Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Emperor Obama And His Court Jester

June 27, 2012 by  

Emperor Obama And His Court Jester
SPECIAL
According to Representative Ben Quayle, Janet Napolitano is a court jester.

The Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Arizona immigration law has one representative referring to Obama as “an emperor.”

Most parts of the law were struck down, but the Supreme Court upheld the part of the law which allows law enforcement to perform immigration checks if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally. Representative Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.) wants answers from Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

“We now confront the spectacle of the president of the United States behaving as an emperor, and the cabinet officer entrusted with the security of the nation as his court jester,” Quayle wrote in a letter to Peter King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Quayle believes the proper response would have been to “arrange open and collegial discussions with Arizona law enforcement.” He continued: “This is the response which would have reflected a sincere desire to serve the public, honor our processes and faithfully discharge the oath she and the president have sworn. Instead, she chose to send forth an arrogant decree which simultaneously insults all Americans and ushers the secretary into history as a petty tyrant.”

Bryan Nash

Staff writer Bryan Nash has devoted much of his life to searching for the truth behind the lies that the masses never question. He is currently pursuing a Master's of Divinity and is the author of The Messiah's Misfits, Things Unseen and The Backpack Guide to Surviving the University. He has also been a regular contributor to the magazine Biblical Insights.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Emperor Obama And His Court Jester”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Larry

    “Quayle believes the proper response would have been to “arrange open and collegial discussions with Arizona law enforcement.””

    Of course. The federal government should negotiate with those who wish to usurp our government. What could be more useful than having 50 different sets of immigration laws!

    • Lew

      Arizona’s law was a mirror of Federal LAW and badly needed since MR.B.O. and his COMMIE THUGS refuse to enforce Federal laws on the books.And if it takes Fifty(50) NOT 57 state laws to do their job,so be it.

    • Randy131

      Are you really that stupid, or just ignorant to what the ‘Arizona Law’ was, and the true reason for it? The Arizona Law was patterned after the ‘Federal Immigration Law’ almost precisely to the letter, and what the US Supreme Court struck down was exactly, word for word, what the ‘Federal Immigration Law’ had it in and said, and the reason Arizona passed the exact same Law as the federal government’s Law, is because they wanted the legal authority to enforce the same Law as the federal Law, which Obama has ordered Janet Napolitano, and all federal agencies not to enforce. The US Supreme Court ruled those parts of the ‘Arizona Law’ unConstitutional, not because they were different than the federal Law, but because the US Constitution gives sole right to enforce any immigration Law to the federal government, and that’s what the federal government was argueing to the Court, that Arizona was trying to do what only they have the right to do, enforce immigration Laws, despite that Obama had ordered them not to be enforced, and the US Supreme Court agreed with the governments arguement that the US Constitution only delagates that enforcement right to the federal government and not to any of the states, despite both Arizona and federal Law being the same. The Arizona Law was designed and passed so at least someone would enforce the federal Law for the protection of the their citizens, since the federal government has refused to do so.

      • http://google gary gerke

        When Obama swore he would uphold the laws of the land and the Constitution of the United States, he obviously meant only those laws that he himself agrees with. Obama’s administration has decrared war on the Constitution and bill of rights. He refuses to defend DOMA and he has decreed his administration will not enforce the AZ part of the law that the surpreme court upheld. Once again he and his band of political thugs thumb their noses at the American people and the Constitution!

    • http://gravatar.com/wandamurline wandamurline

      We only want the ones on the books to be upheld by the federal government. Is that too much to ask that they uphold their oath of office to abide by the laws we have on the books and enforce them? As our forefathers told us in the Declaration of Independence, they forsaw this government we now have and told us it is our DUTY to remove them and replace any tyranical government. We now have one and the time is nearing for their removal and replacement. To sue Arizona and side with Mexico and not stop the invasion of our country from foreign illegals is pursuant to being a traitor and should be dealth with.

