If Obama Has No Natural Born Citizenship Problem Why Did Congress Try To Fix It?
by Suzanne Eovaldi,
February 6, 2012
Congress made eight different attempts to alter our U.S. Constitution concerning the Natural Born Citizenship Clause according to the apocalyptic video documentary done with research by Senior Pastor Carl Gallups proving they knew Barack Obama lacked presidential eligibility prior to the 2008 election! If there was no problem for Obama why would these people do this? There had never been a question of Natural Born Citizenship in our lifetimes! Why fix what wasn’t broken?
The youtube video goes on to reveal a secret, closed door meeting was held with eight Supreme Court Justices just prior to the January 2009 Inauguration that sent our other courts an unspoken message to don’t go there. Plaintiff attorneys with cases were pending at the time were not allowed into this meeting! Only Justice Samuel Allito declined to attend this secret meeting. Here, as revealed in the Gallups video, are the eight different attempts to amend our Constitution to accommodate Obama’s eligibility questions:
1. On June 11, 2003: House Joint Resolution # 59, introduced by Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR), failed to obtain a vote; it sought to allow non-natural born U.S. citizens, “but who have been citizens of the U.S. for at least 35 years,” to serve as President or Vice President.
2. On Sept. 3, 2003: Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduced HJR#67 which [....]
Thanks A Lot Georgia, For Shredding Our Constitution
by Nikki Booth,
February 4, 2012
On Friday, February 3, 2012 the death knell of America the Beautiful tolled across the fifty states and around the world. An administrative judge in the state of Georgia rewrote the Constitution and ruled in favor of putative president Barack Hussein Obama declaring him a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be on their state ballot. Our rule of law is no more. Our Constitution is no more. Obama, Soros, state media, activist judges and all the ‘powers that be’ of a New World Order sealed our fate. The United States is a land of liberty no more.
When Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi released his shocking ruling we were stunned. This couldn’t possibly be true. On the eve of the hearing Obama’s lawyers had written a thinly- veiled threat letter to Brian Kemp, GA Secretary of State, demanding that Kemp stop Judge Malahi from moving forward with the three lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the state ballot. This letter followed another sent days earlier by Obama’s Atlanta attorney Michael Jablonski to Judge Malihi demanding he stop the January 26th hearing and advised the GA judge that Obama would not be attending anyway citing it would interfere with the president’s duties. Malihi replied quickly to the first letter: the hearing would go on. SOS Kemp responded within 2 hours of receiving his letter stating, “…if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”
At the very least when Obama or his lawyers failed to show up in court a default judgement, earlier considered by the judge, should have denied Obama’s [....]
Georgia’s Obama Eligibility Decision: Legally Incorrect And Ethically Indefensible
by Doug Book,
February 9, 2012
On February 3rd a much anticipated decision was issued by Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi, recommending that Secretary of State Brian Kemp allow Barack Hussein Obama to appear on the state ballot as a candidate for President. Given previous rulings by Judge Malihi in the Obama case, many had assumed things might go badly for the acting president. Yet the judge’s 10 page decision could hardly have done more to accommodate defendant Obama and his attorney, especially in light of their having ignored court orders, subpoenas and the hearing itself. And many of those who have reviewed Judge Malihi’s decision find it to be supported by neither fact nor law. Of the statements made by the judge in his decision, the following are among the most objectionable to legal observers:
1.) “This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.” (page 3) In actuality there was NO evidence “presented at the hearing,” in response [....]
[Related Content] Georgia Eligibility Decision Based On Legal Blunders
by Doug Book,
February 10, 2012
Though Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi claimed to have issued a decision based upon “the law as well as the evidence,” we now know he made proper use of neither. For the Judge had no evidence in the Court record upon which to base his assertion of “fact” that Obama “was born in the United States.” And the Indiana Appeals Court decision to which Judge Malihi looked for his ONLY guidance made a thoroughly incorrect interpretation of existing case law. In short,
Judge Malihi’s decision wouldn’t pass muster in a first year law school classroom.
“The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record.” This is a rule of evidence of the superior court as stated by Attorney Mario Apuzzo. Yet only plaintiff’s evidence was [....]
