Tag Archives: TEDDY KENNEDY

Congressional Members Knew Obama Was Ineligible to Run for President Did Nothing

The following statements were written by Constitutional lawyer Peter J. Spiro when discussing John McCain’s eligibility problems to run for the office of President.

Substitute Obama’s name for McCain’s and it is easy to see how we have arrived at this moment in history with America’s first knowingly ineligible President. The names and comments inserted in parenthesis are my mine & not Mr. Spiro’s.

 

OBAMA RIPS UP CONSTITUTION

[…] Constitutional questions do not require constitutional decisions. If non-judicial actors, including Congress (Frank, Hatch, Kennedy, Waters, Graham, McCaskill, Conyers), editorialists (NY Times, MSNBC, LA Times et al), leading members of the bar (Turley, Dean, Epstein, Toobin), and the People themselves (can you say Kool-Aid?) manage to generate a constitutional consensus, there isn’t much that the courts can do about it. In cases such as this one, at least, that seems to be an acceptable method of constitutional determination. (Acceptable? In a country that is supposed to function under and revere the rule of law? May I state for the record that you Sir are an arrogant SOB!)

[…]On the contrary, it would define the Constitution. The episode would supply an authoritative source for the determination of constitutional meaning, circa 2009. The presidential eligibility of those with similar citizenship pedigrees would be conclusively established. (President Schwarzenegger)

These statements provide the game plan used to  knowingly elect a man clearly ineligible to serve as POTUS. Look at these statements. Read and re-read them again. Let them sink in! Once they do, there cannot be any question as to the extent of the betrayal by people in whom the citizens of this country placed their trust. The actions (or inactions) of these actors may not rise to the legal definition of treason, but IMHO their behavior remains unconscionable at best.

 

The question isn’t which Congressional members knew Obama was ineligible to hold the office of POTUS. The real question is, who didn’t know Obama was ineligible and yet remained silent.

 

Why would any member of Congress or any elected official sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution do nothing and allow a man who lacks the requisite natural born citizen qualification under Article II Section 1 to become President?

 

The answer is simple; because there are members of Congress, who are themselves lawyers (and should possess a better understanding of the NBC clause) who don’t like the natural born citizen clause. That is actually an understatement. As stated in Part One, numerous legislators, along with an assortment of other actors in the media and elsewhere believe that the NBC requirement is no longer necessary, is discriminatory, and consider the clause to be un-American in a land of immigrants. (Say what?)

 

These are people who believe in the New World Order, or consider themselves to be citizens of the world along with Obama, and/or believe (or want us to believe) that the significance of citizenship is fading! They would have us believe that this country no longer faces threats from outside sources intent on destroying this country and our way of life so having a President that isn’t a natural born citizen is no big deal.

 

We have varied Congressional actors who knew Obama was ineligible and did nothing. They include:

  1. those who knew Obama was a fraud and simply didn’t care as long as their political agenda was met
  2. those who knew and were already comprised when they supported McCain with the non-binding Senate Resolution 511because making an exception for McCain gave them an excuse to make a bigger exception for Obama
  3. those who knew that the MSM would savage them for speaking the truth and could point to it without leading the charge. Is there anyone who believes the Clintons could have brought Obama’s citizenship status to the forefront without being viciously savaged and being called racists?
  4. those who support Arnold Schwarzenegger, knowing if Obama’s phony presidency is allowed to stand that precedence will have been set for him to run for POTUS.

 

The NBC clause has been a cause of concern dating back to 1860’s. At least 2 dozen attempts have been made to change the clause over the years. Despite the MSM propaganda on the topic, attention to the natural born citizenship requirement for POTUS didn’t begin with Obama and it has not one whit to do with the color of his skin.

 

Since 2000 there have been accelerated attempts to address the conundrum of Article II Section 1 of the Constitution. The most serious attempt was a hearing to discuss H.J.Res. 88 and held on July 24, 2000 by Congressman Barney Frank. Take of look at the names on the committees, do any of them look familiar?

 

Before you review these names let me point something out. While H.J.Res. 88 dealt with an amendment to allow foreign-born citizens to become President, one cannot review the hearing notes without recognizing that these same points pertain to McCain and Obama equally.

