(Adapted from an article originally penned by one Dewie Whetsell, an Alaskan fisherman publishing in the Canadian Free Press)
Step up to the plate and take a few high inside and quite interesting facts on two very different ladies. Sarah Palin is a dynamo, a quick study when the time is right. Whether you're a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, or Republican—the second half of this email should make all of us more than a little sick. The last 45 of my 66 years I’ve spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska. I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics, well, until this last year. Here’s the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about persona, style, rhetoric, it’s about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I'm about to mention here.
1. Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor’s office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican’s “Corrupt Bastards Club” (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, "la la la la" (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.
2. Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called “ACES.” Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, “don’t let the door hit you in the stern on your way out.” They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.
3. The other thing she did when she walked into the governor’s office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as “pork.” She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the “when-hell-freezes-over” stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we’ll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor’s jet because it was extravagant. Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor’s cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning—I imagine—that she’s packing heat herself). I’m still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
4. Now, even with her much-ridiculed “gosh and golly” mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn’t impress you, then you’re trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.
5. For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn’t start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. Then, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.
6. President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewable by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that’s just a cover-up. I’m still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won’t be holding my breath.
By the way, she was content to return to Alaska after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn’t let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.
You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the Democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents’ wives.
So “You go, Girl.” I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals. I rest my case. Only fools who hide behind their own bigotry listen to the biased media. If you’ve read this far, prepare yourself for some glitz and glamour, Hollywood style, paid for your tax dollars at work. First Madame Michelle Obama’s servant list and pay scale will undoubtedly soil your undies. The current First Lady requires more than twenty personal attendants as if she were competing with the most self-delivering queens history has ever known.
$172,200 – Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
$140,000 – Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
$113,000 – Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
$102,000 – Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
$100,000 – Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$90,000 – Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$84,000 – Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
$75,000 – Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
$70,000 – Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
$65,000 – Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
$64,000 – Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
$62,000 – Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
$60,000 – Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
$57,500 – Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
$52,500 – Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to The First Lady)
$50,000 – Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special=2 0Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to The First Lady)
$45,000 – Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
$43,000 – Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
$40,000 – Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
$36,000 – Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
$35,000 – Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)(This is community organizing at it’s finest.)
Nhere has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President’s own pocket. This is first lady fraud and racketeering.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and “First Hairstylist” Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe .
FRIENDS…..THESE SALARIES ADD UP TO SIX MILLION, THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,364,000) FOR THE 4 YEARS OF OFFICE????? AND WE ARE IN A RECESSION????? WELL….MOST OF US ARE. I GUESS IT’S OK TO SPEND WILDLY WHEN IT’S NOT YOUR OWN MONEY?????
And yet, remember how the liberal media squealed when the Republican Party with their own funds spent a mere $150K on some new clothes for their "backwater" VP candidate? What does this say for the First Lady's need to shine over and above her own natural station, Chicago daughter of middle class schoolteachers? Yes, Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press has to publish this because the USA media is too scared they might be considered racist. Sorry USA!
David Kupelian is an award-winning journalist, managing editor of WND, editor of Whistleblower magazine, and author of the best-selling book, The Marketing of Evil His newest book, How Evil Works, released to much critical acclaim in the spring of 2010. “Mr. President, on what occasion do you lie?”
That was Barbara Walters during her painfully fawning interview with Barack and Michelle Obama last Dec. 23. For ABC News “20/20′s” “Christmas at the White House” segment, the president and first lady were seated on a couchrelaxed, jovial, holding handstheir West Wing surroundings magnificently decorated for the holidays with dozens of exquisitely adorned Christmas trees and “visions of sugar-plums” everywhere. Walters got the interview rolling with tough questions like (to Obama), “If you were a superhero and you could have one super power, what would it be?” (Answer: “flying.”) And (to the first lady), “If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would you want it to be?” (Answer: “Bo,” the family dog.) And (to both of them), “I’m looking at you. You’re holding hands. That’s very sweet. How many years married?”
“Twenty, next year,” said Obama. “And [you] still hold hands?” rejoined the adoring Walters. “Absolutely,” replied Obama.
Then, against this backdrop of irresistible holiday warmth and good cheer, came the big question:
“Mr. President,” Walters inquired delicately, “on what occasion do you lie?”
“Usually, the only time I lie,” responded Obama, “is very personal interactions with family members, [when] you say, ‘You look great,’ and they don’t. ‘Wonderful dress…’ Uh, not so much.”
Chimed Michelle: “Things where the truth would hurt other people.”
“Right,” echoed Obama, “the things where truth would hurt other people. Not too many big things. I said during the campaign that I’ll always tell you what I think, and I will, always tell you where I stand. I’m not perfect, but you’ll know what I believe.”
There you have it, folks. Welcome to The Matrix – where the elite media specialize in creating virtual reality scenes like this one, which are so pleasant and seem so realexcept that they bear virtually no resemblance to reality. For there, seated in the midst of this elegant, Norman Rockwell-esque Christmas setting, was Barack Obama, the perpetually churning and discontented radical, taking a needed break from his relentless campaign to “fundamentally transform”that means destroythe American way of free enterprise and free people. Barack Obama, the man who lies as easily as breathinga serial deceiver regarding his birth, his childhood, his education, his influences and associations, his religion, his accomplishments, his policies, his true beliefs and his plans for America’s future. Barack Obama, the man whose entire presidency has been a seamless fabric of deception and duplicity, tells Barbara Walters and the American people that the only time he lies is to protect a family member from hurt feelings by occasionally offering reassurance that an unflattering dress is “wonderful.”
Wow. The level of ongoing media dishonesty in covering Barack Obama is, of course, surreal. But let us now focus our attention on the man who is, in all likelihood, the most perfectly dishonest person ever to occupy the Oval Office. After all, the correct answer to Walters’ question is obvious. When does Obama lie? Every single time he speaks to the American people. Indeed, as another long-time ABC News personality, Pulitzer prize-winning columnist George Will, pointed out recently in the Washington Post: “Barack Obama’s intellectual sociopathyhis often breezy and sometimes loutish indifference to truthshould no longer startle.”
“Sociopathy” is a strong word, but used by many to describe Obama – not necessarily as a clinical psychiatric diagnosis, but just because the symptoms fit so darn well, as per this typical description: “Sociopaths are often well-liked because of their charm and high charisma, but they do not usually care about other people. They think mainly of themselves and often blame others for the things that they do. They have a complete disregard for rules and lie constantly. They seldom feel guilt or learn from punishments.” Remind you of anyone?
A vital, creative power
One veteran psychiatrist I know suggested a slightly different diagnosis for Obama, but similar to “sociopathy” in many ways – namely, “malignant narcissistic personality disorder.” The modifier “malignant” signifies the version of “narcissistic personality disorder” that may cross over into criminality, he explained.
He even reviewed with me a list of some of the major symptoms of NPD, comparing them with Obama’s behavior as president. Among the key markers: 1) a grandiose view of one’s achievements (everything with Obama is “historic”), 2) an utter inability to handle criticism (everyone criticizing Obama or his policies is attacked as extremist or racist, his White House even condemning Fox News as “not a real news organization”), and 3) lack of genuine empathy (Obama gave a televised speech on the day of the Fort Hood terror attack in which a Muslim U.S. Army major shot 45 Americans, 13 fatally. With the entire nation reeling in shock and yearning for strong, reassuring words from their commander in chief, Obama instead engaged in small talk and an inane “shout-out” for two full minutes before even mentioning that the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11 had just occurred hours earlier.)
To be sure, many mainstream analysts, including Pulitzer-winning columnist and former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer, have repeatedly pointed to Obama’s extreme narcissism. Regardless of the “diagnosis,” one thing is certain: We’re talking about a person who absolutely does not consider serial lying to be in any way immoral or problematic.
Far from it. For a super-ambitious and vainglorious person such as Obama, lying is a vital and creative power. Lies open doors that would otherwise remain shut. Thus in a very real sense, for Obama, lies are “magic words,” the invocation of which represents the exercise of real powerpower to impress voters, raise money, demonize critics, win elections, pass legislation and transform a nation. Ordinary people don’t possess this power, as they are constrained from such brazen lying by their conscience and/or the fear of being caught. But a highly narcissistic person like Obama feels he has the freedomindeed, the mandateto reshape America by creatively speaking into existence his preferred version of reality, without regard for any higher standard of truth. In other words, to lie.
Here’s how psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, M.D., explains it in his classic best-seller, “People of the Lie”:
Malignant narcissism is characterized by an unsubmitted will. All adults who are mentally healthy submit themselves one way or another to something higher than themselves, be it God or truth or love or some other ideal. They do what God wants them to do rather than what they would desire. “Thy will, not mine, be done,” the God-submitted person says. They believe in what is true rather than what they would like to be true.
...In summary, to a greater or lesser degree, all mentally healthy individuals submit themselves to the demands of their own conscience. Not so the evil, however. In the conflict between their guilt and their will, it is the guilt that must go and the will that must win.
The reader will be struck by the extraordinary willfulness of evil people. They are men and women of obviously strong will, determined to have their own way. There is a remarkable power in the manner in which they attempt to control others.