Romney expressing his dislike for Ronald Reagan in his 1994 Senatorial debate
January 12, 2012
6 years after Ronald Reagan left office
Hi, May God bless the campaign ! An ad I would do – Combine these two : Obama quote and Romney quote … From Reagan Republican David K.
Is True : Romney expressed dislike For Ronald Reagan … The real Romney – Romney and Obama both
speak their dislike for Ronald Reagan, Obama in this quote from his book ‘ Dreams from My Father ‘ [ pg. 133 ], and Romney in [....]
Afghanistan: Moving Toward a Distant Endgame
by George Friedman,
February 7, 2012
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta suggested last week that the United States could wrap up combat operations in Afghanistan by the end of 2013, well before the longstanding 2014 deadline when full control is to be ceded to Kabul. Troops would remain in Afghanistan until 2014, as agreed upon at the 2010 Lisbon Summit, and would be engaged in two roles until at least 2014 and perhaps even later. One role would be continuing the training of Afghan security forces. The other would involve special operations troops carrying out capture or kill operations against high-value targets.
Along with this announcement, the White House gave The New York Times some details on negotiations that have been under way with the Taliban. According to the Times, Mullah Mohammad Omar, the senior-most leader of the Afghan Taliban, last summer made overtures to the White House offering negotiations. An intermediary claiming to speak for Mullah Omar delivered the proposal, an unsigned document purportedly from Mullah Omar that could not be established as authentic. The letter demanded the release of some Taliban prisoners before any talks. In spite of the ambiguities, which included a recent public denial by the Taliban that the offer came from Mullah Omar, U.S. officials, obviously acting on other intelligence, regarded the proposal as both authentic and representative of the views of the Taliban leadership and, in all likelihood, those of Mullah Omar, too.
The idea of negotiating with the Taliban is not new. Talks, as distinct from negotiations, in which specific terms are hammered out, have gone on for some time now. Several previous attempts have ended in failure, including one instance when the supposed representative proved to be a fraud. However, according to the Times report, the negotiations took on a degree of specificity last summer. They began in November 2010, initiated by a man named Tayyab Agha, who claimed to speak for Mullah Omar. The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama regards authenticating the present offer as unimportant and the intermediary as having authority; the question on the table is the release of Taliban captives as a token of American seriousness. The Taliban see themselves as already having made a major concession. Their original demand was the complete withdrawal of Western forces from Afghanistan as a precondition for negotiations. The talks have [....]
Was Lincoln the Father of Big Government?
by Julia Shaw
February 10, 2011
On February 12, America will celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s 202nd birthday, but will conservatives celebrate his legacy? Lincoln is a pivotal figure in American history, yet some conservatives are wary of him. Lincoln, the Left proclaims and the Right fears, is the father of big government.
Conservatives shouldn’t be fooled. If big government means a permanently large and growing federal budget and a vast civil service (see William Voegeli’s Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State), then Lincoln may deny paternity for both. As Allen Guelzo explains, while the federal budget indeed ballooned to meet the cost of the Civil War (from $63.2 million in 1860 to $1.29 billion in 1865), it shrank once the war ended (back to $293 million by 1870). “If Lincoln had plans to create ‘big government,’” Guelzo concludes, “none of his successors seems to have known what they were.” Similarly, while the federal government employed more people during the war, the number shrank once the war ended.
In reality, big government is a Progressive invention, designed by Progressive thinkers such as Herbert Croly and John Dewey and perpetrated by Progressive presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. These men embraced big government, because they held certain principles opposed to the limited government framework set forth in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. By contrast, Lincoln held a different set of premises. He defended the Constitution and “never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.” To understand Lincoln, therefore, we must turn to the documents he held so dear.
When Lincoln contemplated the Declaration of Independence, Ralph Lerner explains in his essay Lincoln’s Declaration—and Ours, “he saw not one document but two.” First was the “merely revolutionary document” that enumerated the crown’s violations in order to justify to the world the colonies’ separation from Great Britain. The second was the more permanent aspect of the Declaration—“an abstract truth to the effect that all men are created equal.” Human equality would serve as the great foundational principle of America. It was this abstract truth that would carry the Declaration throughout time and guide Lincoln and later statesmen through the precarious situations of the day. The Constitution complements the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln described the Declaration as an apple of gold while the “Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around [the apple]. The picture was made, not to conceal, [....]
Obama is Big Brother's Keeper
by John Ransom
Febraury 8, 2012
It’s hard to believe that Obama falls to his knees for anyone, but apparently he does. As long as they aren't Catholic. But no, it’s not God either that he prays to. God, too is catholic, with a small "C.".
It’s just a room with 3,000 National Prayer Breakfast attendees.
God isn’t voting in the upcoming, but the attendees are. So painfully, creakily, Obama gets on bended knee looking for votes through- not contrition or remission of sins- but rather through defiance and indulgence. And Obama has some sins he must confess after his assault on the Catholic Church’s policy of not providing contraceptive benefits to their employees. "Obama avoided mention in his prayer breakfast remarks of his administration's new rule requiring religiously affiliated non-profit groups to provide birth control to women," reports Reuters, "a decision that spurred fury from social conservatives and the Catholic Church." For the Church it’s a matter of faith; faith in God that apparently is supposed to be protected under the constitution that Obama swears he’ll uphold.
Writes Bishop Timothy M. Dolan:
Scarcely two weeks ago, in its Hosanna-Tabor decision upholding the right of churches to make ministerial hiring decisions, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically reaffirmed these longstanding and foundational principles of religious freedom. The court made clear that they include the right of religious institutions to control their internal affairs. Yet the Obama administration has veered in the opposite direction. It has refused to exempt religious institutions that serve the common good—including Catholic schools, charities and hospitals—from its sweeping new health-care mandate that requires employers to purchase contraception, including abortion-producing drugs, and sterilization coverage for their employees.
Catholic bishops, who for the most part [....]
Mexico's Presidential Election and the Cartel War
by Scott Stewart,
February 9, 2012
Mexico will hold its presidential election July 1 against the backdrop of a protracted war against criminal cartels in the country. Former President Vicente Fox of the National Action Party (PAN) launched that struggle; his successor, Felipe Calderon, also of the PAN, greatly expanded it. While many Mexicans apparently support action against the cartels, the Calderon government has come under much criticism for its pursuit of the cartels, contributing to Calderon's low popularity at the moment. The PAN is widely expected to lose in July to the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which controlled the Mexican presidency for most of the 20th century until Fox's victory in 2000. According to polls, the PAN has lost credibility among many Mexican voters, many of whom also once again view the PRI as a viable alternative.
In our effort to track Mexico's criminal cartels and to help our readers understand the dynamics that shape the violence in Mexico, Stratfor talks to a variety of people, including Mexican and U.S. government officials, journalists, business owners, taxi drivers and street vendors. At present, many of these contacts are saying that the Calderon administration could attempt to pull off some sort of last-minute political coup (in U.S. political parlance, an "October surprise") to boost the PAN's popularity so it can retain the presidency. The potential election ploy most often discussed is the capture of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera, the leader of the Sinaloa cartel, who is widely believed to be the richest, most powerful drug trafficker anywhere. The reasoning goes that if the government could catch Guzman, Calderon's (and hence the PAN's) popularity would soar. Still, very real questions exist about whether such an operation really would give the PAN the boost it needs to retain the presidency, however. North of the border, the re-election of U.S. President Barack Obama has not been guaranteed by the May 2011 death of Osama bin Laden. Political considerations aside, the factors that have helped Guzman avoid capture thus far are the very same factors that inhibit the Mexican government's ability to capture him. While we don't put a lot of stock in these rumors of an election surprise, we do see them as a good reason to examine the factors that have protected Guzman.
Plata o Plomo
As we noted in our annual cartel report, Mexico's cartels have begun to form into two major groupings around the two most powerful cartels, the Sinaloa cartel and Los Zetas. These two cartels approach business quite differently. The common Mexican cartel expression "plata o plomo" (literally translated as "silver or lead," the Spanish phrase signifying that a cartel will force one's cooperation with either a bribe or a bullet) illustrates the different modes of operation of the two hegemonic cartels.
Los Zetas, an organization founded by former [....]
Is Obama Really In Good Shape For Re-election?
Or Is The Media Lying Again?
