Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 12/30/2008 8:00:00 AM
Planned Parenthood has been shut down in the Texas panhandle.
American Life League's (ALL) Stop Planned Parenthood, or Stopp International, says it took a long time, but their campaign against Planned Parenthood finally got some results. "For 12 years in the Texas panhandle, there has been a fight against Planned Parenthood," he notes. "Planned Parenthood, in 1997, operated 19 clinics in the Texas panhandle."
Then the state reduced funding for the organization, and pro-life workers also continued in their efforts to shut Planned Parenthood's doors. "And as of December 31, there will no longer be any Planned Parenthood offices in the Texas panhandle," Sedlak explains. "They will all be gone."
The two remaining clinics in Amarillo have disaffiliated with the national organization. Sedlak says other cities can accomplish the same goal if they are determined, and information on that is available on the Stopp website.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Ammunition Accountability Act
Well... they can't take our guns because they are Constitutionally protected, but they are useless without the non-protected ammunition. Apparently, ammo, isn't protected by the Constitution. Please start writing to legislators and Congressmen to get them to stop this invasive Act. It's just one more freedom taken away. This is the sample legislation from California that is also being considered by 18 other states, so far.
Ammunition Accountability Act
SAMPLE LEGISLATION
An ACT relating to firearms and ammunition; requiring [AGENCY] to establish a statewide
database to track coded ammunition manufactured and sold for handguns and assault rifles.
Section 1. Legislative Findings.
The State Legislature hereby finds the following:
Each year in the United States, more than 30% of all homicides that involve a gun go
unsolved.
Handgun ammunition accounts for 80% of all ammunition sold in the United States.
Current technology for matching a bullet used in a crime to the gun that fired it has
worked moderately well for years, but presupposes that the weapon was recovered by
law enforcement.
Bullet coding is a new and effective way for law enforcement to quickly identify persons
of interest in gun crime investigations.
Section 2. Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter, “coded ammunition” means a bullet carrying a
unique identifier that has been applied by etching onto the base of the bullet projectile.
Section 3. Prohibition on possession or sale of non-coded ammunition.
1. All handgun and assault weapon ammunition manufactured or sold in the state after
January 1, 2009, shall be coded by the manufacturer.
a. The calibers covered by the coding requirement shall include: [LIST
CALIBERS].
2. No later than January 1, 2011, all non-coded ammunition for the calibers listed in this
chapter, whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets, must be disposed.
Section 4. Authority to establish an Ammunition Coding Database.
1. [AGENCY] shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining an Ammunition Coding
Database (ACD) containing the following information:
a. Manufacturer registry – Manufacturers shall:
i. Register with [AGENCY] in a manner prescribed by the department
through rule; and
ii. Maintain records on the business premises for a period of seven
years concerning all sales, loans, and transfers of ammunition, to,
from, or within the state.
b. Vendor registry – Vendors shall
i. Register with [AGENCY] in a manner prescribed by the department
through rule; and
ii. Record the following information in a format prescribed by the
[AGENCY]:
a. The date of the transaction.
b. The name of the transferee.
c. The purchaser’s driver’s license number or other
government issued identification card number
d. The date of birth of the purchaser.
e. The unique identifier of all handgun ammunition or
bullets transferred.
f. All other information prescribed by [AGENCY].
iii. Maintain records on the business premises for a period of three
years from the date of the recorded purchase.
2. To the greatest extent possible or practical, the ACD shall be built within the framework
of existing firearms databases. The ACD shall be operational no later than January 1,
2009.
3. Privacy of individuals is of the utmost importance. Access to information in the ACSD is
reserved for key law enforcement personnel and to be released only in connection with a
criminal investigation.
NEW SECTION: Section 5. Penalties
1. Any vendor that willfully fails to comply with, or falsifies the records required to be kept
by this bill is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one
year, and a fine of $1,000.
2. Any manufacturer that fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be liable for
a civil fine of not more than one $1,000 for a first violation, not more than five $5,000 for
a second violation, and not more $10,000 for a third and subsequent violation.
3. Any person who willfully destroys, obliterates, or otherwise renders unreadable, the
serialization required pursuant to this bill, on any bullet or assembled ammunition is
punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one year, and a fine of $1,000.
NEW SECTION: Section 6. Funding.
1. Establishing and maintaining the ACD shall be funded by an end-user fee not to
exceed [COST NUMBER, ESTIMATED AT $0.005 PER BULLET OR ROUND
OF AMMUNITION].
2. There is hereby established the Coded Ammunition Fund for deposit of the end-
user fees described in this section. Moneys in the fund, upon appropriation, shall
be available to the [AGENCY] for infrastructure, implementation, operational,
enforcement, and future development costs of this chapter.
3. Ammunition manufacturers based within this state may submit a one-time tax
credit application for cost of purchasing ammunition coding equipment. All
applications must be submitted by January 1, 2009.
-- END --
NOTE: To view a more detailed version of Ammunition Coding Database legislation that was proposed in other
states, visit www.ammunitionaccountability.org. Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs can also
provide drafting guidance. Contact Briahna Taylor at (253) 620-6640 or btaylor@gth-gov.com
Ammunition Accountability Act
SAMPLE LEGISLATION
An ACT relating to firearms and ammunition; requiring [AGENCY] to establish a statewide
database to track coded ammunition manufactured and sold for handguns and assault rifles.
