May 6, 2013
Canadian Ted Cruz Ineligible to Be President

Ted Cruz, the freshman senator from Texas and the newest Tea Party favorite, is leaving open the possibility of a run for the White House in 2016. Were he to win election, he will by that time have had fairly little experience in Washington, and yet more than double the experience, in terms of years, that then-Senator Barack Obama had when he determined to plague the nation by becoming the 44th president.

I very much respect and admire Sen. Cruz for what the media, were the man a Democrat, would call fearless conviction, but because he is not a member of the political party they so venerate, they call abrasive McCarthyism—a compliment, in my mind, as I view Senator Joe McCarthy to have been one of the most important and beneficently influential senators in American history.

For all my approval of Cruz as a Senator, I am unable to support his current evident ambition to run for president; Cruz, having been born a Canadian, does not meet the Constitutional requirement that our presidents, save those in America’s early history who were born in England, be “natural born citizens,” a term that has traditionally and continually, until recently, been interpreted as meaning America-born.

“Until recently” because, at least according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, “The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as native-born citizens, those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”

Cruz also attempted to mitigate any concern we Cruz “birthers” have by saying recently in an interview with Fox News, “My mom was a U.S. citizen, so I am a citizen by birth.”

That he was a citizen at birth may be the case, but it is also irrelevant in my mind, regardless of what the CRS says; Cruz was not born on American soil. This concern still is only half of the problem I have had and still have with a certain other person’s natural-born status, and I must remain consistent and not play party politics by giving Cruz a pass on my misgivings.

Still, it is a possibility that I could be persuaded to abandon this belief I have and eventually come to accept Cruz’s natural-born status and, adhering to a single standard, also accept that other person’s natural-born status. In that event, however, the additional fact would remain that that other person was born with dual citizenship, which, in accordance with court precedent, nullifies natural-born status.

Isn’t it odd, though, that calling into question the elective eligibility of one man designates me in the eyes of the left as a crazy racist, but doing the same for another man who shares my political persuasion, and who, by the way, is also only 50-percent white, designates me as simply silly?

October 26, 2012

Anonymous asked: Donald Trump is an ass. You shouldn't need a bribe to donate to charity. You should just do it yourself if you want to. He's making himself look bad, not Obama.

He is an ass. He does donate to charity. And HE would not be donating to a charity, since it’s not the charity of his choice. He’s essentially giving the money to Obama with the promise from Obama that it goes to whatever charity of OBAMA’S choice. Why would Obama deny poor urban kids $5 million? What is in his records that he feels the need to keep them sealed (because he’s the most transparent president EVURR, like omigawd!) and deny money to poor people? If it doesn’t raise your suspicions, well…the nicest way to put it is to say you have the innocence of a child.

October 25, 2012
Donald’s Bombshell: Trumped-Up, but Still Brilliant

Nobody knows how to trump up a story quite like the Donald.

When he announced a few days ago that he would be releasing on Wednesday a “bombshell” story about President Obama, I admit, I was intrigued. Okay, fine, I was hooked.

Searching the Internet for any clues as to what this October surprise from Mr. Trump would be, I came across a story about divorce papers between Barack and Michelle Obama from around twelve years ago.

If this was the bombshell, I thought, Trump is going to get Obama re-elected.

Because if there were divorce papers pending signatures from the Obamas and they were able to work out their problems and come to celebrate twenty years of marriage earlier this month, it would make Barack much more likable.

He would go on all the talk shows with his wife and they would describe the trials their marriage faced and how they ultimately pulled together and made it work, and now their marriage is stronger than ever. And if Trump had brought the almost-divorce to public knowledge, it would create a sympathetic character out of Obama.

As it turns out Donald Trump’s big bombshell is merely the potential of a bombshell, but still, I think, a brilliant move. Yes, I said it: Trump did something brilliant.

Trump released yesterday a public statement in which he pledged to donate $5 million to the charity of Barack Obama’s choice—any charity at all—if Obama releases his passport information and his college records, papers that Obama has paid quite a sum to keep sealed from the public, Mr. Transparency though he may be.

Obama has one week to release the requested information in order for Trump to follow through with his side of the offer.

So what charities might our President want to have Trump send his money?

How about NARAL Pro-Choice America, Mr. President? You could help re-secure the female vote by giving five million dollars to an organization the cause of which you seem to believe is the number-one issue for females (because as you and your Democratic friends know, females don’t care about such adult issues as the economy and finances).

Or how about the Inner-City Foundation or Urban Youth Impact to help educate and provide for the poor, helpless kids living in ghettos, for whom you claim to be such a strong advocate?

Of course Obama will not oblige Trump. It’s not going to happen. Which begs the question: What could possibly be in Barack Obama’s college transcripts and passport records that would make him want to deprive these women and children from $5 million?

August 18, 2012
Why Did Obama Sign an Executive Order Sealing Up All His Records?

He did it on his third day in office. Because he’s so “transparent.”

What’s in your college transcripts, Obama? And how, at a time when it was illegal for U.S. citizens to travel to Pakistan, were you able to travel to Pakistan?

May 27, 2012
Obama’s Biographical Blurb

From Roger Kimball at PJMedia:

An agency spokesman who claims to have been responsible for the “born in Kenya” wheeze has publicly said that it was a mistake, a typographical error, a slip of the pen that just went “unchecked” for, um, sixteen-seventeen years. I can understand that. She meant to write “Hawaii” and wrote “Kenya” instead. Could happen to anyone. They look and sound enough alike, don’t they,  that no one noticed. You meant to write “there” and you wrote “their” instead. You meant to write “cup” and you wrote “floccinaucinihilipilification” instead. No one—no one at the literary agency, not the author himself—could be expected to notice. You understand that, right?

May 27, 2012
There Are No Liberal Investigative Journalists in Existence Anymore

From Monte Kuligowski at American Thinker:

Mr. Obama’s Acton & Dystel bio is fairly lengthy and detailed.  To believe that Obama had no knowledge of the born-in-Kenya “error” requires more than just believing he didn’t sign off on it.  We would also have to believe that Obama didn’t care to read his bio in the 36-page promotional booklet after publication and distribution.  That is also a huge stretch.  Did Obama get a copy?  Of course he did — that’s another publishing standard.

….

Prior to the Breitbart bombshell, we had countless oddities and anomalies.  There’s the African folklore: African newspapers, officials, and paternal family members have indicated that Obama was born in Mombasa.  There are no living witnesses to Obama’s Hawaii birth.  There’s the island state with a documented history of registering foreign births as Hawaiian.  There were the ambiguous and misleading words of its officials concerning what the Department of Health has in its archives relating to Obama.  There was Obama’s sideshow spectacle of uploading his “birth certificate” to the internet in 2008 only to abruptly “release” the reportedly nonexistent birth certificate in 2011 (again online) after fighting its production in court after court for over three years.

May 25, 2012

May 19, 2012

mrconservative101:

Obama doesn’t know his own birthday

May 19, 2012
Here’s a screenshot I just took of Yahoo’s front page. The headline links to a Reuters article (Reuters is a decent news source, but the writer of this particular article belies in this tease alone his party affiliation.)
Notice anything sort of…weird about this screenshot?
Under the headline, it says, “Arizona’s secretary of state asks to see proof in order to put the president on November’s ballot.” But then look at what it says right after that: “Romney link.”
In other words, what the author, a Mr. Tim Gaynor, did after hearing the story about Arizona’s secretary of state, Ken Bennett, wanting proof of Obama’s eligibility was to immediately find out if there was some way to connect the man with Romney. You know, cheer-leading for Obama by way of joining Obama’s smear campaign.
Yes, you can connect Romney with Bennett—Bennett is co-chairman of Romney’s AZ campaign—but Bennett’s request for eligibility proof has nothing whatsoever to do with Romney. Nothing. Why should Mitt Romney’s name come up anywhere in this article at all? It’s as irrelevant as it would be to mention Bennett’s second-cousin’s neighbor’s brother.

Here’s a screenshot I just took of Yahoo’s front page. The headline links to a Reuters article (Reuters is a decent news source, but the writer of this particular article belies in this tease alone his party affiliation.)

Notice anything sort of…weird about this screenshot?

Under the headline, it says, “Arizona’s secretary of state asks to see proof in order to put the president on November’s ballot.” But then look at what it says right after that: “Romney link.”

In other words, what the author, a Mr. Tim Gaynor, did after hearing the story about Arizona’s secretary of state, Ken Bennett, wanting proof of Obama’s eligibility was to immediately find out if there was some way to connect the man with Romney. You know, cheer-leading for Obama by way of joining Obama’s smear campaign.

Yes, you can connect Romney with Bennett—Bennett is co-chairman of Romney’s AZ campaign—but Bennett’s request for eligibility proof has nothing whatsoever to do with Romney. Nothing. Why should Mitt Romney’s name come up anywhere in this article at all? It’s as irrelevant as it would be to mention Bennett’s second-cousin’s neighbor’s brother.

May 18, 2012

This patriot’s eyes are open to the media bias.

May 18, 2012
A ‘Fact Checking Error’—Again, and Again, and Again…

No excerpts here. Just read it. Scandal unfolding right before our eyes, and the media isn’t the least bit curious. It’s fascinating.

(Source: breitbart.com)

May 18, 2012
Obama’s Lit Agent: We Asked Writers to Submit Their Own Bios

Submission guidelines at the Dystel & Goderich website (original emphasis): “[Y]ou should describe in two or three sentences—no more—what the book will be about. This is followed by another brief paragraph on why it is being written and then another on why you are qualified to write it….Finally, there should be a more formal narrative Bio of the author.

It was not a factual error on Dystel & Goderich’s part to claim that Obama was born in Kenya; Obama wrote that biohimself. Obama claimed he was born in Kenya.

Obama is a birther. Impeach this SOB. 

(Source: breitbart.com)

May 18, 2012

templedrake asked: Yo protip: If you want to be a credible political commentator you should practice what you preach. My latest blog post is dedicated to you. Protip two: Maybe you should read all of the Fox news bias controversies and scandals before making such ridiculous claims that all other media are arms of the Democrats.

1) All other media outlets are supporters of Obama. They all endorse him. You can see examples of their love for him every day. Name me any non-Fox network and I can pull up 100 examples at least.

2) Of course Fox is right-wing. This would only matter, though, if all the other 8 or so networks were not left-wing. Conservatives have one network, liberals have the rest of the media. I think you can relax. Also, Fox News has more Democrats working for them than the combined total of Republicans working for the other main networks. So they’re more balanced. ALSO also, it’s better to expose the truth and then take it a step further with exaggeration (as some on Fox do) than to completely obscure and censor the truth (as the other networks do). Even big-name, outspokenly liberal reporters have acknowledged there’s a definite liberal bias in the media. They didn’t mind admitting this, though, because (a) they know it’s so obvious that everybody sees it, and to deny it would be foolish, and (b) they’re proud of the fact.

[Her latest blog post that she mentioned was about birthers, and why are we “distracting” with it.]

3) America has a Constitution, a Constitution which has provided us with the most prosperity over the longest period of time than any other nation in the history of mankind. The Constitution is the law. We abide by laws here. The Constitution says Obama isn’t eligible to be president. I am not running for president, so there’s no reason why I can’t bring it up. If Romney brought it up, I’d be pissed, because he’d take the focus away from what most people care about: the economy. This is what Obama is doing, though. If he could run on his record, he would. He can’t, so he isn’t. There’s no reason liberal citizens shouldn’t talk about their gay issues and stuff; it’s only a distraction when the intent is to, well, distract, as is Obama’s intent with it. And Romney’s dog. And Romney’s bullying, which Obama did too (he pushed a girl down the stairs). And a “war on women” that the Democrats created, only for it to blow up in their faces when they revealed that they only care about liberal women (you know, their voting bloc). If Romney ran against Obama by starting the dog controversy—that is, if Romney were the first one to mention dogs, saying that Obama ate some chow-chow chow—that would be a distraction. But there’s no reason others can’t have fun with it. I mean, Obama wanted to talk about dogs, fine, we’ll talk about dogs. (Then the moment we talked about dogs, they said, “This is silly to talk about dogs, can’t we get back to the issues that everybody cares about, like gay marriage?”)

May 17, 2012
Obama’s Literary Agent

Obama’s literary agent is now saying they made a mistake in 1991 by writing in their biographical blurb of Obama that he was born in Kenya.

Question: What the frick kind of random mistake is that to make? Why would they accidentally write that he was born in Kenya when, back in 1991, there was no controversy over his birth certificate? Why, out of the 196-ish countries on Earth, did the literary agent just happen to say Obama was born in the one country that we birthers say he was born in?

Answer: Obama’s literary agent—no doubt a Democrat and fan of Obama—is lying to save Obama. If Obama’s grandma says she was present at Obama’s birth in Mombasa, Kenya, and if a Kenyan ambassador says Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, where they have a plaque commemorating his birth, and if Kenyan newspapers announced that “Kenyan-born” Obama was elected president in 2008, and if a newspaper in America stated in 2004 that the “Kenyan-born” Obama won his state Senate election, and if Michelle Obama says Obama’s home country is Kenya, and if Barack Obama himself says in Kenya to a crowd, “I’m so proud to be back home,” well I think it’s safe to say Obama was born in Kenya, and I think that’s why Obama’s literary agent stated he was born in Kenya. And besides, why didn’t Obama contest their bio-blurb about him? Because there was nothing to contest.

If this were any other president, the media would be all over what they would rightly call the greatest scandal in American history. They’d be all over it because it would earn them Pulitzers out the wazoo! But because it’s a Democrat president—one of the media’s own party—they refuse to do their duty. They refuse to do the one thing in their job description: investigate.

It is utterly corrupt. Third-world dictatorships wish they had a news media as compliant with their government as our media is with our government.

May 17, 2012

talkstraight:

Obama in Kenya, 2006: “I am so proud to come back home.”

Wow. Wow. Can we impeach him now?

(via communismkills)

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »