A website dedicated to fighting so-called smears directed at President Obama has been scrubbed from the internet, according to a breaking news story from World Net Daily.

In the matter of Obama’s birth certificate, the site offered up a photograph of a “short-form” certificate. It is the long form that skeptics want to see, however, as the long form provides specifics regarding which hospital and the name of the attending physician. Furthermore, the short form, the one provided, is easily obtainable and of questionable validity.

Regardless, the site has been taken down, but our friends at Word Net Daily have snapshots of the original content.

The issue regarding President Obama’s birth certificate continues because,  to date, an official long form has not been produced.

In an odd twist to this story, Obama recently sent a letter to a Hawian hospital, in which he paid them several compliments and mentions – in passing – that he was born there. Did you follow that? Obama told the hospital he was born there, rather than provide a long form to demonstrate as much.

While there is little contention that Obama is indeed a US Citizen, since his mother is an American citizen, the question is whether Obama is a natural born citizen, which of course is a requirement to become a U.S. President. 

Still another twist involves a Detroit radio talk show in which the hosts had a well publicized conversation with Keynan Amassador Ogego. Radio host Mark Fellhauer asked, “”One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”

The Ambassador responded, “”It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.” For more information regarding this radio broadcast, visit The Big Feed.

The Persistent Conservative would like to point out that had the media properly vetted Obama during the election process, perhaps there would not be such lingering, odd questions.

Things that make you go “Hmmm”.

Homelessness is on the rise again, according to a report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Despite an almost 30 percent decrease in the chronically homeless from 2005 to 2007 (which is almost certainly Bush’s fault), homelessness is once again on the rise, according to the report.

Part of the decrease in homelessness during the Bush administration was due to financing for homeless people suffering from disabilities and addictions.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is addressing the problem, or perhaps just the symptom, as it released $1.2 billion in stimulus money for rent relief and relocation.

It appears no money was allocated to provide the heavily-touted shovel-ready jobs so these struggling people could afford suitable housing. Instead, the HUD is transfering tax dollars from producers to those in need, but without a means of actually solving the problem short of paying their rent.

Visit The New York Times for more details on this story.

The Obama team plans to spend $9.5 million redesigning the website that is intended to provide transparency in the distribution of the stimulus money.  The amount could balloon to $18 million over the next five years.

Recovery.gov was intended to allow people to track government spending, but has been criticized for its inability to show where the money actually ends up, with allocation-tracking stopping at the city or county level.

We at The Persistent Conservative hope their website tracks this $9.5 million as well, as we are curious about, umm, why so much?

Also, do the Chinese have administrative access to the site? Just wondering.

Scott Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll of Obama shows a continuing slide of approval for the president.

This daily tracking polls looks at “strongly approve” and “strongly disapprove” and subtracts the difference. Until recently the net number has always been a positive, but hit zero a short time ago and is now at -5.

While it is not unusual for a president’s poll numbers to dip after their first 100 days, these numbers are striking when one considers the deafening support from those who voted for Obama.

Further polling from Rasmussen indicates that voters are beginning to associate the economy and its troubles more with Obama and less with Bush.

Click here for more information on trending polls and public opinion.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steel is again proving to be anything but a bold voice for the ousted party.

The Wall Street Journal reports that a number of RNC members are not happy with Steele’s term “collectivist” to describe Obama, instead of simply using the word socialist, which clearly strikes the kind of strident chord we need right now. at a time when clear differences between the parties need to be made, emphasized and repeated routinely.

As the run-up to the 2010 elections closes fast, Steele is simply not doing enough to define the clear differences between conservatives and liberals, and his choice of words in defining Obama obfuscates more than clarifies.

We need bold, clear messages!

Why not Sarah Palin? She has the star power to command attention whenever she speaks, has a core set of principles that are closer to Reagan’s than anyone else out there, draws enormous crowds wherever she goes, and most importantly, she doesn’t pull punches.

If conservatives are to regain the majority it must be through a clear messages with simple talking points. Sarah can get us back on track and inject the adrenilin we need as the 2012 election draws closer.

So what do you think? Wouldn’t you prefer a vibrant, attractive speaker to a wishy-washy, middle-of-the-road choice?

Also, by being the the Chairman of the GOP, Sarah could stay in the spotlilght in a manner that plays to her strenghts. 

Maybe she was a little rough around the edges during the last campaign, but Sarah is only going to get better and stronger.

She’s my pick for RNC Chairman!  More…