• SiteMeter

Common Sense 2015

ThomasPaine

The hypocrisy of the Conservatives is amazing. For years they have berated, belittled, and ridiculed those that sought Obama bona fides be investigated. Unless as a conservative ostrich with your head in the sand, you know this is a fact. The likes of the Republican establishment have all but handed Obama everything he desires even if it goes against the United States Constitution or the will of the people. The Republicans were voted into majority the last election to stop the illegal act known as Obamacare. In mere weeks they folded, abdicated their campaign pledges, their sworn duty to uphold the law and not only caved, but surrendered the nation to a tyrant.

The Tea Party trolls and the Obama enablers will hail this as a ‘birther’ argument vs. what is really is; a Constitutional requirement. As the United States Constitution is a social contract between the governed and the government.

John Boehner has proven what a worthless POS he is and what his leadership consists of, nothing but a whinny ass.

But fear not the Republicans have worked out the plan with the Democrats to completely ruin this country after the 2016 election.  Read on till the end, and you will be how.

Hillary will not be the candidate, as her baggage will be dragged from here to eternity and everything from Vince Foster, Travelgate, the vast right wing conspiracy, bimbogate, Benghazi will be brought up in a never ending barrage to remind folks of the unethical, I’m above the law, the Clintons think they are. What difference does it make? Ask the widow of Ambassador Stevens or the others murdered at Benghazi, or better yet ask Stevens himself. Oh wait you can’t, but it might matter to him.

The Republican leadership has decided that it’s their turn to promote an ineligible candidate, just to prove that any party can get away with it.

The issue here is that there is ‘requirements’ for the Office of the Presidency. What are these?

You might want to investigate the United States Constitution, Article 2.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

At no point, even after numerous attempts the above requirements have never been altered or amended.  These attempts have been documented on numerous sites and need not be listed here.

Currently the Naturalization Act of 1790 is being peddled as authorities hope for the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’. But they fail as they misinterpret the meaning of ‘citizens’ to mean either or, which is not the case.

So, let me get this straight, the 1790 Naturalization Act clearly states: “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”

How does a Cuban national equate to a US Citizen when the 1790 act clearly states ‘citizen’s (plural)? Even with a US mother, that does not meet the standard of a Natural Born Citizen, which the founders knew as ‘born in country to CITIZEN Parents (plural) or even as the United States Supreme Court stated in Minor vs Happersett.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.

-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

Now you have the same folks saying the Supreme Court has never ruled on what a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is. Really, what not look at the numerous decisions where they have stated what it is. Why does the United States Supreme Court have to rule on what it has already stated in several cases? But facts ignored are still facts. I don’t have to be appointed to SCOTUS to be able to read their decisions.

Those who somehow believe the 14th Amendment “proves their case” should be told that Congressman John Bingham—who authored that amendment—said on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1862, “All from other lands, who by the terms of laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty [italics added], are natural born citizens.” Read that again and let it sink in. In 1862, the members of Congress understood that a natural born citizen was someone born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents.

In 1866 Bingham stated, “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

In the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 [italics added] 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.” That is, there was agreement by all legal scholars in 1885 that the term natural born citizen meant “born in the United States to two U.S.-citizen parents.”

Maybe I should post all the relevant cases starting in 1812 with The Venus, where John Jay United States Supreme Court Justice stated the following. (Remember it was John Jay that wrote to George Washington about the requirement of a Natural Born Citizen, so I think the person that wrote it, who was also our first Supreme Court Justice, knew what he was talking about.) or little did know that John Jay (our first United States Supreme Court justice) also wrote the following in the New York State Ratification of the United States Constitution,  (Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York, July 26, 1788. New York was the eleventh state to do so. The assent of Virginia and of New York was seen as essential to the success of the Constitution, and though they were tenth and eleventh to ratify, it is generally agreed that until they both ratified, succes was in doubt. New York’s ratification message is the longest by far, and includes a declaration of rights and many suggested changes to the Constitution. The following text is taken from the Library of Congress’s copy of Elliot’s Debates.)

That no persons, except natural-born citizens, or such as were citizens on or before the 4th day of July, 1776, or such as held commissions under the United States during the war, and have at any time since the 4th day of July, 1776, become citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be freeholders, shall be eligible to the places of President, Vice-President, or members of either house of the Congress of the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ny.html

The Venus 1812

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants.

Children follow the condition of their father.

Ted Cruz qualifies as a Senator, but he’s not eligible for the Presidency.

Sad thing is Cruz’s staffers refuse to respond to inquiries for information about the CRBA application.

How about this

Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period. As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.J.Res. 88

JULY 24, 2000

“The natural-born citizenship requirement is unjust and discriminatory. It is inevitable that one day soon a candidate will rise in America who was not born in this country that the American people would like to be President of the United States. Let’s amend the Constitution now so that all children who grow up in America can dream of one day becoming President. Let’s bring hope of equality in citizenship to all the children who are raised in America.”

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.HTM

Note the “was not born in this country” part…

Same with Marco Rubio, he was born in 1971 to parents from Cuba, who never naturalized till 1974, after Marco was born, again born to foreign parents.

Again, Bobby Jindal born in the US, but to foreign parents.

The game plan is for both the Republicans and their Democrat trolls to push the ineligible candidates and to finally have the Supreme Court rule on what they have already stated, they are avoiding the issue. Hence the Republican candidate that says all the right thing’s, is ultimately disqualified and the Democrat long shot, Elizabeth Warren (Obama II) is paraded into the White House. Not only as progressive as Obama, controlled by the progressives, but they finally have a female in the White House to usher in the collapse of the United States.

Think this is crazy?

For years, the media have claimed that Obama is a natural born citizen BECAUSE he was “born” in Hawaii. They never said, well even if he was born in Kenya he’s still a Natural Born Citizen. It would have made the Birther argument trivial in nature. But that’s no longer the case. Now we know Cruz was born elsewhere, and now we’re being told that it still doesn’t matter.

What else will not matter, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment?

You decide, they are playing you for the fool and giving away the bank and future to illegal’s and you sit and can’t even figure out what simple words mean that were fully understood 230 years ago as common sense.

 Common Sense 2015 – Tea Party Nation

I was going to include the following in the original post.

The following is from case law on Citizenship.

Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition
Under Jus Soli, the following is written “The Supreme Court’s first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the court held, mean “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.” Most Indians could not meet the test. “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102.
It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the ‘Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.

The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction.

Title 8 and the 14th Amendment both state;  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So explain how “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

In 1866, Sen. Jacob Howard succinctly spelled out this intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States….

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…

Therefore again, children born to foreign parents was never the intent.

Tea Party Nation gets it wrong

Last week Tea Party Nation published the following;

Tea Party Nation is WRONG and lying.

(Between their misrepresentation, I will correct them in red)

When Barack Obama came on the scene running for President in 2008, a number of people began to question his eligibility to be President.  The left wing media dismissed those people as “birthers.”  What the left wing media wants most people to forget is that Hillary Clinton was the original birther.

 

Now that Ted Cruz is running for office, a number of people are popping up, claiming he is not eligible to be President.

 It is an important question.

 Is Ted Cruz eligible to be President?

 The Constitution of the United States is very specific.  No one but a “natural born citizen” may become President.  That mercifully spares us from people like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 But what is a natural born citizen?

 The Constitution is silent on a definition of a natural born citizen.  Those who attack Cruz as not being eligible and even those who make the same attack on Obama, like to cite an 18th century text and a couple of Supreme Court decisions.

 There is a specific hierarchy that is used in determining the meaning of provisions in the Constitution.  The hierarch goes like this.   First we look within the pages or as attorneys like to say, within the four corners of the document for a meaning.  If there is no definition there, then we look to Congressional statutes and then to court decisions.

 

In 1790, the Congress answered the question about Natural Born Citizens with the Naturalization Act.  The Act reads in part:

 And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

 There is the definition right there.

 Children born abroad whose mothers are United States citizens and whose fathers have resided in the United States are considered natural born citizens.

 This is where Tea Party Nation is out right lying. “Children born abroad whose mothers are United States citizens and whose fathers have resided in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

The 1790 Act is clear;  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

Get it: And the children of citizens of the United States

TED CRUZ was NOT BORN TO CITIZEN PARENTS, his father was a Canadain citizen, and CRUZ was born in Canada. 

This act was introduced in Congress in 1790.  That was three years after the Constitution was drafted.  If that definition of a natural born citizen is not accurate, the men who wrote the Constitution a mere three years earlier would have stood and said something about it.

The United States Supreme Court in numerous cases stated

 The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

 

Since some of those men were in Congress, it is unlikely such a bill would have passed at all.

 

The facts in the case of Ted Cruz, unlike that of Barack Obama, are not shrouded in mystery.  Cruz was born of an American mother and though his father was not an American citizen at the time, he had resided in the United States.

 That makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen.

WRONG, Tea Party Nation is wrong and lying.

Sorry TED, you are NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and you are NOT eligilbe to be President. 

Read more here on the definition of a Natural Born Citizen

Ted Cruz to Launch 2016 Presidential Campaign

CDR Kerchner (Ret)’s Blog | Protect the Constitution to Protect Our Liberty – Learn Who Is a “Natural Born Citizen” to Constitutional Standards – Obama’s ID Documents Are Forged// //

//

Usurpation 3.0 — Report: Canadian-born U.S. Senator Ted Cruz Set To Launch 2016 Presidential Campaign

Report: Canadian-born U.S. Senator Ted Cruz Set To Launch 2016 Presidential Campaign – Shame on Him!

Ted Cruz is clearly NOT constitutionally eligible.  Obama got away with it (with an enabling, anti-constitutional, left-leaning, major-media, main-stream press) and now many Republicans wish to try it with constitutionally ineligible candidates like Ted Cruz.  We are a Republic not a Democracy.  We need to live up to our Constitution and the Rule of Law.  No matter how much you may like Cruz’s politics, he is NOT constitutionally eligible.  He was born in Canada to a non-U.S. Citizen, foreign-national, Cuban father. Being born in the USA is a “necessary” but “not sufficient” part of being a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards.  Cruz is clearly not one. Being simply a basic “Citizen at Birth” gained via statutory laws and acts of Congress does not cut it.  Those laws do not even mention the term “natural born”.  What the Repubs are doing is a disgrace to their oath of office.  The leadership of the major political parties are out to dilute and abrogate the original intent, meaning, and understanding of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our Constitution and why it was put there. Being simply ‘born a Citizen’ was proposed and not accepted by the founders and framers. The founders and framers added the adjective “natural” to being a “born Citizen”.   Adjectives mean something special in front of a noun.  And that particular adjective points to the Laws of Nature, not man, and comes from Natural Law and its principles. See section 212 of this legal treatise written in 1758 and used by the founders and framers to justify the revolution and write the founding documents: http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/  Read this historical and legal U.S. Supreme Court information on the subject: http://www.art2superpac.com/html  Also read these rebuttals to the political party lawyers who are pumping the simple Citizen a Birth argument, dropping the natural adjective or trying to conflate the two terms.  This article addresses the NECESSARY part  http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/ina-post-on-harvard-law-review-forum.html and this article which addresses the NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT parts and true definition http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html  

Again being born in the USA (which Cruz is unambiguously not) is a “necessary” but “not sufficient” part of being born a “natural born Citizen” of the USA.  Cruz knows better but he is putting his own political aspirations about respect for the Constitution.  He is showing himself to just another politician and is not a statesman and/or standing up for his oath of office to the Constitution.    CDR Kerchner (Ret) – http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Read more and comment here:  http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/report-united-states-senator-ted-cruz.html

Read historical information for who is and who is not a “natural born Citizen” to U.S. Constitutional standards at this website:  http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

2006 Associated Press Video: Obama’s Trip To Kenya; Welcome Home Senator Obama

 

 

2006 Associated Press Video: Obama’s Trip To Kenya; Welcome Home Senator Obama
More raw video has surfaced from Obama’s 2006 trip to Kenya that shows him with his Kenyan grandmother and mass murderer Raila Odinga being welcomed with a sign that reads, Welcome Home Senator Obama.

Some may recall back in 2011 Reuters video(embedded at end) surfaced of the same trip…

Obama was captured in the Reuters video recorded in Kenya stating:

I’m so proud to come back home…

The latest video was actually uploaded to Youtube a week before the Reuters clip was reported by BR…

It’s just now making the rounds. It would be nice to see the complete raw news videos from this trip…

2006WHOB


Remember it was also in  Sept 2006, when the following was stated by Obama himself;

In Sept 2006 Illinois State Senator Obama, while on an international trip was interviewed by Lynn Sweet of the Sun-Times.

Obama: Africa lessons; look ahead. En route back to U.S.
By Lynn Sweet on September 3, 2006 8:40 AM |

N’DJAMENA, Chad–Sen. Barack Obama departed this capital city Sunday morning, en route on an Army military aircraft to Frankfort, Germany to catch a commercial flight back to the United States.

He leaves wtih a “great urgency” to pressure the U.S. and other players to force Sudan to accept a United Nations peackeeping force in the Darfur region. Obama’s last stop was at a refugee camp near the Chad-Sudan border where some 15,333 people who fled Janjaweed violence live. Of those he talked to, they told him almost to a person they want to return-but cannot unless there are UN troops there to guarantee their safety.

After this major Africa swing–he left Washington on Aug. 18–the Illinois Democrat revs up a heavy political schedule in advance of the November elections, stumping in Iowa on Sept. 17, a stop in the early presidential caucus state that fuels speculation about whether the White House is in his future.

Obama launches his national book tour for his second book Oct. 17 in Chicago.

He reflected on his trip at the back of a plane on Saturday, talking above the roar of the engines to the three print reporters who have been covering his trip.

Obama’s next big international journey will be in 2007 –he’s looking at China, India and Indonesia, “where ironicall I actually have more of a childhood than I do in Kenya.”

Link

Krauthammer: Dems Will Regret Allowing Obama’s ‘Lawlessness’

Krauthammer: Dems Will Regret Allowing Obama’s ‘Lawlessness’

Appearing on Friday night’s On the Record, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer strongly criticized President Barack Obama for his “cavalier attitude” towards the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. “Democrats will rue the day that they allowed all this,” Krauthammer declared. “I’m talking about how the administration, particularly the president, seems to think that he has the right to change duly passed statutes on his own or to suspend parts of laws on his own,” Krauthammer said when asked to clarify his critique of the Obama administration’s “lawlessness.”

“The Constitution is pretty clear,” he continued, “the Congress passes the laws and the president executes the laws.”

Krauthammer cited Obama’s unilateral delaying of aspects of the Affordable Care Act and his appointing of administration officials via recess appointment while the Senate was in session. “This is a very cavalier attitude,” he added.

The columnist said that the president’s direction to insurers to reinstate policies that were cancelled as a result of new coverage requirements in the ACA is the most recent and most egregious example of Obama’s “lawlessness.”

“Obama’s own law is something that he ignores,” Krauthammer asserted.

“Do you think this is on the rise inside the beltway?” fill-in anchor Harris Faulkner asked, observing that this style of executive governance has been an increasing over the decades.

“I think it is because I think there is so much hostilities between the parties that the one party in power is willing to overlook all kinds of illegalities, all kinds of violation of constitutional norms, if it satisfies their political interests, if it advances their agenda,” Krauthammer agreed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKEZMquHSG0

TOP 10 QUESTIONS JOURNALISTS WON’T ASK PRESIDENT OBAMA AT PRESS CONFERENCE

by JOEL B. POLLAK 9 Aug 2013, 6:01 AM PDT 5POST A COMMENT

President Barack Obama rarely makes himself available to the mainstream media. They adore him anyway. At rare press conferences, such as the one scheduled for noon Friday at the White House, they lob softball questions or accept his evasive, meandering answers, rarely pressing him for clarity, much less truth. But there are many questions that the president ought to answer, yet which he is unlikely to face at all.

10. In 2008 you promised not to “do an end-run around Congress” with signing statements. Yet you have used signing statements and you have taken executive actions to circumvent Congress on immigration and other issues. Recently, you decided the employer mandate will not be enforced on October 1. Yet that date is stipulated by law. Doesn’t the Obamacare delay violate your powers under the Constitution?

9. Last week we learned that dozens of CIA personnel were in Benghazi at the time of the attack, and that there may be ongoing efforts to suppress information about what actually happened. In October 2012, you said that you issued three directives when you learned of the attack, yet these have never been seen. What did you actually do during the Benghazi attack, and why weren’t you more actively involved?

8. Last month, IRS officials testified to Congress that IRS Chief Counsel William J. Wilkins, whom you appointed, was directly involved in reviewing applications for non-profit status by Tea Party groups. He also met with you in April 2012, prior to issuing new “Be on the Lookout” (BOLO) criteria for evaluating such applications. What was your personal knowledge of the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups?

7. Recently your administration launched a new round of peace negotiations between Israel and Palestinian leaders. Israel had repeatedly said that it would negotiate without preconditions, but Palestinian leaders would not. Your administration, through Secretary of State John Kerry, pressed Israel to release 104 terrorists from Israeli jails. Was there a single new concession you demanded from Palestinians?

6. You have publicly dressed down the U.S. military on the issue of sexual assault. In the 2012 campaign, you were very involved in specific controversies, even calling Sandra Fluke, for example. Yet you have refused to say anything about the conduct of a fellow Democrat, Mayor Bob Filner of San Diego, who refuses to resign. Aren’t you setting a bad example on sexual assault, as commander-in-chief, in the Filner case?

5. Edward Snowden has continued to reveal new information about the National Security Agency’s abilities to gather information about Americans’ private communications. Leaving aside the question of whether the government should have that power, or whether you have broken past promises on civil liberties, the fact that these leaks happened at all is striking. Why is Gen. Keith Alexander still the head of the NSA?

4. Recently you announced that you were canceling a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, over the Snowden issue and gay rights. Yet last month, even after Putin indicated he might offer Snowden asylum, you were still offering drastic cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal. It looks like the “reset” with Russia is a failure, after so many concessions.Isn’t it time to stop offering new cuts to U.S. nuclear weapons?

3. You are backing the Senate immigration bill, which passed because Democrats agreed to include border security measures. Regardless of whether those measures are sufficient, they depend on a commitment to enforce the law as written. Yet you have refused to enforce existing immigration laws, even imposing a so-called “Dream Act” by fiat. Why should Americans trust you to enforce a new immigration law?

2. You campaigned on the promise to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. Yet you have helped the Taliban open a new office in Qatar, complicating relations with President Hamid Karzai, and recently suggested that there could be a “zero option” in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, as the U.S. withdraws, Al Qaeda is on the offensive across the region, and might return. Are we not repeating the mistakes of the past in Afghanistan?

1. You are about to head into a new round of budget negotiations. Some Republicans leaders have suggested that they are willing to offer concessions on the budget sequester if you commit to entitlement reform. You have spoken in theory about making some cuts but have never presented a plan, on paper, and have rejected all suggestions, even the Simpson-Bowles commission. Where is your plan to reform entitlements?

Bonus question: Last month, you spoke at length about how the African-American community views the death of Trayvon Martin case. You also asked people to respect the decision of the jury. Yet your Department of Justice is still aggressively investigating George Zimmerman, who is living in hiding, though all previous investigations showed no racial bias. Aren’t you violating Zimmerman’s civil rights?

 via http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/08/09/Top-10-Questions-Journalists-Won-t-Ask-at-President-Obama-Presser

‘THEY ARE LIARS’: BECK SAYS THESE THEN-AND-NOW OBAMA VIDEOS PROVE IT

Those who closely follow current events may often find themselves hearing a politician making a claim, but swearing they heard them say the exact opposite a month, a year, or even a decade ago.

That’s because, many times, they did.

Tuesday night on TheBlaze TV, Glenn Beck aired a segment documenting a number of apparent lies and falsehoods being pushed by the current administration, though he was clear that GOP leaders have done the same.

In the case of health care reform, for instance, President Barack Obama repeatedly promised that families who earn $250,000 a year or less would not see their taxes increases by “one dime” under his plan. But when his lawyers were arguing for the bill in front of the Supreme Court, they said the exact opposite to ensure its passage, arguing that all the new “penalties” are taxes.

“It’s important that you understand the lies that have been told thus far, because they’re only getting worse, and they’re only getting much more dangerous,” Beck warned.

Beck played the following clip, noting that it is 100% “in their own words” in case you want to share it with friends:

 

Beck argued that the administration has employed a “three-step process” that begins with lies, continues with revising history to fit the desired story, and concludes with smearing anyone who tries to speak out.

“The only way for them to maintain absolute power is for them to always be lying,” Beck said.  “To keep this illusion that they can never be wrong, they must silence or attack their opponents who prove them wrong time and time again.”

Beck analyzed the president’s words in more detail on his radio program Monday, from the president’s “early years” to the IRS scandal:

more

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/03/exposing-the-lies-revealing-video-captures-obama-the-left-in-their-own-words/

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers