All Entries Tagged With: "Senate"

The Transparency of the Presidential Lie

By CFIF Staff Thursday, January 07 2010

Most of us know someone who, as is said, will lie about what he or she had for breakfast.  For those who don’t know such a stranger to veracity, meet the current President of the United States.  Now you know one.

The late, lamented columnist and language explorer, William Safire, made the term “congenital liar” famous this very week (January in 1996, although it seems like only yesterday that he so aptly applied the label to Hillary Clinton, then merely First Lady, then merely lying about penny ante personal corruption issues.

Compared to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is a rank amateur.  He out lied her to become the Democratic Presidential nominee.  In multiple ways, on multiple subjects, on multiple occasions, he told the biggest lie of all – that he is someone he is not – to become President.

This week, what is likely his most transparent lie is laid out for all to see, even liberal children who will need counseling to deal with the fallen god of their parents and teachers.

How transparent is this latest lie?  Well, as documented by Andrew Breitbart in this video , eight times President Obama said that his health care reform plan would be, could be, should be broadcast on C-SPAN.  Thus would both the process and product of his beneficent vision for the future of our health care be open and understandable, the epitome of representative government striding from the shadows into the light, even Page 1139, Part 6 (z, 73).

All those campaign pledges, promises, assurances were but cons, calculated to head off the Sudden Legislative Death Syndrome that buried HillaryCare before it even got out of the crib, largely because of its secrecy, its lack of transparency.

Not that transparency has been any working part of the development of ObamaCare until now, but the House bills, the Senate bills, with their endless CBO scorings of the unscorable, have been but rehearsals.

Why Obama wants to hide birth certificate

Posted: June 16, 2009  1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Joseph Farah

Since I began my quixotic campaign to uncover Barack Obama’s birth certificate, many have asked me about the president’s possible motives for hiding it with such tenacity and diligence.

I think there are many plausible motives:

* Perhaps something in that birth certificate, if it indeed exists, would contradict assertions Obama has made about his life’s story. These might even involve his true parental heritage. Without a real birth certificate, no one really knows who his parents
were. So it is ridiculous even to speculate about whether citizenship could be conferred upon him by his mother, when we don’t know for sure who his mother is.

* Perhaps it reveals a foreign birth, as Hawaii allowed for in 1961 while still issuing the "certification of live birth" we have seen posted on his website.

* Or perhaps it will show just what Obama has claimed all along – a birth in Hawaii to two officially non-citizen parents, for the purpose of establishing "natural born citizenship" under the Constitution.

What do I mean by that last possibility?

Well, as you know, in 2008, the Senate of the United States held hearings to determine if one of the presidential candidates fulfilled the requirement of being a "natural born citizen." It wasn’t Barack Obama. It was John McCain, who was born on a U.S. military base overseas to two U.S. citizens.

Start your own elibibility billboard campaign in your neighborhood with WND’s new yard signs, asking: "Where’s the Birth Certificate?"

On April 10 of last year, two senators, both Democrats, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, introduced a resolution into upper house expressing a sense of the Senate that McCain was indeed a "natural born citizen."

It’s interesting what Leahy had to say on the subject: "Because he was born to American citizens (emphasis added), there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the U.S. Senate."

And, indeed it was. It was also, interestingly, the only such hearing held by the Congress on the subject of "natural born citizenship" and its application to the 2008 presidential race. Why was that interesting? Because everyone involved in this process knew – or should have known – that the life story told by Barack Obama would raise far more doubts about his eligibility than McCain’s.

Notice Leahy did not say one parent citizen would qualify a child for "natural born citizenship." He indicted it would take two to tango.

He did so again at a Judiciary Committee hearing April 3, when he asked then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former federal judge, if he had any doubts about McCain’s eligibility 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 responded – again underlining the fact that both parents would need to be citizens.

And what did Leahy say to that? "That is mine, too."

By the way, Obama voted for this resolution, so he obviously agrees with the definition of what constitutes a "natural born citizen" – the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

Now, I don’t know who Barack Obama’s parents are, because I have never seen his birth certificate. All I’ve seen is a facsimile of a "certification of live birth" on the Internet. That document, even if genuine, proves nothing about Obama’s birth in Hawaii or who his parents were. Hawaii had a very slipshod practice in 1961 of issuing these documents to babies born outside the country and listing parents who may not have been the parents at all.

But I do know who Barack Obama claims his parents were. According to him, neither one of them was an American citizen able to confer natural born citizenship on a child. One, Barack Obama Sr., was a foreign national from Kenya, and the other, Stanley Ann Dunham, was too young to have qualified under the law for bestowing that privilege on her son, even if the father had been a citizen and even in the unlikely event Obama was actually born in Hawaii!

So, if we are to take Obama at his word, he is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to serve as president.

If he is to be judged by the same standard as his opponent in the race, there is no way he qualifies. That’s what Leahy said. That’s what Chertoff said. That’s what the law says.

A logical question naturally follows: Why didn’t the Congress of the United States hold hearings on Obama’s eligibility when they did so on McCain’s eligibility?

