA General Paul Vallely states Obama birth certificate a forgery

Is President Obama Eligible to be President of the United States? Most of congress does not think so but is afraid to act.

Some members of the armed forces have refused to obey the president's orders under the assumption he is not the legitimate commander-in-chief of the armed forces as he is not a natural born citizen of the United States as the constitution requires. Lt Terry Lakin is one example who refused to go to Afghanistan. He was court-martialed and sentenced to serve a six month term at the Leavenworth, Kansas disciplinary barracks.

A QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY
Ex-CIA: 'Forged document' released as birth certificate
Gen. Paul Vallely: Congress afraid to probe 'possible felony' over fears of 'black backlash'

Posted: June 15, 2011
3:09 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, the chief of Stand Up America, a national security expert and Fox News contributor, says the "Certificate of Live Birth" released in April by the White House as "proof positive" of President Obama's Hawaiian birth is a forgery, but the FBI is covering the fraud and no one in Congress is willing to tackle the situation because of fears of a "black backlash" if the failings of the nation's first black president are revealed. Read More.

And the fear of a black backlash is very likely to occur. However, the longer that this issue is protracted, the worse the constitutional crisis will be when sometime down the road it will be acted upon. Then all actions of the Obama administration will be declared null and void. This will certainly result in a backlash among many left-wing groups, and a counter action by those supporting the constitution.

[Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.]

Jim Crow and Racism Destroy Liberal Minds

When Liberals can not honestly win an argument, they resort to throwing out 'red herrings' or 'straw men' arguments, to divert attention from the real issue:

By now, every Conservative should know how the argument of a Liberal degrades. It goes something like this:

A Conservative makes some valid political point seeking a Liberal’s counterpoint. Instead of providing a well-thought out intelligent answer, the first response is usually some irrelevant or made-up statistic. Sometimes it can even be a made-up quotation. After the Conservative provides a sound defense of his position, the Liberal continues to answer unintelligibly. Repeat this process three times (Sometimes it only takes making the original point). Finally, out of desperation, and knowing his position is full of holes, the Liberal resorts to calling you a racist or if you are proposing some sort of policy, the term ‘racist’ won’t do, so your policy is now a part of the old Jim Crow laws.

Americans have been increasingly interested in implementing a law that requires all voters to provide an ID card before placing their vote. Alabama just passed a law that does just that and provides the ID for free. The logic is simple: If you provide an ID card then that ID will be matched up with your name when you come to vote. You can’t vote as someone else or vote multiple times. Voter fraud is thereby reduced. Sure, there will some people who violate the law and illegally create multiple voter IDs, but at least there will be a step that most people won’t take.

While a voter ID makes sense to most normal people (apparently 75% of Americans agree with a voter ID), but according to the DNC chair Debhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifbie Wasserman Schultz, those that want to implement a voter ID want to “drag us all the way back to the Jim Crow” era. She provides no logical explanation except that she did finally backtrack on her words to a more “reasonable” argument:

[S]he still claims that requirements to show ID at the polls – which are designed to cut down on election fraud – are racially discriminatory. Godfather Politics.

So, if you are against voter ID laws, you are a racist, just as if you are against anything Obama does, or the present Democratic administration does, you are a racist.

But then, maybe this is a good thing. Calling everyone a racist who does not agree with the administration a racist, is like yelling 'wolf' all the time. It will soon be meaningless.

Judge Who Voided Collective Bargaining Law Has Tie To Labor Dispute

What else is new? Chicanery, dishonesty, lying, patronage, and related corruption is rampant throughout the left.

June 7, 2011 by Personal Liberty News Desk http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Wisconsin judge who voided collective bargaining law has family tie to labor disputeA legal expert from The Heritage Foundation has questioned the validity of the recent decision to void Wisconsin’s law that limits collective bargaining rights for public workers.

Judge Maryann Sumi, who rendered the May 26 decision, should have withdrawn from the case. Sumi’s son was an organizer for one of the big unions that protested Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s legislation. Read original article here.

The Wisconsin law is not unconstitutional, regardless of what pro-union activist Judge Sumi thinks. The law does not come into conflict with any article or amendment of the constitution. It only comes in conflict with what the pro-socialist union bosses want, which is to force state workers to belong to the union regardless of personal preference.

Collective bargaining is one thing when done between a private company or corporation and the union, when representatives of both are present. But, it is another thing when state officials, put into office by union donations, sit down with the same unions to negotiate salaries, benefits, and other concerns, without the taxpayers present to argue their case. The taxpayers, providing the money for salaries and benefits, are not represented, and that is where the difference lies. As a member of a union family growing up, this turns me off from unions and their bullying activities, like selfish babies who cry and throw tantrums when they don't get what they want through law and the ballot box.