• 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

Jewish Leftist Senator Feinstein Allergic to Roman Catholics, Christians in the Judiciary?

Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman, a surgeon. Feinstein’s paternal grandparents were Jewishimmigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family, were from Saint Petersburg, Russia.

2 Democrat Senators Show Hostility to Religion in Questions for Judicial Nominee

article by Tiffany Bates at the Daily Signal:        (article sent by Lisa Rich)

“Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” is an unusual and inappropriate question for a senator to ask a judicial nominee. In fact, the Constitution forbids it.

But that didn’t stop Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., from probing Notre Dame Law professor Amy Coney Barrett about her faith. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. D-Calif., also chided Barrett for being a practicing Catholic, proclaiming, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”

Both senators appear to have forgotten Article VI’s admonition that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Officer or public Trust under the United States.”

The senators’ hostility to religion was loudly on display as Barrett and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, having been nominated by the president to fill two federal appellate vacancies.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

President Donald Trump nominated Larsen for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Michigan and Barrett for the 7th Circuit in Indiana. Both women have faced bitter scrutiny from the left. This makes sense, as both are brilliant, young, conservative, and female, making them serious contenders for a future Supreme Court vacancy.

After a delay, Democratic senators from both Michigan and Indiana have returned the nominees’ blue slips, allowing their nominations to move forward.

But just who are Larsen and Barrett?

Joan Larsen

It came as no surprise when Trump tapped Larsen for a seat on the 6th Circuit. She was one of 21 individuals on the list of judicial rock stars he used to fill the last Supreme Court vacancy.

A graduate of Northwestern University Law School, Larsen clerked for Judge David Sentelle on the D.C. Circuit and for Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. When asked what it was like to be a woman clerking for Scalia, she has often quipped, “Much like being a man clerking for him.”

In 1998, Larsen became an adjunct professor at the University of Michigan Law School, where she taught constitutional law, criminal procedure, presidential power, and statutory interpretation.

Her academic career was interrupted by brief stints in private practice and as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

In September 2015, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder appointed her to the state Supreme Court. Although Larsen has a relatively thin judicial record due to her short tenure on the court, she has made her views about judging very clear.

When Snyder appointed her, she stated, “I believe in enforcing the laws as written by the legislature and signed by the governor. I don’t think judges are a policy-making branch of the government.”

This is right in line with how her former boss, Scalia, viewed judging. Shortly after Scalia’s death, she penned an op-ed for The New York Times in which she wrote: “Justice Scalia believed in one simple principle: That law came to the court as an is not an ought. Statutes, cases, and the Constitution were to be read for what they said, not for what the judges wished they would say.”

In her 2016 retention election, she again made her views clear, writing:

Judges are supposed to interpret the laws; they are not supposed to make them. The separation of powers, enshrined in both our national and state constitutions, protects the people’s right to self-governance by allowing the elected representatives of the people to make the laws. Judges, like everyone else, are bound by those laws and must faithfully interpret them rather than re-writing them from the bench. Judges, after all, are the public’s servants, not the public’s masters.

Larsen has received an outpouring of support for her nomination, including endorsement letters from 32 University of Michigan law professors and former colleagues and 29 former government officials and colleagues.

During the hearing, she faced questions about her time at the Department of Justice and about a controversial memo that set forth a justification for enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. But Larsen was not involved in researching or drafting that memo.

She also faced questions from senators about the role of legal precedents, as well as a 2004 law review article in which she criticized the use of foreign and international law in interpreting our Constitution.

Amy Coney Barrett

Like Larsen, Barrett has a sterling resume. After graduating from Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman on the D.C. Circuit and for Scalia on the Supreme Court.

She then worked in private practice (where she was part of the team that represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore) before starting her career in academia, teaching briefly at George Washington University and the University of Virginia before joining the Notre Dame Law faculty in 2002.

She teaches constitutional law, federal courts, statutory interpretation, civil procedure, and evidence. Notre Dame twice recognized her as distinguished professor of the year.

Barrett is also a prolific writer, having published in leading law reviews across the country on topics including originalism, federal court jurisdiction, and the supervisory power of the Supreme Court.