As we will now see, Obama has been preparing to “control others” for a long time.
‘I serve as a blank screen’
In his second autobiography “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama makes an audacious admission: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” While it’s amazing that anyone could openly brag about such a manipulative life-strategy, Obama has long cultivated his appealing yet ambiguous public persona in preparation for a career as political messiah. For instance, he voted “present” no less than 129 times while a member of the Illinois state Senate to avoid taking a position that might alienate one side or the otherincluding on bills he had supported and even sponsored! Taking a position, you see, might have compromised the purity and universality of his “blank screen,” which would one day serve to reflect the aspirations for “hope” and “change” of millions of Americans.
Appearing as all things to all people has been key to Obama’s meteoric rise, requiring constant deception. As one blogger put it recently:
He is Muslim, he is Christian, he is a capitalist, he is a socialist, he is black, he is white, he is a constitutional professor, he is an average collegian who smoked dope and did cocaine, he is a foreigner, he is American-born, he is “EVERYMAN.”
With America now in precipitous decline on his watch, many have tried to explain the enigma of Obama and his prodigious ability to lie so confidently, comfortably and continually:
Some cite the disturbing degree to which Obama manifests full-blown clinical symptoms of narcissism and/or sociopathy, as previously discussed.
Some cite his far-left ideology: Whether you label it liberalism, progressivism, socialism, left-wing radicalism, Marxism, communism, anti-capitalism, European-style social democracy or statism, leftist “true believers” have always justified as moral not just lying, but ruthless suppression of dissent, violence and tyrannyas long as these measures seemed to advance their glorious utopian cause. “Exhibit A” for this point would be the entire 20th century.
Some cite Obama’s childhood, which was awful, and others cite his early influences, which were more awful. A Berkeley, Calif., psychotherapist who writes under the pseudonym Robin of Berkeley weighs in this way:
My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.
But I think there may be something even more insidious in his family background. While I can’t prove it, the degree of Obama’s disconnect reminds me of my sexually abused clients.
With serious sexual abuse, the brain chemistry may change. The child dissociatesthat is, disconnects from his beingin order to cope. Many adult survivors still dissociate, from occasional trances to the most extreme cases of multiple personality disorder.
Apparently, young Barry was left in the care of communist Frank Marshall Davis, who admitted to molesting a 13-year-old girl. As a teenager, Obama wrote a disturbing poem, “Pop,” that evoked images of sexual abusefor instance, describing dual amber stains on both his and “Pop’s” shorts.
Would trauma explain Obama’s disconnect? In many ways, yes. A damaged and unattached child may develop a “false self.” To compensate for the enormous deficits in identity and attachment, the child invents his own personality. For Obama, it may have been as a special, gifted person.
Some cite Obama’s religious backgroundhis 20-year affiliation with his “spiritual mentor,” the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who preached raw hatred of America, capitalism and white people, and whose “black liberation theology” gospel amounted to Afro-centric Marxism dressed up with Bible verses. Complicating this picture and suggesting even more questions is the well-documented fact that during his youth in Indonesia, Obama was raised and schooled as a Muslim.
Some cite his background in “Chicago politics” – a euphemism for wall-to-wall corruption and criminality. Indeed, the state of Illinois, where a staggering total of four recent governorsOtto Kerner, Dan Walker, George Ryan and Rod Blagojevichhave gone to prison for corruption, remains a political cesspool to this day, as confirmed by a recent study from the University of Illinois at Chicago’s political science department. Obama is a product of this legendarily corrupt “Chicago machine” and played the game ruthlessly while rising in the ranks there.
Some cite Obama’s education, the most important part of which, by his own admission, came via Saul Alinsky. During the 2008 campaign, Obama said of his years steeped in the Chicago Marxist’s revolutionary “community organizing” methods: “It was that education that was seared into my brain. It was the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School.”
In “Rules for Radicals,” Alinsky counsels wannabe revolutionaries that they must be willing to ignore the dictates of their own conscience to advance the left’s agenda:
In action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation”; he doesn’t care enough for people to be “corrupted” for them.
That, friends, is one of the most twisted things I’ve ever heard. To believe it and act on it is to abandon your greatest gift, your moment-to-moment connection with the Living Godyour conscience. Maybe that’s why Alinsky dedicated “Rules for Radicals” to “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdomLucifer.”
In the final analysis, Obama lies because that’s how he gets his way, and getting his way is all he cares about.
Editor’s note: The preceding is excerpted from a longer piece by David Kupelian in the July issue of Whistleblower magazine, “WHY OBAMA LIES: Exploring what’s behind the president’s glaring and unprecedented dishonesty.” One of Whistleblower’s most popular issues ever, “WHY OBAMA LIES” features groundbreaking analysis of President Obama by multiple psychiatrists who reveal him to be a seriously damaged, fundamentally dishonest and even delusional person, as well as a comprehensive list, running throughout the entire magazine, of Barack Obama’s lies, each followed by PROOF of the statement’s falsehood.
LET'S TAKE ANOTHER GLANCE at the sad facts, shall we? Now that President Obama is visibly slipping on everything from stages from which he will speak to his own tongue with which he will speak, the public deserves to know how to whack past the weeds to get at those pesky facts that should shine light on the truth of financial matters once again.
Do we not recall that on January 3, 2007, jubilant and sassy Democrats rolled into The House of Representatives and the Senate at the very start of the 110th Congress quite proud of themselves, for now they controlled the nation's pursestrings. It was then, that for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995, the Democrat Party finally controlled a majority of both chambers, and they were literally itchin' and publicly scratching for a fight.
On January 3rd, 2007 the Dow Jones closed at 12,621.77, about where it stand today, over five years later. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%. The unemployment rate was 4.6%. Under the Bush administration economic policies set a record of 52 straight months of job growth! Look it up, child. January 3rd, 2007 was also the day that Barney Frank (D-MA) took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd (D-CN) took over the Senate Banking Committee. For the next
The 2012 Financial Services Committee unveiled the Dodd-Frank Burden Tracker, an online resource to help the public keep track of all the new government rules and red tape required by the Dodd-Frank Act.
Dodd-Frank, passed by Congress in 2010, mandates that government regulators write over 400 new rules and requirements that will be imposed on the private sector. Since the law was signed by President Obama in July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Burden Tracker reveals:
regulators have written 185 of the 400 rules;
these 185 rules consume 5,320 pages;
it will take private sector job-creators 24,035,801 hours every year to comply with these first 185 Dodd-Frank rules
The catastrophic economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was to be found in what sector of the economy? The Banking and Financial Services! Dumping five to six TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created a banking crisis that lead to across the board major business failures and waves of massive unemployment. Many citizens lost everything they worked for during their lifetime...
Enter the Democrat Party's chorus of whining and finger pointing. But here's the real stinker. From 2001, the Bush administration asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie because it was financially risky for the US economy. Given our national partisan ways it comes as a surprise to no one that from his perch on the lily pad of false promises, freshman Senator Obama and the greater Democrat Congress fought vigorously against the reform of Fannie & Freddie every chance Bush offered them reformation. It also goes without saying, but why leave doubt in the minds of those who are too busy to follow the national grift culture in its day to day hijinx that many picayune Democrats took high payoffs from Freddie & Fannie while all this was transpiring, money that this government agency had no business doling out to politicians in the first place. Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-IL) had his pockets filled under this program of theft by legislation.
We have made it clear here at the Project in the past that we had soured somewhat on the Bush administration by this time, for his own peccadilloes which have nothing to do with his monetary policy (unsound but hardly indicative of what the Democrats impose), but the next someone tries to blame Bush for the state of America's economy during the Obama reign of serfdom for all, simply report these facts.
FACE OFF, and let the American presidential sweepstakes begin. Mortal cracks are showing both stateside and abroad everywhere this ship of state blows and it appears that the once unsinkable Obama administration is taking on more water than it or its lap dog media can scoop out. Lots of it. The Left, particularly the Far Left, is turning against Barack Obama in droves. During this latest grumbling spate we hear from 1999 Pulitzer Prize winner Maureen Dowd, followed by the leading voice at Code Pink. No doubt, many of us independents are delighted in knowing that the recent shift showing the Big Man on Campus is beginning to falter politically, at least matches his loss of appetite for hands on governing.
Obama’s winning was like a moon landing. You noticed it more when you’re overseas. America did it again, Brazilians told me. The world can elect women presidents. It’s happened before. But what advanced economy has ever elected a black man? None. Not Europe. Not Latin America. Not Australia. Not even close. They’re not even on the ballot. Only in America. What a country.
“Why should the public believe what the Obama administration says about the people being assassinated by drones? Especially since, as we learn in the New York Times, the administration came up with a semantic solution to keep the civilian death toll to a minimum: simply count all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants. The rationale, reminiscent of George Zimmerman’s justification for shooting Trayvon Martin, is that “people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.” Talk about profiling! At least when George Bush threw suspected militants into Guantanamo their lives were spared.”
WORD IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL eligibility of one Barack Hussein Obama to hold the highest office in our land is being raised in Town Hall meetings all across the country. This should prove interesting. We have no final answers here. We can only read what we read, distill the 2nd and 3rd hand information, only to speculate wildly about what we think is true and what we think is not. However, we're not stupid (apologies to Judge Scalia), and we are not cowed enough to believe that candidate and now President Obama has been in teh least bit properly vetted, despite the useless flow of air issuing from the grit-filled mouths of many our finest men and women who were sent to Washington to represent its citizens in what is, or once was a strong constitutional nation. Among the statements from members of Congress:
U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock: “The Constitution is the starting point for determining eligibility to serve as president. The Constitution requires that to be eligible to serve as president an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least 14 years.” He said candidates are vetted both inside the government and out, and Obama has passed all of the hurdles.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said, “In the run-up to the 2008 federal election and in its aftermath, many Texans have written to express their thoughts and concerns about the electoral process. Some have even raised concerns about the eligibility of candidates to serve in elected office under the Constitution. The courts and the Federal Elections Commission play a central role in determining the eligibility of candidates to serve in the offices they seek. You can be certain that I will continue to be vigilant in making sure that these institutions perform their critical role in overseeing fair and transparent elections.”
Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., The “Constitution of our nation requires natural born citizenship in order to serve as President of the United States of America.” But then she explains that the “Office of Vital Records within the Hawaiian Department of Health has confirmed the birth and citizenship of President Obama.” Nowhere in the letter to her constituent does she explain why the confirmation of “citizenship” equates to meeting the requirement for “natural-born citizenship.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., “I believe that President Obama has met all the requirements of citizenship as set forth by the U.S. State Department, and therefore is eligible for the office of the presidency.”
Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J., said concerned citizens need to go to court over Obama’s eligibility, even though courts ranging up to the U.S. Supreme Court have refused in dozens of cases already to hear arguments on the merits of the dispute:
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: “Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors.”
Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.: “Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president.”
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: “President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate.”
U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla.: “The claim that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the U.S. is false. This rumor is simply election year politics.” She referred questioners to Snopes for documentation.
Based on these documents, most members of Congress from both parties appear satisfied that the president is a U.S. citizen. That would preclude any effort to remove him through the impeachment process, which requires a majority in the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, on the basis of his constitutional eligibility for office. -Lamar Alexander
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: “The courts have held that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Moreover, in December 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, concurring with three other federal courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington. The courts have confirmed the determination of state officials in Hawaii that health department records prove that Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu.”
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: “President Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”
Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa.: “I am confident that Mr. Obama meets all the constitutional requirements to be our 44th president. Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website and submitted an additional copy to the independent website FactCheck.org. The birth certificate demonstrates that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, thereby making him a natural-born citizen eligible to be president.”
U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.: “As you know, some questions were raised about whether President Obama is a natural born citizen. There was a recent lawsuit arguing that he is not eligible for the Presidency for this reason. I understand that the Supreme Court considered hearing this lawsuit, but it ultimately turned down the request to have the case considered before the full court. I further understand that the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health recently confirmed that President Obama was born in Honolulu and has personally verified that her agency has his original birth certificate on record. As you know, the U.S. Congress certified his election on January 8, and he was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. While I may disagree with President Obama on a multitude of issues, he has been elected as President of the United States through a fair process and has shown sufficient documentation, via a state birth certificate, that has been verified as being authentic. In short, therefore, I do not believe sufficient evidence was brought to light to conclude that President Obama was ineligible for the office.”
U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H.: “President Obama publicly posted his birth certificate on his campaign website which confirms that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This birth certificate confirms that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, above the age of 35, and is therefore qualified to be President of the United States of America. If you would like to view President Obama’s birth certificate, I encourage you to go to the Fight The Smears website .”
We learned from Clinton that lying, even under oath, probably doesn’t rise to those standards … so I’m looking for the crime. Perhaps his violation of the war powers act? It’s something my colleagues and I are considering. - Blake Farenthold
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, “The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States. In President Obama’s case, some individuals have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging that he has not proven that he is an American citizen, but each of those lawsuits have been dismissed. This includes a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to not review an “application for emergency stay” filed by a New Jersey resident claiming that the President is not a natural born citizen because his father was born in Kenya. Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health and the state’s Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency. If contrary documentation is produced and verified, this matter will necessarily be resolved by the judicial branch of our government under the Constitution.”
Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa.: “On June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate after numerous claims were made about his eligibility to hold the office of President. The released copy created additional questions, because it contained a blacked out department file number and was apparently missing a seal, and it was impossible to detect raised text, a common characteristic of official documents. There were satisfactory answers to such questions, however: the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department’s system, and the State places the seal on the back of the certificate. The website Factcheck.org investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles that revealed the raised text and the seal on the back of the document. … Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States.”
U.S. Rep Vic Snyder, D-Ark.: “According to State of Hawai’i officials, the Hawai’i State Department of Health has President-elect Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with that state’s policies and procedures.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.: “The U.S. Constitution is our nation’s supreme law and cannot be circumvented for any reason. It is my understanding that state officials in Hawaii have attested to the validity of President Obama’s birth certificate showing that he was born in that state, which would make him a U.S. citizen. I also have read that both of Hawaii’s major newspapers ran birth announcements in August 1961 documenting President Obama’s birth in Honolulu. Based on these documents, most members of Congress from both parties appear satisfied that the president is a U.S. citizen. That would preclude any effort to remove him through the impeachment process, which requires a majority in the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, on the basis of his constitutional eligibility for office.”
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., “As a senator representing Colorado, I want to speak very clearly on this issue. President Barack Obama is a ‘natural born’ citizen of America, and he is eligible to be our nation’s Commander in Chief. The legality of his birth certificate has been verified by numerous federal agencies, third party investigative groups, national media outlets, and primary source documentation. The United States Department of State and the Hawaii Department of Health have both verified the legality of the ‘Certification of Birth’ document provided by President Obama. In addition, highly regarded ‘fact check’ websites such as factcheck.org, snopes.com, and politifact.com support the findings of the federal agencies through their own independent investigations.”
Sen. Mark. R. Warner, D-Va., “The facts have consistently shown that President Obama was born in the United States. As a natural-born American citizen, he is fully eligible to serve as president of our country.”
Tim Walberg said he’s taken on many other urgent issues and then suggested a repair of the Obama presidency is coming soon, in the 2012 election.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., “Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies the qualifications for this executive office. It states that no person except for a natural born American citizen is eligible to run for President of the United States. Also, the candidate must be at least thirty-five years of age and have resided in the United States for at least fourteen years. President Obama meets these constitutional requirements. If you were not already aware, on April 27, 2011 the White House released a copy of President Obama’s long form birth certificate. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in the United States are considered citizens of the United States. Under these criteria, President Obama, a 47-year old U.S. citizen, who has resided in the United States for longer than fourteen years, is eligible to be President.
Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., “Independent and official investigations as well as legal proceedings have validated President Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. The Health Director and Head of Vital Statistics for the state of Hawaii (an official source) has also examined and declared the authenticity of the birth certificate and most recently President Obama released his full birth certificate. If change is to take place it’s likely to come in the form of an election. This is part of the reason everyone needs to make sure we vote for the people who will represent our views correctly. This is also why we must continue to talk to our friends and relatives in other states about their own elected officials and encourage them to let their voices be heard.”
There have been a few who have expressed concern over the situation:
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., in a posting on Canada Free Press by Dean Haskins, “I believe that there should be a more formal process of review and validation as a matter of routine certification of candidates. The office of the presidency is undermined if Americans don’t have confidence that the candidates for the highest office in the land are qualified for the position as required by the Constitution.…“
Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., did not tell a questioner the issue of Obama’s eligibility was settled by the April release of the “Certificate of Live Birth” image by the White House. “Regardless of whether the license that he showed is true or fake, I’ve not seen it other than what was portrayed in the news,” Walberg said. But he said he’s taken on many other urgent issues and then suggested a repair of the Obama presidency is coming soon, in the 2012 election.
Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, “Many of the issues, like the birth certificate, are within the jurisdiction of the courts, not Congress. Our power over the president is impeachment for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ We learned from Clinton that lying, even under oath, probably doesn’t rise to those standards … so I’m looking for the crime. Perhaps his violation of the war powers act? It’s something my colleagues and I are considering.”
MORE FROM TODAY'S Project archives...
Declining joblessness figures, sprouting lately from the current administration like so many spring crocuses, have left even the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, puzzled over numbers that are "out of sync" with the overall economy.
"The combination of relatively modest GDP growth with the more substantial improvement in the labor market over the past year is something of a puzzle," Bernanke admitted to the National Association for Business Economics earlier this week.
Bernanke then proceeded to explain why unemployment figures from the administration seem so out of step with the reality most folks are experiencing. He started with a basic, but often overlooked, part of the jobless equation. "The monthly increase in payroll employment, which commands so much public attention, is a net change," he said. "It equals the number of hires during the month less the number of separations (including layoffs, quits, and other separations)[.]"
Then Bernanke concluded, "the increase in employment since the end of 2009 has been due to a significant decline in layoffs but only a moderate improvement in hiring."
So, despite the Obamedia's attempt to paint a sunny picture heading into the November electionnote their relative inattention to Bernanke's speechvery few new jobs are actually being created during Obama's watch. In fact, the most recent numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cited by Bernanke, show that the number of people being hired has declined in 2012even as Obama officials reported that unemployment figures came down.
Early in his administration Barack Obama said that job creation was goal Number One. He promised to create 3 million new jobs during his first two years in office, a pledge which would seem laughable if his failure didn't adversely affect so many people. Even with recent improvements in jobless numberscaused mainly by a slowing of layoffsas Benanke noted, "private payroll employment remains more than 5 million jobs below its previous peak; the jobs shortfall is even larger, of course, when increases in the size of the labor force are taken into account."
The Obama administration was claiming jobless improvement in a job market that, according to non-Obama sources, was still grim. "American employers put the brakes on new jobs in January," according to Forbes, citing employment firm ADP. And Gallup reported in February that their surveys show new hirings dropped and that "the February score matches those recorded from October through December 2011."
As to the unemployment numbers emanating from Obama's regime, Bernanke noted, "the better jobs numbers seem somewhat out of sync with the overall pace of economic expansion," before concluding, "the job market remains quite weak relative to historical norms."
This article points out the corrupt methodology this administration has used on the American people since day one. Opening the Obama toolbox, one would suffix lie after lie, distortion after distortion, monkey wrench after monkey wrench. Our puerile president is NOT inept. He is defiantly on point, with concerted efforts to deconstruct American history, its industry, its libertyits very way of life. He doesn't seem to care to whom he hands off a weakened Americacould be the Soviets-in-training, the Chinese, or the Islamic Caliphate he works so diligently to reward at the expense of his own supposed homeland.
MUCH DISCUSSION LONG AND WEARY, STRONG AND SCHOLARLY, sane and savage, still cloaking the profound audacity in this cover-up of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate has traded this nation's proud heritage for a handful of sand. The same simple burdens of proof that candidates great and small before him have had to answer still clutter the sandy beachhead along which this man walks three years after stepping into the light for a run at this nation's world's most revered office.
Let's review, shall we? Why has this son of a Kenyan and his minions spent millions of dollars stonewalling the cases piling up in courts around the country? Why has every document produced, and provided as proof of his birth place ended up being an easily detected fraud that no one in authority yet questions it, when basically what invalidates his presidency is much simpler and already admittedhe is NOT a natural-born citizen as understood by those that wrote that phrase into the Constitution regardless of where he was born.
The verified requirement for President of the United States as outlined in the Constitution and ratified by the States is the following:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of the President… ”
The Constitution does not explain the meaning of "natural born". On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government. Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's plan provided:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born
Now there are those who choose to obfuscate what the Constitution and its authors has, since its adoption in 1788, defined what the term “natural born Citizen” means, preferring to assume it means born within the physical United States boundaries. Big mistake, and an intentional one.
It is absolutely amazing how a "typical Obama supporter" will swiftly shift his outward demeanor when confronted with this eligibility issue, from winsome cordiality to a vicious attack spirit. I've witnessed it, and have had it directed at me personally, face to face, from a senior State Department anti-terror specialist, a self-professed Scoop Jackson Democrat, and let me assure you, it ain't pretty. It's as if they have suspected all along but cannot admit the truth has not been properly vetted, and have no other choice but to deal with the issue with violent outbursts designed to immediately cease the conversation.
Throughout the Constitution, the writers used the term citizen numerous times but only here did they offer a specific classification of citizen, differentiated even from the naturalized citizen identified elsewhere. The founders would not have inserted into the all-important governing document a quite specific designation, or type of citizen, except to insist upon a specific designation and purpose for its usage.
Admittedly, one of the few shortcomings of our founding document, highlighted by this controversy, is the lack of referential definitions for certain terms. As some terms were thought to be of common knowledge by educated men, it was thought unnecessary to include them. One such definition that has garnered much controversy was the well-regulated Militia; likewise is the term “natural born citizen.”
This document, however, has provided us a methodology and a roadmap to solving certain mysteries. Congress is the bi-cameral body charged with the handling of legislation. Within the Constitution the founders placed guides that may assist us in determining where we may find certain information.
Article 1, Section 8 defines the enumerated powers of Congress and within that we find: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”
Ah, yes. Those were the days. Not only where these great men of early America familiar with the “Law of Nations” but they consulted it frequently.
It should not be surprising that within Emerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations the term “natural-born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Notice the plural use for parentage.
