Down on the Corner

Early in the morning
Round about praying time,
Barry runs down to the mosque
And gets himself in line.
Waiting for the Mahdi,
Brand-new world to come;
But if you think he's Muslim, well,
You're a racist scum.

Down on the corner,
Out in the street,
Barry and the goat boys are praying.
Hating infidels is neat.

You don't need a long-form
Just to hang around;
But if you've got a fake one,
Won't you lay that booger down?
'Round here we ain't picky
'Bout where you were birthed:
Kalamazoo or Timbuktoo,
Mars, Pluto, or Earth.

Down on the corner,
Out in the street,
Bammy and the aliens are cooking.
Sauteed birthers sure taste sweet.

Let's go get bin Laden.
Kill him till he's dead.
Put a bullet through his beard
And another in his head.
You don't need no snapshots
Or Youtube video.
You'll just have to take the word
Of the Magical Negro.

Down on the corner,
Out in the street,
"Barry in 2012," they're saying.
"Rigged elections can't be beat!"


With apologies to Creedance Clearwater Revival

Update on Arizona Eligibility Veto

This confirms my suspicions:


Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is admitting it's possible her veto of the state's eligibility bill for office-seekers could be overturned by members of the Legislature.

"Bottom line is that I just have to call 'em as I see 'em, and it doesn't help Arizona," she added. "This bill is a distraction and we just simply need to get on with the state's business."


I couldn't tell you the number of times that I've heard politicians on both sides of the aisle, media robots, and political celebrities like Sarah Palin make comments virtually identical to Brewer's. As I said: typical.

A constituent wrote a letter to Arizona lawmakers, raising a great point:


"The governor says 'one person' should not have power over the ballot – well, she has just single-handedly vetoed a 2/3 vote of the Legislature and the will of those of us who voted you into office. I don't understand how she can veto a veto-proof vote!

"I urgently urge all of you to please override this veto immediately and put HB2177 into law. This is simply a common-sense law which is long overdue and should have always been on the books. This should not even be a partisan issue, let alone a 'controversial' bill. What is the point of having requirements for various offices, if candidates do not have to prove they meet those requirements? To not pass this law is to make a mockery of the Constitution and law itself."

Arizona Governor Vetoes Presidential Eligibility Bill

Here is her stated reasoning:


"I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions," she said. "In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president … to submit their 'early baptismal or circumcision certificates' among other records. … This is a bridge too far."


I admire Governor Brewer for her principled stand against allowing her state to be overrun by illegal aliens, and for her grit and determination in the face of a federal government only too happy to see Arizona swamped by foreign criminals.

That said, I don't know what she means when she reveals concern about "designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate;" that strikes me as an easily solved problem, if indeed this is the current reality.

As for baptismal or circumcision records, those are just some of the acceptable document options. Others are postpartum medical records, long-form birth certificates, or notarized affidavits from two or more people present at the time of birth.

I don't know why such common-sense requirements that ensure constitutional adherence pose an ethical dilemma for the governor. How else does one demonstrate his eligibility for the office? With a wink and a handshake?

Governor Brewer seems to have fallen into the same trap as most of the establishment: worrying more about upsetting that selfsame establishment than holding elitist pursuers of high office to the rule of law. It's a sad and typical failure in current politics, and one I did not foresee from a woman of her caliber.

Arizona: Leading by Example

The Arizona House and Senate have passed a bill requiring candidates for the presidency to prove their eligibility before campaigning in the state. The bill received overwhelming support in both legislative bodies. It remains for Governor Janice Brewer to sign it into law.

This turn of events does not bode well for Obama, given his efforts at hiding his whole documentary history from the American people. Other states are deliberating over similar legislation. I hope they follow where Arizona has chosen to lead.

More on Obama's Eligibility

JohnC takes issue with my questioning of Obama's eligibility for the presidency:

Your contentions are flawed:

"The sole documentary evidence provided by Obama of his birth in Hawaii is a Certification of Live Birth, or C.O.L.B., which is a computer-printout document subject to tampering."

Untrue. There are two Obama birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers dating within a week of his birth. How do you explain their existence?

"Worse, at the time of Obama's birth, the state of Hawaii willingly issued such documents to people born outside Hawaii. How in the world can a document issued to people born outside Hawaii be used as proof that a person was born in Hawaii?"

Two problems with your assertion.

First, Hawaii had no such law until 1982. Therefore, the fact that Obama was issue a certificate number as of August 8, 1961 is pretty clear evidence that the State of Hawaii was convinced at that time that he was born in Hawaii.

Second, pretending that Hawaii did issue birth certificates to foreign-born persons in 1961, such a birth certificate would state the foreign location of that person's birth. No one has ever shown one single example of a person born outside of Hawaii obtaining a birth certificate, original or copy, that incorrectly states he or she was born in Hawaii. If you have such evidence, I'd love to see it.

"As for Mr. Obama's long-form birth certificate, which details the attending obstetrician's name and the hospital's name, as well as the date, time, and location of the birth -- that elusive document has never seen the light of day. Obama has not released it on the Internet. Congress has never laid eyes on it."

This is a fascinating criticism, given that then-Senator Obama was the very first major party presidential candidate to ever publicly release images of documentation of his birth. But when Obama gives an unprecedented inch, his critics want a mile.

""By the way, a CNN poll conducted in August, 2010, revealed that only forty-two percent of Americans believe that Obama "definitely" was born in the United States."

How many of those people polled recognize that the place of one's birth may affect his eligibility to be president? We don't know, and I imagine that would change the
responses a lot.

Here's my response, taking this rebuttal one point at a time:

Untrue. There are two Obama birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers dating within a week of his birth. How do you explain their existence?

The issuance of Obama's Certification of Live Birth (C.O.L.B.) automatically generated the newspaper birth announcements. If a C.O.L.B. fails as proof that Obama is a natural-born citizen, then announcements based upon information taken from the C.O.L.B. fail as conclusive evidence, as well.

First, Hawaii had no such law until 1982. Therefore, the fact that Obama was issued a certificate number as of August 8, 1961 is pretty clear evidence that the State of Hawaii was convinced at that time that he was born in Hawaii.

Inaccurate. According to Jerome Corsi at World Net Daily: In 1961, Hawaiian law specifically allowed "an adult or the legal parents of a minor child" to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given a birth document in the form of a Certification of Live Birth.

The only requirement stated in Hawaiian law is "that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had 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."

So there's no way under the sun that possession of a C.O.L.B. constitutes proof that Obama is a natural-born citizen, which is the item in contention.

Second, pretending that Hawaii did issue birth certificates to foreign-born persons in 1961, such a birth certificate would state the foreign location of that person's birth. No one has ever shown one single example of a person born outside of Hawaii obtaining a birth certificate, original or copy, that incorrectly states he or she was born in Hawaii. If you have such evidence, I'd love to see it.

There's no pretending involved, except perhaps on your part. Since no one has seen Obama's actual long-form birth certificate, and since we have had for our examination nothing more than a computer-generated document with less information than the longer, more comprehensive birth certificate, I'm unclear as to what point I'm supposed to glean from this. The key information that you're ignoring is that Obama's full birth certificate remains hidden. You've never laid eyes on it. Neither have I. And neither has Congress or the media. In fact, a congressional document released on the Internet admitted that no official vetting process occured regarding Obama's eligibility.

This is a fascinating criticism, given that then-Senator Obama was the very first major party presidential candidate to ever publicly release images of documentation of his birth. But when Obama gives an unprecedented inch, his critics want a mile.

What fascinates me is your evasion of the point being made. The C.O.L.B. is not the same document as the Certificate of Live Birth. It is a shorter document with less information included. For example, it does not include the attending physician's name, and it omits the birth hospital's name. In addition, the Hawaii Department of Health "refused to authenticate either of the two versions" of President Obama's C.O.L.B. images online -- "neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org."

The burden of proof lies with Obama -- not with me, you, Congress, the media, or election or state officials. So far, it is a burden that he has refused to meet, with the complicity of most media outlets, and Congress.

The Incuriosity of a Dead Cat

Perhaps you've heard about this recent interview of John Boehner by David Gregory of Meet the Press. Gregory takes Boehner to task for not combating "misinformation" and "stereotypes" regarding Obama's nativity myth and his religious beliefs. Boehner's answer isn't a complete disaster, but it leaves a lot to be desired. Here's how he should have responded:


"Mr. Gregory, I think your question conceals certain unstated assumptions -- assumptions that I do not accept.

"First, the American people elected me to represent their interests in Congress. They did not elect me to correct "misinformation" and fight "stereotypes" aimed at Obama. That's not part of my job description. Nor is it my obligation. You seem to think that this is one of my duties. Why? And did you hold Nancy Pelosi to the same standard? Did you interview her during her tenure as Speaker of the House and hold her feet to the fire about defending George W. Bush from perceived injustices? Did you consider that burden her sworn duty as an elected official?

"Mr. Obama has the bully pulpit of the presidency at his disposal to defend his words and actions any time he feels the need. Most radio and television networks would give him free airtime for the purpose of addressing the public and setting the record straight. Mr. Obama also has the Democratic Party in his corner. In addition, he has a press secretary whose whole reason for being is the explication and defense of Obama's policies, actions, and words. No, Mr. Obama doesn't need my help.

"Second, I reject the notion that questioning Obama's birth narrative and religious views is the same as stereotyping or spreading misinformation. The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, describes a stereotype as: a generalization, usually exaggerated or oversimplified and often offensive, that is used to describe or distinguish a group. I don't see how suspicion that Obama is a Muslim, or skepticism about his birth origin is stereotyping. The issues-in-question seem of a singular nature, not stereotypical.

"As for spreading misinformation, the people most guilty of doing so are those who claim that Obama has proven his eligibility for the presidency. At best, this is a statement of ignorance; at worst, a lie. The standard "birther" position is not that Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia. The prevailing view is that we do not know the facts of Obama's birth. No one knows -- not the American people, not Congress, and not you, Mr. Gregory.

"Let's stay with the birth issue for a moment. The sole documentary evidence provided by Obama of his birth in Hawaii is a Certification of Live Birth, or C.O.L.B., which is a computer-printout document subject to tampering. Worse, at the time of Obama's birth, the state of Hawaii willingly issued such documents to people born outside Hawaii. How in the world can a document issued to people born outside Hawaii be used as proof that a person was born in Hawaii? The answer is that it does not and cannot constitute proof. Only a liar or an imbecile would suggest otherwise. If my home state suddenly begins issuing driving licenses to anyone who can scrounge up twenty-five dollars -- even if he never has stepped foot inside a car -- then I cannot continue using my license as documented proof that I have taken a written driving exam, a road test, and an eyesight evaluation.

"As for Mr. Obama's long-form birth certificate, which details the attending obstetrician's name and the hospital's name, as well as the date, time, and location of the birth -- that elusive document has never seen the light of day. Obama has not released it on the Internet. Congress has never laid eyes on it. This exemplifies a terrible failure, as determining that prospective presidential candidates fit constitutional criteria was an official duty of Congress -- an obligation that Congress shirked. I'm not climbing up on my high horse, as I was a member of Congress, at the time.

"The simple fact is that Obama's birth origin remains a mystery, and it remains a mystery because he refuses to release his full birth certificate. In fact, he has hired a legal team and spent well over a million dollars keeping the document suppressed. I submit that if this behavior doesn't pique your curiosity, then nothing would drag you away from your uncritical acceptance of everything that Obama says and does. Speaking of job descriptions, I've always understood the media's position as that of a watchdog against government excesses, not as a partisan standard bearer for whoever holds the presidential office. I thought that telling Americans the truth was the highest responsibility of the media, not catching flak for Obama. Mr. Gregory, as long as Obama has you on his side, he'll never need me.

"By the way, a CNN poll conducted in August, 2010, revealed that only forty-two percent of Americans believe that Obama "definitely" was born in the United States. Polling data across the board indicate that Americans have questions about Obama's origins -- questions that cross partisan lines.

"Now let's address Mr. Obama's religious beliefs. His biological father was a Muslim; according to Islamic law, this makes Barack Obama a Muslim, as well. His stepfather was a Muslim. Mr. Obama spent part of his formative years living in his stepfather's house in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country. He attended an Islamic school. His records of attending that school remain hidden from the American people.

"In the U.S., Obama attended a church for twenty years led by an anti-white, anti-American pastor (Jeremiah Wright) who promoted black-liberation theology. Obama professed ignorance of Wright's beliefs, despite his long attendance of the "church," his personal friendship with the pastor, and Wright's openness regarding his hatred of whites and America. Videos exist depicting Wright preaching his hatred from the pulpit. An interesting sidebar: Wright is a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, a Muslim black separatist.

"Mr. Obama has a history of talking up Islam and coming to the defense of Muslims in public. In a 2009 speech in Cairo Obama said: 'And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.' I submit that this statement is alien to the American presidential tradition. This is not the typical focus of a self-proclaimed Christian who governs a Christian people with a Christian heritage. It emanates from far outside the mainstream.

"Does Obama spend significant time extolling the virtues of Christianity and defending Christians against negative stereotypes? No. He's far too busy perpetuating negative stereotypes against Christians. One example is a comment that he made at a 2008 fundraiser:

'You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.'

"I could go on and on, miring us in the perpetual slime of inconsistencies and peculiarities of Obama's birth narrative and supposed religious views; but I think I've been thorough in making my point: that looking askance at the details of Obama's birth and religion isn't fringe kookery or racism or mere partisanship. Rather, it is a logical and reasonable response to suspicious behavior that belies his claims -- behavior that remains wholly unexplained by Obama, the Democratic Party, or the media."