Section 1. Legislative Findings.
The State Legislature hereby finds the following:
Each year in the United States, more than 30% of all homicides that involve a gun go
unsolved.
Handgun ammunition accounts for 80% of all ammunition sold in the United States.
Current technology for matching a bullet used in a crime to the gun that fired it has
worked moderately well for years, but presupposes that the weapon was recovered by
law enforcement.
Bullet coding is a new and effective way for law enforcement to quickly identify persons
of interest in gun crime investigations.
Section 2. Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter, “coded ammunition” means a bullet carrying a
unique identifier that has been applied by etching onto the base of the bullet projectile.
Section 3. Prohibition on possession or sale of non-coded ammunition.
1. All handgun and assault weapon ammunition manufactured or sold in the state after
January 1, 2009, shall be coded by the manufacturer.
a. The calibers covered by the coding requirement shall include: [LIST
CALIBERS].
2. No later than January 1, 2011, all non-coded ammunition for the calibers listed in this
chapter, whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets, must be disposed.
Section 4. Authority to establish an Ammunition Coding Database.
1. [AGENCY] shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining an Ammunition Coding
Database (ACD) containing the following information:
a. Manufacturer registry – Manufacturers shall:
i. Register with [AGENCY] in a manner prescribed by the department
through rule; and
ii. Maintain records on the business premises for a period of seven
years concerning all sales, loans, and transfers of ammunition, to,
from, or within the state.
b. Vendor registry – Vendors shall
i. Register with [AGENCY] in a manner prescribed by the department
through rule; and
ii. Record the following information in a format prescribed by the
[AGENCY]:
a. The date of the transaction.
b. The name of the transferee.
c. The purchaser’s driver’s license number or other
government issued identification card number
d. The date of birth of the purchaser.
e. The unique identifier of all handgun ammunition or
bullets transferred.
f. All other information prescribed by [AGENCY].
iii. Maintain records on the business premises for a period of three
years from the date of the recorded purchase.
2. To the greatest extent possible or practical, the ACD shall be built within the framework
of existing firearms databases. The ACD shall be operational no later than January 1,
2009.
3. Privacy of individuals is of the utmost importance. Access to information in the ACSD is
reserved for key law enforcement personnel and to be released only in connection with a
criminal investigation.
NEW SECTION: Section 5. Penalties
1. Any vendor that willfully fails to comply with, or falsifies the records required to be kept
by this bill is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one
year, and a fine of $1,000.
2. Any manufacturer that fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be liable for
a civil fine of not more than one $1,000 for a first violation, not more than five $5,000 for
a second violation, and not more $10,000 for a third and subsequent violation.
3. Any person who willfully destroys, obliterates, or otherwise renders unreadable, the
serialization required pursuant to this bill, on any bullet or assembled ammunition is
punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one year, and a fine of $1,000.
NEW SECTION: Section 6. Funding.
1. Establishing and maintaining the ACD shall be funded by an end-user fee not to
exceed [COST NUMBER, ESTIMATED AT $0.005 PER BULLET OR ROUND
OF AMMUNITION].
2. There is hereby established the Coded Ammunition Fund for deposit of the end-
user fees described in this section. Moneys in the fund, upon appropriation, shall
be available to the [AGENCY] for infrastructure, implementation, operational,
enforcement, and future development costs of this chapter.
3. Ammunition manufacturers based within this state may submit a one-time tax
credit application for cost of purchasing ammunition coding equipment. All
applications must be submitted by January 1, 2009.
-- END --
NOTE: To view a more detailed version of Ammunition Coding Database legislation that was proposed in other
states, visit www.ammunitionaccountability.org. Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs can also
provide drafting guidance. Contact Briahna Taylor at (253) 620-6640 or btaylor@gth-gov.com
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Interesting Opinion Article About Obama and Election
A plan to survive the Obama years
By Z. DWIGHT BILLINGSLY
Here is the story.
As Jack Buck once said, "I don't believe what I just saw!" Americans on
Nov. 4 turned over control of the United States of America to a management
team possessing no executive experience, having never run, as I liked to
put it, nothing.
Well, Americans usually get the government they deserve, and I urge you all
to get ready for this 21st century version of amateur hour. It's going to
be an embarrassing and dangerous time for America and American ideals.
There won't be much, I'm afraid, to be thankful for.
Bill Kristol, writing in The Weekly Standard, reminded me that every 16
years we get a Democrat president with no experience in national security
or international affairs who's elected after Republican presidents have
made and kept America safe: After Eisenhower, we got Kennedy; after
Nixon/Ford, we got Carter; after Reagan/Bush, we got Clinton. And after
Bush II, we get Barack Obama.
Every strong Republican president who succeeded in protecting America has
allowed Americans to become complacent about national security, thereby
opening the door for weak Democrats who allowed enemies to threaten and
attack America without penalty. Obama will be no different, and Americans
will have to learn again that there can be no economic security without
national security.
That's not to say that Obama's election doesn't come with a couple of
interesting side effects. For example, henceforth no black man in America
may be called unqualified for any job that he might seek, no matter his
prior education or experience level. Want to be a nuclear scientist but
lack a Ph.D. in physics? If the applicant is a black man, it's no problem.
