Barack Obama -- March 19, 2009

March 19, 2009

Custom Search

From $1 trillion in debt
to $4 trillion in debt
in six weeks

event	description
Let My People Go	Some of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners could be released into the United States while others could be put on trial in the American court system, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday. Holder told reporters at the Justice Department that the administration's review, made on a case-by-case basis, would determine whether the prisoners need to be put on trial or whether they can be released. "For those who are in that second category, who can be released, there are a variety of options that we have. Among them is the possibility that we could release them into this country," he said. "We've been trying to come up with places for them," Holder said of the Uighurs, 17 Chinese Muslims. Their lawyers have asked Obama to bring them to the United States. Holder said the administration was also looking at the possibility of putting some of the Guantanamo prisoners on trial in U.S. courts. "My guess is that some of those people would be tried in" the U.S. court system, he said.
Negotiating With Terrorists	A group of former senior American officials and one current top adviser to the Obama administration are petitioning the U.S. president to open talks with the Hamas terrorist organization, believing the group can be part of the Palestinian peace process. Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman who was selected by Obama to head his new economic recovery advisory board, reportedly signed a letter advocating dialogue with Hamas. Other signatories of the letter reportedly included Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to George Bush Sr., Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter's security adviser. Brzezinski's pro-Hamas views have been aired publicly in newspaper opinion pieces and policies speeches; former House International Relations Committee chairman Lee Hamilton; former United Nations ambassador Thomas Pickering; former World Bank president James Wolfensohn; former U.S. trade representative Carla Hills; Theodore Sorensen, former special counsel to President John F. Kennedy; and former Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and Nancy Kassebaum Baker. "I see no reason not to talk to Hamas," Scowcroft told the Globe. The Telegraph of London reported the group is expected to be granted an audience at the White House as early as this week to make their case to Obama that lines of communication should be opened with Hamas. A top Palestinian Authority negotiator pointed to Sen. John Kerry's visit last month to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and the Massachusetts lawmaker's reported acceptance of a letter from the Islamist group as "legitimizing Hamas." Our enemies can always count on John Kerry.
Iraq And Lies	On this sixth anniversary of America's invasion of Iraq, there is finally a consensus among supporters and opponents that we’ve won the war. The surge that Bush launched and Democrats opposed has been successful and, as a result, Iraq has become a Middle Eastern democracy, an anti-terrorist regime, and an American ally. It would be hard to imagine a more remarkable turnabout or a more comprehensive repudiation of conventional political wisdom. Yet this has not led to a comparable reappraisal by critics of the war of their previous attacks, or to any mea culpas by Democrats who launched a scorched earth campaign against the president who led it, and continued it for five years while the war dragged on. The Democratic attacks on the war described America’s commander-in-chief as a liar who misled his country and sent American soldiers to die in a conflict that was unnecessary, illegal and unjust. This made prosecution of the war incalculably harder while strengthening the resolve of our enemies to defeat us. It is time to re-evaluate the words and actions of the war’s opponents in the stark light of a history that proved them wrong. In the fall of 2002, a majority of Democrats in the Senate joined Republicans in voting to authorize President Bush to use force to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein. In July 2003, only three months after Saddam had been removed, the Democratic National Committee launched a national campaign which accused President Bush of lying in order to trick Democrats into voting for the war. It was the beginning of a five-year campaign designed to paint the president as the liar-in-chief and America as a criminal aggressor, and the military occupier of a poor country that had not attacked us. What had changed in the intervening three months to turn Democrats so vehemently against the war they had authorized? The answer can only be found in domestic politics. In those three months, an unknown antiwar candidate named Howard Dean had taken the lead in the primary polls and was looking like a shoe-in for the Democratic presidential nomination. As a result rival candidates who had voted for the war, including eventual nominees Kerry and Edwards, changed their positions 180 degrees and joined the attacks on President Bush. Naturally, the Democrats couldn’t admit their attacks were motivated by crass political calculations. Instead, they claimed that they had been deceived by the White House which had manipulated the intelligence on Iraq, persuading them to support the war on false premises. This allegation was in fact the biggest lie of the war. More . . .
