Obama’s Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul his presidency.

Registration transcript states
Name: Barry Soetoro - Religion: Islam - Nationality: Indonesian

The smoking gun evidence that annuls Obama’s presidency is Obama’s college transcripts regarding his application for and receiving of foreign student aid.  Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript from Occidental College shows that Obama (Barry Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship (scholarship) for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program – an international educational exchange program sponsored by the U.S. government.  Grants are available for U.S. citizens to go abroad and for non-U.S. citizens with no U.S. permanent residence to come to the U.S.

To qualify, for the non-US citizen scholarship to study in the U.S., a student applicant must claim and provide proof of foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.  The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens 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.”

Obama hasn’t met and doesn’t meet the basic qualifications for the presidency – must be natural born citizen.

Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with many filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud.

The filed indictments disputes Obama’s eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution which requires that eligible candidates for the United States presidency be “natural born” citizens.
U.S. soldiers including a general refuse to recognize Obama as their Commander in Chief since he is not a U.S. citizen. The soldiers have challenged Obama’s legitimacy by filing federal lawsuits against Obama.

On such soldier was U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook who was given orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Cook refused to deploy stating that he shouldn’t have to go because Obama is not a U.S. citizen and therefore not legally President and Commander in Chief.  The military revoked the orders with no reason given.  Speculation is that Obama would rather not see this thing go to court before a judge!

“In the 20-page document — filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces,” the Ledger-Enquirer reported.

Cook “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. … simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties,” Taitz stated.

Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961, just two years after it became a state.

There are many lawsuits and claims that Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States. And there is credible evidence that suggests he is not legally eligible to serve as President of the United States.

Numerous official government documents records Obama being legally registered as Barry Soetoro. School registries shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro. During his Occidental College days he is registered as Barry Soetoro. An entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students (this official government document lists Obama as a foreigner not a US citizen. A US citizen wouldn’t qualify for foreign exchange student funding) states Obama as Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

The first name of a child is always the same from birth. If throughout his childhood Obama went by the first name of Barry then legally his birth name would have to be Barry. In order to register any child for school an official birth certificate must be presented. To receive a government grant proof of citizenship and birth must also be submitted. All of the evidence is stating that Barack Obama’s legal first name is Barry not Barrack.

A biography of Obama’s Occidental College days states that when Obama was 18-19 he attended school as BARRY SOETORO. And it wasn’t until he met a girl by the name of Regina that Obama started using the name Barack.  Regina was the first to start calling him Barack.  There seems to be no record of Obama legally changing his first name from Barry to Barack.

While being sworn in as an attorney in the State of Illinois, Mr Obama had to provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any other names, he responded none. In reality, he used the name Barry Soetoro in an entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students. Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the State Bar of Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity. Anybody else would’ve been disbarred for this and the matter would’ve been forwarded to the district attorney for prosecution for perjury and fraud, however nothing was done to Mr. Obama. More importantly, why did he conceal his identity?

If Obama didn’t legally have his name changed from Barry to Barack then the birth certificate he passed to Congress is a fake, a forgery.  If his name was registered as Barry Soetoro even though Obama claims his real name is Barack Obama then Obama defrauded the state of California in order to receive college funding.  Obama knowingly presented a false document to the state wherein he claimed to be a foreign student in order to illegally acquire financial aid.
U.S. Code

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47—FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

§ 1015. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry

(a) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement under oath, in any case, proceeding, or matter relating to, or under, or by virtue of any law of the United States relating to naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or

(b) Whoever knowingly, with intent to avoid any duty or liability imposed or required by law, denies that he has been naturalized or admitted to be a citizen, after having been so naturalized or admitted; or

(c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization or of citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence or without required appearance or hearing of the applicant in court or otherwise unlawfully obtained; or

(d) Whoever knowingly makes any false certificate, acknowledgment or statement concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation or the signature, attestation or execution by any person with respect to any application, declaration, petition, affidavit, deposition, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other paper or writing required or authorized by the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or

(e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States; or

(f) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)—

This evidence is sufficient to annul the presidency of Obama.   Official Occidental College transcripts registered with the state declares that Obama is an impostor.

The original Article on Press Core

Common Sense Commentary:

Barry Sotoro claims he was Indonesian 

and he claimed his religion was Islam!

If this is true and supportable, it is the earthquake that leads to a great tsunami.

But, will our government be able to process this, or will it ignore the information and its grave ramifications.

The American government is loath to dispose of its presidents. Remember, Nixon had to resign. But, will Obama resign? I don't think so.

The Republican Congress will be willing and able to file Articles of Impeachment. But, then the Senate takes over and Democrats have a majority.  So, impeachment might not go anywhere, or if it does, it probably will not result in Obama leaving office. 

We should each take a moment and pray for our nation and it's deliverance from its current treasonous Administration!

Blessings!

Is It Incompetence or Ideology?

Is It Incompetence or Ideology? 

Charles Krauthammer

June 10, 2011 12:00 A.M.  

Should Republicans run against Obama’s hyper-liberalism or his abysmal economic stewardship?

The Republicans swept November’s midterm election by making it highly ideological, a referendum on two years of hyper-liberalism — of arrogant, overreaching, intrusive government drowning in debt and running deficits of $1.5 trillion annually. It’s not complicated. To govern from the left in a center-right country where four out of five citizens are non-liberal is a prescription for electoral defeat.

Which suggested an obvious Republican strategy for 2012: Recapitulate 2010. Keep it ideological.
Choose a presidential nominee who can best make the case.

But in the last few weeks, the landscape has changed. For two reasons: NY-26 and the May economic numbers.

Last month, Democrats turned the race for the 26th congressional district of New York into a referendum on Medicare, and more specifically on the Paul Ryan plan for reforming it. The Republicans lost the seat — after having held it for more than four decades.

Problem was, their candidate was weak, defensive, unschooled, and unskilled in dealing with the issue. Republicans have a year to cure that. If they can train their candidates to be just half as fluent as Ryan in defending their Medicare plan, they would be able to neutralize the issue.

But that in and of itself is a tactical victory for Democrats. Republicans are on the defensive. Democratic cynicism has worked. By deciding to do nothing about debt and entitlements, and instead to simply accuse Republicans of tossing granny off a cliff, they have given themselves an issue.

And more than just an issue. It gives President Obama the perfect opportunity to reposition himself to the center. After his midterm shellacking, he began the (ostensible) move: appointing moderates such as William Daley to high White House positions; making pro-business, anti-regulatory noises; even offering last month a token relaxation of his hard line against oil drilling.

Ostentatious but not very convincing. Now, however, the Obama pitch is stronger: Leftist? On the contrary, I bestride the center like a colossus, protecting Medicare from Republican right-wing social engineering.

It’s not that the ideological case against Obama cannot be made. Obamacare with its individual mandate remains unpopular. The near-trillion-dollar stimulus remains an albatross. Even the failed attempt at cap-and-trade — government control of energy pricing — shows Obama’s determination to fundamentally transform America. And he is sure to try again to complete his coveted European-style social-democratic project if you give him four more years.

Medicare has nonetheless partially blunted that line of ideological attack. Yet, just as the Democrats were rejoicing in the fruits of their cynicism, in came the latest economic numbers. They were awful. Housing-price declines were the worst since the 1930s. Unemployment rising again.

Underemployment disastrously high. And as for chronic unemployment, the average time for finding a new job is now 40 weeks, the highest ever recorded. These numbers gravely undermine Obama’s story line that we’re in a recovery, just a bit slow and bumpy.

Suddenly, the election theme has changed. The Republican line in 2010 was: He’s a leftist. Now it is: He’s a failure. The issue is shifting from ideology to stewardship.

