A Congressman, a Former President and an Intern Walk Into a Bar...
The plot thickens over the job offer to sitting Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), and it may be only a matter of time before "Sestak-gate" enters the political corruption lexicon. Late last Friday, as the news cycle wound down going into the holiday weekend, the White House issued a memo declaring that its internal investigation of the alleged job offer to Sestak revealed no improprieties. This finding was certainly no surprise, but the administration's lame explanation raises more questions than it answers.
According to the official account, Bill Clinton approached Sestak in 2009 about accepting an uncompensated position on a presidential advisory board -- this in return for Sestak's commitment to refrain from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter (D-R-D-PA) in their state's Democrat Senate primary. Sestak promptly rejected the offer and went on to win the primary last month.
There are several problems with this story, however, not the least of which is that it differs significantly from Sestak's. When Sestak first stated publicly in February that the administration had tried to get him out of the Senate primary, he claimed that he had been offered a "high-ranking job" -- not an unpaid position on an obscure presidential advisory board. Furthermore, the only board for which Sestak might qualify is the Intelligence Advisory Board, but because he's a sitting member of Congress, he cannot lawfully take part. For the administration's explanation to hold water, we would have to believe that Joe Sestak would give up a Senate run and a current House seat to take a role on an advisory board that offers no pay, no political clout and virtually no future career opportunities. Or at least none compared to being a former congressman or senator. Sestak, a liberal Democrat and retired Navy vice-admiral, has built his campaign around issues of trust and integrity; needless to say, this episode certainly could tarnish his race in the fall.
Nor will the White House escape the matter by bringing in scandal magnet Bill Clinton. It's suspected that Clinton's involvement is supposed to somehow absolve the administration of any wrongdoing because it puts them at arm's length. That's not the case, however, as Clinton still appears to have acted as an agent of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who, in sending Clinton, just may have violated the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act states that no federal employee may exert pressure to participate or not participate in political activity.
In related news, Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina may soon be facing similar questions with regard to a job offer to Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff of Colorado. Romanoff's offer to drop his bid to challenge administration favorite Michael Bennet has resurfaced this week thanks to the Sestak affair.
Romanoff was rather vocal about his desire for a federal job during the Obama transition. He also expressed interest in a Senate appointment, which went to Bennet instead, or a shot at the lieutenant governorship slot when that opened up. It was only after he came up short all around that Romanoff turned to a Senate challenge of Bennet. (Apparently, making an honest living in the private sector never occurred to him.) Romanoff filed his papers as a candidate on Sept. 10, 2009, and the next day he received a call from Messina, who offered three separate opportunities with the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. Trade Development Agency. Romanoff claims that none of the positions were guaranteed, but they would be available only if he was not already a candidate.
Since Obama's first attempt to sweep this under the rug seems to have failed, it will be interesting to see what future memos and documents have to say about what transpired in the ham-fisted political machine, er, "most transparent administration in history." To paraphrase the great political sage Forrest Gump, transparency is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get.
"[W]hy do so many Bill Clinton stories end with the words 'nothing improper happened'?" --columnist Ann Coulter
From the Left: Blagojevich Has His Day in Court
After 19 months of delays, former Illinois Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich finally appeared in court Wednesday. Blagojevich is charged with using his office to obtain money, campaign contributions and other benefits while trying to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama when the latter ascended to the White House. The former governor was caught on tape discussing the Senate seat with such playful phrases as, "I've got this thing and it's [expletive] golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for [expletive] nothing." Typical of Chicago's pay-to-play politics. The lucky winner of Blago's choosing was Roland Burris, who is retiring rather than face the voters.
Among those expected to take the stand are White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL). The defense requested that Obama himself testify, but District Judge James Zagel ruled that out. Besides, The Transparent One has an airtight alibi: "I had no contact with the governor what -- or, uhhh -- or his office, uhhh, and so we -- I -- I -- I was not aware of, uh, what was happening. And as I said, uh, it's a sad day for Illinois. Uh, beyond that, I don't think it's appropriate to comment." And so clearly he was innocent.
