"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy." --John Marshall
Siege Warfare & Health Care Reform
Smelling what they rightly sense is their own blood in the water from the public backlash against the so-called "public option," congressional Bolsheviks (i.e., Democrats) have retreated to lick their wounds from the loss of their erstwhile health care reform centerpiece. Or have they?
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) certainly doesn't think so. Using a tried-and-true leftist tactic -- two steps forward, one step back, gaining position under the guise of "losing" ground -- Baucus re-grouped by championing his health care bill, the core of which rests on mandatory health insurance and massive Medicaid spending. How massive? Weighing in at $1 trillion, the bill is threefold the total cost of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs of the '60s.
Democrats want to cover everyone up to 33 percent above the federal poverty level (about $30,000 for a family of four), adding more than 11 million new bodies to Medicaid rosters by 2019. The total covered would be 70 million people, or roughly one-quarter of America's population. Oh yeah: "Everyone" includes illegal aliens, or so say at least 21 House Democrats who signed a statement from the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus affirming the same. The Congressional Anglo Saxon Caucus has yet to weigh in.
As an added bonus, those not covered under Medicaid must purchase health insurance (the so-called "individual mandate") or face fines up to $25,000 and/or one year in prison for tax evasion. You may recall the "individual mandate" as the "not-really-a-tax" tax (an IRS "excise tax," to be precise), which President Barack Obama lamely defended last week when confronted by ABC's George Stephanopoulos with his promise not to raise taxes on middle class families "by a single penny." At $1,900 per person for the tax-that's-not-a-tax, and not withstanding his creative wordsmithing, Obama would be into most Americans for a couple hundred thousand pennies' worth of broken promises.
However, since entitlements are leading the charge toward national bankruptcy with the lion's share of the nation's $12 trillion debt and $100 plus trillion in existing un-funded liabilities, isn't it required of citizens to ask whether more entitlement spending is warranted when we can't even fund existing programs? This question is even more relevant at the state level, where all but two states face either substantial or severe shortfalls. Notably, Medicaid is on average the second largest element of state budgets, trailing only slightly behind K-12 education.
Let's also not miss the salient lesson from this sordid vignette: The fight for freedom is a constant struggle against siege warfare. In this case, under the guise of health care "reform," statists would redistribute wealth while accruing power to the government, and if they can't accomplish their goal one way (the "public option"), they will do it another (Medicaid with the "individual mandate"). The only way to counter this constant siege against liberty is to remain vigilant and vocal against these Trojan horse ruses.
As if to punctuate this lesson, Sens. John Rockefeller (D-WV) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) both promised to raise amendments to the Baucus bill adding -- you guessed it -- the "public option."
This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
"If you get sick, America, the Republican healthcare plan is this: die quickly. That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick. ... I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America." --Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) on the health care takeover
Obama Seeks Olympic Fame
"Close your eyes, and pretend it's still the George W. Bush administration," writes columnist Larry Elder. "In Afghanistan, more American service members died in August than in any month since the war began. His top military commander says that without more troops, we run the risk of losing the war. Iran admits operating a second previously undisclosed nuclear facility. Unemployment stands at 9.7 percent, with consumer confidence lower last month after a brief uptick. An important domestic initiative -- one he campaigned on -- faces a likely make-or-break month in Congress."
Elder continues, "What does the President do? He flies to Copenhagen to personally lobby the International Olympic Committee to bring the Olympics to Crawford, Texas."
Substitute Barack Obama for George W. Bush and Chicago for Crawford and you have the news this week: Obama flew to Copenhagen to lobby the IOC to award the 2016 Olympics to his "home town" of Chicago. The First Lady flew separately to make her own pitch. Just think of the carbon footprint that generated.
Aside from massaging his narcissistic ego, Obama is obviously looking to generate a huge financial windfall for his Chicago cronies, though as we went to press the decision had not yet been made. And anyway, as Elder concludes, "Iran and Afghanistan can wait."
This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award
"As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come [to Copenhagen] for these few days, so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home, and you have put together a phenomenal set of ideas that, no matter what the outcome is, we should be proud of as a city." --Michelle Obama, "sacrificing" for Chicago to land the 2016 Olympic Games
To which Rush Limbaugh replied, "I'm thinking that Michelle Obama needs a little dictionary lesson. Let's not forget, this is the woman who is not proud of her country unless she's getting what she wants from it. She said during the campaign, the first time she'd been proud of her country was when Obama was nominated or done something. So she sacrificed herself to get in a big, luxurious jet -- a Boeing 757 -- to fly to Copenhagen, where she's pampered and treated like she were a goddess. Yes, this is a 'sacrifice.' Meanwhile, we have had at least four of our [volunteer] military men and women killed while living in tents in the most godforsaken spot on earth.... All the while she and her husband need a few more weeks to decide whether he can risk angering his base to send reinforcements to help them! So Michelle, you need to look at a Merriam-Webster Dictionary and study the word 'sacrifice' 'cause it's obviously a word you did not learn in your Ivy League education."
New & Notable Legislation
Hold on to your wallets. The Senate version of the cap-and-tax climate bill called for even deeper carbon emissions cuts by 2020 than the House version of the bill. While the House version allows for an open system of trading carbon credits, most of which would be given away by the government, the Senate has yet to settle on a distribution scheme.
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) slipped a $20 million piece of pork into the $360 billion defense bill that would, according to The Boston Globe, "help the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate realize its goal of building a repository for Kennedy's papers and an accompanying civic learning center on the University of Massachusetts at Boston campus in Dorchester, next to the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum." Obviously, that has nothing to do with defense, but Kerry and Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Chairman of Senate Appropriations, defended the earmark as a tribute to Kennedy's leadership in military technology and defense issues. No word yet on any actual examples of said leadership.
Not to be outdone by itself, the Senate also awarded $2.8 million in stimulus money for forest fire management to that hotbed of wildfires, the District of Columbia. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) noted that Washington hasn't had to worry about a catastrophic fire since "the British burned down the White House in 1814," but that didn't stop the ridiculous earmark from making the cut.
In recent weeks, The Patriot has received numerous letters warning about SB 2099, legislation supposedly requiring gun owners to report their guns on their income tax returns beginning in 2010. The real Senate bill with this number and a registration requirement (though not on Form 1040) was indeed introduced -- nine years ago. It died without a vote way back when Bill Clinton was president. Please, verify those e-mail forwards before sending them on -- there's enough bad legislation to report as it is.Originally penned in 1912, "Wives of the Signers" is a historical reprint that showcases individual portraits of the fiercely courageous women who endured tremendous hardship as their husbands fought to build an independent nation. Paperback, 283 Pages.
Is a Lack of Vetting What Obama Meant by 'Transparency'?
Back on the campaign trail, Barack Obama vowed his would be the most "transparent" administration in U.S. history. Perhaps what he meant was that the mainstream media would look past the foibles of those he selects for high positions under his watch.
The latest "for instance" comes in the person of "Safe School Czar" Kevin Jennings. Apparently, in the eyes of Jennings, a "safe school" is one where it's safe for an adult male to pursue a homosexual relationship with a student. Jennings denied condoning a relationship between a 15-year-old student and an adult male and threatened to sue a fellow teacher who called his refusal to report the incident "unethical." But since then, an audiotape has surfaced on which Jennings related to an Iowa homosexual advocacy group that he told the student to make sure to use a condom when seeing the older man. To most of us, allowing -- and even promoting -- statutory rape is grotesque, unquestionably illegal and grossly negligent, but to Obama, it appears to be qualification for the job.
Meanwhile, a recent GOP amendment prohibiting the creation of "czar" positions unless Congress confirms appointees was killed by a procedural move made by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Chicago).
Judicial Benchmarks: Rather Suit Dismissed
The Associated Press has the latest on a disgruntled former newscaster: "A New York court on Tuesday dismissed Dan Rather's $70 million breach of contract lawsuit against CBS Corp., noting that the network continued to pay the anchor $6 million a year even after he left the evening news broadcast. Rather sued CBS and its top executives in 2007, claiming he had been removed from his 'CBS Evening News' anchor post over a report that examined President George W. Bush's military service." Rather, who now apparently produces a news program for a little-watched cable channel, was "disappointed."
One final note: The AP said Rather was fired largely because in that infamous hit piece on Bush, he "cited new documents CBS had obtained, but the authenticity of the documents later came under attack." They "came under attack" because they were fake. Apparently, the AP didn't consider that detail worth reporting.
Hsu Sentenced for Ponzi Scheme
Norman Hsu, a prominent fundraiser for Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, was sentenced Tuesday to 24 years in prison for "illegally funneling money to U.S. political candidates and for defrauding investors in a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme," reports The Wall Street Journal. Clinton returned $850,000 in funds raised by Hsu, who had already been on the lam since 1992 after charges of grand theft. Knowing the Clintons, that was probably a résumé enhancement. Meanwhile, the operators of the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security remain at large.
Warfront With Jihadistan: Terrorist Plots Foiled
An unsettling string of arrests for terrorist plots within the U.S. occurred last week. In Springfield, Illinois, Talib Islam was arrested for allegedly trying to detonate explosives in a van outside a federal courthouse; in North Carolina, Daniel Patrick Boyd and Hysen Sherifi were indicted for planning to attack the Quantico Marine Corps base; in Dallas, Hosam Maher Husein Smadi was arrested in an FBI sting when he parked an SUV packed with what he thought were explosives outside a Dallas skyscraper and attempted to detonate it; and finally, in New York City, an Afghan immigrant, Najibullah Zazi, was arrested for planning to attack commuter trains on the anniversary of 9/11. Allegedly, at least three of his accomplices are still at large. All these arrests occurred soon after government officials issued a flurry of terrorism warnings for popular, crowded areas such as sports complexes, hotels and mass transit systems.
As troubling as this string of terrorism arrests is, even more disturbing is the reaction of the Obama regime and their minions in the Leftmedia. The federal government tried to play down the arrests, alleging there was absolutely no connection between the varied plots. (We're not sure, but the suspects' names seem to imply some sort of connection, if we could just lay our finger on it...) The Leftmedia also downplayed the arrests, with some even speculating that in spite of this increased terrorist activity, al-Qa'ida-type terrorism is actually in decline. Strangely, no one in the press noted that these kinds of incidents are not supposed to occur in the Era of Hope and Change™.
A more rational analysis could easily conclude that the reason there was no known link between the plots is that these are acts of individual terrorist sleeper cells here in the U.S. It also would appear that the intelligence community knew something was up, which led to earlier warnings and allowed anti-terrorism officials to take action before any of the plots could be effectively executed. We hope (but aren't holding our breath) that Obama now sees how effective the anti-terrorist policies put into place by President George W. Bush really are. It's interesting that these arrests coincide with the administration's announcement last Friday that the January deadline for closing Guantanamo Bay might not be met.
Oh No, Not Another Resolution!
The UN Security Council, led by President and Savior Barack Obama, approved Resolution 1887 this week. UNSCR 1887 calls for, inter alia nations that are not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to sign it and join; nations that are already parties to reaffirm their commitment to a world without nuclear weapons; all nations to agree to a treaty banning the production of fissile material suitable for use in nuclear weapons; dogs to stop harassing mailmen; all nations to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with the cooperation necessary to verify the peaceful nature of their nuclear programs; and nations should refrain from testing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty -- a treaty already rejected by a 95-0 vote in the US Senate -- should be ratified. This is a disarmament wish list plain and simple, which, thankfully, will go the way of most UNSC Resolutions -- into the UNSC ledger and then into the circular file.
