In the history of mankind, many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state. TR


White House Sets Ground Rules for Local Interviews

The White House is doing something with its local TV interviews that it could not easily get away with in encounters with the White House press corps, which President Obama has been studiously ignoring: choosing the topic about which President Obama and the reporter will talk.

In interviews with three local TV stations Monday, two from states critical to Obama’s reelection effort, Obama held forth on the possibility of “sequestration” if he and Congress fail to reach a budget deal, allowing him to make his favorite political point that Republicans are willing to cause grievous harm to the economy and jobs in order to protect the rich from tax increases.

Obama Monday threw the White House press corps a bone by suddenly appearing in the briefing room for 22 minutes and taking questions from a total of four reporters. It was his first press conference at the White House – albeit in miniature – since March, and only his second of the year. Obama before Monday had taken exactly one substantive question from White House reporters since June.

But the three other interviews Obama also held Monday pointed to the advantage he gets by focusing on local press, with whom he has been speaking more regularly.

Under sequestration, if a budget deal is not reached by the end of the year, harsh automatic spending cuts will occur. Each of the network reporters were from cities with major military facilities that could be unduly impacted if sequestration occurs.

Two of the reporters were from Norfolk, Virginia and Jacksonville, Florida, both presidential battleground states. The third was from San Diego.

The reporters mostly made no effort to hide the arrangement. “The president invited me to talk about sequestration,” NBC 7 San Diego’s reporter told her audience. In the interview, she set Obama up with a perfectly pitched softball the president couldn’t have been more eager to take a swing at:

“What do you want individual San Diegans to know about sequestration?” she asked.

Donna Deegan of FCN Jacksonville initially seemed to apologize for not broaching the appointed subject right away.

“Mr. President, I know we were asked to talk about sequestration today,” she said, but then added she wanted to talk about something else first. Finally, she got to it:

“Let’s talk a little bit about sequestration, because I know that’s why you invited us here,” she said.

Obama used an interview with WVEC Norfolk to specifically bash Republicans.

“The only thing that’s standing in the way of us getting this done right now is the unwillingess on the part of some members of Congress, and folks in in the Republican Party, to give up on some tax breaks for people like me who don’t need them,” he said.

The reporters were able to ask about other topics. But with their face time with the president limited to under ten minutes, and Obama well rehearsed to discuss at length his favored topic, there was little room for much else to come up.

668 thoughts on “White House Sets Ground Rules for Local Interviews”

  1. This is totally unconscionable. Why isn’t the MSM up in arms? Are they just waiting for their blessing by The One to ask him the latest pre-printed, talking points question? Has anyone discovered what The One had on his reading list in 1984? Also, if it is ‘proper’ for presidential candidates to share their tax returns, shouldn’t it also be proper for the candidates to share their college transcripts? Just when you think he cannot disgust rational thinking individuals, The One pulls another cheap trick out of his Chicago-thugs political play book.

        1. Thanks for the trite and worn psuedo-intellectual expression. Never get tired of that, or “faux”, as both show such class and originality of thought.

          1. Except that when something is based in truth it is logical whereas when it is just patronizing it actually IS pseudo-intellectual.

    1. MSM? You mean Dem party propaganda arm? It’s like saying that Pravda and Izvestiya would object to what CPSU Congress told them to publish. Never happened. They were given their article verbiage “from above”. So what is different here?

        1. yes Tim, I’m a birther I believe that all thats necessary is for me to claim to have been born on US soil in a state that requires no proof. I believe that it doesn’t matter if my parents were citizens that anyone born on US soil can run for president. I believe that the 14th amendment gives anyone born on US a natural born status and that any other aligiance is irelevant. Yes Tim I am a birther and laughing at the other 42 out of 44 presidents who thought they had to be something special to qualify. Oh and Chester Arthur was a mistake…he really shouln’t have been thrown off the ticket by the GOP.

          1. Hey z-fix, I had to show my ORIGINAL birth certificate to RENEW my VA license that I’ve had for 45 years. I actually went to our DMV with the one without the embossed seal; sort of equivalent to the “Cert. of Live Birth” that O wants us to believe certifies his birth, and was told I had to have the one with the embossment! You believe that? It wasn’t good enough for a renewal of my driver’s license, but I could be PRESIDENT with it…… Jesus wept……

          2. You did not show the ORIGINAL, which is in the files, and which does not have the official seal on it. You showed the official physical copy, and that is what Obama has shown to the press—with the seal on it, on the back, where it is supposed to be. And in addition, the officials in Hawaii of BOTH political parties have confirmed the facts on Obama’s birth certificate, and they are further confirmed by the Index Data file and by the fact that the DOH of Hawaii sent the notices to the newspapers in Hawaii that listed Obama’s birth. At the time ONLY the DOH could send those notice to the section of the papers called Health Bureau Statistics, and in 1961 the DOH only sent out notices for children born in Hawaii.t

          3. I get your sarcasm, and why, etc. Yet I’d still like you to answer Zanografix point, please. What say you? Or why couldn’t my President pass clearance to work in the White House as an intern? Why has he spent so much to seal and hide so much of his past? Or, why aren’t you curious, like any normal human being should obviously be? What is wrong with the Left? I would be curious if this were a non-leftist President. Why aren’t you?

