FAILED LIBERAL IDEAS

FAILED LIBERAL IDEAS

FAILED LIBERAL IDEAS (The Heritage Foundation List)

Liberal ideas are a lot of things: dangerous, wasteful, unconstitutional, even socialist at times.

MOST LIBERAL IDEAS HAVE FAILED . . . miserably!

Liberals love to call themselves compassionate. So why do their ideas so often end up with catastrophic results on the people they're intended to help?

They call themselves progressive. Truth is, though, their ideas are recycled schemes that continue to blow trillions of dollars on bloated, failed programs that take the country backward.

They talk about personal liberty like they invented it. But everything they do butts into every corner of your personal life.

In short, many liberal ideas are recycled failures that backfire and can't get simple concepts straight.

1. The War on Poverty

In their compassion for the poor, liberals earmarked $50 billion in 1964 to provide medical care, housing, cash transfers, and food subsidies to ease the plight of the disadvantaged.

Hatched by social engineers who cooked up President Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society," the War on Poverty spawned a welfare mentality that has trapped the poor in a web of dependency, spent $16 trillion—without making a dent in the poverty rate—and will burn through another $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

2. The U.S. Department of Education

President Obama proposed a new education reform package called "Race to the Top," which includes increased federal funding to states whose public schools improve student performance.

The U.S. Department of Education has spent trillions of tax dollars growing a bloated, top-down bureaucracy, but American public education still lags behind other countries. Now, President Obama wants to bribe states with billions more if they give in to additional federal interference in their schools: "If states show that they’re serious about reform," says President Obama, "we’ll show them the money."

If these ideas are so good, why do liberals have to pay people to use them?

3. The U.S. Department of Energy

Created in the 1970s as one of President Jimmy Carter's bright ideas, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has seen its mission evolve from basic research and development to spending billions to commercialize technologies that aren’t yet viable—and might never be.

Despite funding numerous projects that never get off the ground, the U.S. Department of Energy has seen its budget grow by more than $11 billion in the last 10 years—a 76% increase! Because our nation is looking for spending to cut, the DOE might be the place to start. Instead of focusing on opening new sources of energy, the DOE pushes politically correct pet projects that are expensed to the American people.

4. The Community Reinvestment Act

Liberals created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to encourage private lenders to meet the needs of borrowers in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.

The CRA spawned sub-prime mortgage lending, which boomed starting in the mid-1990s under President Bill Clinton. When the bubble burst, millions of sub-prime borrowers—the low-income people the CRA was created to help—found themselves owing more than their homes were worth. This set off the foreclosure cascade, tipped the economy into a prolonged recession, and plunged many families into poverty after they lost the homes they couldn’t afford but that Washington induced them to buy.

5. 'Comprehensive' Immigration Reform

Senate liberals' latest immigration proposal offers multiple "paths to citizenship" for foreign nationals who are in America illegally.

They’re touting their Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011 as the complete and real solution to America’s immigration problems. Hoping Americans will ignore history, though, liberals’ current manipulation is as catastrophically irresponsible as the amnesty law Congress adopted in 1986, which more than quadrupled the population of people here illegally.

If $16 trillion hasn’t made a dent in the poverty rate, isn’t it kind of ridiculous to think another $10.3 trillion will solve the problem?

And if President Obama’s $800 billion stimulus didn’t create jobs, isn’t it ridiculous to think another $450 billion “jobs plan” will do the trick?

Of course it is.

President Obama and his liberal cohorts in Congress, however, don’t see a problem with recycling failed liberal ideas from the past and spending the country into oblivion to enact them.

Dr. Ron Polland Video Evidence That Factcheck.org Forged Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate

Dr. Ron Polland Video Evidence That Factcheck.org Forged Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate

The White House Claims They Ordered Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate From Hawaii Department Of Health In 2008, Yet, Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate Is Date Stamped 2007.

Busted: White House Now Claims They Ordered Short-Form COLB From Hawaii Department Of Health In 2008 Yet COLB Is Date Stamped 2007

The Obama lies keep mounting The White House Claims They Ordered Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate From Hawaii Department Of Health In 2008, Yet, Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate Is Date Stamped 2007

(Obama continues the deception about his short form birth certificate. This is more proof obama is a HOAX/FRAUD. Obama is the foreign enemy within.) Story Reports

SC Sheriff Urges Citizens To Arm Themselves

SC Sheriff Urges Citizens To Arm Themselves. Sheriff Chuck Wright Doesn’t Hold Back.

