"Islam has always been a part of America’s
story"
Barack Hussein Obama
|
|
|
|
|
event |
description |
Sen. Leahy Says Obama Not Eligible |
On April
10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that
presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a 'natural born
Citizen,' as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for
President.
"Because he was born to American citizens, there is no
doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,"
said
Leahy. "I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the
Senate."
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal
judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.
"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are
born of
American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,"
Chertoff replied.
"That is mine, too,"
said Leahy.
What's
interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary, confirms that a "natural born" citizen is the child of
American citizen parents.
Parents -- that's two. That's BOTH
parents.
Every time the words, "citizen" and "parent," are used
by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, "citizens" and
"parents," is used. The plural case is the operative case.
It is Sen. Leahy's opinion -- his own recorded words, in a formal Senate
Resolution and on his U. S.
Senate website -- that Barack Obama is not a "natural born"
citizen, and therefore not eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief,
regardless of his birthplace.
Obama had one American parent
--singular -- his mother. His father was a citizen of Kenya, and a
subject of Great Britain.
Obama, himself, "at birth," was a
citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain -- he
says so on his own campaign website.
This fact introduces the concept of "divided loyalties," -- the reason
the founders created the eligibility requirement in the first place -- a
fact that further underlines
Obama's ineligibility.
The source of this information is Sen. Leahy's own website.
The webpage contains a statement about the resolution; the resolution, itself;
the Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.); and an excerpt of Sec.
Chertoff's testimony.
The plural word "parents" is used four
times. When used to identify the parents, the word "citizens" is used
five times. That's nine times that Sen. Leahy, on his own website describes the
eligibility requirement. There is NO PLACE in any of these four
documents where the singular case of "parent" or "citizen" is used.
Obama is
a co-signer of this resolution. So, I guess he too agrees that one
needs two American parents to be eligible for POTUS -- except he doesn't
care -- after all, he's the Obamamessiah. Rules don't apply to
him. |
Happy Anniversary COLB |
Dr. Ron Polarik
reminds us that today marks the Anniversary of the Obama COLB Forgery.
Yes, a whole year has past since Obama committed felony document fraud
and posted a false
identification document on the Internet.
As battles go, the Obots
and the liberal media and blogsphere launched a bigger assault in
defense of this bogus birth certificate than the Battle of Stalingrad in
WWII.
It was
Factcheck.org and Politifact that mounted a full-court press against
the upstart "Birthers," a name given to them by the liberal "Truthers"
who conjured up more 9/11 conspiracies than Uncle Ben has rice.
When the liberal "Truthers," so-called for the "Truth Movement" they
started, went viral on so many Leftist websites that there wasn’t enough
Reynolds Wrap in the world to fashion hats for them all.
Now, the
shoe -- or "tin foil hat" -- is on the other foot...er...head.
Like Ron says, "It’s the forgery, Stupid!"
Here
is Polarik's final
report -- the culmination of over four months of intensive, empirical
research, the sole purpose of which has been to determine if the images
and photographs posted on the Internet are true reproductions of a
genuine document purported to be Obama's original birth certificate. |
ObamaCare |
PatriotRoom.com
reminds us that it
is no secret that the administration is working very hard to get a
health care bill passed this year. All those in favor of the bill
say it will result in
lower costs and health care for everyone. Those of us who oppose this
plan know that is all a sham. It won't lower costs. Even right now the
debate in congress is just that, how to pay for the thing.
Already Obama is opening proposing cutting other benefits in order to pay
for his plans. Those benefits? None other than Medicare and Medicaid.
What Obama won't openly tell you though is all the little back room
discussions going on with regards to paying for this plan.
The
most unpopular features of ObamaCare are being kept
under wraps, but here are some of the bad ideas being floated.
Modified Community Rating is a euphemism for forcing young, healthy
people to pay more for their insurance in order to subsidize older, less
healthy people.
The liberals plan to impose fines on employers
who don't provide health care for their employees. This will incentivize
employers to terminate their current health benefits and simply pay the
fine, which is sure to be less expensive.
This will force at
least 100 million employees (who are happy with their current health
care) into the government plan, as well as create a new bureaucracy to
impose and enforce the fines. The millions of workers who now have
employer-paid health insurance will be very unhappy when they realize
that nationalized health care makes them the losers.
Another very
controversial and unpopular method of dealing with current
employer-based health insurance is to make employees pay income tax on
this benefit (which is now tax-exempt). Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.,
Finance Committee chairman, said this proposal is "on the table."
Obama promises cost savings by putting all Americans' health records
on a uniform computer system so it can be accessed anywhere and avoid
treatment duplication. In addition to requiring totalitarian controls to
force all doctors to conform, this will terminate all medical privacy.
The final way to deal with escalating health care costs is hiding
under another euphemism: "comparative effectiveness research." This
means that government bureaucrats will assess all health treatments to
determine whether or not they are cost-effective and can be approved for
payment.
The not-so-polite word for this is rationing. Life-or-death decisions will be made by bureaucrats on the basis of
treatment cost and patient age, rather than by medical diagnosis.
|
Prominent Rabbi Blasts Obama |
American Thinker
draws our attention to this essay by former Navy and Marine Corps
officer and Chaplain Rabbi Dr. Morton Pomerantz, in which he writes:
Claiming that
"some Jews may be naïve, but we are not stupid," Pomerantz has blasted Barack
Obama for "creating a climate of hate" against Jews. In a breaking
Newsmax.com
story, he delivers a blistering assault on president Obama’s
troubling and dangerous game of moral equivalency:
"Obama’s
clever construct comparing the mass genocide of six million Jews to the
Palestinian struggle will not be lost on the estimated 100 million
Muslims who tuned in to hear him [in Cairo]. Perhaps it was not
lost on James W. von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist identified
as the alleged attacker Wednesday at the Holocaust Museum. He
apparently felt that he could easily take retribution against the Jews
for the atrocities Obama implies they are guilty of."
Pomerantz goes on to level a series of jaw dropping charges against
Barack Obama’s understanding of Middle East history, Islam, foreign
policy, and most importantly, truth.
For a short, heart pumping
history lesson from a powerful and articulate advocate of objective
reality read Pomerantz’s
essay. It’s the start of what will surely become a more
vocal and justifiably passionate response to Professor Obama’s
demonstrated ignorance outside the classroom. For Pomerantz, "a
lasting peace cannot be created out of lies, distortions, and half
truths."
When a nation’s higher education establishment no
longer respects objectivity or truth, its citizens should probably avoid
electing a law professor president. |
©
Copyright Beckwith 2009
All right reserved
|