"Where's The Birth Certificate?" - A Review of Corsi's Book

We are thoroughly baffled by the media's reluctance to pursue the issue of the authenticity of Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate.  We see the media go to great pains to dig every possible detail from other lurid stories that don't have the impact on our history that this story does.  On some level we understand the price that would be paid if this man were proven to be not eligible to serve as president.  We don't know the legalities involved but assume that every law he ever signed, every treaty he ever made would have to be declared null and void.  Would it not?  Do we abide by laws inflicted upon us by an impostor?

We recently saw a three part video which demonstrated how the document recently released by the White House could have been altered and, well, there's no other word for it, falsified, faked! Someone in the comments section of this article reflected what many believe, that even if proven not to be authentic, nothing will happen.  As he said: "Barack Obama could stand on the roof of the White House and yell, I was born in Kenya and so was my father, and nothing would come of it!"  What happened to our people's quest for truth, justice and the American way?

If Barack Hussein Obama was not born in the United States, he has illegally taken the office of the presidency of the United States.  That is a criminal action, as is the cover up that followed to perpetrate this hoax upon the American people.  It does not seem that in this particular case, justice will prevail.  As concerned citizens we have only one way to resolve this issue and that is to vote him out office in November 2012.  That leaves us some eighteen months to continue living with this lie, and allowing him to destroy our way of life as we've always known it.
Two Sisters


Corsi Book An Important One


By Jack Cashill

Jerome Corsi's much-anticipated book, Where's the Birth Certificate?, is important in ways that go beyond the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president of the United States. That question the book addresses but cannot quite resolve.

Perhaps more importantly, the book illuminates the David and Goliath dust-up between old school journalists like Corsi and the anti-journalists who now dominates the media. Although the outcome remains in doubt, the terms of battle do not. And unless those terms are changed, the Goliath media will continue its inexorable drift towards Pravda-style journalism.

Corsi's book could help level the battlefield. He is the Joe Friday of reporters, "Just the facts, ma'm." Even the skeptical reader will have to appreciate how conscientiously he makes his case that Barack Obama's eligibility is by no means a given. And for all its attention to detail, the book is well paced and always engaging.

In the way of disclosure, Corsi and I are both affiliated with the journal at the center of the controversy, WorldNetDaily (WND), Corsi more formally than I. WND Books, in fact, published Where's the Birth Certificate? I chose Simon & Schuster for my recent book, Deconstructing Obama, thinking that its reputation would help me penetrate the anti-journalism force field that protects the president. I was kidding myself.

As I have come to learn firsthand, the anti-journalist does not seek to report the news. The anti-journalist attacks the people who do report the news or, just as likely, ignores them completely. When in attack mode, the anti-journalist disregards the facts and dismisses the fact finder as partisan, whacko, reckless, and inevitably, in regard to Obama, racist. No reporter in America knows this form of abuse better than Harvard Ph.D. Jerome Corsi.

Corsi does not deserve it. In his book, he carefully walks the reader through what would seem to be an important issue, a candidate's constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States. As Corsi documents, that issue certainly seemed important when John McCain emerged as the likely Republican nominee for president in 2008.

"McCain's Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out," screamed a New York Times headline in late February 2008, one of many such articles questioning McCain's eligibility. The United States Senate took the question seriously enough to hold hearings on the matter, and even after the Senate decided in McCain's favor, the Washington Post questioned whether "Senate Resolution 511 was sufficient to prove that McCain was a natural-born citizen."

Corsi provides a useful history into the thinking that informed Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, the natural-born citizenship clause. In brief, the founders did not want a president with divided loyalties. Regardless of where Obama was born, the fact that his presumed father was a British citizen at the time of Obama's birth, and had every intention of remaining one, made Obama's case at least as worthy of adjudication as McCain's.

But that was not to be. From the beginning, one questioned Obama's eligibility, indeed any of his credentials, at his own risk. The introductory section of Corsi's book shows those who may have forgotten with what incredible impunity the Obama campaign was allowed to proceed.

In March 2008, contract employees for the State Department were caught breaching the passport files of the three still viable presidential candidates, Obama, McCain, and Hillary Clinton. While the media allowed Obama to pontificate about the sanctity of confidential records, they spared the public the knowledge that Obama's file was uniquely visited on three occasions and that that visitor just happened to work for Obama adviser John Brennan, now Deputy National Security Adviser. Two weeks later, Obama first disclosed that he had visited Pakistan in 1981, a fact curiously missing from both of his books. The media predictably averted their gaze.

