Headlines From 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"
Headlines Today:
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Anonymous said...
This blog was started to give people a source of information they can trust. I almost never make the mistake of including scams, false rumors, or poorly researched items. I encourage readers to alert me if they spot an anomaly. It will be quickly corrected.--------------------------Greetings, I saw what you wrote there and thought it an admirable thing to say-to be seeking the truth regardless of which end of the spectrum it may come from. I was linked this site by someone who was discussing the veracity of this email.To my knowledge none of the claimed headlines of today can be traced back to actual headlines. Sentiments, perhaps, but not any headlines that I can find. I will agree that it would seem that some of the headlines of years ago seem to have been true, but these more recient ones seem to be made from whole cloth. I will go further and submit that the media seems to have shown biases, but this email does not prove it-it seems to be it's own biased opinion by someone which is now being passed around as fact. I guess it helps to prove that the media is not the only one with biases.Lastly, there seems to be some dispute as to the actually cost when comparing inagurations of four years past versus this recent one. As far as the Citibank donations, it may or may not be true as I understand donations are commonly made by private individuals-the email being passed around and quoted in this blog seems to suggest this is something uncommon or improper when it is not yet clear whether it is or is not.
January 30, 2009 11:39 AM
Sam Sewell said...
Thanks for the heads up! I should establish a "bounty" payment for readers who find inaccuracies.I have moved your comment to the foot of the article. Granted, it may not be "false" but it sure is less than accurate.
Thanks again!
16 hours ago
4 comments:
The Logic Why Natural Born Citizenship Requires Both Parents Should be US Citizens
What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother?
After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen?
This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.
What do
Barack Obama,
the first African-American President of the United States,
and
Sun Yat-Sen,
the first President of the Republic of China
have in common?
Yes, they were both born in Hawaii, or so they claim.
Click on this link to see Sun Yat-sen’s “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” despite having been born in Guangdong, China.
All the more to suspect that Obama was born in Kenya yet obtained the same infamous “Certification” in Hawaii.
What a coincidence!
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/Home/obama-short-form-birth-certificate
Take the test.
FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?
ANSWER: Joe Biden
Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)
This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.
SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?
ANSWER: Hillary Clinton
One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.
THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?
ANSWER: Yet undetermined.
This blog was started to give people a source of information they can trust. I almost never make the mistake of including scams, false rumors, or poorly researched items. I encourage readers to alert me if they spot an anomaly. It will be quickly corrected.
--------------------------
Greetings, I saw what you wrote there and thought it an admirable thing to say-to be seeking the truth regardless of which end of the spectrum it may come from. I was linked this site by someone who was discussing the veracity of this email.
To my knowledge none of the claimed headlines of today can be traced back to actual headlines. Sentiments, perhaps, but not any headlines that I can find.
I will agree that it would seem that some of the headlines of years ago seem to have been true, but these more recient ones seem to be made from whole cloth. I will go further and submit that the media seems to have shown biases, but this email does not prove it-it seems to be it's own biased opinion by someone which is now being passed around as fact. I guess it helps to prove that the media is not the only one with biases.
Lastly, there seems to be some dispute as to the actually cost when comparing inagurations of four years past versus this recent one. As far as the Citibank donations, it may or may not be true as I understand donations are commonly made by private individuals-the email being passed around and quoted in this blog seems to suggest this is something uncommon or improper when it is not yet clear whether it is or is not.
Thanks for the heads up! I should establish a "bounty" payment for readers who find inaccuracies.
I have moved your comment to the header of the article.
Granted, it may not be "false" but it sure is less than accurate.
Thanks again!
Post a Comment