New & Notable Legislation
Before jetting off for Memorial Day recess, the House passed two spending bills that will -- surprise -- increase the deficit. The Wall Street Journal notes that Democrats "approved another $116 billion in new welfare and other spending, raised $82 billion in new taxes on investment and business, and increased the national debt by another $54.7 billion. None of this was offset with spending cuts." The original "jobs bill" was priced at $191 billion -- a bit steep for Democrats facing voters this fall. So the leadership split the bill in two. One to extend welfare spending supposedly paid for by $82 billion in business tax hikes passed with 215 votes. Second came the infamous "doc fix" bill that raised Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, which passed with 245 votes. The bill's $21 billion price tag was lower than originally planned because, instead of extending the fix for four years, the extension is good for only two years.
Hope 'n' Change: Pelosi Cracks Down on Perks
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is cracking down on congressional travel perks -- well, sort of. Going forward, taxpayers will not be billed for business or first-class airfare for flights under 14 hours. It's not clear whether round trips or connecting flights will count in this total. Even shorter trips are hitting the taxpayers hard, however. Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) took a $9,950 round trip flight to London on the people's business, and his excuse was that he couldn't find cheaper tickets. ABC News searched the Internet and found Washington-to-London flights starting at $700. That was easy.
The travel per-diem also has been changed -- sort of. House members are allotted $200 a day to spend in any manner they choose. Now, they will be required to return the unused portion of the cash, but no receipts will be required. No word on whether the Senate plans to follow suit.
Tuesday's primary in Alabama wasn't kind to another party switcher. Rep. Parker Griffith was first elected to northern Alabama's 5th district as a Democrat but switched parties last year after opposing ObamaCare. Still, he couldn't convince voters of his Republican credentials and was defeated handily by challenger Mo Brooks. Griffith joins the growing list of incumbents tossed out during primaries: Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) and Sen. Arlen Specter (D-R-D-PA) lost their respective primaries, while Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) was ousted in the state's GOP caucus and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) faces a June 8 runoff against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.
In Hawaii, former Rep. Ed Case dropped out of the Democrat primary race to allow undivided support for establishment candidate and state senate president Colleen Hanabusa. Might he have also been offered a position on an unpaid presidential advisory board? In a special election last month, Republican Charles Djou won a Hawaii House seat by defeating Hanabusa and Case with a plurality. Both Djou and Case ran as fiscal conservatives and together garnered 67 percent of the vote, meaning that leftist darling Hanabusa may not be a lock to retake a traditionally Democrat seat.
Ronald Reagan, 1911-2004
Sunday marks the sixth anniversary of President Ronald Wilson Reagan's death. His passing was a bittersweet event for all American Patriots, especially those of us who knew him and were honored to be mentored by him. Though he is now in the most shining city of all, his spirit and legacy in this life are eternal. As noted in our mission statement, The Patriot Post was founded, in part, to honor the legacy of President Reagan. To read Mark Alexander's tribute to the Gipper, link to "The Twilight's Last Gleaming."
The Hamas Love Boat
We have it on good authority -- from the ever-reliable Leftmedia, of course -- that malice-toward-none pacifists were mercilessly gunned down by ruthless Israeli commandos this week aboard a Turkish-flagged ship bound for the Gaza Strip on a humanitarian mission to deliver food, blankets and world peace to the tranquility-lovers of that region. The hate-mongering Israelis were, of course, armed with the deadliest of weapons -- the dreaded paintball cannon, a non-lethal riot-dispersion weapon -- while the peaceniks had mere steel rods, clubs, knives, fire-bombs and glass-marble-armed slingshots. Oh yeah: did we mention the "peace activists" were equipped with night-vision goggles, as well? "Pacifists," indeed. Nope, nothing to see here, folks, move along.
What actually happened? A radical Turkish group having close ties to terrorist organizations al-Qa'ida and Hamas -- the terrorist group whose stated mission is "eternal war until Israel is destroyed" -- attempted to run a blockade imposed by Israel for vessels bound for Gaza. The blockade was imposed in the wake of Hamas' incessant smuggling of thousands of Iranian rockets, missiles and other weaponry into Gaza and subsequent use of them on Israel's cities. The blockade allows humanitarian supplies to pass upon inspection, but prevents arms shipments and the like. Only after the commandos were viciously set upon by an awaiting mob did they radio for and receive self-defense, live-fire authorization. Nine Islamist mobsters died (including one American citizen/useful idiot) and dozens were seriously injured, including several commandos.