SPARTANBURG COUNTY, S.C. -- The Spartanburg County, S.C., Sheriff is known for speaking his mind, and at a news conference on Monday, he didn't hold back his anger and frustration after a woman was attacked in a park over the weekend.

Investigators said 46-year-old Walter Lance grabbed a woman who was walking her dog in Milliken Park on Sunday afternoon. They said Lance choked the woman, made her take off her clothing and tried to rape her.

Lance is in custody and was denied bond on Monday.

Sheriff Chuck Wright opened his news conference by saying, "Our form of justice is not making it."

He said, "Carry a concealed weapon. That'll fix it."

Wright said Lance had been charged numerous times with crimes again women, and other crimes such as resisting arrest and escape. Wright said Lance had been on probation for a federal gun charge.

He referred to Lance repeatedly as an "animal," and expressed his disgust about Lance's long record and the attack.

Wright said Lance has had more than 20 charges dating back to 1983.

Wright said Lance has been in jail more often than he has, and he runs the jail, and he said he gets out easier. He punctuated by saying, "And I'm aggravated."

He said he doesn't believe every person needs to be kept in jail, but he said, "I don't think this animal deserves to be out in our society, walking alongside our women."

Wright said,"Liberals call me and tell me the chain-gang form of justice isn't working. Well, let me inform you, your form of justice isn't working either."

He said Lance should not have had the right or opportunity to "violate a good, upstanding woman."

"This is a horrific crime," Wright said. "Her life was threatened so many times."

He said Lance "doesn't fight police or men folk -- he just goes after women." He said Lance is not married because, "No woman can stay married to him because he beats them down too much."

Wright said, "It's too bad someone with a concealed weapons permit didn't walk by. That would fix it." He said people are tired of doing the right thing and criminals getting away with their actions.

He said several times, "I want you to get a concealed weapons permit."

Wright said, "I'm tired of looking at victims saying, 'There's life after this' … I'm tired of saying, 'We're sorry, we can't keep them in jail.'"

Wright said in his view, gun control is, "How fast can you can get the barrel of your gun back on the target?"

Wright said the attack is not the fault of Millken Park. He said, "It's a nice place for families."

He said officers patrol the area all the time and respond to various calls there. He said, "Don't blame anyone for having an animal on their property … We can't get it all."

He encouraged women to walk in groups, and he ended by saying again, "I want you to get a concealed weapons permit. Don't get Mace. Get a firearm."

And then he said, "I think I better stop before I get sanctioned."

Watch Sheriff Chuck Wright News Conference Liberal Gun Control Idiots Get A Kick In The Butt
........................................................................................
Additional Info:

The most effective handgun round on the market - regardless of caliber - is the Federal .357 Magnum 125 grain jacketed hollowpoint (357B). This load has more stopping power than any other handgun bullet (and this includes more powerful rounds like the .41 and .44 Magnums). I advise all experienced revolver men to carry the legendary Federal 357B in a .357 revolver, or the equally good Remington full-power 125 grain semi-jacketed hollowpoint (R357M1).

There is one caveat, however. The 357B and other full-power .357 Magnums have a lot of blast and kick. If you are not comfortable with the buck and roar of full-house .357 Magnums, I would strongly suggest that you use a lower-recoil round. Controllability is important, and you will be able to fire lower-recoil rounds more rapidly and accurately. All of these .357 loads have excellent stopping power, so don't worry that you are giving up too much.

The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship: Obama Not Eligible.

Lawyer Leo Donofrio Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible.

Minor v. Happersett

The citizenship issue decided in Minor v. Happersett has been documented as precedent by multiple sources of legal scholarship.

The Supreme Court issued two holdings in Minor; one on citizenship and the other on voting rights.

That the citizenship issue is precedent, and not dictum, has never been questioned in our national history until now, just as the very words of the Constitution are being scrubbed. My research indicates unequivocally that for over a century before the appearance of Obama, Minor was recognized and cited as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship.

REDERICK VAN DYNE, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR US DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Legal scholar and Government attorney who specialized in citizenship law.)

REDERICK VAN DYNE will provide unquestionable clarity on the issue of why Minor v. Happersett is precedent on citizenship as well as voting rights.