February 8, 2012 Gallup Polling is caught between what its thousands of interviews say about Barack Obama’s reelection chances and what it longs for the facts to be. They do their best to hide the truth with suspiciously timed releases and obfuscating language. Nevertheless,embedded in its latest report on voter attitudes,Gallup’s delivers more bad news for Obama. Try as it did to put a happy face on the dangerously low level of “satisfaction” in the electorate, Gallup can’t do much with a 22% rate. Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Ronald Reagan all had more than 41% rates on their way to reelection,but George H.W. Bush was at 22% in 1992 when he lost to Clinton.
Voters’ sentiment on the economy shows more weakness for Obama with 56% saying it is getting worse while just 38% see it getting better. This -25 in Gallup’s Economic Confidence Index compares too favorably to Bush senior’s -31 during June of 1992 to provide any real encouragement for Obama. Gallup’s attempt to talk up the improvement in the unemployment rate as reported last week (8.3%) runs into a serious problem since for the least two years Gallup has been saying the real rate (8.6%) is higher than being reported. When the underemployed numbers (18.7%) are included things get still worse for Obama. The current 71% of Americans with economic matters on their minds is reminiscent of Bush senior’s ill-fated reelection campaign 20 years ago.
The Rasmussen Report shows us the sour [....]
2013, the Taliban and the U.S. Commitment to Afghanistan
Staff Report (Geopolitical Diary)
February 2, 2012
NATO meetings in Brussels this week had been expected to center on France's recent attempts to shorten its commitment to NATO's mission in Afghanistan (with the important repercussion of the potential for other European allies to follow the French lead). But U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, while en route to Brussels on Wednesday, announced that combat operations in Afghanistan would transition to a "training, advise and assist" role before the end of 2013 -- rather than the long-held 2014 deadline. The shortened time frame Panetta proffered would be consistent with what French President Nicolas Sarkozy now desires. But the mission in Afghanistan does not depend on the presence of the French contingent -- or even on the cumulative contributions of European countries that might follow the French in reducing their commitments. Concern about the durability of the French commitment to the war effort is insufficient to understand Panetta’s announcement.
When in 2001 the Northern Alliance -- supported by American airpower and special operations forces -- seized Kabul, Stratfor argued that the Taliban had not been defeated, but had declined combat on American terms and conceded the capital. Washington’s attention quickly shifted to Iraq. As the war in Iraq intensified and then settled, the war in Afghanistan underwent a significant shift. The old al Qaeda core that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks moved to Pakistan and was increasingly degraded, culminating in the 2011 death of Osama bin Laden. Pursuing that al Qaeda core is what originally motivated the United States to invade Afghanistan. But today, [....]
The Price of Obama's Fairness
by Matt Patterson,
Feb 11, 2012
President Obama is big on fairness. “Fair” or some variant thereof was mentioned eight times in his State of the Union speech, more than “health care” (twice), his signature legislative accomplishment, or “spending” (three times), the nation’s most pressing problem. Obama claims, in fact, that the issue of fairness is the “defining issue of our time.” The president gives us a stark, if fallacious, choice:
“No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”
Obama then [....]
The Church of Obama
by Mark Steyn,
February 11, 2012
The president has issued his own Act of Supremacy.
Announcing his support for Commissar Sebelius’s edicts on contraception, sterilization, and pharmacological abortion, that noted theologian the Most Reverend Al Sharpton explained:
“If we are going to have a separation of church and state, we’re going to have a separation of church and state.”
Thanks for clarifying that.
The church model the young American state wished to separate from was that of the British monarch, who remains to this day supreme governor of the Church of England. This convenient arrangement dates from the 1534 Act of Supremacy. The title of the law gives you the general upshot, but, just in case you’re a bit slow on the uptake, the text proclaims “the King’s Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England.” That’s to say, the sovereign is “the only supreme head on earth of the Church” and he shall enjoy “all honors, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity,” not to mention His Majesty “shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts, and enormities, whatsoever they be.”
Welcome to Obamacare.
The president of the United States has decided to go Henry VIII on the Church’s medieval ass. Whatever religious institutions might profess to believe in the matter of “women’s health,” their pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, and immunities are now subordinate to a one-and-only supreme head on earth determined to repress, redress, restrain, and amend their heresies. One wouldn’t wish to overextend the analogy: For one thing, [....]
Catholic Bishops: Don’t Revise, Rescind
by George Weigel,
February 11, 2012
Saturday morning’s Washington Post headline and first sub-headline, page one and above-the-fold, nicely captured the confusions that prevailed as of 6 p.m. Friday, in the matter of tweaks to the “contraceptive mandate” issued by the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services: “Obama shifts on birth control / Catholic leaders open to plan.”
Well, no, and no.
The administration “shifted” on nothing. It simply decreed that insurers, not employers, must provide “preventive services” (including sterilization and abortifacient drugs), a shell game that has been variously and accurately described as a “fraud” (Andrew McCarthy, in the Corner) and an “absurdity” (the Wall Street Journal). More to the point, as Yuval Levin pointed out shortly after President Obama and HHS Secretary Sebelius announced their “accommodation,” the newly tweaked regulations “would not actually change the moral circumstances at issue in any way.”
Later in the day, on the PBS News Hour, Ray Suarez confronted Secretary Sebelius with the obvious: Someone was going to pay for the contraceptives provided, and who, if not those who purchased the insurance that had to include these “preventive services?” The secretary then took the absurdity to a new level by claiming that none of this would cost anyone anything, as there was empirical evidence showing that readily available contraception lowered the overall costs to the health-care system by reducing the rate of pregnancy. All of which was, on a much graver matter, reminiscent of an old WPA poster-turned-postcard that I recently saw at the Grand Canyon, which extolled Grand Canyon National Park as “A Free Government Service.”
The question on some minds as of 6 p.m. Friday night, though, was whether the Catholic bishops, who had taken the point in opposing the HHS mandate since its announcement on January 20, grasped that they had been played for fools by the administration. A rather anodyne initial reaction from the [....]
Super PAC-Men: Obama Bundlers Gone Wild!
by Michelle Malkin,
February 08, 2012
The White House didn't blow a dog whistle for deep-pocketed liberal donors on Monday. No, the administration whipped out a supersized vuvuzela. Blaring message: Let loose the campaign finance-bundling hounds of super PAC war! President Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, who served as White House deputy chief of staff for operations before assuming 2012 re-election duties, announced the super PAC super-flip-flop in a mass e-mail to supporters and a blog post published on the left-wing Huffington Post website. In a related conference call to major campaign finance bundlers, Messina encouraged these high-dollar donors to start funding Priorities USA Action. That's the Democratic super PAC founded by former White House staffers Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney.
Super PACs and campaigns are barred from coordinating with each other. Nevertheless, Messina said that "senior campaign officials as well as some White House and Cabinet officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events." Of course, they "won't be soliciting contributions." Wink-wink, nudge-nudge. This brazen about-face for [....]
Senate redistricting plan causing concern
by Jill Terreri, Staff Writer
February 7, 2012
The state redistricting commission plans a public hearing on the proposed district lines at 10:30 a.m. Feb. 15 in the legislature chambers on the fourth floor of the Monroe County Office Building, 39 W. Main St.
For a state legislator, representing a region's largest employer is usually a good thing, especially when it means being able to appear at groundbreakings and job creation announcements. But in Monroe County, the University of Rochester, regarded as a bright spot in the local economy, has been drawn into a Senate district based 70 miles away. If proposed district lines are enacted, it will be a Buffalo-area senator who will represent the university and its medical center.
"It takes our largest employer and gives it to a senator who lives in Amherst, who may be a very nice gentleman but is (in) no position to represent the communities of interest that are here," said Mayor Thomas Richards.
Under the proposal, a large part of Rochester, including the 19th Ward and the Greater Rochester International Airport, would [....]
Why Reagan Succeeded
by Jim Miller,
February 11, 2012
Today’s candidates could learn much from him.
|"Ronaldus-Magnus" and Nancy campaign in Columbia, S.C., October 10, 1980|
How did Ronald Reagan do all this?
What were the characteristics of the man that led to such success? There were several, they were inter-woven, and all were important.
First was his humility. When speaking about public issues, the context was not “I,” it was “we,” as in “We the People.” In dealing with the press and with others, he was always polite and accommodating. With the public he was approachable and engaging. He never viewed the presidency as “his”: He always thought of his having the honor of serving the American people for a short time, then returning to private life.
A second reason for President Reagan’s success was his enary [....]
To be continued later today;
no NFL, right?!?