    • http://gravatar.com/marine72 marine72Marine72

      Nice Try Larry. The law was set up as a copy of and extension of the federal law that the obozo chooses not to enforce. Chances are, that if the Obamanation were stopped, he would have a tough time not getting hauled in. He has already failed e-verify.

      Please keep on with your BOHICA ways. You probably look good doing toe touches.

    • Unprotected Citizen

      You have no idea of what you are talking about. These responses are absolutely ridiculous. You have to have ‘your papers’ to get insurance, a drivers license, to open a bank account, to buy a home, to board a plane and even to enter and OBAMA rally or a BOOK SIGNING for his wife or HEY! GET THIS ONE!
      WHEN YOU GET STOPPED BY THE POLICE! What a horrible burden it is for us CITIZENS! How DO we do it? But someone who breaks the law and enters illegally shouldn’t have to…….That is the lamest, most idiotic, false argument I have ever heard.

      There is NO Country in the ENTIRE world that allows anyone, anytime to walk in.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Unprotected wrote: “There is NO Country in the ENTIRE world that allows anyone, anytime to walk in.”

        So … maybe we should stop letting them walk right in, huh?

        Illegal immigration is a major problem, but it isn’t solved by taking away rights from law-abiding American citizens–rights that are specifically protected by the Constitution, I might add. Yes, the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to travel freely both within and among the states. That means they don’t need “papers” of any kind, including driver’s licences. (Btw, driver’s licenses are for driving, and driving is a commercial act. If you’re controlling your privately owned car, you’re not “driving.”) The problem is that police don’t know who’s a citizen and who isn’t, do they? So if they’re allowed to ask for papers from non-citizens but not from citizens, they’re going to have problems with enforcement. Sounds like a dead end to me. We must stop the flow of illegal immigrants, but it looks to me like we need to find a different way to do it.

        Unprotected wrote: “You have to have ‘your papers’ to get insurance, a drivers license, to open a bank account, to buy a home, to board a plane and even to enter and OBAMA rally or a BOOK SIGNING for his wife or HEY! GET THIS ONE! WHEN YOU GET STOPPED BY THE POLICE!”

        Actually, you don’t need “papers” to buy insurance. You don’t need a driver’s licence to travel in your car. Opening a NEW bank account has required an SSN since the PATRIOT ACT, despite the legal reality that these regulations cannot be enforced against natural persons (someone will challenge this requirement and win at some point). You do NOT need “papers” to buy a home (assuming you mean gov’t-issued identification “papers”–of course you’re going to have a title and such, and those are made of paper). If Obama wants to see “papers” at his rallies or his wife’s book signing, it’s his event (or his Party’s), and he/they can require whatever they want. I have no problem with that. And, as I already stated, you do NOT need “papers” when you’re stopped by police.

        Unprotected wrote: “What a horrible burden it is for us CITIZENS!”

        I see it as inconvenient as well as an affront to my liberty. If you’d rather get a license for everything you do and carry your permission-to-exist papers everywhere you go, that’s fine for you. But I won’t surrender my liberties simply because you are eager to do so. It is unreasonable of you to insist that law enforcement follow policies that violate the Constitution simply because you do not value your own rights.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Unprotected wrote: “You have to have ‘your papers’ to … board a plane …”

        Oh wow! I can’t believe I left that one out. Yeah, you have to have your “papers” AND get irradiated and/or publicly raped. That’s why I DON’T FLY!!

        More unconstitutionality that will eventually be rejected. But regardless, your choices speak volumes about how much you value your liberty and integrity. Would you REALLY let some pervert stick his/her fingers in your private orifices simply to get where you’re going a little faster? Really?? Then you deserve the system you choose to live in!

        Has it really become so unthinkable to give up our toys, luxuries, conveniences, and entertainments, when our liberty is the price? Come on, people! Who was it that said, “If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both?”

      • AZMarc

        Jazzy, you said “You don’t need a driver’s licence to travel in your car.” True but to operate a motor vehicle on a public road you do. You have the right to travel without papers, just hop a horse and cross country from Phoenix to L.A. Legal and you don’t need papers. But operating a vehicle on a public road is a privilege not a right. Restricting it to people who have demonstrated profeciency is not abridging your rights as you have other means to travel. So you do need papers (drivers license). Try to open a bank account, even just a savings account with no debit card, without ID. You can’t. Flying in an airplane is a privilege not a right, same as driving. So much of what you said is just plain wrong.

      • AZMarc

        Jazzy also said “You do NOT need “papers” to buy a home (assuming you mean gov’t-issued identification “papers”…” Really? If you are correct then perhaps that explains the housing meltdown? Will you loan me $100,000 to buy this house without knowing who I am? This is another statement which is patently false (I know first hand).

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        AZMarc, your analysis of “driving” is just plain wrong. The Supreme Court and other high courts in America have weighed in on this one many, many times. Here’s just a sampling:

        “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

        “Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not a mere privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees of Federal and State constitutions.” -Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 P2d 46

        “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livlihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the Right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees…” -Berberian v. Lussier 139 A2d 869, 872 (1958)

        The Constitutional guarantees these quotes refer to are the right to travel freely and the right not to have your rights taken away except by due process of law. The difference between a right and a privilege is that a privilege can be withheld by the government, for example, by your refusal to pay a fee and/or apply for a license.

        There are two ways you can lose your rights (including this one). One is by due process of law. The other is by consent. Most people have “consented” to turn their right of free travel into a privilege by voluntarily putting themselves under the jurisdiction of the state. They do this by applying for a driver’s license or vehicle registration, for example. So, I suggest that if you want to try this, first make sure you haven’t waived your right to travel by contract.

        AZMarc wrote: “Try to open a bank account, even just a savings account with no debit card, without ID. You can’t.”

        I already addressed this above.

        AZMarc wrote: “Flying in an airplane is a privilege not a right, same as driving. So much of what you said is just plain wrong.”

        No, it’s not the same as driving. And it’s you who is just plain wrong. Flying in an airplane isn’t a privilege OR a right. It’s a contracted service. Airlines are private companies who sell their services. They’re not the government and they don’t require any license to buy a plane ticket.

        AZMarc wrote: “Will you loan me $100,000 to buy this house without knowing who I am? This is another statement which is patently false (I know first hand).”

        Will I loan you my money? Heck no. I never said anything about loans. I said you could buy a home without government-issued ID. So the question is, would I sell you a house without seeing your government-issued ID? And the answer is, Yeah, baby!

        Just because you don’t see something very often, doesn’t make it illegal.

      • AZMarc

        Ok, one at a time and it may take a little bit. First the bank account “Opening a NEW bank account has required an SSN since the PATRIOT ACT” that was how you dealt with it. I tried to open a plain savings account to deposit my check into in 2000, they (three different banks same requirements) wanted a state issued ID, social security card and a major credit card. A birth certificate was not on the list.
        I agree with you about air travel. The airline as a private company can (or should be able) to require whatever they want. If it people don’t like it that is what free enterprise is for. But now the government has imposed the TSA between the people and the providers of the service. I don’t believe we are safer and I don’t believe it is constitutional. I think we agree.
        I must also agree to your argument about buying a house. If someone drops by and offers cash I don’t care who he is. But in my world (most ordinary people) houses aren’t bought with cash so a buyer has to get a mortgage. Then it is similar to the airline situation and if the loaning institution wants to ask for ID I think I would understand.
        The driving information you gave me is causing me to do some more thinking on the subject. Frankly I am siding with you but I do have a question for you. Drinking is your right but not until 21. Smoking is your right but not until 18. Voting is your right but not until 18. These rights (and they are rights) are restricted. Rights are only supposed to be restricted or taken away by due process. I find myself agreeing with you with the caveat that the right to drive would be similar to voting (18) but if licenses were not issued and someone’s right had been taken away by due process (driving drunk for instance) and he violated another law how would the police know assuming he gave them a false name. I am all about small government but some government is necessary.
        I am not trying to be argumentative, in fact after some research and thought, you have changed my mind on most of the issues. BTW I only used your likks as a beginning point as my belief is in the constitution not case studies. Too many previous cases were incorrect when viewed through the lense of the constitution.

      • AZMarc

        Really doesn’t matter anymore. The constitution is dead. We are RULED by a socialist governenment which can force us to do anything they want. Rebellion? Really? Never happen with the populace we have now.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        AZMarc, thanks for your reply. I appreciate your experience with the banks before 9/11, but those were bank policies. The law did not require banks to collect SSNs before 9/11.

        We do agree about air travel and loans. I agree that it doesn’t make any practical difference to the consumer whether a certain requirement was put in place by government or by all the companies in a given industry. I am jealous of my liberty regardless of who demands that I give it up. In that sense, I am more likely to complain about government regs than corporate ones, because it’s unlawful for gov’t to do certain things. Also, no matter how inconvenient it is to do without a particular product or service, it’s still *possible* to simply refuse to patronize a company. Can’t do that with a gov’t. (And yes, I do choose to make do with a slower, less “convenient” lifestyle than most people.)

        I’m glad that the driving info has made you think. :-) I also really respect your position that it’s better to go straight to the Law (the Constitution being at the top of that list) rather than relying on precedents from corrupt courts. If you don’t have a background in law (law school, etc.), then this site might help you teach yourself how to study the law from its source and understand it. I have found this site to be very helpful: http://teamlaw.net/TrusteeMessage.htm

        As for your questions about drinking, smoking, and voting. Drinking and smoking are issues of personal liberty. Neither the federal Constitution nor (as far as I am aware) any of the state Constitutions delegate authority to the government to tell people what they can and can’t put into their own bodies. For minors, of course, their parents have that responsibility–but government doesn’t. So these would be unconstitutional laws (my guess is they probably operate on contract, somewhat the way driver’s licenses do). Voting is a little different, of course, since it’s not something you put in your body. However, it is still a fundamental right in this country for citizens to choose their government. I think the key lies in acknowledging the nature of sovereignty. That’s a word that you hear bandied about in certain patriot movements, i.e., that Americans are sovereigns (kings), not citizens (subjects), and the government works for us not the other way around. What sovereignty really means, however, is that you own Land. Where there is a king, his authority is based on the fact that he owns all the Land and everyone else is simply a tenant there at his pleasure. (Even today, if you “buy” land in England, you’re not really buying it; you’re leasing it for a really long time–175 years, I think.) In America, regular people can own Land and that is why they are “sovereign;” they get to make the rules for their own Land the way a king does. Our government derives its authority from the people. Think of it this way, the “sovereigns” (Landowners) of America entered a compact (treaty) with each other to create our government. The children of those Landowners can be thought of as heirs apparent–they stand to inherit their parents’ Land (and thus become “sovereigns”), but they haven’t yet. That is why they can’t vote until they come of the age when they could inherit. (It’s also why, originally, you had to own Land in order to have the right to vote.)

        Then you asked: “Rights are only supposed to be restricted or taken away by due process. I find myself agreeing with you with the caveat that the right to drive would be similar to voting (18) but if licenses were not issued and someone’s right had been taken away by due process (driving drunk for instance) and he violated another law how would the police know assuming he gave them a false name.”

        Remember that the rules of the road (including drunk driving laws) operate on a contract basis when you agree to sign up for a driver’s license or other contract. If you didn’t have such a contract, you wouldn’t be bound by those rules. If you went driving while drunk and hurt someone (or their property) then you would possibly go to jail and/or have to pay restitution. The idea of taking away someone’s right to drive, remember, is predicated on them volutarily applying for a license that makes them agree not to drive drunk. The license (a privilege) can be suspended or revoked for violating its terms. But there is no provision for taking away the RIGHT to drive from someone who breaks the law. That would be like saying, “You touched a gun while drunk, therefore you can’t own a gun for 6 months.” It might be dumb to touch a gun while drunk, but it isn’t against the law (and shouldn’t be). On the other hand, if you pick up a gun and shoot someone while drunk, you deserve to be in jail, because then you’ve actually created a victim–not because you were drunk, but because you shot them. Likewise, if you drive drunk and kill someone, you deserve to be in jail, but again, that’s because you killed someone, not because you drove drunk. Does this obviate your question? Once the person got out of jail, he could drive again, so there would be no need for the police to know his driving history. If the person hadn’t committed a crime (when questioned by police), then it wouldn’t matter if he gave a false name; the police don’t need to know who he is. But if he HAD committed a crime, then he would be arrested regardless of who he was, and the police would have time to figure out his identity later.

        And then you wrote: “Really doesn’t matter anymore. The constitution is dead. We are RULED by a socialist governenment which can force us to do anything they want. Rebellion? Really? Never happen with the populace we have now.”

        I empathize with your feelings! However, there are many solutions that are much more effective than voting, and don’t require rebellion against the “government.” You would not BELIEVE how much of modern life is regulated by contracts with the government. If you just identify them and put them to rest, you can live almost as free as our Founders did. If you follow the link I posted and poke around that website a little, you will see what I mean. They have a long history of helping people secure their God-given liberties, even in this crazy country.

  • Warrior

    That’s a spiffy hat jan’s wearing, and it fits perfectly! My goodness, where does this character Quayle think he lives, USA? Folks, this is every progressive’s dreamland. This is UTOPIA. How do you like it?

    • momo

      It f’ing sucks!

  • pj

    Well, Larry. What would be really great is if the federal government would upheld the laws that are already on the books. The Administrative branch should shuffle the paper around into neat piles and let the Legislative branch make the laws, as intended. I think that is why the THREE branches were so aptly named. The current regime mistakenly thinks there is only one branch. An error that will shortly be resolved.

  • braindeadUS

    I think the whole presidents cabinet is full of jokers, morons, and crooks.

  • Sue

    Representative Ben Quayle isn’t the only one that want answers. We The People want them too.

  • http://www.facebook.com/steve.lohrstorfer Steve Lohrstorfer

    Even when the Supreme court puts a stop to this the Idiots blame Pres. Obama and a new round of Childish name calling starts.If any of you whiners got pulled over and asked to prove your citizenship you would be so pissed.Like Ron White says “you can’t fix stupid” And there is only two Working branches of the government, congress hasn’t done anything but hold up progress to make Obama a one term president. A vote for rommney is a vote for the 1% and back to the big spenders who drove us into the ditch to start with. WANDAMURLAND your the traitor

    • http://google gary gerke

      You are a typical liberal with no facts, just liberal talking points.This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term.

      Don’t just skim over this, it’s not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!

      The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

      The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

      For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:
      January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

      At the time:
      The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
      The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
      The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
      George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH

      Remember the day…
      January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

      The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

      BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

      Unemployment… to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

      Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

      And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

      And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress

      So when someone tries to blame Bush.

      REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007…. THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!”

      Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

      Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
      Haven’t Libs milked this “Bush’s fault” excuse a little too much …

    • Warrior
  • Scott

    Does NO ONE on these various media sites, see that what was upheld IS the part that will be YOUR final nail in YOUR freedom? Who among you do not believe that ALL policing officers will NOT have reasonable suspensions abt. “every one”, including YOU, your SON, your DAUG., your WIFE, your GRANDS??? THIS is the gate that is now opened and this quote is the important one…. “the Supreme Court upheld the part of the law which allows law enforcement to perform immigration checks if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally”…. EVERY ONE NOW can be and will be stopped and asked for “their papers”. Sure it is 1st. your state issued ID or Drivers License, but the next step in what, days>weeks>months>one yr.?, will be YOUR NATIONAL FED ISSUED RFID CARD and if it does not contain your dan, your birth certf., & all info needed to ENSURE, INSURE that YOU and YOURS are a legal citizen. HA, we will need FEMA camps, private Prisons, to HOLD all of the folks who will NOT go along with a national ID card, or who don’t carry one, thinking I’ll be OK…… HA, back to the days of being “black or colored” in South Africa and being a russian citizen in the old SOVIET UNION, when YOU and YOURS could NOT even leave your town without YOUR PAPERS!!

    Don’t you FOOLS see that the part that was upheld IS the part that the FED boys need to make POLICE POWER the MAJORITY POWER in the USA!!!! ??????? Geez, how blind are you folks on here and other media sites? You are truly being lead down the road to a POLICE STATE!!!!!!!!!

  • http://survivingurbancrisis.wordpress.com Silas Longshot

    Obama has been running a kangaroo court since day one. Just another fine example of electing an unvetted, populist, community organizer who is determined to ‘rule’ America under his own guidelines.

  • Lisa

    Scott says:
    June 27, 2012 at 9:57 am

    back to the days of being “black or colored” in South Africa and being a russian citizen in the old SOVIET UNION, when YOU and YOURS could NOT even leave your town without YOUR PAPERS!!

    That has been their agenda all along! Well said!

  • MAP

    Obama believes illegals and the foreign state of Mexico will put him in for another 4 years and he can continue his moronic destruction of the country. He has already made proof of citizenship unnecessay for voting. Just like his forcing the healthcare bill on us, he now wants to foist himself into another term, whether we like it or not. Do you call that audacity or stupidity? I call him just pure evil.

  • AZMarc

    Our Governor and legislature needs to prohibit all law enforcement agencies in Arizona from enforcing or otherwise participating in the enforcement of (investigations, etc.) any federal crime.

  • teaparty13

    I think In have a way AZ can get rid of the illegals without calling in the feds.. Since AZ borders CA, drop any illegal found in AZ at the CA border.( CA loves illegals) Then maybe ICE will do it’s job if CA calls in the feds ..AZ law enforecement can then use border patrol on their borders with neighboring states to prevent illegals from sneaking back in.. ..we have a illegal problem here in upstate NY also, an illegal was just sentenced to prison for murder.

    • AZMarc

      How long would it take before Holder arrested the police officers and department heads and any patriots doing this for kidnapping (another federal crime which AZ should no longer enforce).

  • GaryTraditionalUltraConservative

    Barack Hussein Obama’s emotional and mental health and emotional and mental sanity or insanity must be seriously questioned, examined and investigated. Obama’s eligibilty to be President may be more dependent on his emotional and mental sanity or insanity than where Obama was factually born or if Obama is or is not a Natural Born U.S. Citizen. Both George W. Bush Jr. and Barack Obama are not qualified and were never qualified to be elected Dog Catcher for the local Department Of Animal Control or for the Humane Society, however Barack Obama seems to be especially not Psychiatrically qualified to be President as evidenced by his extremely arrogant and rabid pernicious insatiable ultra narcissistic ultra super egotistical megalomaniac behavior of habitually completely and totally ignoring, side stepping, evading, distorting, perverting, subverting, violating and breaking any parts of the Constitution and any of the Amendments to the Constitution at any time to satisfy his own obscene personal pernicious rabid insatiable ultra narcissistic ultra super egotistical megalomaniac political ambitions. Barack Obama has all of the classic Psychiatric Psychopathic symptoms of the very serious and very severe genetic neurological brain deformity known as severe extreme chronic Asperger’s Disorder or chronic Asperger’s Syndrome which is very common among many Tyrants and Dictators throughout history who all have very pernicious rabid insatiable ultra narcissistic ultra egotisical megalomaniac desires to acquire and retain total absolute power and authority over all persons and over all things as absolute total control freaks who must have absolute total control of everything and every person and those total control freak ultra narcissistic ultra egotistical megalomaniacs who have all of the classic symptoms of very severe extreme chronic Asperger’s Disorder or Asperger’s Syndrome are Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Mao Tse-tung, Genghiz Khan, Pol Pot, chronic women’s shoe fanatic collector Mrs. Imelda Marcos, possibly Civil War Axe Bearing President Abraham Lincoln, Pyramid Of Severed Heads Builder Tamerlane, possibly Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Roman Emperor Nero, Atilla The Hun, probably President George W. (W. for Weapons Of Mass Destruction) Bush Jr., definitely and without any doubts, the two Field Marshal Idi Amin clones known as Neurotic and Psychotic Narcissistic Paranoid Schizophrenic Anti-Hispanic Metal Silverware Barack Obama(possibly Obama collects massive amounts of table silverware because massive collections or massive accumulations of very specific identical items is another symptom of Asperger’s Disorder) and U.S. Mobster or Gangster Black Panther Mafia Attorney General Eric Holder and many other totally insane nut case fruit cake wacko job ultra narcissistic ultra super egotistical megalomaniac Tyrants and Dictators. Both Obama and Eric Holder desperately need immediate emergency Psychiatric Medical Help and Treatment immediately and both Obama and Eric Holder should be safely committed to and safely institutionalized in and safely placed in Happy Valley Psychiatric Mental Hospital for the criminally insane and for the habitually criminally pernicious rabid insatiable ultra narcissistic ultra super egotistical megalomaniac Tyrants and Dictators. Hopefully there is a Guaranteed Escape Proof and Guaranteed Chew Proof Kevlar Straight Jacket that is exactly the correct size for Barack Obama and for his sidekick Eric Holder both in Psychiatric Mental Hospital matching pink striped colors that will be easily visible if either of them attempts to escape from the Psychiatric Mental Institution by attempting to climb over the Mental Hospital barbed wire chain link security fence. Very serious and very severe extreme chronic Asperger’s Disorder, also known as Asperger’s Syndrome, affects approximately 10% of the male population in the entire world, however, there is a female version of Asperger’s Disorder and Nancy Pelosi, Janet “Little Napoleon Complex” Napolitano, Mr.(Mister) Janet Reno, women’s shoe fanatic collector Mrs. Imelda Marcos and Queen or Empress Barbara Boxer all seem to be the Poster Girls for the female version of the most severe extreme chronic Asperger’s Disorder that affects women, especially severely Psychotic Nit Wit Nancy Pelosi. People who have Asperger’s Disorder have a viciously rabid and pernicious insatiable egotistical megalomaniac desire to control everything around them and to control every person around them, and therefore people who are inflicted with Asperger’s Disorder, also known as Asperger’s Syndrome, are very enthusiastically active and well known participants in politics, government, any profession in Law and some types of business management like the infamous temper tantrum office typewriter thrower, office telephone thrower and office computer monitor thrower maniac Bill Gates of Microsoft fame who is one of the well known and very well documented clinically diagnosed Asperger’s Disorder nut case patients who has very extremely severe chronic Asperger’s Disorder or Asperger’s Syndrome, which is a genetic neurological and physiological deformity of the brain disorder that is related to Autism but is much worse than Autism. People who have Asperger’s Disorder are pernicious rabid insatiable ultra super egotistical megalomaniac control freaks and they absolutely desperately need to control absolutely every person around them and absolutely everything around them regardless of right or wrong and with a very serious lack of good judgement and a very serious lack of rudimentary basic common sense and a very serious lack of practical logic and a very serious lack of empathy for other people. It is total control at any price and total domination at any price that is the rabidly pernicious insatiable number one ultra narcissistic ultra super egotistical megalomaniac desire and desperate need of all people who have the most serious and the most severe extreme chronic Asperger’s Neurological Disorder. Apparently, Washington D.C. is now currently the world’s largest Psychiatric Mental Hospital for the criminally insane and for the criminally perniciously rabid insatiable ultra narcissistic ultra super egotistical megalomaniacs since the Kremlin in Moscow lost that position with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

  • LARRY PAUL

    THERE is one reason OBAMA does not wont to get into the Illegal fight because he’s an
    Illegal himself and no one in congress has a backbone to stand up against him or no one cares ether way we are screwed because this man has now plowed the way for the muslin
    brotherhood to run this country just like he helped in Egypt LIBYA soon SYRIA THEN sharia law in the USA if we don’t wake up these are all warning’s that GOD has allow
    to turn us toward him

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.