Frederick Van Dyne who, while holding the office of Assistant Solicitor for the US Department of State, published analysis that the citizenship decision in Minor v. Happersett was precedent.

Van Dyne argued that persons born of foreign parents on US soil were “native-born citizens” of the US prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the 14th Amendment. But Van Dyne, while discussing the holding in the New York case of Lynch v. Clark (not binding on the Federal Courts), failed to endorse that case’s opinion that all native-born citizens of foreign parentage were natural-born citizens. In his famous treatise, “Citizenship of the United States” (Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Co., 1904), Van Dyne only went so far as to state that such persons were “native-born citizens”.

Where the US Supreme Court in Minor differs from Obama eligibility propaganda is that the former regards being “native-born” as just one element necessary to meeting the natural-born citizen standard of POTUS eligibility, whereas the latter incorrectly argue that it is the only element. As you will see below, Van Dyne directly recognized that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Minor was precedent on citizenship, and that the holding therein defined natural-born citizens as those born in the US of citizen parents.

In the following passage, Van Dyne argues that previous American cases recognized that persons born on US soil were US citizens regardless of the citizenship of the parents. However, Van Dyne also points out that a statement by the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases appears to contradict this theory. But Van Dyne’s analysis stresses that the contradictory statement in the Slaughter-House Cases is dictum.

He then refers to the “decision” in Minor v. Happersett on citizenship in order to counter the “dictum” from the Slaughter-House Cases. Van Dyne clearly recognized the Minor Court’s decision on citizenship as precedent which outweighs the dictum of the Slaughter-House Cases. In doing so, Van Dyne quotes the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen as one born in the US to citizen parents:

3. Children born in United States of alien parentage.-The Federal courts have almost uniformly held that birth in the United States, of itself, confers citizenship. In two cases the courts have used language which has been relied upon in support of a contrary view. These will now be considered.

In delivering the opinion of the court in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 73, 21 L. ed. 408, Mr. Justice Miller said: "The phrase, 'subject to the jurisdiction,' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States."

This has been cited in support of the contention that the children born in this country to aliens are not citizens of the United States. It is to be observed, however, that this is only a dictum. The question was not involved in the decision of the case before the court. The classing together of foreign ministers and consuls, when it was at the time well-settled law that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character, are not entitled, by the law of nations, to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors, shows that the statement was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for a precise definition of the phrase. And the fact that neither Mr. Justice Miller, nor any of the justices who took part in the decision above referred to, understood the court to be committed to the view that children born in the United States of alien parents were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, is shown by the unanimous opinion of the court in the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L. ed. 627, decided but two years later, when all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench.

The court said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection [in relation to citizenship], reciprocal obligations. ... At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-bor n citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

The decision in this case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the elective franchise not l>eing essential to citizenship.

Very rarely, whilst doing research, does one come upon historical evidence that so perfectly establishes the point in question. Examine the last paragraph again:

“The decision in this case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.” (Emphasis added.)

The “decision” in Minor is twofold:

1) woman are equal citizens to men;

2) voting is not a right of citizenship.

The first point is still good law. This may seem obvious now, but in 1875 it wasn’t. Virginia Minor did not accept that citizenship without voting rights was equal citizenship. She argued that women were being treated as “halfway citizens” and she directly petitioned the Court for a determination which stated that women were equal citizens to men.

The Court in Minor, referring directly to Article 2 Section 1, and specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment, held that women, if born in the US to citizen parents, were citizens and that their citizenship was equal to men. The Court further stated that this “class” of persons were “natives, or natural-born citizens.”.

PART I.CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH. Citizenship of the United States
By Frederick Van Dyne, United States

The Court also held that while women were equal citizens to men, the Constitution did not provide a right to vote to anyone, male or female. This part of the holding was later erased by the 19th Amendment, but the citizenship determination remains as good law today. Therefore, the Court’s decision in Minor operates against Obama being eligible, since his father was never a US citizen.

Van Dyne examines the Slaughter-House dictum carefully since it is a statement made by the highest court in the nation which contrasts his view that all persons born on US soil are native-born citizens. In classifying the Slaughter-House statement as dictum, Van Dyne notes that determining the citizenship of persons born on US soil to alien parents was not an issue before the court in that case. He then points to the “decision” on citizenship from Minor to contrast the Slaughter-House dictum, and in doing so Van Dyne makes clear that Virginia Minor’s citizenship was an issue directly before the Court in Minor.