From a strategic perspective, Hamas is testing Israel's resolve to enforce its blockade. Especially in light of Hamas' determination to wipe Israel off the face of the planet, we strongly support Israel's inherent right of self-defense. Besides, claims that this incident was simply a "misunderstanding" just don't pass a straight-face test. Commandos boarded the ship only after it ignored multiple orders to allow inspection or to turn back, and five other Gaza-bound vessels had been inspected and had passed without issue prior to this incident. No, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu observed, this confrontation arose from a fundamental truth: "This wasn't a love boat. This was a hate boat."
Same Story, Different Year
On Monday, the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors finalized its report on Iran's (non)compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the five UN Security Council resolutions passed since 2006. Any idea what it said? If you guessed, "Iran has not provided the Agency with the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities," you are correct! Of course, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce this -- it's the same thing the IAEA has said every time since 2004.
Another key finding: "The Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities, involving military organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. There are indications that certain of these activities may have continued beyond 2004." Next up in the ongoing kabuki dance with Iran is the UN Security Council shaping and then voting on a new round of sanctions. While this vote could happen soon, it's unlikely to produce anything strong enough to get Iran's attention.
Meanwhile, in the fantasyland that is the United Nations, last week's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference concluded by focusing not on the urgent problem of Iran and its seven years of cheating, but instead on the pressing issue of ... Israel. That's right, the only flourishing democracy in the Middle East and a nation that has never been party to the NPT. The conference's final report calls on Israel to join the NPT and place its nuclear facilities under IAEA review. Will the UN amend the NPT charter and acknowledge Israel as the sixth nuclear weapons state? It must either do so, or call on Israel to give up its nuclear weapons. In seeking a "nuclear-free Middle East," the UN will try to convince Israel to accept the latter. This is a farce wrapped in an absurdity wrapped in a delusion. Naturally, the Obama administration has put its seal of approval on this nonsense, although National Security Adviser James Jones expressed "serious reservations." Well then. November 2012 can't arrive soon enough.
Warfront With Jihadistan: Al-Qa'ida No. 3 Pushing Up Poppies
Help wanted: Chief Operating Officer with small international concern. Must be willing to travel frequently in remote locales, and to move at a moment's notice. Knowledge of clandestine money transfers and acceptance of arcane interpretations of certain religious books required. Must be physically fit and morally ambiguous. Proficiency in AK-47 preferred. Non-drinker and willing to sleep in cave is prerequisite. Benefits include all the tea you can drink and, in the event of death for the cause, 72 virgins. Apply to Mr. O. B. Laden, P.O. Box 1, Jihadistan.
The help is wanted because al-Qa'ida's No. 3 leader, Sheik Sa'id al-Masri, was terminated by a U.S. missile strike. (Note to Eric Holder: No Miranda warnings or due process provided.) The applicant pool is shrinking, and bin Laden and all jihadis should realize that it's only a matter of time before a smoking hole marks their burial site.
If there's a down side to this triumph of intelligence and technology, it's the possibility that this thug's family was foolish enough to stay near him. While we hope claims of children's deaths are not true, we are nonetheless pleased to see that this top leader of multiple terror acts has finally gotten his due.
Profiles of Valor: John Finn, 1909-2010
With Memorial Day memories still fresh, and the 66th anniversary of D-Day this coming Sunday, it's certainly worthwhile to spend a few more minutes reflecting on the courage and valor of America's fighting forces, both past and present. Last Thursday, May 27, the man who was America's oldest Medal of Honor recipient died at the age of 100 at the Veterans Home of California in Chula Vista. Retired Navy officer John Finn had received America's highest medal of valor for bravery during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Awakened by the first bombs from the attack, Finn found a .50-caliber machine gun, mounted it on a platform, which gave him no protection, and began firing at the Japanese planes that were on their way to Pearl Harbor. Despite numerous wounds (a bullet wound in his left arm, shrapnel in his chest and stomach, a broken left foot and a laceration on his scalp), he kept reloading and firing for more than two hours, giving heart to his fellow sailors, dazed from being suddenly thrown into a world war. Finn didn't leave his post for treatment until directly ordered, and even then soon returned to help rearm planes. As with most U.S. warriors, Finn was humble about his exploits, saying he just "did what I was being paid for."
Finn's story also shines a light on the current, and possibly scandalous, Medal of Honor situation. As The Patriot Post regularly highlights, there is no shortage of courage and valor among America's current crop of warriors. Yet, only six Medals of Honor have been awarded for service in Iraq or Afghanistan, a rate of one MoH recipient per one million service members. The rate from WWI through Vietnam was between 23 to 26 recipients per one million. Is a top-heavy military bureaucracy stalling awards, or is the politically correct leftist view of downplaying our military heroes influencing the brass? Regardless, our valiant warriors deserve better. But still they fight.