It's also fantasy. Russia is more dependent on nuclear weapons than at any time in its history and will not agree to nuclear disarmament, in part because its conventional military is a mere shadow of its former self. North Korea, India and Pakistan have demonstrated that there is much to gain and little to lose by going nuclear. Israel remains surrounded by nations that openly wish its destruction. The U.S. nuclear arsenal will need refurbishing and renovating in the next decade or so, which will require testing new warheads and producing fissile material suitable for those weapons. How to square this reality with UNSCR 1887's lofty goals?
Iran, the centerpiece of UNSC nuclear discussion for the past six years, made headlines yet again when it rushed to announce a new nuclear enrichment site (in order to pre-empt Obama's announcement of the facility), tested multiple short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, declared for the thousandth time that it will never yield to outside pressure, and threatened potential attackers with a crushing response. Obama and the Europeans have been making noise about "tough new sanctions" on Iran while ignoring the 800-pound gorilla that is China's veto power. And even if the UNSC does place additional sanctions on Iran, the mullah-cracy is highly unlikely to change its mind or delay the production of enough highly enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon within the 2010-2011 timeframe. UNSCR 1887 will not change this situation -- no matter how much its advocates keep Hopin' for Change.
Immigration Front: Border Patrol to Move Agents North
The U.S. Border Patrol, part of the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection, is responsible for securing a total of 8,607 miles of border, including the U.S.-Mexico border, the U.S.-Canada border and some sectors of coastline. Each year, the Border Patrol sets a goal for "border miles under effective control (including certain coastal sectors)," defined as an area in which the Border Patrol detects an illegal border crosser and can be expected to succeed in apprehending that person.
In its May performance review, DHS said the Border Patrol's goal for fiscal 2009 was to have 815 of the 8,607 miles of border -- less than 10 percent -- under "effective control." The goal remains the same for fiscal 2010, meaning DHS does not plan to secure a single additional mile of border in the coming year. On Aug. 31, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report to Congress on the effectiveness of the Border Patrol. Its findings were not exactly encouraging.
For example, the Border Patrol established three performance measures to report the results of checkpoint operations, and while they provide some insight into checkpoint activity, they do not indicate if checkpoints are operating efficiently and effectively. Second, GAO found that a lack of management oversight and unclear checkpoint data-collection guidance resulted in the overstatement of checkpoint performance results in recent reports, as well as inconsistent data collection practices at checkpoints. Furthermore, individuals GAO contacted who live near checkpoints generally supported their operations but expressed concerns regarding property damage that occurs when illegal aliens and smugglers circumvent checkpoints to avoid apprehension.
Here's the kicker: The U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long, with only 697 miles under "effective control," but the Border Patrol plans to decrease the 17,399 Border Patrol agents on that border by 384 agents in Fiscal 2009. Some 414 will be added to the Canadian border for a total of 2,212. Maybe BO is concerned about the Canucks crossing the border for U.S. health care -- at least until ObamaCare ruins that option.Express how you feel with these best selling products, including our "Bitterly Clinging" T-shirts, bumper stickers, and poster.
Hope and Change, But Not For Youth
Young voters went for Barack Obama by a 2-1 margin but they seem to be the generation hardest hit on the job front, with an unemployment rate significantly above the national 9.8 percent mark. Economists and other experts blame the increase in the minimum wage for part of the problem, yet layoffs and decreased hours among older workers have also backed up the job market. Entry-level jobs once performed by youths are being filled by adults who are punctual, polite, professional and simply grateful to have a job, even at minimum wage.
The consequences of this trend may turn out to be severe. Youths who can't get that first opportunity may be held back economically for up to 15 years, according to a government study. This translates into slower economic growth down the road as a generation handicapped by high unemployment and jobs farther down the economic scale than their parents enjoyed at the same age attempts to scrape together funding to buy a house, a new car, or other needs and desires. Then again, as a demographic group, these young people are reaping exactly what they voted for.
