Tuesday, September 8, 2009



Senator Robert Byrd
Democrat, West Virginia
President Pro-Tem
United States Senate


It is difficult to settle consistently on an opionion regarding
Senator Robert Byrd.
He is such a maverick!
He has risen from poverty in the southern West Virginia coal mining region
through a political career which stretches over a seventy year period
including membership in the KuKluxKlan to his present
position as President Pro-Tem of the U.S. Senate, in which
position he is third in line to succeed to the presidency of the
United States
behind Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi
in the event something should prematurely end the
reign of our Supreme Leader, Barack Hussein Obama.
Byrd's voting record illustrates just how hard it is to
get a handle on him:

On occasion, Byrd disagreed with President Bill Clinton's policies. Byrd initially said that the impeachment proceedings against Clinton should be taken seriously and conducted completely. Although he harshly criticized any attempt to make light of it, he made the motion to dismiss the charges against the president and effectively suspend proceedings. Even though he voted against both articles of impeachment, he was the sole Democrat to vote for the censure of Clinton.[35] He strongly opposed Clinton's 1993 efforts to allow gays to serve in the military and has also supported efforts to limit gay marriage. However, he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, arguing that it was unnecessary because the states already had the power to ban gay marriages.[36] However, when the amendment came to the Senate floor he was one of the two Democratic Senators who voted in favor of the cloture motion.[37] He also opposes affirmative action.

He also voiced praise for George W. Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Likewise, Byrd supported the confirmation of Samuel Alito to replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Like most Democrats, however, Byrd opposed Bush's tax cuts and his proposals to change the Social Security program. He is pro-choice and voted against the first ban on partial birth abortions in 1995, but voted for the bill on subsequent occasions. Byrd voted against Laci and Conner's Law, which strongly divided the supporters and opponents of legal abortion.

Byrd is opposed to the Flag Desecration Amendment, saying that, while he wants to protect the American flag, he believed that amending the constitution "is not the most expeditious way to protect this revered symbol of our Republic." In response to the amendment, Byrd has cosponsored S. 1370, a bill that prohibits destruction or desecration of the flag by anyone trying to incite violence or causing a breach of the peace. It also provides that anyone who steals, damages, or destroys a flag on federal property, whether a flag owned by the federal government or a private group or individual, can be imprisoned for up to two years, or can be fined up to $250,000, or both.[38]

In 2003, Byrd voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, which prohibits a form of late-term abortion known as partial-birth abortion.[39]

In 2004, Byrd offered an amendment that would limit the personnel in Plan Colombia, but was defeated in the Senate.[40]

Byrd received a 65 percent vote rating from the League of Conservation Voters for his support of environmentally friendly legislation.[41] Additionally, he received a "liberal" rating of 65.5% by the National Journal — higher than six other Democratic senators.[42]

In 2006, Byrd received 67 percent rating from the American Civil Liberties Union for supporting rights-related legislation.[43]

In 2009, Byrd was one of three Democrats to oppose the confirmation of Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner. Geithner was confirmed 60-34.[44] After missing nearly two months of votes due to being hospitalized, Byrd returned to the senate floor on July 21 to vote against the elimination of funding for the F-22 fighter plane. [45]


One thing everyone agrees on concerning Senator Robert Byrd
is that he is fiercely dedicated to preserving the
role of the United States Constitution as the
guiding document governing all aspects of our
democratic Republic.

In that regard, his views about the Obama Administration's
practice of appointing 'czars' to control all aspects of America's
economic and social life are important.
He recently wrote:

"The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances," he wrote. "At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate confirmed officials."

Others have pointed out that under Obama
cabinet officers (who are subject to scrutiny by Congress,
both before confirmation and afterward) are now
mere flower pots decorating the White House,
and real power is exercised by the czars
free of Congressional supervision.

That is exactly what the Founders warned
against in developing our Constitution.
Our Government is a government of careful
checks and balances.

Under Barack Hussein Obama the
Constitution is being subverted.

- Leo Rugiens


The sudden departure of Van Jones
from his post as the White House aide in charge of "green jobs"
helps illustrate one risk of President Obama's tendency to surround him with policy "czars" -- i.e., presidential appointees
who don't require Senate confirmation but nonetheless exercise real influence.

Mr. Jones wasn't vetted nearly as fully as he would have been had his position required Senate confirmation. That allowed his most outrageous and controversial statements -- such as signing a petition endorsing a probe into whether the U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks -- to escape scrutiny for several months.

Rep. Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican, says it's time to rein in the proliferation of czars. The latest count shows over 30, including a technology czar, climate czar, urban czar, energy czar and health care czar. The bailout czar and the executive-pay czar are often at cross-purposes. There is even a Great Lakes czar to manage environmental cleanup in the region.

Mr. Pence is asking President Obama to suspend the appointment of any new czars until Congress has looked into their background and exact responsibilities. In some cases, he fears that czars are turning Cabinet officials into the equivalent of potted plants as czars exercise the real power because they have the president's ear.

It's not only Republicans who fret about creeping "czarism." Earlier this year, Sen. Robert Byrd, the Senate's Democratic President Pro Tempore, criticized what he called a power grab by the executive branch. "The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances," he wrote. "At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate confirmed officials."

Mr. Obama hasn't been too concerned until now about the number of czars -- even cracking a joke last June that he had appointed so many that ABC was soon going to launch a series called "Dancing With the Czars." But perhaps the debacle over Van Jones will convince him it's in his own interest to have a better idea of just who is working for him.

by John Fund

The Wall Street Journal's Political Diary Online

Tuesday, 08 September 09



He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.


“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

- Leo Rugiens

No comments:

Post a Comment