In 2010, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed her to the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, where she served for six years.

Barrett has robust bipartisan support from the legal community. Shortly after her nomination, endorsement letters poured in to the Judiciary Committee from lawyers across the political spectrum, including 450 former students49 Notre Dame law colleagues, and every fellow Supreme Court clerk that served with her.

The Judiciary Committee also received an endorsement letter from 73 law professors from across the country who called Barrett’s qualifications “first-rate,” including Neal Katyal, a prominent liberal who served as President Barack Obama’s acting solicitor general.

Barrett faced numerous questions about her writings, including her criticism of stare decisis or the role of precedent in judicial decision-making in certain circumstances.

For example, she has questioned the practice of judges relying on precedent when it conflicts with the original meaning of the Constitution’s text. Justice Clarence Thomas has also questioned the role of precedent in these circumstances.

She assured the committee, however, that as an appellate judge, she would follow all Supreme Court precedents, which are binding upon all lower court judges.

She also faced questions about a 1998 article that she co-authored as a law student, discussing Catholic judges participating in death penalty cases. In that article she considered situations in which the law and a judge’s religious faith conflict.

Senate Democrats attempted to distort her article, claiming she would put religious beliefs above the law. But in fact, she wrote, “The legal system has a solution for this dilemma—it allows (indeed it requires) the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job.”

Barrett is not the first to broach this subject. Many Catholic judges have considered and written on this issue, including Judge William Pryor, who sits on the 11th Circuit, and Scalia.

Despite the tough questions they received, these two polished and accomplished women answered intelligently and gracefully. They both subscribed to the view that judges should not, under the guise of statutory or constitutional interpretation, impose their own policy preferences on the rest of society.

To date, the Senate has confirmed only six of Trump’s judicial nominees (including Justice Neil Gorsuch). But hearings are starting to pick up. Counting Larsen and Barrett, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings for six nominees this week.

With a stunning 162 current and known future vacancies and 32 nominees pending, let’s hope the Senate keeps it up.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/09/06/two-democrat-senators-show-hostility-to-religion-in-questions-for-judicial-nominee/?utm_source=TDS_Email

Advertisements

PRAGER U: The Leftist American’s War against Autos

Click above or here to watch this video

Cars are a symbol of American freedom. If you have a car, you decide where you go and when you go. But progressives want to make car ownership more difficult by making driving as expensive as possible, swapping out roads with bike lanes, and pushing drivers onto buses and trains. Why should Americans do everything they can to stop this grand theft of our car culture? Lauren Fix, The Car Coach, explains in this week’s new video.

In honor of Dennis Prager’s birthday, August is PragerU’s annual fundraising month. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation so that we can continue to bring Dennis’s ideas to the next generation.
WE STAND FOR AMERICA’S FOUNDING VALUES

Franken the Ill, Klobuchar the Sweet Obstruct Judicial Nomination

THE DEMOCRATS’ OBSTRUCTION CONTINUES

by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

“I wrote about the Democrats’ unprecedented obstruction of President Trump’s executive branch and judicial nominees here, and specifically about Democratic Senators blocking judicial nominations with the archaic “blue slip” practice here.

One of the nominees being blocked by the Democrats is Justice David Stras of the Minnesota Supreme Court. President Trump has appointed Justice Stras to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but Minnesota senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken are preventing Stras from getting a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. Rumor has it that while other Democratic senators are at least meeting with judicial nominees from their states, Klobuchar and Franken have not even condescended to meet with Justice Stras to discuss any reservations they may have about his nomination.

Perhaps this is because they have no such reservations, but are engaging in obstruction for its own sake. Justice Stras’s nomination is supported by an extraordinary array of judges, lawyers, professors and politicians of all stripes. No one has offered even a theory as to why he should not be confirmed to the 8th Circuit.

A number of letters have been written to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, and Senators Franken and Klobuchar. They testify to Justice Stras’s extraordinary abilities and unimpeachable character. Letters have been submitted by 12 former Minnesota senators and representatives of both parties; three retired justices who served with Stras on the Minnesota Supreme Court; 107 distinguished Minnesota lawyers and retired judges, many of whom I know, who span the full ideological spectrum; 29 members of Justice Stras’s U.S. Supreme Court clerkship class (Stras clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas); 38 Minnesota Law School professors who know Stras from his time teaching there; and 34 lawyers from my former law firm, Faegre Baker Daniels, where Stras was of counsel prior to his appointment to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

All of the letters wholeheartedly endorse Justice Stras’s nomination, and many of those who signed them are Democrats. The letter that was signed by 107 lawyers and retired judges is typical:

Re: Nomination of Justice David Stras to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Dear Senators:

The undersigned are Minnesota lawyers from all political walks of life who join in respectfully urging the Senate to confirm Justice David Stras’s nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

In his seven years as a Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, Justice Stras has distinguished himself not only as a top-notch jurist, but as a judge who decides cases without regard to political affiliation or party lines. He has sided with both “liberal” and “conservative” Justices during his tenure on the court, always in pursuit of applying the law as it comes to him, without ideology or favoritism.

Justice Stras has also proven to be a collegial and collaborative judge, as three of his former colleagues on the Minnesota Supreme Court (retired Justices Alan Page, Helen Meyer, and Paul Anderson) explained in publicly endorsing him in a recent editorial in the Minneapolis StarTribune. (“The case for the nomination of David Stras to the federal courts,” June 2, 2017.) This comes as no surprise. After practicing law, Justice Stras came to Minnesota to teach at the University of Minnesota Law School. Just two years later, he was named Stanley V. Kinyon Tenure Track Teacher of the Year. He was such a student favorite that the staff of the Minnesota Law Review published a tribute to Justice Stras in their Spring 2011 issue. That tribute included accolades from then-Dean David Wippman as well as former Dean Robert Stein, the latter of whom concluded his remarks by stating that “[t]he citizens of Minnesota and the entire nation will be the better for [Justice Stras’s] appointment” to the Minnesota Supreme Court. (Robert A. Stein, Distinguished Scholar, Dedicated Teacher, and Now Justice: David R. Stras, 95 Minn. L. Rev. 116, 124 (2011).

Those of us who have appeared before Justice Stras regard him as a very skilled, polite, engaging, inquisitive, intellectually curious judge who is fair, impartial, and interested in one thing: getting to the right answer under the law. Politics plays no role in arguing a case to Justice Stras. Arguing for a “conservative” result does not help. Only dealing objectively with the law will be effective with Justice Stras.

Justice Stras has all of the qualities of an excellent judge. He is hard-working, intelligent, and open to all views. He would be an outstanding addition to the Eighth Circuit, and we respectfully urge the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to confirm his nomination to the Eighth Circuit.

Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar should be ashamed of themselves. They don’t even pretend to have any basis for objecting to Justice Stras’s nomination. They are acting out of sheer partisanship and, frankly, hatred of the president who surprised them by being elected. Their conduct is ignoble and dishonorable.

You can send Amy Klobuchar an email here, politely asking her to stop obstructing the nomination of a superbly qualified jurist to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. You can email Al Franken here. Please do!”

Donald Trump: The American Savior Clarifies the Task of MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Renouncing Fatalism: Trump and Tocqueville in Poland

Trump did well in Poland to eschew all talk of “the wrong side of history” and instead to emphasize the real power, for good and ill, that we have over our own destiny. By doing so he defended our dignity and upheld our humanity.

Donald Trump says a lot of striking things. This tendency has been the theme of a good deal of commentary over the last two years. Less noticed, but no less interesting, are his striking omissions: Trump says many things that a normal politician would not say, but he also sometimes omits things that a normal politician would say. And sometimes those omissions are not to be regretted but praised. Such is the case with President Trump’s recent address to the people of Poland.

Speaking in Warsaw, Trump warned his listeners that civilization is threatened by extremism and terrorism. He then reassured his listeners that the enemies of civilization would be defeated. So far, the president had said nothing that many other modern, western political leaders might also have said in a speech about international affairs—although the commonplace character of his warnings and reassurances might have been somewhat obscured by the combative tone for which he is so famous.