The Savior Speaks
"We're putting Americans back to work doing the work that America needs done: Rebuilding roads, bridges and new schools, and all manner of construction projects across all 50 states. I'm not going to rest. I know the governors and candidates here are not going to rest, and I know that the American people are not going to rest until everybody who's looking for work can find a job." --The One, BO, just before the Labor Department announced another 263,000 lost jobs in September, which raised unemployment to 9.8 percent
Secret Fed Gold Swaps
It's no real surprise that Kellogg Corporation engages in strategies to minimize the risk associated with fluctuating commodity markets. After all, if you're in the business of making corn flakes and raisin bran, you want to know what you're going to pay for corn and raisins. We say it's no surprise because Kellogg Corporation discloses its utilization of hedges against future costs in its annual report. The disclosure of these details is part and parcel of the financial transparency that we expect from publicly traded companies and as prescribed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve Bank has admitted to concealing gold swap agreements that it maintains with foreign banks. The scope of that subterfuge has included, shall we say, material misstatements in official correspondence as well as public testimony, which appear to have been in practice for over a decade.
At first blush, the idea of a gold swap arrangement between central banks is perfectly logical. A primary objective of a central bank should be to maintain a stable currency. It is the secrecy of these agreements that is of greater concern. The line between maintenance and manipulation is ephemeral at best, with secrecy and subterfuge being the coin of the realm for the manipulator. Can anyone say "George Soros?"
For the past two decades, free trade advocates have criticized China's manipulation of its currency value to maintain its balance of trade. Now, the Federal Reserve admits to acting in the same manner.
That said, the Federal Reserve performs two functions critical to our modern economy --- performing as the clearinghouse for daily inter-institution financial transactions, and providing the ultimate source of liquidity. The efficiency of both functions requires a sound and stable currency. That the Federal Reserve had engaged in gold swaps to limit volatility and risk in support of the dollar's value is no different from Kellogg Corporation utilizing futures contracts to mitigate their exposure to fluctuating corn and raisin prices. The difference is the matter of transparency.
CULTURE & POLICY
Second Amendment: SCOTUS to Consider Gun Rights Again
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Chicago's handgun ban. Last year, the court ruled in Heller v. District of Columbia that the Second Amendment does, in fact, mean what it says -- that law-abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. The $64,000 question this time is whether the Second Amendment applies to states and local, not just federal, jurisdictions?
As we have pointed out before, few would question that the First Amendment applies to states and localities, even though it says, "Congress shall make no law..." [emphasis added]. The Second Amendment unambiguously applies to all jurisdictions: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Yet the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that the Constitution places no limits on state authority to ban guns. The Second Circuit ruled likewise in a similar New York case in which then-Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor ruled against the Second Amendment. But, now-Justice Sotomayor will be permitted to take part in the Supreme Court hearings of the Chicago case. We think we can guess which way she will vote.
Climate Change This Week: World to Get Really Hot, We Swear!
It's laughable. Despite the mounting evidence to the contrary (and perhaps in an effort to remain relevant on the world scene), the UN continues to outdo itself in perpetuating global warming hysteria. According to The Washington Post, a recent report released by the UN's Environmental Program claims Earth's temperature will climb 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, even if nations adopt the most aggressive programs. This is even direr than the UN's 2007 Intergovernmental Program on Climate Change. That group took home a Nobel Prize, but then again, so did Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter and Mikhail Gorbachev.
One thing about the envirofascist movement is that it's becoming more and more transparent in its push for a "new world order," and this latest report is just another scare tactic ahead of the December climate change conference in Copenhagen. As former Enron adviser and current New York Times "economist" Paul Krugman frets, "[C]limate change is a problem that can only be addressed through government action."
The United States has already pledged to cut emissions by 73 percent from 2005 levels and the European Union by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. Yet even this is not enough for the green weenies.
Village Academic Curriculum: No Religion in Football
Another attack on religious liberty in schools took place this week -- in The Patriot's own backyard. The Chattanoogan reports, "For a number of years at [Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School], cheerleaders have been making banners for the players to run through at the start of games with such Bible-based messages as 'commit to the Lord' and 'take courage and do it.' A parent last week complained to Catoosa County School Superintendent Denia Reese about the banners." School officials quickly caved, saying the signs would be prohibited at future games because it is "a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution for signs with Bible verses to be displayed on the football field." So according to these officials, charged with educating America's children, the First Amendment denies the freedom of religious expression in a public place. Perhaps school officials need a batch of Essential Liberty guides to clear up their confusion as to what the Constitution does and doesn't say.
Village Academic Curriculum II: Another Creepy Video
After last week's video of New Jersey kids singing praises to Barack Hussein Obama, another video surfaced of kids in North Carolina doing likewise. Great moments in public education, indeed.
Meanwhile, a gang of community organizers led by the "Gamaliel Foundation" is on video shouting, "Hear our cry, Obama!" and "Deliver us, Obama!" The O-cult continues.
From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File
New York City was once known for its encapsulation of Americans' love for individualism, capitalism and the freedoms of expression, worship and assembly. In recent decades, however, the trend toward leftism and its cultural degradation of all things has been pronounced. Now, the city's most recognizable building celebrates liberty's antithesis.
On Wednesday, the Empire State Building glowed red and yellow to mark the 60th anniversary of the founding of Communist China. This dreadful event followed the final victory of the Communist Chinese army over that of the Nationalist Chinese, who later fled to Taiwan and built a free capitalist society. The Empire State Building is often lit up in different colors to honor holidays and other milestones, such as St. Valentine's Day and the death of Frank Sinatra. But shining for a regime that holds the worst record of human rights violations in the world is unconscionable.
Under the Maoist regime, University of Hawaii historian R.J. Rummel estimates that nearly 77 million people were murdered. Rummel said, "These numbers alone do not measure the pain and suffering involved. For each person murdered, there remain grieving relatives and possibly broken homes and children. How many more died as a consequence is itself unknown and un-estimated here. Then many of those killed did not die easy; often it was by inches, under torture, through starvation, overwork and exposure, or from painful wounds. These statistics only reflect in small measure the monstrous human misery." Perhaps the lights would be better understood as representing the red blood of millions of the yellow man.
When Hollywood celebrities weren't busy defending director Roman Polanski for raping a 13-year-old girl 30 years ago ("It wasn't rape-rape," Whoopi Goldberg helpfully explained), they were fighting for the government takeover of health care. Funded by MoveOn.org, comedian Will Ferrell and other wealthy Hollywood celebrities recently put together a satirical public service announcement (PSA) in which the shtick was to feign sympathy for insurance executives in order to gain support for the so-called "public option." Of course, the celebs claim the public option already has the support of "80 percent of Americans." Such a claim is obvious horse pucky, as we non-celebrity types say down here in Tennessee. And the actors may not have noticed, but many, if not most, insurance executives are lobbying for ObamaCare. Ferrell, who makes about $20 million per film but can't seem to find it in his heart to buy insurance for a single family, wants you to do it by government coercion.
The PSA contained such over-the-top garbage that it was ripe for parody. A group of conservatives did just that in a spectacular frame-by-frame mocking of these Hollywonks. Examples include, "Celebrities keep us informed so we don't have to ask silly questions," and, "If I had a kid and he had a bike and he broke his leg, my neighbor's kid should have to pay for it" because "how else will our children learn that they're entitled to other people's money?" Finally, they conclude, "Join overpaid celebrities in fighting for legislation they don't understand. They may not be real doctors, but they play one on TV."
Friday Digest THE PATRIOT POST
by Lamar Alexander
October 2, 2009
BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
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
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
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.
HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS
“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
Post a Comment