          4. NONE of my story is sarcasm. I had that experience and my point is obvious. Obama skated on his citizenship requirements and the silence from the press is deafening. I, on the otherhand, was forced to show my official birth certificate for a license renewal. Believe me, I’m as outraged as z-fix, my friend…..

          5. I would like to know why Obama, and Michelle, both gave up their Law licenses in Illinois? People just don’t give up their law licenses that easily, They work hard to keep them.

          6. Keeping your law licence requires you to take continuing education courses (maybe 24 hours every two years) that cost money, although some employers pay for the courses. Also you have to pay fees to the state, maybe $300 a year. So some people who do not intend to practice give up the license in a limited sense. They take inactive status and canmove back to activestatus without taking the full bar exam again. This may be what the Obamas did.

          7. He has neither “sealed” anything nor spent any money on hiding anything. These claims were made up by birthers. To be sure, he hasn’t shown his school transcripts, but they are not “sealed,” and Romney did not show his either, nor did Bush or Clinton or Bush41, etc.

          8. They were all over Bush 44 about his “bad” grades and how he was stupid because he got “gentleman’s C’s” but let Kerry slide after the election come to find out Kerry had worse grades than Bush.

          9. Yes, they did find out the grades of Bush44 and Kerry, but neither of them actually showed their grades. Neither did Clinton or Romney, etc. And McCain certainly did not. Neither Obama nor Romney has shown his grades, and the point is that they do not have to. It is not required. There is no law that says that a president or a presidential candidate should reveal their grades.

            So the question: “Why hasn’t Obama shown his grades?” and the allegation “Obama has sealed his grades,” are both silly.

          10. Neither Obama’s grades nor Romney’s grades are “sealed.” They are simply private, covered under state and federal privacy lawas.

          11. @Zfix – Trying to get if you’re being sarcastic or just ill-informed!?

            The 14th Amendment has NOTHING to do with defining “Natural Born” citizenship!

            In fact, the primary purpose of the Amendment was to settle the citizenship status of the emancipated slaves after the War Between the States!

            In fact, the 14th Amendment NEVER once even mentions the term, “Natural Born” citizen!

            In fact, a primary principal of Constitutional Law 101 is that Amendments NEVER override the original Constitutional text UNLESS the original language is used IN the Amendment and specifically referred to.

            Any further questions?

          12. The 14th only affects the CITIZEN portion of Natural Born Citizen. The Natural Born is the original meaning. What was the original meaning?

            We got the definition from the common law, which is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers.

            “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          1. I’d ask Mit Romney “who is your real daddy.” The chance of his mother having had an affair is just as high as Obama’s mother.

        2. Obama has lived for almost 50 years without leaving any footprints — none! There is no Obama documentation — no bona fides — no paper trail — nothing.

          Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released (lawyers’ fees greater than $4,000,000 ~ birth certificate is $15)
          Certification of Live Birth — Released — Counterfeit
          Certificate of Live Birth — Released — Counterfeit
          Amended Certification of Live Birth — Released — Counterfeit
          Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released (if one exists)

          Obama/Dunham divorce — Released but incomplete (by independent investigators)
          Obama Sr. INS file — Released

          Noelani Kindergarten records — Records lost (this is a big one — read two frames)
          Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released

          Anna Soetoro/Dunham passport records — Released, but key years are missing
          Soetoro adoption records — Not released

          Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released (by independent investigators)

          Punahou School application — Missing
          Punahou School records — Not released
          Noelani 3rd Grade records — Not released

          Soetoro/Dunham divorce — Released (by independent investigators)

          Selective Service Registration — Released (by independent investigators) — Under suspicion

          Social Security Numbers — Released (by independent investigators) — Obama has used sever of them, none of which were issued to him
          Occidental College records — Not released

          Financial Aid Records — Not released
          Passport — Not released and records scrubbed clean by Obama’s terrorism and intelligence adviser
          Columbia College records — Not released
          Columbia thesis — “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament” — Not released
          Harvard College records — Not released
          Harvard Law Review articles — None

          Illinois Bar Records — Not released
          Baptism certificate — None (he was never baptized)
          Medical records — Not released — nor is the source of this nasty scar
          Illinois State Senate records — None
          Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
          Law practice client list — Not released
          University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
          Rashid Khalidi video — Hidden by the L.A. Times

          White House Visitors list — Incomplete to the point of worthless

          The Blagojevich Interview — judge denies access to the FBI report
          The Osama bin Laden photos — sealed by Obama

          The Fast & Furious documents — Executive Privilege invoked

          The Illinois State Archives told Judicial Watch that they never received any request from Senator Obama to archive any records in his possession. In 2007, Obama told Tim Russert that his records were “not kept.”

          And there’s less on the web every day. In time, the entire Obama body of knowledge will consist of 3 documents — “Dreams From My Father” — “The Audacity of Hope” — and the latest — “Change We Can Believe In” — all written by Barack Hussein Obama or his “ghost-writers.”

          Just an accident? I don’t think so, but the overriding question is what, and why? What is Obama hiding? And, why is he using such extreme measures to hide it?

          With his willing accomplices in the ObamaMedia, Obama has succeeded in evading the eligibility issue and seizing power.

          And we still don’t know who the hell he is — or where he comes from — or who sent him.

          1. I tend to not believe in conspiracy theories, however, in this case each item by itself is minor, but when you add them up, it’s an obvious trend to hide his backround. And when confronted with this amount of evasion, and you cannot find anything to refute it, something definetely is wrong here.

    2. STOP waiting for “the media” to attack their friends. Are you dumb?? This is what McCain did last go round. He kept saying Why doesn’t the media stop this? When will they demand this or that?? NEVER. Get some poster board, some sticks and make signs. Then get out in the street and DEMAND what you want. Read Alinski then DO IT!!! When you see “Law and Order” or some other show pushing the Dems line… WRITE AND CALL THE SPONSER. Then STOP BUYING THEIR STUFF. Don’t watch the shows. Call your local stations and demand they cut the shows. SCREAM YOUR HEAD OFF. When the Pres or some Creep Congressman or whoever comes to town GET OUT THERE. GET SOME STUDENTS. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET IT DONE. Don’t be surprised if this comment is “moderated” into nothing. That is how they play.

    3. This is similar to how Pravda covered the Soviet leaders. If the reporters didn’t ask the questions they were told to ask, they were soon covering the flow of icebergs.

      1. Correct post Andy. Obama and his “LapDog Media” are crooked down to their toes. Obama is ‘minimizing those who DO want to report truthfully as he ridicules them aka: Per :Rules For Radicals, by Alinsky, his hero. He wants to be another Hugo Chavez and dictate
        over America. Cold day in Hell when that happens fully. We are a FREE REPUBLIC, NOT RUSSIA(like his Pal, Putin)

    4. This administration promised to be the most transparant in history and they are because it’s so easy to see right throuhg their extreme dishonesty.

  2. Does anyone … ANYONE! … in the media still know what it means to do “journalism”? You know…ask questions, even uncomfortable probing questions, of people in power? Anyone? …anyone home? Nope, I guess not.

  3. honestly if you couldn’t tell this is what happened from the first question that was asked then you need some serious help because you are likely retarded.

    1. Absolutely a failure. The mainstream media gang has buried itself in Its worship of fellow socialist Obama. They, the talking heads of NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, etc, have jettisoned their professionalism and constitutional responsibility. Of course the “journalists” will do a “objective” job when they cover for Biden and O in the “debates”.

      1. I long ago gave up on hoping MSM would at least attempt fair reporting. I give my attention to Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, even USA Today. There are others, but not too many. If advertisers want to waste their money on MSM, that’s their right. Eventually they’ll leave MSM as roadkill, while internet is blowing huge holes in their “reporting,” thank God. It is far superior to the kool-aid we were forced to consume only a few years ago.

        1. The internet, yes, it has blown holes in the MSM, but for how long will comrade Obama allow the freedom of exchange via the internet?

        2. The Wall Street Journal is becoming more questionable daily.
          The Op/Ed is usually Conservtive, but the rest is a slant.

          I’ve been reading the WSJ everyday for the past 30+ years.

          1. “The Op/Ed is usually Conservtive, but the rest is a slant.”

            Cory, if you have been reading the WSJ everyday for 30 years, as you say, then you haven’t comprehended anything that you have read. The Wall Street Journal has been leftist with the exception of the Op/Ed section since Ronald Reagan and possibly before. I started reading it in 1980 and it has been that way ever since. I thought everybody knew that. Guess not.

      2. I am sorry to say, but FoxNews is just as bad! Not quite as bad, but just as bad.

        How many of FoxNews anchors & commentary hosts have you heard promoting UnQualified, as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, candidates for both POTUS & VPOTUS?

        Like Gov. Jindal & U.S. Sen. Rubio? Both Non-Natural Born U.S. citizens, yet POTUS & VPOTUS are required by Art. II, Sec. 1, par. 5 of the Constitution to be “Natural Born” U.S. Citizens.

        And that’s just the tip of the iceberg! Heard ANY FoxNews reporting or followup to Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation and conclusion that 0bama’s Hawaiian Birth Cert. is, IN FACT, a forgery? Chirp, chirp!!

        I could go on, but what’s the use? Yes, Foxnews may present a more balanced presentation of the news, BUT they hardly are NOT biased or NOT in the tank with those who seek to destroy our Constitutionally founded “Republic”!

        1. Bobby Jindal born: June 10, 1971 – Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.
          Marco Rubio born: May 28, 1971 – Miami, Florida

          But then again…a conspiracy nut always overlooks the obvious, sometimes too obvious.

          1. Well, Walter, place of birth or “Jus soli” (right of the soil) does NOT make one a “Natural Born” U.S. Citizen!

            It MAY grant you citizenship, at best “Native” citizenship, but NOT Natural Born citizenship status as defined by the Constitution for the positions of POTUS & VPOTUS!

            Otherwise, anchor babies, or children of ILLEGAL immigrants, would then ALSO be eligible for POTUS & VPOTUS!

            Which is exactly WHY the Founders put the Natural Born Citizen clause into the Constitution, concerning ONLY the positions of POTUS & VPOTUS, as to PREVENT any foreign influence or affiliations within the Commander In Chief of the Republic of the United States.

            Ya might want to check out John Jay’s (our first SCOTUS Chief Justice) letter to Gen. George Washington suggesting the inclusion of the Natural Born clause during the crafting of the Original U.S. Constitution! Just a bit of Un-Revised history for ya!

            I guess according to YOU, Chief Justice John Jay was a “conspiracy nut”!!

        2. Uhhhh, GMScott, Marco Rubio was born in Miami, FL on May 28, 1971. Bobby Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, LA on June 10, 1971. Are those not US cities making them Natural-born? What did I miss?

          1. Sorry, here I’ll make it REAL easy for you two:

            John Jay to George washington:
            ““Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

            Class dismissed!

          2. @FLDemFem :} BINGO! :)

            Exactly WHY the Founders also put the grandfather clause into Art. II, Sec. 1, par. 5 “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” because most of Washington’s colleagues and possible future POTUS candidates had parents of foreign birth. So they needed to cover POTUS candidates until their generation passed and then ONLY “Natural Born” U.S. Citizens could be eligible for POTUS & VPOTUS.

            Of course one must comprehend the english langauge to understand this, as well as understand the original intent of the language used.

            Sadly in 2008, 53% of U.S. voters, many of whom were probably pubically educated, were NOT aware of this fact!

            100 years of progressive socialist indoctrination and activist SCOTUS/Federal judges have accomplished their misssion in dumbing down the “unwashed” masses to accept a putative POTUS who OPENLY promised to “fundamentally transform” the Republic of the United States into their dream of the United Socialist States of America!

            BUT, there’s ALWAYS a remnant! It was ONLY 1/3rd of the colonists who wanted to break free from the crown of England. 1/3rd had the courage to create the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!

            I believe that today, the remnant will once again arise to pull us out from the tyranny of serfdom and dependence of the progressive socialist LIE!!

          3. Sorry, where do you get your information concerning the definition of “natural born citizen?” Every congressional opinion or court decision stretching back to the 1700s would indicate that persons born in the US, regardless of any parent’s citizenship, are in fact natural born citizens and eligible for election to any office.

            Case in point: (like him or not) our current elected administrator. (

            Do you have information that conclusively indicates otherwise?

          4. Begging your pardon here, “Every congressional opinion” is NOT Constitutional Law nor are you correct in stating that “Every . . . court decision stretching back to the 1700’s would indicate . . . ”

            SCOTUS has NEVER specifically addressed the “Natural Born” citizen requirement for POTUS until FINALLY they are being FORCED to this year!

            The closest case and subsequent SCOTUS decision that even remotely addresses WHO is a “Natural Born” citizen is Minor v. Happersett.

            Pertinent part of that decision: “The opinion (written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite) first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization” and that the Constitution “does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.” Under the common law, according to the court, “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

            Current U.S. Code: Page 88 U. S. 167
            “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

            Also: Page 88 U. S. 168 ” . . .
            children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.”

            Clearly among all the “decisions” as well as even the most current decision, signed by none-other than one barack 0bama, jr, & hilliary clinton concerning John McCain’s eligibility as a “natural Born” U.S. citizen the ONE certain fact was the PLURAL emphasis on TWO U.S. citizen Parent(s)!!

          5. I appreciate your research. You appear to me, however, to be supporting the assertion that “natural born” is, in fact, not defined by the Constitution and, until such time as it is, then it is entirely within the realm of plausibility that a person born in the US of two foreign parents could conceivably be elected to the Presidency. One of the the initial premises of this side discussion was whether Misters Rubio and/or Jindal would be eligible for said office. It would seem – given your evidence – that they are. Is that somehow incorrect?

          6. @DBrown – “So your interpretation of “original intent” supersedes any actual language incorporated into the Constitution?”
            GMScott – NO. Original intent = what the Framers meant, their intention, in using the language incorporated in the final Constitution.

            DBrown – “You first concede there is no current Constitutional definition for “natural born citizen” and then proceed to tell me that the CJs opinion in Minor v. Happersett has allowed you to know the original intent was “possessing two parents who are both already US citizens.”
            GMScott – Well, there is NO specific definition of “Natural Born” citizen contained in the original language of the Constitution, yet it IS there and a requirement for POTUS & VPOTUS, so therefore one must use, as did CJ Waite and as he explained in his decision, the resources that the Framer’s used in understanding why they used the language that they did, such as current Common law, and most probably Vatell’s “Law of Nations”.
            I ONLY brought this up in response, and to refute your statement that “Every . . . court decision stretching back to the 1700s would indicate that persons born in the US, regardless of any parent’s citizenship, are in fact natural born citizens and eligible for election to any office.”
            as this is NOT the case, especially with the highest court of the land, which in fact SCOTUS has the sole authority and principle role in deciding what is Constitutional or not at the Federal level.