Note the following crucial passage from Justice Waite’s opinion again, paying particular attention to the punchline:

“[T]he Constitution…provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President’…The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.” (Emphasis added.)

Current propaganda attempting to sanitize Obama in light of the Supreme Court’s precedent in Minor mis-directs that Minor’s citizenship was not an issue directly before the Court. But in the passage above, the Court’s unanimous opinion clearly states that “the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.” So, squarely before the Court was the issue of whether women were equal citizens.

Read More About Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible. At Leo Donofrio's Blog

Neither candidate in 2008 was eligible to be president

Neither candidate in 2008 was eligible to be president

by HoaxDetector

Listen to internet radio with HoaxDetector on Blog Talk Radio

Sanford and Son Very Cool Song

Sanford and Son - Theme Song Very Cool



(Yes the obama "birth certificate" could be found maybe in a sanford and son junkyark sometime in the future.)

If you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it. (OBAMACARE)

Will You Sell Your House After 2013?

THIS WILL BLOW YOU AWAY !!!!!


The National Association of REALTORS is all over this and working to get it repealed, before it takes effect. But, I am very pleased we aren't the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners. How many REALTORS do you think will vote Democratic in 2012?

Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It's in the health care bill and goes into effect in 2013.

Why 2013? Could it be to come to light AFTER the 2012 elections? So, this is "change you can believe in"? Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax.

If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax.
This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Does this make your November and 2012 vote more important?

Oh, you weren't aware this was in the Obamacare bill? Guess what, you aren't alone. There are more than a few members of Congress that aren't aware of it either.


I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. VOTERS NEED TO KNOW.

Dr Corsi talks about fake forged obama birth certificate

Dr. Corsi: Full Obama Eligibility Presentation; Surprise Tea Party Patriots

(Obama can't produce a birth document that can be verified. Obama has only produced a cut and pasted (forged) birth certificate. This certificate will not be released for public inspection in Hawaii. Why? It is because the fake document obama has released if verified would be shown to be a forged/faked document that is a HOAX!) Story Reports

Obama expressed a profound commitment to bringing about a socialist economic system in the U.S. — completely divorced from the profit motive

John C. Drew (Leader of the Marxist students at Occidental College in 1976 that included barry obama also founded the precursor of the Democrat Socialist Alliance on campus.)

John C. Drew: Even Republicans Rejected Info About Obama’s Past

Video: ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Organized by SEIU/ACORN Front, Working Family Party; Ties to Obama, DNC, DSA, Tides & Soros

"The Obama I knew was nothing like the lifelong pragmatic centrist that he was pretending to be in the 2008 presidential campaign. When I talked politics with the young Obama, he expressed a profound commitment to bringing about a socialist economic system in the U.S. — completely divorced from the profit motive — which would occur, in his lifetime, through a potentially violent, Communist-style revolution."

(Obama's real goal is destroying America. Obama is trying to bring about a socialist economic system. This is why everything he does is making the free enterprise capitalist system continue to not recover.

"The young Obama I knew was a Marxist socialist who would have been quite comfortable with Communist party members like his Hawaii mentor Frank Marshall Davis, retired domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers, or active socialist politicians like Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer"m says his former marxist student leader at Occidental College in 1976.

The contrived ‘Occupy Wall Street’ is Organized by SEIU/ACORN Front, Working Family Party; Ties to Obama, DNC, DSA, Tides & Soros.

Obama has profound commitment through a potentially violent, Communist-style revolution to change the economic system in the U.S and redistribute the wealth ie COMMUNISM.

Obama is a COMMUNIST "president with: COMMUNIST goals who cannot validate his US citizenship either because he sire was malcolm X or he was born in another country.) Story Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John C. Drew: Even Republicans Rejected Info About Obama’s Past

By John C. Drew
American Thinker

What would you do if you knew that the top Democrat running for president was lying about his past?

That is the question I was faced with in 2008. I had met the young Barack Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College, and I knew that his commitment to socialism was deep, genuine, and longstanding. See my earlier article on American Thinker.

I had been a leader of the Marxist students at Occidental College myself, starting in 1976 when I founded the precursor of the Democrat Socialist Alliance on campus. The young Obama I knew was a Marxist socialist who would have been quite comfortable with Communist party members like his Hawaii mentor Frank Marshall Davis, retired domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers, or active socialist politicians like Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer.