Obama's failure to lead	Obama was called upon to lead and has utterly failed, and in less than two months. From the stimulus package that won't stimulate even Chris Matthews' leg, to the continuing series of ethically questionable political appointments, through an outrageous Congressional spending binge that included unfettered earmarks, he has passed on all the easy leadership opportunities. What will he do on the tougher issues? Recall that the presidential race was a dead heat when the economic crisis hit last fall. Obama's legendary calm, cool, and collected manner was viewed as better for dealing with a crisis and he pulled ahead. We know now that this persona is a media-hyped marketing fiction devised by his campaign. His comical reliance on the teleprompter (at a rodeo!) has become the butt of late-night jokes, and in his unscripted moments he's like an unprepared high school debater fumbling for his lines. The politician as leader has always been a curious formulation. Politicians are rarely leaders and yet that's what children are taught in school. Last fall's elections were viewed by teachers as an opportunity to show children that electing our leaders is the beauty of our democratic system. Can Obama still lead? He can -- his first 100 days (an artificial conceit if ever there were one) aren't even up yet -- but there's little reason for optimism. Obama touts pragmatism as his strength and explains pedantically that no core philosophy or guiding principles are needed, that he's open to all ideas. But most ideas so far reflect exclusively the Loony Left ideology, which has been rejected by voters repeatedly over decades, and the notion that the voters took a sharp Left turn in the last election is unsupported by either facts or polls. And Obama is now trying Chavez-style demagoguery as a proxy for leadership, attacking straw men with unusual vigor. He simply doesn't know what it means to be a leader. It's a shame. Obama entered office with tremendous political capital, more than any president in recent memory, but has squandered much of it in a remarkably short time. He's like the factory worker who won the lottery and allowed his teenage children (Pelosi and Reid) to lose most of the money on a drunken gambling binge. He still has some left but how will he use it? Sadly, his political capital is likely to go the way of most of the bailout money -- a sad waste of a grand opportunity.
The Buck Never Stops	Obama has mastered the art of employing rhetoric that makes it sound as if he's doing something uniquely virtuous and heroic when in reality he's doing stuff that political leaders often do. We've seen this with the way he touts bipartisanship while being unwilling to offer real compromises or the way he proclaims he isn't hiring lobbyists when he actually is. But he took this practice to more absurd proportions today when his big Harry Truman "buck stops here" moment was woven together with other statements blaming everybody but his administration for the handling of the AIG bonuses and the broader financial mess. "Ultimately, I'm responsible, I'm the President of the United States," Obama declared. But, instead of taking responsibility, he continued, "We've got a big mess that we're having to clean up. Nobody here drafted those contracts. Nobody here was responsible for supervising AIG and allowing themselves to put the economy at risk by some of the outrageous behavior they are engaged in. We are responsible though, the buck stops with me." If Obama wants to say that he inherited a mess, that's one thing. But to simultaneously cast blame elsewhere, ask to be graded on a curve, and act as if you're being a bold leader is quite another. Nonetheless, he got his intended result, with headlines such as UPI's: "Obama: 'Buck stops with me'"
No Proof	On February 9, 2009, a New Jersey attorney, Mr. Mario Apuzzo, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiffs, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand and Donald H. Nelson, Jr. The lawsuit, Civil Action Number. 1:09 –cv-00253 was filed in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The defendants in this case are: Barrack Hussein Obama II, and Individually, a/k/a Barry Soetoro, United States of America, The United States Congress, The United States Senate, The United States House of Representatives, Richard B. Cheney (President of the US Senate, Presiding Officer of Joint Session of Congress, Vice President of the United States and Individually), Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House and Individually). All of the defendants have been served with a copy of the complaint and have 60 days to respond to the complaint. Will they stand up like honest citizens and answer the complaint, or will they hide behind high priced lawyers like Obama has been doing? Basically, the lawsuit says there is no verifiable proof that Obama is an American citizen and is therefore ineligible to be the President of the United States. It also points out that the United States Code of Federal Regulations was violated by the defendants, during the course of counting Electoral votes, by not asking any members of Congress if they objected to the counts. A normal counting of the votes takes approximately 2 hours. Obama’s took 36 minutes and it is on record that there was no call for any objections. This lawsuit is important because, the cold hard fact of life is that if Obama is not qualified or eligible to be the President of the United States of America, every action Obama takes is fraudulent. Any Treaty, Executive Order, Agreements, and/or Laws signed by him are not valid and can be rescinded, reneged on or totally ignored by any Nation on Earth, including future American administrations, now and into the distant future. Any trade agreements between Nations and Corporations can be denied or rescinded. By the very nature of Obama’s citizenship being questioned, it places the liberty of all Americans in jeopardy. Obama himself, can end all lawsuits, quiet all questions, stop all Internet chatter about his citizenship by simply producing a legitimate Birth Certificate. What reason could he have for employing legal firms to obstruct anyone from seeing where he was born? Obama has used three law firms to keep his birth place secret. There is no proof that he was born in America. Obama steadfastly refuses to provide any proof that he is an American citizen. Most of us have heard of his "Certification of Live Birth" in Hawaii. Any person born in any location on Earth can have the State of Hawaii give them a "Certification of Live Birth." This document has a space on it asking what country the applicant was born in. Hawaii has two birth documents. A "Certification" which is given to anyone who asks for it, regardless of what country they were born in, and a "Certificate," that is only given to people born in Hawaii. Obama and the major news companies in America proudly show an ignorant populace the "Certification." It proves only that a human being was born somewhere on this particular Planet. One of the problems these lawsuits face is the simple task of getting a Judge to at least consider the facts presented. Case after case has been thrown out by various Judges, loosely based on the incredibly profound ruling of, "It’s none of your business, so shut up."