Barack Obama -- June 12, 2009

June 12, 2009

Custom Search

"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.