As in 1992, it’s the economy, with everything else a distant second. The economic numbers explain why Obama’s job approval has fallen, why the bin Laden bump disappeared so quickly, and why Mitt Romney is running even with the president. Romney is the candidate least able to carry the ideological attack against Obama — exhibit A of Obama’s hyper-liberalism is Obamacare, and Romney cannot rid himself of the similar plan he gave Massachusetts. But when it comes to being solid on economics, competent in business, and highly experienced in governance, Romney is the prohibitive front-runner.

The changing nature of the campaign is also a boost for Tim Pawlenty, the successful two-term governor of a very liberal state, and possibly for another ex-governor, Jon Huntsman, depending on who he decides to run as.

Nonetheless, despite the changed conditions, I would still prefer to see the Republican challenger make 2012 a decisive choice between two distinct visions of government. We are in the midst of a once-in-a-generation debate about the nature of the welfare state (entitlement versus safety net) and, indeed, of the social contract between citizen and state (e.g., whether Congress can mandate — compel — you to purchase whatever it wills). Let’s finish that debate. Start with Obama’s abysmal stewardship, root it in his out-of-touch social-democratic ideology, and win. That would create the strongest mandate for conservative governance since the Reagan era.

 Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. 

© 2011 the Washington Post Writers Group.

 Common Sense Commentary:

 Charles is correct, we Patriots need to demonstrate Obama's utter failures, which are self-evident, then link those failures to his contemptuous anti-American ideology, thus crating a vice he cannot escape without attacking his own foundational positions and actions.

Blessings!

What Happened to America and Its Constitution?

More Common Sense by Silence  Dogood!

A Democrat's Take on Fox News

By Douglas E. Schoen

Published June 02, 2011 | FoxNews.com

There have been two magazine pieces recently about Fox News that have made the argument that the News Channel is devoted primarily, if not entirely, to promoting Republican candidates and Republican talking points. And as a Fox News Democrat it struck me that there is a lot more to the story.

I've worked for Fox for seven years and during that period I can honestly say that there's never been an effort, organized or otherwise, to get me or to my knowledge anyone else to advance a particular point of view. More generally virtually every producer I've dealt with has sought to have different points of emphasis in commentaries and debates made so that viewers would get more than a uni-dimensional or narrow perspective.

To the extent that I've talked with Fox News Channel Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes and Bill Shine, Executive Vice President, Programming about recruiting more Democrats, it is my considered opinion that they have sought the highest quality Democrats to complement an unrivaled roster of Republicans.

Indeed as I think about it going back over the last 35 years of American political history Fox has represented among its contributors individuals who have played a significant role at the highest levels of American politics in presidential campaign after presidential campaign.

The pollsters and among the chief political advisers for the last two Democratic presidents, myself and Patrick Caddell are both Fox News contributors and active participants in providing commentary both individually and collectively on the Web and on Fox News Channel.

Caddell represents Fox's coverage of the '76 and '80 Carter campaigns. Bob Beckel, who served as campaign manager for Walter Mondale was and is a preeminent Fox News contributor with a regular spot on “Hannity” as well as high visibility during daytime programming.

Beckel is a mainstream liberal, while Caddell and I tend to be more moderate, but I've never heard anyone seek to draw a distinction between us based on either ideology or party.

For 1988 Fox has Susan Estrich who is somewhere between Beckel and Caddell and myself ideologically and is the first woman to run a national presidential campaign (which she did for former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis). Susan is among America's top lawyers, a law professor and a now preeminent litigator.

I would probably best represent the Clinton years and there have been a number of contributors representing the period since 2000, most notably Howard Wolfson, a strongly partisan Democrat who had a very prominent role on Fox News until he decided to join Mayor Mike Bloomberg's team as a deputy mayor.

Fox has also recruited Joe Trippi, the architect of Howard Dean's 2004 insurgency and the man most responsible for recognizing how the Internet can transform politics. Trippi also was Jerry Brown's key strategist in 2010 in his successful campaign against Meg Whitman for governor of California.

My own sense is that Fox does well not because Roger Ailes has tried to turn it into a vehicle for political advocacy, but because of the superiority of the anchors and talent and most notably the distinctiveness of the programming.

Fox News hits a chord that neither of the other two news channels appears to hit and has extremely competent personnel.

Beyond that I know first hand from discussions that there's an ongoing effort at Fox News to get more high quality Democrats to join the roster, and I couldn't have been more pleased when my former client and friend Evan Bayh joined.

I was also disappointed in another fellow Democrat, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.  After a flirtation with Fox News and a stated public approval of Fox's role in the 2008 election, Rendell went to MSNBC -- apparently to make more money all the while suddenly now becoming a Fox News detractor.

The message I've always gotten from the top of Fox News is get more Democrats, get better Democrats, get people who will speak their mind.

I'm a little amazed when I read magazine articles about the cable channel because the Fox News I work for and contribute to is the not the Fox News I read about.

I'm not naïve, I understand that the point of view presented is not that of the left, but its also not that of the Republican National Committee. Fox News takes whacks at Republicans and did so with great frequency during the last couple of years of the Bush administration.

The conclusion I reach is that the elite media continues to be befuddled by the success that Fox News enjoys in the ratings month after month, year after year. And the only way they can explain it is by ascribing it to some plot or plan or scheme. It’s neither. Its just good television organized by smart executives, whose political perspective may not be my own, but whose commitment to professionalism and excellence appears clear and unambiguous.

Douglas E. Schoen is a political strategist and Fox News contributor. His most recent book is "Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System" published by Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins.

Read more: Click HERE

Common Sense Commentary:

We all hear the liberal moans and groans attacking Fox for its hard work, and honesty.... two things to liberals that are like Holy Water and a Cross to a Vampire.

I wrote a Commentary reviewing the viewership statistics of the 3 main Cable News Channels (Fox, MSNBC, CNN) and those results similarly demonstrate Fox is the only minimally biased news channel and actually has more Democratic viewers than both MSNBC and CNN combined,

Digging Deeper on Cable News Partisanship 

If you ever discuss Fox, or other news reporting issues with a liberal, you might want these tools in your back pocket especially if you enjoy eviscerating hateful idiots.

As always be patient and kind in discussing facts with an Independent. They are winnable votes for saving America's future!

2012!

Blessings!

Pressure Increases on Senate Dems for Debt Deal - Phoenix Americanus

Pressure Increases on Senate Dems for Debt Deal

By Chris Stirewalt

Published May 18, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Senate Can’t Wait for Superman
"I'm giving it a rest, because we're at an impasse. We have to accomplish certain things if we're going to get a deal, and we're just not where we can meet the demands of what I think we have to have to fix our problems."

-- Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., talking to FOX News colleague Trish Turner about the Gang of Six.
The halt to the high-stakes bipartisan debt talks by the Senate Gang of Six may be the key to moving forward on President Obama’s request to increase the government’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

With Sen. Tom Coburn leaving the table over an impasse surrounding Medicare, Senate Democrats can no longer hold out hope for a grand bipartisan bargain before Aug. 4, when a partial government shutdown would commence.

As long as the Gang was at work, Senate Democrats could be excused for stalling saying that they hoped for a big deal to solve the problem in the long term.

Now, President Obama, Majority Leader Harry Reid and the rest of the Senate Democratic caucus must begin in earnest the unhappy work of putting together a small-bore deal to win the support of 60 Senators – including at least seven Republicans.

Read more:     Fox News

Also, read my previous analysis of "Phoenix Americanus" (Restored America) that discussed the previous Budget Deal and why it was a good move (because it led to this successful strategic position in our long war to restore America!

Osama Bin Ladin Dead!

Osama Bin Ladin Dead!

Osama bin Laden, #1 on America's most wanted list and one of the greatest threats to our country, people constitution, is now dead. Please LIKE this post in support of all the heroic men and women who have played a part in achieving justice and defending the USA!

And, please give Prayers and Blessings to all those who lost loved ones on 9/11, and especially to those families who lost heroic loved ones, who died for America, and the American People!

Protect Children Against Repeat Sex Offenders

Philly-Based National Group Fighting Against TSA Pat Downs on Children

Apr 20, 2011 by Randy LoBasso

WeWontFly.com, a national organization opposed to enhanced airport searches, put out a press release this morning calling for a blanket end to pat downs on children.

“The goal of the campaign is to highlight the immorality of TSA [Transportation Security Administration] pat-downs of minors, force the TSA to immediately and permanently halt all touching of minors and encourage travel industry players to join us,” reads the release, which can be viewed on the front page of WeWontFly.com, created in October 2010 by James Babb and George Donnelly.

We caught up with co-founder Babb, who lives in Eagleville and had previously helped put together “National Opt-Out Day” on Thanksgiving Eve 2010, organizing resistance at Philadelphia International (and elsewhere), right in the middle of the expansion of news coverage (and Drudge Sirens!) on the issue, which got people up in a real tussle.

Babb says the efforts to stop TSA searches remains the overarching goal of the group and others like it throughout the country, though says after watching a recent viral video of 6-year-old Anna Drexel getting what he calls “fondled” by airport security, they needed to act.

“Minors are particularly vulnerable,” says Babb. “You and I as adults can say ‘I won’t fly.’ We can choose whether we want them fondling us or irradiating us [with airport body scanners]. Children don’t have that ability.”
He says there should be a zero-tolerance policy of “abusing children in this way” and has called on supporters of WeWontFly.com – including 19,635 Facebook followers, as of the time of this blog – to begin a nationwide “Call Flood” campaign alongside efforts to collect signatures to send to the Obama Administration and TSA officials. The idea is to call huge companies the country over, like airlines and Disney destinations and say that until the companies put pressure on congress to get this stopped, their patronizing will cease.

6 year old girl sexually accosted by TSA

“The Disney Corporation, their own mission statement says protecting children is a priority,” he says. “And the fact that kids are being subjected to this assault on their way to Disney World or Disney Land or a Disney cruise, it’s just horrifying.”

The rationale for searching children is that terrorists may be disguised and be able to use anyone, including children, to get weapons on planes. Babb doesn’t buy it.

“People say there’s this big danger of terrorism,” he says. “The actual danger is so small. You’re eight times more likely to be murdered by a policeman than a terrorist. You’re four times more likely to die in your bathtub than by a terrorist. It’s not a substantial threat at all.”

Babb maintains techniques, such as scanners and pat downs not only don’t make us any safer, but make us less safe. In fact, it’s been reported the body scanners wouldn’t have detected the type of powdered explosives used by the “underwear bomber.” WeWontFly.com maintains alerted passengers, in fact, have a better track record of fighting terrorism – the underwear bomber, shoe bomber, Flight 93 on 9/11 – than do TSA scanners and pat down techniques.

“To say, ‘Look, we’re going to let our guard down if we stop putting our hands in kids’ pants is total bullshit,” muses Babb. “They’re not protecting anybody anyway.”

Link to Phillly-Blog

Common Sense Commentary:

 

TSA actions clearly violate the Fourth Amendment unless travelers clearly, knowingly, and willingly surrender their Rights via written, signed, contract with full understanding.

We only have to look to 50 year of SCOTUS Miranda Rights rulings to know that each of the above elements must be clearly, and willingly be met in order for an American Citizen to surrender their inherent GOD GIVEN Rights.

 

There is no question that should any of us citizens, be caught touching these children, in this way, we would be convicted in court as SEX OFFENDERS, and sentenced to STATUTORY SENTENCES and have to Register as Sex Offenders for life, IF we were to ever leave jail.

Bill of Rights

Fourth Amendment

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 

Child sexual abuse - wikipedia

6 year old boy strip searched by TSA

Sexual assaults on children are normally viewed far more seriously than those on an adult. This is because of the innocence of the child victim, and also because of the long-term psychological impact that such assaults have on the child.

Child sexual abuse (CSA) is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent abuses a child for sexual stimulation. Forms of CSA include asking or pressuring a child to engage in sexual activities (regardless of the outcome), indecent exposure of the genitals to a child,pornography to a child, actual sexual contact against a child, physical contact with the child's genitals, viewing of the child's genitalia without physical contact, or...

Blessings to all PATRIOTS!

New York Times Hammers Obama

All the President's Sanctimony 
Ross Douhat
New York Times, Op Ed

Here is how President Obama introduced his plan for deficit reduction in Wednesday’s speech:

… because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse. You’ll hear that phrase a lot. “We just need to eliminate waste and abuse.” The implication is that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices.

… So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget — two-thirds — is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Two-thirds.

…. So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table …

And here are some choice excerpts from the plan itself:

It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table — but one that protects the middle class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future …

We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid … we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services that seniors need …

… both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we have to do it without putting at risk current retirees, or the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

So, to be clear: We need to put “everything on the table” … except for policies that benefit the middle class and senior citizens. We can’t pretend that we can close the budget deficit by just cutting waste, fraud and abuse … but we can pretend that reining in Medicaid and Medicare spending is just a matter of cutting “wasteful subsidies” and “erroneous payments,” finding “efficiencies” and eliminating “unnecessary care.” We need to make “tough choices” and (did I mention this?) put “everything on the table” … but we can’t change Social Security benefits for current or future retirees.

This was what bothered me the most about the president’s speech. It wasn’t the partisanship and polemicism. Politics ain’t beanbag: President Obama wants to be re-elected, the House Republicans gave him a nice fat target, and I wasn’t surprised that he decided to come out swinging rather than letting the opportunity pass by. Nor was it his refusal to match Paul Ryan’s honesty about what it takes to balance the budget without tax increases with a similar honesty about what it takes to balance the budget while leaving Medicare and Social Security more or less as-is. Evading unpleasant realities is a grand bipartisan tradition: Someday, a Democratic leader will have to admit that he supports tax increases on the middle class, but I’m not at all shocked that President Obama still hopes to save that admission for his second term — or the first term of Joe Biden’s administration, perhaps.

No, it was the sanctimony that got to me. If you’re going to propose reforming entitlements by primarily cutting “wasteful subsidies” and “unnecessary care,” is it really appropriate to shake your finger at politicians who propose to cut “waste, fraud and abuse”? If you’re intent on pretending that tax increases on the rich are the only tax increases required, is it really appropriate to lecture your audience about the need to make “tough choices” and put “everything on the table”? This is a recurring tic in President Obama’s speeches, of course: He likes to frame his partisan thrusts with professorial summaries of the policy landscape, alternating between honest high-mindedness and slash-and-burn polemics. But Wednesday’s address was a particularly frustrating variation on that theme. Rarely has a politician talked so piously (and accurately) about the necessity of hard choices while proposing to make so few of them.

In a sense, I know, even a gesture toward inconvenient realities is better than no gesture at all. It’s the tribute that big-government liberalism pays to fiscal reality, you might say, and it’s a sign of the growing constraints on the progressive vision that President Obama felt compelled to acknowledge that reality at all. (Matt Yglesias and Yuval Levin, from the left and right, made versions of his point following the speech.)

But the sanctimony is still hard to swallow. This president doesn’t pander any more egregiously than his predecessors. But he spends more time trying to pretend that his pandering is really tough-minded, post-partisan truthtelling. And that two-step grows more grating with every passing day.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/all-the-presidents-sanctimony/

Common Sense Commentary:

When you have lost the New York Times, you are no longer relevant in liberal circles. 

Obama has lost his POTUS Bully Pulpit, which is the most powerful speaking position in the world. He now has to reel in the New York Times and many others in order to win the primaries and be re-elected. 

Of course, he will get them back. But at extreme costs. And, at this moment a seated president is now standing outside the White House and has to fight his way back in.

If we Patriots keep our heads down, focus on the larger war, and stay away from fundamental internal arguments over nuanced policies, we will have a new president in 2012, and he will be a Republican. We must choose wisely!

Blessings, fellow Patriots!