            DBrown – All I meant to ask, in my original response, was is there a Constitutional basis for denying a person eligibility for the office of President based on their parents citizenship alone. One can certainly read much on what has been opined over the years ( and it would seem to me the judgement is often in favor of granting the term to anyone born in the US regardless of parentage.
            GMScott – YES, much opining, yet without any real Constitutional merit!
            Here is a link to a contemporary gentleman who is much more articulate and has much more thoroughly researched this topic than I. Please peruse at your leisure to fully absorb what is stated.

          7. It wasn’t until recently that one needed to define what the meaning of “is” is. The Founding Fathers used word of everyday usage and foolishly thought that everyone would understand what was being said. They evidently did foresee the product of a progressive public school education. These people answer reasonable questions with a Homer Simpson, DUH.

          8. @ GMScott : “to refute your statement that “Every . . . court decision stretching back to the 1700s..” Agreed and conceded. That was unclear and over-generalized writing on my part. I meant to refer to decisions held forth by lower courts and opinions in documents and letters many of which are referenced in all the links we’ve been throwing around. Some of them lean towards granting the term “natural born” to non-US-parented citizens (born in the US,) and some – as we’ve both pointed out – do not.

            It would appear that a Constitutional clarification on that terminology may be in order at some point and I, as you, am glad that our Constitution provides a clear set of instructions on how that would be accomplished.

          9. @DBrown – ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Jeesh!!

            Evidently your appreciation of my “research” did not payoff as clearly you cannot comprehend the English language, contemporary or colonial!

            What part of TWO U.S. citizen PARENTS do you NOT understand??

            I am an “original intent” Constitutionalist and thoroughly believe and stake my unalienable Rights, endowed to me by my Creator and wholly guaranteed to me, as a free & sovereign individual citizen, as prescribed within the U.S. Constitution. I also stake my liberty on the fact that the U.S. Constitution CANNOT be altered or amended by time, culture or interpretation unless amended by the proper means as prescribed within said Constitution!!

            NOT by some tin pan wannabe dictator, nor a majority “opinion” by Congress, nor by a majority of a popularity vote by the electorate!!

            BUT by a Constitutional Amendment ratified with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

            The “collective” mentality may work in some socialist, communist or democracy countries, BUT NOT in our Constitutional Representative Republic!

            However, I challenge you to find ANY socialist nation, in the entire history of mankind, that has outlasted the Republic of the United States with the same original Constitution!

            And THAT is what is SO important about comprehending and understanding “original intent”!!

          10. @GMScott Re: your statement below – I see. So your interpretation of “original intent” supersedes any actual language incorporated into the Constitution? You first concede there is no current Constitutional definition for “natural born citizen” and then proceed to tell me that the CJs opinion in Minor v. Happersett has allowed you to know the original intent was “possessing two parents who are both already US citizens.”

            And really, I find that resorting to insults is not the way to inform a dialogue. I have no doubt, and I say this with no sarcasm, that you are an intelligent, well-read and well-informed individual.

            All I meant to ask, in my original response, was is there a Constitutional basis for denying a person eligibility for the office of President based on their parents citizenship alone. One can certainly read much on what has been opined over the years ( and it would seem to me the judgement is often in favor of granting the term to anyone born in the US regardless of parentage. I recognize that you disagree with that interpretation and I understand you are not alone in it. (

            You and I agree, however, on the steadfast nature of our Constitution and I, too, am thankful to live in this Republic that allows free and open debate, and a robust and difficult method for amending the founding document ensuring that our liberties could not be infringed on the whim of any would-be dictator.

          11. @Jeff – Well 0bama DID make that claim, did he not?

            On 0bama’s “Fight the Smears” website, 0bama made this startling claim;
            “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

            And The British Nationality Act of 1948 says:
            “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

            So by 0bama’s OWN admission, he is at least of dual citizenship AND ineligible to be POTUS! Something, TO THIS VERY DAY, the msm will NOT address!

            AND, 0bama even threw it into every U.S. citizens face with BOTH of his fraudulent birth certificates which named barack obama, sr. as his bio-father!

            Pretty amazing, huh?

          12. Actually, 0bama did claim to be a “Native” U.S. Citizen, all-the-while betting that MOST of the U.S. electorate would never pick up on the difference nor understand the difference nor even READ the Constitution and NOTICE that the requirement for POTUS & VPOTUS is CLEARLY spelled out as “Natural Born” U.S. Citizen!

          13. Who told you that dual citizens are not eligible to be president? In fact FOUR US presidents were dual citizens before Obama, two while president (Jefferson and Madison) and two at birth (Wilson and Eisenhower).

            Equally important, the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the parents of a US Citizen.

            “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          14. Even if Jefferson and Madison were dual citizens they would have been grandfathered in as they were citizens when the country was founded.

            Eisenhower was born to two American citizens, in Kansas so I don’t know where you get dual citizenship.

            Wilson was born in Virginia and was opposed to dual citizenship as it interferes with the proper assimilation of immigrants.

            So I guess it’s on you to show any evidence of they’re having been dual citizens.

          15. Re: “Eisenhower was born to two American citizens, in Kansas so I don’t know where you get dual citizenship.”

            He was a dual citizen because his GRANDPARENTS were German Citizens and Germany had laws making the grandchildren of its citizens German citizens at birth. It is ironic that the leader of the allied forces in Europe was until he took his first US government job (which was when he entered West Point) a dual citizen of Germany.

            Woodrow Wilson’s mother became a US citizen when she married Wilson’s father, but she never gave up her British citizenship, so when Wilson was born, he was a dual citizen.

            There is no mention of dual citizenship affecting Natural Born Citizen status in the Constitution or in the Federalist Papers or in any law or court ruling. The meaning comes from the common law and simply refers to the place of birth regardless of the citizenship of one or even two parents.

            “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.

            (No mention of dual citizenship affecting.)

            “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

            (No mention of dual citizenship affecting.)

            And from the Wong Kim Ark decision:

            It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

            III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

            (No mention of dual citizenship affecting.)

          16. What is the basis for this claim? Honestly interested. By the way, probably none of our first four or five presidents had parents who were U.S. citizens. Their parents probably died before the Consitution was passed.

          17. @mo1 – Thus, as I explained earlier, the need for the grandfather clause in Art. II, Sec. 1, par. 5.

            Try to keep up & I’ll try my best to educate if your “HONESTLY interested” and willing to break free from the progressive, socialist indoctrination and actually do some HONEST research!

            You could start by enriching your life by delving into the Federalist Papers to get a sense of what was going on and in the minds of the ones who ACTUALLY wrote the U.S. Constitution. Forget about those who would have you deluded by their own revision of history!

          18. The need for the grandfather clause was to enable Alexander Hamilton, who was not born in one of the 13 colonies and was a naturalized citizen of New York, and James Wilson, who was not born in one of the 13 colonies and was a naturalized citizen of Pennsylvania, and some others, to be eligible. It was not to enable George Washington to be eligible. He was NEVER naturalized. He and Adams and Jefferson and Madison and the others were all US citizens at birth due to being born in the USA. They were Natural Born Citizens. Hamilton and James Wilson were not because they were not born here but instead were naturalized.

          19. That is not correct. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.

            “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

            Here are sources to turn to for further research:







      1. It was the Hippies last chance at relevancy. The Country and the entire World will begin to improve when the Hippies finally die. One good thing is that by the next election cycle they will be demanding their ‘free’ Hover-Round electric chairs. Hippies will go out with a whine but there will simply be no money to give them what they demand. Die Hippies, Die!

    1. He’s lived like a coddled hot house orchid his entire life…. why should we expect that this little snowflake suddenly be called upon to act like a man?

    1. No other president or presidential candidate has shown college or school transcripts, and Mitt Romney hasn’t—so why should Obama?

      However, Harvard Law School did say that Obama graduated from that institution Magna Cum Laude.

  4. Hey Barack,
    At least you should pat the “reporters” on the head and give them a treat. Good doggy!
    On his 22 minute TV session it was clear that the first question was planted.
    An honest man would be ashamed to participate in such a charade, but not our President.

    1. I was dreaming that in a real open democracy with a media that truly cherished it’s freedom, members of the media (journalists?) would never agree to such an arrangement. The only good to come of this staged event is that the press made it obvious that the interview was somewhat scripted. If the press in question had balked, some fool eager to sell his/her soul to the devil (you know who) would have done it, perhaps without a disclaimer. When’s the campaign ad airing?

      What’s sad is that the campaign knows they can pull off such a staged event. They and others have probably done it many times. All for the sake of spreading their lies, distortions, and fear mongering (propaganda) to the bobbleheaded sycophants out in la-la land. Where’s the outrage from the media, or are they truly willing participants in the reelection campaign?. News at eleven.

      When I moved to California, people used to tell me to be cautious on the highways because the CHP would most likely give their own mother a ticket. I wish we had a media that came close to being that professional. We the people, and the media, need that level of professionalism if our freedoms are to continue.

  5. BO must be Dracula to the MSM: loking in their eyes with his evil statre and they melt, their legs tingling with delight, fawning and fainting. We need to get the crosses out.

  6. Did anyone hear the Kenyan Dog Eater’s phone interview/questions in New Mexico? I’m sure that will be the foundation for his new ground rules.

    “Ohh my god! Mr. President??? Like….What’s your favorite color? “

    1. Obviously you were in “La La Land” or your playpen! Some of us DID listen to the W.H. Press Corps. ask REAL questions.
      (BTW B.O.: that’s Press Corps. with a silent “p” & “s.” Just in case you were asleep the day they taught that at Columbia.)

    2. STFU clown. I SAW Reagan speak and he DID NOT use a teleprompter and he took questions from reporters as is. HE was a REAL president, not like the POSER YOU voted for.

      www theantiliberalzone com

    3. @nolff
      What are you like 12 years old? I remember Reagan doing a WH presser just about every week. It’s time to put the adults back in charge and vote American in November.

    4. Clinton gave regular press conferences, and answered questions without a teleprompter. In fact, when the teleprompter broke during a State of the Union speech, he didn’t miss a beat, just went right on with the speech. He wrote it and knew it well enough to do that. Obama doesn’t know what he is saying when he does read the teleprompter, remember his re-reading an intro and not realizing he had said that already? Obama doesn’t do press conferences because he doesn’t know anything and a press conference, a real one, would expose that.

    5. +1

      I find it extremely entertaining that the majority of replies to your post first snuff your opinion because you “might” be young and follow that up with “proof” that past presidents could answer a question or make a speech w/o a teleprompter…

      Welcome to 2012 where even those born in 1994 can vote!

      And who really cares what presidents elected after Wilson (read “MoFo that allowed the Federal Reserve Act” ca. 1913) can or can’t do with a teleprompter? Either way they are all members of the rich ruing elite… call them Dem, Rep, Left, Right, Lib, Conserv, heck… call them Satan or even God… one way or the other it’s US (anyone that is poor enough to actually read “news”) vs. THEM (who, as illustrated by this article, get to make the “news”).

      All the more reason for me to continue voting as I have in every presidential election since i was old enough to vote… INDEPENDENT!

  7. So very much is wrong with this president. Our Emperor has no past, no clothes, no ideas, no class, and no shame. It simply astounds me that so many people don’t see it.

    1. More and more realize that they voted a fraud into the WH. Really….do you see ANY cars with those silly Hope and Change stickers? This guy revealed himself with the You didn’t build it speech….And, I smell flop sweat. He’s has classic narcissistic personality disorder and these types absolutely fall apart and BLOW when they realize that people are ON to them.

      You are going to see this little fraud fall apart before your very eyes in the next 80+ days. It’s not going to be pretty. I’m thinking he is going to become very desperate. Perhaps whip up some riots.

      Good luck with that Barry. The few remaining fools that are still hot for you will likely just burn their own cess pools down around them.

      I see that NewsWEAK is trying to save it’s sorry arse with a more realistic article about the First Gay Preezee. The MSM smells blood in the water….we will see who wants to pretend to be a real journalist and perhaps find his college transcripts (citizen of check one: Indonesia–more $$$ goodies), his fab mentor (and probable baby daddy) old Frank Marshall Davis: card carrying commie and very tight with Val Jarret’s grandfather….. His connection to Thomas Ayers. His connection to the 2 murders, execution style from Trinity Church’s Down Low Club….Well, the list goes on and on….Eventually all this crap will come out. Should be fun to see which “journalist” is going to give him up first.

      1. I still see plenty of Obama Hope and Change stickers all over Georgia. 98% of them are black (African Americans) and the other 2% are gays. Those Blacks do not care what he does to the country. He is Black and that is all that matters to them. Gays also do not care except the fact that they get their Marriage rights they think they deserve. Call it something else and I don’t care what they do. I am not saying all Blacks do not care btw….I have seen and met quite a few who realize what is going on and won’t vote for him again………BUT they won’t vote Republican either…..kind of hypocritical to me.

  8. President Obama has gotten away with much in his dealings with the media. The media are at Obama’s feet. It is almost like have a state run media.

  9. Mr. President (and I am using the term “President” loosely), if you FEEL you are not paying enough in taxes then pleae follow the following:

    Get out a pen and your checkbook. Write a check made out to the US Treasury for the amount of the additional taxes you think you should pay to assuage your guilt.

    Don’t forget to sign the check!

    Mail to:

    Gifts to the United States
    U.S. Department of the Treasury
    Credit Accounting Branch
    3700 East-West Highway
    Room 622D
    Hyattsville, MD 20782

    P.S. I am still waiting for your buddy Warren Buffet to follow the above procedure. However, I am not holding my breath for either one of you.

  10. messiah Hussein Obama says: Let me pay my game, my way, and I must win…OR I won’t play. The Media says, OK!!!! We get it, and we will reply this November!!!!

  11. Well, he is getting away with it, isn’t he ? …,It’s a disgrace what is happening to our once wonderful country these past few years…Our national media is even more of a disgrace.

  12. This is even funnier than the fact that the freak liberals who wish for a sweeping socialistic society don’t realize they’d be the first censored. Don’t expect the media to be critical of the current administration no matter what they do. This is “Their” candidate that “they” put in office and all you’re going to hear from them is “Thank you sir, may I have another?”

  13. The worst president in the nation’s history. Never thought anyone could be worse than Richard Nixon, but Obama’s last 3 1/2 years make Nixon look like a Founding Father.

  14. Keith, isn’t talking about the “press conference” Obama held yesterday – although it can conceivably be argued that he does influence the questions asked by only calling on certain reporters.

    Keith is addressing the interviews done with local TV stations; I’ve seen several of them as I travel around the country on business, and they are mostly terrible with soft ball questions. The only time I saw a reporter get tough was when Brad Watson from WFAA in Texas cut off Obama’s attempts to fillibuster the interview. Obama responded by telling him “Next time let me finish my answers.”

    Also, Larry Connors from KMOV in St. Louis questioned Obama about his “jetting around” on frequent vacations. I guess he will never get another chance at an interview.

    1. Actually, Keith Koffler of White House Dossier made that happen. He was the first one, weeks ago, to report on how Obummer has been hiding from the WH press corps. His post got picked up on Drudge, by Hot air, and many other websites.

  15. This is Communist thinking and insanity. Lies, propaganda, control of the media in an attempt to control the minds of the citizens.
    This Obama Administration has got to go! If Obama has to “control” the media in order to present Himself as a somewhat appealing Candidate, Then He is a Liar and as UN-appealing as it can get!
    Vote the Marxist Out in November!

  16. funny how that works

    imparial profession and all…what honor is there in a press representative that accepts these terms…its obvious…they are not professional journalists at all…they are two timing hacks that have no honor or integrity…

  17. I’m pretty sure most WH staff’s probably do this. The problem with obama is just how incredibly NUTLESS he is as a man. Sneaking into a WH Press Corp briefing last minute in order to get easy questions, yet he F”ed that up yesterday. I think we have not only the first black president but the first mentally retarded one.

  18. Hmmm.. let’s see; if I hire a Manager to direct an important project, in my company, and the project isn’t accomplished because, according to the Manager, “none of the Department Heads could come to an agreement,” then, it’s pretty simple – I demote the “Manager.” and hire someone who can get the job done.

  19. A free press is an anachronism. The duty of today’s press corpse is to assist the utopian statist goal of implementing a planned and directed society for the good of all. Because their motives are pure, no criticism or dissent will be tolerated.

    The journalistic ‘profession’ is beyond salvage. It is a self inflated bubble of boobs.

    The solution is to not read the MSM press or listen to the MSM sycophants. Like CNN.

  20. Welcome to 1984. Surveillance by Drones, Homeland security act, “journalists” being told what to ask and when/ where to ask it… Big Brother in action

  21. In the 60’s and 70’s we protested against the Dem machine and its puppet the media, its viet nam war and segregation. Now big brother calls itself progressive and left, but does the same ol things. ( friend bankers making millions, assassination of Khadafy, threatening Syria, Gitmo still open, 1 trillion dollars missing, selling guns to cartels, curtailing “hate” speech, forcing everyone to be “politically correct’, telling people what they can or cannot eat ( foi gras, sharkfin, chick fila etc…) How ignorant this young generation is.

  22. Hey Keith, are you new to covering the political beat? Just curious. EVERY president does this. Since local reporters NEVER get 1 on 1 time with the POTUS, they are obligated to play by the ground rules set or else they dont get the interviews. And if they agree to the ground rules and then try to play “gotcha” they lose all credibility, trust and they could get blackballed from major interviews.
    Those with the leverage get to negotiate the terms.
    Again Keith, are you a rookie? Bush did it, Reagan and Clinton did it …. it’s SOP.

    1. Um, are you part of the WH press corps, or are you just B.S.-ing? If you bothered to read the “about” section, you would see that Keith Koffler is by no means new to the WH beat, as he has over 16 years experience. I certainly trust his opinion and experience more than some drive by commentor’s. Plus, anyone with a functioning brain knows that if a Republican president pulled half the crap that BHO did, the WH press corps would be screaming about it daily.

  23. What passes for “journalism” is a farce. Do these people have no personal integrity? They are nothing more than lapdogs for Obama and the socialists running this country.

  24. Imagine how much better our country could be doing today if the words “journalistic integrity” and “media courage” were not such a freaking joke. The entire industry should be put into the hall of shame. Just pathetic.

  25. Oh well, the most transparent and open administration ever just doesn’t care to answer questions from reporters. It prefers to provide the talking points ahead of time so that Barry can regurgitate back appropriate answers. All Hail Barry!

  26. Wonder if the WH will send the moderators a list of questions to ask the annointed one, and a list to ask Romney. I can see it now, Mr President that is an awesome tie just where did you buy that? Mr Romney can you explain to us in 30 seconds the difference between Micro and Macro economicsand its effect on global economics

  27. Chris Wallace grilled Robert Gibbs on Sunday about the lack of Obama press conferences. And he ridiculed him about the local news/Entertainment Tonight interviews. Suddenly the next day, Obama does a ‘mini-press conference’, and now we hear the local station interviews that Gibbs say make him so ‘transparent’ are fixed and a complete joke.

  28. Reminiscent of Churchill’s words, when you appease an alligator, it is with the understanding it will eat you last.

    Main stream media brought this on themselves by not vigorously exercising what is supposed to be their function in American life (in fact, worse- they used their powers to ignore debate and vetting). They rolled over for Obama now they can reap their reward.

    The press wanted him, the press got him. How’s the underside of that bus look, guys? You sold us out from the very beginning. You deserve it.

Comments are closed.