I’m still trying to figure that one out. Maybe the answer is this simple: Because there’s no way Obama would have qualified.

Another logical question follows: Why is this man still serving in the White House and turning the country upside down when he is not even constitutionally eligible?

That’s the heart and soul of the campaign I’ve been running.

By the way, further establishing that it was impossible for Obama to have been a "natural born citizen" are some astonishing words found on his own campaign website. They indicate that Obama was "at birth" a citizen of Kenya and a subject of Great Britain. Why did the founders insist upon a "natural born citizen" clause in the Constitution? To avoid questions of divided loyalties. (Just scroll down the webpage and read the FactCheck.org excerpt to see this amazing admission for yourself.)

So, again, I ask: Why doesn’t Obama want to reveal his real birth certificate? Because he wants this discussion of eligibility to go away – once and for all. It is a vulnerability he cannot explain away. So he would rather not discuss it at all.

But let me remind you all, in case you hadn’t considered this: Obama plans to run for re-election in 2012. And that’s why we can never, ever let this matter rest.

Hawaii confuses Aloha for Allah

Hawaii Lawmakers Create ‘Islam Day’  or Hawaii Gone Mad

HONOLULU – Hawaii’s state Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill Wednesday to celebrate "Islam Day" — over the objections of a few lawmakers who said they didn’t want to honor a religion connected to Sept. 11, 2001.

The Senate’s two Republicans argued that a minority of Islamic extremists have killed many innocents in terrorist attacks.

"I recall radical Islamists around the world cheering the horrors of 9/11. That is the day all civilized people of all religions should remember," said Republican Sen. Fred Hemmings to the applause of more than 100 people gathered in the Senate to oppose a separate issue — same-sex civil unions.

The resolution to proclaim Sept. 24, 2009, as Islam Day passed the Senate on a 22-3 vote. It had previously passed the House.

The bill seeks to recognize "the rich religious, scientific, cultural and artistic contributions" that Islam and the Islamic world have made. It does not call for any spending or organized celebration of Islam Day.

"We are a state of tolerance. We understand that people have different beliefs," said Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat. "We may not all agree on every single item and issue out there, but to say and highlight the negativity of the Islamic people is an insult to the majority" of believers "who are good law-abiding citizens of the world."

But Republican Sen. Sam Slom argued that the United States has become too sympathetic toward Islamic extremists.

"I don’t think there’s any country in the history of the world that has been more tolerant than the United States of America, and because of that tolerance, we’ve looked the other way a lot of times, and many thousands of our citizens have been killed by terrorists," said Slom, a Republican.

The lone Democrat voting against the bill opposed it on church-state separation fears.

Democrat Meltdown Begins- Burris Rejected by Senate

Burris denied seat in U.S. Senate to succeed Obama

WASHINGTON - Former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris announced his rejection for Barack Obama’s Senate seat Tuesday in a bizarre rainy-day scene on the Capitol grounds as lawmakers awaited the gaveling of the 111th Congress into session.

Standing amid a huge throng of reporters and television cameras in a cold and steady rain, Burris, 71, declared that he had been informed that "my credentials are not in order and will not be accepted." (View video report )

He said he was "not seeking to have any type of confrontation" over taking the seat that he was appointed to by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Speaking just an hour before the convening of the 111th Congress Tuesday, Burris said he was looking at a host of options for getting the seat.

Hey Caroline - You’re Not Entitled

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on December 23, 2008

Caroline Kennedy apparently thinks that she is entitled to be appointed as the next junior Senator from New York.

She shouldn't be. Think about it.

Her qualifications?  Her name is Kennedy and she can raise a lot of fat-cat money for herself and for New York democrats who support her. 

Her strategy?  Ignore the voters and the press and meet with the political bosses behind closed doors to convince them to pressure Governor David Patterson to appoint her to Hillary Clinton's seat. 

Is there a more cynical message in the Age of Obama? 

Who's supporting her? Among her chief backers is New York City's billionaire Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg who recently decided to ignore a legitimate and binding citywide referendum that prohibited him from seeking a third term. In one of the most appalling examples of an arrogant "the public be damned" attitude, Bloomberg convinced the City Council to overrule the will of the people so he could stay in City Hall. He's a big contributor to many of the folks who supported this brazen move. Legendary Tammany Hall boss Carmine De Sapio would love both Bloomberg and Caroline for bringing back the old "power to the bosses" style of politics. 

Her position on issues that will face the next Senator?  She won't tell you. She's adamantly refused to speak about any issues. In her first foray outside Manhattan, she declined all questions from the press. She wouldn't even say whether she had ever been to Syracuse before. Does that suggest what the answer would have been? Her handlers finally provided written answers to some of the questions posed by The New York Times. She picked out the questions she wanted to answer and ignored some of the tough issues - like whether she supports increased taxes for rich people. She's not saying. Now, SHE WON'T DISCLOSE HER PERSONAL FINANCES OR PROVIDE A LIST OF COMPANIES THAT SHE HAS A STAKE IN!

.... read the full story here