Unlike every other candidate in modern presidential history, Obama did not choose to share any of his essential documents, and the media happily obliged him. As Corsi details, Obama has shielded those records involved with his adoption, his kindergarten, Punahou School, Occidental College, his passport and travel, Columbia University (including his senior thesis), Harvard Law School, his medical history, his Chicago law practice, his State Senate career, as well as his SAT and LSAT scores, and, until recently, his very birth certificate.

Then, too, there is the question of Obama's Connecticut-based Social Security number, a question that Corsi tackles, but the media inevitably dodge.

In a telling incident from late October 2007, the New York Times offered the then underdog Obama a chance to reconcile the account of his New York years in Dreams from My Father with the accounts of those who knew him. "Yet he declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years."

A campaign spokesman, Ben LaBolt, offered a conspicuously lame explanation for Obama's reticence: "He doesn't remember the names of a lot of people in his life." Lame or not, it worked. Obama's indifference to the facts on the ground may have shocked the Times, but it did not exactly shock the Times or any other media outlet into action.

Ironically, of course, Obama won his U.S. Senate seat in Illinois only after the Chicago Tribune, likely at the prodding of Team Obama, forced both his primary and then his general election opponent to unseal their unseemly, and ultimately lethal, divorce records.

Of all the records, however, none is important as the birth certificate, the ultimate symbol of Obama's cryptic origins. Until the release of the birth certificate on April 27, I had assumed that Obama was born in, if not Hawaii, at least in the United States, the State of Washington, where he was first sighted as a three-week-old by his mother's friends.

A series of events has made me question my assumptions. One is the release a week after the birth certificate of A Singular Woman, the book about Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. I had expected the book's author, New York Times reporter Janny Scott, to clarify any remaining questions about Obama's birth given her two-plus years of research. In fact, however, she does the opposite.

Scott describes the Maui wedding of Obama's presumed parents with the word "reportedly." She tells us not one word about Dunham's whereabouts from the February 1961 wedding to the August 1961 birth. She offers no baby pictures, no tales of trips to the hospital or anxious grandparents, no account of how Dunham got from Hawaii to Seattle. Indeed, Scott purposely fudges the timeline of Dunham's Seattle exodus. Scott almost forces the informed reader to wonder what she is hiding.

The recent posting of Barack Obama Sr.'s INS records has likewise increased my skepticism. In September 2010, Heather Smathers of the Arizona Independent requested these records through the Freedom of Information Act. She received them in CD form on April 18, 2011, and posted them on April 26. The next day Obama produced his birth certificate.

In the 55-page release, only one page is fully handwritten by an INS official. That memo conveniently insists that "Barack Obama II" -- the same odd locution as on the birth certificate -- was born in Honolulu on "8/4/1961."

Most problematic is the content of the dramatically released birth certificate. Corsi does an excellent job documenting the many efforts made to keep that certificate from public view, efforts that put huge demands on Hawaii officialdom, engaged federal courts in needless ways, and, most inexcusably, sent Lt. Col. Terry Lakin to prison. If the birth certificate is, in fact, as innocuous as it appears, a real reporter has to ask why all the efforts to conceal it.

A real reporter also has to at least examine a document this controversial and long concealed. These past few weeks, Corsi and WND have been doing just that with interesting results. Meanwhile, the anti-journalists sit back and snipe at them. And the least sensible of these snipers, alas, are the anti-journalists of the right.






Copyright May 18, 2012 - American Thinker 

Let The People Speak

Normally when Two Sisters From The Right feature an article found in another publication, we do so because the point(s) of view presentend therein mirrors our own.  We call them "we wish we'd written that moments." 

In recent weeks, would be presidential candidate Donald Trump has resurrected the "birther" issue.  The question of Barrack Obama's birth and his paternity, has been the mystery of the century.  Why a presidential candidate would not come clean and reveal all the documents which are asked of him is a travesty.  It is also a Constitutional issue that should have been ruled upon by the Supreme Court of the United States, and to this date, they have shown no interest in doing so. 

We don't have any evidence of Obama's birthplace or he's paternity.  We therefore are taking a different approach to tonight's post. Don Wilkie, writing for The American Thinker lays out facts as to why he believes that Barack Obama,Sr. cannot be the president's father.  The article is quite interesting, however, even more so are the letters to the comments section.  They were written by average Americans who appear to have given the issue a great deal of thought, and in some cases research.  We found reading those letters a fascinating study in the conclusions that every day citizen's have drawn.  It reaffirms our faith in the American voter, that when they go to the polls, they've given thought to the issues and are able to make an informed choice.  Two Sisters hope that if you have a different insight, you'd share it with us as well.  We know the opinion of pundits and commentators, we'd like to hear yours.  Let the people speak!
Two Sisters


Why Obama Was Not Born in Kenya

By Don Wilkie


With Donald Trump's headline-grabbing call for our President to release his birth certificate, more and more people are discussing the circumstances of Obama's birth. Although it seems likely that Obama is hiding something -- the date of birth, the place, the father -- it is highly unlikely that he is concealing a Kenyan nativity.The President's mother, Ann Dunham and father, Barack Obama, Sr., supposedly met in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii. The time was late September, 1960. For the official birth date of August 4, 1961 to work, and assuming that Ann... (Read Full Article)

The people speak.

Posted by: McFire
 Apr 19, 02:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm...since the people who knew Obama Sr never saw him with Dunham and no one knew they were married and there were no witnesses to the wedding in Maui, it may be a fair assumption that he is not even the father of Barry. According to his class schedules and the speed at which he got his degrees, he had no time for a relationship. If he had no income to live in Hawaii or pay for school, where did the money come from? How about being paid for a sham marriage from Dunham's father? That would explain a lot, and be a good excuse for the mystery missing birth certificate (you know...the one with the real information, not the informationless and out of registration number sequence "Certificate of Live Birth").

Posted by: Perspicacious
Apr 19, 02:09 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question isn't just where was he born, but was he a natural born citizen at the time of his election? If in order to get into college or get financial aid Obama confirmed his Indonesian nationality, then he lost his US citizenship. The law looks to whether a dual national who is old enough to know (17 or 18) shows an intention to relinquish US citizenship. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, so a claim of Indonesian nationality by Obama as an adult would indicate his intent not to be a US citizen.


Posted by: Transnational
Apr 19, 05:30 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember the time period in which Barry was conceived. No, the kid is not my son. However, I was a young man with above average looks and well above average test scores. Among Communist college students and young Communist college instructors, the topic of “free sex” was discusses in class and practiced outside of class. In the documentary, “The Weather Underground”( that was produced by associates of the Weather Underground), you will learn that the women of the Weather Underground were expected to provide free sex to their fellow Communists regardless of their preference for any particular participant of the Weather Underground. During the time period that Ms. Dunham conceived Barry, that sexual “duty” was considered to be what good revolutionary women were supposed to do.

Ms. Dunham’s marriage to Mr. Obama appears to be a marriage of convenience. It would have provided the young Kenyan an opportunity to apply for American citizenship if the political climate in Kenya became too dangerous for him to return to Kenya after he completed his studies in America. In 1961, although the “free sex” movement was fashionable among young Communist college students, the social pressure against out of wedlock birth was still great within the larger American culture. Have you ever heard the expression, “Mama’s baby; Daddy’s maybe”.

Posted by: DaleinAtlanta
 Apr 19, 03:31 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly, I don't believe he was born in Kenya, either, and you lay out a circumstantial, but compelling case. I would propose one other data point; the fine work done by AT's own Mr. Jack Cashill, which shows that Stanley Ann Dunham, was enrolled in classes at the University of Washington, within two weeks of baby Obama's birth, if I'm not mistaken. To have had the baby in Kenya, get all the way back to Hawaii, then off to Washington to enroll in class, would've been a bit much, all in that timeframe, I presume?? But, that said, there has been some interesting stuff turn up on the Internet that does give one pause, on this whole issue. The so-called Kenyan Birth Certificates, that one can see on the Internet; there is at least one, that does pass the "smell test". Also, there is Michelle Obama's own words, on Youtube, referring to her husband as Kenyan born. There is the grandmother's statement, about being present at his birth in Kenya, which has, or has not been rebutted, depending upon who you believe? There are several major articles from various African newspapers, still available on the Net, from years ago, referring to Obama as "Kenyan born"; an appellation that may have been promoted by Obama himself when convenient for propaganda purposes as a State Senator and US Senator, but which became inconvenient when a run for the Presidency became more focused. Then there is the whole who-spends-millions-of-dollars-to-hide-their-birth-certificate-if-they've-got-nothing-to-hide-angle, which is the real mystery here. I personally suspect that his mother and "father's" "marriage" was a sham, and that his biological father is Frank Marshall Davis. I doubt that is reflected on his real Birth Certificate however, but I cannot fathom what information is contained therein, that he is driven to desperately hide the real thing, IF it does exist??

Posted by: Nurse Carol
Apr 19, 06:21 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most interesting bit of information from Mr. Cashill's work, to me, is the Ann Dunham/Washington State documentation. In 1961, most women still spent much longer in the hospital after giving birth. I find it preposterous to believe, from simply a post-partum point of view, that an unwed teenage mother left Hawaii scant days after giving birth to her first baby and started classes thousands of miles from her parents. Yet this is one of the few things of which we have actual hard proof.

I read earlier the theory that it's the dates on the birth certificate that Barry wants to hide. If he was born several months earlier, Obama Sr. could not possibly be his father. Perhaps Barry's birth certificate is dated much earlier and says: "father unknown." This would negate the entire first autobiography, which is the house of cards his whole life is standing on.

Posted by: PattyMor
Apr 19, 07:02 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We really have little FACTS regarding little Barry's real background and parentage. Barry has hidden everything, even his long form birth certificate. And, he has apparently spent $2 M Dollars to keep from having to release his LFBC. So you have to ask, if you choose to hide all your records, what are you trying to hide?

Interested in further comments?  They can be found at the end of the article, on American Thinker.


 © American Thinker 2011

Obama's Shutdown

 As Americans anxiously await to hear if the House and the Senate can come to an accord on the budget, or face  the shutting down of the government, Barack Obama and his family preapre to leave town for a previously planned family getaway.  Someone should have warned Mr. Obama that being POTUS requires more intense work than that of community organizer or a Senator who is better known for voting "Present."  One wonders, "Does Obama care if the government shuts down?" 


Utah's Republican, Sen. Mike Lee  is quoted as saying that President Obama's inability to get a budget passed last year may have been "deliberate."  Has the liberal media questioned why, if the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, they were unable to come to an agreement and to approve a budget in 2010? According to Senator Lee,  "It was either irresponsible on one hand or deliberate and malicious on the other with intention to bring about a sequence of events that would culminate inevitably in a government shutdown." Speaking on the Senate floor today, Senator Lee was quite serious.


Lee was not the only person to suspect that the government shutdown could have been preplanned.  Speaking on FOX News, radio talk show host, Chris Plante, questioned how former DNC Chairman Howard Dean could possibly have been able to predict weeks ago that the Republicans would get the blame  for a shutdown.  The answer according to Plante is simple --Dean  knew that  a showdown was coming, and he also knew that the media would be on the side of the Democrats because they are working together.  How else could Dean have stated that he knew who would win?  Plante called the media, "the Bucket Brigade, whose job it is to carry the water for the Democrats."  An apt description and a devious  ploy which does not come as a big surprise. 


The media is ready and very willing, to blame the GOP for the impasse. We believe that in doing so they are underestimating the American public's intelligence and sophistication.  There are some who are willing to be spoon fed by the  news media, but there are entirely too many others who will no longer accept the media bias as gospel.  Both the Democrats and the media persist in repeating the same tired mantra:  "The Tea Party controls the Republicans."  "The Tea Party is whispering in the ear of Republicans."  The Tea Party does not need to whisper in any one's ear.  The Tea Party has a voice of its own and speaks out in the most effective way possible -- at the polls.


The truth of the matter is that in spite of Obama's fear tactics and threats to veto any attempt to keep the American military funded, the government doesn't really "shut down" during a shutdown.  The rules for who works and who doesn't date back to the early 1980s and haven't been significantly modified since.  The Obama administration hasn't issued new guidance.


The air traffic control system, food inspection, Medicare, veterans' health care and many other essential government programs would run as usual. The Social Security Administration would not only send out benefits but would continue to take applications. The Postal Service, which is self-funded, would keep delivering the mail. Federal courts would remain open.


Once again during these negotiations, what has become most apparent to Americans is Barack Hussein's Obama inability to lead.  He threatens to veto any effort on the part of Republicans to continue paying the U.S. Military during a new government shutdown, and the media report it without question.  In case Mr. Obama has forgotten, our country is engaged in three wars in three different countries, the last of which is HIS war in Libya.  The arrogance of the man to threaten to withhold payment to the very people he has sent to put their lives in harm's way!  The insensitivity of the man to play political games with the lives of military families!


There may be a silver lining in this dark cloud that hangs over our country.  If Obama's government withholds payment for all who would be affected by the government coming to a standstill, two important things could take place.  The American people could very well realize how smoothly the government functions without all the bureaucracy and waste of money, and like it.  The Democrats' ploy to turn the voters against Republicans and the members of the Tea Party could backfire and blow up in their face. 


Everyone knows that the Democrats and the White House rejected the Republican's stopgap plan to keep the government going for another week while extending the military's pay for the rest of the fiscal year.  Using the excuse that the two riders contained in the measure were unacceptable, they turned their backs on the GOP offers.  The riders include not funding abortions in the D.C. area and keeping the terrorists detained at Gitmo without coming on American soil.  These are not new demands.  These are provisions that were in place until they were changed by the Obama administration.  If they can be called anything, the word is reversals -- and welcome reversals they would be.


In the end, the stalemate, and the refusal to reach a compromise boils down to defending Obama's health care bill.  Democrats will go to great lengths to protect Barack Obama's legacy - socialized medicine for Americans - at all costs. That includes shutting down the government while placing the blame on Republicans and the Tea Party. Their reluctance to come to an agreement with the GOP is strictly political. In spite of our country facing an astronomical deficit, they are willing, for purely political reasons, to risk bringing the government to a standstill, letting women and children go without money for groceries and bills, furlough federal employees, and close national parks.


These are the same Democrats, Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, et al. who rammed Obamacare down our collective throats and who hid an outrageous amount of expenditures in it. If Senate Democrats are really serious about cutting down on wasteful expenses and getting the economy back on track, they would realize that the path to fiscal health begins with the repeal of Obamacare.



twosisters_ftr@yahoo.com  

Cloudy with a Chance of Sharia

by Rich Carroll

Just when you think Obama can't do anymore to show us his Islamic ties, or his hatred for the United States of America, he pops-up with another travesty against our sovereign nation and “we the people.”

The Obama administration has spent $23 million U.S. Taxpayer dollars in Kenya to fund a “yes” vote on a constitutional referendum scheduled for August 4th that would increase access to abortions in Kenya and establish Sharia Law tribunals. Sharia is the horrible Islamic law that persecutes women and legalized “beheading.” Additionally, Vice President Joe Biden was complicit in this scam during his June visit to Kenya telling government officials “passage of the referendum would enable the White House to open the floodgates to allow millions of dollars of additional U.S. Government aid and private investment capital to flow into Kenya.”

Obama's cousin Raila Odinga is the prime minister of Kenya and a radical Muslim. Obama has been working since he was a U.S. Senator to influence Kenya's politics in favor of his cousin. Odinga cut a deal with radical Islamic groups to help win their support for the radical new constitution. The heavy involvement of the Obama administration in Kenya's politics often against the will of the people is quite the story in the Kenyan Press – and has been for some time, as Obama was instrumental in his cousin's rise to power.

A report by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) estimates that more than $23 million in U.S. Taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum. Rep Chris Smith of New Jersey said some of this money has been spent in support of the proposed constitution violating U.S. Law.

One Kenyan group has received almost $3 million from the U.S. Government, Development Alternatives, openly supported “advocating for efforts to eventually legalize abortions in Kenya. The Committee of experts on Constitutional Review in Kenya changed the wording of the Kenyan Constitution's abortion clause to make abortion more widely accessible, and has received over $180,000. from the U.S.

I thought we were broke and needing budgetary restraint; didn't you

Obama gave Kenya $800,000.00 for a program to keep male genitals clean. He gave Kenya another $3.6 million for a child program.

All of this and he won't spend money to secure our southern border with Mexico. Who does this guy work for?

Should you stumble upon one of Obama's pet websites: www.Islamoncapitolhill.com You will discover that radical Islamic Imam Anjem Choudary will hold a demonstration in Washington D.C. On March 3rd to promote Sharia Law.

No nation can live under two legal systems, and ours is Constitutional Law. Why then are so many American tax payer funded university law schools teaching Sharia courses? I can never get an answer to this question, other than the schools (or the state politicians) are paid-off with Islamic money to allow this.

What IS “Sharia law?” Muslims believe Sharia is God's law that deals with many topics addressed by secular law including crime, politics, and economics as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer and fasting. Where it enjoys official status, Sharia is applied by Islamic judges, or qadis. The imam has varying responsibilities depending on the interpretation of Sharia; while the term is commonly used to refer to the leader of communal prayers, the imam may also be a scholar, religious leader, or political leader. The reintroduction of Sharia is a longstanding goal for Islamist movements in Muslim countries.

In western countries, where Muslim immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced Sharia family law, for use in their own disputes, with varying degrees of success (i.e. Britain's Muslim Arbitration Tribunal). Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy, violence and even warfare.

There is no question the Islamic “movement to conquer the world” is full steam ahead, but to be ably assisted by the so called “President of the United States” is deplorable. Of course anyone who has read his book “Dreams of My Father” will recall the passage on page 261 “If the political winds shift in an ugly direction I will side with them (Muslims).” Should we suddenly be surprised? What is somewhat surprising is Obama's almost daily betrayals of our nation and his gravitas towards Islam. One would think he was perhaps “hand picked” for this job; it certainly appears that way to tens of millions of us.

Richard Carroll is the author of "Orphaned Heroes" a book about his Vietnam experiences, and "Terrorists' Crossing" dealing with our porous Southern border. He has also written a movie screen play and his essays frequently appear in several blogs.

Stepping In It Again

Two Sisters From The Right  are  proud to present an essay by a new guest author to our website.  Mr. Carson is a free lance writer whose work we are delighted to bring to our readers.   Stepping In It Again   is one American's point of view on the crisis in Egypt, and the present American administration bumbling international diplomacy. 


by Kit Carson
02/03/2011

Rule of law through the ages

The rule of law. This central tenant of the government of the United States of America has proven valuable in keeping the republic solvent through the many times of turmoil in its two centuries of existence. Regardless of one’s political persuasion, in spite of the passions of the electorate, despite the world’s opinion of American sentiments and actions, this nation operates under the rule of law. Regular elections, processes of appeals, and even methods for recall insure the smooth transfer of power and peaceful resolution to the political discourse that exists within a free society.

There is revolution afoot in the Middle East and the center of that flashpoint is Egypt. President Hosni Mubarak has been in power since the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981. By many accounts he is not a benevolent ruler, more of a dictator than what most Americans would consider a president. Corruption and human rights violation have been components of his regime as a necessity for his prolonged rule. The country has been under Emergency Law since 1967 which has allowed for a suspension of many citizens rights for over 40 years.


The citizenry has every right to be troubled by their current situation. Rampant unemployment, government corruption, an extended suspension of constitutional rights, and even religious fervor has fueled unrest, protests, and violent clashes between the citizenry and the government. The Mubarak government has responded by firing the Cabinet and calling for elections in September in which President Mubarak will not seek re-election.


When the Taxpayers March converged upon Washington D.C. in September 2009, the federal government’s response was tainted with derision and indifference. That reaction was countered at the polls in November of 2010. Had the rally been violent, public sentiment for the organizers would have been diminished and the movement would have lost momentum in 2009. Had the administration heeded the pleas of the people, they may have saved their political hold on House of Representatives. The rule of law prevailed and the transition of power was again peaceful.

In expressing the administration’s position on the conflict in Egypt, the American President Barrack Obama’s response of "My belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now”, has proven to be halfhearted at best, and encouraging to the violent contingency of protesters at worst. How would President Obama have reacted if a foreign government called for him to step down in the face of such opposition? What if the French President Sarkozy had said the same thing about the American president after witnessing Tea Party rallies in 2010?

There are many diplomatic strategies that can be engaged which can put pressure on foreign governments without engaging in a form of public humiliation. Those that are dressed down tend to dig in their heels and the situations only worsen. Those doing the dressing down inevitably come across as arrogant and bullying. There are no winners in this approach.

Obama's words of diplomacy

President Obama’s public, verbal bumbling into world politics has again placed the United States into an ever weakening position of influence of foreign policy. A nation governed by the rule of law is now being represented by a man operating on a principle of moral relativity. The American public needs to remain resolute in seeing that the orderly transition of the American government continues through 2012. It is going to take great effort to restore the prominence that this nation once held in the world community once this President is removed from office…by the rule of law of course.

Our Generation's Sputnik Moment

01/26/2011

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Investor's Business Daily