CatholicCulture.org reports that the University of Notre Dame's annual donations fell off the cliff in the year ending 2009; dropping over $120 million dollars.
CC.org references in passing that honoring of the most militant, pro-abortion politician in America with a Humanitarian Award might have had some effect on donations. Ya' think???
The site then states, "The decline in donations largely coincided with the late-2000s recession, which officially began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009."
Oh really... let's see how the recession has affected some other big universities in the same region to test this theory. The below list shows: specific, similar-size universities; how much their donations went up or down in 2009 versus the previous year; and the percentage increase or decrease over the previous year:
Penn State University: +$4.8 Million (+2.7 percent)
Ohio State University: -$3.4 Million (-.14 percent - less than 1%)
Michigan State University: $-5.4 million (-4.2 percent)
University of Michigan: -$70 million million (-21 percent)
The University of Notre Dame: -$120 million (-35 percent)
If Notre Dame's decline in donations were due to the economy, other university declines would have been similar. As you can see, some of the universities' donations were actually up during this time frame.
If donations were affected by a lousy football season - I can hear this argument out there -, the donations to Michigan (who had a record of 3-9 that year) would have fallen much more than Notre Dame's (7-6). Notre Dame's donations for the year were $50 million worse than Michigan's.
I think the fallout from this decision is obvious with the above comparison. You can't offend the essence of an organization without major fallout.
People of Notre Dame, I am proud of you for not supporting this farce with your hard-earned money! I wrote this post to honor you.
The sad part is that Notre Dame did not lose this money for its beliefs, it lost this money for President Rev. John Jenkins' beliefs.
Htip to the bro's at CMR:
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Obamacare: Academia Incompetence vs. Tangible Reality
Karl Rove lays out what is coming in Obamacare, initiated by an academic who never had to exist in the real world:
"...This [reality of people being able to lose their health care] was brought home to me when I asked the CEO of a major restaurant chain about health reform's effect on his company, which now spends $25 million a year on employee health insurance. That will jump to at least $90 million a year once the new law is phased in. It will be cheaper, he told me, for the company to dump its coverage and pay a fine—$2,000 for each full-time worker—and make sure that no part-time employee accidentally worked 31 hours and thereby incurred the fine.
This reality is settling in at businesses across America. A Midwestern contractor told me he pays $588,000 for health insurance for 70 employees, contributing up to $8,400 a year for a family's coverage. If he stops providing health insurance, he'll pay $2,000 per employee in fines, and the first 40 employees are exempt from fines altogether." [Blogger note: 70 employees, the first 40 are exempt from any fine, so he will pay $2k on 30 employees totaling $60,000, as opposed to the $588K he is paying now. This owner could pocket $500K in savings and can throw 70 people on the public health care system. Maybe that's what Obama wants.]
So basically, Obama's legislation was set up so it is more efficient for private sector companies to pay the fines and drop health care for its employees, than provide health care for its employees. Driving quicker towards having everyone on national health care.
"...This [reality of people being able to lose their health care] was brought home to me when I asked the CEO of a major restaurant chain about health reform's effect on his company, which now spends $25 million a year on employee health insurance. That will jump to at least $90 million a year once the new law is phased in. It will be cheaper, he told me, for the company to dump its coverage and pay a fine—$2,000 for each full-time worker—and make sure that no part-time employee accidentally worked 31 hours and thereby incurred the fine.
This reality is settling in at businesses across America. A Midwestern contractor told me he pays $588,000 for health insurance for 70 employees, contributing up to $8,400 a year for a family's coverage. If he stops providing health insurance, he'll pay $2,000 per employee in fines, and the first 40 employees are exempt from fines altogether." [Blogger note: 70 employees, the first 40 are exempt from any fine, so he will pay $2k on 30 employees totaling $60,000, as opposed to the $588K he is paying now. This owner could pocket $500K in savings and can throw 70 people on the public health care system. Maybe that's what Obama wants.]
So basically, Obama's legislation was set up so it is more efficient for private sector companies to pay the fines and drop health care for its employees, than provide health care for its employees. Driving quicker towards having everyone on national health care.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Oil Spill and Obama's Inaction
Yep, Mr. President... It's oil...Below is a portion of the Oil Polution Act from 1990, that clearly outlines the Barack Obama can quickly and legally take complete control of the clean up of this spill through Federal agencies and does not need to wait for BP to get their act together:
Section 4201(a) of the Oil Pollution Act, which is codified at Title 33 of the United States Code, Section 1321(c), reads in part:
(c) Federal removal authority.
(1) General removal requirement.
(A) The President shall, in accordance with the National Contingency Plan and any appropriate Area Contingency Plan, ensure effective and immediate removal of a discharge, and mitigation or prevention of a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance–
(i) into or on the navigable waters;
(ii) on the adjoining shorelines to the navigable waters;
(iii) into or on the waters of the exclusive economic zone; or
(iv) that may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States.
(B) In carrying out this paragraph, the President may–
(i) remove or arrange for the removal of a discharge, and mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of a discharge, at any time;
(ii) direct or monitor all Federal, State, and private actions to remove a discharge; and
(iii) remove and, if necessary, destroy a vessel discharging, or threatening to discharge, by whatever means are available.
(2) Discharge posing substantial threat to public health or welfare.
(A) If a discharge, or a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance from a vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility is of such a size or character as to be a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States (including but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, other natural resources, and the public and private beaches and shorelines of the United States), the President shall direct all Federal, State, and private actions to remove the discharge or to mitigate or prevent the threat of the discharge.
(B) In carrying out this paragraph, the President may, without regard to any other provision of law governing contracting procedures or employment of personnel by the Federal Government–
(i) remove or arrange for the removal of the discharge, or mitigate or prevent the substantial threat of the discharge; and
(ii) remove and, if necessary, destroy a vessel discharging, or threatening to discharge, by whatever means are available.
We got what we knew we were electing. Someone with no executive experience; and someone who's leadership style is framed around blaming someone else.
What Obama has to be careful of is that he is at the top of the list for BP's political donations, and he should be concern with the appearance of inpropriety. Erica Lovley reports at Politico:
"During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records."
Saturday, January 30, 2010
See No... Hear No... Speak No...
I can't help but hear my dearly-departed Irish grandmother's (County Longford) words echo in my head, "May God, Forgive Ya.." on this post.
In watching the State of the Union the other night, I couldn't help but draw strong comparisons between Obama, Biden and Pelosi being in the same camera shot, and the three-man government that was in judgment of Charleston Heston. Tell me if you see it:
In watching the State of the Union the other night, I couldn't help but draw strong comparisons between Obama, Biden and Pelosi being in the same camera shot, and the three-man government that was in judgment of Charleston Heston. Tell me if you see it:
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
2009 Election Night: The Season of Our Discontent
A few thoughts should be mentioned on last night’s elections.
First, Governor Corzine lost by 4 points to Chris Christie despite President Obama frequently stumping for him, and outspending Christie an incredible 4 to 1. Now a 4 percent victory only requires 2.1 percent of the population to change their mind to swing the election.
Was it the case that our President didn’t have the goodwill and/or influence to swing this small percentage of voters in a historically Liberal state? This answer could be very telling. Or was it a matter of Obama's frequent fundraising and photo op’s with Corzine did influence the race, but Corzine was so far behind Christie that it did not matter? Pretty much all polls were aligned saying this race was neck and neck coming into the election. This leaves the first choice, that Obama has no influence, as the more realistic choice. This is a very bad position for the President of the free world to be in. It is too bad this election was not held in France where Obama’s influence means something.
Bill Bennett on his radio show this morning humorously said, paraphrasing, “ the anti-bodies are kickin’ in to fight was is not supposed to be in America.” My personal opinion is that we have not had an extremely, full-fledged Liberal president in a generation. Bill Clinton was a social liberal, but fiscal moderate as he balanced the budget with Newt Gingrich. Jimmy Carter was the last Liberal flame thrower. When Carter was president, I was still not allowed to write in pen, and I was 5 years away from getting braces. It has been a very long time. Americans have completely forgotten -- due to time or for the younger voters, they have never been exposed to an uncontrollable tax-and-spend Liberal on the level of Obama --what it is like having a unapologetic Liberal calling the shots. Every day we see Obama's new spending in the news... 700 Billion here, or 400 billion there, as the black whole of debt that we and our children will have to dig out of gets deeper and deeper. Our collective memory does not recall, or is somehow not convinced, that tax increases targeting the private sector and spending increases targeting and benefiting the government sector will always destroy an economy. Very quietly, Johnson and Johnson yesterday announced layoffs for 8,000 employees. This is a premier health care company, and a premier consumer products company in the U.S. Just ask Warren Buffet who owns a good amount of its stock. If you think that Obama has done anything to help this economy a year after being elected take a look at Johnson and Johnson.
Extreme Left-Wing, diatriber Alan Dershowitz mentioned the public was having ‘buyer’s remorse” in regard to electing Obama a few months back. It is similar to having a whirlwind courtship and marrying someone, then finding out the person has an extremely violent temper and you are stuck with them. The year following this realization is the most fearful time. We are now in this time, the time of our discontent, with Obama, realizing he is not the package that was promised or advertised, we are stuck with him, and the fear is overwhelming.
Virginia had a 25 point swing towards Republican voters last night for the Gubernatorial vote when compared to what Obama carried last year. One out of four voters went running to the door. Close to 50% of the voters that elected Obama! Laughably, the White House says this does not reflect on Obama.
In upstate New York, a Conservative third-party candidate took on both establishment Parties with far less financing and was leading in the polls as of yesterday. If Democrats see the election outcome last night as a victory, they do it to their peril.
It seems that every generation needs to make their own mistakes and get their own wake up call. I predict that the next two Presidential elections will be won by the Republicans, possibly three. America has realized their mistake and the aftertaste will last at least ten years. On January 21st, Obama had 68% approval rating and 12% disapproval rating per Gallop. Now it is 50% approval (down -18%) verses 43% disapproval (up +31%). Overwhelming buyer’s remorse.
I also predict that Democrats will start fleeing Obama and his agenda to save their own hides. You don’t have to be Nostradamos to predict this. The movie Mississippi Burning has a very accurate quote in it, “Rattlesnakes don’t commit suicide.”
First, Governor Corzine lost by 4 points to Chris Christie despite President Obama frequently stumping for him, and outspending Christie an incredible 4 to 1. Now a 4 percent victory only requires 2.1 percent of the population to change their mind to swing the election.
Was it the case that our President didn’t have the goodwill and/or influence to swing this small percentage of voters in a historically Liberal state? This answer could be very telling. Or was it a matter of Obama's frequent fundraising and photo op’s with Corzine did influence the race, but Corzine was so far behind Christie that it did not matter? Pretty much all polls were aligned saying this race was neck and neck coming into the election. This leaves the first choice, that Obama has no influence, as the more realistic choice. This is a very bad position for the President of the free world to be in. It is too bad this election was not held in France where Obama’s influence means something.
Bill Bennett on his radio show this morning humorously said, paraphrasing, “ the anti-bodies are kickin’ in to fight was is not supposed to be in America.” My personal opinion is that we have not had an extremely, full-fledged Liberal president in a generation. Bill Clinton was a social liberal, but fiscal moderate as he balanced the budget with Newt Gingrich. Jimmy Carter was the last Liberal flame thrower. When Carter was president, I was still not allowed to write in pen, and I was 5 years away from getting braces. It has been a very long time. Americans have completely forgotten -- due to time or for the younger voters, they have never been exposed to an uncontrollable tax-and-spend Liberal on the level of Obama --what it is like having a unapologetic Liberal calling the shots. Every day we see Obama's new spending in the news... 700 Billion here, or 400 billion there, as the black whole of debt that we and our children will have to dig out of gets deeper and deeper. Our collective memory does not recall, or is somehow not convinced, that tax increases targeting the private sector and spending increases targeting and benefiting the government sector will always destroy an economy. Very quietly, Johnson and Johnson yesterday announced layoffs for 8,000 employees. This is a premier health care company, and a premier consumer products company in the U.S. Just ask Warren Buffet who owns a good amount of its stock. If you think that Obama has done anything to help this economy a year after being elected take a look at Johnson and Johnson.
Extreme Left-Wing, diatriber Alan Dershowitz mentioned the public was having ‘buyer’s remorse” in regard to electing Obama a few months back. It is similar to having a whirlwind courtship and marrying someone, then finding out the person has an extremely violent temper and you are stuck with them. The year following this realization is the most fearful time. We are now in this time, the time of our discontent, with Obama, realizing he is not the package that was promised or advertised, we are stuck with him, and the fear is overwhelming.
Virginia had a 25 point swing towards Republican voters last night for the Gubernatorial vote when compared to what Obama carried last year. One out of four voters went running to the door. Close to 50% of the voters that elected Obama! Laughably, the White House says this does not reflect on Obama.
In upstate New York, a Conservative third-party candidate took on both establishment Parties with far less financing and was leading in the polls as of yesterday. If Democrats see the election outcome last night as a victory, they do it to their peril.
It seems that every generation needs to make their own mistakes and get their own wake up call. I predict that the next two Presidential elections will be won by the Republicans, possibly three. America has realized their mistake and the aftertaste will last at least ten years. On January 21st, Obama had 68% approval rating and 12% disapproval rating per Gallop. Now it is 50% approval (down -18%) verses 43% disapproval (up +31%). Overwhelming buyer’s remorse.
I also predict that Democrats will start fleeing Obama and his agenda to save their own hides. You don’t have to be Nostradamos to predict this. The movie Mississippi Burning has a very accurate quote in it, “Rattlesnakes don’t commit suicide.”
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Barack Obama Persona, Part I: A Detached President
As aforementioned, here is my take as to what the driving forces that makes up Barack Obama’s persona. Admittedly, I have absolutely no clinical training and my psychology classes numbered two in college, but hey… that never stopped an Irishman before.
My first observation is that I believe Barack Obama is a very detached person. Detached in many ways, but first and foremost detached from his emotions.
Sadly, his father abandoned his family when he was only two years old, which left the President without a male role model and the chance of forming this primary attachment in his life.
In addition, his mother sent him to live with his grandparents in Hawaii when he was ten, but permitted his half-sister to stay under her care. The separation was only one year, but again it strikes me as unusual and was probably not the best scenario to enhance the attachment of a maternal bond in Obama's life.
A few years back, I read the book Snakes in Suits. The book described at length how to spot psychopaths in the workplace. According to the book, one characteristic that distinguishes this group of people is that they are usually great public speakers. The philosophy behind this line of thought is that psychopaths do not have any connection to the words that saying; they are just words with no attachment to a conscious, emotion or to their feelings so the words freely flow unobstructed producing a great result.
When a normal person has to talk in publicly there is frequently stuttering and nerves that come out. These normal people have attachments to their words and emotions.
Now let me say very clearly I DO NOT BELIEVE our President is a psychopath, and I do not believe all great public speakers as psychopaths, but I do believe that the President’s emotional detachment may be a contributing force in allowing him to excel in public speaking.
Multiple political pundits have cited that Obama delivers his speeches in a way that a college professor would instruct a class. I think this is a fair observation. College professors instruct those around them at an elevated, professional level, void of interpersonal interaction. This again is where Obama excels.
During New York’s 2008 Al Smith Dinner (a dinner where presidential candidates humorously roast each other), Republican-nominee John McCain freely cracked jokes at the podium, even defaming himself often, frequently breaking out into laughter and shared his enjoyment with the whole room. When it was President Obama’s turn, to date, I have never seen Barack Obama appear more uncomfortable and squeamish than when he tried to deliver pre-written humorous punch lines at this dinner. Humor is an emotion, if you are detached from your emotions it is very difficult to laugh and be comfortable with your humorous side.
Moreover, cited repeatedly on this blog was the fact that Barack Obama was the only representative in the Illinois State Legislature to vote AGAINST the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This piece of legislation protected babies that survived botched abortions and were breathing on their own. You really have to have ice in your veins to vote against this bill with no pings of conscious… or be very detached from any emotion.
I had a good amount of fun in this blog goofing on Obama’s Styra-foam pillars at his Denver convention speech. If you think about the back drop that Obama chose on this most important night of his life... it was a visual back drop of hard, cold, impersonal stone. Am I reading too much into this?
The Obama camp will tell you they copied JFK’s theme at his 1960 convention, but I would argue that Kennedy was a very detached person as well. Detached from his emotions and conscience. Multiple mistresses, shady dealings, etc... Kennedy was also a dynamic orator.
Obama was very comfortable with this colossus Coliseum theme, and the large-scale scope of this production also protected him from any smaller intimate setting that could possibly leave him exposed.
We have a very detached President.
My first observation is that I believe Barack Obama is a very detached person. Detached in many ways, but first and foremost detached from his emotions.
Sadly, his father abandoned his family when he was only two years old, which left the President without a male role model and the chance of forming this primary attachment in his life.
In addition, his mother sent him to live with his grandparents in Hawaii when he was ten, but permitted his half-sister to stay under her care. The separation was only one year, but again it strikes me as unusual and was probably not the best scenario to enhance the attachment of a maternal bond in Obama's life.
A few years back, I read the book Snakes in Suits. The book described at length how to spot psychopaths in the workplace. According to the book, one characteristic that distinguishes this group of people is that they are usually great public speakers. The philosophy behind this line of thought is that psychopaths do not have any connection to the words that saying; they are just words with no attachment to a conscious, emotion or to their feelings so the words freely flow unobstructed producing a great result.
When a normal person has to talk in publicly there is frequently stuttering and nerves that come out. These normal people have attachments to their words and emotions.
Now let me say very clearly I DO NOT BELIEVE our President is a psychopath, and I do not believe all great public speakers as psychopaths, but I do believe that the President’s emotional detachment may be a contributing force in allowing him to excel in public speaking.
Multiple political pundits have cited that Obama delivers his speeches in a way that a college professor would instruct a class. I think this is a fair observation. College professors instruct those around them at an elevated, professional level, void of interpersonal interaction. This again is where Obama excels.
During New York’s 2008 Al Smith Dinner (a dinner where presidential candidates humorously roast each other), Republican-nominee John McCain freely cracked jokes at the podium, even defaming himself often, frequently breaking out into laughter and shared his enjoyment with the whole room. When it was President Obama’s turn, to date, I have never seen Barack Obama appear more uncomfortable and squeamish than when he tried to deliver pre-written humorous punch lines at this dinner. Humor is an emotion, if you are detached from your emotions it is very difficult to laugh and be comfortable with your humorous side.
Moreover, cited repeatedly on this blog was the fact that Barack Obama was the only representative in the Illinois State Legislature to vote AGAINST the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This piece of legislation protected babies that survived botched abortions and were breathing on their own. You really have to have ice in your veins to vote against this bill with no pings of conscious… or be very detached from any emotion.
I had a good amount of fun in this blog goofing on Obama’s Styra-foam pillars at his Denver convention speech. If you think about the back drop that Obama chose on this most important night of his life... it was a visual back drop of hard, cold, impersonal stone. Am I reading too much into this?
The Obama camp will tell you they copied JFK’s theme at his 1960 convention, but I would argue that Kennedy was a very detached person as well. Detached from his emotions and conscience. Multiple mistresses, shady dealings, etc... Kennedy was also a dynamic orator.
Obama was very comfortable with this colossus Coliseum theme, and the large-scale scope of this production also protected him from any smaller intimate setting that could possibly leave him exposed.
We have a very detached President.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Barack Obama: A Six Month Pause Comparison
On the morning after the 2008 Presidential election, a wildly-enthusiast Obama co-worker told me he was going to be one of the greatest presidents in American History. In order to temper this blind affection, I made a bold statement to him that I believed, within four years - or the end of Obama’s first term, the George W. Bush Presidency would have a higher approval rating than the Obama presidency. At that time, Barack Obama had an 80% approval rating in some polls, while the departing President Bush was at the extreme other end of the approval rating with only 20%.
As I made this bold statement, I thought of a quote by Richard Nixon in his autobiography. At the 1959 kitchen debate with Russian Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, Khrushchev was waiving his "We will Bury You!" bravado as Nixon recounts:
'Khrushchev arrogantly predicted to me,' writes Nixon, ' your grandchildren will live under Communism.' I responded, Your grandchildren will live in freedom.' At the time,'Nixon now concedes, 'I was sure he was wrong, but I was not sure I was right."
I felt the same way about my Bush/Obama approval rating prediction. I knew he was wrong, I wasn't sure I was right.
Well, this morning while making a 4AM escape from a Nashville hotel, I was greeted with today’s edition of USA Today. The front page listed a Gallup comparison on all the Presidents’ approval rating since Harry Truman after their first 6 months in office:
Truman: 82%
Kennedy: 75%
Johnson: 74%
Eisenhower: 73%
Carter: 67%
Bush Sr.: 66%
Nixon: 65%
Reagan: 60%
Bush Jr: 56%
Obama: 55%
Clinton: 41%
Ford: 39%
As you notice, right now Obama is tracking behind GW Bush. Maybe I should have 'gotten odds on my statement.
Last month, Peggy Noonan conveyed the thought that all great Presidencies are to known by just one sentence:
"The Sentence [philosophy] comes from a story Clare Boothe Luce told about a conversation she had in 1962 in the White House with her old friend John F. Kennedy. She told him, she said, that "a great man is one sentence." His leadership can be so well summed up in a single sentence that you don't have to hear his name to know who's being talked about. "He preserved the union and freed the slaves," or, "He lifted us out of a great depression and helped to win a World War." You didn't have to be told "Lincoln" or "FDR."
Noonan says Obama’s great sentence should be: "He brought America back from economic collapse and kept us strong and secure in the age of terror."
Sadly instead, Obama’s statement will read, "He was responsible for double-digit inflation due to the Fed's printing of money to cover his unprecendented, drunken-shopaholic-type spending on his failed fiscal and social programs."
After watching Barack Obama for the past 6 months, I finally understand what makes him tick. I am going to lay out my thoughts on what I believe are the three elements that make up his persona over the next few days.
As I made this bold statement, I thought of a quote by Richard Nixon in his autobiography. At the 1959 kitchen debate with Russian Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, Khrushchev was waiving his "We will Bury You!" bravado as Nixon recounts:
'Khrushchev arrogantly predicted to me,' writes Nixon, ' your grandchildren will live under Communism.' I responded, Your grandchildren will live in freedom.' At the time,'Nixon now concedes, 'I was sure he was wrong, but I was not sure I was right."
I felt the same way about my Bush/Obama approval rating prediction. I knew he was wrong, I wasn't sure I was right.
Well, this morning while making a 4AM escape from a Nashville hotel, I was greeted with today’s edition of USA Today. The front page listed a Gallup comparison on all the Presidents’ approval rating since Harry Truman after their first 6 months in office:
Truman: 82%
Kennedy: 75%
Johnson: 74%
Eisenhower: 73%
Carter: 67%
Bush Sr.: 66%
Nixon: 65%
Reagan: 60%
Bush Jr: 56%
Obama: 55%
Clinton: 41%
Ford: 39%
As you notice, right now Obama is tracking behind GW Bush. Maybe I should have 'gotten odds on my statement.
Last month, Peggy Noonan conveyed the thought that all great Presidencies are to known by just one sentence:
"The Sentence [philosophy] comes from a story Clare Boothe Luce told about a conversation she had in 1962 in the White House with her old friend John F. Kennedy. She told him, she said, that "a great man is one sentence." His leadership can be so well summed up in a single sentence that you don't have to hear his name to know who's being talked about. "He preserved the union and freed the slaves," or, "He lifted us out of a great depression and helped to win a World War." You didn't have to be told "Lincoln" or "FDR."
Noonan says Obama’s great sentence should be: "He brought America back from economic collapse and kept us strong and secure in the age of terror."
Sadly instead, Obama’s statement will read, "He was responsible for double-digit inflation due to the Fed's printing of money to cover his unprecendented, drunken-shopaholic-type spending on his failed fiscal and social programs."
After watching Barack Obama for the past 6 months, I finally understand what makes him tick. I am going to lay out my thoughts on what I believe are the three elements that make up his persona over the next few days.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
President Obama Met America Tonight
Away from his Washington Press Corps enablers, President Obama threw out the ceremony first pitch at tonight's baseball All-Star Game in St. Louis.
I told a co-worker today it will be a referendum on Obama, to see how America's heartland greeted him.
The Wall St. Journal confirms he was booed:
"Obama is still wearing jeans as he runs out of the dugout for the first pitch. And they’re booing him. Because he’s wearing a White Sox jacket. You have to admire the President of the United States running out to the pitcher’s mound in St. Louis while wearing a Chicago jacket."
Yeah, it was the jacket, not the 16% under/unemployment rate and the fact that the deficit passed a trillion dollars this week.
I carefully listened to the crowd reaction, and I would put the negative reaction at 60-70%.
The President offered the National League Sonya Sotomayor's empathy ruling for not winning in eleven years, and ignored a groundskeeper who asked him where all the other shovel-ready jobs were.
The Sports Examiner: "Obama booed more at All Star game than Manny in New York return"
I told a co-worker today it will be a referendum on Obama, to see how America's heartland greeted him.
The Wall St. Journal confirms he was booed:
"Obama is still wearing jeans as he runs out of the dugout for the first pitch. And they’re booing him. Because he’s wearing a White Sox jacket. You have to admire the President of the United States running out to the pitcher’s mound in St. Louis while wearing a Chicago jacket."
Yeah, it was the jacket, not the 16% under/unemployment rate and the fact that the deficit passed a trillion dollars this week.
I carefully listened to the crowd reaction, and I would put the negative reaction at 60-70%.
The President offered the National League Sonya Sotomayor's empathy ruling for not winning in eleven years, and ignored a groundskeeper who asked him where all the other shovel-ready jobs were.
The Sports Examiner: "Obama booed more at All Star game than Manny in New York return"
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The Catholic Case Against Obamacare
I have frequently thought on many issues that the Democratic Party provides the "wrong answers to the right questions." How can we provide better assistance to the poor? How can we make sure workers are treated fairly? How can we help women with unwanted pregnancies? How can we give everyone access to needed health care...
As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have told us, everyone deserves medical care, and it is a noble end goal. My own bishop, William Murphy, penned a letter to US Senate Committee on Finance on behalf of the USCCB citing:
"The moral measure of any health-care reform proposal is whether it offers affordable and accessible health care to all, beginning with those most in need…"
In noting this, it is still my opinion, and I do not speak for the Magisterium, that the Catholic position should be AGAINST the President’s Health Care Initiative. There is a grave devil in the details of his plan. The devil is RATIONING.
This concern is so front-and-center, that the Fourth Estate is even shining the spotlight on it. The Wall St. Journal reported from Obama’s town hall meeting this week. A concerned citizen brought up a very real-world, tangible family experience she had and asked Obama if the same respect of life would be given under his plan:
"At one point in the town hall, broadcast from the East Room by ABC news, a woman named Jane Sturm told the story of her 105-year-old mother, who, at 100, was told by an arrhythmia specialist that she was too old for a pacemaker. She ended up getting a second option, and the operation, for which Ms. Sturm credits her survival.
"Look, the first thing for all of us to understand that is we actually have some -- some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care," Mr. Obama replied. After discussing ways "we as a culture and as a society [can start] to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves," he continued that in general "at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."
What Mr. Obama is describing is his preferred health-care future. If or when the Administration's speculative cost-cutting measures under universal health care fail to produce savings, government will start explicitly limiting patient access to treatments and services regarded as too expensive. Democrats deny this eventuality, but health planners will have no choice, given that the current entitlement system is already barreling toward insolvency without adding millions of new people to the federal balance sheet."
So basically if someone is 65 years old and is diagnosed with a cancer that has a high mortality rate; here is your Advil according to our President.
With this statement, there is the 800-pound gorilla in the room that no one will mention. They will dance all around it, but not land on it. Obama’s health care plan will make a clear distinction between two classes of people. Those who are worthy of health care treatment, and those who are not.
Mike Kinsley, who was the original liberal-defending host of CNN’s Crossfire, also sees this reality in The Washington Post:
"But that doesn't mean rationing will be easy to avoid. Statistics on life expectancy or infant mortality are averages. The easiest way to raise your averages -- maybe even the best way, if we're being honest -- is to concentrate on the general level of care and not to squander a lot on long-odds cases. But if the long-odds case is you or a family member, you may well feel differently.
...Here is a handy-dandy way to determine whether the failure to order some exam or treatment constitutes rationing: If the patient were the president, would he get it? If he'd get it and you wouldn't, it's rationing."
Even super-liberal Mike Kinsley knows what is coming.
Now, back to my Catholic case against the President’s Health Care Plan. The danger, as mentioned, is setting up two classes of people. Some of the darkest chapters of world history began with this premise and resulted in genocide. This is not hyperbole.
If we, as a society, determine that someone who is possibly treatable does not warrant life-saving or life-extending care because of their demographics or situation- just pain medication - the next logical, expedient, cost-savings and obvious secular step is saying why should this person suffer with absolutely no hope. It’s pointless. We should put them out of their misery. Euthanasia is the demonic offspring to the rationed health care that Obama speaks of. This is my grave concern and should be yours.
The immediate front lines of this second class of people, and starting point, will be the handicapped, the elderly, the terminally and chronically ill and less-than-perfect newborns.
This is why His Excellency Bishop Murphy then follows the above statement in his letter to our government with:
"All people need and should have access to comprehensive, quality health care that they can afford, and this should not depend on their stage of life, where or whether they or their parents work, how much they earn, or where they live or where they come from,"
Obama’s Health Care Plan is in direct conflict with this second statement and therefore, in my opinion, can not be supported by Catholics. There are other, better solutions out there that do not lead to this culture-of-death end, literally.
As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have told us, everyone deserves medical care, and it is a noble end goal. My own bishop, William Murphy, penned a letter to US Senate Committee on Finance on behalf of the USCCB citing:
"The moral measure of any health-care reform proposal is whether it offers affordable and accessible health care to all, beginning with those most in need…"
In noting this, it is still my opinion, and I do not speak for the Magisterium, that the Catholic position should be AGAINST the President’s Health Care Initiative. There is a grave devil in the details of his plan. The devil is RATIONING.
This concern is so front-and-center, that the Fourth Estate is even shining the spotlight on it. The Wall St. Journal reported from Obama’s town hall meeting this week. A concerned citizen brought up a very real-world, tangible family experience she had and asked Obama if the same respect of life would be given under his plan:
"At one point in the town hall, broadcast from the East Room by ABC news, a woman named Jane Sturm told the story of her 105-year-old mother, who, at 100, was told by an arrhythmia specialist that she was too old for a pacemaker. She ended up getting a second option, and the operation, for which Ms. Sturm credits her survival.
"Look, the first thing for all of us to understand that is we actually have some -- some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care," Mr. Obama replied. After discussing ways "we as a culture and as a society [can start] to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves," he continued that in general "at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."
What Mr. Obama is describing is his preferred health-care future. If or when the Administration's speculative cost-cutting measures under universal health care fail to produce savings, government will start explicitly limiting patient access to treatments and services regarded as too expensive. Democrats deny this eventuality, but health planners will have no choice, given that the current entitlement system is already barreling toward insolvency without adding millions of new people to the federal balance sheet."
So basically if someone is 65 years old and is diagnosed with a cancer that has a high mortality rate; here is your Advil according to our President.
With this statement, there is the 800-pound gorilla in the room that no one will mention. They will dance all around it, but not land on it. Obama’s health care plan will make a clear distinction between two classes of people. Those who are worthy of health care treatment, and those who are not.
Mike Kinsley, who was the original liberal-defending host of CNN’s Crossfire, also sees this reality in The Washington Post:
"But that doesn't mean rationing will be easy to avoid. Statistics on life expectancy or infant mortality are averages. The easiest way to raise your averages -- maybe even the best way, if we're being honest -- is to concentrate on the general level of care and not to squander a lot on long-odds cases. But if the long-odds case is you or a family member, you may well feel differently.
...Here is a handy-dandy way to determine whether the failure to order some exam or treatment constitutes rationing: If the patient were the president, would he get it? If he'd get it and you wouldn't, it's rationing."
Even super-liberal Mike Kinsley knows what is coming.
Now, back to my Catholic case against the President’s Health Care Plan. The danger, as mentioned, is setting up two classes of people. Some of the darkest chapters of world history began with this premise and resulted in genocide. This is not hyperbole.
If we, as a society, determine that someone who is possibly treatable does not warrant life-saving or life-extending care because of their demographics or situation- just pain medication - the next logical, expedient, cost-savings and obvious secular step is saying why should this person suffer with absolutely no hope. It’s pointless. We should put them out of their misery. Euthanasia is the demonic offspring to the rationed health care that Obama speaks of. This is my grave concern and should be yours.
The immediate front lines of this second class of people, and starting point, will be the handicapped, the elderly, the terminally and chronically ill and less-than-perfect newborns.
This is why His Excellency Bishop Murphy then follows the above statement in his letter to our government with:
"All people need and should have access to comprehensive, quality health care that they can afford, and this should not depend on their stage of life, where or whether they or their parents work, how much they earn, or where they live or where they come from,"
Obama’s Health Care Plan is in direct conflict with this second statement and therefore, in my opinion, can not be supported by Catholics. There are other, better solutions out there that do not lead to this culture-of-death end, literally.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Barack Obama: Approval Diving; Deficit Rising
Last week quietly Barack Obama’s approval rating dropped below 60% in Gallup. We all know what President Obama has done to the deficit in these last 5 months, but let’s look at his Gallup approval ratings from the time of his Inauguration until now:
January 21: 68% Approve; 12% Disapprove, 20% Undecided
June 17: 57% Approve; 35% Disapprove; 8% Undecided
So 11% of all those polled who approved of Obama at his Inauguration have stopped drinking the Kool-Aid and now disapprove. Likewise, 12% of those polled (or a 60% majority of all those who were undecided) went from being undecided to now disapproving of the job Obama is doing.
Here is what is happening. Gallup a week back stated that only 45% approve of how Obama is handling the deficit. The disdain for his policies is catching up to his engaging celebrity persona. It takes America some time to realize what is happening. His numbers will continue to descend unless he does something about all this spending.
Two political analysts, whom I greatly respect their insight, offered eerily the same opinion on Obama. They each said on separate interviews that in the beginning they believed Obama did not realize the consequence of his actions - all this spending - and what it would do to the future of America. But now they have both come to believe that Obama knows exactly what he is doing and wants to push America past the point of no return. He wants to load us up on so much debt that our income tax rates will have to be raised to 40% to cover just the interest on the deficit and with this increased money the government will ‘provide’ for all of our needs, aka… European Socialism.
Let me make a point to illustrate the validity of these opinions.
Last week, Obama gave partners to gays access to Social Security benefits. I read a report a year ago that stated covering homosexual partners in the Social Security system will move up the program’s insolvency 5 years. So this program will be bankrupted 5 years earlier by this presidential action.
Interestingly enough, last week President Obama used rhetoric to keep the status quo "Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell" policy of the U.S. Armed Forces:
"White House officials said the same-sex benefits changes are not designed to be a gradual step toward military acceptance of overturning “don’t ask, don’t tell” but are instead a move to recruit and retain top talent into government jobs."
Now do partners of gays deserve to uphold their "civil rights" with access to Social Security benefits and those in the Armed Forces not deserve the "civil rights" of being allowed to express who they really are? A little inconsistent, don’t you think? No, not really… here is the answer: Obama’s first action of opening up Social Security will bankrupt America quicker where the second has no fiscal consideration tied to it.
January 21: 68% Approve; 12% Disapprove, 20% Undecided
June 17: 57% Approve; 35% Disapprove; 8% Undecided
So 11% of all those polled who approved of Obama at his Inauguration have stopped drinking the Kool-Aid and now disapprove. Likewise, 12% of those polled (or a 60% majority of all those who were undecided) went from being undecided to now disapproving of the job Obama is doing.
Here is what is happening. Gallup a week back stated that only 45% approve of how Obama is handling the deficit. The disdain for his policies is catching up to his engaging celebrity persona. It takes America some time to realize what is happening. His numbers will continue to descend unless he does something about all this spending.
Two political analysts, whom I greatly respect their insight, offered eerily the same opinion on Obama. They each said on separate interviews that in the beginning they believed Obama did not realize the consequence of his actions - all this spending - and what it would do to the future of America. But now they have both come to believe that Obama knows exactly what he is doing and wants to push America past the point of no return. He wants to load us up on so much debt that our income tax rates will have to be raised to 40% to cover just the interest on the deficit and with this increased money the government will ‘provide’ for all of our needs, aka… European Socialism.
Let me make a point to illustrate the validity of these opinions.
Last week, Obama gave partners to gays access to Social Security benefits. I read a report a year ago that stated covering homosexual partners in the Social Security system will move up the program’s insolvency 5 years. So this program will be bankrupted 5 years earlier by this presidential action.
Interestingly enough, last week President Obama used rhetoric to keep the status quo "Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell" policy of the U.S. Armed Forces:
"White House officials said the same-sex benefits changes are not designed to be a gradual step toward military acceptance of overturning “don’t ask, don’t tell” but are instead a move to recruit and retain top talent into government jobs."
Now do partners of gays deserve to uphold their "civil rights" with access to Social Security benefits and those in the Armed Forces not deserve the "civil rights" of being allowed to express who they really are? A little inconsistent, don’t you think? No, not really… here is the answer: Obama’s first action of opening up Social Security will bankrupt America quicker where the second has no fiscal consideration tied to it.
Monday, June 15, 2009
The 2009 Barack Obama World Apology Tour
The 2009 Obama Apology Tour rolls on. He never met a corner of the world that didn’t deserve an offered apology on how disgusting America’s history and actions have been.
It would not surprise me if he apologized for American tanks trespassing while they liberate 5 Nazi concentration camps in 1945. One of these was Buchenwald in Germany. Obama should know this, as his great-uncle was one of the GI’s who liberated sections of this camp, although it was not a significant achievement enough for him to get his family history right, as he told America while seeking the Presidency that his uncle liberated Auschwitz.
The President’s uncle, Charles Payne, was quote in Germany's Der Spiegel magazine:
"I was quite surprised when the whole thing came up and Barack talked about my war experiences in Nazi Germany. We had never talked about that before," Payne said. "Of course it came out immediately that he was wrong since there are enough people in America who know that Auschwitz is in the East and that the camp was liberated by the Red Army."
…Asked if Obama would be traveling in his footsteps, Payne said: "I don't buy that. ... This is a trip that he chose, not because of me I'm sure, but for political reasons."
I, likewise, am wondering if President Obama will apologize for the commandeering of graves to bury 125,000 U.S. soldiers across the world as they liberated not only countries but continents.
He should also apologize for the lack of colonialization in the American heart. We are the only superpower in the history of man that have conquered and secured lands with our own blood only to return these lands to their people. France, Germany, Japan, Iraq, Kuwait, Italy, etc… should all have the American Flag flying over them. Such a shameful chapter of our country.
The Soviets deserve much less guilt considering how they rose their flags over their bounty after WWII, while we gave the French back their country. How irresponsible of us not to fly the star spangled banner on the Eiffel Tower. I mean, they dislike us enough as it is routed in the underlying realization that their sovereignty is a byproduct of American strength and benevolence. We should offer apologies for this uncomfortable French feeling.
OK, enough with the sarcasm. Pat Buchanan hits the nail on the head better than I do:
"As for Barack, he behaves on the world stage like some Ivy League kid ashamed of the people he came from, letting one and all on campus know that he is nothing like his benighted family with its sordid history…
Obama is the anti-Reagan. Where Reagan ever spoke of the greatness and glory of America, her history and heroes, her capacity to make the world all over again, Obama is like a dismal parson, forever reminding us — and everyone within earshot — of our own and our fathers’ sins.
Obama is not only demoralizing Middle America, he is driving away the God-and-country patriots who are sick of hearing this rot from professors and journalists, and prefer not to hear it from their president. He is ceding moral high ground to regimes and nations that do not deserve it.
If Obama believes he can build himself up by tearing America down, he is mistaken. Cynical foreigners will view it with snickering contempt, patriotic Americans with disgust. What kind of leader is it who talks down his own country on foreign soil?
...Obama, however — like some Hollywood actress seeking sympathy and public approbation with her tell-all biography detailing how she was abused by her father — trolls for popularity with America’s adversaries by reciting for the benefit of the world all the sins his country has allegedly committed.
When did this become the duty of the president of the United States?"
November 4, 2008, Pat.
It would not surprise me if he apologized for American tanks trespassing while they liberate 5 Nazi concentration camps in 1945. One of these was Buchenwald in Germany. Obama should know this, as his great-uncle was one of the GI’s who liberated sections of this camp, although it was not a significant achievement enough for him to get his family history right, as he told America while seeking the Presidency that his uncle liberated Auschwitz.
The President’s uncle, Charles Payne, was quote in Germany's Der Spiegel magazine:
"I was quite surprised when the whole thing came up and Barack talked about my war experiences in Nazi Germany. We had never talked about that before," Payne said. "Of course it came out immediately that he was wrong since there are enough people in America who know that Auschwitz is in the East and that the camp was liberated by the Red Army."
…Asked if Obama would be traveling in his footsteps, Payne said: "I don't buy that. ... This is a trip that he chose, not because of me I'm sure, but for political reasons."
I, likewise, am wondering if President Obama will apologize for the commandeering of graves to bury 125,000 U.S. soldiers across the world as they liberated not only countries but continents.
He should also apologize for the lack of colonialization in the American heart. We are the only superpower in the history of man that have conquered and secured lands with our own blood only to return these lands to their people. France, Germany, Japan, Iraq, Kuwait, Italy, etc… should all have the American Flag flying over them. Such a shameful chapter of our country.
The Soviets deserve much less guilt considering how they rose their flags over their bounty after WWII, while we gave the French back their country. How irresponsible of us not to fly the star spangled banner on the Eiffel Tower. I mean, they dislike us enough as it is routed in the underlying realization that their sovereignty is a byproduct of American strength and benevolence. We should offer apologies for this uncomfortable French feeling.
OK, enough with the sarcasm. Pat Buchanan hits the nail on the head better than I do:
"As for Barack, he behaves on the world stage like some Ivy League kid ashamed of the people he came from, letting one and all on campus know that he is nothing like his benighted family with its sordid history…
Obama is the anti-Reagan. Where Reagan ever spoke of the greatness and glory of America, her history and heroes, her capacity to make the world all over again, Obama is like a dismal parson, forever reminding us — and everyone within earshot — of our own and our fathers’ sins.
Obama is not only demoralizing Middle America, he is driving away the God-and-country patriots who are sick of hearing this rot from professors and journalists, and prefer not to hear it from their president. He is ceding moral high ground to regimes and nations that do not deserve it.
If Obama believes he can build himself up by tearing America down, he is mistaken. Cynical foreigners will view it with snickering contempt, patriotic Americans with disgust. What kind of leader is it who talks down his own country on foreign soil?
...Obama, however — like some Hollywood actress seeking sympathy and public approbation with her tell-all biography detailing how she was abused by her father — trolls for popularity with America’s adversaries by reciting for the benefit of the world all the sins his country has allegedly committed.
When did this become the duty of the president of the United States?"
November 4, 2008, Pat.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Barack Obama's Notre Dame Speech: Post Game
A couple of thoughts on the Obama Notre Dame speech:
The event really lived up to its promise of being a large-scale dog and pony show. It was assured of this being run by its two fantasy show promoters, Obama and Jenkins, that had to try their best to defend an indefensible position with their only chance being to fool everyone.
No one told Jenkins that he was not the commencement speaker. My goodness, ad nauseum. He saw his remarks as the only place where he could explain his ridiculous, no touch-points-to-reality position of honoring a man who voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act while all the time trying to save his own tail. By the time he was done, I thought Obama stormed the beaches at Normandy by himself and discovered the cure to polio simultaneously while in the trenches. In regard to Jenkins actions and persona today, "We have met the enemy and he is us". He was very smug today; he will not be long for the ND world.
Also, Jenkins used no less than three Papal quotes to justify his invitation to Obama. This drew strong parallels to Nancy Pelosi using a quote from St. Augustine to justify her unconscionable view on abortion. There is a line in the movie A Man for All Seasons where St. Thomas More talks about "the tangles of the mind," and how people can twist and justify anything in their head.
Give the devil his due. As usual, Obama was great in his oratory skills. So great that by the end of his teleprompter speech the average person would think that Obama is a middle-of-the-road, reasonable guy. That is the greatness, and the danger, of Obama. Maybe someone should ask him how he plans to work to make fewer abortions when in his first few days he signed a bill opening tax dollars to finance them, and how this will happen when he will nominated a extremist to the Supreme Court within the next two weeks? Do you see what I mean, all rhetoric… by their fruits you shall know them.
VCR hero, Fr. Frank Pavone told the 30 or so students who sacrificed their special day and a large-scale, Pomp and Circumstance celebration for a quiet prayer at the grotto that they have inspired Pro-Life people across America. No truth could be more spoken and these students must be very special young people. You are the pride of the Pro-Life cause tonight.
In addition, those who were arrested also inspired me. I half-joked with a relative yesterday, "Alan Keyes was arrested at Notre Dame, I am so jealous."
The Valedictorian of ND, Brenna Bollman, gave an interview to Fox News this AM. She stated that "Catholic" means universal so we should be accepting of other people's views, regardless if they are based in morality. Catholic does mean universal, but it is in regard to the Church's teaching, not in regard to a big tent theory. This comment was a little unnerving considering she was number one in her class and may point to a more wide spread problem with the professors at the University.
Fox anchor Greg Jarrett was so bias in the coverage he should consider a career at MSNBC.
The event really lived up to its promise of being a large-scale dog and pony show. It was assured of this being run by its two fantasy show promoters, Obama and Jenkins, that had to try their best to defend an indefensible position with their only chance being to fool everyone.
No one told Jenkins that he was not the commencement speaker. My goodness, ad nauseum. He saw his remarks as the only place where he could explain his ridiculous, no touch-points-to-reality position of honoring a man who voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act while all the time trying to save his own tail. By the time he was done, I thought Obama stormed the beaches at Normandy by himself and discovered the cure to polio simultaneously while in the trenches. In regard to Jenkins actions and persona today, "We have met the enemy and he is us". He was very smug today; he will not be long for the ND world.
Also, Jenkins used no less than three Papal quotes to justify his invitation to Obama. This drew strong parallels to Nancy Pelosi using a quote from St. Augustine to justify her unconscionable view on abortion. There is a line in the movie A Man for All Seasons where St. Thomas More talks about "the tangles of the mind," and how people can twist and justify anything in their head.
Give the devil his due. As usual, Obama was great in his oratory skills. So great that by the end of his teleprompter speech the average person would think that Obama is a middle-of-the-road, reasonable guy. That is the greatness, and the danger, of Obama. Maybe someone should ask him how he plans to work to make fewer abortions when in his first few days he signed a bill opening tax dollars to finance them, and how this will happen when he will nominated a extremist to the Supreme Court within the next two weeks? Do you see what I mean, all rhetoric… by their fruits you shall know them.
VCR hero, Fr. Frank Pavone told the 30 or so students who sacrificed their special day and a large-scale, Pomp and Circumstance celebration for a quiet prayer at the grotto that they have inspired Pro-Life people across America. No truth could be more spoken and these students must be very special young people. You are the pride of the Pro-Life cause tonight.
In addition, those who were arrested also inspired me. I half-joked with a relative yesterday, "Alan Keyes was arrested at Notre Dame, I am so jealous."
The Valedictorian of ND, Brenna Bollman, gave an interview to Fox News this AM. She stated that "Catholic" means universal so we should be accepting of other people's views, regardless if they are based in morality. Catholic does mean universal, but it is in regard to the Church's teaching, not in regard to a big tent theory. This comment was a little unnerving considering she was number one in her class and may point to a more wide spread problem with the professors at the University.
Fox anchor Greg Jarrett was so bias in the coverage he should consider a career at MSNBC.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Obama's Supreme Court Appointment: Diane Wood?
On June 5, 2005, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled by a 5 to 4 margin that the city government of New London, CT, could legally take their private citizen’s homes away and deliver the land to real estate developers for the sole purpose of building a shopping mall.
The ruling interpreted, er…. legislated, that the 5th Amendment’s Eminent Domain Clause could mean that our government could take private property away from one private citizen and award it to another. It is worth emphasizing that this was not an eminent domain case of the government acquiring land because a much-needed highway could not be established by any other route through a city. This was a case of the government confiscating land from evicted citizens and delivering it to developers so that the developers could get rich and the state could increase their kitty benefiting from an increase in sales’ taxes.
This ruling was so absurd, that consistently liberal judge Sandra Day O’Connor broke with her left-wing cohorts on the court and actually wrote the dissenting opinion:
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party…"
Thankfully, three months later, Chief Justice John Roberts would be appointed to lead the bench, followed by Samuel Alito a few months later making ridiculous rulings such as this less probably.
So why am I reviewing this case’s history? To show you how much our Supreme Court has run-a-muck in the last fifty years. This case easily illustrates this belief to almost anyone because it is not dealing with a polarizing, emotional issue that is super-charged. Everyone can relate to the government knocking on their door and serving them with an eviction notice for a shopping mall.
This is why Supreme Court appointments are so essential to all of our rights. It is the most significant and lasting imprint that a Presidency can leave on history.
I am extremely thankful to President Bush for keeping us safe from terrorist attacks for the 7 years that followed 9-11. But I am equally thankful, if not more, for his appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito whom will keep our liberties safe for the next 30 years. As Uncle Billy said in It’s a Wonderful Life, "Not every heel is [overseas…]"
President Obama now has the luxury of leaving his mark on history.
Some specific thoughts I have on this appointment:
I don't think it will come before his Notre Dame commencement speech. (It still hurts me to say that sentence.) Obama is not going to stoke the fires and create photo-op's of protesters for this event by nominating a militant pro-abortion judge just prior to the event.
Secondly, with many of his recent cabinet appointments going up in flames, I think he will be looking for someone with absolutely no baggage. His administration can't afford to have another public embarrassment and the pick will be completely vetted on everything from personal taxes to wild college nights.
I think the name that everyone is floating, Sonia Sotomayor, will not be the pick. She has a very controversial caught-on-tape statement that judges actually "make policy from the bench" that would cause Obama great grief during a confirmation hearing. She prefaces this damning statement with, "I know I shouldn’t say this on tape…"
A final thought is that there is very little chance that the judge will not be a liberal activist. A pro-abortion, gay rights; a make-up-the-Constitution-as-you-go type.
So with my rationale, I am basically expecting that Obama will nominate the most militant liberal judge with the most squeaking clean life.
My guess is that it will be Diane Wood.
Justice Diane Wood is the Armageddon scenario for this appointment. She has been a disaster for the pro-life cause with rulings for partial birth abortion and using RICO laws to prevent peaceful abortion protests. My prediction is that she will get the nod. I hope I am wrong.
The ruling interpreted, er…. legislated, that the 5th Amendment’s Eminent Domain Clause could mean that our government could take private property away from one private citizen and award it to another. It is worth emphasizing that this was not an eminent domain case of the government acquiring land because a much-needed highway could not be established by any other route through a city. This was a case of the government confiscating land from evicted citizens and delivering it to developers so that the developers could get rich and the state could increase their kitty benefiting from an increase in sales’ taxes.
This ruling was so absurd, that consistently liberal judge Sandra Day O’Connor broke with her left-wing cohorts on the court and actually wrote the dissenting opinion:
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party…"
Thankfully, three months later, Chief Justice John Roberts would be appointed to lead the bench, followed by Samuel Alito a few months later making ridiculous rulings such as this less probably.
So why am I reviewing this case’s history? To show you how much our Supreme Court has run-a-muck in the last fifty years. This case easily illustrates this belief to almost anyone because it is not dealing with a polarizing, emotional issue that is super-charged. Everyone can relate to the government knocking on their door and serving them with an eviction notice for a shopping mall.
This is why Supreme Court appointments are so essential to all of our rights. It is the most significant and lasting imprint that a Presidency can leave on history.
I am extremely thankful to President Bush for keeping us safe from terrorist attacks for the 7 years that followed 9-11. But I am equally thankful, if not more, for his appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito whom will keep our liberties safe for the next 30 years. As Uncle Billy said in It’s a Wonderful Life, "Not every heel is [overseas…]"
President Obama now has the luxury of leaving his mark on history.
Some specific thoughts I have on this appointment:
I don't think it will come before his Notre Dame commencement speech. (It still hurts me to say that sentence.) Obama is not going to stoke the fires and create photo-op's of protesters for this event by nominating a militant pro-abortion judge just prior to the event.
Secondly, with many of his recent cabinet appointments going up in flames, I think he will be looking for someone with absolutely no baggage. His administration can't afford to have another public embarrassment and the pick will be completely vetted on everything from personal taxes to wild college nights.
I think the name that everyone is floating, Sonia Sotomayor, will not be the pick. She has a very controversial caught-on-tape statement that judges actually "make policy from the bench" that would cause Obama great grief during a confirmation hearing. She prefaces this damning statement with, "I know I shouldn’t say this on tape…"
A final thought is that there is very little chance that the judge will not be a liberal activist. A pro-abortion, gay rights; a make-up-the-Constitution-as-you-go type.
So with my rationale, I am basically expecting that Obama will nominate the most militant liberal judge with the most squeaking clean life.
My guess is that it will be Diane Wood.
Justice Diane Wood is the Armageddon scenario for this appointment. She has been a disaster for the pro-life cause with rulings for partial birth abortion and using RICO laws to prevent peaceful abortion protests. My prediction is that she will get the nod. I hope I am wrong.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Barack Obama: Igloos in Hell?
Obama's press conference last night:
"I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations.
...Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose, but I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the -- the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's -- that's where I'm going to focus. "
Militant turns moderate? What a pause 2 million red envelopes creates. And what a pause 300,000+ signatures, 53 bishops and an upcoming protest at Notre Dame make.
"I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations.
...Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose, but I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the -- the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's -- that's where I'm going to focus. "
Militant turns moderate? What a pause 2 million red envelopes creates. And what a pause 300,000+ signatures, 53 bishops and an upcoming protest at Notre Dame make.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Barack Obama: Rhetoric is Not Experience
As the old adage goes, "There is no substitute for experience." No substitute, as Barack Obama is finding out.To elaborate on my point, the previous five U.S. Presidents all came to Washington with executive experience. Four were governors of states, and one – G H.W. Bush -- headed the vast C.I.A. This executive experience greatly aided these men in their understanding of financial budgets, personnel issues, personal relationships, how to achieve political goals, and most importantly learn from the fall out that would happen if they didn’t think three steps ahead of everyone else. These positions were a hands-on training ground for the Presidency.
In addition, the average age of the previous 5 Presidents when they took office was 58 years old. Barack Obama took the office when he 48 years old. So along with all the previous Presidents having executive experience at the time they took office, they also each averaged an extra decade of real world experience as an adult before assuming the Oval Office. Think of how much 10 years of experience means to an adult life.
So why do I bring all this up? Through his first 30 days - not the first 100 days of his new administration which everyone benchmarks - Obama’s inexperience and mistakes have been overwhelming.
First, before day one of the Presidency, he let the most extreme ideologue in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, author and completely hi-jack the stimulus bill that would bare his name to the point where most Americans did not support the bill at the end. Why would any executive not personally attend to such a critical task of writing a vital stimulus bill that would mark his Presidency? Because he did not have the experience to come up with one by himself. He did not author legislation in the Illinois state house nor U.S. Senate because he was too busy running for President from day one. Can you imagine if Obama came up with a bill for a relatively moderate $100 Billion package that truly created jobs and stabilized our banking systems? He would have been unstoppable. Instead he watched Nancy Pelosi drench it up with billions of dollars of pork and handouts to her friends on the backs of taxpayers. She then unleashed it on Capitol Hill, Obama not being able to stop her nor get the genie back into the bottle.
Then, when meeting with Republicans in the White House to try to get support for his, I mean Pelosi's bill, Obama acknowledged that the Democrats went too far on the bill. In essence what he did amounted to throwing his most adamant supporters under the bus to look good to the opposition party. Reagan used to have a 'commandment', "Thou shall not criticize a fellow Republican," to prevent this exact occurrence from happening. Reagan had eight decades of experience before he took the helm of this country, and probably learned this lesson many decades back.
We will continue. His proposed selection for Secretary of Commerce, Republican Senator Judd Gregg, embarrassed Obama by stepping down after Obama publicly named him to the slot as a show of Obama's bipartisan support. This blindsided creaming arose from Obama not making sure Gregg was on board with his own policies before naming him. Because of these unvetted conflicting philosophies, Gregg turned down the position. This was a great embarrassment for Obama and led to a Wile E. Coyote backfiring moment on his theme that he was bipartisan as Gregg's actions revealed he could not work with Obama. I ask, how can you ever offer someone a cabinet position without making sure they are completely aligned with your thinking so they can carry out your goals for the country. This happened because Obama has never had to interview and hire any executives in his life other than campaign managers. Woefully inexperienced. Gregg rounded off a long list of cabinet appointments that were complete disasters: Bill Richardson, Nancy Killefer, Tom Daschel, Timothy Geitner, etc...
Right now, he is on his third try for a Commerce Secretary appointment. It is similar to the drummers in the comedy film Spinal Tap who have to keep being replaced in the band because they keep dying in humorous ways.
Finally, last week Obama warned bank executives not take business weekends in Las Vegas. It sounded like a good, populist statement to rally the troops until the Mayor of Las Vegas demanded an apology from Obama for hurting his tourist industry by making Vegas sound like it is always a fiscally irresponsible trip. Take Obama's statement in the light that Vegas, and Nevada, has been one of hardest hit regions by the recession and is severely struggling in tourism right now. The casinos are hemorrhaging employees, many of whom voted for Obama. Obama could have said, "No business weekends at plush resorts," which is very unspecific and would have had no backlash. Again, complete inexperience at best, incompetence at worst.
So with everything I am seeing, and reading, I am one of the very few people who will come out and plainly say on this date that the Obama Presidency will not end well. It is more than a gut feel, or partisan bias, it is looking at the razor-thin resume and lack of experience of the man who now lives on Pennsylvania Avenue and whom will be asked to solve our country's very complicated problems. This inexperience, coupled with an $800,000,000,000 pork-ridden stimulus bill anchored around his neck, will assure 2012 is not a good year for Obama.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Round One: Chaput Condemns Obama
In my previous post, The Sleeping Giant Will Sleep No More!, I predicted that the Catholic Church in America has reached a crossroads this last election cycle, and will now be much more publicly forceful and vocal on the life issue.With this understanding, I put my money, and my focus in the post, on Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput in regard to shaking things up the most, specifically the Obama Administration, writing:
"Knowing the Archbishop, his vocal amplification of the Gospel of Life will not stop on Inauguration Day... He will be as much as a nemesis of Barack Obama as he was when the DNC were putting up those "Styrofoam pillars" in the Archbishop’s backyard [for the Democratic Convention]. Obama greatly underestimates Chaput’s conviction and the Archbishop’s not caring whether or not he is ever invited to a Heads of State dinner. ... Chaput will be Obama’s ongoing nemesis."
So less than one month after the inauguration of President Obama, here comes Chaput:
"A leading Catholic archbishop is calling a fraud President Barack Obama's claims that he will lead efforts to reduce abortions. During a trip to Ireland, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver said merely wanting to reduce abortions as opposed to ending the practice entirely is not pro-life.
Chaput said Obama's recent move to send taxpayer dollars to other nations for pro-abortion groups to spend to promote and perform abortions violated his abortion reduction promise.
...“There's something a little odd about rhetoric that tells that we're the ‘divisive’ ones, and lectures adult citizens about what we should challenge, and when we should stop. In a democracy, we get to decide that for ourselves," he said.
“An issue that involves the life and death of unborn children and the subversion of entire traditional societies can't be ‘put behind us’ with an executive signature," Chaput added.
...“During the last U.S. election, we saw the emergence of so-called pro-life organizations that argued we should stop fighting the legal struggle over abortion. Instead we should join with ‘pro-choice’ supporters to seek ‘common ground,'" he explained.
“Their argument was simple: Why fight a losing battle on the legal, cultural and moral front since - according to them -- we haven't yet made serious progress in ending legalized abortion?" he continued. "Let's drop the ‘divisive’ political battle, they said, and instead let's all work together to tackle the economic and health issues that might eventually reduce abortions."
But Chaput said that argument wasn't acceptable for opponents of slavery, wasn't acceptable to opponents of racism and shouldn't be alright with pro-life advocates.
“Did Americans take a gradual, social-improvement road to ‘reducing’ racism? No. We passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” he said.
“Nor have I ever heard anyone suggest that the best way to deal with murder, rape or domestic abuse is to improve the availability of health care and job training. We make rape illegal -- even though we know it will still sometimes tragically occur -- because rape is gravely evil. It's an act of violence, and the law should proscribe it," he said.
“Of course, we also have a duty to improve the social conditions that can breed domestic and sexual violence. But that doesn't change the need for the law," Chaput added. “Likewise, if we really believe that abortion is an intimate act of violence, then we can't aim at anything less than ending abortion."
What makes these statements so remarkable, is that Chaput names names. Obama specifically, and other "in-name-only" pro-life organizations -- which you will see if you read the full piece at the above link. He could care less about outside pressure on not being specific on his condemnations. He could care less if someone threatens him with his tax-exempt status in an attempt to silence him. He is going to be a such major headache for Obama. Chaput truly does not care what anyone thinks of him, much less Obama, or if he offends powerful people. He is going to speak the unfiltered Gospel, period.
Moreover, an interesting observation I had about Chaput is that he routinely wears just his normal, black priest clothing and roman collar out in public, absolutely no designation (the amaranth red color) that he has achieved the title of Archbishop. This tells me that he does not care for titles, and Obama is going to find out just how much he does not care for titles.
"And because the homicides involved in abortion are 'little murders' -- the kind of private, legally protected murders that kill conveniently unseen lives -- it’s easy to look the other way." - Archbishop Charles Chaput
Saturday, November 1, 2008
McCain/Palin: An Upset in the Making?
Acknowledging a McCain/Palin victory is a very uphill proposition, here are some things that should make the Obama camp tremble in their boots:
1) Zogby cites that for the first time in many weeks, McCain polled higher than Obama (48% to 47% respectively) in yesterday’s daily poll taking independents and blue collar workers:
Pollster John Zogby: "Is McCain making a move? The three-day average holds steady, but McCain outpolled Obama today, 48% to 47%. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all. "Obama's lead among women declined, and it looks like it is occurring because McCain is solidifying the support of conservative women, which is something we saw last time McCain picked up in the polls."
2) Dick Morris stated yesterday on the Michael Medved radio show that McCain has an "excellent" chance to pull an upset. Morris claims large blocks of demographics are still shifting both ways and this election is far from over. He sites the youth vote is now shifting towards McCain in greater numbers while the elderly vote is shifting towards Obama likewise. Morris the other night on Fox News also stated that Obama has been "hemorrhaging votes" these last two weeks.
When most Conservatives are discourage at the gap between Obama and McCain in the polling, Morris, though his experience in running actual campaigns, knows better. He points out Obama is having great difficulty breaking 49% in the national polls as quoted in the Washington Post. He is looking at election day top down:
"It does not matter how wide or narrow the gap is between the two candidates. What matters is how far above or below 49 percent Obama is in the final polls (49 percent assumes that Ralph Nader gets 1 to 2 points as he did in 2004). Right now, Obama is straddling the 49 percent mark; about half the polls put him over it and half under it. If the final polling numbers indicate that Obama is not convincingly north of 49 percent, we are in for a long night."
He also believes that the "Undecided’s" will break heavily to McCain. I agree with this thinking and anticipate McCain will take these votes 2 to 1. With everything as bad as it is right now, if they haven't decided on Obama by now, they won't.
3) Obama also has had a stranglehold on the Hispanic vote to date. That might change in these last few days. As a population that has the iconic of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the patroness of the unborn, as a symbol that marks their ethnic identity , their heritage and core is pro-life. This is not compatible with pulling a lever for Obama.
Retired Bishop Rene H. Gracida sent out an e-mail in Spanish to 2.9 Million Hispanics instructing them to vote pro-life. The letter has been made into a radio commercial and will play in battle ground states over Spanish airways. This is a nightmare for the Obama campaign.
4) Finally, politics is all about reading the nuances. The Obama campaign, and their supporters in the media, are throwing out the idea that if Obama loses this campaign, while being so far ahead, it must be racism. It is not the middle class relating to "Joe the Plumber," it is not Obama’s stupid mistake of saying "spread the wealth", it is not the definition of the middle class that keeps being adjusted down, it is racism. The Obama campaign is hoping by making these remarks public it will make people feel guilty if they vote for McCain. This was mentioned on Fox News this AM as a quote from the Obama operatives, and others like Susan Estrich have been floating this out. This really speaks to the issue of how the Obama camp is feeling the tides turn and the pressure. Playing the race card has serious implications on the voting electorate and is never played from a position of strength.
So take heart this is not over yet.
1) Zogby cites that for the first time in many weeks, McCain polled higher than Obama (48% to 47% respectively) in yesterday’s daily poll taking independents and blue collar workers:
Pollster John Zogby: "Is McCain making a move? The three-day average holds steady, but McCain outpolled Obama today, 48% to 47%. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all. "Obama's lead among women declined, and it looks like it is occurring because McCain is solidifying the support of conservative women, which is something we saw last time McCain picked up in the polls."
2) Dick Morris stated yesterday on the Michael Medved radio show that McCain has an "excellent" chance to pull an upset. Morris claims large blocks of demographics are still shifting both ways and this election is far from over. He sites the youth vote is now shifting towards McCain in greater numbers while the elderly vote is shifting towards Obama likewise. Morris the other night on Fox News also stated that Obama has been "hemorrhaging votes" these last two weeks.
When most Conservatives are discourage at the gap between Obama and McCain in the polling, Morris, though his experience in running actual campaigns, knows better. He points out Obama is having great difficulty breaking 49% in the national polls as quoted in the Washington Post. He is looking at election day top down:
"It does not matter how wide or narrow the gap is between the two candidates. What matters is how far above or below 49 percent Obama is in the final polls (49 percent assumes that Ralph Nader gets 1 to 2 points as he did in 2004). Right now, Obama is straddling the 49 percent mark; about half the polls put him over it and half under it. If the final polling numbers indicate that Obama is not convincingly north of 49 percent, we are in for a long night."
He also believes that the "Undecided’s" will break heavily to McCain. I agree with this thinking and anticipate McCain will take these votes 2 to 1. With everything as bad as it is right now, if they haven't decided on Obama by now, they won't.
3) Obama also has had a stranglehold on the Hispanic vote to date. That might change in these last few days. As a population that has the iconic of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the patroness of the unborn, as a symbol that marks their ethnic identity , their heritage and core is pro-life. This is not compatible with pulling a lever for Obama.
Retired Bishop Rene H. Gracida sent out an e-mail in Spanish to 2.9 Million Hispanics instructing them to vote pro-life. The letter has been made into a radio commercial and will play in battle ground states over Spanish airways. This is a nightmare for the Obama campaign.
4) Finally, politics is all about reading the nuances. The Obama campaign, and their supporters in the media, are throwing out the idea that if Obama loses this campaign, while being so far ahead, it must be racism. It is not the middle class relating to "Joe the Plumber," it is not Obama’s stupid mistake of saying "spread the wealth", it is not the definition of the middle class that keeps being adjusted down, it is racism. The Obama campaign is hoping by making these remarks public it will make people feel guilty if they vote for McCain. This was mentioned on Fox News this AM as a quote from the Obama operatives, and others like Susan Estrich have been floating this out. This really speaks to the issue of how the Obama camp is feeling the tides turn and the pressure. Playing the race card has serious implications on the voting electorate and is never played from a position of strength.
So take heart this is not over yet.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Barack Obama's Citizenship: The Missing Ruler
On Sept. 27th, the lawyers of Barack Obama and the DNC made a motion to dismiss Democrat Philip Berg's lawsuit claiming that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the U.S., and therefore ineligible to run for President:
"Senator Obama and the Democratic National Committee claim in the accompanying brief that any harm done to Mr. Berg "would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance" and, therefore, Mr. Berg, as an individual voter "does not have standing based on harm he would suffer.""
So what this is saying is that Obama's lawyers are not arguing the fact that Obama is indeed a citizen, they are saying if he is not Mr. Berg will not incur enough damages individually to be entitled to this lawsuit.
I don't know about you, but if someone sues me for lying about my height I bring a ruler to court and end the lawsuit.
Obama's lawyers are now asking that this lawsuit be dismissed.
"Senator Obama and the Democratic National Committee claim in the accompanying brief that any harm done to Mr. Berg "would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance" and, therefore, Mr. Berg, as an individual voter "does not have standing based on harm he would suffer.""
So what this is saying is that Obama's lawyers are not arguing the fact that Obama is indeed a citizen, they are saying if he is not Mr. Berg will not incur enough damages individually to be entitled to this lawsuit.
I don't know about you, but if someone sues me for lying about my height I bring a ruler to court and end the lawsuit.
Obama's lawyers are now asking that this lawsuit be dismissed.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Obama's 57 U.S. States: Mistaken or Mispoken?
Rush Limbaugh has a piece on his web site that points out the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, an international organization with permanent delegations to the U.N., has 57 Muslim member states. Could this possible be where Obama got his "America has 57 states" from? It is far too random of a number to come from nowhere. Indonesia, where Obama spent time in his youth, is a member of this organization.
This opens up the question that Barack Obama may not be forthright in regard to his beliefs, or at least his tendencies. You couple this with his other misstatement of "my Muslim faith," on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and more questions could follow.
Please, let me be absolutely clear on this. There is nothing wrong with a person of the Muslim faith, or any other faith for that matter, running for the Presidency or any other political office in America. Their religion should be a non-determining factor. The problem occurs if someone is not being forthright about their beliefs since their beliefs are at the center of their core as a person. And if religious beliefs can be fudged by a person for political expediency, than anything can.
This opens up the question that Barack Obama may not be forthright in regard to his beliefs, or at least his tendencies. You couple this with his other misstatement of "my Muslim faith," on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and more questions could follow.
Please, let me be absolutely clear on this. There is nothing wrong with a person of the Muslim faith, or any other faith for that matter, running for the Presidency or any other political office in America. Their religion should be a non-determining factor. The problem occurs if someone is not being forthright about their beliefs since their beliefs are at the center of their core as a person. And if religious beliefs can be fudged by a person for political expediency, than anything can.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Barack Obama: Two Outta Three Aint Bad...
Here is something interesting:
To qualify to be the President of the United States, you must be at least 35 years of age, a resident of the U.S. for 14 years and a natural born citizen.
Philip J. Berg, a former Pennsylvanian Deputy Attorney General and the Democratic Party Chairman of Montgomery County, PA, filed a lawsuit against Barack Obama challenging his eligibility to serve as President. He claims that Obama is not a citizen of this country based on his grandmother and siblings stating he was physically born in Kenya. In addition, he states that Obama forfeited his U.S. citizenship in the past because he became a citizen of Indonesia. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship.
So why would a Democratic Party chairman cause Barack Obama this grief? He believes the Republicans know these facts and are going to drop a November 1st, bomb in the news media. Mr. Berg claims he is trying to prevent this.
Mr. Berg filed a motion of expedited discovery and deposition. Obama has to answer the lawsuit by September 24th.
It should be stated that Berg is a former Hillary supporter and has some extreme perceptions. But it is worth to note that this lawsuit is out there.
To qualify to be the President of the United States, you must be at least 35 years of age, a resident of the U.S. for 14 years and a natural born citizen.
Philip J. Berg, a former Pennsylvanian Deputy Attorney General and the Democratic Party Chairman of Montgomery County, PA, filed a lawsuit against Barack Obama challenging his eligibility to serve as President. He claims that Obama is not a citizen of this country based on his grandmother and siblings stating he was physically born in Kenya. In addition, he states that Obama forfeited his U.S. citizenship in the past because he became a citizen of Indonesia. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship.
So why would a Democratic Party chairman cause Barack Obama this grief? He believes the Republicans know these facts and are going to drop a November 1st, bomb in the news media. Mr. Berg claims he is trying to prevent this.
Mr. Berg filed a motion of expedited discovery and deposition. Obama has to answer the lawsuit by September 24th.
It should be stated that Berg is a former Hillary supporter and has some extreme perceptions. But it is worth to note that this lawsuit is out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![As Uncle Billy said in It’s a Wonderful Life, "Not every heel is [overseas…]"](http://www.onthecommons.org/media/image/large/Picture120090224120219.png){kind=link}
