"Death To America!" Says B. Hussein Obama With Deal That Allows Iran To Get Nukes!

I don't know how there can be any doubt now that our illegitimate Kenyan Muslim president is actively working against the interests of the United States! Not only is B. Hussein "marching Israel to door of the oven", as candidate Huckabee pointed out, but he's bringing death to America as well. According to the clueless John Kerry, Iranians don't actually say "death to America", they only chant it. Seriously, he said this! (Source).

Texas Republican Ted Poe, of the House Foreign Relations Committee, in response to Kerry's idiocy, said "Well, I kind of take that to mean that they want us dead". Indeed they do, which is why the Hussein deal that "virtually guarantees" Iran will acquire nuclear weapons (according to Jenny Beth Martin, the CEO and co-founder of Tea Party Patriots) must be stopped!

The following is from one of America's top Conservative news sites...

Even top Democrats have come out against it. Senators Chuck Schumer of NY and Bob Menendez of NJ, both plan to vote for an upcoming Senate bill disapproving of the deal. J.B. Pritzker, a lifelong Democrat who chaired Hillary's 2008 campaign, wrote last week: "Regrettably, the Iran deal fails to meet these goals and raises the prospects for war... By legitimizing Iran's nuclear program, removing the pressure of economic sanctions and allowing it to obtain conventional weapons and ballistic missiles, this agreement makes the prospect for war more likely, not less". President Bill Clinton's CIA director, James Woolsey, also wrote last week: "Congress must stop President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. The most important reason — Iran can threaten the existence of the United States by making an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack using a single nuclear weapon". (Source).

Say what you will about the Democrats (their socialism will destroy America if we allow it), but no democrat president has ever worked directly with a muslim America-hating regime in order to HELP them acquire nukes with which to attack us and Israel!

Instead of being allowed to push this "deal" forward, B. Hussein should be arrested, tried for treason, and executed as an enemy of American... In this Conservative's opinion. Although that most likely will not happen.

Hopefully this "deal" can be stopped with help from the few sane democrats who aren't falling in line behind B. Hussein. Why are they selling out America, BTW? Do they feel they need to go along with B. Hussein because he's their president (and gullibly believe this "deal" is actually in our best interest), or do they hate America (and wish to bring it down) as much as B. Hussein?

TLB #62

The Scandal Predicted to Bring Down the Barack Hussein Obama Administration

Barack Hussein Obama will not serve out his second term. Instead he will be forced to resign or be impeached and leave office in disgrace. I read about this prediction on a well known Conservative News site. Several Republicans were quoted as believing it will be the Benghazi cover up that will be the undoing of Obama.

Frankly I'm not so sure. Yes, I think there was a cover up, and yes, I believe it could be of a magnitude that removing Hussein from office would be entirely appropriate -- but will it actually happen? Only one president has ever resigned from office. Two others were impeached, but they were not removed. Richard Nixon said if a president does it, then it is legal.

People considered that to be an arrogant statement, but I think for (the most part) it is true (not necessarily that anything a president does is legal, but that he can get away with it). It was only because Nixon recorded his misdeeds, and then did not destroy those tapes, that he made his removal from office a certainty. If he had not resigned he would have been bounced out by an impeachment and conviction.

According to the Washington Post, the "U.S. Embassy officials in Tripoli, some 600 miles away, tried unsuccessfully to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets" and that "the embassy also was unable to get permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops in Benghazi during the attack".

The question is why did Hussein allow these attacks to continue without responding? Was the Hussein administration's failure to act due to their incompetence or was there some other reason? Did they actually order those who could have responded to stand down?

Greg Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, says, "Special Forces personnel were planning to board a C-130 flight at around 6am local time on Sept. 12 but [were told] "you can't go now, you don't have authority to go...".

I don't know about you, but that sounds quite damning to me. A commenter on the "Atlas Shrugs" message board has a theory regarding the stand down order -- he says, "the corruption of this administration pales in comparison to any other scandal. ...to have a Muslim President in office so soon after 9/11 is by design and no accident".

What do you think about this theory? Is it conspiracy theory nonsense from a nutjob, or a very real possibility? I'm leaning toward the later.

TLB #41

Is Barack Hussein Obama an Illegitimate President?

There are those who believe the last election was stolen. That massive voter fraud swung it in Obama's favor and that Romney actually won. I think these people are definitely on to something. But, as history has shown us, once a president is elected (or he appears to have been elected), nothing can be done to undo the announced election results.

So Obama, legitimate or not, won't be ejected from office. His "win" won't be overturned because nobody is investigating the voter fraud issue. Republicans continue to work to see that it's reduced in the future, but past voter fraud will stand. Clearly Obama'a presidency could be illegitimate in that his win was due to voter fraud (that will never be investigated and thus never proven), but what about the "natural born citizen" issue? That issue was resolved when Obama (under pressure) FINALLY released his Hawaiian long form birth certificate, right?

Not so fast kemosabe! The Hawaiian birth certificate that Hussein released may have fooled the Liberal media, but others say it's a forgery. CBS News in Arizona reported on an investigation initiated by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and they say Joe's investigators "confirmed" the document was created using Photoshop (see video below).

Snopes does a pretty good job "debunking" the "created in Photoshop" charge, but Snopes is the same site that "debunked" the allegation that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. They based their conclusion on some bullpucky about "create" and "invent" not having the same meaning - but go to any dictionary website and you'll find that the words are synonyms.

Also, Wikipedia notes that the site's creator David Mikkelson "has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias". Maybe their defense of Al Gore using a nonsense argument about synonyms having different meanings could have something to do with these "Liberal bias" accusations?

On the other hand, the Snopes page links to a Fox New article! I suppose this was done to convince Right-wingers? "Look Right-winger, we're linking to FOX NEWS"!! But check this out - if you Google the name of the Photoshop expert, "Jean-Claude Tremblay", one of the articles that comes up on top is, "Fox News expert denies he claimed birth certificate legit".

Tremblay (the Fox News expert) says, "the network must retract the story, [because] it deliberately misquoted him". Tremblay says his findings don't prove the authenticity of the document one way or the other, but Fox News refuses to allow him to correct their story. As a result Tremblay feels "anger verging on disdain" and no longer trusts Fox News. I guess that blows the Snopes "debunking" out of the water. This expert's analysis went from "absolutely legit" to "can't say one way or the other". Question is, why would Fox News put forward a story that misrepresents what the Photoshop expert said?

The newspaper announcements that some cite as "proof" have also been questioned. Both of the two papers that ran the birth announcements said their information came from the state Department of Health and the "certificates of live birth". But these certificates require no proof that the child was actually born in Hawaii; instead they are issued if the child's parents have "declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child".

Furthermore, a neighbor living next to the address where the birth announcement says the Obamas lived can't recall that a White woman who gave birth to a black baby ever lived there, and an investigator looking into the matter discovered the house was owned by an "Orland S. and Thelma S. (Young) Lefforge, both of whom are deceased".

In conclusion I must say that (for me, at least), the question of where Barack Hussein Obama was actually born is still unknown - but the claim that he was born in Hawaii seems incredibly suspect. If he was actually born in Hawaii you'd think there wouldn't be all these questions. For me, the fact that there are all these questions point to a cover-up. And why cover-up where he was actually born unless he was born outside the United States?

Back to the question regarding Barack Hussein Obama's presidency and it's legitimacy. Is he a legitimate president? Was he legitimately elected? Is he Constitutionally eligible to serve? I say the facts seem to strongly suggest that he is illegitimate for two reasons. First of all, his "win" was accomplished via voter fraud, and secondly - he wasn't even eligible to run in the first place!

TLB #38