Just offer hope to the profession and promise change from all those stuffy
theorems that have given the discipline its structure over the years, and
you're in.
That's on a par with throwing out the fact that tax cuts lead to more
investment, job creation and increasing government revenues, just because
the black man, that transcendent agent of change, says it's OK.
Another side effect has been white people contacting me to say that I
should be proud to see a black man become president. Could there be a
comment that is more condescending, more insulting, than that? If I
believed that in America a black man could not be president, then I would
be proud to see any black man elected president. But because I always have
believed that nothing in America prevents a black man from becoming
president or anything else he wants to be, I can be embarrassed, not proud,
to see someone as unqualified and inexperienced as Obama become president.
Jackie Robinson, the first black man in modern-day major league baseball,
illustrates my point. He was the right man with the right combination of
talent, temperament and character at the right time to be successful for
that important "first." Obama? An empty suit who will fail.
I'm going to approach the Obama years the same way liberals handled the
Iraq war. Just as they claimed to support our troops while opposing the
war, I'm going to support my country while opposing Obama and what he
stands for in every way that I can. It's only four years and with the
astute Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky as Senate minority leader,
Republicans can stop the Obama extremists for two years until mid-term
elections in 2010 give Republicans the boost in Congress that inevitably
will come.
And in 2012, we'll have Sarah Palin to clean up Obama's mess and remind us
again of America's exceptionalism.
Z. Dwight Billingsly is a principal of Branford Gateway Investment Co. and
a financial services industry specialist for the Missouri Department of
Economic Development. He serves as co-chair of the Missouri Spectrum
political action committee, an auxiliary of the Missouri Republican Party.
E-mail: zdbcomment@gmail.com
By Z. DWIGHT BILLINGSLY
Here is the story.
As Jack Buck once said, "I don't believe what I just saw!" Americans on
Nov. 4 turned over control of the United States of America to a management
team possessing no executive experience, having never run, as I liked to
put it, nothing.
Well, Americans usually get the government they deserve, and I urge you all
to get ready for this 21st century version of amateur hour. It's going to
be an embarrassing and dangerous time for America and American ideals.
There won't be much, I'm afraid, to be thankful for.
Bill Kristol, writing in The Weekly Standard, reminded me that every 16
years we get a Democrat president with no experience in national security
or international affairs who's elected after Republican presidents have
made and kept America safe: After Eisenhower, we got Kennedy; after
Nixon/Ford, we got Carter; after Reagan/Bush, we got Clinton. And after
Bush II, we get Barack Obama.
Every strong Republican president who succeeded in protecting America has
allowed Americans to become complacent about national security, thereby
opening the door for weak Democrats who allowed enemies to threaten and
attack America without penalty. Obama will be no different, and Americans
will have to learn again that there can be no economic security without
national security.
That's not to say that Obama's election doesn't come with a couple of
interesting side effects. For example, henceforth no black man in America
may be called unqualified for any job that he might seek, no matter his
prior education or experience level. Want to be a nuclear scientist but
lack a Ph.D. in physics? If the applicant is a black man, it's no problem.
Just offer hope to the profession and promise change from all those stuffy
theorems that have given the discipline its structure over the years, and
you're in.
That's on a par with throwing out the fact that tax cuts lead to more
investment, job creation and increasing government revenues, just because
the black man, that transcendent agent of change, says it's OK.
Another side effect has been white people contacting me to say that I
should be proud to see a black man become president. Could there be a
comment that is more condescending, more insulting, than that? If I
believed that in America a black man could not be president, then I would
be proud to see any black man elected president. But because I always have
believed that nothing in America prevents a black man from becoming
president or anything else he wants to be, I can be embarrassed, not proud,
to see someone as unqualified and inexperienced as Obama become president.
Jackie Robinson, the first black man in modern-day major league baseball,
illustrates my point. He was the right man with the right combination of
talent, temperament and character at the right time to be successful for
that important "first." Obama? An empty suit who will fail.
I'm going to approach the Obama years the same way liberals handled the
Iraq war. Just as they claimed to support our troops while opposing the
war, I'm going to support my country while opposing Obama and what he
stands for in every way that I can. It's only four years and with the
astute Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky as Senate minority leader,
Republicans can stop the Obama extremists for two years until mid-term
elections in 2010 give Republicans the boost in Congress that inevitably
will come.
And in 2012, we'll have Sarah Palin to clean up Obama's mess and remind us
again of America's exceptionalism.
Z. Dwight Billingsly is a principal of Branford Gateway Investment Co. and
a financial services industry specialist for the Missouri Department of
Economic Development. He serves as co-chair of the Missouri Spectrum
political action committee, an auxiliary of the Missouri Republican Party.
E-mail: zdbcomment@gmail.com
U.S. sides with traditional marriage...for now
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 12/26/2008 9:30:00 AM
The United States has refused to sign on to a United Nations declaration on sexual orientation.
In all, 67 nations have signed the declaration submitted by France. Piero Tozzi of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, or C-FAM, explains the document's assertions. "It basically called upon recognition of two new categories in human rights, one based on sexual orientation and the other one on gender identity," he notes.
Tozzi says the statement's purpose is to decriminalize homosexual conduct. For now, he contends there is no cause for alarm, but the situation could change in the future.
"There is no binding impact. It is purely a moral statement, but once it's in the UN system as it were, it will likely be referenced by advocates," he points out. "And the statements from the French government official Rama Yade said that this is not the end; it is only the beginning."
In spite of homosexual marriage being illegal in 70 nations, Tozzi believes it will achieve international acceptance eventually. He adds that while the United States did not sign on to the declaration, the incoming Obama administration might think differently.
The United States has refused to sign on to a United Nations declaration on sexual orientation.
In all, 67 nations have signed the declaration submitted by France. Piero Tozzi of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, or C-FAM, explains the document's assertions. "It basically called upon recognition of two new categories in human rights, one based on sexual orientation and the other one on gender identity," he notes.
Tozzi says the statement's purpose is to decriminalize homosexual conduct. For now, he contends there is no cause for alarm, but the situation could change in the future.
"There is no binding impact. It is purely a moral statement, but once it's in the UN system as it were, it will likely be referenced by advocates," he points out. "And the statements from the French government official Rama Yade said that this is not the end; it is only the beginning."
In spite of homosexual marriage being illegal in 70 nations, Tozzi believes it will achieve international acceptance eventually. He adds that while the United States did not sign on to the declaration, the incoming Obama administration might think differently.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Obama planning billion-dollar 'bailout' for abortion industry
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 12/18/2008 6:00:00 AM
A pro-life group in Washington has launched a campaign to oppose what it calls president-elect Barack Obama's planned $1.5 billion "bailout" of the abortion industry.
Last week, the Obama-Biden Transition Project posted a report on its website that calls for dramatic policy reversals on abortion, including $1 billion in taxpayer money for international abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. The report, titled "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration," also calls for a 133-percent increase in funding for the Title X program, which funds Planned Parenthood clinics across the country.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, is hoping a Republican-led effort in the Senate will block Obama's plan to substantially increase taxpayer funding of the abortion industry.
"This billion-dollar bailout of the abortion industry comes at a time, number one, when the economy is suffering dramatically with true need. And number two, it communicates an incredible depth of arrogance, especially when you consider that the vast majority of Americans -- men and women, no matter who you talk to -- they don't believe that people who don't believe in abortion should be funding it," she contends. "Most Americans don't believe that we should be funding abortions, especially in a time of economic crisis."
The Susan B. Anthony List has started a "Stop the Abortion Bailout" campaign designed to recruit thousands of activists to send letters to their senators "with the goal of securing the 41 votes necessary to sustain a Senate filibuster of the abortion bailout."
A pro-life group in Washington has launched a campaign to oppose what it calls president-elect Barack Obama's planned $1.5 billion "bailout" of the abortion industry.
Last week, the Obama-Biden Transition Project posted a report on its website that calls for dramatic policy reversals on abortion, including $1 billion in taxpayer money for international abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. The report, titled "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration," also calls for a 133-percent increase in funding for the Title X program, which funds Planned Parenthood clinics across the country.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, is hoping a Republican-led effort in the Senate will block Obama's plan to substantially increase taxpayer funding of the abortion industry.
"This billion-dollar bailout of the abortion industry comes at a time, number one, when the economy is suffering dramatically with true need. And number two, it communicates an incredible depth of arrogance, especially when you consider that the vast majority of Americans -- men and women, no matter who you talk to -- they don't believe that people who don't believe in abortion should be funding it," she contends. "Most Americans don't believe that we should be funding abortions, especially in a time of economic crisis."
The Susan B. Anthony List has started a "Stop the Abortion Bailout" campaign designed to recruit thousands of activists to send letters to their senators "with the goal of securing the 41 votes necessary to sustain a Senate filibuster of the abortion bailout."
Jerry Brown is at it again... California Attorney-General turns against Prop 8
Lisa Leff - Associated Press Writer - 12/20/2008 7:05:00 AM
SAN FRANCISCO - California's attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now joining forces with homosexual activists to overturn the results of Proposition 8.
In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.
But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution.
"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."
Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.
He submitted his brief in one of the three legal challenges to Proposition 8 brought by same-sex marriage supporters. The measure, a constitutional amendment that passed with 52 percent of the vote, overruled the state Supreme Court decision last spring that briefly legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.
Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the attorney general's change of strategy "a major development."
"The fact that after looking at this he shifted his position and is really bucking convention by not defending Prop. 8 signals very clearly that this proposition can not be defended," Minter said.
The sponsors of Proposition 8 argued for the first time Friday that the court should undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month.
The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and a former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.
Both Brown and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.
Starr's co-counsel Andrew Pugno said Brown's decision to challenge the voter-approved measure and the argument advanced by the attorney general was "totally unprecedented."
"His legal duty as attorney general of the state is to defend initiatives passed by the voters," he said.
The state Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation in March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.
SAN FRANCISCO - California's attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now joining forces with homosexual activists to overturn the results of Proposition 8.
In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.
But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution.
"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."
Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, is considering seeking the office again in 2010. After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he personally voted against it but would fight to uphold it as the state's top lawyer.
He submitted his brief in one of the three legal challenges to Proposition 8 brought by same-sex marriage supporters. The measure, a constitutional amendment that passed with 52 percent of the vote, overruled the state Supreme Court decision last spring that briefly legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.
Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the attorney general's change of strategy "a major development."
"The fact that after looking at this he shifted his position and is really bucking convention by not defending Prop. 8 signals very clearly that this proposition can not be defended," Minter said.
The sponsors of Proposition 8 argued for the first time Friday that the court should undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month.
The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and a former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.
Both Brown and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.
Starr's co-counsel Andrew Pugno said Brown's decision to challenge the voter-approved measure and the argument advanced by the attorney general was "totally unprecedented."
"His legal duty as attorney general of the state is to defend initiatives passed by the voters," he said.
The state Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation in March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.
What news is your child getting at school?
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 12/20/2008 5:20:00 AM
Parents Television Council is discussing the strengths and pitfalls Channel One news.
Channel One, a television network targeting teens, has been pumped into middle and high schools across America since 1990. Schools enter contracts with Channel One in exchange for media equipment, and those contracts require the network to be aired throughout the school.
Gavin McKernan, a spokesperson with the Parents Television Council (PTC), says although Channel One delivers important news to students, it often adds inappropriate content to its program.
"Unfortunately this station, a lot of times, has been marketing things that are not appropriate for youth," he contends. "And...on their website, for instance, [they] have been marketing for shows like 90210 and Gossip Girl and these [types of shows]."
McKernan also notes Channel One is heavy on advertising and even promotes some things that parents might not want their children to see.
According to McKernan, PTC does not receive many complaints because parents, as well as the PTC, are barred from monitoring the station's content. He adds that PTC has asked to monitor Channel One, but has been denied.
The company that owns Channel One also owns Bus Radio. Bus Radio offers a similar contract in that bus drivers are required to have the station on at all times. McKernan says some bus drivers have complained that they do not like the music or ads, but are forced to keep it on because of the contract.
He believes both Channel One and Bus Radio represent a perversion of the school system in that they basically use a captive audience in order to increase market share. McKernan says parents need to have more control over what their children are exposed to at school.
Parents Television Council is discussing the strengths and pitfalls Channel One news.
Channel One, a television network targeting teens, has been pumped into middle and high schools across America since 1990. Schools enter contracts with Channel One in exchange for media equipment, and those contracts require the network to be aired throughout the school.
Gavin McKernan, a spokesperson with the Parents Television Council (PTC), says although Channel One delivers important news to students, it often adds inappropriate content to its program.
"Unfortunately this station, a lot of times, has been marketing things that are not appropriate for youth," he contends. "And...on their website, for instance, [they] have been marketing for shows like 90210 and Gossip Girl and these [types of shows]."
McKernan also notes Channel One is heavy on advertising and even promotes some things that parents might not want their children to see.
According to McKernan, PTC does not receive many complaints because parents, as well as the PTC, are barred from monitoring the station's content. He adds that PTC has asked to monitor Channel One, but has been denied.
The company that owns Channel One also owns Bus Radio. Bus Radio offers a similar contract in that bus drivers are required to have the station on at all times. McKernan says some bus drivers have complained that they do not like the music or ads, but are forced to keep it on because of the contract.
He believes both Channel One and Bus Radio represent a perversion of the school system in that they basically use a captive audience in order to increase market share. McKernan says parents need to have more control over what their children are exposed to at school.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
“PRESIDENT?” CHESTER ARTHUR et al - WHY THEY AREN’T PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY
Very interesting article by the very person who will have his case reviewed by the Supreme Court Justices Dec. 8th.
December 5, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
- 5:34 am
This essay will discuss the eligibility of every President who had parents born abroad. As long as the parents had the future President on US soil after they became citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen.
Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article 2, Section 1 :
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
JAMES BUCHANAN
The first President we must examine then was James Buchanan, 14th President of the United States. He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. He just missed out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Buchanan was also the only President from Pennsylvania and the only President never to marry.
His mother Elizabeth Speer was born in Pennsylvani. His father James Buchanan emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783. It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain. Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.
Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States. When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States. No formal naturalization was needed.
On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified. The Buchanans were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore James Sr. was a citizen of the United States. When James Jr. was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.
ANDREW JOHNSON
Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808. Wiki has this on his father:
Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County. The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.
The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US. But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born. The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization. The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.
Jacob Johnson also served as a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable. I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born. (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)
Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.
So, Andrew Johnson - born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence - natural born citizen.
[Chester Arthur would be next, but I shall save him for last.]
WOODROW WILSON
Born December 28, 1856 - the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.
Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England. His father was a US citizen from Ohio. Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,
“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]
This was called derivative citizenship. This act was enacted in 1855. Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856. He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens - natural born citizen.
HERBERT HOOVER
Hoover was born in Iowa, 1874. He was the 31st President. His father Jesse was from Ohio, a US citizen. His mother Hulda Minthorn was from Ontario, Canada. They were married in 1870. According to the 1855 act, which was in effect until 1922, Hoover’s mother became a US citizen automatically when she married Jesse.
So, Hoover was born in the US, both parents were citizens - natural born citizen.
CHESTER ARTHUR …or the strange lies of our 21st President
And here we have a very interesting story full of intrigue. Arthur became President when one of his supporters shot President Garfield with an exclamation of joy that Arthur would now be President.
More relevant to our discussion is that during his Vice-Presidential campaign, Chester Arthur was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad. But there was absolutely no merit to the charge. Hinman first accused Chester of being born in Ireland, then he switched his claim to Canada. Hinman, a new York lawyer, wrote an accusatory pamphlet under the heading, “How A British Subject Became A President of the United States.”
The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference chock full of notes. Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. Also, Chester Arthur burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)
“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped to Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.
THE MYSTERY - When was William Arthur naturalized? I don’t know. The only reference historian I know who ventured a date said it was 1843, but that historian also said he got that from “Gentleman Boss” and I could not find such a reference in the book. I spent a few hours with the book today. I examined every reference to William in the index and also went over the early years with a microscope. No reference to the naturalization date.
FACTS
By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824. Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.
It gets interesting here because of the Naturalization Act of 1802. That act set the requisite of five years residence in the United States for those who wanted to become naturalized citizens. Doing the math, we know that William Arthur had moved to Vermont no later than 1824. Chester was born in October 1829. So if William had taken action on being naturalized in his first year, then he very well could have been a US citizen when Arthur was born. William studied law and taught school before he became a preacher in 1827, so he should have been familiar with the process of acquiring citizenship.
CHESTER ARTHUR’S FIRST LIE
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 5… regarding Chester’s birthday:
“…on October 5, 1829, Malvina Arthur gave birth to her fifth child. (The traditional date 1830 is incorrect. Arthur made himself a year younger, no doubt out of simply vanity, some time between 1870 and 1880…)”
Perhaps it was out of vanity, but perhaps he had a more sinister motive. Reeves establishes Chester changed his date in the decade of his most serious political career, 1770-1780. Chester was also a very skilled New York lawyer. If he had a problem with his father’s naturalization date, then moving back his birthday by a year might have fixed it. We will revisit this later. Suspend judgment for now.
CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE
And this is where our villain Hinman returns. But was he a villain to Arthur? Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen. It wasn’t true. Chester was born in Vermont. But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.
Does any of this sound familiar?
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:
“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”
His mother had lived in Canada with her husband and had her first child there. This was a blatant lie.
CHESTER ARTHUR’S THIRD LIE
In the the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:
“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”
This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 - when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada - and March 1824 - when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26. So, a third blatant lie.
CONCLUSIONS
I think we’ve discovered a bit of esoteric history tonight. I’ve not seen this analysis elsewhere.
It looks like Chester Arthur had something to hide. He burned all of his papers (but the family Bible survived). He moved his age back a year. I think vanity is a poor excuse. Only one year? He lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada.
By obscuring his parents’ past lives and time in Canada, he would have clouded all attempts at researching when his father naturalized. Think about the time period. He ran for Vice-President in 1880. His father, being a law student, and moving his family to the United States, would have probably naturalized as soon as possible. But it might not have been soon enough to make old Chester a natural born citizen.
As discussed above, the time frame between William Arthur’s five year residence requirement being met and the day Chester was born were probably very close.
Then when Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along basically demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.
William Arthur was probably not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur would have been a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.
Regardless, Chester Arthur lied through his teeth about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 as a United States citizen. Had anybody been suspicious, Arthur having changed his age by a year could have protected his eligibility. And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.
Because Chester Arthur lied about his father, any precedent he might have set for Obama is nullified completely as it appears Chester Arthur may have been a usurper to the Presidency. Eventually we will probably unearth William Arthur’s naturalization records.
While he did move around alot, he was a resident of Fairfield, Franklin County Vermont, between 1829 when Chester was born, and 1832 when Malvina Almeda was born. This is the most likely time period for his naturalization. The official word from Franklin County was a fast, “We don’t have naturalization records for William Arthur.”
I have a strong feeling we’ve uncovered the truth about Chester Arthur. Looks like he was the only ineligible President we’ve ever had. And he got away with it through his lies. But the light has a way of finding the darkness.
It’s no precedent to follow.
Leo C. Donofrio
There is no dispute about Obama’s parentage. His father was a British Citizen, and his mother was a United States citizen. Therefore, Obama was both a subject/citizen of the British monarchy as well as a United States citizen “at birth”. His place of birth won’t change that no matter where he was born. This makes him NOT a natural born citizen of the United States.
December 5, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
- 5:34 am
This essay will discuss the eligibility of every President who had parents born abroad. As long as the parents had the future President on US soil after they became citizens, then that person is a natural born citizen.
Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article 2, Section 1 :
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
JAMES BUCHANAN
The first President we must examine then was James Buchanan, 14th President of the United States. He was born on April 23, 1791 in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. He just missed out on the grandfather clause as the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Buchanan was also the only President from Pennsylvania and the only President never to marry.
His mother Elizabeth Speer was born in Pennsylvani. His father James Buchanan emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783. It was an interesting year for the United States as the Treaty of 1783 was signed between the US and Great Britain. Colonists chose to be United States citizens and by virtue of the Treaty, Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens.
Before the Constitution, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States. When the Constitution was ratified, each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States. No formal naturalization was needed.
On June 21, 1788 the Constitution was ratified. The Buchanans were citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore James Sr. was a citizen of the United States. When James Jr. was born in Pennsylvania he was therefore a natural born citizen, born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.
ANDREW JOHNSON
Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808. Wiki has this on his father:
Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County. The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.
The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US. But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born. The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization. The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.
Jacob Johnson also served as a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable. I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born. (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)
Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.
So, Andrew Johnson - born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence - natural born citizen.
[Chester Arthur would be next, but I shall save him for last.]
WOODROW WILSON
Born December 28, 1856 - the 28th President, born in Staunton, Virginia.
Wilson’s mother was from Carlisle, England. His father was a US citizen from Ohio. Wilson’s mother gained US citizenship when she married his father according to a congressional Act of February 1855, which stated,
“any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2]
This was called derivative citizenship. This act was enacted in 1855. Woodrow Wilson was born in December 1856. He was born in the US, both parents were US citizens - natural born citizen.
HERBERT HOOVER
Hoover was born in Iowa, 1874. He was the 31st President. His father Jesse was from Ohio, a US citizen. His mother Hulda Minthorn was from Ontario, Canada. They were married in 1870. According to the 1855 act, which was in effect until 1922, Hoover’s mother became a US citizen automatically when she married Jesse.
So, Hoover was born in the US, both parents were citizens - natural born citizen.
CHESTER ARTHUR …or the strange lies of our 21st President
And here we have a very interesting story full of intrigue. Arthur became President when one of his supporters shot President Garfield with an exclamation of joy that Arthur would now be President.
More relevant to our discussion is that during his Vice-Presidential campaign, Chester Arthur was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad. But there was absolutely no merit to the charge. Hinman first accused Chester of being born in Ireland, then he switched his claim to Canada. Hinman, a new York lawyer, wrote an accusatory pamphlet under the heading, “How A British Subject Became A President of the United States.”
The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference chock full of notes. Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. Also, Chester Arthur burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)
“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped to Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.
THE MYSTERY - When was William Arthur naturalized? I don’t know. The only reference historian I know who ventured a date said it was 1843, but that historian also said he got that from “Gentleman Boss” and I could not find such a reference in the book. I spent a few hours with the book today. I examined every reference to William in the index and also went over the early years with a microscope. No reference to the naturalization date.
FACTS
By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824. Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.
It gets interesting here because of the Naturalization Act of 1802. That act set the requisite of five years residence in the United States for those who wanted to become naturalized citizens. Doing the math, we know that William Arthur had moved to Vermont no later than 1824. Chester was born in October 1829. So if William had taken action on being naturalized in his first year, then he very well could have been a US citizen when Arthur was born. William studied law and taught school before he became a preacher in 1827, so he should have been familiar with the process of acquiring citizenship.
CHESTER ARTHUR’S FIRST LIE
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 5… regarding Chester’s birthday:
“…on October 5, 1829, Malvina Arthur gave birth to her fifth child. (The traditional date 1830 is incorrect. Arthur made himself a year younger, no doubt out of simply vanity, some time between 1870 and 1880…)”
Perhaps it was out of vanity, but perhaps he had a more sinister motive. Reeves establishes Chester changed his date in the decade of his most serious political career, 1770-1780. Chester was also a very skilled New York lawyer. If he had a problem with his father’s naturalization date, then moving back his birthday by a year might have fixed it. We will revisit this later. Suspend judgment for now.
CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE
And this is where our villain Hinman returns. But was he a villain to Arthur? Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen. It wasn’t true. Chester was born in Vermont. But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.
Does any of this sound familiar?
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:
“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”
His mother had lived in Canada with her husband and had her first child there. This was a blatant lie.
CHESTER ARTHUR’S THIRD LIE
In the the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:
“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”
This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 - when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada - and March 1824 - when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26. So, a third blatant lie.
CONCLUSIONS
I think we’ve discovered a bit of esoteric history tonight. I’ve not seen this analysis elsewhere.
It looks like Chester Arthur had something to hide. He burned all of his papers (but the family Bible survived). He moved his age back a year. I think vanity is a poor excuse. Only one year? He lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada.
By obscuring his parents’ past lives and time in Canada, he would have clouded all attempts at researching when his father naturalized. Think about the time period. He ran for Vice-President in 1880. His father, being a law student, and moving his family to the United States, would have probably naturalized as soon as possible. But it might not have been soon enough to make old Chester a natural born citizen.
As discussed above, the time frame between William Arthur’s five year residence requirement being met and the day Chester was born were probably very close.
Then when Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along basically demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.
William Arthur was probably not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur would have been a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.
Regardless, Chester Arthur lied through his teeth about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 as a United States citizen. Had anybody been suspicious, Arthur having changed his age by a year could have protected his eligibility. And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.
Because Chester Arthur lied about his father, any precedent he might have set for Obama is nullified completely as it appears Chester Arthur may have been a usurper to the Presidency. Eventually we will probably unearth William Arthur’s naturalization records.
While he did move around alot, he was a resident of Fairfield, Franklin County Vermont, between 1829 when Chester was born, and 1832 when Malvina Almeda was born. This is the most likely time period for his naturalization. The official word from Franklin County was a fast, “We don’t have naturalization records for William Arthur.”
I have a strong feeling we’ve uncovered the truth about Chester Arthur. Looks like he was the only ineligible President we’ve ever had. And he got away with it through his lies. But the light has a way of finding the darkness.
It’s no precedent to follow.
Leo C. Donofrio
There is no dispute about Obama’s parentage. His father was a British Citizen, and his mother was a United States citizen. Therefore, Obama was both a subject/citizen of the British monarchy as well as a United States citizen “at birth”. His place of birth won’t change that no matter where he was born. This makes him NOT a natural born citizen of the United States.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Obama: Islamic Speech in First 100 Days
So... not sure that this is a big surprise. I truly do not know why people with the privilege of the right to vote, choose to vote ignorantly and without researching an individual's character and background before wasting their vote on a moral degenerate and socialist. What America needs is not this...
Thursday, December 4, 2008 5:14 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Barack Obama is considering making a major foreign policy speech in an Islamic capital during his first 100 days as president in an effort to mend rifts between the U.S. and the Muslim world.
Helene Cooper of The New York Times spoke to several sources, including diplomats, about which Islamic capital Obama might choose, and the consensus was Cairo, Egypt.
The reason: Process of elimination.
A speech in Baghdad would appear to validate the Iraq war, which Obama opposed. A visit to Damascus, the Syrian capital, “would look as if he was rewarding the Syrians and it’s too soon for that,” Ziad Asali, president of the American Task Force on Palestine, told Cooper.
Asali also ruled out:
Ramallah on the West Bank, noting that “Palestinians seek Jerusalem as their capital.”
Tehran in Iran. “Too soon for that.” Amman, Jordan. “Been there, done that.”
Islamabad, Pakistan. “Too dangerous.”
Ankara, Turkey. “Too safe.”
As for Jakarta, Indonesia, where Obama spent part of his youth, “people would yawn about that,” said Asali.
One of Obama’s foreign policy advisers ruled out Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and other capitals around the Persian Gulf.
Cooper concluded: “It’s got to be Cairo. Egypt is perfect. It’s certainly Muslim enough, populous enough and relevant enough. It’s an American ally, but there are enough tensions in the relationship that the choice will feel bold.”
Whatever capital Obama might choose, press reports don’t explain why the new president feels it necessary to give a speech so early in his new administration.
During the presidential campaign Obama indicated U.S. foreign policy was too skewed in favor of Israel and that he would seek to balance that approach in his administration.
He was also dogged with claims that he was a secret Muslim, an accusation he denied.
In fact, Obama had been raised a Muslim and converted to Christianity after meeting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in his 20s after he moved to Chicago.
Obama was born to a Kenyan father who was a Muslim. His mother divorced this man and later remarried an Indonesian muslim who became Obama’s stepfather.
The couple moved to Indonesia with the young Obama. There he was registered at two schools as a Muslim student.
Earlier this year, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs claimed: "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."
But in his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," Obama mentions studying the Koran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school." Obama’s campaign web site later removed the claim made by Gibbs that Obama was never a Muslim.
Thursday, December 4, 2008 5:14 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Barack Obama is considering making a major foreign policy speech in an Islamic capital during his first 100 days as president in an effort to mend rifts between the U.S. and the Muslim world.
Helene Cooper of The New York Times spoke to several sources, including diplomats, about which Islamic capital Obama might choose, and the consensus was Cairo, Egypt.
The reason: Process of elimination.
A speech in Baghdad would appear to validate the Iraq war, which Obama opposed. A visit to Damascus, the Syrian capital, “would look as if he was rewarding the Syrians and it’s too soon for that,” Ziad Asali, president of the American Task Force on Palestine, told Cooper.
Asali also ruled out:
Ramallah on the West Bank, noting that “Palestinians seek Jerusalem as their capital.”
Tehran in Iran. “Too soon for that.” Amman, Jordan. “Been there, done that.”
Islamabad, Pakistan. “Too dangerous.”
Ankara, Turkey. “Too safe.”
As for Jakarta, Indonesia, where Obama spent part of his youth, “people would yawn about that,” said Asali.
One of Obama’s foreign policy advisers ruled out Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and other capitals around the Persian Gulf.
Cooper concluded: “It’s got to be Cairo. Egypt is perfect. It’s certainly Muslim enough, populous enough and relevant enough. It’s an American ally, but there are enough tensions in the relationship that the choice will feel bold.”
Whatever capital Obama might choose, press reports don’t explain why the new president feels it necessary to give a speech so early in his new administration.
During the presidential campaign Obama indicated U.S. foreign policy was too skewed in favor of Israel and that he would seek to balance that approach in his administration.
He was also dogged with claims that he was a secret Muslim, an accusation he denied.
In fact, Obama had been raised a Muslim and converted to Christianity after meeting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in his 20s after he moved to Chicago.
Obama was born to a Kenyan father who was a Muslim. His mother divorced this man and later remarried an Indonesian muslim who became Obama’s stepfather.
The couple moved to Indonesia with the young Obama. There he was registered at two schools as a Muslim student.
Earlier this year, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs claimed: "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."
But in his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," Obama mentions studying the Koran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school." Obama’s campaign web site later removed the claim made by Gibbs that Obama was never a Muslim.
I just love how Obama thinks that there has been "too much" emphasis on a pro-Israel stance during the elections and thinks he is just the one to "fix" that. What happened to the loyalty to all of those liberal jews that voted for him? It isn't surprising, but it is still shameful for him to treat them in this way. It has never been a secret that he was not exactly a friend to the cause of Israel to be an autonomous country with the right to be left alone by the world to go about it's business of running their country how they see fit and not piecing it away to anyone who falsely claims to have the rights to someone else's land. Or even that they remain an autonomous country... God help us if we turn on Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