The Obama I knew was nothing like the lifelong pragmatic centrist that he was pretending to be in the 2008 presidential campaign. When I talked politics with the young Obama, he expressed a profound commitment to bringing about a socialist economic system in the U.S. — completely divorced from the profit motive — which would occur, in his lifetime, through a potentially violent, Communist-style revolution. In this context, I saw my report on young Obama as a key piece of evidence suggesting a profound continuity in his belief system.

Although I was surprised by Barack Obama’s insistence on his mainstream ideological credentials, I was shocked that my attempts to spread the news about young Obama’s Marxism failed to gain any media traction with reporters, activists, or campaign staffs during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Once I saw the significance of my face-to-face observations on the young Obama, I went out of my way to get my story on record with the Orange County Register. I tried to contact, among others, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, the folks behind the Swiftboat ads, and the McCain campaign.

I thought I would get a phone call back from Fox News — someone, somewhere — and I still do not understand why no one seemed to catch on to the urgency of the situation. I understand that I did not have audio tape of young Obama. I did not have any photos or home movies. Nevertheless, I was extremely active in the leftist politics and counter-cultural milieu of Occidental College in the 1970s.

As a younger man, I had earned a Ph.D. in political science from Cornell, which, I would think, gave me some credibility in measuring young Obama’s ideological convictions. I quickly saw that other people who had known the young Obama were featured in various news articles. It seemed to me that I should have been just another interview for any journalist, producer, or campaign consultant interested in checking out my story and testing my credibility against the facts.

In frustration, I was also posting what I knew on The Caucus Blog site at the New York Times. My expectation was that someone from the Times would call me and follow up on the leads I was sending out.

I even thought of scheduling my own press conference on the campus of Occidental College through their campus Republican club. Internally, I was conflicted by the urgency of what I knew and the sense that it was best for the story to break out in a manner supportive of the McCain campaign.

What shocked me about my experience in the summer of 2008 is that I thought my experience as a Williams College political science professor, my small business owner status, and my visibility in the Orange County community would allow my message to immediately go to the very top of the McCain campaign. I thought my story would be welcomed by Fox News.

Since then, things have slowly gotten better. My story on the young Marxist Obama has appeared in Michael Savage’s Trickle-Up Poverty, Paul Kengor’s Dupes, Stanley Kurtz’s Radical-In-Chief, and Jack Cashill’s Deconstructing Obama.

Meeting Young Obama John Drew

Obama Mother Pictures Were Faked Because Malcolm X Is His Sire

The Terrible Truth

Additional Information Update About Malcolm X jr or Bâri′ M. Shabazz, Born October 28, 1959 in New York City

The Assassination of Malcolm X: An eyewitness Account

The Face Just Above The Microphone Is Stanley Ann Dunham, obama's mother in 1965 just after the The Assassination of Malcolm X. Her hair was short and she had a "boyish" looking face. This is how she actually looked in 1965. She didn't have long hair etc. Obama has not only faked his original birth certificate but also his mother's pictures.

The question is why? When these two facts are added together it is not to hide his foregin birth but to hide the truth about his sire, malcolm X.



Barack Hussein Obama IS Malcolm Little Jr Or Malcolm X jr Additional Information Here Also

It all adds up

HOW COULD STANLEY ANN DUNHAM HAVE DELIVERED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. IN AUGUST OF 1961 IN HONOLULU, WHEN OFFICIAL UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON RECORDS SHOW HER 2680 MILES AWAY IN SEATTLE ATTENDING CLASSES THAT SAME MONTH?

Is Obama the secret son of Malcolm X?

OOX
OXO
XOO

XXX Tic Tac O no!

Israel Insider has a mind blowing article about the obama sire

Obama faked his own mother's pictures for a reason, and it was to hide his sire's identity malcolm x aka malcolm little (Barack obama should be called barry little or barry x little.)

The black hole in Ann Dunham's biography that can't be verified. (Illegitimate is the word to describe obama. Illegitimate from birth until now.)

History Of Obama Mamma And Much Additional Information About Who Barry's Sire Is (It almost depends on what the word IS means?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Obama aka malcom x jr is a liar and so was his father. Both want to destroy America.)