Based upon the idea of a singularity of allegiance, the contrary position when a citizen whose father was born outside the US and the son inside the US arises due to a position of dual allegiance between his own birth country and the country of his father. Vattel stated it this way: “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The implication that should circumstances place the nation at odds with the nation of a president’s father, the president may not be able to bring himself to wage war, if necessary, against that nation which he may empathize on his father's account.
Which brings us to the controversy we seek to resolvehow do we interpret the constitutional meaning of “natural-born citizen?” Given that the Constitution is the basis of our law, and IS LAW, in and of itself, we should look at the Constitution through statutory construction.
First; a review of the “plain meaning” of the text has probably been the greatest cause of concern in determining the meaning, since the term is not used in general language today outside of this context, and obviously being overlooked by those in political power, it appears to be of little use.
This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.
Second; should the “plain meaning” of a term not prevail then one must determine the original intentions of the person or people that wrote it. This is not always an easy task; as time progresses the nuances of language and even meanings of words change. A prime example is the word “welfare,” when used today most everyone thinks of grants from the government in the form of money, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. But back in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s welfare meant simply “Happiness; Success; Prosperity.” (Now read the section in the Constitution that directs government to “promote the general welfare.” Takes on a whole new meaning doesn’t it?)
But having documentation from those who framed the Constitution telling us rather emphatically that they consulted a resource “frequently” and one of the few, if only, use was that of Vattel giving the meaning as that of a singularity of citizenship of the parents, and especially the father, we must (unless we are habitual Leftists) give weight to this meaning.
Third; should the prior two methods not be productive then one must look outside of that to the historical, and contemporary writings of the time to see if anything supports a particular point of view. And though there are very few writings dealing with the term “natural-born citizen” we do have a number of writings dealing with the concept of “dual allegiance” that aligns with Vattel’s definition of “natural-born.”
In 1794 President Washington in a letter to John Adams stated: “the policy…of its [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean settling them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word soon become one people.”
Here we see a distinct ideal of ensuring a nation that was not plagued with divided or dual allegiances that people coming to America should “in a word soon become one people.” This is the exact sentiment that Vattel was driving with the “natural-born citizen,” a single allegiance to the United States. And we know today, with transcontinental transportation and massive illegal immigration that this presumption of assimilation is no longer true.
Finally we must turn to any legal precedence that may aid us in our determination. In the case of Minor v. Happersett (1874) we find the following:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."
This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.
If we contrast this with the total lack of evidence to the contrary then this evidence becomes overwhelming that Vattel’s definition must clearly be the defining voice.
So where is the deception you ask? The deception lies in that thousands of politicians and countless government and academic lawyers insist there is no way to determine the meaning of a phrase used by our founders in the Constitution of the United States, the basis of the Law of our Nation, and operative for over two hundred years.
Yet, scores of ordinary citizens, and dare we saynatural born citizensall around the nation have been screaming this simple truth and no one listens. In truth I totally believe they know exactly what is going on, but it does not serve their pernicious agenda and using Alinsky Rules, the end justifies their means.
Politicians astride the government purse do not fear what pockets of citizenry know because they have come to understand that unless an organized rebellion results they can simply dismiss each outcry as a the paucity of conspiracy theorists as in "Who are you going to believe, some kook or your own government?"
Or they simply vilify good people who believe in and wish to return to the United States Constitution, or voice displeasure with abortion, or advocate for gun rights, or belong to a Constitutional militia, or post Ron Paul bumper stickers, or become “natural-born citizen” adherents by depicting all these good American citizens as potential terrorists… oh waitthey’ve already done that!
So don't fret when you attract the typical ad hominem response from the left. Remember they don't examine the facts; they attack the messenger instead. That is how and why the left invented the name "birther" in the first place.
UPDATE: Here's the kicker. People on the left claim to embrace science. They claim to be better educated than their knuckle-dragging conservative opposites. So why not embrace the concept of scientific inquiry? Question everything, even your assumption that there is no way an announcement could be placed in a Hawaiian newspaper unless the event happened in Hawaii. Has anyone ever forged a birth certificate? Are all the birth certificates produced by the state of Hawaii 100% genuine? Has there ever been a state worker in Vital Records who has been willing to do a favor?
We have probable cause here. Obama's bio from 1991 claimed he was born in Kenya (and that bio was only "corrected" in 2007). The birth certificate coaxed out by Donald Trump last fall to be posted at the White House web site has numerous indications that it isn't genuine. This rather unmysterious fact (any first year Photoshop user knows which way the coverup blows) has been much circulated, so there's no reason the Left (and other obtuse career-savvy folks like Bill O'Reilly) should not know of these details. Why will they not put on their "objective" glasses and expose themselves to a little scientific inquiry, and see where that takes them?
MORE FROM TODAY'S Project archives...