Then came the remarkable and significant omission. Trump did not rest his reassurance on the same ground as the typical politician would. The kind of contemporary political leader to which we are accustomed would have told his audience that the enemies of civilization are sure to be defeated because they are “on the wrong side of history.”

Trump said nothing of the sort. To the contrary, he said, in effect, that the enemies of civilization are sure to be defeated because the defenders of civilization are determined to defeat them. “Our adversaries,” Trump said, “are doomed because we will never forget who we are,” and we, accordingly, will not fail to do what is necessary to preserve the blessings we have inherited.

This rhetorical change makes all the difference in the world. The typical formulation reassures us that goodness will prevail because History—understood as a superhuman, impersonal force—tends of its own accord in the direction of goodness. This is history as it is understood by the ideology of progress, moving of necessity toward greater enlightenment, freedom, and justice for all human beings.

Trump’s formulation, in contrast, holds that goodness will prevail because the good will exert themselves. On his view, the outcome rests on us—not on any impersonal, superhuman forces but on personal and human ones. Trump hammered this point home by raising the possibility that civilization would be destroyed if civilized people fail to do their part to defend it. The failure of the enemies of civilization, he suggested, is conditional: they are “doomed to fail ifwe want them to fail.” And if we do not do our duty, this civilization, which is unlike any that has existed before, will pass away and “will never, ever exist again.”

In framing the issue in this way, Trump performed an important service—at least according to the thought of Alexis de Tocqueville. It is unlikely that Trump has ever studied Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. Perhaps, then, it was by what Machiavelli would have called a “fortunate astuteness” that the president addressed a democratic people in precisely the way that a responsible democratic statesman should address them.

For Tocqueville, one of the great dangers to human dignity in democratic times is that human beings will lose the belief in the efficacy of their own wills, that they will conclude that they have no control over their own fate. To some extent, a decline in belief in the power of the individual is inevitable in democracies. It is, after all, a fact evident to everyone that individuals have less power to control events in democracies than in aristocracies. In an aristocracy, some men are born into powerful families and raised automatically into positions of authority, able to direct vast social forces by their mere commands. In a democracy, in contrast, individuals are all equal, and are therefore all equally weak in comparison to the body of society itself. There, individuals can only hope to exert influence on the course of events by uniting themselves into associations. As a result, democratic peoples are much more inclined to understand their own histories as the outcome of large social movements rather than as the result of the decisions of key individuals.

The danger, however, is that the citizens of a democracy will take these ideas too far and reach the conclusion that even peoples and nations have no control over their fates. “Once the trace of the influence of individuals on the nations has been lost,” Tocqueville warns, “we are often left with the sight of the world moving without anyone moving it.” Then “one is tempted to believe that this movement is not voluntary and that societies unconsciously obey some superior dominating force.” This kind of thinking must be resisted, Tocqueville teaches, because it degrades human beings by teaching them that they have nothing serious to do, nothing important for which to strive, nothing of vital consequence for which they can be held responsible. Therefore, it is the part of enlightened democratic leaders to emphasize the real power that nations have over their own fates, “for we need to raise men’s souls, not complete their prostration.” The doctrine of historical progress, so popular among modern democratic peoples, and so often affirmed by democratic statesmen, teaches precisely the kind of fatalism against which Tocqueville warns.

A similar fatalism animates some of President Trump’s political enemies—those proponents of globalization who contend that it is a force beyond the power of any nation to control. These people are for the most part well intentioned. They want things to turn out well, and they therefore want to believe that History will ensure that they turn out well. But such reassurances, however well meant, in fact diminish us by denying us any control over our own future. This is why, from a Tocquevillian perspective, Trump did well in Poland to eschew all talk of “the wrong side of history” and instead to emphasize the real power, for good and ill, that we have over our own destiny. By doing so he defended our dignity and upheld our humanity.

President Trump’s rhetorical choices in Poland possessed another virtue worth noting in this context. It is not only more edifying to teach our responsibility for preserving civilization. It is also more realistic.

Those who believe in History as Progress tend to assume that civilization is indestructible. After all, for civilization to decline or fall would be the opposite of Progress, and it would call into question the progressives’ most cherished beliefs. The possibility must therefore not be admitted. As progressives always insist, “you can’t turn back the clock.”

This belief may be comforting, but there is no serious reason to believe that it is anything other than a comforting—and dangerous—illusion. Civilizations can regress as well as progress, and they can even fall apart. A little more than one hundred years ago, most enlightened Europeans believed in progress with as much certainty as many do today. Nevertheless, they were on the verge of a century that would see barbarities of a severity and on a scale never before encountered in human history. A long time before that, many people believed that the Roman imperium was a divine dispensation, as unshakable as the order of nature itself. It nevertheless collapsed………Please read on!

 

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/07/19741/

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

Obama’s Comey is Out. “If I Were Hillary Clinton, I’d be Afraid!”

Comey’s Out. Who’s Next for Rosenstein?

by Roger L. Simon at PJMedia:

“If I were Hillary Clinton, I’d be afraid.  I’d be very afraid.

Something has happened that has drastically changed her position in the world and that is the advent of Rod Rosenstein as deputy attorney general, a name not well known by many until now, although he has had quite an illustrious career at the Department of Justice and elsewhere.

Confirmed only April 25, 2017, Rosenstein wrote the well-crafted “Memorandum to the Attorney General” on the subject of “Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI.”  The contents of this memorandum are what many are assuming impelled Donald Trump to take an action he was hesitant to do, but probably should have done, on taking office  — firing FBI director James Comey before the reputation of the FBI was even more tarnished than it was.

Of course the left exploded, claiming a cover-up of the endless Russia investigation. But no matter when Donald Trump had fired Comey, day one or day one hundred and one, it would have created a conflagration.  Chuck Schumer would have yelled and screamed and waved his bloody shoe even though he himself had previously called for the same thing only months before. That’s what Schumers do, as does much of the rest of the not-so-loyal opposition.

Interestingly, a great deal of the minority leader’s immediate fulminations after the defenestration of Comey centered not on Trump but on Rosenstein, who is apparently that most terrifying of all things — a by-the-book straight shooter who espouses equal justice for all under the law.  Schumer demanded the deputy AG immediately appoint a special investigator to get to the bottom of the supposed Russia allegations.  Rosenstein may just make such an appointment, but for another purpose not as salutary to Schumer. From the deputy AG’s memorandum:

The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016 and announce his conclusion that the [Clinton email] case should be closed without prosecution.  It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement.  At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting he believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department.  There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General.  On July 5, however, the Director announced his views on the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation [bold mine], without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Rosenstein goes on to quote numerous statements from attorneys general and deputy attorneys general of both parties concurring with his view, but this is a memorandum all should read in its entirety for themselves. Besides being an impressive brief for the firing of James Comey, it also appears to open the door for something else, for that “well-established process for other officials to step in” to lead to something yet more dramatic — the renewed investigation of Hillary Clinton.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/09/comeys-out-whos-next-for-rosenstein/

FBI MAN, COMEY, TRUMPED

I admit I love Our Donald.   That he loves his country above all is obvious and powerful….just the man needed to Clean the Swamp and Make America Great Again.

James Comey seems to have been a righteous, decent kind of guy living and working in Washington, DC. where the corruption of the soul is particularly rank among Leftists of any American political party these days.   Think Hillary!

Perhaps he is in reality a decent guy in a swamp of indecency politics.  Many, who speek of former FBI Director Comey seem to think so.

Yes, Hillary should be charged with her dozens of crimes against the American people on a number of fronts, her frequent lying, conning and claims of  fraudulent business dealings to her arrogant disregard for laws  protecting  America’s most private international political and/or economic affairs at the highest echelons.

But, who is to lead the legal fight against Hillary Clinton crimes against our America any citizen less  Hillary would be widely disgraced or even   imprisoned for  years for performing the same acts of violation in law of America’s vital  secrets?  I don’t see President Trump interested in exposing this episode of Washington miasma.

Please read the following article by John Sexton at HotAir to learn more about the matter.

President Trump fires FBI Director Comey

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/09/trump-fires-fbi-director-comey/