 

Some of these people are still in office and some are not, but all understand the meaning and consequences of the requirement that the President of the United States be a natural born citizen.

 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HENRY J. HYDE
, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.
, Wisconsin
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR
, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON,
Arkansas
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM
, South Carolina
MARY BONO, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOE SCARBOROUGH
, Florida, now MSNBC host who disparages “birthers”)
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JOHN CONYERS, J
r., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK,
Massachusetts
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE
, Texas
MAXINE WATER
S, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER
, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., General Counsel-Chief of Staff
JULIAN EPSTEIN
, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director

Subcommittee on the Constitution

CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE
, Illinois
ASA HUTCHINSON
, Arkansas
SPENCER BACHUS
, Alabama
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
BOB BARR
, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM
, South Carolina

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
MAXINE WATERS
, California
BARNEY FRANK
, Massachusetts
JOHN CONYERS, J
r., Michigan
JERROLD NADLER, New York

 

Who else we can point to? How about Ted Kennedy who said he would support a constitutional amendment that would enable his niece’s foreign-born husband, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to run for President.

Or Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who succeeded Hatch, said of Schwarzenegger: “The guy has become governor of California. What more credentials could you ask?”

Or Orrin Hatch who sponsored the “Arnold Amendment” in 2003 or John Conyers in 2006.

You want more? Do you know how many members of Congress hold law degrees? The number is 132 in the House of Representatives and 60 in the Senate.

 

1. Thirty-eight law schools have graduates serving in the senate.

2. Harvard Law boasts the most U.S. senators, with eight (Schumer, Stevens, Crapo, Dole, Obama, Feingold, Levin, Reed,). UVA Law is a close second, with seven (Bayh, Warner, Whitehouse, Kennedy, Bond, Cornyn, Nelson).

3. Four schools have two alumni serving in the U.S. senate, Alabama (Sessions, Shelby), Catholic (Casey, Harkin), GWU (Inoyue, Reid), Mississippi (Cochran, Lott).

4. Following schools have one each; Michigan (Salazar), Chicago (Klobuchar), Georgetown and NYU (Alexander)

5. Yale Law (Clinton, Lieberman, Specter); Georgetown (Durbin, Leahy, Webb)

 

Why is listing the number of Congressional members with law degrees so important?

 

Because these are people who have more than a basic understanding of the Constitution and the requirements to hold the office of President. And if all of this wasn’t enough, let’s not forget about the DNC, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean; all who have sworn to the public that Obama is eligible to be President at the same they have worked with Obama to keep his every record verifying his citizenship status (at the time of his birth) from the public.

 

Is it necessary for me to point out that one doesn’t spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep records secret if there are no secrets to keep?

 

If you do nothing else this weekend, download a copy of the H.J. 88 hearing chaired by Barney Frank in July 2000. Pay particular attention to Frank’s objections to the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution; then review pages 17 through 25 and the comments of Mr. Vazsonyl. You can jump to pages 42 though 50 and read the comments of historian Forrest McDonald.

 

Both men talk about the beauty and majesty of our Constitution, the rationale and significance of retaining the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution, and point out that being able to run for the office of President of our country is not a right.

As Mr. Vazsonly, himself a naturalized citizen, points out:

Our Government consists of three independent branches. In the legislative branch with its two Chambers, one of them has hundreds of Members, so a few foreigners among them really do not make that much difference. The Senate only consists of 100 Members, so 1 or 2 out of 100 again is something else. Even the Supreme Court has nine members.

 

Alone, the executive branch of this Government is vested in a single person. I don’t think that it is an excessive requirement of the office for that person to have grown from the American soil.

 

I come back to my statement, which is not particularly palatable in today’s political climate, that Americans are different. We like to believe that all people are the same. In my experience, they are not.

 

[…] It is unthinkable, ladies and gentlemen, that a legislator in another land would actually spend time proposing that some foreigner could become the first citizen of that land. So, Congressman Frank, you are as good an example as I have met to show that Americans pour their hearts out and want to share everything, even the Presidency.

 

I would say respectfully that describing this provision of the Constitution, as I said, and I will say once again, one of the solitary miracles of human history, as victimizing immigrants or being unjust, to be able to run for President is not a  right.  It is very important not to confuse the system of government with rights. Where would such a right come from? It is a well-thought-out provision of our Constitution.

 

I am here to tell you, after 41 years of making the most strenuous efforts of becoming American, not just legally but in every sense of the word, and having spent 40 of those 41 years living with a native-born American, that I still have not been able to even approach the temperament, the natural tolerance, the unfailing good will toward the world that Americans are famous for.

 

Foreigners come here and have to learn it. It is a miracle that within one generation they can do so. I think it would be expecting something even more than the impossible that they can do it within the same lifetime, and that they can forget everything they had grown up with.



TED KENNEDY’S LAST ACT – ENDORSES OBAMA KNOWING HE IS INELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT

I cannot let Ted Kennedy’s passing go without comment.

For the past 48 hours we have witnessed both extremes in the media coverage of this man’s life.  One extreme has been the adoring, fawning, excesses of MSNBC et al … worshiping him a liberal lion while the other extreme has concentrated on his many personal excesses defining him as a lowlife.

Listening to Chris Matthews wax poetic about Teddy yesterday I wondered if I could control my gag reflex.  I was also thinking how curious that Matthews has excused Teddy of every misstep and indiscretion while at the same time crucifying Bill Clinton.  Whatever Bill Clinton did in office, his dumb ass escapades with Monica never reached the  scale and magnitude of Teddy’s actions during the summer of 1969.

Kennedy-puff_1469625g

I have been a Kennedy Democrat most of my life. That means a JFK Democrat whose government policies were fiscally conservative and reasonable. Ted Kennedy and the Democratic Party of today is now despised by me.  Its policies and practices, as applied by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, are anathema to my very core.

The truth, as I have witnessed it … as aYankee originally from New England … as one who loved the Kennedy family of folklore and fame,  is that Teddy sure as hell was no saint.  He was a man whose personal sins were far greater than most. He was a heavy drinker and a womanizer. I understand the pain and multiple losses in his life, but these losses cannot excuse his own destructive behavior.

I  remember the day I heard about Chappaquiddick. I was living on the Cape at the at the time.  Funny how I remember the time and place.  I was sitting on a Falmouth beach … it was around noon when the news came over the radio.  We were all stunned.  What other word is there to describe the accident and Teddy’s actions, that allowed Mary Jo Kopechne to die in that over turned vehicle in seven feet of water?

Before leaving the Cape that summer I visited the accident/crime site with friends and looked at bridge and water where the car entered.  I remember wondering how could Teddy have mistaken the road that lead to the wooden bridge and that the surrounding area seemed smaller than I have envisioned.

As always, we saw that being a member of the Kennedy clan means never having to say I’m sorry.

Did Ted Kennedy accomplish some great things while in the Senate?  An honest answer is yes.  Of all of his legislative accomplishments I have the greatest respect for Title IX. It remains a legislative accomplishment that has probably done more to bring equality for girls and women  than any other piece of legislation save the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of the 1976.  People forget that until that act was passed it was virtually impossible for a married woman (any woman)  to establish credit in her own name!

Which leads me to today and Teddy’s last “great act “for America … knowingly endorsing Barack Hussein Obama, a man clearly ineligible to serve as the President.  Yes, this last great act was to purposely bypass a key clause in the Constitution thereby establishing a precedent that might allow “The Arnold” to run for office. I’ve written about this before see here and here.

There have been numerous attempts over the years, beginning in the 60’s,  by Democrats and Republicans alike to bypass the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution.  There are many who, believing they possess superior intellect and vision about America’s future, feel that anyone, even a naturalized citizen having lived here for a mere 20 years should be eligible to run for office.

When one examines this position, it becomes abundantly clear that it is intellectually bankrupt and illogical, and worse still  is dangerous for the safety and security of our country  to allow people who not natural born citizens to hold the singularly most important position in the world.  This is not xenophobic it is common sense.  Think Russia would allow an American to become naturalized, live in their country for 20 years, and then run for the top office in their country?

And so, Teddy’s last great act was to knowingly ignore the Constitution and  help a man whose British citizenship at the time of his birth clearly made him ineligible for run and hold  the office of President without committing fraud against the American people and this country’s electoral process.

I am measuring which legacy is worse, Mary Jo Kopechne’s death or the intentional desecration  of our  Constitution … of placing the welfare of one man ahead of 300 million citizens.

OBAMA, SCHWARZENEGGER, CAROLINE KENNEDY, & NATURAL BORN CITIZENS – CONNECTING THE DOTS –

I don’t like things that are out of place, that stick out without a rational explanation for their being there. Michele Obama’s black & red dress with the prominent “X” in the front is an example of an”out of place” moment in time that makes no sense in the context of the situation .

The Kennedy relationship with Obama is another example. It never made sense to me. There was/is something slightly odd about it unless one steps back and looks at larger possibilities.

Princess Caroline’s announcement that she would like Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat got me thinking about this odd collection of characters, again. Teddy and Caroline dissing the Clinton’s and endorsing Obama always was unsettling. Then I found a connection with the Obama “natural born citizen” saga and a connection with Caroline’s first cousin, Maria Shriver, and her husband Governor Schwarzenegger.

Since bloggers, patriots, and a host of other citizens began their search for the truth about Obama’s citizenship we have been accused of holding Obama to a differnet set of standards. Not true.

In fact given the lack of coverage by the MSM, one would think that a candidate’s eligibility under the “natural born citizen” first came to light with Obama. Nothing could be further from truth. This has been an ongoing question for many, many candidates. Obama’s wasn’t the first candidate facing this problem nor will he be the last unless and until the Constitution is changed by amendment.

I would ask you to review these 4 exhibits and ask yourself this. If Obama is allowed to side step the Constitution and serve as POTUS what is to prevent Schwarzenegger from attempting to do the same thing?

Exhibit one – From an article in USA Today written in 2004

Should the Constitution be amended for Arnold?

Matthew Spalding, director of the Center for American Studies at the conservative-oriented Heritage Foundation, says the amendment’s prospects would “nosedive” if it were perceived to be designed to land Schwarzenegger in the Oval Office. “We don’t amend the Constitution to advance someone’s political career,” Spalding says.

Schwarzenegger faces an additional handicap, Spalding says: “You can’t have a United States president who is a dual citizen.”

Proposals to end the Constitution’s sole discrimination against the foreign-born have kicked around in Congress since the 1870s. But 26 proposed amendments have died in subcommittees.

Exhibit two – Place this comment under some people are different. Why? Leahy had no problem sponsoring a non-binding Senate resolution favoring McCain and by default Obama (who BTW helped sponsor the resolution) when it suited his political agenda.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who succeeded Hatch, said of Schwarzenegger: “The guy has become governor of California. What more credentials could you ask?”

Some senators are less enthusiastic. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, has denounced the legislative attention to the issue, saying the Senate had more pressing matters.

Exhibit three – No Kennedy connection, right?

Veteran Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy has said he would support a constitutional amendment that would enable his niece’s foreign-born husband, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to potentially run for President, reports AFP from Washington.

Kennedy’s niece, former journalist and Kennedy heiress Maria Shriver, is married to one of America’s most famous foreign-born citizens.

Exhibit four – View the latest poll from WorldNet Daily. Take a real good look at the questions, the order of the questions, and place them into context with the Obama dual citizenship/ ineligible to be president Constitutional crisis we are facing.

Do you think Arnold Schwarzenegger should be eligible for president?

1. Yes, he’s a legal American citizen now. That’s all that matters
2. Yes, but only if the law is changed to allow foreign-born citizens to run
3. Yes, if dual citizenship is good enough for Obama, it’s good enough for Schwarzenegger
4. Yes, even though I’m not thrilled with the idea, the subversive Democrats need to be kept in check
5. Yes, since Arnold is actually a cyborg created by Cyberdyne Systems in California, he’s technically born in the USA
6. No, his accent is just too un-American
7. No, Arnold is a pretender, as he is showing his true left-leaning colors now in “Calleeforneea”
8. No, the question of national loyalty is the key reason at stake here
9. No, I don’t want anyone to skirt the Constitution
10..No, he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. End of story

The rich and powerful live by a different set of rules, don’t they.


CAMPAIGN FOR CHANGE . . . CAMPAIGN FOR CHUMPS IS MORE LIKE IT!!!

Let me start off by stating that I don’t think Obama is an evil man despite the fact there are some who think he’s the anti-Christ foretold in prophecy.

Upon first hearing Obama’s “message” there’s a lot to admire, unfortunately dig beneath the surface and the real man is a lot less admirable. There’s no doubt he has charisma, is personable, and can read one mean speech. But that alone does not a leader make; and the Obama comparisons to JFK are laughable.

JFK was born into a family that to this day, eats, sleeps, and drinks politics. JFK was already a world traveler as a youngster, his father being the Ambassador to England. After his older brother Joe tragically died, JFK picked up his brother’s mantle and continued to be groomed for the presidency. By the time he was elected president, in addition to having been elected to the U.S. Senate, he had also served in Congress for 14 years. Kennedy was a war hero and Pulitzer Prize winning author. Does this sound anything like Obama? Let me tell you something else, in addition to charm and sense of humor, Kennedy had too much class and sophistication to have ever been caught in such a sophomoric act as “flipping off” a former First Lady, as many videos show he did.

I think the people of this country have been so starved for real leadership and have been so tired of the bickering between the two parties that Obama’s message took off like wild fire and caught on, particularly among the young. Every day I wonder where “all the grown-ups” are because there are damn few of them in politics and in the MSM today. The truth is Barack has given us the right message but, IMHO he’s the wrong man. Expressed in business terms, his concept is great, but the follow through and execution leave a lot to be desired.

I wish his actions lived up to his words . . . they don’t I wish he was the man fancies himself to be . . . he isn’t. The truth is “The Anointed One” is mere mortal with a thin and undistinguished political record, who reads from a teleprompter, and when he speaks extemporaneously, more often than not, gives us the kind of juicy gaffe’s the news media of old would have reported on. When he said he’d been to 57 states, do you think he got it mixed up with the kind of ketchup he prefers?

The “news” media of today gives us idiots like Keith Olbermann (whose rhetoric is so excessive & over the top that he’s become a parody himself and doesn’t know it) and Chris Matthews (who got a tinkle down his leg listening to Barack –oh barf!) both who long ago passed from newsmen into cable clowns. Consequently, Barack is never held accountable for flip flopping /lying about his position on public financing of campaigns, or FISA, or NAFTA, how he would deal with dictators, etc. etc.

No. no. no we’re told he’s recalibrated his position . . . recalibrated my ass. He’s changed his positions on so many issues so often I’m wondering why he isn’t being called “blows with the wind Barack. He’s praised for breaking a promise rendered verbally and in writing. I’ve written about this countless times, Barack’s life is filled with myriad examples of his “situational ethics.”

Here’s a truer picture of man one year later. Barack was a history lecturer (not a professor), whose first election was won because he challenged the number of signatures his female opponent had gathered in order to run, and having had her disqualified, he ran unopposed. Nothing illegal here, but certainly nothing to crow about.

During his time in the Illinois legislature he voted “present” 130 times. I haven’t been able to find another politician with a similar “voting” record, thank God, because I want politicians to vote yea or nay. While there are numerous examples of McCain having crossed the aisle in order to get the country’s business done, (love it or hate it) McCain Feingold is a good example. Is there an Obama (fill in the blank) bill that his campaign can point to with pride? No, of course not, just words.

Think back to December of 2007. McCain almost lost his party’s nomination because of his principled position on immigration and this was position was shared with Teddy Kennedy. (BTW, I was glad the bill was defeated, I thought Kennedy and McCain were both wrong.) If remember correctly McCain held a press conference and told the media that he felt Obama had broken his word on this bill. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong on the bill.

Name a single time when Barack has taken a principled position on a bill and said, “I don’t care what this costs me personally this is the right thing for the country! Answer . . . never!

When all the sexism against Hillary was running rampant he could have said to everyone, “I don’t want to win this way!” He didn’t. When the DNC was taking votes he didn’t need from Hillary to win the nomination he could have said, “No!” to that as well. He didn’t.

It would have been good politics and some of the Hillary supporters (male & female) who resent him so much now might be more forgiving. As it is, for many of us that is never going to happen.