• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

The President in Warsaw

Advertisements

CNN Champion News Faker!

CNN HAS BEEN FAKING THE NEWS FOR A WHILE

by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

We have software that tracks traffic to our site in real time, so we can see how much traffic is going to each post and where it is coming from. Some of us–if you guessed Scott and me, you could be right–follow the data obsessively throughout the day.

I was surprised, earlier today, to see that people were visiting a post I did in 2009 titled Rush Is Out. A little investigation showed that most of the traffic was coming from a tweet by Dan Riehl. Riehl linked to my post and to a tweet by Andrew Breitbart that simply said “CNN is evil,” with a link to the Power Line post. So here is my 2009 post, in its entirety.

It’s official: Rush Limbaugh has withdrawn as a minority participant in a group that is trying to buy the St. Louis Rams. This follows opposition to Rush’s participation from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and, shamefully, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. Such opposition, in turn, was fueled by false claims that Limbaugh has made various racist statements in the past. The most ridiculous of the statements falsely attributed to Rush was this one:

Slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

Anyone who has ever listened to Limbaugh would immediately recognize this as a hoax; in fact, it was made up out of whole cloth by a little-known left-wing blogger. But it was reported as fact by news outlets that didn’t bother to verify their facts. CNN was especially blameworthy in this regard; it vouched for the blogger-fabrication:

The irony runs deep: Keith Olbermann, who unlike Limbaugh is actually a hatemonger, is employed as an NFL commentator.

There are many more conservatives than liberals in the United States, but liberals nevertheless continue to make progress in their effort to delegitimize conservatism. The successful slander and demonization of Rush Limbaugh is a misfortune; not primarily for him, but for all of us.

Andy McCarthy has related thoughts.

UPDATE: See also Mark Steyn’s comments, including this conclusion:

PS: Can Rush buy the St Louis Rams if he gets Roman Polanski to front the deal?

A final observation, perhaps too obvious to require saying: It’s no coincidence that Democratic Party outlets like CNN had to dredge up fake quotes to make their case. Nothing Rush actually said would do the trick, even though he’s been on the radio three hours a day, five days a week, for more than twenty years. That really tells you all you need to know.

ONE LAST UPDATE: It is worth noting, as a kind of macabre footnote, that CNN found it worthwhile to “fact check” Saturday Night Live when that program had the temerity to ridicule CNN’s President, The One. Maybe CNN could become a respected news organization if it tried to fact check news stories as well as comedy skits, starting with–is this too much to ask?–its own broadcasts.

CNN’s 2009 smear of Rush Limbaugh was a textbook example of fake, wholly made-up news. CNN has been a dishonest shill for the left for a long time.

American Citizenship and the OBAMA PROBLEM

Dual Citizenship and the Strange Case of the Election of Barack Obama

By Mark A. Hewitt at American Thinker:

“Jus sanguinis (Latinright of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state.  Children at birth may automatically be citizens if their parents have state citizenship or national identities of ethnic, cultural, or other origins.  Citizenship can also apply to children whose parents belong to a diaspora and were not themselves citizens of the state conferring citizenship.  This principle contrasts with jus soli.

Jus soli (Latin: right of the soil), commonly referred to as birthright citizenship, is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.  As an unconditional basis for citizenship, it is the predominant rule in the Americas, but is rare elsewhere.  Since the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was enacted in 2004, no European country grants citizenship based on unconditional jus soli.

A person who becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization is not considered a natural born citizen.  Consequently, naturalized U.S. citizens are not eligible to become President of the United States or Vice President of the United States, which would ordinarily be the case as established by the Presidential Succession Act.

Some argue that the phrase “natural born citizen” describes a category of citizenship distinct from that described by the phrase “U.S. Citizen” in Article Two of the United States Constitution, and this was discussed during the constitutional convention of 1787.  While it is true that “natural born citizen” is not defined anywhere within the text of the Constitution and that the Constitution makes use of the phrase “citizen” and “natural born citizen,” Supreme Court decisions from United States v. Wong Kim Ark to the present have considered the distinction to be between natural-born and naturalized citizenship.

An April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service, asserts that most constitutional scholars interpret the phrase “natural born citizen” as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.

In her 1988 article in the Yale Law Journal, Jill Pryor wrote, “It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.  It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not.  But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.”

Judge Pryor (she was nominated to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals by President Obama safely in office in 2012, and confirmed by the Senate in 2014 )is correct in one regard, “that a person born…of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved,” presumably in a court of law.  That is because just as “persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization” do not qualify as natural born, neither should a person born of one American and one alien parent, qualifiy as natural born.  This latter circumstance is the definition and the qualifications of a person having the rights of nationality in two countries, or dual citizenship.

On the issue of dual citizenship, based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.  The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not, without more, mean that he renounces the other”, Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (1952).  In Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen has the right to return to his native country and to resume his former citizenship, and also to remain a U.S. citizen even if he never returns to the United States.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) neither defines dual citizenship nor takes a position for it or against it.  There has been no prohibition against dual citizenship, but some provisions of the INA and earlier U.S. nationality laws were designed to reduce situations in which dual citizenship exists.

Although the U.S. government does not endorse dual citizenship as a matter of policy, it recognizes the existence of dual citizenship and completely tolerates the maintenance of multiple citizenship by U.S. citizens.  In the past, claims of other countries on dual-national U.S. citizens sometimes placed them in situations where their obligations to one country were in conflict with the laws of the other.

Barack Obama was born a dual national, with dual citizenship with rights of nationality in two countries.  As such, he may well have been disqualified as a natural born citizen and ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States, per Article Two of the United States Constitution. Senator Ted Cruz, aware of the hazards of dual citizenship, renounced any claim to Canadian citizenship owing to his birth there in the 2008 election cycle.  Barack Obama’s failure to do so in 2008 could well have been because he knew that the issue would never be aggressively pursued.

The media and Washington Democrats extensively colluded to interfere in the 2008 Presidential Election by supporting a likely ineligible candidate, one with obvious dual citizenship rights of nationality in two countries.  By ignoring his rights of dual citizenship, the media never fully vetted the U.S. constitutional qualifications of candidate Obama but rather redefined jus soli — born in the United States — as natural born.  It was on all the networks, therefore, it must have been the truth.

The media and Washington Democrats knew this was the critical issue of the election, that it should have been adjudicated in the courts, not on the nine o‘clock news or the front page of the Times or the Post.  Hundreds of Americans were maliciously branded as “racist” for questioning the obvious questionable credentials of the candidate and dual national Barack Obama……..”   There’s more.  Please read on:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/dual_citizenship_and_the_strange_case_of_the_election_of_barack_obama.html