Business & Economy
Regulatory Commissars: Administration to Investigate BP
The Obama administration on Tuesday announced a criminal investigation into the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig and the ensuing oil spill that is endangering the Gulf Coast from Louisiana to Florida. The administration is obligated to "investigate what went wrong and to determine what reforms are needed so that we never have to experience a crisis like this again," Barack Obama opportunistically said. "If our laws were broken, leading to this death and destruction, my solemn pledge is that we will bring those responsible to justice on behalf of the victims of this catastrophe and the people of the Gulf region." The Justice Department will look into possible violations of the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The federal government also will send a $69 million bill to BP to cover its cleanup expenses so far.
As we have pointed out before and must do so again, however, White House Chief of Staff once opined that they should "never let a serious crisis go to waste" because "it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." Like hiking taxes on every barrel of oil retroactive to the beginning of the year? Or as reported by the Associated Press, "The Obama administration is blocking all new offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, a day after regulators approved a new permit for drilling in shallow water." Since leftists are generally opposed to drilling anywhere, this comes as little surprise.
"Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place? Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico." --columnist Charles Krauthammer
The BIG Lie
"[A] good deal of the other party's opposition to our agenda has also been rooted in their sincere and fundamental belief about government. It's a belief that government has little or no role to play in helping this nation meet our collective challenges. It's an agenda that basically offers two answers to every problem we face: more tax breaks for the wealthy and fewer rules for corporations." --Barack Obama
Immigration Front: Administration to Investigate Arizona
Last week, the Obama administration escalated its war against states' rights, specifically Arizona's right to deal with the problem of illegal immigration within its borders. On May 28, the Office of the Solicitor General issued a brief asking the Supreme Court to review not Arizona Senate bill 1070 (which makes illegal immigration a state crime and has sparked protests throughout the country), but the two-year-old Legal Arizona Worker's Act, which penalizes Arizona businesses that knowingly hire illegals. Both the U.S. District Court in Arizona and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have already upheld this law as constitutional, but if the Supreme Court finds that this law is unconstitutional, it will certainly affect 1070, as well as the ability of other states seeking to pass similar laws.
The feds are arguing that the Legal Arizona Worker's Act "disrupts a delicate balance" between controlling illegal immigration and preventing racial discrimination of those legally here that "Congress struck 25 years ago." The problem is, of course, that the burdens imposed upon this country by illegal immigration have gotten worse in the past two-and-a-half decades -- especially for border states like Arizona -- and the federal government has done nothing about it.
Meanwhile, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer actually was granted an audience with Barack Obama to discuss the law. Brewer has stood her ground, saying that if the administration chooses to file suit, "We'll see [Obama] in court."
This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award
"Over the last decade these [middle-class] families saw their incomes decline. They saw the cost of things like health care and college tuition reach record highs. They've lived through a so-called economic 'expansion' that generated slower job growth than at any price year expansion since World War II. Some people have called the last 10 years 'the lost decade.' So the anxiety that's out there today isn't new. The recession has certainly made it worse, but that feeling of not being in control of your own economic future, the sense that the American dream might slowly be slipping away, that has been around for some time now." --Barack Obama, doing his best Jimmy Carter "malaise" impersonation in remarks at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh
On the jobs front, the Associated Press reports, "A wave of census hiring lifted payrolls by 431,000 in May, but job creation by private companies grew at the slowest pace since the start of the year. The unemployment rate dipped to 9.7 percent as people gave up searching for work." That "wave of census hiring" accounts for 411,000 of those added (temporary) jobs. How's that "stimulus" working again, Barack?
Income Redistribution: Canadian Health Care Warning
Canada's socialist health care system certainly served as a warning for those willing to heed it in the push to do similar mischief here in the U.S. Unfortunately, the voices of fiscal responsibility were drowned out by cries of "Hope 'n' Change." The warning persists, however. Reuters headlined this week "Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model."
Reuters reports, "Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada's provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system." Despite the fact that the system is preferred by 82 percent of Canadians, "popular" must be taken with a grain of salt. Ask those who have been denied care, or those who languish on months- or years-long waiting lists for procedures routine in the U.S. (at least for now), or those who travel to the U.S. for the best care (as did Danny Williams, Premiere of Newfoundland and Labrador). Lives have been shortened and the quality of life has deteriorated under Canada's "popular" system.
Furthermore, costs are exploding. Ontario estimates that in 12 years health care could consume 70 percent of its budget. Provinces now spend about 40 percent of their budgets on health care versus roughly 7 percent in the 1970s. It's as if we Americans can see the future being played out before our eyes.
Culture & Policy
Climate Change This Week: Confessions Are Hard
After years of toting the global warming line, The New York Times and Newsweek have finally (almost, kinda sorta) admitted that the "consensus" of global warming isn't all it's cracked up to be. Pointing to the "series of climate science controversies unearthed and highlighted by skeptics since November," the Times cited a February BBC survey that "found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that 'climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,' down from 41 percent in November 2009."
Naturally, the Times is none too happy about this, referring to the "anguished question" of why "so many people [have] turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet," and lamenting that dwindling support "will make it harder to pass legislation like a fuel tax increase and to persuade people to make sacrifices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
Meanwhile, Newsweek's Stefan Theil writes, "Blame economic worries, another freezing winter, or the cascade of scandals emerging from the world's leading climate-research body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But concern over global warming has cooled down dramatically." Theil dutifully recites the benefits of cutting emissions, but then dares to discount global warming as a motivating factor for doing so.
Reporting the reality that the debate is far from over must have been painful for the liberal duo, but perhaps they realized the mounting evidence was too much even for them to ignore.
Around the Nation: State Licensed Journalists?
Michigan State Senator Bruce Patterson, a Republican, is introducing a bill that would require the state's journalists to be licensed by the state. If Patterson gets his way, journalists would have to prove that they have "good moral character" and "ethics standards acceptable to the board," a degree in journalism, three years experience as a reporter (as well as awards), and three writing samples. The moral character (or intelligence) of many journalists notwithstanding, this law advocates outright government control of the press, pure and simple.
Patterson, who ironically also practices constitutional law, claims that the law would protect the public from begin barraged with misinformation from "an increasing amount of media outlets -- traditional, online and citizen generated." Of course the law wouldn't stop people from going online or watching cable channels to get news originating from outside the state, but clearly his aim is to get the ball rolling down that slippery slope by inviting other proponents of censorship to jump on his bandwagon.
To Keep and Bear Arms
Craig Kizer had been hired to do some renovation work on a home in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, but found himself in jail after attempting to rape a teenage girl. The mother of the teen is being praised for stopping the crime. Early one morning, the 51-year-old suspect, armed with a knife, entered the girl's room while she was sleeping and attempted to rape her. After he laid the knife down, however, the girl immediately picked it up and began screaming. Her mother, armed with a gun, rushed into the room and pointed it at Kizer, ordering him to leave. Shortly afterward, police arrested him and he faces charges of attempted rape, armed criminal action and burglary.
Al and Tipper Gore announced this week that they're separating after 40 years of marriage. Apparently, even the populist potentate of eco-theology couldn't keep the warmth in their relationship. Just a few weeks ago, the Gores purchased a new earth-warming $8.8 million ocean-view villa in Montecito, California. This is just one symbol of their enormous wealth, which has grown exponentially -- from $1 million to $100 million -- since 2000 and which will now have to be split. Apparently, the two aren't aware that divorce is also bad for the planet.
News coverage, predictably, has been of the shocked-and-dismayed sort, with some commentators wondering if any marriage can last. Most amusing, however, was the fact that others blamed -- you guessed it -- George W. Bush. "It's been 10 years since that oddly public passionate kiss at the Democratic convention," said CBS's Sharyl Attkisson. "That was followed by Gore winning the popular vote for president but losing the electoral vote. Family friend Sally Quinn says that may have done the marriage irreparable harm." Quinn agreed: "He obviously suffered a lot and still is suffering. He'll never get over that and neither will she."
THE PATRIOT POST.COM
FRIDAY, 04 JUNE 10
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?”
If you really want to understand the difference between the technical terms natural born citizen, native born citizen, naturalized citizen and just plain citizen, go to:
And if you really want to understand why it is necessary for a man to be a natural born citizen of the United States in order to be President of the United States, read the essay by Leo Donofrio at:
And if you did not know that in additional to Obama being ineligible to be president because of his nationality, did you
know that he is a Muslim: