Sky News' Dissembler and Propagandist
Rush Limbaugh And Obama?s Birth Certificate
Lawyer who challenged Obama: Ineligibility could prove costly By Bob Unruh
Obama and Marxist Dems primed to end USA by 2011By Sher Zieve
BEFORE ELECTION IN 2008 WE WERE TOLD. AND MOST DID NOT LISTEN, LIKE IN CUBA OR VENEZUELA.
Obama assisting in imposing Islamic Sharia law, prohibiting criticism of Islam By Doug Hagmann
Cuban political prisoner Orlando Zapata Tamayo has died
WHITE HOUSE ALLEGEDLY TRIED BRIBERY IN SENATE RACE
Attorney Appeals to UN for Protection from Persecution in United States
Obama?s Marxist beliefs deep-rooted but hidden by Phil S. Dedrick
Court Grants Motion for Leave to File Overlength Brief in Kerchner Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Obama admits that he is a Muslim.
Obama?s Incomplete Dossier
CONGRESS REFUSES TO BRING HOME MILLIONS OF JOBS , By: Devvy
Obama's College Marxism
Obama and Congress Request and Obtain Extension of Time to File
Oklahoma firecracker takes on Obama eligibility
Mr. Obama should press for change at the OAS
THE CONSTITUTION DON?T GET NO RESPECT!
America?s Bolshevik
Who are the 300 terrorists held in U.S. prisons? By: BYRON YORK
Obama, like most Progressives, seems to have a problem identifying U.S. Constitution By Jim O'Nell
OBAMA TWO FACED
I'm an American -- I don't know what the hell Obama is. The Obama File
Obama'sprayer: 'Don't question my citizenship'
SHORT E MAIL ABOUT OBAMA THAT AOL TRANSFERS TO ATTACH ZIP FILE
Obama?s Final Act has begun!by John Charlton
DO WHAT I SAY, BUT NOT WHAT I DO
End Obama and the Marxists Reign of Terror and Destruction By Sher Zieve
Courts can remove ineligible chief executive By Bob Unruh
HOW A CRUDE FORGERY WAS PASSED OFF AS AUTHENTIC TO GET AN UNKNOWN ELECTED AS PRESIDENT OF THE USA
I Believe The Fix Was In for the 2008 Election and The Cover Up is Still Going Strong!
GLEN BECK ON CHE GUEVARA AIRED 012210
Che: The Other Side Of An Icon.
Obama?s narcissism and arrogance will blind him to the message of the Massachusetts victory.
Obama and the people around him are are Obamunists , Scott Brown victory
"Massachusetts Miracle" (Video), vote for Scott Brown
Bill stems from Obama 'birther' controversy
Nothing About Obama Is On The Level
Obama?s Presidential Eligibility Scandal?
Civil Rights in the days of Lincoln: even they understood ?natural born?
In our struggle to regain our freedoms and restore our Constitutional Republic By Ron Ewart
The United States' nightmare of Obama-Reid- Pelosi socialized medicine will just be beginning
Ten New Reasons Why Obamacare Can Still Be Killed, By Phyllis Schlafly
FIRST TIME IN U.S. HISTORY THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT?S ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Every American citizen has legal standing and a right to know the truth.
LETTER FROM STEPHEN PIDGEON TO GLEN BECK
White House threatens Nebraska senator with closure of a crucial Air Force
Mi?rcoles, 31 de marzo de 2010
Not one more dime of contributions until the eligibility question is addressed
http://www.thepostemail.com
CITIZEN TELLS MICHELE BACHMANN STAFFER THAT IF SHE WANTS CREDIBILITY AND CONTRIBUTIONS, SHE WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS MOST PRESSING CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
by Arnie Rosner
Is it time for another "Spirit of 1776" Revolution?
(Mar. 31, 2010) — The following is a letter sent to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's office:
Recently I have become aware of some pretty upset folks across the country. We have exchanged many letters of mutual concern. What's worse is that many are scared out of their minds, especially many close to me personally. There is something inherently wrong when people are outwardly fearful of their government. Don't you agree, Jack?
Much of the following represents my impressions of what others have shared with me, thoughts and ideas from very recent communications from a broad spectrum of concerned citizens across this great country. Based on various concerns about their personal safety and that of their families, many have asked to remain anonymous.
What does that tell you, Jack?
It is simply criminal the way our legislators are psychologically abusing our citizens. Whatever happened to the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"…all guaranteed by the Constitution and seemingly ignored by most of those who were elected by these folks to represent them; trusted, I must add, to represent our citizens in a manner consistent with the principles expected of real American lawmakers.
What is so difficult to understand, Jack, is that the executive branch, both houses and the judiciary have all taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution identical or very similar to the following: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
At the rate many of these legislators are abusing the Constitution, many people are left with the question, "Just who is responsible and accountable to enforce the spirit of this oath and to represent the rights of the American citizens in this regard?"
You may recall, Jack, even Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, when asked by a reporter where Congress had been given the authority to create health care legislation in the first place (and of course, Jack, you and I both know the Congress does not have such authority, but that obviously did not seem to be of concern to the Speaker), she arrogantly replied, "Are you serious?…are you serious?"
So answer me this, Jack: based on the current everyday behavior as demonstrated by those involved, exactly who is responsible? Who is accountable? Surely not the putative President; surely not Congress; surely not the Justice Department; surely not the Judges. Then who, Jack? Are we no longer a country that is subject to the rule of law? If not, why follow any rules or laws at all?
Do we as citizens have to resort to bearing arms ourselves to physically take back our government? Are all of the members of the current government complicit in what appears to me as obstruction of justice? Aren't these actions considered to be the commission of fraud against the American people?
You know, Jack, my awareness of this situation started when the campaign folks contacted me for a donation, a request for financial support. That is when the question I wanted to ask Michele came to mind. And Jack, I haven't even asked that one yet.
Instead, let me ask you one related to support. When and from whom can "We the People" expect some basic support for the protection of the Constitution and our collective rights as provided by the Constitution? When do you think that will come about, Jack? Many of us are more than willing to donate money to Michele's campaign. Of all people, I personally admire her actions the most. To me, she is one of the few real patriots in Congress. But it would sure be appreciated if "We the People" could expect some small measure of support in return. Don't you think that would be fair, Jack? How about it? Are we asking too much?
Look, please accept my apologies for maybe putting you in a tough spot…but then, after all, isn't that the nature of politics? OK, so here is the question, Jack…the one everyone seems to be avoiding, the one question that seems to be ignored just like the Emperor's new clothes.
Jack, what about Obama¹s illegal status as a "natural born Citizen"? You know, Jack, the status defined in the Constitution. The criteria that insures the president has the interest of America at heart. Not like the usurper who is currently in office and obviously working for some other agenda. Like maybe the New WORLD ORDER? What is so sad, Jack, is here is a man who reportedly has spent somewhere between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 to hide a $10 document. Also, it has been reported that the money spent hiding his personal documents has come from "We the People," the taxpayers. Then most decidedly, since we paid for all of this secrecy, more than ever we have a right to know!
Now let me ask you, Jack, how is this considered reasonable by anyone's standards? Let me hear a rational explanation? Even an irrational explanation? Any explanation? Isn't the authentic birth certificate a basic document that by any standard would normally be expected to be made readily available to the citizens of this country? You know, Jack, just because everyone seems to be trying to avoid this issue does not alter the fact that the American public has been taken for a ride. And taken for a ride by whom, Jack? Yes…just exactly who is responsible for this travesty of justice?
It seems to me that everyone is ignoring this issue, but at the same time everyone knows about this issue. So, Jack, is this a grand conspiracy? Are all members of the Congress, the courts, and the Executive Branch going to continue to hide this imposter's status from the entire world? Is this the biggest, broadest conspiracy In the history of mankind? The people have a right to know, Jack. The people have a right to know!
You realize there is also some evidence to suggest that the DNC and Nancy Pelosi are involved in what appears to be election fraud as well. Here are some examples: Scroll down to the bottom of this page. Exhibit 6, document 1, was sent to Hawaii. Exhibit 1 contained the language of constitutional eligibility. Now look at Exhibit 6, document 2, Jack…so where is the beef? No certifying verbiage is present. Now why would that be, Jack? The second document was sent to the rest of the states. The following is the contention of a grand jury that considered the matter. Now as if this was not enough, these facts in evidence gathered by a citizens' grand jury convened under the auspices of the American Grand Jury have been served to many courts and the FBI. Now I am not too smart, Jack, but it appears even to me these legal presentments of criminal charges are being deliberately ignored. Now do you suppose the FBI and the courts are also participating in this conspiracy against the American people?
Oh, yes, Jack…you can find more on these presentments which were served on the various courts and the FBI here and here.
You know, Jack, even Sarah Palin has recognized the critical nature of the "natural born Citizen" qualification. This is basic national security and loyalty 101…not really rocket science. So here is the chance for Michele to join the bandwagon and really bring this issue to the forefront. I can guarantee you when Michele addresses this issue in the open manner necessary to restore public confidence in the legislative and legal processes of this country, she will receive more support than she ever dreamed of from all over the country. More than even Joe Wilson.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. As mentioned, there are many people who are aware of these questions and are anxiously awaiting a response. You see, Jack, we all have this basic faith in Michele to do the right thing regardless of what might be considered politically expedient by a representative of lower caliber than she.
May I expect to hear back from you shortly? Perhaps within a few days? Your confirmation would be appreciated.
© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.
Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin , ARMY PHYSICIAN REFUSES ALL MILITARY ORDERS
http://bobbi85710.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/army-lt-col-terrence-lakin-patriot-and-physician-refuses-all-military-orders/
Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin – Patriot and Physician Refuses All Military Orders
DECORATED ARMY PHYSICIAN REFUSES ALL MILITARY ORDERS BECAUSE PRESIDENT REFUSES TO DOCUMENT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY
Court Martial Likely, Legal Defense Fund Established
Washington, D.C., March 30, 2010. "I am today compelled to make the distasteful choice to invite my own court martial, in pursuit of the truth about the president's eligibility under the constitution to hold office", said active duty Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin. The American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, immediately announced it has set up a legal defense fund and will provide Lt. Col. Lakin with a top-flight defense team. Details are available on the foundation's website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com.
Article II, sec. 1 of the U. S. Constitution explicitly provides that only "natural born" citizens can serve as president and commander-in-chief. Mr. Obama's continuing refusal to release his original 1961 birth certificate has brought Lt. Col. Lakin to the point where he feels his orders are unlawful, and thus MUST be disobeyed.
Lakin has today informed his superiors that he cannot understand how his oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" does not permit military officers to pursue proof of eligibility from his commander-in-chief. Lt. Col. Lakin's efforts to seek affirmation of the president's eligibility have been rebuffed with legal evasions. Given the Obama Administration's "transparency" initiative, many U.S. citizens are also demanding release of the original birth certificate.
Lakin serves as Chief of Primary Care and Flight Surgeon for the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic and is lead Flight Surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff General Casey's pilots and air crew. His numerous awards and decorations include the Army Flight Surgeon's Badge, Combat Medical Badge, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Armed Forced Expedition Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon and the NATO service medal.
American Patriot Foundation: FTC Terry Lakin Defense Fund
Tags: obama Lakin
A Black President, the Progressive?s Perfect Trojan Horse , Lloyd Marcus
http://bigjournalism.com/lmarcus/2010/03/28/a-black-president-the-progressives-perfect-trojan-horse/
A Black President, the Progressive's Perfect Trojan Horse
Like millions of my fellow Americans, I am outraged, devastated and extremely angry by the Democrats' unbelievable arrogance and disdain for We The People. Despite our screaming "no" from the rooftops, they forced Obamacare down our throats. Please forgive me for using the following crude saying, but it is very appropriate to describe what has happened. "Don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining." Democrats say their mission is to give all Americans health care. They're lying. Signing Obamacare into law against both our will and the Constitution is tyranny and step one of their hideous goal of having as many Americans as possible dependent on government, thus controlling our lives and fulfilling Obama's promise to fundamentally transform America.
Lloyd Marcus Mar 28th 2010 at 12:12 pm
I keep asking myself. How did our government move so far from the normal procedures of getting things done? Could a white president have so successfully pulled off shredding the Constitution to further his agenda? I think not.
Ironically, proving America is completely the opposite of the evil racist country they relentlessly accuse her of being, progressives used America's goodness, guilt and sense of fair play against her.
In their quest to destroy America as we know it, progressives borrowed a brilliant scheme from Greek mythology. They offered America a modern-day
White America relished the opportunity to vote for a black man naively believing they would never suffer the pain of being called racist again. Black Americans viewed casting their vote for Obama as the ultimate Affirmative Action for America's sins of the past.
Then there were the entitlement loser voters who said, "I'm votin' for the black dude who promises to take from those rich SOBs and give to me".
Just as the deceived Trojans dragged the beautifully crafted wooden horse into Troy as a symbol of their victory, deceived Americans embraced the progressive's young, handsome, articulate and so-called moderate black presidential candidate as a symbol of their liberation from accusation of being a racist nation. Also like the Trojan Horse, Obama was filled with the enemy hiding inside.
Sunday, March 21, 2010, a secret door opened in Obama, the shiny golden black man. A raging army of Democrats charged out. Without mercy, they began their vicious bloody slaughter of every value, freedom and institution we Americans hold dear; launching the end of America as we know it.
Wielding swords of votes reeking with the putrid odor of back door deals, the Democrats landed a severe death blow to America and individual rights by passing Obamacare.
The mainstream liberal media has been relentlessly badgering the Tea Party movement with accusations of racism. Because I am a black tea party patriot, I am bombarded with interviewers asking me the same question: "Why are you siding with these white racists against America's first African American president?"
I defend my fellow patriots who are white by stating, "These patriots do not give a hoot about Obama's skin color. They simply love their country and oppose his radical agenda. Obama's race is not an issue".
Recently, I have come to believe that perhaps I am wrong about Obama's race not being an issue. In reality, Obama's presidency has everything to do with racism, but not from the Tea Party movement. Progressives and Obama have exploited his race from the rookie senator's virtually unchallenged presidential campaign to his unprecedented bullying of America into Obamacare. Obama's race trumped all normal media scrutiny of him as a presidential candidate and most recently even the Constitution of the United States. Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase health care,which is clearly unconstitutional.
No white president could get away with boldly and arrogantly thwarting the will of the American people and ignoring laws. President Clinton tried universal health care. Bush tried social security reform. The American people said "no" to both presidents' proposals and it was the end of it. So how can Obama get away with giving the American people the finger? The answer. He is black.
The mainstream media continues to portray all who oppose Obama in any way as racist. Despite a list of failed policies, overreaches into the private sector, violations of the Constitution and planned destructive legislation too numerous to mention in this article, many Americans are still fearful of criticizing our first black president. Incredible.
My fellow Americans, you must not continue to allow yourselves to be "played" and intimidated by Obama's race or the historical context of his presidency. If we are to save America, the greatest nation on the planet, Obama's progressive agenda must be stopped.
Tags: OBAMA TROJAN HORSE
THE AMERICAN VELVET REVOLUTION
http://commieblaster.com/velvet-revolution/
Congressman Steve King recently suggested Americans consider a "Velvet Revolution". So we did.
Socialism and the US Constitution are incompatible. America has been at
war with Communism for 90 years and many proud veterans have given
their lives to protect America and to liberate other countries throughout
the world from this oppressive
form of government.
Contrast this with Obama. Now there is overwhelming evidence that
Obama is a Marxist that has been surrounded his entire life by
Communists, Socialists, Marxists and Maoists. For example, Obama's
former spiritual leader for over 20 years, Rev. Wright, is a Marxist and so,
too, is Obama's current spiritual leader, Jim Wallis. Further, it is an
indisputable
fact that Obama has appointed Communists, Socialists, Marxists
and Maoists to his administration. As a Marxist, Obama's pledge to
uphold the US Constitution is worthless,
as evidenced by his actions since his election.
Obama's goal is to fundamentally transform America (to Socialism or
Communism or worse). He is attempting to destroy America from the
Obama plans to humilate you to break your spirit. For example, he has
ordered America soldiers to march with Russians in Red Square under
the placards of Joseph Stalin. Will you stand for this?
Obama's campaign and supporting media was and still is funded in
part by felon socialist, George Soros, whose goal is worldwide socialism.
Soros has visited Obama at the White House. Bill Ayers is Obama's
former boss and the person who helped launch Obama's career.
Ayers is a communist who hates America and he is a US Government
terrorist bomber with long-term relationships and interactions with
Communist Cuba, Communist Russia and Socialist/Communist Venezuela.
Obama's most frequent White House visitor, Andy Stern, is a communist,
whose interactions with Obama violate the US Lobbying Disclosure Act.
We just witnessed Congress approve a socialist-styled healthcare program,
54% of Americans in opposition and only 41% approving. Both the
Communist Party and Communist Cuba's dictator, Fidel Castro,
applauded Obamacare's passage. Now, 62% of Americans want to
fight the Health Bill.
Marxist felon, Robert Creamer, conceived Obamacare in jail. Creamer
was found guilty of bank fraud and is the husband of (D-IL)
Congresswomen Jan Schakowsky, a member of
the Democratic Socialists of America. Creamer's concept was t
ransformed in a draft Healthcare Bill by the Apollo Alliance, a
socialist organization.
There are over 80 in Congress who are or were members of the
Democratic Socialists of America, which is associated with the
Communist Party USA. Declassified FBI files
show that the Communist Party USA is an organizational
department of the Russian KGB.
At least one member of Congress actually kissed Castro while
visiting Communist Cuba.
A large number (80 - 225) of socialist Democratic Congressional
members approved the Healthcare Bill. NY Senator Charles
Schumer was secretly recorded plotting to alter the
US Constitution so that socialist Democrats could remain in power.
The Obama administration has implemented a series of
unconstitutional government takeovers of private industry,
including Wall Street firms, banks, auto companies, national
healthcare, insurance companies and student loans. Obama
is rapidly redistributing and wasting the wealth of Americans
at an alarming pace. The Healthcare Bill alone will redistribute
$409 Billion of American wealth. Obama and numerous members
of his Administration have been videotaped describing their plans
to redistribute the wealth of American citizens.
It is well documented that Obama and his Administration routinely
lie to Americans. The White House has attempted to control the
US media and has routinely disseminated misinformation on its
objectives and performance. Crime and corruption is open and
widespread in the Obama Administration. For example, there
are already over
730 charges of fraud and waste in Stimulus Plan funding thus far.
A much larger list of suspected crimes and constitutional violations
committed by Obama's Administration
and members of Congress has been prepared. Further, the Obama
Administration has demonstrated support for terrorists who are bent
on destroying America.
The US Government is now dysfunctional. A recent poll indicated that
9 out of 10 Americans believe Congress is doing a terrible job. Both
the Democratic Vice President and the House Republican Leader
have described Washington and Congress as "broken". This is
because socialist politicians are in direct conflict with
constitutional politicians and the majority of Americans.
Massachusetts' Democrat Treasurer, Tim Cahill, is emphatic that
the Healthcare Bill will "wipe out the US economy within four years"
and he would know, since Massachusetts now has a failing
healthcare program like Obamacare. Healthcare constitutional
challenges may take four years or more to reverse and it is not
at all certain that the Healthcare Bill will be deemed unconstitutional.
Obama and the Socialists Democrats next intend to use Healthcare
Bill strong-arm, dictatorial tactics to ram immigration reform past
a majority of Americans, no matter what they think. They also will
try to give voting rights to felons. The reason for doing so is to
flood election ballot boxes with the votes of 11-25 million former
illegal aliens and
4 million felons so socialist Democrats can remain in power,
shred the Constitution
and fully transform the US into a dictatorial Socialist-Communist
nation. Thus, a near-term American Velvet Revolution may be needed
right now to halt Obama's Socialist Transformation Plan for America
and to save the US Economy from complete and total collapse.
So How would a Non-Violent and Legal Velvet Revolution Occur?
There are far more US citizens than US government officials and this
fact is what corrupt politicians fear most. If one million American
Velvet Revolutionaries were to protest
Obama for a week, it would paralyze Washington.
Americans will not readily embrace a violent overthrow of a US
Americans will, however, support peaceful demonstration and
the uncovering and eradication of crimes, corruption and
destructive and/or subversive foreign
influences on their government officials, especially if our US
Constitution is
threatened. Our First Amendment rights permit such actions.
The Tea Party is the most likely pro-Constitution organization that
could trigger and create a Velvet Revolution. The photos you see
in this article were taken at the 09/12/09 event. 1.7 million people
suddenly appeared in Washington, DC to express their displeasure
with Obama. The Tea Party can almost immediately call for a
Washington, DC protest and, on short notice, hundreds of
thousands and, perhaps, millions of people can surround the
Capital and the White House and stay there until citizen
demands are met.
Potentially appropriate demands Velvet Revolutionaries
might make are:
Independent investigations into a long list of suspected crimes
and corruption by US government officials.
Full FBI background investigations on Obama and other
Progressive/Socialist members of Congress to determine
and expose their full relationships, funding and on-going
interactions with communist, socialist and terrorist foreign
countries, organizations and agents, such as the communist-led
SEIU, ACORN and AFL-CIO organizations, the Communist
Party USA, Cuba, China, Venezuela, Russia, etc., to
determine if one or more foreign governments are
influencing or directing these politicians.
Citizens' demands that accused politicians (such as Obama,
his Administration and/or Congress members) step down
until independent investigations and/or public trials are
conducted or alternatively that all current Communist,
Socialist, Marxist, Maoist and Progressive government
officials agree to resign and no longer work for US Federal,
State or local governments for the remainder of their lives.
Note: in the interim and until new elections can be held,
all 50 US States' Governors and
Attorneys General might take control of the Federal
Government through a process they would jointly define.
A demand to see Obama's actual credentials, such as his
passport, the Obama/Dunham marriage license, the
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license, the Soetoro adoption records,
his kindergarten records, his Punahou School records, his
Occidental College records, his Columbia College records,
his Columbia thesis on "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament",
his long-form birth certificate, his Harvard College records,
his Harvard Law Review articles, his Illinois Bar Records,
his Baptism certificate, his Illinois State Senate records,
his Illinois State Senate schedule,
his law practice client list, his University of Chicago scholarly
articles and/or other
documents Obama is secreting. Obama has spent $millions
in legal fees to prevent Americans from knowing his background.
This demand would, once and for all, determine whether Obama
is officially qualified to serve as President. Therefore, this
demand might be the highest priority of the Velvet Revolution,
since it has the potential to immediately reverse every action
Obama has taken, if Obama is found to be unqualified to have
served as President.
Since communism and socialism are fundamentally opposed
to the principles of the US Constitution, another citizens'
demand might be the requirement that all Government and
Government-funded workers sign a condition-of-employment
"Loyalty Oath" (i.e., a oath that prohibits them from associating
with communists, socialists and terrorists).
Non-Violent Revolution
American Velvet Revolutionaries would need to employ strict
Mahatma Gandhi-style, passive, sit-down strike techniques
during times of potentially violent confrontation. Examples
might include:
Going limp and/or chaining themselves to each other or
fixed objects if arrests were attempted.
If guns were pointed at them, the Revolutionaries might
put rolled-up copies of
the US Bill of Rights into the barrels of these guns.
If Revolutionaries are beaten, attacked with water-canons,
tear-gassed or shot, the
violence would be photographed with videos and photos
sent around the country. Government or counter-revolutionary
violence against passive Revolutionaries
would instantly create great public outcry. Substantially more
citizens would then
join in the protest and the American Velvet Revolution would
be quickly won.
This is what occurred in Czechoslovakia.
Corrupt government officials could become dangerous once
they become concerned for their personal safety and/or ultimate
incarceration. This is why the Oath Keepers were formed.
We already know government officials are well organized and
could be receiving significant funding, guidance and support
from global socialist organizations and/or communist country
governments. So it might be wise to give corrupt government
officials a chance to leave their posts voluntarily in exchange
for minimal or no prosecution, provided they agree in writing
to strongly binding terms.
Duration, Preparation and Local Coordination
The American Velvet Revolution might take as little as 1-2 weeks
to achieve its goals,
but it could take months. So Revolutionaries would need to
prepare themselves for
a long-term stay, perhaps "working in shifts". A Revolutionary's
backpack might include such items as a tent, ground cloth,
sleeping bag, canteen, rain poncho, cooking kit,
freeze-dried food, flashlight, trenching tool, gas mask,
first aid kit, a change of clothes, soap, cell-phone, pen
and paper, and video camera.
Revolutionaries would need to establish a system of "elected local
leadership" to decide who will represent them in dealings with
the press, public and government officials.
These leaders will also be needed to ensure the local wellbeing
of the large numbers of local Revolutionaries involved in the protest.
For example, leaders may be needed to organize the provisioning
of food, water, toilets, power, communications and emergency
medical care for the protesters. Volunteer ex-military veterans can train Revolutionaries how to camp out on the Capital lawn.
Counter-Revolution?
Opposing communist organization citizens (SEIU, ACORN,
MoveOn.org, etc.) might march against the Velvet Revolutionaries
and attempt to create a civil war. Again, non-violence
is the path to take if this occurs. The counter-revolutionary
scenario is, however,
unlikely if strict non-violent protest techniques are used.
Why? Because counter-revolutionaries will be greatly
out-numbered and because these small, fragmented
groups will not be as organized or as motivated as the
Revolutionaries.
Velvet Revolution Timing?
One can assume that halting a corrupt and destructive
Administration sooner, rather than later, is preferable to
mitigate further crimes, corruption, government takeovers
and socialist transformation. A minimum of two months is
probably needed to fully organize a number of Revolutionaries
large enough to act as the first major wave of the revolt.
However, since public outage is currently so high, and
because America is at stake, mobilization may occur
faster and, perhaps, in as little as a week.
Washington, DC weather conditions in May and September
are most ideal, but true Revolutionaries will assemble at any time.
However, what if the April 15, 2010 Tea Party Washington
DC event became not a one-day rally under the slogan of
"Take Back Our Country", but truly became the start of the
American Velvet Revolution that actually did take back our
country? How much national debt could be saved? How
much socialism could be stopped? How much government
crime could be prevented? Weather-wise, the timing would
be excellent.
Local Velvet Revolution protests could occur in parallel at
selected Congress member offices. US Government and
selected commercial business employees could be
encouraged to stage "sick-outs" on certain dates, in a
manner that is similar to what occurred in Prague.
Businesses could be encouraged to provide support to
Revolutionaries in the form of food, water, shelters,
electrical generators,
Wi-Fi and the like.
Politicians and government officials who do not support
socialism could no longer attend Congress and cease
meeting with Progressives. Instead, they should help, but not
lead, the revolt.
The moment this happens, the socialists will have lost. Obama,
"The Emperor Who
Has No Clothes", and all his minions, will then stand naked
and exposed in front of America. Power will change hands
quickly and America will then get back to being
"The World's Beacon of Light for Freedom" once more.
What May Happen Between Now and November 2010 if an
American Velvet Revolution Does Not Occur
Based on what we have observed from Obama, thus far, and
in Hugo Chavez's Socialist/Communist takeover of the
Venezuelan people, events that could potentially occur are:
Greater government control, takeover and/or shutdown
of conservative TV or radio (i.e, Fox, Rush Limbaugh,
Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, etc.).
of the internet.
Additional government takeovers without the consent
of the people.
An attempt to transfer US sovereignty to the United Nations
or other authority.
Greater government gun control or the outlawing of guns.
Unconstitutional arrests of US citizens who are opposed
the Obama Administration and/or the creation of detainment
camps.
Time for Your Thoughts
The preceding is our best efforts at brainstorming what an
American Velvet Revolution might entail after considering
Congressman King's suggestion.
What are your thoughts on this interesting topic?
Do you think it deserves a national debate? And do you think
it deserves immediate action?
-- C. Blaster
PLEASE SEND THIS ARTICLE TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW
Tags: VELVET REVOLUTION
Important: Obama birth certificate issue more urgent than ever - By Joan Swirsky
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=6070#more-6070
Important: Obama birth certificate issue more urgent than ever - Thanks Redd
By Joan Swirsky
Now that the regime currently occupying the White House has bribed, threatened, intimidated, bullied, manipulated and cut unconstitutional and illegal deals exclusively with Democrats to vote for the totalitarian nightmare of socialized medicine, the subject of Obama's missing birth certificate is more timely and relevant than ever — precisely because the ugly spectacle emphasized once again the degree to which Obama has arrogantly flouted, sneered at, and spit upon the U.S. Constitution, a document he and his handlers and henchmen clearly revile and are determined to shred and destroy.
The same contempt for the bedrock foundations of our country was apparent during Obama's run for the presidency and his refusal to produce his birth certificate. It reminds me of the search I conducted in 2004 for my mother's birth certificate, a non-negotiable prerequisite for her admission into a nursing home. Although she was born in a farmhouse in 1913 to immigrants who didn't speak English, it took me only three phone calls and not more than 20 minutes to locate this valuable document. Unlike Obama, who was born, he says, in 1961, I didn't pay nearly two-million dollars to lawyers to fight the nursing home's request.
To this day Obama has failed to produce proof that he was born in the United States and that he is a natural-born American citizen, one of only three absolute requirements in the U.S. Constitution to become President of the United States. In fact, if Obama is not a natural-born American citizen, he is acting as president under false pretenses, which de facto makes every statement he has made as the usurper POTUS, every bill he has signed, every tsar he has appointed, every act, proclamation, signing statement, executive order, and law, et al, fraudulent, illegal, and therefore null and void — including this unconstitutional healthcare so-called reform bill.
As I type, Mr. Hope & Change is working on granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants to further bankrupt the United States and thereby etch in stone a constituency that relies on free everything — and will therefore return the favor by voting Democratic in future elections. This will actualize his and the far-left's goals of turning our democratic Republic into a Communist share-the-poverty facsimile of a Russian, Cuban or Venezuelan state!
But that is not all: Obama is putting on the fast track the cap-and-trade scheme to tax every person in the U.S. every time he or she flushes the toilet, turns on a light, opens the refrigerator, drives a car, the list of penalties for merely living go on and on.
When this or that writer or commentator asks, "Doesn't he realize that X. Y. Z?" — the answer is, of course he does! His entire raison d'être is to convert the country he hates — America — into the kind of socialist/communist/fascist country he clearly admires. Exhibit no. 1 is surely his serial embrace of foreign dictators and his undisguised hostility to our most trusted allies.
How did this happen? As blogger Daniel Greenfield notes, Obama's election "was not about what the people wanted. It was about his own victory by any means necessary. Hardly surprising from the man who began his political career by betraying and destroying his own mentor, climbed into the United States Senate over two sex scandals that were a product of his opposition research, and reached the White House through voter fraud, illegal campaign donations and an owned media corps….Each win for Obama was another loss for fair and honest elections. And each time Obama won, it was not because the public decided he was the better man, but because the sheer array of dirty tricks, fraud and media propaganda insured that no choices would be allowed."
Today, there are few Americans, even Obama's acolytes and fans, who now think he is a natural-born American or, for that matter, a Christian, as he pretended to be as a congregant for 20 years in his Chicago pastor's Black Theology church. In short, black theology is Marxist doctrine: hate America, hate whitey, hate Jews, hate free-market capitalism, hate the U.S. Constitution. Here, he just about admits as much.
THE USURPER-IN-CHIEF
At this point, every member of the Congress and media, as well as ordinary citizens, knows that there was something putridly rotten about Obama's election. Not just the billion dollars in campaign donations, most of which are still unaccounted for but known to have flowed from foreign donors, many of them enemies of America. And not just the missing mountains of qualifying data that all presidential candidates are expected to produce, including:
His Illinois law license. Is he even a lawyer? Where is his supposed Harvard Law degree? Where are the papers he wrote in law school? Why does he not correct people when they say he was a law professor when he was never a professor but only a lecturer?
His Selective Service registration, which investigative-journalist and lawyer Debbie Schlussel has reported to be falsified, an accusation that Linda Bentley quite persuasively documented just the other day.
His visa or more probably visas. After all, he did travel to Pakistan in 1981 when Americans were forbidden into that country. Did he use the Indonesian visa he got when he was a citizen of that country?
His school records from Indonesia and Hawaii.
His college transcripts from Occidental College in CA, Columbia College in NY, and Harvard Law School in MA
His Baptism certificate.
His Illinois State Senate records.
His law practice client list.
His University of Chicago records, where Obama, the instructor, supposedly taught.
Just as mysterious is the question of who exactly backed this virtually unknown neophyte senator with the paper-thin résumé and almost non-existent voting record, this man who had lifelong associations with countless dubious-if-not-criminal friends and associates as well as political radicals.
We now know the leftist billionaire financier George Soros was and is a major backer. And we've also learned that dozens of Clinton administration leftovers and elected officials, all of the hard left, as well as a number of hugely influential executives and bankers from AIG and Goldman Sachs were part of Obama's toxic brew. But how, you may ask, could these arch capitalists be leftists? Like Soros, they fancy themselves Kings of the Universe, smarter than the average Joe and therefore destined to join a new American oligarchy in which the few rule and the many are under their collective thumbs.
The motives of these megalomaniacs involve the tenacious belief — facts to the contrary — that the proven tyrannies of socialism and communism will improve the lot of the masses they consider so stupid, combined with a driving lust for absolute power — you know, the kind that corrupts absolutely. Underlying both is a worldview in which most people are perceived to be "victims" of "the system." And of course a fulminating rage.
Again, Greenfield weighs in, explaining that that rage is part of "the bargain leftists always strike: I Will Only Love You, If You Kill Yourself. Leftists only love an America, he says, "in which the Constitution is wielded to protect Islamic terrorists and a man who hates the country can take office in the White House, in which the lives of Americans are worthless but the comfortable treatment of captured terrorists is worth more than gold, in which all of the country's history and values are viewed as nothing more than the brutal atrocities of greedy savages, while the brutal atrocities of newly arrived greedy savages are treated as heroic achievements worthy of celebration and praise…"
"In their more honest moments," Greenfield continues, "leftists will admit that they do not love America, only its potential…to be changed by them…moments like Michelle Obama proclaiming that she had never been proud of her country before…a chilling glimpse into the mind of the left that cannot love anything that is not an expression of their own ego…"
"They love [an] America that legalizes illegal aliens, displaces its own citizens to make way for them and tears down all barriers against crime and terror. They love America, so long as it frees terrorists from prison, and when war is declared against it by a fanatical cult of mass murderers, it gives the murderers their day in court with lawyers and a trial…This is the America they love. I will only love you, if you kill yourself."
A CABAL OF IMMENSE PROPORTIONS
A coup d'état is never an overnight phenomenon. It takes years, often decades, of planning, and more often than not there are thwarted attempts along the way. In America, leftists have been actively trying both to undermine and overthrow our country since at least the 1960s (actually well before then, unquestionably for the last hundred years). They tried with Jimmy Carter, but in spite of the lasting harm he did, his stupendous incompetence ultimately did him in, relegating him to one ignominious term.
They tried again with Bill Clinton, who spent years — when he might have been fighting for our country in Vietnam — hanging around England smoking pot and, oddly, "visiting" Communist Russia. Clinton lasted two terms, largely because he was too narcissistic and undisciplined to stick to the leftist party line, craving the spotlight to such a degree that when the electorate smacked him and his wife down for trying to inflict socialized medicine on our citizens, he moved ever so nimbly to the center, where he stayed until he practically had to be dragged off the stage during the most self-aggrandizing departure of a president in American history.
Through these failures, the left learned never to depend on agenuine natural-born American citizen to actualize their coup, that the real thing would somehow retain some random DNA strands of affection for our republic. They would have to find a faux American, one that looked and sounded like the real thing, but whose allegiance to America was non-existent — perhaps someone who had lived in a Muslim country, studied the Koran, subscribed to Sharia law, and had lifelong relationships with Marxists and Communists and other America haters. Enter the man who calls himself Barack Obama.
In a stunning piece of journalism — Who's Your Daddy? Who's Your Mama? AND WHERE IS YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE?, a "concerned citizen" speculates about several plausible scenarios that describe who Obama's parents might have been, where he might have been born, and how the idea to insinuate this Manchurian Candidate-Trojan Horse into America's body politic came to pass. The article raises numerous provocative questions:
What exactly happened in the Teresa Hotel in Harlem in 1960?
Where does Fidel Castro fit in? Khrushchev? Malcolm X?
How could Obama's "mother," Stanley Ann Dunham, have delivered him in August of 1961 in Honolulu when official University of Washington records show her 2680 miles away in Seattle attending classes that same month? (Pamela Geller: www.atlasshrugs.com).
Was Madelyn Dunham really Obama's mother, and not his grandmother?
Was he the product of an affair between his "grandfather," Stanley Armour Dunham (who he looks like) and one of the Asian, Polynesian or Indonesian girls who frequented the beaches of Hawaii in the 1950s? On the cover of Obama's book, Dreams From My Father, why is the man he claims is his father, Barack Obama Sr., not pictured, while his grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, is pictured? Was the dark-skinned woman on the cover his real mother?
Was he really the son of his earliest mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a prominent poet, Communist political activist, and self-professed pedophile? Davis wrote about raping a 13-year-old girl. Could that girl have been Stanley Ann Dunham? Could this be why Obama wrote on his Facebook page that he was born in 1957?
Was Obama really the only son of Malcolm X and his wife Betty Shabazz? They had six daughters but did they leave the care of their only son to surrogates to protect him from the same fate — assassination — that killed Malcolm X?
Or did Malcolm X father Obama with one of the dozens of daughters of the Communist Indonesian President Sukarno, after the older man invited him to the anti-white, anti-capitalist Bandung conference in 1955? Sukarno loathed America. Was it he who hatched the plot to take over America? Did he then share his idea with Malcolm X because he believed the American Muslim was capable of succeeding?
Where do the Rockefellers fit in? Recent speculation has it that Michael Rockefeller, the Harvard graduate who is thought to have died in Papua, New Guinea, may have fathered Obama with a Papuan woman.Here's a film of Michael's strange odyssey. Is it coincidence that Obama's "grandfather" Stanley and his stepfather Lolo Soetoro both worked for the Rockefellers' Standard Oil Company?
Is it coincidence that the Marxist-praising Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Rockefeller crony and Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, now acts as an advisor to Obama?
What are we to make of Obama's old friend from high school, Illinois Army National Guard Major L. Tammy Duckworth, telling (The Honolulu Advisor on January 8, 2006), that she was "happy to point out that she and Hawaii-raised Punahou (Indonesia) high school graduate Obama have "a karma'aina connection"? Both of them, she said, were born outside the country — Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand. Predictably, Duckworth retracted her statement a few days after the article appeared in print.
Was it just a fashion statement when we witnessed Michelle Obama on election night appear in a dress of the revolutionary and anarchic colors of red and black, with a gigantic sash in the unmistakable configuration of an X — and Obama's very young daughters also dressed in revolutionary red and black? As an observerwrote, "What if the garb worn by the Obama's was a silent tribute to Barack's real father, Malcolm X?…the red and black dress and that X that hits you between the eyes…where are the various shades of red, white, and blue?…"
Was the CIA behind Obama's attempted coup d'état? Where does the Ford Foundation fit in? If you want a much more extensive history of the Ford Foundation, the CIA and the ghastly Indonesian coup, read David Ransom's piece here.
What is the likelihood of Obama's so-called mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, meeting two "husbands" — Barack Obama Sr. and Lolo Soetoro, both connected to "Big Oil" — at the University of Hawaii?
Obama denies he's a Muslim but "the accumulated research from primary sources who knew Obama from his childhood indicate that he was a devout Muslim, the son of a devout Muslim, the stepson of a devout Muslim and the grandson and namesake ("Hussein&rdquo of a devout Muslim. He was registered in school in Indonesia as a Muslim and demonstrated his ability to chant praise to Allah in impressive Arab-accented tones even as an adult. Just as he has not disavowed his 'uncle' Jeremiah, neither has he disavowed the Muslim faith that he was born into and raised in. Here, with George Stephanopoulos, Obama says as much.
Is Obama the son of spooks and a spook himself?
In a can't-put-down article, Deanna Spingola writes of Pastor James David Manning, who in May is holding a public trial at Columbia University in New York (just blocks from Manning's church in Harlem) that is charging Barack Obama with treason! Here is what Spingola writes:
"Obama…was recruited [at Occidental College in CA] in 1980 by the CIA [when Stansfield M. Turner was the director] which has made it a practice since its inception to recruit college students. He was, by his own admission, a 'C' student, a dope smoker and a member of the Marxist Club at Occidental, a co-educational liberal arts college. In 1981, Obama allegedly transferred from Occidental to Columbia University…Columbia had a foreign student program and the CIA has major connections and influence with Columbia and the nation's other educational facilities…the CIA needed Muslims or others who could easily blend into the Muslim environment in the Middle East…Obama, as an undercover agent, was the lead agent in the arms and money supply for the CIA-trained Taliban Army against the Soviet Army war machine. His actions were integral to the Taliban's success in their opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Obama, it is publicly acknowledged, went to Pakistan in 1981. There is no way of knowing how often Obama traveled between Pakistan and Russia.
"According to Dr. Manning," Spingola writes, "Obama was an interpreter for the CIA during the war in Afghanistan. When Obama completed his CIA operations in the mid 1980s and returned to the U.S. he persuaded the State Department to maneuver his entrance into Harvard Law School…"
Needless to say, Pastor Manning's life has been threatened and continues to be threatened by people who are deeply afraid of his explosive charges.
And here is yet another bizarre oddity: an article saying that Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, "voluntarily surrendered" his law license back in 2008 in order to escape charges that he lied on his bar application, and that First Lady Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993!
MASSIVE MEDIA MALFEASANCE
I have written at length of the many lawyers and journalists who have addressed the birth certificate issue. You can read some of their names here. But with the notable and noteworthy exceptions I've mentioned, other so-called investigative journalists who should have been asking and answering the above questions and dozens of others are an extinct species, killed off by leftist media moguls in league with the Obama regime or too timid and pandering in their own rights to have taken up the cudgels on behalf of the public they pretend to serve.
People understand why hacks from the former, now moribund, mainstream media have avoided the subject of Obama's eligibility like the plague it is. By and large they are liberals and leftists who shilled for him during his campaign, concealed mountains of damning evidence about his lack of experience and shady associations, and studiously avoided any mention of his still-unknown country of birth.
But harder to understand are the hacks at Fox. In a startling display of dishonesty and pretension, Bill O'Reilly, who wants to be considered intelligent and so never fails to tell his audience that he earned a master's degree at Harvard, apparently never studied coups d'états, never realized that the Marxist Castro's shining moment came only after years of agitation, rebellion, subterfuge, et al. But the idea of Obama being part of a conspiracy was apparently too much for the former elementary school teacher to contemplate… above his pay grade, so to speak. Never even consulted Wikipedia, as I just did, to learn of the hundreds of coups d'état that took place in the 20th century alone.
Apparently Harvard never taught Mr. "looking out for the folks" about the successful coups in Argentina in 1943, in Thailand in 1947, in Czechoslovakia in 1948, in Egypt in 1952, in Paraguay in 1954, in Pakistan in1958, in Venezuela in 1958, in Turkey in 1960, in Ecuador and Syria and Brazil and South Vietnam and Ghana and Libya and Somalia and Greece and Chile and again in Pakistan, the list is endless — and the immense and lengthy planning that went into these government overthrows. Or the more recent coups — since 1999 — in the Ivory Coast, Fiji, Peru, Mauritania, Haiti, Congo, et al.
Without acknowledging the widespread existence of coups and the years or decades of planning they entailed, O'Reilly decided to slam "the birthers" — as he pejoratively calls those who still believe in the Constitution and think presidents of the U.S. should abide by it, starting with their eligibility — and stated that he personally had seen Obama's birth certificate.
Of course he hadn't. He lied. Then in an orchestrated charade, he trotted out two of the women, both lawyers, he routinely disrespects by barking out their last names and in essence had them standing on their hind legs, yapping in agreement about those misguided "birthers." It didn't take long for Glenn Beck to echo their yaps. That's right, the guy who routinely looks straight in the camera and exhorts his audience to seek "the truth."
Why would O'Reilly lie? Why would Beck avoid seeking "the truth" in this one glaring instance? Were they threatened, as Douglas Hagmann — a respected journalist, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network and longtime private investigator, and Judi McLeod, a prolific journalist and the managing editor of Canada Free Press — suggested? After a nine-month investigation, they discovered that prominent media people had indeed been threatened by the heads of major TV and radio stations and also Federal Communication Commission officials — with job losses and worse — to never raise, allude to or mention the birth certificate issue! Or was it the huge influence the Saudis have over Fox content since they bought and then increased their shares to nearly 20 percent in Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp?
Whatever. The fact that O'Reilly and Beck caved — and continue to cave — has forever negated their credibility.
So appalled are a majority of Americans at the hijacking of one-sixth of the American economy through the healthcare legislation, and so revolted by the hideous process it entailed, that upwards of 15 state attorneys general — and counting — are suing the federal government on grounds that key parts of the Deathcare law are unconstitutional — that the law includes taxpayer-funded abortions (smoke-and-mirrors to the contrary), kill-the-elderly cuts to Medicare seniors, huge tax increases that will wipe out the entire middle-class of our country, and a Nazi-like brown-shirt $16-billion-taxpayer-funded force of Internal Revenue Service goons to reinforce our descent into tyranny. Ordinary citizens are suing too, among them four residents of Michigan, represented by the Thomas More Law Center and attorney David Yerushalmi.
And dozens if not hundreds of groups are crying Repeal, which former speaker Newt Gingrich explained was not possible because Obama would veto such a move. What is possible, Gingrich said, is for Republicans to gain majorities in the House and Senate during the midterms in November and then cut off funding for this horrific, bankrupt-the-nation law. And if the GOP gains the presidency in 2012, they can then repeal this socialist blueprint.
But there may lie the rub. As writer J.D. Longstreet reminds us: "The democrats' lust for power is so great and their zeal for socialism so intense that I cannot see them allowing their hold on power to be placed in jeopardy by, of all things, an election where the voice of the people is actually heard…in less than eighteen months the Obama Regime has managed to take America from a constitutional republic to a socialist republic…that accomplishment alone should give you reason enough to suspect that when their power is threatened they will use the full force of the Central Government to ruthlessly crush any and all who they perceive as a threat. At this moment in history, a threat is anyone, any American, who does not agree with them."
Longstreet and others imagine Obama creating a national crisis or emergency — sort of like the phony swine flu "pandemic" last year — in which Martial Law is declared and the midterm elections are suspended. "Who decides what a national emergency is?" he asks. "You've got it — the Obama Regime!"
Longstreet then issues a warning: "The American people are a patient people. We will put up with a lot of nonsense from our government — for a while. But we draw the line when that government ignores the Constitution, as the Obama Regime and the Democrats in the Congress have done. There is a seething rage in America today…my senses tell me it is too late to avoid the 'lashing out' Americans are about to unleash. [Americans] are waiting, just waiting, for an incident that will knock the chocks from the dam wall holding back the cascade. Postponing, or suspending, the midterm election…would be the spark that ignites a firestorm that will consume all in its path."
Journalist Sher Zieve concurs. "The political party that promoted the slavery of Africans, established Jim Crow laws, created the Ku Klux Klan, refused to follow court orders barring segregation…is now is full raging power within the borders of the United States of America. Most of them — including their dictatorial leader Barack Hussein Obama — realize that the chances for their reelections to power are, at best, marginal. I have warned that any and all 'free' elections would probably soon be a thing of the past. The Marxist way is to not allow them, in the first place.
"The current US government is moving quickly and forcefully against the American people," Zieve continues. "I have to now wonder how close We-the-People are today toward reaching the same conclusions as did our founders…I think we may be as close to our founders ultimate decision as we will ever be. Do we wish to be free and sovereign or submit to bondage? For a brief window of time longer, it's still our choice."
Then there is Michael Connelly's stern warning: "…I have some bad news for all of the socialists, or progressives, or whatever you choose to call yourselves this week, you have made a huge mistake. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto who led the attack said that: 'I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.'
"I suggest to President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid that you have awakened the giant again and that this giant, made up of freedom loving Americans, is going to be coming at you from every direction you can imagine. Individuals and State Governments will be challenging you in the courts, and Americans will take you on in the polling places. In every city, town and village you will hear the voices of angry Americans and despite your best efforts we will not be silenced. You will hear the outcry of Americans of every race, religion, and creed and we will prevail. "
All of this takes time, of course…. time well spent. But it will take less time to revive the serious question of Obama's very suspect eligibility to be president in the first place!
"Forget the dispute over the 'natural born citizen' requirement of the U.S. Constitution for presidents," writes Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily. "Barack Obama may not even be a 'citizen,' according to a new filing in a long-running legal challenge to his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office."
If there is even one court in our land whose judge has not been threatened, intimidated, bought off or bribed, the case for Obama'sineligibility should be tried immediately. If found guilty, I suspect Obama would be responsible for the greatest purchase of confetti in the history of the world!
© Joan Swirsky
Tags: obama birth certificate
Before Obama and his Congressional supporters can impose their radical and unprecedented ideology
Puzo1 said...
Before Obama and his Congressional supporters can impose their radical and unprecedented ideology upon Americans, they have to follow the dictates of the Constitution. That means that they have to first deal with the force and power of America, We the People. Let's see who is going to win this battle over the Constitution, Obama or the Rest of America who does not support his radical attempt to transform free enterprise into socialism/communism/marxism. Since Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," I think he either forgot or is oblivious to the fact that he is messing with America and not some other part of the world.
Giving Obama a chance to be President is one thing, but letting him destroy what Americans throughout history sacrificed so much and worked so hard to make is something completely different. Maybe Obama missed that lesson, too, but he will soon learn We the People did not.
Tags: obama radical
Demand issued to Nevada Governor for proof of Obama?s Eligibility by Sharon Rondeau
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/28/demand-issued-to-nevada-governor-for-proof-of-obamas-eligibility/
Demand issued to Nevada Governor for proof of Obama's Eligibility
GINO DISIMONE, INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE FOR NEVADA GOVERNOR, DEMANDS THAT GOVERNOR JIM GIBBONS "IMMEDIATELY TAKE ACTION" TO DETERMINE OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT
Governor James Gibbons (R-NV) has asked his attorney general to join the health care lawsuit, but does he have the resolve to challenge Obama's eligibility to have signed it?
(Mar. 28, 2010) — The following letter has been sent to Governor Jim Gibbons of Nevada and submitted to The Post & Email for publication unedited:
Mr. Eugene "Gino" DiSimone
Candidate, Governor of Nevada 2010
17810 Thunder River Dr.
Mr. James A. Gibbons
GovernorState of Nevada
101 N. Carson Street
Dear Governor Gibbons:
I adjure you, nay, I require you, as the duly elected Governor of my State exercising the duty of Commander in Chief of Nevada, to immediately take action to protect my freedom, liberty, property and wealth, as your duty utterly requires. To this end I require you file a legal challenge, Quo Warranto (D.C. Statute 35 §16-3501), on the authority of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, a/k/a BARRY SOETORO requiring proof that he is eligible to be President of the United States of America, and he has the constitutional authority to act as President of the United States and to execute the Health Care Bill. This Bill is a direct threat to my freedom, liberty, wealth and property. It threatens nearly every citizen of Nevada and nearly every business of Nevada as it will forcefully extract, under duress, my/our wealth and property. This is an acute direct security threat and I require swift aggressive intervention for assurances of security from my Commander in Chief of this great State of Nevada.
By virtue of this acute security threat to me and Nevada citizenry and businesses, as Commander in Chief, it is your solemn sworn duty to protect me/us from acute security threats, particularly threats to my freedoms, liberties, health, wealth and property. To this end I demand you exercise your sworn duty to protect us with expediency as follows:
1. File (directly from the Governor of Nevada) a legal challenge, Quo Warranto (D.C. Statute 35 §16-3501), on the eligibility and authority of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, a/k/a BARRY SOETORO requiring exacting legal proof of the specific constitutionally defined and required form, such that he is eligible to be President and has constitutionally granted Presidential signature authority of the legal and correct form – not withstanding substitute documents are not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
2. Submit an Executive Order staying all provisions, actions, or other measures of the Health Care Bill, and further enacting such measures as is required to guarantee the security of the citizens and businesses toward our freedoms, liberties, wealth and property against all efforts to infringe them as is written in the Health Care Bill.
3. Submit a Proclamation of Resolutions, listed in items 'a' through 'l' below and adopted in large part from the Resolutions of 1798, making null and void the Health Care Bill, claiming the State of Nevada reasserts constitutional authority and sovereignty over all powers not expressly delegated to the United States nor prohibited to it by the US Constitution.
a. Be It Resolved: The Health Care Bill of Congress, signed by the President on the 23th day of March, 2010 and again thereafter, and so commonly known as the "Health Care Bill" or otherwise known as "Health Care Reform" (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or otherwise establish laws, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and otherwise establish laws is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; that the State of Nevada reasserts rightful constitutional ownership and power of these rights within its territory and borders.
b. Be it Resolved: That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
c. Be It Resolved: That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore the Health Care Bill of Congress, signed by the President on the 23th day of March, 2010 and again there after, and so commonly known as the "Health Care Bill" or otherwise known as "Health Care Reform" (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or otherwise establish laws, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and otherwise establish laws is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory and borders.
d. Be It Resolved: That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and that no power over the free choice of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness shall be infringed by forced participation in health care or any other aspect of private lives as it pertains to health or health care. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, signed by the President on the 23th day of March, 2010 and again there after and so commonly known as the "Health Care Bill" or otherwise known as "Health Care Reform" which does abridge the freedom and liberty of individual choice of health care or any other measure within such "Health Care Bill", is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
e. Be It Resolved: That illegal aliens are not friends of the State and are under the jurisdiction and the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, signed by the President on the 23th day of March, 2010 and so commonly known as the "Health Care Bill" or otherwise known as "Health Care Reform" which assumes powers over aliens, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
f. Be It Resolved: That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction, at a time of greater tranquility, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress.
g. Be It Resolved: That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Governors and Legislatures of the several States: to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly, to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy;
h. Be it Resolved: That where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act or Bill is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified.
i. Be It Resolved: That if the Bill before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from it; that the general government may place any act they think proper whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States being, by this precedent, reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect from a like exportation, or other more grievous punishment, the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counselors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal; that the common man has indeed been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment; but the greater citizenry will soon follow, or rather, has already followed, for already has the Health Care Bill marked him as its prey: that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold, necessarily drive these States into revolution and blood and will furnish new calumnies against republican government, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron. The States are required to protect the people from such despotism and heretofore shall do so.
j. Be It Resolved: That it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Health Care Bill, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits. Let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have con erred on our President, and the President of our choice has assented to, and accepted over the common man to whom the mild spirit of our country and its law have pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the naked belief of the President, than the solid right of proof, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. It is well known that this President elected in November of 2008, his father was from Kenya and, therefore, according to the British Nationality act of 1948, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, a/k/a BARRY SOETORO would also be British, making him a dual citizen. It is this dual allegiance that the Constitution specifically guards against, especially in the Office of the President where fierce loyalty and allegiance to only this country is required; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power. The State of Nevada asserts jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes and requires proof of allegiance through constitutional limits on Presidential eligibility.
k. Be It Resolved: In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this commonwealth does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the Health Care Bill, plainly declaring whether this Bill is or is not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, weather general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said Bill as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely as the cases made federal, casus fœderis but), in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring this Bill void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither this Bill, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories and borders.
l. Be It Resolved: That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conference, at any times or places whatever, with any person or persons who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of Assembly.
Gino DiSimone
Copyright © 2010 by Gino DiSimone
The Post & Email has covered the candidacy of Gino DiSimone here and here.
Thankfully, we still heave our first amendment rights and their message of FREEDOM continues
http://www.jbs.org
The John Birch society has just celebrated its 50th year anniversary.
Thankfully, we still heave our first amendment rights and their
message of FREEDOM continues to spread.
PLEASE JOIN...
Robert Welch Founder of The John Birch Society 1974
Tags: John Birch
Obamacare and the Natural Born Citizen Clause By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obamacare-and-natural-born-citizen.html
Thursday,March 25, 2010
Obamacare and the Natural Born Citizen Clause
Some might wonder whatdoes health care and the "natural born Citizen" clause have to do witheach other. The answer is the survival of our Constitution and Republicby stopping the usurpation of government power.
In the context of speaking about slavery that existed during theFounding era, Obama told us that the Constitution is an "imperfectdocument." It has now become apparent that the flaw that Obama seeswith our governing document is much more fundamental and goes wellbeyond what he said related to the early slave experience. For Obama,that flaw is that the Constitution is obligatory, is a strong check ongovernment power, and cannot be changed by just one person.
We have seen Obama brazenly ignore the Constitution's eligibilityrequirements for the highest and most powerful office in the land, theOffice of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We haveseen how Obama has the audacity to be President and Commander withouthonoring and respecting the Constitution by showing that he is at leastborn in Hawaii as he claims and satisfying the definition of a "naturalborn Citizen" as originally intended by the Framers and Founders. Thatis a violation of the document he swore twice to "preserve, protect anddefend."
Such conduct by Obama lead many to ask if Obama does not respectand defend the Constitution and so publicly defies it once, what willstop him from doing the same a second and third time. These Americanswere right in expressing such concern, for now we have Obamacare whichis just another example of Obama flouting and ignoring the Constitution.
Now he wants to force upon the nation a health care system under theguise that the Federal Government can do so because that system doesnothing more than regulate interstate commerce. Additionally, he wantsto accomplish his plan without even adhering to legitimate legislativeprocess. How he can honestly believe that a person who does not buy agood or service (such as health insurance) or who the governmentcompels to do so under the threat of a camouflaged income tax isengaged in interstate commerce or gives the government the right tointerfere in such personal decisions based on some other constitutionalprovision defies reason and common sense. Treating people's refusal tobuy health insurance as interstate commerce or triggering some otherconstitutional governmental power would in effect give Congressunlimited authority to control every aspect of people's lives. Whensomething defies logic, we have to ask ourselves what is the realmotive involved. Upon close circumspection we can see that Obama'shealth care plan is nothing more than the government taking more moneyfrom productive members of society and giving it to those who needmoney but do not have it for various reasons, with the centralgovernment in the process usurping great powers and control over thepeople's lives including but not limited to violating their privacyrights over their own bodies, their medical and financial privacy,their right to decide how much medical care one needs, their right tofree speech and association, their right to exercise their religion,doctors' right to earn a living as they see fit, their right not to beillegally taxed, and their right to make end-of-life decisions. This isnothing but Obama and his Congress declaring a socialist revolutionupon the American people and attempting to sneak that revolution rightby them by dressing the wolf in sheep's clothing.
There exists proof in the form of Obama's own words that his healthinsurance plan is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth whichthe government has no power to do under our Constitution. Obama madesome appearances as a guest on Odyssey, a talk show at Chicago PublicRadio. Obama, then a State Senator and Senior Lecturer at theUniversity of Chicago Law School, was on the program 3 times between1998 and 2002. Here is an excerpt from the call-in segment for theSlavery and the Constitution show that aired in September of 2001. Hereis the transcript from 2001 as posted at Free Republic at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2116060/posts:
"MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FMand we're joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the Universityof Chicago.
"OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rightsmovement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where itsucceeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples.So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sitat the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd beokay.
"But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistributionof wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economicjustice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people triedto characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn'tbreak free from the essential constraints that were placed by thefounding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's beeninterpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way thatgenerally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It sayswhat the states can't do to you, it says what the federal governmentcan't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or thestate government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted. Oneof the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because thecivil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was atendency to lose track of the political and community organizing andactivities on the ground that are able to put together the actualcoalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed changeand in some ways we still suffer from that."
Indeed, there we have it in Obama's own words. There is little doubtthat Obamacare is nothing more than Obama's means of achieving what heperceives to be "political and economic justice in this society" byusing "redistribution of wealth." He even concedes that redistributionof wealth is a "radical" idea. He admits that the Warren court couldnot achieve such "political and economic justice" because it could notbreak free from the "essential constraints that were placed by thefounding fathers in the Constitution." And here is the real flaw thatObama sees with the Constitution: "it doesn't say what the federalgovernment or the state government must do on your behalf."
We can see that Obama does not accept that the Tenth Amendment saysthat whatever powers the Constitution does not give to the federalgovernment or prohibit to the States is reserved to the States or thepeople. What is it that Obama wants the government to do "on yourbehalf?" One can only wonder why Obama believes that a government mustdo some unspecified thing for people. Is it love of power and controlover people that compels him to harbor such ideas? We can see thatObama realizes that my right to sit at the lunch counter is freedom "aslong as I could pay for it." Hence, comes his plan to redistributewealth. Obama admits that such radical change has not yet beenaccomplished through the courts. He also does not accept the "essentialconstraints" the Founders and Framers wrote into the Constitution.Hence, he offers a plan on how to get around those limitations. Hetells us that such radical change must be accomplished through"political and community organizing and activities on the ground thatare able to put together the actual coalitions of power through whichyou bring about redistributed change." So there you have it very loudand clear. Obama admits that the Constitution does not allow him toengage in any such "redistribution of wealth" and that the Courts havenever gone as far to permit it. But his plan is to accomplish it bychanging the political structure of America which would give him thepower to accomplish what is currently unconstitutional. Obama's fear ofthe courts is evidenced from provisions that provide that no companycan sue the government for price fixing and there will be no judicialreview of government monopoly of health care. Of course, Obama's plannecessarily includes also changing the current make-up of our courts.Maybe this is the "change" that he had in mind when he said that if hewon the Presidency he was going to "change" America.
Obama has totally ignored the Constitution's eligibility requirementsfor the highest and most powerful office in the land, the President andCommander in Chief of the Military. The problem with that violation isthat we have a person sitting in the President's and Commander's seatwho is not eligible to be there. Practically speaking, that is a gravenational security matter that puts America at risk not only from attackfrom enemies both foreign and domestic but as we can see also threatensAmerica's basic political institutions and freedoms. I believe it is afair question to ask whether we would have an attack on America'sfundamental political, social, and economic institutions from aPresident who was a "natural born Citizen?" The Founders and Framersincluded the "natural born Citizen" clause in the Constitutionbelieving that it would give America a better chance of avoiding such aperson coming to power. The remedy for such usurpation is toimmediately remove Obama from office and to secure that office with areplacement, all consistent with constitutional procedure.
During the Revolution, the People risked their lives, fortunes, andhonor to earn the right to decide what powers they wanted to give toany national government that they would eventually constitute for thepurpose of protecting themselves. The People drafted and ratified theConstitution as their written expression of their decision in thatregard. Now through his new government-run health care system, Obamaflouts the will of the People as expressed in the Constitution that thefederal government stay out of the private affairs of the People. Obamaand his Congress have now assumed powers that the Constitution does notgive to the central government but rather leaves in the hands of thePeople and the States under the Tenth Amendment. And we have seenthrough Obama's own words, that he knows that what he is attempting toaccomplish is unconstitutional but he will nevertheless force itthrough by utilizing "political and community organizing and activitieson the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions ofpower through which you bring about redistributed change."
Practically speaking, such usurpation is a government attempt atnationalizing over one-sixth (and probably even more once we learn byexperience what the full impact of his plan really is) of the privateeconomy. Add to that government ownership of some banks, auto makers,and insurance companies, and we have a very serious assault upon thefree enterprise system and the American way of life. Thomas Jeffersontold us that "[w]hensoever the General Government assumes undelegatedpowers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force" and that"nullification of the act is the rightful remedy." Thomas Jefferson,November 16, 1798, Kentucky Resolution athttp://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field([email protected](tj080201)).
Jefferson also warned against construing the "necessary and proper"clause so broadly as to justify the assumption of undelegated powers bythe general government. He said that the intent of the clause was toonly enable the execution of limited powers, not to indefinitely extendthe general government's scope. If a broader interpretation were to begiven to the clause, this part of the Constitution would be used "todestroy the whole residue of that instrument." Jefferson also counseledthe states to be vigilant against violations of the Constitution andnot hesitant to attack unconstitutional measures by Congress or thePresident. He continued: "[F]ree government is founded in jealously andnot in confidence" and therefore urged that "no more be heard ofconfidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of theConstitution." In other words, the states and the People should nottrust federal officials with non-constitutional powers simply becausethose officials might be otherwise trusted to exercise those powersbenevolently. He warned that this kind of "confidence of man" leads tothe destruction of free government. The next question we should askourselves is what other assaults upon the Constitution can we expectfrom Obama and his Congress? Let us keep open our ears and eyes. Letour great States follow Jefferson's wisdom and protect our freedoms.
The Kerchner et al. v. Obama & Congress et al. case, whichchallenges both Obama and Congress over Obama having usurped the Officeof President and Commander in Chief, is currently pending in the ThirdCircuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and is awaiting the Court'sdecision on plaintiffs' request for oral argument. Many States andprivate persons have recently filed lawsuits over Obama's new nationalhealth care plan. It is hoped that the People closely monitor theprogress of these law suits as they make their way through the courtsand that they make themselves publicly heard on the matter.
This leads me to my final point. We the People need to understand thatObama will surely attempt to change the composition of or influence ourjudicial branch of government so that he can accomplish hisunconstitutional ends. Now we can clearly see how important judicialappointments and an independent judiciary are to the survival of ourConstitution and Republic and the freedoms we individuals all enjoy.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Tags: Obamacare Natural Born
Obamacare prescription: 'Emergency health army' By Chelsea Schilling
Obamacareprescription: 'Emergency health army'
Forcesubject to 'involuntary calls to active duty' during 'public crises'
By ChelseaSchilling
President Obama's recently passedhealth-care reform legislation includes a surprise for many Americans –a beefing up of a U.S. Public Health Service reserve force andexpectations that it respond on short notice to "routine public healthand emergency response missions," even involuntarily.
According to Section 5210 of HR 3590, titled "Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps," the force must be ready for "involuntary calls toactive duty during national emergencies and public health crises."
The health-care legislationadds millions of dollars for recruitment and amends Section 203 of thePublic Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204), passed July 1, 1944, during FranklinD. Roosevelt's presidency.
The U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corpsis one of the seven uniformed services in the U.S. However, Obama'schanges more than double the wording of the Section 203 and dubindividuals who are currently classified as officers in the ReserveCorps commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.
'You've been served!" Send theConstitution to Obama, Pelosi, Reid and put them on notice. What betterway to tell them why they're losing their jobs?
The following is the previous wordingof the act as of 2004, before Democrats passed the health-carelegislation:
Wording of Section 203 of Public Health Service Actbefore Obamacare amendment
The U.S. Public Health Service website describes its commissionedcorps as "an elite team of more than 6,000 full-time, well-trained,highly qualified public health professionals dedicated to deliveringthe nation's public health promotion and disease prevention programsand advancing public health science."
According to its mission page,officers of the commissioned corps may:
Provide essential public health andhealth care services to underserved and disadvantaged populations
Prevent and control injury and thespread of disease
Ensure that the nation's foodsupply, drinking water, drugs, medical devices andenvironment are safe
Conduct and support cutting-edgeresearch for the prevention, treatment and elimination of disease,health disparities and injury
Work with other nations andinternational agencies to address global health challenges
Provide urgently needed public healthand clinical expertise in response to large-scale local, regional andnational public health emergencies and disasters
Members are trained to respond topublic health situations and national emergency events, such as naturaldisasters, disease outbreaks and terrorist attacks.
As stated in the health-carelegislation, "The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill theneed to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on shortnotice (similar to the uniformed service's reserve program) to assistregular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public healthand emergency response missions."
The Democrats' legislation recentlyadded the following text to Section 203 of the Public Health ServiceAct:
'(b) Assimilating Reserve CorpOfficers Into the Regular Corps- Effective on the date of enactment ofthe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, all individualsclassified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as suchsection existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act)and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officersof the Regular Corps.'(c) Purpose and Use of ReadyResearch-
'(2) USES- The Ready Reserve Corpsshall--
'(A) participate in routine trainingto meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;'(B) be available and ready forinvoluntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and publichealth crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;
'(C) be available for backfillingcritical positions left vacant during deployment of active dutyCommissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond topublic health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and
'(D) be available for serviceassignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities(as defined in section 799B) to improve access to health services.
'(d) Funding- For the purpose ofcarrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corpsunder this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for recruitment and trainingand $12,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for theReady Reserve Corps.'
Commissioned officers of the readyreserve corps are appointed by the president, and commissioned officersof the regular corps are appointed by the president with the advice andconsent of the Senate.
Robert Book, a senior researchfellow in health economics at the Heritage Foundation, said the service has beenaround some time but is not well known.
In the past, itsresponsibilities have included work related to the National Institutesof Health, the Indian health service and providing physicians for CoastGuard operations, he said.
As first reported by WND duringhis campaign, Obama called for a "civilian national security force"July 2, 2008, in Colorado Springs, Colo.
"We cannot continue to rely on ourmilitary in order to achieve the national security objectives thatwe've set," he said. "We've got to have a civilian national securityforce that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
WND also reported in January when a Rand Corporationreport proposed the federalgovernment create a rapid deployment"Stabilization Police Force"that would be tasked with "shaping an environment before a conflict"and restoring order in times of war, natural disaster or nationalemergency.
The blogosphere is buzzing withspeculation about the amendment. Some comments include:
This cannot be publicized enough!
Remember before the election whenObama said we need to have a civil defense corps as well funded and aswell armed as the armed services?
Is it Hitler and the Brown Shirts allover again? It is time for all who love our freedom to stand up and becounted.
Perhaps ACORN with a different name?
What about FEMA. Does this mean FEMAis to be disbanded?
Healthstapo!
I guess this is how they'llkeep all the doctors fromquitting the profession and becoming window washers.
Amazing isn't it, they can't affordto secure our borders, but we can afford this nonsense – dangerousnonsense.
Let's all sign up. It will be mucheasier to take the country back if we do it from within.
Tags: Ready Reserve Corps
ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT HAVE FAILED US BY REFUSING TO ANSWER THIS VERY SIMPLE QUESTION
Who is Barack Obama?
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/26/who-is-barack-obama/
ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT HAVEFAILED US BY REFUSING TO ANSWER THIS VERY SIMPLE QUESTION
by Kathleen Gotto
IsObama a natural born American citizen if he was born with Britishcitizenship?
(Mar. 26, 2010) — It is astoundingthat more than a year into Obama's presidency such a question is stillwithout an answer. The specific issue that has been largely kept underwraps by the mainstream media concerns the question, "Is Barack Obamaconstitutionally qualified to serve as our president?" In other words,irrespective of the fact that Obama is thedefacto U.S.president, the question still looms large whether or not he is a dejure or legalpresident. Such determination can be resolved only by the courts andmay ultimately have to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Constitution of the UnitedStates, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, states the requirements for aperson to be eligible for the office of President:
"No Person except a naturalborn Citizen [emphasis added], or aCitizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of thisConstitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neithershall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attainedto the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Residentwithin the United States."
We can reasonably assume that BarackObama meets the last two constitutional requirements. It is beyonddispute that he is a resident of the U.S. He lives here and isobviously over thirty-five years old. Beyond that, Americans have noassurance he is even a U.S. 14th Amendment citizen, letalone a naturalborn Citizen. TheConstitution itself does not define the term "natural born citizen";however, from various legal blogs which have argued this issueextensively over the internet, the consensus appears to be that ourfounding fathers relied heavily upon renowned Swiss jurist, Emmerich DeVattel, and specifically his book, TheLaw of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758) for theirunderstanding of a NBC being a child born of two citizen parents.
Theirreliance on De Vattel is not surprising since his book was publishedduring the time our founding fathers were grappling with the issues ofsovereignty, law, rights and obligations for the new republic. Whilethere are various ways for one to attain citizenship in the UnitedStates, the president of this country "shall" be a naturalborn citizen. If one somehow attains the presidency but isineligible to do so under the Constitution, he is in fact as Dr. EdwinVieira so starkly stated, a usurper.
On October 29, 2008, Dr. Vieirawrote an article, "Obama Must Stand Up Now or StepDown" which is a very powerful essay on the constitutional crisis thatAmerica will face if a man not constitutionally qualified is elected.But America was seduced by vapid promises of hope and change andinvited the Trojan horse inside the gates. Dr. Vieira will likely proveto have been prescient in his stark warning to America.
So, is Barack Obama a usurper? You bethe judge. Until we can find a competent and courageous judge who wouldbe willing to suffer the wrath of Obama's thugs to finally adjudicatethis issue and allow for full discovery, we will not know for sure.Obama was not vetted by the media, the Democrat party, or anyone else.There had to have been either a dismissal of any questions surroundinghis eligibility or a concerted effort to cover up Obama'sconstitutional problem to obtain the support and nomination of theDemocrat Party. With all the obfuscation, stonewalling, and attacksmade against Obama's detractors, it certainly appears that leaders inthe Democrat Party were aware of Obama's little problem. It will takecourt-ordered, full discovery to do the job that should have been doneby proper vetting. And it will likely take the U.S. Supreme Court toissue a definition of what a natural born Citizen is before this issueis finally resolved.
Numerous lawsuits have been filed onObama's eligibility in the courts at both the state and federal levels.While there are cases still pending, most have been dismissed primarilyon the grounds that the litigant has no "standing." The judges haveincredibly ruled that the litigants didn't have standing because theywere injured no more than the rest of the citizenry. Hello! What kindof tortured logic or legal justification is that upon which to issue adecision with such momentous importance for a nation?
Attorneys Leo Donofrio andMario Apuzzo have done an outstanding job in explaining whatconstitutes a natural born Citizen. While Donofrio's blog has beentemporarily suspended on the NBC issue as he prepares litigation onbehalf of Chrysler dealers and the loss of their livelihood at the handof the federal government, Apuzzo's Kerchner v. Obama case is stillgoing through the courts. In his legal analyses, legal briefs, and hisarticles, all of which are posted on his website, Apuzzo has done anexcellent job in educating the public on the issues. The summation ofhis arguments, concluding that a natural born citizen must be the childof two U.S. citizens, comports with De Vattel and the conclusionreached by Donofrio and other attorneys who either have had or stillhave pending lawsuits on this matter.
What is curious about the NBCissue is that Barack Obama had already acceded the fact of his bornallegiance to the British crown and citizenship of that country throughhis father. He openly acknowledged his British citizenship in hismemoir, Dreamsfrom My Father:
WhenBarack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961 (where he was born has never beenverified) Kenya was a British colony, still part of the UnitedKingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was aBritish subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British NationalityAct of 1948. That same act governed the statusof Obama Sr.'s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948(Part II, Section 5): Subjectto the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencementof this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies bydescent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Coloniesat the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of hisbirth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (assuming his mothermet the citizenship age requirement at the time to pass her citizenshipon to her son) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of beingborn to a father who was a citizen of the UK. The status of his birth,therefore, begs the question: how can a man born subject to the Britishcrown through his father be a natural born American citizen?
As already stated, prior to the 2008election, Obama eligibility lawsuits were entered and dismissed on lackof standing grounds. Lawsuits continued to be filed even after theelection with the same results. Unfortunately, the constitutionalrequirement to be a NBC got buried under the brouhaha surroundingObama's birth certificate. The copy that had been posted on theinternet has been denounced as a fake. Indeed, if it had been genuine,it would have been made readily available for forensic examinationmonths ago. That never happened.
Even the state of Hawaii becameinvolved in the birth certificate issue. Dr. Chiyome Fukino, HawaiiState Health Department Director, issued her second statement onObama's birth status on July 27, 2009, hoping to stem the tide ofrequests to her office for releasable information under Hawaii'sUniform Information Practices Act (Modified) and stated:
"I, Dr.Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii StateDepartment of Health, have seen the original vital records maintainedon file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying BarrackHussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
I have nothing further to addto this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 overeight months ago," Fukino said, in hopes of ending the controversysurrounding Obama's citizenship.
It is interesting to note that nojudge has yet adjudicated the definition of NBC, but a bureaucrat inHawaii has declared Barack Obama to be a "natural-born Americancitizen." On what basis does Fukino make her astounding statement?Obviously just because she said so. Fukino is no attorney, let alone ajudge, so whether her vital statistics department actually has anative-born Hawaiian birth certificate or an original certificate oflive birth from a foreign country on file for Obama is immaterial.Whether Obama was born in Hawaii or elsewhere in the States is not thequestion that needs to be adjudicated in a court of law. The onlyquestion that needs to be answered is whether he is a natural borncitizen and thus meets the first eligibility requirement under theConstitution to serve as president. Again, the haunting questionremains: how can a man born subject to the British crown and havingallegiance thereto be a natural born American citizen?
There are other allegations thatswirl around Barack Obama that will likely be made public beyond theinternet once this issue is taken up by the courts. Those allegationsare serious. But for now, the only question that we need to haveanswered to avoid a constitutional crisis and to avert the destructionof our republic is whether or not Barack Obama is a natural borncitizen. My money says he is not.
© 2010, ThePost & Email, Inc.All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. Toread more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice onthe subheader of every page, along the left margin.
Tags: Who is Barack Obama
Barry violates the Constitution by (CAPT-DAX)
http://thecaptiansquarters.blogspot.com/2010/03/barry-violates-constitution.html
Barry violates the Constitution
'' Presidential Oath of Office ''
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States."
(per Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution)
Did you wonder, at Barack Obama's Inauguration as President of the United States, how he could swear allegiance to our Constitution?
When you heard him declare that same Constitution "fundamentally flawed," and heard him read from his autobiography of his associates, leftist friends and Marxist professors — whom he claims to have "sought out" — did you ask yourself how in the world this man could possibly pledge to uphold the Constitution?
Did you, having even a limited knowledge of Obama's associations with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Black Liberation Theology preacher Reverend Wright, cringe slightly while he was taking the oath of office?
And have you wondered since then — in light of the policy changes he's proposed and the processes, procedures and strong-arm tactics he's used — how he could have made that solemn vow to our Constitution, hand upon the Bible, pledging to preserve, protect and defend that precious document?
That question — in its various forms — is brought up fairly regularly by conservative-leaning writers and pundits, often as a sort of rhetorical question.
It's usually intended to flavor a discussion that highlights Obama's steering of the U.S. toward a more Western European, socialism-flavored America, or his blatant breaches of protocol (apologizing for America, bowing to foreign leaders), or his over-stepping of long-established boundaries within the federal government (forcing citizens to purchase insurance, taking government ownership of private companies). You know — the stuff Obama calls change.
How could he dare do this to the Constitution, they'll puzzle as they shake their heads; or, how could he possibly disregard our Constitution like this?
Last night, Newt Gingrich brought the subject up yet again on Sean Hannity's TV show, with a slight variation, when he posed the highlighted question below:
Gingrich: This is a group prepared to fundamentally violate the Constitution. And by the way, the executive order on abortion is a fundamental violation. The idea that a President of the United States can personally reinterpret the law is just wrong.
Hannity: An executive order can never trump a statute anyway, so it wasn't really worth the paper it was printed on…
Gingrich: But the President may think it does. You know, I've been very curious… I'd be fascinated to know, since he taught Constitutional law in Chicago… which Constitution was he teaching? Venezuelan constitutional law? I mean, I can't imagine how he could have actually taught American Constitutional law and be this wrong, this often.
I think I might be able to answer that for the former House Speaker. I've been pondering this very question too, along with its numerous variations. Over time, it has shaped itself into one comprehensive and important question:
•If President Obama spends so much time and energy undermining the U.S. Constitution and — by his own admission — shamelessly working to fundamentally change it, how could he have sworn an oath on the Bible to preserve, protect and defend that same Constitution?
It's not because Obama is ignorant of what the Constitution really says or means. He wasn't referring to some other nation's by-laws. It's not because he isn't a natural-born citizen or because he just isn't up to the task. It's not even about the Alinsky/Marxist philosophy that "the ends justify the means," though that point has merit.
President Obama did, indeed, genuinely swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. But my conclusion is that he was pledging allegiance to the U.S. Constitution not as it exists now, but as he intends to make it. With this skewed rationalization, Obama was able to vow, in good faith and in good conscience, to "preserve, protect and defend" our most important founding document. He could at the same time proceed to condemn it. With this warped perspective, he can also justify any and all radical changes his social policies demand. And it has the added benefit of meshing perfectly with his agenda for hope and transformational change.
Every single thing Obama has proposed, accomplished and intends to accomplish fits neatly into this convenient framework he views as the "future" Constitution of the United States. It was to that Constitution — the one that will eventually exist after he rewrites it — that Barack Obama pledged his most sacred oath.
That, at least in my mind, fully explains this paradox. Hopefully, it cuts to the heart of the matter, and perhaps opens doors to even deeper truths.
Maybe it will explain it for you as well, and help guide your thinking about Obama's motives and intentions from here on.
– RB Stratford
Make no mistake. We're now in the middle of a bloodless coup – the takeover of an entire nation by the hate-America crowd – a cold-blooded gang that despises American's prosperity, our standing in the world, our trust in God and our generosity and goodness.
America is a monument to the triumph of freedom. When Barack Obama thinks about freedom, he sees a world in which some people, due to personal initiative and good fortune, will do better than others... live better than others.
And in that regard, he is right. But Barack Obama sees that as unfair. Where you see freedom, liberty and the opportunity for any American to be all that he or she can be, Obama sees greed and bigotry.
And, like so many on the far-left before him, going all the way back to Karl Marx, he believes that it's his mission to promote "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity" even if Americans must learn to live in chains to make it happen (in fact, servitude to the iron will of government will be required).
That worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man and one of the greatest threats to your personal liberty today.
That dangerous worldview also explains why he has already gobbled-up major banks and why the government now controls more and more of our money – yours and mine. And if you wake up one day to discover you're broke, don't be surprised. Barack Hussein Obama is Bernie Madoff with the political power of the presidency at his disposal.
That dangerous worldview explains the sudden and shocking erosion of your freedom to make a living, to run your own business, whether a Mom-and-Pop grocery store or General Motors.
That dangerous worldview explains why his Attorney General, Eric Holder, despises the 2nd Amendment... why, if he had his way, he would take away our guns, leaving us defenseless against gangs and hoods – and, more to the point, against Obama's own shock-troops from ACORN or SEIU. Remember, it was the healthy and rational fear of government that led to the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution of the United States.
And that dangerous worldview explains why Obama intends to take away your freedom to choose your own doctor... your own treatment. Wherever government controls health care, bureaucrats decide who gets treatments... who gets transplants... who gets dialysis... who gets costly medication... and who needs to die for the common good.
What can we do to stop this monomaniac... this American dictator? There's only one answer.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
impeach Barack Hussein Obama!!
To borrow a phrase from the "anointed-one," ... "yes we can."
But before going on, we really need to address the often misunderstood subject of what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense, in order to illustrate that Barack Obama's actions are grave enough to warrant impeachment.
Former-President Gerald Ford, while serving in the House of Representatives, said an impeachable offense was, "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
The key phrase here is "high crimes and misdemeanors," a concept in English Common Law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers but is grossly misunderstood in this day and age.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" essentially means bad behavior.
Here's a passage from C-Span.org which succinctly and beautifully summarizes the historical significance surrounding the inclusion of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution:
"'High crimes and misdemeanors' entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment - treason and bribery - were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered... so Mason then proposed 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a 'misdemeanor' meant 'mis-demeanor,' or bad behavior."
In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to a criminal act (as some would lead you to believe) and our Founding Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the President for actions which were... well... simply put... egregious... grossly incompetent... grossly negligent... outright distasteful... or, in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show "malevolence toward this country, which is unabated."
And make no mistake, for those who mistakenly hold the illusion that impeaching Barack Hussein Obama would be a simple matter of "playing politics," the Founders fully intended that the impeachment of a sitting President be a political act.
As C-Span.org notes:
"The Congress decides the definition [of impeachable offenses]: by majority vote in the House for impeachment, and by 2/3 vote in the Senate for conviction. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment. Then Representative Gerald Ford put it into practical perspective in 1970, when he said an impeachable offense is 'whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.'"
The Obama Administration exemplifies maladministration. It qualifies as the poster-child for bad behavior.
Obama and those around him are ravaging this great country and adding a sorry chapter to a noble history.
Impeachment, as written in the Constitution, was tailor-made for Barack Hussein Obama and our Founders placed it in our Constitution for such a time as this.
It could be easily argued that we have a duty to impeach Barack Hussein Obama.
Of course, our elected officials won't have the back-bone to go it alone. That's where you come in.
Help us spread the word far-and-wide and our elected officials will come to know that Impeachment is the will of the American people and they ignore the will of the people at their own political peril.
The question is not whether we should impeach Barack Hussein Obama.
Rather, the question is, can we
impeach Barack Hussein Obama before it is too late?
Tags: Presidential Oath
Obama's extremist pal declares 'socialism has a future' By Aaron Klein
Obama's extremist pal declares 'socialism has a future'
Cornel West urges help for 'dear friend' at 'crucial historical moment'
By Aaron Klein
Cornel West and Barack Obama at 2007 fundraiser
A personal friend and recent adviser to President Obama addressed a socialist conference at which he declared "socialism has a future" while urging participants to help Obama.
Cornel West, an extremist race-relations instructor at Princeton, addressed the 10th annual Young Democratic Socialists conference earlier this month. The three-day event took place at Norman Thomas High School in Manhattan, named after an American socialist activist.
The meeting, entitled "Real change for a change," described itself as a "snap shot of the current socialist movement in the United States."
During a lengthy address available on YouTube, West declared "socialism has a future."
He stated, "We are at a very crucial historical moment. My dear friend Barack Obama, he needs help. He needs deep help. He needs pressure. Organized, mobilized pressure."
West went on to urge the crowd not to rely on "messiahs" or "leaders," instead explaining the mantel for ushering socialist change into the country "falls onto us."
Obama named West, whom he has called a personal friend, to the Black Advisory Council of his presidential campaign. West was a key point man between Obama's campaign and the black community.
West served as an adviser on Louis Farrakhan's Million Man March and is a self-described personal friend of the Nation of Islam leader. West authored two books on race with Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr, who was at the center of a recent controversy in which Obama criticized Gates' treatment by police outside his home after a report of a burglary.
'Racist American empire'
It was West who introduced Obama at a 2007 Harlem fundraiser attended by about 1,500 people that served as Obama's first foray into Harlem after announcing his Democratic presidential candidacy.
WND reported West introduced Obama on stage at the fundraiser after first railing against the "racist" criminal-justice system of the "American empire."
A scan of YouTube clips found West introducing Obama at the fundraiser while stating the "American empire is in such a deep crisis" and slamming the "racist criminal-justice system" and "disgraceful schools in our city."
"He is my brother and my companion and comrade," said West of Obama.
WND found a video that shows Obama taking the stage just after West's introduction, expressing his gratitude to West, calling him "not only a genius, a public intellectual, a preacher, an oracle ... he's also a loving person."
Obama asked the audience for a round of applause for West.
From a young age, West proclaimed he admired "the sincere black militancy of Malcolm X, the defiant rage of the Black Panther Party … and the livid black (liberation) theology of James Cone."
Cone's theology spawned Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's controversial pastor for 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ. West was a strong defender of Wright when the pastor's extreme remarks became national news during the presidential campaign.
In 1995, West signed a letter published as an ad in the New York Times that voiced support for cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, a former Black Panther.
In 2002, West further signed a "Statement of Conscience" crafted by Not In Our Name, a project of C. Clark Kissinger's Revolutionary Communist Party. He then endorsed the World Can't Wait campaign, a Revolutionary Communist Party project seeking to organize "people living in the United States to take responsibility to stop the whole disastrous course led by the Bush administration."
After branding the U.S. a "racist patriarchal" nation in his book "Race Matters," West wrote, "White America has been historically weak-willed in ensuring racial justice and has continued to resist fully accepting the humanity of blacks."
Also in that book, West claimed the 9/11 attacks gave white Americans a glimpse of what it means to be a black person in the U.S. – feeling "unsafe, unprotected, subject to random violence and hatred" for who they are.
"Since 9/11," West wrote, "the whole nation has the blues, when before it was just black people."
With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott'
Tags: Obama's extremist pal
Obamacare Not For President or Congressional Leaders
by Connie Hair (more by this author)
The "Vote-a-Rama" got into full swing last night as the Senate worked through amendments to the healthcare reconciliation bill. The floor action lasted until the wee hours, adjourning at 3:00 am after Republicans successfully raised two points of order under the Byrd rule concerning Pell grants, having these items stripped from the healthcare legislation. The health care reconciliation bill will go back to the House for yet another vote after the Senate amendment process is completed.
Senate Democrats rejected an amendment last night offered by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that would have required the President, Vice President, cabinet members, top White House staff, and the congressional leadership and committee staff who drafted the proposal to purchase their health insurance through the government exchanges like everyone else.
"As a result, President Obama will not have to live under the Obama healthcare reforms, and neither will the congressional staff who helped to write the overhaul," Grassley said. "The message to the people at the grassroots is that it's good enough for you, but not for us."
Senate Democrats also voted 57-42 in favor of providing Viagra to sex offenders and 54-43 to give a ringing endorsement of the backroom, sweetheart deals for individual states such as Louisiana that remain in the bill. (I single out Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana's $300 million sweetheart deal simply because of the prime comic relief afforded by her attempts to defend her actions from the Senate floor.)
The Senate reconvenes at 9:45 am to continue the amendment voting today with a final Senate vote on the reconciliation bill expected this afternoon.
The Backlash: Reform Turns Personal
That blaring headline in Politico yesterday declared that the government takeover of healthcare only got personal when alleged threats had been made against the Democrat legislators voting in favor of health care reform.
How could anything as intimate as someone's private health decisions be anything but personal?
As an example of these alleged death threats, Rep. Bart Stupak's office released a voicemail of a woman saying, "Think about this, millions of people out there wish you ill." That's what they're calling death threats these days?
Average, everyday Americans are affected by this government takeover of healthcare. And they're upset. These are life and death matters that politicians want to centralize in Washington, giving nameless, faceless government bureaucrats the power to deny medical services. Medicare already denies procedures to our seniors at twice the rate of any private insurance company, the glaring difference being Medicare doesn't simply deny payment. When Medicare refuses coverage the procedure, not the payment, is denied.
Removing over half a trillion dollars from Medicare is not going to improve that circumstance. Further, it's not difficult to read that writing on the wall for the rest of our health care system.
And when one-size-fits-all medical decisions kill people, there is no taking it back. That just may have a few people upset.
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) pulled off his mask on Monday when he told Detroit WJR News/Talk 760 radio talk show host Paul W. Smith that Democrat "reforms" wouldn't be in place until 2014 because it takes time for the government to get control over people.
"The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people," Dingell said.
Control the people. That's a stunning admission. It's what opponents of this government takeover have warned all along: This was never about health and it most certainly isn't about care. It's about cradle-to-grave government control over "the people."
We, the people, do not take kindly to throwing grandma under the bus. That's not a slogan -- that's a real-life consequence when the President says grandma can't have pacemaker surgery, she needs to just take the pain pill.
It's an issue of personal religious conscience when the government takes your hard-earned money and uses it to pay for killing innocent babies in the womb.
From time immemorial matters of such import have sparred great wars as a means to settle. Politics is a continuation of war by other means.
Our founding fathers settled the issue of princelings who seek to rule over their fellow man using the full force of government tyranny. It is the duty of our elected representatives to be stewards of our liberty, not to reshape our representative republic by their own designs.
Read the Declaration of Independence and you'll find that tyranny is timeless. The long train of abuses articulated by our founders in that historic document is as relevant today as when they were first written. Consider these few:
"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."
Gee, that sounds eerily like basing the comparative effectiveness research death panels that make the cookie cutter decisions about your health care at the National Institutes of Health in Washington, D.C.
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
Let's see, the Pay Czar, Car Czar, Health Choices Czar, TARP Czar, Diversity Czar, the Safe Schools Czar and a Behavioral Science Czar, to name but a few of the dozens of unaccountable czars appointed by this administration.
"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation."
If that doesn't bring to mind the United Nations nothing ever will.
"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent."
Healthcare mandates and taxes and fines or jail time. The American people overwhelmingly reject the federal government seizing control of our health care system using "government-approved" insurance mandates, fines and taxation.
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
I think that one speaks for itself.
A free people will not go quietly into the night. We will not "move on" from the healthcare takeover. The November elections loom large.
Connie Hair is a freelance writer, a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference.
Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2010 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn?s Viagra amendment fails
http://www.newsok.com/u.s.-sen.-tom-coburns-viagra-amendment-fails/article/3449000?custom_click=pod_headline_usnational-news
U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn's Viagra amendment fails
BY CHRIS CASTEEL 39 Comments
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday killed a proposal by Sen. Tom Coburn to prevent convicted sex offenders from getting Viagra or similar prescriptions in the insurance markets to be established under the new health reform law.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 23, 2010. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Photoview all photos
NewsOK Related Articles
Senate will have to return health bill to House
03/25/2010 WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans learned early Thursday that they will be able to kill language in a measure altering President Barack Obama's newly...
Coburn's amendment was one of several shot down by Democrats working to approve a package of changes to the health care reform bill signed into law Tuesday by President Barack Obama. Among those killed was one that would put members of Congress in the Medicaid program.
Any changes to the package would force the House to vote on it again, so Democrats put up a united front Wednesday against amendments to keep the package intact.
Idea criticized
Coburn, R-Muskogee, called the new health reform law "the greatest assault on liberty this country has ever had," as he put Democrats in the position of voting down his proposal to prevent convicted child molesters, rapists and other sex offenders from getting federal drug coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs.
The amendment was killed by a vote of 57-42.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., called Coburn's amendment "a crass political stunt aimed at making 30-second (political) commercials."
Baucus said the bill Coburn was trying to amend was about helping seniors pay for drugs and making health care affordable for more people.
"This is a serious bill," he said, charging that Coburn's amendment made a "mockery" of the Senate and health care.
What would change?
An Associated Press survey in 2005 found that nearly 800 convicted sex offenders in 14 states had received erectile dysfunction drugs through Medicaid. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services then ordered states not to pay for the drugs for sex offenders.
Coburn said the new law wouldn't prevent sex offenders who buy health insurance from the state exchanges from getting prescription drug coverage that would help pay for the erectile drugs.
"This amendment will prohibit prescriptions for recreational drugs for rapists and child molesters," Coburn said. "Nobody can disagree with that … If this bill goes through without this amendment, your tax dollars are going to be paying for Viagra for child molesters. That's what's going to happen."
Coburn's amendment would also have prevented coverage for abortion drugs. And it would have required the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to establish new guidelines to prevent fraudulent prescriptions in the Medicaid program.
Coburn said the Government Accountability Office last year found widespread fraud, including Medicaid recipients visiting multiple doctors to get drugs exceeding the legal limit; doctors that had been banned from the Medicaid program filling prescriptions or selling drugs; and prescriptions "written" by dead doctors.
He said cracking down on fraud in Medicaid prescriptions would save $650 million a year.
Read more: http://www.newsok.com/u.s.-sen.-tom-coburns-viagra-amendment-fails/article/3449000?custom_click=pod_headline_usnational-news#ixzz0jDQrgzlt
Tags: OBAMACARE VIAGRA
U.S. Troops to March in Red Square Parade
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/u-s-troops-to-march-in-red-square-parade/
- Pajamas Media - http://pajamasmedia.com -
Posted By Kim Zigfeld On March 24, 2010 @ 12:00 am In Column 2, Culture, Europe, History, Politics, Russia, World News | 55 Comments
When I read the news on March 18, I was ashamed to call myself an American, ashamed to admit that Barack Obama was my president.
I learned in a tiny Internet blurb from the Associated Press [1] that the U.S. Embassy in Moscow had confirmed that on May 9, 2010, American soldiers would march in the infamous military parade through Red Square alongside the neo-Soviet army of proud KGB spy Vladimir Putin. Obama wants U.S. soldiers to help the Kremlin celebrate the 65th anniversary of the allied victory over Nazi Germany. British and French soldiers, it seems, will also take part.
All part of the now infamous Obama "reset" on Russia. Next stop for U.S. troops? Maybe a similar parade in Tehran?
Make no mistake about how Russians will understand this event. Putin will say to them: "You see, not only will they not help you fight for democracy, they will march against you. They will help me crush you." Meanwhile Russian propagandists lose no opportunity [2] to divide and conquer the West, even going so far as to buzz Alaska with nuclear bombers on a routine basis.
The reporting of the item was so obscure, one could almost have thought Obama was ashamed of his decision — as well he might have been.
Two days later, a massive wave of protests swept Russia, in a coordinated move by the opposition known as "Day of Anger [3]." The Russian government outlawed the protests, shut down the website [4] that was organizing them, preemptively arrested activist leaders, and then conducted mass arrests [4] of those who dared to show their faces on the streets. Obama said nothing in support of these freedom fighters.
The contrast between the craven actions of the Obama administration and the valiant stand being taken by activists within Russia could not be more disturbing. America can clearly be seen betraying the bedrock principles upon which it was founded, allowing a vehemently anti-American regime to consolidate power in Moscow, and supplying aid and comfort to American enemies across the globe. Obama is rapidly becoming a president who will live in infamy.
Signs of popular unrest are growing daily [5] in Putin's Russia as the KGB regime further and further compresses personal freedom and civil society, and more and more badly bungles the management of the economy. A recent news report [6] and YouTube video [7] showed today's Russia in microscosm: Workers assigned to build the Sochi 2014 Olympics venues are going unpaid, starving, and living in slum conditions, because the Kremlin, strapped for cash and hopelessly corrupt, cannot pay them. Russia spent five times more preparing its athletes for the 2010 Olympics compared to 2006, and collected one-third fewer medals.
Obama got a taste, though, of how Putin treats his own countrymen when he sent Hillary Clinton to Moscow begging for a renewal of the START treaty, which lapsed months ago despite Obama's much ballyhooed "reset" of relations, of which sending U.S. soldiers to Red Square is an obvious part. Putin chose just that moment to announce [8] he would press forward in helping Iran to light up a nuclear power plant even as Clinton courts world sanctions against that rogue nation because of its nuclear weapons secrecy.
Seasoned Latvian diplomat Sandra Kalniete [9] urges Obama to remember a little American history. In the past, she writes, Americans understood that while one might seek to make deals with the Russian government in the interests of world security, it was imperative to simultaneously reach out to the "second Russia" being oppressed by the first. Obama, in the manner of Neville Chamberlain, seems to have forgotten about this equation and to have firmly turned down the road of appeasement.
One hopeful sign, however, is that Senator John McCain seems to have at last gotten the message. On March 17, he rose dramatically on the floor of the U.S. Senate [10] to demand action from the Obama administration. McCain declared:
I had an opportunity the other week to meet with one of these brave Russian champions of human dignity and freedom — a man by the name of Boris Nemtsov. Mr. Nemtsov is but one of the many Russians who believe that their country deserves a government that enshrines the human rights of its people in an inviolable rule of law that allows citizens to hold their leaders accountable through a real democratic process. I asked Mr. Nemtsov what we in Washington could do to support the cause of human rights in Russia, and he simply said: "Speak up for it. And speak up for us." It is my pleasure to do just that today.
Russia expert Vladmir Kara-Murza writes of Nemtsov [11]: "Kremlin propagandists would have the outside world believe that its puppet 'parliament' and its sanctioned 'opposition' parties represent the full spectrum of views in Russian society. The Solidarity leader's meetings on Capitol Hill are proof that the world knows better." Perhaps the Congress and the world know, but does Barack Obama? Nemtsov may have been too ambitious in his plea for assistance. Perhaps he ought to simply have asked that the U.S. not make things worse by sending military forces to Red Square.
McCain has been shockingly silent on Russia since Obama defeated him, apparently out of respect for the presidency. But now he has seen too much. It is one thing for Obama to ignore the need to speak up for American value; it's quite something else for him to send U.S. troops to march alongside the forces of the man who is leading the attack upon them. McCain must now lead Republicans back to the forefront of U.S. foreign policy, demanding that Obama cease his reckless course of appeasement and stand behind his oath of office.
And all Americans of good conscience should write their elected representatives and demand that U.S. soldiers break their date with the neo-Soviet empire of Vladimir Putin.
Tags: OBAMA COMMUNIST
Obama is a Communist by The European Union Times
http://www.eutimes.net/2010/03/world-mourns-as-communist-darkness-falls-upon-america/
- The European Union Times – Breaking News, Latest News - http://www.eutimes.net -
World Mourns As Communist Darkness Falls Upon America
Posted By Europe On 22/03/2010 @ 10:14 pm In Communism, North America,
Politics, World | 112 Comments
Obama is a Communist
In what is being described as one of the most astounding power grabs
in modern history by newspaper headlines around the World, President
Obama has succeeded in his audacious plan to remake America into a
full fledged godless communist empire barely one year into his term
with the enactment into law by the US Congress of his mammoth
health care plan innocuously named H.R. 3200-Americas Affordable
Health Choices Act of 2009 and described by one Kremlin legal expert
as having "nothing at all to do with health, but everything to do with control."
To fully grasp the full and grim implications of Obama's power grab over
the American people with his Nationalization of the United States entire
health care industry and student loan programme accomplished with the
passing of this new law, it must be remembered that since taking office
on January 20, 2009 he has also taken over their automobile, mortgage,
and banking industries too with theInternet said being next "in his sights".
More insidious than these takeovers that have been destroying America's once vibrant
capitalistic system is the new regime these once free peoples are now destined to live
under, and where under their new health care law will require all of them to carry a
National ID card (page 58) and allow their government unlimited access to all of
their bank accounts and personal records (page 159).
And in a chilling instance of the ancient prophecies for these time of "The Mark of the Beast" becoming reality, the National ID card all of the American people will now be
required to possess (regardless of age) is to be combined with their new government
ID card under their upcoming new immigration laws allowing them to work and is
biometrically designed to "read" the backs of their hands.
[Note: According to the Christian Bibles Book of Revelations, the ancients warned
of a future time when everyone, both small and great, rich and poor, free or slave,
would receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads which without they
would not be able buy or sell anything.]
Though many have tried to warn these Americans about the plans for their Nations
destruction at the hands of the Obama backed communist forces who have taken
over their country [including our March 2nd report "Russia Warns US Communist
Threat Endangering Entire World"] the propaganda organs in the United States
have rendered silent nearly all opposition and dissident views from reaching them
and they remain asleep to the true dangers soon to come upon them.
The same, however, cannot be said about the rest of the World where during this
past week alone, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon signed a cooperation agreement
with a Russia-led security group of ex-Soviet Nations as a counterbalance to the US
led NATO forces (who are currently expanding their wars against the Muslim Nations
to steal their vast oil and gas wealth) and one of China's top military officers called
for his Nation to build the World's strongest military and move swiftly to topple the
United States as the Global "champion."
To how ignorant the American people have become to the yoke of communist
oppression being pressed upon them by Obama's forces we can glimpse from a
report in today's Los Angeles Times that says "The Democratic administration of
Barack Obama, who denounced his predecessor, George W. Bush, as the most
secretive in history, is now denying more Freedom of Information Act requests
than the Republican did."
And as to why Obama and his communist forces would seek to keep from the
American people what is really being done to them we had, also, previously
warned about in our February 12th report "The "End Of Days" Are Upon Us, Warns
Russian Patriarch" and wherein we had stated:
"Patriarch Cyril warns in his report though that the Motherlands efforts to halt
the West's godlessness "may be too late" as evidenced by the rising use among
their political, military, banking and celebrity elite classes of the ancient
Babylonian "Sign of the Horns" [formed by extending the index and little fingers
while holding the middle and ring fingers down with the thumb, see photo
bottom left] honoring the ancient god Marduk (Sumerian spelling in Akkadian:
AMAR.UTU meaning "solar calf&rdquo ."
Now most important to remember about these ancient enemies of our human
race Obama and his communist forces have aligned themselves with is how
truly predictable they are; including the United States passing of their health
care bill during the 2010 Vernal (Spring) Solstice [when daytime and nighttime
are equal length] as a "celebration" to the ancient goddess Ēostre whose name
was given to the Christian festival of Easter but whose origins stretch back into
the mists of time to the mystery religions of Rome where the Cybele cult preformed
their child sacrifices on what was then known as Vatican hill, but today is known
as the home of the Pope.
And in these monsters predictability by aligning themselves with the ancient
dates and ceremonies of old also comes the most secure protection from their
destructive plans; such as the United States March 4, 2001 airing of the Lone
Gunman television programmes pilot episode where an American government
plot to fly remotely controlled planes into the World Trade Center was discovered,
and which was exactly 6 months and 7 days from when the actual attack occurred.
It goes without saying, of course, that the propaganda media organs beholden
to their godless communist masters will never inform their peoples about these
things, and for those of us who do there is always great danger. But as the events
in the United States are now showing to even those most in denial about what is truly
happening, the time nears when hard choices will have to be made by everyone if
freedom for our human race is to be saved.
Email this to a friend?
Send this page to Print Friendly
Share this on Wikio
Share this on Reddit
Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
Buzz up!
Share this on FriendFeed
Sphinn this on Sphinn
Share this on Mixx
Subscribe to the comments for this post?
Russian Says America Is Going Communist
America Falls – Germany Rises
Obama weak leadership for America is no longer considered world superpower,
China taking over.
If you oppose health care 'reform', you are a racist, hate-spouting, Aryan
who roots for the assassination of Obama
Obama: An enormous danger to America and the world
Article printed from The European Union Times – Breaking News, Latest
News: http://www.eutimes.net
URL to article: http://www.eutimes.net/2010/03/world-mourns-as-communist-darkness-falls-upon-america/
Copyright © 2009 The European Union Times. All rights reserved.
The Best of Health Care Floor Speeches (Video) by Human Events
http://gateway.andohs.net/player/?sid=826&nid=2920
Print Forward Feedback Facebook LinkedIn Digg Subscribe
The Best of HealthCare Floor Speeches (Video)
by Human Events
Check out this interactivemap from the office of House GOP Conference Vice-Chair Cathy McMorrisRodgers (R-Wash.) of representatives who fought against the governmenttakeover of health care this weekend, and listen to their speeches.
View Health Care FloorDebate Highlights in a larger map
HUMAN EVENTS is the news source PresidentReagan called his "favorite newspaper" and we still hold high theReaganesque principles of free enterprise, limited government and,above all, a staunch, unwavering defense of American freedom.
Philip J. Berg Reveals More About Barry Soetoro, VIDEO
Tags: OBAMA SOETORO
?The Constitution has been ripped to shreds, so why is anythingsafe?? From oilforimmigration.org
A Hot New Initiative
Posted on March 24th, 2010by David-Crockett
By Nancy Matthis
Just started on Monday, Fire the 219 is a not-for-profit organizationdedicated to removing the 219 congressmen who voted for ObamaCare fromoffice "through any and all possible legal means."
This includes recall.
Michael Farris, JD, Chancellor and Professor of Government atPatrick Henry College, has written the following treatise relevant tothis effort:
Tags: Initiatives, Obama/Hitlercare,Obamacare // 1 Comment »
"In Deus nos mando res publica"
Posted on March 24th, 2010by Your Pastor Charles
Thanks for the Bernie De Castro info you folks are just wonderful>>>Now let's try just uno address for a Czar, mucho SecretWHY??? Please try on this one as it may be more important than you willever know! In God we entrust the republic!!! your pastor Charles!
Tags: general // Add Comment »
ACLJ plansnationwide challenge to health care bill
LAWSUIT TO BE FILED NEXT WEEKSEEKS PLAINTIFFS
(Mar. 23, 2010) — The American Center for Lawand Justice will be filing a legal challenge to the health care billpassed by the House of Representatives on Sunday and signed by Obamatoday.
According to Jordan Sekulow, Director of InternationalOperations at the ACLJ, the non-profit organization is seekingplaintiffs from all 50 states and plans to file the suit in districtcourts across the country.
Tags: Lawsuits against the hitlerbill // 4Comments »
AlexDetails How America has Now Gone into Complete Collectivism
Obamacare: Taxing The American People Into Oblivion
Steve Watson and Paul Watson
Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010
H.R. 3590, The Patient Protection andAffordable Care Act, to give it its full title, is rammed full oftax increases which will further economically cripple Americans alreadylaboring under the worst financial crisis since the great depression.
The partnering Reconciliation Act, currently in the Senate, alsocontains a raft of pork barrel and tax hikes, there to fund thetrillion dollar cost of nationalizing medicine.
As reported by Bloomberg News today, analysis by the nonpartisancongressional Joint Committee on Taxation reveals that the bill willgenerate $409.2 billion in additional taxes by 2019.
In addition, the Congressional Budget Office states that the billalso levies almost $69 billion more in penalties for those who fail tomeet mandates to buy insurance.
Tags: Complete Collectivism & Dictatorship, alex jones //4Comments »
Teapartiers target top 10 legislators to be 'fired'
'Members of the House of Representatives are not exempt fromrecall'
By Drew Zahn
Following this past weekend's 219-212health-care vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, two leadingtea-party groups have established a pair of new target numbers: 219representatives to be "fired" and a top 10 list of those that most needto go.
The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition and Tea Party Nationhave teamed up to create a new website and nonprofit corporationdedicated to ousting the legislators that backed "Obamacare" called Fire the 219.
"Over the last few days, you have heard very little from Tea PartyNation on the socialist health-care vote," touts an e-mail alert fromthe organization. "I do not know about you, but my mailbox was gettingfilled up with urgent e-mails. No one needed one more.
Tags: TeaParty revolution // 3Comments »
Hon. James David Manning, PhD calls 21 March 2010 "BloodySunday" because of the Heathcare bill. Recorded on 22 March 2010.Follow us on twitter at http://www.twitter.com/atlahworldwide
Click here for information on the CIA Columbia Obama Treason Trial:
http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?page…
Click here to print the CIA Columbia Obama Treason Trial Flyer:
http://atlah.org/pdf/ciaColumbiaObama…Distributed by Tubemogul.
Tags: Columbia Trial,The Honorable James David Manning // Add Comment »
Obamacare To BeEnforced By Armed Thugs
If the health care bill was such a positive act of reform, asestablishment Democrats and the corporate media are pitching it, thenhow come it needs to be enforced by means of coercion at the hands ofthousands of armed IRS thugs?
That was the context of the discussion during Ron Paul's appearanceon Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard last night, asthe Congressman continued to speak out against the tyrannical nature ofObamacare.
Tags: Obama/Hitlercare,Obamacare // Add Comment»
OPENLETTER to KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI II, ATTORNEY GENERAL of VIRGINIA
Updating: Virginia Virginia Attorney General can challengeObama's eligibility right now
The T Room published
Dear Attorney General Cuccinelli:
On September 21, 2009 I sent via email a MEMORANDUM ofCOMPLAINT of ELECTION FRAUD against THE HONORABLE NANCY PELOSI, ACTINGin a NON-GOVERNMENTAL ROLE as CHAIR, 2008 DNC SERVICES CORPORATION("DNC&rdquo CONVENTION: and ALICE TRAVIS GERMOND, SECRETARY, DNC; andREQUEST for INVESTIGATION by VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL to theattention of the Attorney General. The following day, September 22,2009, I hand delivered copies of the COMPLAINT to the Attorney Generalsoffice.
On October 9, 2009, I offered public testimony to the State Board ofElections detailing the primary legal points made in that Memorandum ofComplaint.
Tags: Open letters// AddComment »
VirginiaVirginia Attorney General can challenge Obama's eligibility right now
AG KEN CUCCINELLI PLANS TO SUEOVER HEALTH CARE, BUT AN EASIER, LESS EXPENSIVE WAY TO STOP IT IS TODEMAND THAT OBAMA PROVE HIS ELIGIBILITY
Please, please, please, take a minute andread all of the information recently posted at http://www.t-room.us.It is an open letter to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli asking him whyhe is going the expensive route of a lawsuit challenging the recentlypassed Healthcare bill when he has an ELECTION FRAUD COMPLAINT built onstrong circumstantial evidence?
Why did Bob Bauer, Obama's attorney, request that a FEDERAL COURT inPennsylvania take judicial notice of a computer screen? It was not anofficial piece of paper you or I could hold and touch and feel in ourhands of his "supposed" Certification of Live Birth issued by the stateof Hawaii. Bauer actually had the nerve to ask a federal judge to takejudicial notice of a COMPUTER SCREEN! Thankfully, the judge denied hisrequest.
Tags: Ken Cuccinelli// AddComment »
TheFederalist Papers and Obamacare - Thanks Charles
Patrick Jakeway
While publishing the Federalist papers in 1787/1788, two of themajor architects of the Constitution, James Madison and AlexanderHamilton, made some highly pertinent comments that apply to Obamacare.
James Madison, Federalist Number 14:
"In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the generalgovernment is not to be charged with the whole power of making andadministering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumeratedobjects, which concern all members of the republic, but which are notto be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinategovernments, which can extend their care to all those objects, whichcan be separately provided for, will retain their due authority andactivity."
Tags: Obama/Hitlercare,Obamacare // AddComment »
JournalistJames Delingpole Foresees State Rationed Healthcare
Alex welcomes back to the show English journalist and novelist,James Delingpole. He has published several novels and two politicalbooks, How to be Right: The Essential Guide to Making Lefty LiberalsHistory, and Welcome to Obamaland: I Have Seen Your Future and ItDoesn't Work. He writes for The Times, The Daily Telegraph, and as atelevision critic for The Spectator.
Tags: alex jones //AddComment »
Lawfare,Voluntary Surrender, and Right-wing "Extremists"
Posted on March 23rd, 2010by David-Crockett
By Jim O'Neill
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And…moderationin the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"—Barry Goldwater(1909-1998)
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of theUnited States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shallbe eligible to the Office of President."—The U.S. Constitution,Article 2, Section 1
Both Barack and Michelle Obama are lawyers barred from practicinglaw. This is a topic I'll return to in a moment, but first I want tosay a few words about the global "lawfare" that is, and has been, wagedagainst freedom.
Most folks are aware of the communist roots of the ACLU (AmericanCivil Liberties Union) and its "country cousin" the SPLC (SouthernPoverty Law Center), and quite a few understand that many liberallawyers become Progressive, or "activist," judges. (Here and here.)
Tags: general, lawfare // 2Comments »
"unprecedentedencroachment on the sovereignty of the states" contends states' lawsuitagainst Obamacare
by DFX
Page 4 of the 22 page lawsuit gives some examples ofinfringement upon the state Constitutions. One example about Florida:
It requires that Florida vastly broaden itsMedicaid eligibility standards to accommodate upwards of 50 percentmore enrollees, many of whom must enroll or face a tax penalty underthe Act, and imposes onerous new operating rules that Florida mustfollow.
The lawsuit goes on to explain (using Florida as anexample):
Tags: Obama/Hitlercare,Obamacare, infringement upon the state Constitutions // AddComment »
Who is BERNIE DE CASTRO !any Info??
Posted on March 23rd, 2010by Your Pastor Charles
Post info if you have any, Please and thank you!
Tags: general // 7 Comments»
RushLimbaugh: Elections could end thanks to Obama
'The Constitution has been ripped to shreds, so why is anythingsafe?'
Talk-radio icon RushLimbaugh today suggested the existence of U.S. elections are nowthreatened by a move he expects President Obama to pursue – a massamnesty for illegal aliens – following the passage of his historichealth-care reform plan.
"The next big push will be amnesty for … millions of illegalimmigrants who are here," he said on his radio program.
"Obama's gonna need their votes in 2012. The Democrats are going toneed their votes in every election from now on – if we have elections,and I'm not joking.
"The Constitution has just been ripped to shreds, so why is anythingsafe?" he said.
Tags: Obamaanti-American // 4Comments »
The trailer to the new documentary from PRB Films.
Geert Wilders lives with a constant death threat over his head.Al-Qaeda has vowed to kill him. As a Dutch parliamentarian andoutspoken critic of radical Islam, Mr. Wilders must travel with fourbodyguards and sleep in a safe house, each and every night.
Tags: Geert Wilders// Add Comment »
States'Attorneys General issue statements on health care bill
FROM NO RESPONSE AT ALL TOOUTSPOKEN STATES' RIGHTS DEFENDERS
(Mar. 22, 2010) — Reaction to thepassage of the health care bill by the states ranged from nothing tothe promise of a lawsuit enjoined by other states against the Congressfor overstepping its constitutional authority.
The Maryland attorney general's pressperson seemed surprised when asked if the attorney general would beissuing a statement. The only response was "No…no." New Jersey's AGwill not be issuing a statement. The North Carolina AG's press contactsaid that the AG "is thinking about it." The phone lines wereoverloaded in Georgia and Maine, and no one answered at all inMassachusetts.
Tags: Obama/Hitlercare// 4Comments »
AlexCovers IRS to become Bounty Hunters for ObamaCare Law on The Alex JonesShow
See in relation to HealthCare Mandate to Be Enforced by IRS 'Bounty Hunters'
Tags: Obama/Hitlercare,alex jones, dictatorship// AddComment »
We'LLRemember in November, and pray Psalms 109 while awaiting. - ThanksPastor Charles
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 165 (Democrats in roman;Republicans in italic; Independents
H R 3590 RECORDED VOTE 21-Mar-2010 10:49 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments
BILL TITLE: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Ayes Noes PRES NV
Democratic 219 34
TOTALS 219 212
Tags: OBAMACARE UNCONSTITUTIOAL
Call Now to Stop Obama Plan! League of American Voters
Urgent Message from Dick Morris & the League of American Voters
Call Now to Stop Obama Plan!
It appears the final vote on Obamacare will take place this weekend.
It is absolutely necessary to call your Congressman to let him
An Urgent Message From Our Sponsor, The League of American Voters
or her know your position.
If you've called them already, call them again. Have other friends and family call.
Dick Morris, the League of American Voters chief strategist, says we can stop Obamacare but we need your calls!
Nancy Pelosi plans an imminent vote in the House to force their radical health agenda on everyone.
On more than one occasion they have passed major legislation late at night and on weekends. They obviously have something to hide!
Please remember that the current Obamacare legislation:
Cuts Medicare for seniors by $500 billion
Will lead to doctors – and medical institutions – refusing to treat Medicare patients
Forces every American to buy health insurance under the penalty of a fine or jail
Establishes a Medicare Advisory Board of government bureaucrats empowered to ration health care for seniors, cut their benefits
The fact is we may never have a better opportunity than now to stop the radical Obamacare.
It is urgent key members of Congress here from you.
Here are Congressmen whose votes are not clearly decided. Please call them at both their Washington and district offices:
PLEASE CALL!
Disctrict
Ann Kirkpatrick
Jerry McNerney
Jim Hines
Bill Foster
Baron Hill
Mark Schauer
Dina Titus
(702)-256-DINA (3462)
Carol Shea-Porter
Tim Bishop
Dan Maffei
Earl Pomeroy
Steven Driehaus
Mary Jo Kilroy
Zach Space
Kathy Dahlkemper
Christopher Carney
Paul Kanjorski
Tom Perriello
Steve Kagen
Jim Matheson
Tell your Congressman you OPPOSE the Obamacare Plan and that they must vote AGAINST it!
The vote is IMMINENT. Please do it now!
Thank you for saving our healthcare system!
And please help us keep our ad campaign and media efforts active all week by Donating Here Now
Bob Adams
Paid for by the League of American Voters. Contributions to the League of American Voters
are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Contributions from individuals and corporations are permitted by law and welcome.
League of American Voters | 722 12th Street N.W. | Fourth Floor | Washington, D.C. 20005
Tags: obamacare congress
Impeach the president? By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/
KUHNER: Impeach the president?
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.
Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.
This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.
Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.
The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.
Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life - the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-and-control bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans.
Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure's sweeping and radical aims - the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.
Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it.
Numerous states - from Idaho to Virginia to Texas - have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come.
Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party's congressional majority and - most disturbing - our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country's stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.
The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.
It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.
It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the daily host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from noon until 3 p.m.
Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC
Tags: obama impeach
Millions of Americans urged to 'drive stake through the heart' of Obamacare By Chelsea Schilling
Anger at Washington reaches full steam
Millions of Americans urged to 'drive stake through the heart' of Obamacare
By Chelsea Schilling
Americans protest health bill (photo: Americans for Prosperity)
The level of intense anger at Washington is heating up as several high-profile groups are calling on millions of Americans to slam Congress with phone calls, e-mails and faxes demanding that lawmakers vote "no" on the health-care bill.
As WND reported, reforms pushed by President Obama and other Democrats may be approved without ever actually having a direct vote, but could be "deemed" to have been passed and then signed into law by Obama. The process is called the "Slaughter Strategy," named for Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Rules Committee.
'Deceiving the American people'
Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit group that focuses on constitutional litigation, has distributed a letter to every member of the House, showing that the proposed "Slaughter Strategy" is unconstitutional. Its members have slammed Congress with more than 250,000 faxes expressing outrage over the bill.
Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states, "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; … in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively."
The clowns in Washington obviously have no clue about our founding document. Send them copies of the Constitution today!
The Founding Fathers included Article I, Section 7 in the Constitution to keep Congress accountable to the people, Liberty Counsel explained.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Louise Slaughter are attempting to deceive the American people by refusing to cast votes on the actual language in the Senate health-care bill," the group said in a statement. "The president and his allies in Congress are masters of confusion and deception. They have a political agenda which distorts the facts regarding health care."
Liberty Counsel warned that the Senate health-care bill funds abortion, rations care, limits freedom and will bankrupt America.
"The president and his allies in Congress are masters of confusion and deception. They have a political agenda which distorts the facts regarding health care," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel. "Last night President Obama said he is not concerned with the process. In other words, the end justifies any means. It is unbelievable that the president would disregard the Constitution and the rule of law to push a narrow political agenda that most Americans have rejected."
'Fourth down and goal to go'
Likewise, the American Family Association, or AFA, has joined the fight, sending out action alerts to its entire 2.5 million-member network, urging them to contact their representatives and press them to vote "no" on any and all versions of health-care reform proposals.
AFA also sent targeted action alerts into districts of 46 Democratic congressmen whose positions on this weekend's vote remain uncertain.
Buddy Smith, AFA executive vice president said, "It's fourth down and goal to go, and Democrats are trying desperately to push government takeover of health care across the goal line. The American people need to stand as one against this radical attempt to remake our country and put government bureaucrats between their families and their health-care providers."
'Will the government ever stop?'
The Home School Legal Defense Association, or HSLDA, blasted the current legislation, saying it poses a serious threat to parental rights and homeschool freedom.
William Estrada, HSLDA director of federal relations, explains that Section 2951 on Page 568 of the 2,074-page bill, titled "Maternal, Infant, And Early Childhood Home Visiting Programs," would create a federal grant program to fund state home visitation programs where government officials – including social workers – would be allowed to visit homes of certain families "in order to promote improvements in maternal and prenatal health, infant health, child health and development, parenting related to child development outcomes, school readiness, and the socio-economic status of such families, and reductions in child abuse, neglect, and injuries."
While Estrada notes that home visitation is voluntary, details of the programs are "open to being politically influenced by government bureaucrats who may think that they know more about parenting than do parents."
He warns that parents may be pressured to adopt child-rearing methods that are against the family's religious beliefs, and that home visitation officials could even threaten families and neglect investigations if they refuse to follow parenting education models.
"[F]undamentally, HSLDA believes that the federal government has no constitutional authority to fund and oversee home-visitation programs and parenting classes," Estrada wrote. "Once the federal government gets a foot into the door of families' homes, will it ever stop?"
Obamacare protest in Washington, D.C. (photo: robbybphotos, Flickr)
Praying for Congress
Focus on the Family Action criticized the health-care legislation's funding for abortion and urged Americans to put pressure on the lawmakers to reject the bill. Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family Action's vice president of government and public policy, called the legislation and the process by which Democrats are planning to pass it "fraught with danger."
"If you think you know what's going on, you're missing something because I can barely understand it," Minnery said. "There's two processes – this deem-and-pass thing and reconciliation – both of which are highly questionable when used in these circumstances. We have never before seen a push on a bill of this magnitude that will give government control over 16 or 17 percent of the economy done in an atmosphere in which there are insufficient votes and these arcane procedures being used for it."
Minnery said Democrats are struggling to round up votes, but he doesn't believe they have enough yet. He suggested people call their representatives' district offices because so many people are jamming phone lines at the Capitol. Focus on the Family also encouraged people to call this week during its daily radio broadcast.
Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst with Focus on the Family Action, said there is a lot wrong with this bill.
"We are down to the wire," she said, "and the historic vote is almost upon us. Americans must not delay in telling their lawmakers to 'start over' on health care and to vote 'no' on a health-care bill that throws open the door to federal funding of abortion."
Focus on the Family Action host Stuart Shepard asked that Americans pray for their representatives and ask God to give them wisdom and insight before the vote.
'Driving a stake through the heart' of Obamacare
Freedomworks reported 130 economists signed a letter to the White House warning that the tax hikes needed to pay for a $1 trillion plan would slow economic growth and eliminate jobs. They warned that the bill would raise taxes by almost $500 billion over 10 years and a significant portion of the tax increases would fall on small business owners. They also stated that the bill would impose a tax of $2,000 per employee on employers with more than 50 employees that don't provide health insurance.
"In addition to constricting economic growth and reducing employment, the health care bill will increase spending on health care and will increase the cost of health coverage," the economists wrote. "The new and higher taxes on America's small businesses and workers included in the bill are detrimental to job creation and economic growth, especially now given the fragile state of the economy."
As WND reported, a fierce campaign is urging Americans to go "Code Red" in an emergency effort targeting wavering House Democrats who are vacillating on whether they will vote for the bill.
At last count, the Code Red campaign listed 205 "no" votes, 202 "yes" votes and 24 undecided.
The Tea Party Patriots announced today that tea partiers will be back in Washington, D.C., on March 20 to storm the House offices and demand that lawmakers vote "no" on the bill.
Actor John Voight will join the crowd at noon. The following organizations are also joining the effort: Let Freedom Ring, 60 Plus, Institute for Liberty, FreedomWorks and Americans for Tax Reform.
Meanwhile, Obama may be having trouble keeping his own supporters advocating for the legislation. Even left-leaning organizations such as the National Council of La Raza, or NCLR, which ardently worked toward an Obama victory, appeared disillusioned by the legislation. The group announced today that it will oppose the health-care bill being considered by Congress unless major changes are made during reconciliation. It said the Senate version does not go far enough to cover "all U.S. residents."
Even some in the mainstream media have expressed skepticism over the current plan.
"When even the Associated Press says that premiums will go up under Obamacare, and the Washington Post says the Democrats 'reconciliation' strategy is 'dodgy,' you know you're dealing with something that not even honest liberals can support," noted Bryan Fischer, AFA director of issue analysis. "We need to drive a stake through the heart of this legislation and make sure it never comes to life again."
If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.
Related offer:
Wake up, America! Your country is about to disappear. Read Mark Levin's No. 1 best-seller "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto"
Previous stories:
Health-care 'trickery' called overthrow of Constitution
Levin: We will sue over health-care trick
Code Red! Americans fight to crush Obamacare
'Backroom deals' details wanted, now!
Washington firebrand: 'Health care' is 'fraud'
New promise: Lawsuits to challenge 'Obamacare'
Obama sued for secret abortion meetings
Beware, Obama … he's back!
Author exposes 'seedy underbelly of Washington'
Corruption fighter: 'I've never seen it like this'
Judicial Watch founder flays Washington
Hollywood: Withhold sex to push health reform
Jessica Alba's seduce-the-vote campaign
Half of voters oppose Congress members on health care
Union members oppose key Obamacare points
Citizens on government health care say 'no more'
Tags: obamacare anger
Keep Calling Congress, America, Rush Limbaugh
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
Keep Calling Congress, America
Keep it up. You're taking Easter Break to Capitol Hill.
Keep Trying to Call If It's Busy (That's the Point!)
• Dial: 877-762-8762 or 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121
• Code Red: NRCC's List of Targeted Congressmen
• Focus: Wilson (D-OH) | Cao (R-LA) | Altmire (D-PA)
Thursday Quotes: Voice of Reason
You're Missing Out on Thousands of Rush Quotes! Join Rush 24/7 NOW!
"Obama, like every liberal, starves the golden goose while demanding more eggs. Doctors, nurses, ambulances. Anything connected with health will be depleted."
"We need to remain the party of 'No, hell no.' There are no fixes to this bill, there's no streamlining it, there's no tweaking it. There's just destroying it."
"I'm still waiting for somebody on Obama's side of this to call me and tell me one thing he said about this health care bill that's true. He's lying through his teeth about this, and he doesn't even care."
"Nonprofits, in many cases, are a giant scam in order to score money from the government when you otherwise have no talent and can do nothing for which anybody will pay you."
"I don't want people to get sidetracked with the CBO show because ultimately, as has been demonstrated this morning, the CBO number is a distraction anyway. It's designed to take our focus off what is really wrong with this bill and that is everything."
"The guts of this bill are why it needs to be opposed, not the CBO number, not the deficit number, it's all part of the same combination."
"If they're not cutting Medicare by $500 billion then this whole $940 billion number CBO has is totally irrelevant because there's no $500 billion Medicare cut, they're spending it somewhere else. It's like you shifting money from one pocket to the other and saying you just cut your budget. It's irresponsible, it's silly."
"Stick with the EIB Network for the truth."
"Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16th. This is huge. This is Obamacare before it's passed, a snapshot of what's going to be going on all over the country. We don't have the money for this."
"I just had somebody quick scan the reconciliation bill that's posted, and the first thing to report is that the word tax or some variation of it shows up 124 times in 159 pages. So there you have it."
SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS HAVE TAKEN CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT by JB Williams
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/16/the-truth-about-progressives-aka-marxists/
The Truth about Progressives, aka Marxists
SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS HAVE TAKEN CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT
by JB Williams, ©2010
Karl Marx, 1818-1883: "Democracy is the road to socialism."
(Mar. 16, 2010) — To fully understand the progressive movement and its current rush to grab one-sixth of the US economy via unconstitutional federal health care mandates, one must follow the trail that leads from the Maoist Movement of the '60s that started in Berkeley, California, and the Marxist Movement that has culminated in the joint venture between the Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA, today's Democratic Socialists of America.
You do not have to believe what I tell you in this column. But if you study the sources linked in this column, no reasonable mind can come to any other conclusion. Information is power. If most Americans were aware of all that is presented in this column, they would know exactly what to do to save their Constitutional Republic while they still can.
Today's US Congress is controlled by two Democratic Socialists of America (DSAUSA) organizations, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
The DSAUSA explains it very clearly in its publication, What is Democratic Socialism: "We are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party's left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus."
They explain their primary methods as well – in the spirit of Joseph Stalin – "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."
They want our youth
"Since the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, young people have played a critical role in American politics. They have been a tremendous force for both political and cultural change in this country: in limiting the US's options in the war in Vietnam, in forcing corporations to divest from the racist South African regime, in reforming universities, and in bringing issues of sexual orientation and gender discrimination to public attention. Though none of these struggles were fought by young people alone, they all featured youth as leaders in multi-generational progressive coalitions. Young people are needed in today's struggles as well: for universal health care and stronger unions, against welfare cuts and predatory multinational corporations."
Vladimir Lenin explained why the political left always targets young minds in the pursuit of the leftist agenda: "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."
And so it is in America today. What our children understand to be "progressive," the older generations know to be socialism, communism, Marxism and most accurately, totalitarianism. Young people have been taught to call it "social justice," the central government's power to control individual outcomes regardless of individual productivity, or as Karl Marx put it, "to take from each according to his abilities, and give to each according to his needs." This is the fundamental basis of Marxism, "social justice" and today's progressive ideal.
Annual Conference to be held in New York City
From March 19 – 21, 2010, like-minded leftist organizations from all over the world will hold their annual conference at Pace University in New York City. From the Left Forum About Us page: "Each spring Left Forum convenes the largest gathering in North America of the US and international Left. Continuing a tradition begun in the 1960s, we bring together intellectuals and organizers to share perspectives, strategies, experience and vision."
This year's Left Forum event is titled "Rekindling the Radical Imagination," and it opens with grave concerns about the movement, which explains the desperation in progressive leaders like Obama, Pelosi and Reid as they risk all to advance a health care bill that hasn't even been written yet: "The ongoing capitalist crisis generated high hopes that the parties and social movements of the Left, both in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world, would be re-energized. So far this has not happened. The Left remains fractured and confused, drifting away from its labor base, while the Right seems to have emerged as the stronger or at least the more strident force."
The leftist Obama Administration is under heavy fire from those who put him in power, the international left.
Constitutional conservatives who opposed Obammunism in 2008 are even more opposed in 2010. Moderates who fell for Obama's centrist-sounding campaign have since awakened and turned against him. But his record-low approval rating and that of the DSAUSA-led Congress dips well below the mark of the constitutional American majority.
Their low approval ratings are fueled by increasing anger from hard-core leftists who expected Obama to ram through their agenda by any means necessary, even if 95% of Americans stood opposed.
Today's Democrat Party is NOT run by Democrats, or even Liberals. It is run by Democratic Socialists, aka progressives.
Following the advice of Karl Marx who said, "Democracy is the road to socialism," Progressives tricked Americans into voting socialists into power, and every time someone challenges their socialist agenda, they proclaim, "the election is over; we won!"
In other words, the 2008 election gives them the right to run roughshod over the vast majority of Americans, because they won the election fair and square, and as Democrats, they believe in the very ideology that Thomas Jefferson warned against: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
On this basis, progressives (aka Marxists) believe that they were elected to power for the purpose of ushering in global socialism, and they couldn't care less how many Americans stand opposed. They won the election and that's that!
As long as Americans think they are debating with Democrats or liberals, they are no match for the international socialist juggernaut they are up against.
In a recent column I asked, "Is the Constitution a Partisan Document?"
This is why they want to run health care
Over the years, I have known many Republicans, Democrats and Independents who love and revere the US Constitution, our Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. But today, these ideas are under attack from within the halls of our own government, and that's what the anger at town hall meetings is all about. That's what the 912 and Tea Party movements are about…
And, the fight for the future of freedom rests in the vote over nationalized health care about to be rammed down every American throat this week.
The Health Care debate is NOT over health care, it's all about FREEDOM versus unbridled federal power.
Every sane American knows that there are things that can and should be done to improve health care in America. But we also know that handing health care over to the very people who have bankrupted every federal program under the sun is beyond insane.
The debate isn't over health care. It's over the federal government's need to confiscate one-sixth of the US economy and gain control over life and death in one fast sweep.
If the American people fail to stand together and defeat this one government grab, they will have doomed themselves to a life of servitude for generations to come.
These are NOT your grandparents' Democrats. Know thy enemy, or suffer defeat… Stand now or be forever silent!
Tags: obama socialist communist
So, are you still trying to understand ?natural born? citizenship?
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/scoreboard/20100314.html
"Natural Born" - every jury session I get this..
So, are you still trying to understand "natural born" citizenship?
Invariably, in every Grand Jury we have convened (15 now) there is a jury member that raised his hand trying to understand "natural born" citizenship. Every time I end up writing a detailed email to that member explaining why Barack Obama is NOT a "natural born" citizen.
If you are one of those that don't understand, I hope this article will clear things up for you.
By the way, ninety percent of the press, legislators, and judges don't get it. Actually, the truth be known, they don't want to get it because the truth suddenly rares its magnificent head and the wind is knocked completely out of their liberal sails.
From the liberal left:
I have had people write me and say, "what difference does it make, Obama is a US citizen?"
I have received 3-page disertations explaining why "natural born" citizenship should be interpreted as "naturalized" or "native born."
Then there are those that say, "Obama got elected so NOW he is legally qualified.. get over it."
Naturally, most of these Obots that write to me use foul language, call me a "birther" or "wingnut" or simply tell me I am a "racist."
The truth of the matter, liberal progressives hate the fact that a conservative citizen does their homework, understands the law and sticks to their guns. Any type of rebuttal or conversation with these progressives (fruitloops) is a PURE WASTE OF TIME.
But since you are a jury member and one of the good guys, I will take the time to explain to you, as best I can, the "natural born" clause. It is quite important.
Article II of the Constitution for the
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Sec. 1 - If you are thinking the Constitution says "or ANY Citizen of the United States qualifies" forget it. You have to read the clause after that. "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.." this is the "Grandfather" clause that qualified such citizens as George Washington to become President who were British citizens prior to the Adoption. Once old George and others like him died, this clause became moot. Today, any Presidential candidate MUST be a "natural born" citizen to qualify.
What is a 14th Amendment Citizen?
The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to define a US citizen born on U.S. soil with U.S. jurisdiction or "naturalized." It DOES NOT define "natural born" citizenship.
The Obots will spend hours trying to explain to you how Obama is a 14th Amendment citizen and as such is qualified to be President. NOPE! A presidential candidate is not defined under the 14th Amendment.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo does an excellent job comparing "natural born" citizenship under Article II to other classes of citizenship:
As applicable only to a Presidential Article II "natural born Citizen" (not an Article II grandfathered "Citizen [which of course has long expired]," not an Article I "Citizen" [for Representatives and Senators who are eligible even if naturalized], not a 14th Amendment "citizen" [who is one either born on U.S. soil with U.S. jurisdiction or naturalized], not a U.S. Code born "citizen" [born on U.S. soil with U.S. jurisdiction or in U.S. outlying possessions or foreign countries to one or two U.S. citizen parents or being of unknown parentage is found in the U.S. while under the age of 5], and not a Wong Kim Ark 14th Amendment "citizen" [born on U.S. soil to alien parents who are legal U.S. residents]), the individual must be born in the United States to a mother and father who are themselves United States citizens (by birth or naturalization). This is to assure that a would-be, all powerful President and Commander in Chief of the Military has sole allegiance and loyalty to the United States from the time of birth, for the sources of citizenship (jus soli and jus sanguinis) are all united at birth to give the child only U.S. citizenship from birth and thereby forever prevent any other nation from claiming that child's citizenship, allegiance, loyalty and demanding military service or political favors. Such unity of U.S. citizenship also prevents a would-be President from feeling conflicted as to his allegiance and loyalty between the United States and some other foreign country, whether done consciously or unconsciously. Finally, such unity of U.S. citizenship allows the American people to fully trust their President with protecting their nation and their families' very lives. The American people expect their President to make very tough decisions in a moment of crisis and they cannot risk that their President may be ambivalent about taking the proper course of action because of some allegiance and loyalty conflict acquired from birth and nurtured throughout his or her life.
But 'NATURAL BORN' is not defined
in the Constitution?
"Natural Born" is declared in Article II [No Person except a 'natural born' Citizen...]
.. and "Natural Born" is implied and expressed in the Constitution as a result of COMMON LAW.
The Common Law in this case goes all the way back to the Magna Carta (over 700 years). "Natural Born" was actually expressed (written) in Vattel's Law of Nations. If you don't know what the Law of Nations said about "natural born" you should. The Founding Fathers did. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what was implied, expressed and common to law when they drafted Article II, the "natural born" eligibility clause.
The Constitution and Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:
EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Sec. 1:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
EXCERPT 2: de Vattel's Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, Sec. 212:
The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:
EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sec. 8:
The Congress shall have Power.. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations..
Law of Nations is capitalized, meaning our framers were citing a PROPER NAME. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress and the Judiciary has the power to enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.
"Natural Born" is a "separate" class of citizen for a very important reason. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure any citizen that served as President owed his allegience, commitment and fiduciary responsibility, FIRST and FOREMOST, to the United States of America, NOT some foreign nation.
In the simplest of terms: NATURAL BORN means born of parents (mother AND father) who were US Citizens at the time of birth. It also means born on soverign US soil (Vattel: born in THE country, of parents who are citizens). Obama's father was NOT a US Citizen. In the case of Obama it doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii (which is seriously in question). Obama can never legally be a NATURAL BORN citizen since his father was NOT a US Citizen. Case closed!
Jury Foreman
Posted by Bob Filed in American Grand Jury, Barack Obama, Constitution
2 Responses to ""Natural Born" - every jury session I get this.."
Garacka Says:
In Mario's 4 Mar 2010 post he refers back to the original latin in "Institutio Oratoria," by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (published in the first century A.D.) and Greschak's analysis on December 2, 2008:
"Quare, si fieri, potest et verba omnia et vox huius alumnum urbis oleant, ut oratio Romana plane videatur, non civitate donata."
The earliest translation by Guthrie in 1756 suggests that "alumnum urbis oleant" was the underlying source of "natural born citizen" and it meant not just parent citizens and born on the soil, but also education and upbringing.
"It was both birth in the locality and parental and institutional rearing and education from birth that produced the "natural born citizen.""
This is a definition that many folks would understand as reasonable. In fact, I might suggest that the Supreme Court could (theoretically) interpret NBC to include an upbringing requirement. A suggested SCOTUS interpretative definition might be:
Born on the soil with 2 citizen parents and residing on U.S territory to the age of majority (18 years). They could go on to say that citizenship can never have been given up, even if re-naturalized, and that dual citizenship may never have been acquired.
To me everyone would get this definition. This also suggests that the 14 year residency is on top of the need to be brought up (and residing) on US soil up til 18. In this scenario, an individual eligible at 35, needs to be a resident for the 1st 18 years and for 14 of the next 17 years up to their 35th birthday. This would allow a President to have acquired direct experience in foreign lands that should help them in foreign affairs and treaties…
THANK YOU! for the truth. Would be a very good ideea, if this few passages be posted every single day in all bloggers side. This way those who don't understand the meaning of "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN", will have a chance to understand it.
Tags: American Grand Jury, Obama
Obamaganda: Another School Sings Praises to Dear Leader
Obamagandistic musical agitprop
By Warner Todd Huston Thursday, March 11, 2010
It's a veritable cornucopia of Obamagandistic musical agitprop.You'll recall the militaristic,fascist-styled Obama youth corpsfrom 2008 where a line of inner city youth stamped out their obeisancemilitia-like to The One like good little automatons? Perhaps the slickly producedexploitation of sweet faced children from Hollywood that same yearwill ring a bell? Or maybe your favorite is this misuse of classtime in Georgia? Or per chance you'll recall "Barack HusseinObama, mmm, mmm, mmm"? These are excellent examples of the Obamaversion of Leni Riefenstahl's art.
But those? Well, those are all low class affairs done without anentire orchestra to back them up.
Now we have the brilliance of School children in Illinois, ComradeObama's home turf, to add to the din of young musicians enslaved toefforts to exalt Dear Leader. And this tops them all in productionvalues — or at least in scope — for the MidwestYoung Artistsorganization, a group dedicated to "inspiration through music," hastaken upon itself to give the Obammessiah the full orchestral treatmentalong with a choir and a spoken word segment to round out theproduction. Uncle Joe couldn't have created a better display of fealtyto Dear Leader. Kim Jong Il is likely red with envy.
Like a good little soldier for the cause, Gary Fry, the ChoralProgram Director and Voices Rising Director for MYA, sat himself downto try his hand at composing a Wagnerian masterpiece, one of which anydictator would be proud. And boy, does he deliver. (The original sourcemay be found at the WMYA.fmpage)After he was done with his Wagnerian moment, Mr. Fry had his pieceperformed on February 21, 2010 at Pick-Staiger Auditorium in Evanston,Illinois, a northern suburb of Chicago. And he enlisted the service ofan entire auditorium of Chicago area school children for his paean toDear Leader.
Now if you can excuse the miscues of these young artists, after all,they are only in middle school, if you can set aside your need fortechnical perfection from the performers for just a minute, if you canlook past the occasionally off-key squawk of a horn here, or a missedcue there, you really should watch this thing. Watch this video andlisten to the grand scope of what Gary "Nietzsche cum Wagner" Fry wasaiming for, and it is sure to send a thrill down your leg and satisfyyour need to stand up and salute your glorious leader in the WhiteHouse. Long live Obama, long live Obama…
Perhaps you are as disgusted by this as I am? These orgiasticexamples of propaganda for Obama are sickening, we all know. In fact,not only are they sickening, entirely un-American, and even dangerous,they are hypocritical. After all, the same drooling, Obamagobsmackedpseudo intellectuals that created these bits of PR puffery would havebeen apoplectic if so many schools would have sang songs extolling thevirtues of George W. Bush… or any other Republican, for that matter.Call it a brainwashing tool, call it agitprop, indoctrination, or whatever you like. But at least when we've had celebrations of president inschools in the past the president in question at least had the decencyto have already left office or even died — or at the very least was inattendance at the performance to politely applaud the little kiddie'sefforts.
These various efforts at Obamaganda were un-burdened by anyrationale but to inculcate praises for dear leader in the young,impressionable minds of our school children.
Yep, it's pretty disgusting, alright.
Well, it's nice we can sing praises to something in ourschools now, I suppose. After all, the ACLU and the Democrats havesummarily eliminated anything that might be reasonably construed as areference to Christianity. So, Dear Leader has replaced all that "God"stuff with himself in our schools. All praise Obama. He's The One. Mayhe reign as our ruler forever. So says, Gary "Nietzsche cum Wagner"Fry, so say we all.
Descriptions of the four clips linked above:
#1- Afascist-styled paramilitary youth corps video made by a teacher at theUrban Community Leadership Academy in Kansas City, Mo.
#2- Theparents of a private school in Venice, California forced their kids tosing praises to Dear Leader while their Hollyweird pals made a nice,slick production out of the affair.
#3- Thisvideo was made by "Mr. B" and the kids from "room 8" in what I think isa public grade school in Georgia.
#4- Ofcourse, we all remember this clip whose tag line is "Barack HusseinObama, mmm, mmm, mmm," made famous by the kiddies from B. Bernice YoungElementary School in Burlington Township, NJ. The songs were written byMs. Charisse Carney-Nunes, a children's author.
CFP Tools
|More
(2) ReaderFeedback | Subscribe| Print friendly| ContactUs | Send this page to a friend! |
Warner Todd Huston Bio
Warner ToddHuston Most recent columns
Warner Todd Huston's thoughtful commentary, sometimesirreverentoften historically based, is featured on many websites such asrenewamerica.us, townhall.com, opinioneditorials.com, andamericandaily.com, among many, many others. He has also written forseveral history magazines, and appears in the new book "Americans onPolitics, Policy and Pop Culture," which can be purchased onamazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of Publius' Forum.
Warner can be reached at: [email protected]
Tags: Obamagandistic
A Fight For The American Dream And The Battle Against Oppression Essay by the Rev. Nancy Cahalan
Obama himself told us that we were to judge him based on those with whom he kept company. He keeps company with socialists, communists, people who blow up government buildings
Hope and Change Or A Fight For The American Dream And The Battle Against Oppression
By Online Saturday, March 13, 2010
An Essay by the Rev. Nancy Cahalan
In 1976, I graduated high school. Because that year was our nation's bicentennial year, NBC ran an essay contest for graduating seniors. The title of the essay was "What Is An American?" I entered that contest and became one of the finalists.
I have been thinking about that essay lately and how things have changed in this country in the 30 some years since I graduated high school. The America that I see today is nothing like the America I saw then. The America that I saw then was an America whose government was actually by the people and for the people. Today our government is voted for by the people, but it does not represent the people. It represents a select few special interests and the egos of those who are supposed to have the good of the people first and foremost in their hearts and minds, not what kind of deal they can make for themselves. Back room, locked door deals are NOT the way that governing is to happen here in America. Corruption running rampantly and blatantly, for the whole world to see, is NOT how things should be.
Well, they will say, you are just being naive. You just don't understand how politics work, they will say. OK. Maybe I am naive and don't understand how THEIR politics work. But I do know much about being honest, about following the law, about listening to others—even when what they have to say may not be pleasing to my ears, about leading a group of people and having to put my own ego and wants on the back burner in deference to what those whom I am leading say they want. I am a pastor. As such, I do have to walk a very fine line where my words and my actions are concerned. So, too should our elected officials.
Most of the American people do not want the present form of health care take over that is being crafted to be foisted upon them—whether they want it or not. They do not want it because they can see the disaster that awaits them and future generations if it becomes law. They can see the increased costs and the decreased access to care. They can see that their ability to choose will be taken from them.
The present president, Barack Obama, was elected without anyone finding out very much about who he was or what he really believed. Obama himself told us that we were to judge him based on those with whom he kept company. He keeps company with socialists, communists, people who blow up government buildings and wish they could blow up more government buildings. Obama follows the writings of a man, Saul Alinsky, who was once mentored by Al Capone's enforcer, Frank Nitti, whom Alinsky called "the Professor" and of whom Alinsky became a student.
We are told that Mr. Obama is brilliant and yet we are not given access to his school transcripts. I hear over and over again about what a great speaker he is. I don't see it. When he does not have a teleprompter in front of him, he hems and haws. His speaking is full of "ums" and "uhs". To me, that is NOT a good speaker. A good speaker is one who can speak without all those little annoying non-words, whose words flow freely and who actually shows that he or she has a good grasp of the facts. Mr. Obama has shown, time and again, that he does not even have that (i.e., Obama's gaffe: 57 states and two more to go).
We are, once again, a people under tyranny, only, sadly, this time it is a tyranny of our own making
I believe that if the America that was birthed in 1776, that hundreds of thousands of people have fought and died to defend, of which millions have sacrificed to become a part, the country to which Ronald Reagan referred to as the "shining city on a hill" is to survive, if America is to remain a bastion of freedom, then "We the People" are going to have to continue to fight back with everything that we have.
We are, once again, a people under tyranny, only, sadly, this time it is a tyranny of our own making. We have allowed these corrupt officials to take over with barely a whimper on our part. I am as guilty as anyone else in thinking that there was not much I could do to stop what was happening. But there is plenty that we can all do. We just have to 'not grow weary in doing good' as the Bible urges us. Whether you believe in the Bible or not, if you believe in this country, on the principles on which it was founded, in the Constitution as it was written—not as some would like to rewrite it, you must not grow weary in this fight. It is a fight and it is one we must win.
We must defeat those who believe that sharing the wealth is the way of the future for everyone, except themselves. (Note that the Obamas, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and company have yet to share any of their wealth with us.) We must defeat those who think that freedom is an outdated concept that doesn't work. We must defeat those who think that some government bureaucrat knows how we should live our lives better than we do. We must defeat those who will change America from the land of the free and the home of the brave to the land of the cowed and the home of the oppressed. WE MUST!
Another article by NANCY CAHALAN:
Obama With The Sound Off: The Face Of An Angry Man?
The Rev. Nancy Cahalan is a contributor to RFFM.org. Cahalan is a Pastor who resides in southern Illinois.
How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:
Tags: Obama Cahalan
How did a man with values so outside mainstream America win the US Presidency? By John Lillpop
How did a man with values so outside mainstream America win the US Presidency?
What President Obama Needs to Know About Being an American
By John Lillpop Saturday, March 13, 2010
After nearly fourteen months in office, President Obama continues to demonstrate that he does not fully appreciate what it means to be an American.
In fact, his words and deeds reflect a disturbing lack of respect, if not outright contempt, for the basic values, culture, and history that make up this great nation.
The president would do well to educate himself about the following fundamental truths:
* America's Founding Fathers received divine inspiration in creating the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The notion that the US Constitution is a "living" document is heresy.
* Our values, laws and culture reflect our Judeo-Christian roots. America is a Christian nation.
* America is not perfect. However, apologizing for American policies and leaders while on foreign soil is unacceptable.
* Americans are passionately proud of our cultural heritage, including self-governance under the rule of law, the English language, free market capitalism, and traditional family values.
* We profoundly disagree with the notion that America is no better than any other nation. America is home to the greatest society in human history—-that is no coincidence.
* Government is antithetical to creativity and stifles free expression of the human spirit. Government programs never have, and never will, create jobs, prosperity or happiness.
* Rebelling against government expansion is a basic responsibility of all freedom-loving patriots and is what the first amendment is all about.
* Using government to "spread the wealth" by seizing wealth from one man in order to enrich another is the immoral equivalent of slavery.
* The U.S. Constitution guarantees equal opportunity to all. It does not guarantee a right to health care, a college education, home ownership or any other material advantage.
* Americans abhor being "talked down to", regardless of how bright or clean and articulate the talker might be.
* Immigrants who come here legally are welcomed with open arms. Those who come illegally are invading criminals and not at all welcome.
* The role of education should be to teach mathematics, language, business and other basics. Using education to indoctrinate youth to liberal ideology is an abuse of power.
* The rights, feelings, and views of heterosexuals should be respected and honored when issues such as gays in the military and gay marriage are considered.
* Americans are naturally skeptical and suspicious of politicians. This is a good thing.
* Change which expands government by infringing on the rights and freedoms of individuals is dangerous and wrong.
The big question: How did a man with values so outside mainstream America win the US Presidency?
The answer: A complicit and biased liberal media!
(1) Reader Feedback | Subscribe | Print friendly | Contact Us | Send this page to a friend! |
John Lillpop Bio
John Lillpop Most recent columns
John W. Lillpop is a recovering liberal. "Clean and sober" since 1992 when last he voted for a Democrat. Pray for John: He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where people like Nancy Pelosi are actually considered normal!.
John can be reached at: [email protected]
Older articles by John Lillpop
Tags: OBAMA UNAMERICAN
Does Obama Employ the Marxist Doctrine of Creative Destruction? By Kelly O'Connell
IsMad Captain Barack Now Steering America Towards the Gates of Hell?
DoesObama Employ the Marxist Doctrine of Creative Destruction?
By Kelly O'Connell Sunday, March 14, 2010Having watchedBarack Obama's sole economic recovery strategy of spendinghand-over-fist to "heal" our economic malaise and rampant deficits, wemust ask if his theory is a cipher for the mythic phoenix? Is Barack aclassical Marxist seeking to fix a broken society via torching oureconomy to ashes, confident it will arise again, healed by socialismand communism? During a turbulently reckless period he seeks a massivegovernment-directed health care bill. Obama now demands wildexpenditures on top of record deficits, in the midst of a prolongedrecession, against record unemployment. So, what other motivation doessuch illogical decision making suggest?
IsBarack a mad Ahab chasing the giant, evil specter of Capitalism acrossthe globe, hoping to harpoon and sink it to the bottom of the deep?Even Obama is intelligent enough to know his strange belief thatKeynesian "deficit-spending always equals growth" may not work. Infact, it hasn't so far, a year later. So what is his "Plan B"? Well,perhaps there is no secondary plan because he only means to ruin theeconomy. It's a distinct possibility that Barack actually intends tobankrupt the US into accepting the socialism he touted to Joe "ThePlumber" Wurzelbacher. In fact, to engage in such an attack against theworld's greatest capitalist nation would merely make him a superstaracolyte to his Marxist progenitors.
Itis essential non leftists understand that just because Marxism has beenlogically, scientifically and historically disproved, it does not meanit is a spent force. Instead, because of it's evangelical spirit, itbecomes even more dangerous once discarded and ignored, remaining likea zombie faith. Marxism does espouse a "Doctrine of Destruction" thatmust be implemented by its true followers at every level. It teachescapitalism is theft, and that the rich steal what they have amassedfrom the poor. So the only just response is to confiscate the stolenwealth and return it to the impoverished workers. There isn't much moreto Marxism than this, but this judgmental and self-righteous conceit isas sacred to a communist as Mecca is to a proper Muslim.
Anatomyof Marx's Creative Destruction
A.Socialist Revolution
Atthe very center of Marxism is the call for total "Revolution." The book"Facts on Communism, Vol. I, The Communist Ideology" says, "the Marxistdoctrine of the Socialist Revolution is the core of Communistideology." The main strategy for forcing Marxist revolution isfomenting crisis. While most Westerners recoil at the thought of amajor economic collapse, knowing the resultant human pain andheartache, Marxists salivate at the possibility. Their theory teachesthem capitalism must surely fail, and so they have plans ready for whenthis occurs, and they also design stratagems to make certain it does.
Ironically,Karl Marx would claim neither China nor Russia were ideal places for asocialist revolution, since they were both so primitive, having littleeconomic development. In fact, America is logically the best place tostart a genuine communist revolution since it is the most advancedcapitalist state, which is exactly the kind of place Marx called totake over. When the capitalist cycle marks its zenith, then is the timefor revolutionaries to move. The "proletariat" were those who shouldlaunch the strike, which are, according to Webster's: "the class ofindustrial workers who lack their own means of production and hencesell their labor to live." The revolution should happen by any meanspossible, especially violence, to free the proletariat to launch theirdictatorship, which shall utterly destroy capitalist society, remakingit upon a socialist and then finally communist model. This, accordingto Facts on Communism.
B.Abstract Theory of Strategies
Thereare several basic strategies Marx taught for fomenting revolution,later vouchsafed by Vladimir Lenin, founding Russian dictator. First,the revolution is led by the Communist Party. This group directs therevolutionary struggle by way of propaganda, agitation and opportunism.All Party members must be a cadre of professional revolutionaries,ready to strike at a moment's notice at the first chance. The Party isalso a self-chosen "priesthood" to which has been entrusted all truth;the Party itself being the only existent holder of veracity. The Partyexpects and exacts iron discipline; no deviation is allowed. Lenin's"Two Revolutions" strategy focuses on first helping any groupinterested in upheaval to overthrow society, and then later attackingthose same groups found not morally pure, ie non-proletariatrevolutionaries. Finally, both legal and illegal activities arecountenanced, whatever might help the cause of revolution, at the time,states Facts on Communism.
C.Concrete Communist Revolutionary Strategies
ClarenceB. Carson, in his magnificent study "Basic Communism, It's Rise, Spreadand Debacle in the 20th Century," lists nine historic precipitatingstrategies for socialist revolution in his chapter "Stratagems andTactics for International Communism."
(1.)Communist International: The "Comintern" was an international groupformed to foment revolution worldwide in Russia in 1919, ending in1943, doing much to teach world delegates tactics and theories on howto cause a leftist a revolution.
(2.)The Party: The Communist Party in all countries has the duty to trainand direct professional revolutionaries, or the "vanguard of theelite," revealing how deeply indebted communism is to top-down controland group-think. Membership is not given, but earned. Being a member ofa leftist type organization, say, an environmentalist group,anti-corporation cabal, or "peace organization," (often communist frontgroups – see below) is commonly the first sign someone has earned aParty meeting invite. A future member will not be offered Partymembership until a lengthy apprenticeship is done, which includes doingprojects, helping community organizing, and memorizing Marxist-Leninistdoctrines. Marxist acolytes also study current events, economics,socialist theory, revolutionary strategies, and even public speaking,while also fund-raising and recruiting new members. Non-communistfriendships are discouraged. Bouts of intense self-scrutiny and harshcriticism are encouraged. The desire is to create a boot-camp effectcausing an almost evangelical level of personality overhaul for futuremembers. The term "brainwash" comes to mind, here.
(3.)Labor Unions: Communists have always targeted unions and their members,seeing these as a classic example of the sacred proletariat. The modernlabor union not only arose around the time of socialism, but was deeplyaffected by it during its genesis. Unions have a certain collectivistlogic, which ties in with communist theory. Many union leaders weresocialists before they signed up to their local. A union can have aminority socialist membership, yet these vigorous advocates oftencontrol the agenda through sheer zeal. Many American unions have beendominated by socialists and communists, including the AFL/CIO, UnitedMine Workers, United Auto Workers, etc etc. Many strikes have beencoordinated to sabotage work and terrorize bosses ad owners.
(4.)Communist Fronts: A communist front is simply an organization whichdoes not appear socialist, but was either started or is controlled bycommunists to achieve their ends. These were popular in the day ofgovernment crackdowns on leftism. But this tactic is still employed. J.Edgar Hoover mentioned this phenomenon, writing the Party… "hasoperated hundreds of major fronts in practically every field of Partyagitation: 'peace,' civil rights, protection of the foreignborn…abolition of H-bomb tests, exploitation of nationality andminority groups," etc. Modern examples would include ACORN and theACLU. Carson writes that the general dogma of Marxism is sostultifying, that the only way communists can attract thoughtfulmembers is to draw in those who have a concrete agenda, likeimmigration rights, etc.
(5.)Subversion: Communists seek to undermine a non-socialist country byencouraging acts and beliefs that "pervert or corrupt by an underminingof morals, allegiance or faith," according to Carson. Anything thatdebases the populace will be attempted, such as attacks upon the familystructure, traditional religions, ideas of sexual propriety, notions ofauthority, the legal profession, Art theory, etc. Further, intellectualassaults against common sense ideas regarding economics, the monetarysystem, any university degree discipline, or desecration of greatnational symbols, etc will all be attempted. A classic example of thishas been achieved by the Political Correctness movement, which wasexplicitly designed by German intellectual Marxists to undermineAmerica. They were called the Frankfort School, and immigrated to theStates to avoid Hitler's wrath.
(6.)Espionage: Any country can use espionage to gain advantage on another.But, as one writer put it about the old Soviets, they…"employedespionage in ways that no other nation in all of recorded history hadever attempted." Such appears true today about the Chinese, whorelentlessly probe American government Internet sites, and launch manyprobes and attacks to test Yankee defenses. It was also during theClinton administration that Loral Space shared details of rocketry thatallowed the Chinese to stunningly invert their 90% failure rate withtheir ICBM missile launches to one of 90% success. Loral,coincidentally, donated a million dollars to the DNC before beingallowed to sell technology to China, but ended up paying a $14 millionfine in 2002 for passing missile technology to them. J. Edgar Hooverlisted the chief areas of communist espionage, being scientificR&D; strength and methodology of US armed forces; Americanintelligence and counterintelligence; US international relations; andAmerican anti-communist tactics.
(7.)Sabotage: Much like members of a Muslim radical jihad sect, a truecommunist will always be, at least in his or her heart, at war withcapitalism and non-socialist countries. Before the USSR fell, the KGBsecret police was massively involved in global disinformation campaignsthat furthered the goals of communist Russia. Today, there is moreconcern with groups inside America doing whatever they can to underminethe US from inside. For example, the tactic of financial crisis drivenby ramping up demands on the social state to create financial crisis,such as espoused in the Cloward-Pivin doctrine, is such leftistsabotage. (further discussed below)
(8.)Terrorism: Soon after the Russian Revolution, terror was the singulardefining characteristic for Lenin, and then employed by Stalin and Maowith spectacular results in terms of sheer murders and tamping opendissent. Since then, countless global Marxist uprisings have beenpunctuated by terrorist campaigns, such as led by the Communist Partyof Peru, aka the Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso), who killed manyinnocents. Also Castro's Cuba has tortured and killed countlessresidents, and Cambodia's Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge, who killed twomillion Cambodians from 1975 to 1979. Overall, the Communists killed atleast 175 million in the 20th century in their terror campaigns againsttheir own people. US terrorists, such as William Ayers and theWeathermen attempted to terrorize Americans into accepting socialism.
(9.)Civil War: Vladimir Lenin returned to Russia from Europe in his sealedtrain and immediately began agitating for a civil war. Why? Because heknew that if Russians engaged in such action, it would make it mucheasier for his tiny group to take over the country. This ended up beinga significant factor in he and his party ascending to power. Such anoutcome in America would be met by most Marxists with joy since theyknow that, short of a military upheaval, it will be quite difficult toovercome a country with such a strong history of capitalism, gunrights, and open democracy.
Cloward-PivenStrategy to Cause Economic Collapse
DoesObama have something like a Cloward-Piven principle in mind for shakingout resistance to his economic plans to force Americans to acceptsocialism by necessity? The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" was designed byColumbia University professors Richard Cloward and wife Frances Piven.Their strategy was simply a method used by leftists to encourage asmany eligible people as possible into signing up for all the socialwelfare programs available. This is meant to then bankrupt the system.After this occurs, the plan is to push a country towards socialism. Butthe general strategy can also be adapted to other methods ofbankrupting a nation.
DavidHorowitz's site Discover the Networks lists some recent apparentinnovations in the Cloward-Piven Strategy, which include ACORN's demandfor new lending rules. This caused irresponsible sub-prime (ie,unqualified borrowers) to get loans which helped start the recentfinancial crisis. Further policies apparently meant to undermine USfinancial stability and foment socialist revolution include the bankingbailout TARP and its $700 billion buyout of troubled assets, which hasalready been shown to have been misused. Also the $787 billion StimulusBill, which in addition to creating a supposed economic "stimulation,"also revoked the "Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act, the welfare-reform legislation passed by theRepublican Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996."
Accordingto the Heritage Foundation, 32% of the Stimulus Bill, averaging $6,700in "new means-tested welfare spending" was set aside for every poorindividual in America. Horowitz says these funds are earmarked for suchprograms as: "Temporary Assistance to Needy Families; Medicaid; foodstamps; the Women, Infants, and Children food program; public housing;Section 8 housing; the Community Development Block Grant; the SocialServices Block Grant; Head Start; and the Earned Income Tax Credit."Yet such welfare bankrolling is only the iceberg's tip. Heritagestates, "Once the hidden welfare spending in the bill is counted, thetotal 10-year fiscal burden (added to the national debt) will [be]$1.34 trillion. This amounts to $17,400 for each household payingincome tax in the U.S."
Heritagenoted increased welfare spending in the Stimulus Bill, being Obama's"Make Work Pay" refundable tax credit. They state, "This creditrepresents a fundamental shift in welfare policy. At a cost of around$23 billion per year, this credit will provide up to [$400] in cash tolow income adults who pay no income taxes. For the first time, thegovernment will give significant cash to able-bodied adults withoutdependent children. Since most of these individuals have littleapparent need for assistance, the new credit represents 'spreading thewealth' for its own sake. The lack of connection between this creditand 'economic stimulus' is evident in the fact that the first paymentsunder the program will not be made until April 2010."
Otherperceived plans to damage the US economy by Obama include the attemptedClimate Change legislation and its staggeringly expensive Cap &Trade legislation. This could drain trillions of dollars out of theworld economy every year, killing millions of poor, per annum. Also theDetroit car maker bailout, the rampant printing of fiat currency. Butthe $2.5-$3 trillion dollar Obamacare bill is the piece de resistanceof government profligacy. Some Democrats now even admit it will causehealth care costs to skyrocket, while decreasing treatment and overallquality, but the program is still being touted as done in the name offairness and justice. How laughable.
But regardless of the worth of anyparticular program, simply basing a large part of the yearly governmentbudget upon perpetually borrowed funds means that the state must, atsome point, go bankrupt.
Wasn'tit was odd to hear Barack deny his Baltimore address that he is"Bolshevik"? This reveals more nominal familiarity with the vocabularyof the Russian Revolution than his own armed force's vocabulary, suchas the common term "corpsman"! But fellow uber-leftist adviser RahmEmmanuel's statement one should never let a crisis pass withoutextracting some normally unacceptable concession, is even more of asocialist slip. Do both men have a heart full of communism, asnonchalantly work toward the demise of the free market andlaissez-faire? Creative Destruction means that if a Marxist destroys abad capitalist society, a better socialist one will arise magically inits place. Will wanton economic chaos and wreckage really createparadise on earth? Do these two ultra leftists genuinely believe suchmadness?
BarackObama has experienced an almost total lifelong immersion in socialism.He has had a nearly complete dependence upon leftist and even communistcontacts and friends during his childhood, education and rise to power.Therefore, wouldn't it be exceedingly odd if Barack weren't at least alittle bit communist at heart? But perhaps, like Moby Dick's Ahab,Obama hisses to himself about the capitalist whale, "from hell's heartI stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee." But thequestion remains – What will the average patriotic American do now thatthis administration has been outed for what and who they really are?
Tags: OBAMA MARXIST
With Disapproval Rates Soaring, Obama Will Pin Hope to Economic Recovery...By Dick Morris
With Disapproval Rates Soaring,
Obama Will Pin Hope to Economic Recovery...
And that Spells Disaster for Your Wealth
Dear Fellow American,
Barack Obama's collapsing approval ratings -- unprecedented so soon in a presidency -- along with the crystal clear signal sent by voters in Massachusetts are game-changers for investors.
Obama's been unmasked. Americans now know the charming, charismatic man many of them voted for (but knew little about) is a committed leftist bent on socializing the U.S. economy, no matter what the cost.
And if Obama's final push on health care fails, his only recourse will be to ratchet up the pace of his anti-growth, job-killing economic policies. His "solutions" can only end in the most severe hyperinflation since the 1970 Carter years... the result?
Investors will flee the stock market en masse. Just like in 2008.
What's more, a recent Bloomberg poll found that Obama is now seen as "anti-business" by 77% of U.S. investors.
The signs could hardly be more clear... or alarming.
But hold on. "The stock market isn't affected by that rating," you say. Don't buy it, if you'll excuse the pun.
Beneath the surface, 2010 is a mirror-image of 1930, when a similar post-crash rally raised hopes that investors had escaped the Crash of 1929. It proved to be a false rally. The economic fundamentals of the time were dreadful, just like today in 2010.
And when you add in the very real chance that Obama's last-ditch health care effort will go belly up, there's really only one place that he can refocus his efforts: the economy.
Worse for you and me, Obama's stimulus has failed to accomplish a single positive goal -- except to increase both the size of government and the deficit. (The federal government is now the largest employer in America.) Obama's response to this failure: "We need another stimulus."
And he still wants stiff climate control regulations, which will wreak havoc on U.S. businesses. In return, House Democrats are howling for $550 billion in tax increases, poison to economic recovery hopes.
This means you must act now to protect your financial well-being.
Hyperinflation is coming and it's murder on the markets, merciless to your savings. It erodes your buying power on a daily basis. Wealth it took years to build bleeds away before your eyes.
But one of the smartest investment experts I know, Nicholas Vardy, points out that investors can still do just fine during periods of hyperinflation. Just like they did when hyperinflation gripped the country during the Jimmy Carter years.
They accomplished these gains by positioning their money in investments uncorrelated to the hemorrhaging Carter stock market... and by insulating their portfolios with investments that were leveraged by inflation.
In other words, inflation made money for them. And here's the good news for you. Such investments exist today.
Vardy advises: As Obama spends us to record levels of hyperinflation, topping the disastrous Carter era, "buy and hold" will be financial suicide for your portfolio. But he adds: "No matter what the state of the financial markets, there is always a strategy out there than can make you money."
Nicholas, an American based in London, can back it up, too. Remember those awful months of September, October and November 2008 -- especially, the bloody week of October 6? The DOW crashed to the tune of minus 17%.
That same week Vardy's Global Stock Investor portfolio made money. How was that possible? Vardy's investments were strategically "uncorrelated" to the overall stock market. Very likely, that was the only way to make money -- possibly in the world -- that week. And Nicholas Vardy made money for his investors.
That's the Vardy strategy. Seize opportunities wherever they may be. Let go of strategies that worked during the Great Bull Market of the 1980s and 1990s -- and position your money for the Hyperinflation Market of the Obama years. There will be gains to be made. And Nicholas will make sure you're in on them.
I follow Vardy's advice closely and admire his economic and investment insights. Full disclosure: I receive a percentage of each Global Stock Investor subscription sold, but I wouldn't do this if I did not believe in his abilities.
Remember, when Obama's $800 billion stimulus farce and projected $1.8 trillion deficit trigger the inevitable "Category 5" hyperinflation hurricane -- markets may well tank to record lows... exceeding those of the last crash.
Don't believe the current "false recovery." If your financial advisor (or your Obama-worshipping brother-in-law) advises you to get back into regular mutual funds -- beware.
Instead, be smart. Try the brilliant investing strategies in Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor. Don't let Obama's hyperinflation bleed your money away. You worked too long and hard to earn it. I urge you to give Vardy a try.
Fox News Commentator
Obama: Serving Ambitions, Not Citizens
The recession is an essential part of the "Progressive" plan to transform the foundation of the country from capitalism to socialism
By JR Dieckmann Friday, March 12, 2010
This recession isn't going to end as long as Obama is in office. The recession is an essential part of the "Progressive" plan to transform the foundation of the country from capitalism to socialism.
The unemployment rate of 9.7 percent represents only about half of the workforce that would be working if jobs were available. Jobs in the private (productive) sector continue to decrease, while government and SEIU (Service Employees International Union) taxpayer paid jobs continue to increase.
With less and less revenue from private sector production and more and more government dependence, you can see where this is headed. You can also see why our government keeps borrowing more money to pay for liabilities that aren't being covered by tax revenue.
Eventually, the loan interest rate becomes unaffordable, or credit is denied altogether, and the nation's economy collapses through default. That's when the socialists take over and begin confiscating 50% or more of your income in taxes as a necessary step toward economic recovery.
They'll tell you it's for "the common good" of the country, but if they cared about the common good of the country, they never would have caused this to happen in the first place. But they will gladly hold you and your income liable for their reckless policies and spending. We must hold them accountable first before this happens. We must elect a Congress in November that will put a stop to this abuse of the American citizens.
In his weekly radio address, Obama said he had a meeting with insurance executives who were unable to tell him (to his understanding) why insurance rates keep going up. Why does Obama have to ask them this question? Answer: because Obama doesn't understand how business works, and health insurance is a business. It is a product provided to those who can afford it, no different from buying a car. It is not a right anymore than owning a car is a right.
Insurance company rates are directly proportional to insurance company costs. Rates go up because the costs go up and because the value of the dollar continues to decline as government policy keeps borrowing and printing more currency. In spite of a rise in insurance company rates, their profit margin still remains under 3.5% which goes to the stock investors who are the American people.
That's not much profit and certainly doesn't show corporate greed. Obama's healthcare plan does nothing to reduce the costs, but instead attempts to subsidize them with taxpayers' money which will only make the problem worse.
Obama needs to demonize insurance companies and anyone else in the private sector that he wants to destroy in order to promote his socialist agenda. Sure, there are some problems with insurance companies for the chronically ill and those with pre-existing conditions, but then the insurance companies have a responsibility to their stockholders to show a profit, not a loss. If they have to pay for costs that exceed income, then the rates have to go up.
Obama accuses them of greed for trying to meet their costs and would have them operate at a loss and drive them out of business to force more people to look to government for their healthcare. That is not the American way.
A large portion of those costs come from lawyers constantly filing frivolous medical lawsuits. Even if the cases never go to court, it still costs a lot of money to defend them and settle out of court. If we really want to lower the costs of healthcare then we need to get James Sokolove, and others like him, off of our TVs, and put a stop to this television advertising for medical lawsuits. By doing so, we remove the cause of expensive defensive medicine being practiced by doctors, which adds even more to the costs.
This synthetic president said in his State of the Union address that "we were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions." Maybe Obama needs to start listening to his own speeches. He has done nothing but serve his own ambitions and special interests since taking office. He must be aware that nationalized healthcare is not popular with the American people, yet he continues to push it. How is that "serving our citizens?" Is he really listening to anyone other than Andy Stern, president of the SEIU?
"If the power of persuasion doesn't work, then we'll use the persuasion of power."—Andy Stern, another Marxist advising Obama and influencing national policy. As the communist USSR president, Nikita Khrushchev, once said: "We will take you over from the inside!" At the time, in the late 1960s, few took him seriously. They should have. The communists now have their man in the White House.
With Obama in office and a Progressive controlled Congress, the goals of a communist takeover are now within sight. But this opportunity won't last for long, and that is why we are seeing this urgent and forceful push toward socialism now.
We must fight with every resource we have to restore the constitutional limits placed on an out-of-control federal government - one that is no longer a constitutional government bound by the founding documents.
We can't afford to have our government unionized by the SEIU or any other union
We can't afford to have our government unionized by the SEIU or any other union. This is supposed to be a government of the people, not of unions which prevent the firing of worthless employees and demand that they be paid twice what the private sector is paid for the same work. Remember when Civil Service jobs were low paying, last resort jobs, and taxes were affordable? Obama needs to clean up his own house before demonizing others.
It's almost a sure bet that Republicans will take over Congress next year. If this healthcare gets passed into law in any form, Republican candidates should campaign on a platform of repealing it as soon as they are in power. No matter in what form it may pass, Obama will sign and applaud it as a huge success and accomplishment of his administration. The citizens will see it for what it is - a loss of freedom and liberty.
The danger of this healthcare bill is that it is so massive that repealing it would be nearly impossible after the bureaucracy has been installed, the money allocated, private insurers going out of business, and the system transformed. The next Congress must begin the repeal process immediately before more irreversible damage is done.
Obama has been talking about "my healthcare plan," but it turns out that Obama's healthcare plan doesn't even exist. It was nothing more than an outline which couldn't be scored by the CBO for lack of any details. I suspect that it was the plan written and submitted to Obama by Andy Stern and the SEIU which laid down the guidelines for the Senate and House bills.
The process now being used by Obama and Congress is unconstitutional. The Constitution requires that all bills that raise revenue for the government must originate in the House:
Article I, Section 7: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."
But this unconstitutional president is telling the House to pass a bill that raises hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes and borrowing from foreign countries, but originated in the Senate.
On top of that, they intend to use reconciliation in the Senate to get the bill passed with only 51 votes. Reconciliation was created to resolve budget issues because the Constitution requires Congress to pass a budget every year. It was never intended, nor has it ever been used, to get policy issues passed.
Pelosi doesn't have enough votes to pass the Senate version of the bill, so to get enough Democrat votes in the House, they were told that the bill will be "fixed" after it has been passed into law. This would result in the law created by this bill being something different from what was passed by Congress. Senate Republicans are telling the House members "don't count on that "fix" happening."
Latest subversion of constitutional law, Rep. Louise Slaughter
Now, the latest subversion of constitutional law comes from Rep. Louise Slaughter who is suggesting a new rule that would consider the bill passed if the House passes a "corrections bill" that would make changes to the Senate bill. This means that the House wouldn't actually vote on the healthcare bill at all.
The Constitution is very clear on this point:
"…But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively."
Obama is becoming desperate. He is becoming unglued, knowing that his signature legislation is failing, instead of becoming the most important accomplishment (the only accomplishment) of his career. He is demanding that Congress pass this abomination by March 18 before they go on Easter recess.
He knows what lawmakers are going to face in their local communities from their constituents who do not want this legislation passed, and he knows it will effect their willingness to vote for this unpopular bill. He knows it won't stand a chance of passing after lawmakers hear from their constituents face to face.
If this bill fails, Obama will be seen as the failure that he is. If it passes, he will be seen as the enemy of American freedom, liberty, and prosperity. He has already crossed the line, so now he has only one way to go. Force his socialism upon America and make it permanent and irrevocable while he still has the power of the presidency.
He is determined to get this done at any cost or violation of the law. To Obama, the "status quo" is constitutional government. He has always hated our Constitution and intends to change or abolish it to suit his Marxist ideology.
This will be done by making small changes here and there along with big ones like this healthcare bill, the Cap & Trade bill, to be followed by the Immigration Reform bill. All of these issues have been rejected by the American people but Obama doesn't care what the American people want.
Obama's transformation of the country means serving his own ambitions of a socialist dictatorship. The citizens of America must continue to show their disapproval of Obama, his communist ideology, and his socialist healthcare agenda. Never before has America faced an enemy more dangerous to our freedom and liberty than we face now.
As for our prosperity, that is pretty much already gone, as is the prosperity of our future generations who will be strapped with the Obama debt. This political pervert in the White House must be stopped now and forever. We must elect officials who are willing to serve the citizens, not their own ambitions and those of their campaign contributors both foreign and domestic.
Speaking of foreign - where's the birth certificate?
The Constitution: Another Victim of Obamacare
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/12/the-constitution-another-victim-of-obamacare/#more-28710
Posted March 12th, 2010 at 11:59am in Health Care with 3 comments Print This Post
Reports yesterday indicated that the Senate Parliamentarian "ruled" that the President must sign the Senate passed version of Obamacare before the Senate can act on a reconciliation measure. This ruling would have blown up plans in the House to use a very complicated procedure to pass both a Senate passed health care reform bill and a reconciliation measure to make change to the bill all at once. This scenario would have allowed the House to avoid a vote on the Senate passed Obamacare bill and they could have avoided the filibuster rule in the Senate (see Health Care Nuclear Option). The liberals are intent on passing Obamacare at any cost.
Reports have come out today that the Parliamentarian has not ruled that the President must sign a law before it is considered a law for reconciliation purposes. First, they came up with a strategy to get Obamacare passed in the House without the House ever voting on the bill, now they have come up with a strategy and a ruling to get the Obamacare bill to qualify as law without the President signing the law. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid should not support efforts to violate the clear words of the Constitution to pass Obamacare.
The Constitution says that:
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.
Just to restate a shocking development in the Obamacare debate; Congressional leaders have found a way to ignore the Constitutional requirement that a law be signed by the President before it is considered a law. Outrage is not a strong enough word for the feelings many American's have toward elites in Washington, D.C. who will do anything to pass Obamacare.
According to Politico:
Senate Republicans caused a major stir Thursday when they told reporters that the parliamentarian had informed them that the Senate bill needed to be signed into law before lawmakers took up a sidecar bill to fix it. And Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told his Democratic colleagues during a caucus meeting Thursday that he had heard the same thing.
That was yesterday and today is very different. Now the Parliamentarian is backing away from that ruling according to unnamed sources:
But according to reporting by POLITICO's David Rogers, the accounts aren't accurate and misconstrue what the Senate parliamentarians have said. That is that reconciliation must amend law but this could be done without the Senate bill being enacted first. "It is wholly possible to create law and qualify law before the law is on the books," said one person familiar with situation.
A law is not a law until it is signed by the President according to the United States Constitution. You can't create "law and qualify law before the law is on the books." The great irony is that there are no "books" other than the U.S. Code which is a compilation of laws. The moment the President signs a bill, it becomes law. This is true legislative activism to claim that reconciliation can amend a law that is not a law.
More from Politico:
For example, if the big bill itself amends some Social Security statute, reconciliation could be written to do the same –with changes sought by the House. Then if reconciliation is passed and signed by President Barack Obama after he signs the larger bill, the changes made in reconciliation would prevail.
This jives with what Pulse sources were saying soon after the first wave of stories hit – in essence, don't take the reported parliamentarian's declaration to the bank.
According to this scenario, if the President promises to sign reconciliation after he signs the bill, then the Constitution does not matter. A law is defined as a bill promised to be signed into law by the President. But this conflicts with the left's the strategy to pass Obamacare:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other House leaders have come up with a plan to package the Senate passed ObamaCare bill and the House reconciliation measure into one package. The House rules committee will report out a rule that will allow the Senate passed ObamaCare bill to pass the House without a vote. The rule will be self-executing in the sense that the House will have been deemed to pass the Senate ObamaCare bill if the House can muster the votes to pass the reconciliation measure. Now the House has used this unethical procedure in the past during a debate on funding the Global War on Terror and in passing debt limit increases under the "Gephardt Rule."
This is a true outrage and we as a nation should not tolerate such strong arm tactic to pass legislation in an unconstitutional manner.
Tags: Obamacare Constitution
Morning Bell: Obamacare at Any Cost, Heritage Foundation
-The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -
-http://blog.heritage.org
Morning Bell:Obamacare at Any Cost
Posted By ConnCarroll On March 12, 2010 @ 9:42 am In Health Care | NoComments
Yesterday the White House circulated a memo [1] by pollster Joel Benenson.It was designed to create momentum for Obamacare by convincing waywardHouse Democrats that support for the President's plan has been buildingsince the State of the Union. As with everything else that comes out ofthe White House on health care these days, the memo is nothing but purefantasy.
This Tuesday, Gallup released itslatest poll showing that by a 48%-45% [2] margin Americans would telltheir representative in Congress to vote against President Obama'shealth plan. Compare that to the last time Gallup asked the question inJanuary, Americans supported the President's plan 49%-46% [3]. That's a net six point lossin support for the President's plan since the State of the Union. Thatis momentum. Against Obamacare.
And Gallup isn't alone. The Associated Press [4] released a poll this weekshowing that 68% of Americans believe the President and CongressionalDemocrats shouldn't pass their health care plan without Republicansupport. "Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watchDemocratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselvesinto believing that the public favors the Democrats' currenthealth-care plan," Democratic pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen addin today's Washington Post [5], "A solid majority ofAmericans opposes the massive health-reform plan."
Yesterday was particularly tough forthe President's plan. First, the White Houseunderwhelmed the Democratic Caucus [6] in a presentation of the new (stillunwritten) reconciliation bill. Then, the Senate Parliamentarian killed the Democrats favored procedural pathfor passage [7]by signaling he would rule that President Obama must sign the originalSenate bill into law before the Senate could act on the President's newreconciliation package. Finally, the Associated Press [8] reported that House leadershave abandoned all hope of finding language to satisfy Rep. BartStupak's (D-MI) concerns that the Senate bill funds abortion. By theend of the day, the leftist firedoglake site had dropped its count [9] of committed House Democratsfor passage to 189 (Speaker Pelosi needs 216 for passage).
With the loss of Stupak and his 7-12member caucus opposed to taxpayer-funded-abortions, Speaker Pelosi willhave to find the remaining dozen plus votes from the ranks of costconscious Blue Dog Democrats. For example, Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL)who voted against the House bill in the fall explained at the time [10]: "According to theCongressional Budget Office, the House health care bill will actuallyincrease federal health care spending over the long term, whileproposals being considered by the Senate would have a net decrease."But according to a new CBO score of the Senate bill passed on ChristmasEve (the one with the Cornhusker Kickback), it actually increaseshealth care spending. [11]And the reconciliation bill only make things worse, since, among other increasedspending measures [12],President Obama "fixed" the Cornhusker Kickback not by eliminating thenew spending, but by extending it to all 50 states.
With no votes piling up [13], and "yes" votes materializing [14], the Democratic plans toshove Obamacare down the throats of the American people are becomingmore and more desperate. This Monday, the House Budget Committee will begin markup on the newreconciliation bill [15]even though actual legislative text does not exist for it yet. TheDemocrats plan to pass a shell of a bill through the appropriatecommittees so that the Rules Committee can then substitute the billthat is being drafted completely behind closed doors by the White Houseand Senate and Democrat leaders.
Politico reports that despite theParliamentarian's initial verbal ruling, they will press on with theirSlaughter Rule plan to pass the Senate bill without voting on it. NRO'sYuval Levin quips [16]: "Democratic leaders shouldbe asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that theirstrategy is to amend a law that doesn't exist yet by passing a billwithout voting on it."
But President Obama's progressivebase is way past rational thought when it comes to health care. Theywant it passed at any cost. And as George Will pointed out yesterday [17], the very essence ofprogressivism sublimates the democratic process to the rule of expertsin Washington. No one can say if this bill will finally pass, but if itdoes, it is abundantly clear that our republican form of governmentwill be permanently damaged by it.
Tags: obamacare Heritage
ObamaJustice Department shut down ACORN probe
JUST PLAIN NUTS
Obama Justice Department shut down ACORN probe
FBIdocuments 'reflect systematic voter registration fraud'
A nonpartisan, politicalwatchdog group announced today that it has obtained documents from the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation detailingfederal investigations into the alleged corrupt activities ofAssociation of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
Judicial Watch revealed that the documents it acquired reference seriousallegations of corruption and voter registration fraud by ACORN and theObama administration's decision to shut down the criminal investigationwithout filing criminal charges.
Included among the records are twocomplaints filed in October 2008 by Lucy Corelli and Joseph Borges,Republican Registrars of Voters in Stamford and Bridgeport,Connecticut, respectively, during the 2008 election year.
Corelli reported that on Aug.1, 2008, her office accessed 1,200 ACORN voter registration cards fromthe secretary of state's office – of which, 300 cards were rejected dueto "duplicates, underage, illegible and invalid addresses." She saidthe invalid cards "put a tremendous strain on our office staff andcaused endless work hours at taxpayers' expense." Judicial Watchreports Corelli claimed the additional work causedby ACORN corruption cost $20,000.
According to the documents, Borgesstated, "The organization ACORN during the summer of 2008 conducted aregistration drive which has produced over 100 rejections due toincomplete forms and individuals who are not citizens. …"
Borges reported that ACORN evenregistered a 7-year-old child to vote by using a forged signature andfake birth certificate claiming she was 27 years old.
The FBI andDepartment of Justice opened an investigation. But Judicial Watch notedthat the Obama Justice Department, while acknowledging that ACORN hadengaged in "questionable hiring and training practices,"closed the investigation in March 2009, claiming ACORN had broken no laws.
According to the report, thedocuments obtained by Judicial Watch include records connected to afederal investigation of ACORN in St. Louis, Mo. That incident involved1,492 suspected fraudulent voter registration cards submitted byProject Vote, a nonprofit affiliated with ACORN, during the 2006election year.
Assistant U.S. Attorney HalGoldsmith opened that investigation with "concurrence" from theDepartment of Justice and FBI involvement. According to a JusticeDepartment memo, Goldsmith "advised he would prosecute any individualresponsible for submitting fraudulent voter registration cards." Henamed the statute for prosecution, Title 42, USC 1973 (gg), whichoutlines criminal penalties for fraudulent voter registrations. InApril 2008, eight former ACORN employeesfrom the St. Louis office pleadedguilty to voter registration fraud.
Judicial Watch reported that theJustice Department, under President George W. Bush, failed to prosecutealleged ACORN voter registration fraud involving people in Phoenix,Ariz., who were not U.S. citizens. That decision was purportedly madebecause allegations that led to the opening of the investigation were"unverifiable." The FBI document detailing that decision states that a"draft Intelligence Bulletin … concludes that ACORN's employmentpractices perpetuate fraudulent voter registration."
The ACORN documents Judicial Watchacquired include internal FBI memoranda, signed affidavits, subpoenas,fraudulent voter registration cards and ACORN's policies and practices.The group also noted that it obtained documents with details regardingallegations of corruption extending beyond registration fraud,including efforts by ACORN employees to compel workers to campaign onbehalf of Democratic candidates.
"These documents reflect systematicvoter registration fraud by ACORN," said Judicial Watch President TomFitton. "It is a scandal that there has been no comprehensive criminalinvestigation and prosecution by the Justice Department into thisevident criminal conduct."
He added, "Given President Obama'sclose connections to ACORN, including his campaign's hiring of theACORN's Project Vote organization, it seems rather obvious why AttorneyGeneral Holder has failed to seriously investigate these and otheralleged ACORN criminal activities."
Related offers:
STEALING THE NEXT ELECTION: From amnesty to universal registration, Obama's strategy for maintaining power
Tags: Obama ACORN
We-the-Governed--now replace by ?We-the-Ruled?--are no longer in charge of our country
We-the-Governed--now replace by 'We-the-Ruled'--are no longer in charge of our country, our livelihoods and increasingly our lives
Obama openly Rules against the Will of the Governed and now their Lives
By Sher Zieve Thursday, March 11, 2010
As the new US Marxist-Democrat Party today continues to hold secret meetings to determine how to best ram and shove ObamaCare down the throats of the American people, while also conspiring as to how best to oppress them and turn the USA—once and for all—into a totalitarian country, I'm reminded of the now growing-fainter-by-the-moment famous words of our forefathers; words that spoke of and to liberty and freedom for them and their posterity.
A remarkable portion of the 4 July 1776 US Declaration of Independence reads:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
However, today the We-the-Governed—now replace by 'We-the-Ruled'—are no longer in charge of our country, our livelihoods and increasingly our lives.
The ObamaCare "healthcare" bill—which has little to nothing to do with health—will begin the establishment of his and the Marxist-Democrats' permanent dictatorship in the United States of America. At least 100 (that's one-hundred, folks) new agencies are included in the ObamaCare monstrosity. These are agencies that Obama, his Marxist and his Maoist co-conspirators have included for the establishment of [their] total control over the American people. This is, of course, a deliberately executed atrocity against any and all portions of the US Constitution which—via increasing abuse and disuse by our Congressional and Executive Branch rulers—have been rendered null and void by the ruling power elite. And now—just when we thought it almost impossible—something even graver and far darker has emerged from the Obama administration.
In previous columns I've written about Soviet Dictator Josef Stalin who committed genocide on the Ukrainian people via mass starvation. Stalin began by regulating the food the Ukrainians were allowed to have, then he shipped all of the wheat they had raised to other countries and ended with his goons invading Ukrainian houses and removing every last morsel of food in each and every home. This resulted in the deaths of between 3,000,000-7,000,000 (that's Millions, folks) Ukrainians. To this day, the numbers are still not known with certainty. Stalin's thugs buried the bodies in mass graves, then covered them up with tons and tons of dirt. Fox News and a few other not-completely-controlled-by-the-dictator news sources are reporting that US citizens may or will soon be prohibited from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal waters, Great Lakes and even inland waters. That's everywhere, folks. And Robert Montgomery from ESPNOutdoors.com writes: "The Obama administration has ended public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters." Obama also recently dictated—in the manner of a real and true tyrant—that ALL input from the public on this matter has ended and will not be accepted by the tyrant and/or his administration. Could this be Obama's clever take on the "Stalin Ukrainian problem Solution?" Is this the beginning of the Obama Opposition Solution? Looks like it.
The only real "solution" to any hope of restoring our now defunct republic is the removal from office of all Marxists, Marxist and Maoist wannabees contained within the Executive branch and all willing Obama Congressional schemers—on both the Senate and US House of Representatives side—from office. It will need to be very soon or we as a country will have been murdered by The Obama and his willing adherents and We-the-People will no longer exist. Communist Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is reported by a congressman to have recently said that she will push ObamaCare through in "any way possible." Perhaps what's left of We-the-People should consider her statement toward the application of ridding ourselves of her and her colleagues who are embroiled in the destruction of the USA. What do you think?
Obama to end fishing by humans in USA:
Obama to ban sport [or all] fishing?:
Josef Stalin Genocide in the 20th Century:
Tags: Obama openly Rules
Kill The Bill by Newt Gingrich
Kill The Bill
by Newt Gingrich (more by this author)
It has been over a year since President Obama announced his plans for comprehensive health reform.
Since the announcement, as Americans learned more and more about the Democrats' health care bill, opposition to the left's plans for big government health care have grown and grown.
It started with the explosion of outrage at town hall meetings over the bill's cuts to Medicare to pay for new bureaucracies and programs.
It gained steam when Americans realized the frightening potential for "death panels" when you give government the power to deny care based on budgetary concerns.
And it reached critical mass when the corrupt manner in which the bill was being shoved through Congress was exposed to the American people.
However, despite all the polls showing that Americans want Congress to scrap the current bill and start over, it is now clear that Democratic leaders are bound and determined to ignore the will of the people.
President Obama has called for the House of Representatives to pass by March 18 the same bill the Senate passed in December.
We must stop this bill from passing.
We DO Need Real Reform, but NOT This Travesty of a Bill
To be clear, I passionately believe America's health care system is badly in need of reform.
I founded the Center for Health Transformation seven years ago as a unique collaboration of doctors, hospitals, and industry leaders dedicated to developing a 21st century, personalized, intelligent health care system.
In this column, and in op-eds and books, I have written repeatedly about common sense, market-oriented solutions that would save lives and save money.
I have always put the focus on solutions when it came to health care because when it comes to an issue that means so much to so many Americans, I believe solving problems must rise above political posturing.
I have even taken heat from fellow conservatives for cooperating with leading Democrats to achieve health reforms we agree on, like greater use of health information technology. In fact, there are even some specific elements of the bill -- like payment reform to reward quality care -- with which I agree.
However, as someone who has dedicated the last decade of his life to fixing what's broken in America's health care system, and has reached across party lines to do so, I regrettably have to say that this bill will do vastly more harm than good.
It will raise the cost of health care for everyone through crushing new taxes.
It will reduce benefits for millions of senior citizens without fixing the underlying structural problems of Medicare that are leading the program towards bankruptcy.
It will put government bureaucrats at the center of our health care system, not doctors and patients.
Furthermore, as Mark Steyn and others have noted, if this bill becomes law there may be no going back from a more statist, more bureaucratic, more left-of-center political culture that would mean the demise of America as a unique civilization.
Don't Let Speaker Pelosi Be the Only Voice Your Congressman Hears
So it all comes down to one final vote.
If Speaker Pelosi succeeds in twisting enough arms and making enough promises to get the votes she needs, President Obama could sign the left's big government, big bureaucracy health bill into law the next day.
Right now, Speaker Pelosi has the ear of skeptical members of her caucus.
She's trying to make your member of Congress forget about the unpopularity of the bill in their districts.
She's distracting him or her with the siren song of Washington fundraisers and other big party politics.
Speaker Pelosi would have your representative listen to Washington insiders rather than you.
We need to break through the Washington bubble and remind Congress who is in charge.
Call your Member of Congress today.
Tell him or her to vote against the left's big government health care bill. Then call all your friends and family and ask them to do the same.
Together we can kill this bill once and for all.
Tags: OBAMA GINGRICH
PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL INDEX MINUS 21 BY RASMUSSEN REPORT 03/10/10, CBS POLL
This takes about 30 seconds and the poll results are very telling.
Here's your chance to grade the President! I am surprised CBS put this up.
And I am surprised they keep it up!
Please forward this to your Friends!
CLICK: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6116297-503544.html?tag=
Threat of Terrorism
Obama's Overall Job as President
NOTE: This is not a scientific poll. The results above are for information purposes only, and should not be confused with the results of the scientific polls conducted by CBS News.
Tags: OBAMA RASMUSSEN CBS POLL
Obama and Congress File Their Opposition Brief to the Kerchner Appeal
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-and-congress-file-their.html
Today, March 8, 2009, putative President Barack Obama and Congress filed their Opposition Brief to the Kerchner appeal currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. The brief may be viewed at this link. We now have until March 22, 2010, to file our reply brief which will address the arguments the defendants have made in their opposition brief.
The defendants' brief is a presentation of general statements of the law of standing. Appealing to what other courts have done, the defendants basically tell the court that the Kerchner case should be dismissed because all the other Obama cases have been dismissed. Its main point is that the Kerchner plaintiffs have not proven that they have standing because they failed to show that they have suffered a concrete and particularized injury.
The brief does not even acknowledge our factual allegations against Obama which are that he is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen" because his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born and that he has failed to even show that he is at least a "citizen of the United States" by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii. It is strange as to why the brief does not even contain these factual allegations within it, giving the appearance that the Justice Department does not want such allegations to be even included in any official court record.
Nor does the brief acknowledge let alone address what all our legal arguments are on the questions of standing and political question. Rather, it merely repeats what the Federal District Court said in its decision which dismissed the Kerchner case for what it found was lack of standing and the political question doctrine and asks the Court of Appeals to affirm the District Court's decision dismissing our complaint/petition.
I will be filing my reply to the defendants' brief on or before March 22, 2010.
Tags: OBAMA KECHNER APPEAL
Meet McCain 'birthers' By Jerome R.Corsi
BORN IN THE USA?
Meet McCain 'birthers':
ABC, CBS, NBC, FactCheck, N.Y. Times,
Eligibility issue was huge in 2008 when Obama opponent was focus of attention
By Jerome R.Corsi
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Many of the same news organizationsand research groups today dismissing concerns about Barack Obama'sconstitutional eligibility were far more eager to cover the issue whenRepublican presidential candidate John McCain was the subject.
An archive search shows the questionof McCain's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president was actively pursued byDemocratic Party activists and the mainstream media in the run-up tothe 2008 presidential election, despite the ridicule now heaped uponthose questioning Obama's qualifications under Article II, Section 1 ofthe Constitution.
In an article published Feb. 28,2008, months before McCain was nominated for president by theRepublican Party, FactCheck.org, at the very center of Obama's defenseagainst eligibility questions, was itself raising them about McCain.
See the movie Obama does not want youto see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidentialeligibility mystery!
In a piece that led off withthe question, "How can Panamanian-born McCain be elected president?" FactCheck.org conceded McCain didmeet the natural-born citizen requirements. But the website qualified itsanswer, stating that if McCain did win the presidency, the issue couldbe challenged in court.
After the Republican andDemocratic conventions, on, FactCheck.org weighed into the Obamaeligibility debate Aug.21, 2008," claiming its "staffers have now seen, touched, examined andphotographed the original birthcertificate." The certificate in question, however, was a short-formCertificate of Live Birth, or COLB, not a hospital-generatedlong-formbirth certificate listingthe hospital where Obama was born as well as other relevant birthinformation, including the name of the attending physician.
Almost coincident with theFactCheck.org article, a flurry of mainstream media news pieces poppedup about McCain's eligibility tobe president.
On Feb. 28, 2008, Carl Hulse wrote aNew York Times article, "McCain's Canal Zone Birth Prompts QueriesAbout Whether That Rules Him Out."
"To date, no American to take thepresidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50states," Hulse wrote.
Picking up on the Times piece, MSNBC.com ran a feature on the sameday posing the question, "Born in the USA?"
The Wall Street Journal the same daypublished a Law Blog column asking:"Does John McCain Have a Birthplace Problem?"
CBS News speculated McCain's eligibilityquestion "could conceivably end up in before the Supreme Court," addingthe comment, "And you thought counting chads was a circus."
The next day, the Times of London published a similarpiece,"McCain's Panama birth prompts eligibility probe by his campaign."
NBC correspondent Pete Williams also published a piece Feb. 29, 2008, on the MSNBCwebsite, "McCain's citizenship called into question."
"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and hisadvisers are doing their best to brush aside questions – raised in theliberal blogosphere – about whether he is qualified under theConstitution to bepresident," Williams wrote. "But many legal scholars andgovernment lawyers say it's a serious questionwith no clear answer."
On April 10, 2008, ABC reporter Jake Tapper published apiece on the ABC News website inwhich he noted the Constitution "does not define 'natural borncitizen,'" pointing out that "McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to parents who were U.S.citizens, but some scholars have questioned that it suffices."
Then, on April 11, 2008, the Wall Street Journal's Law Blogpublished a piece notingthat Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.,introduced a non-binding resolution expressing McCain qualifies as anatural-born citizen under terms of the Constitution.
The Leahy-McCaskill resolution,ultimately passed by the Senate unanimously was co-sponsored by Sens.Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who at the time were competing forthe Democratic Party's presidential nomination.
Even this was not enough to stopliberal activists and the mainstream media from continuing to keepalive questions about McCain's eligibility.
In a Washington Post story May 2, 2008, reporter Michael Dobbs questionedwhether the Senate's unanimously passed resolution was sufficient tosettle the matter of whether McCain was a natural-born citizen eligible to be president.
Dismissing the Senate resolution,Dobbs wrote that the Senate vote "is simply an opinion that has littlebearing on an arcane constitutional debate that has preoccupied legalscholars for many weeks."
Dobbs noted at the time the articlewas published "three pending cases are challenging McCain's right to be president" becauseeven though both his parents were U.S. citizens, his father was in theNavy, and McCain was born at the U.S. Naval Station based in Coco Soloin the Panama Canal Zone on Aug. 29, 1939.
While acknowledging that a seniorofficial of the McCain campaign had shown reporters a copy of McCain's birth certificate issued by the Canal Zonehospital – something the Obama presidential campaign and presidencyhave so far refused to do – he questioned why McCain did not release the birth certificate to the press generally.
In addition to media scrutiny, McCaintestified before a U.S. Senate committee and produced his long-form birth certificateforinspection.
On May 12, 2008,PolitiFact.com, a website that has dismissed questions about Obama'seligibility, published an article authored byRobert Farley, "Was McCain born in the USA?"
Noting that the question of McCain'seligibility is "rooted in legal opinions," not in facts, PolitiFact.orgbegged off giving McCain's eligibility question a truth rating,claiming its "customary True-False ratings don't quite fit here."
PolitiFact repeated the WashingtonPost complaint that McCain had not released his hospital-generated birthcertificatepublically, opting instead to "let a Washington Postreporter take a peek at it."
PolitiFact, however, did not notethat the Obama campaign refused all inquiries asking to see theIllinois senator's hospital-generated long-form birth certificate.
PolitiFact also dismissedcongressional resolutions affirming McCain's eligibility to be president as a natural-born citizen,quoting Atlanta attorney Jill Pryor, who wrote a 20-year-old paperpublished in the Yale Law Journal in which she argued that Congress'interpretation of the natural-born citizen clause is not binding on thecourts.
On June 12, 2008, theleft-leaning DailyKos.com posted a piece byblogger "andyfoland","The Bombshell on McCain'sBirth Certificate," claiming McCain had "nointerest in releasing his birthcertificate" because he "actually wasn't born in the United States,"and "McCain has done a good job keeping the public at large fromcatching on that he was born in Panama."
On June 20, 2008, editorialwriter Todd Roberson wrote in a DallasMorning News opinion blog thatMcCain's citizenship was "still in question," after a lawsuit was filedin the U.S. District courts questioning the issue.
Displaying what he claimed was a copyof McCain's hospital-generated long-form birth certificate,Robberson wrote, "The argument is very strong against McCain beingregarded 'a natural-born' citizen' as required by law."
"[McCain] was born in Panama in 1936,at a time when the State Department and the Hay-Bunau Treaty, whichgranted the U.S. access to the PanamaCanal Zone, specifically stated that the Canal Zone was not sovereignU.S. territory," Robberson argued.
To drive home the point, a link in Robberson's piece displayed as a .pdf filethe lawsuit papers filed by plaintiff Fred Hollander in the U.S.District Court in New Hampshire questioning McCain's eligibility.
The New York Times returned once again toMcCain's eligibility in a July 11, 2008, article published by law reporterAdam Liptak, with contributions from Carl Hulse, "A Hint of New Life toa McCain Birth Issue."
The New York Times featured ananalysis by University of Arizona law professor Gabriel J. Chin that asserted a 1937 lawconferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the CanalZone after 2004, arguing the law made John McCain a citizen just beforehis first birthday.
"In his paper and in an interview,Professor Chin, a registered Democrat, insisted he had no politicalmotive in raising the question," the Times wrote.
UPI published a story July 11, 2008, under the headline "McCain notnatural-born citizen, prof says," repeating the New York Times story about Gabriel Chin'slegal analysis.
A lawsuit challenging McCain'squalifications was pending in a federal court in Concord, N.H., the UPIstory noted.
Newsbuster.org characterized Liptak'sNew York Times article as "ameaningless, but prominently placed, 900-word story to further chipaway at John McCain's stature," noting the New York Times had yet to publish anarticle discussing Internet questioning about Obama's eligibility.
In July 2008, Snopes.com, whichportrays itself as an independent fact-checker, classified as "undetermined" theclaim that John McCain does not qualify to be president as anatural-born citizen.
"As much as we'd like to dismiss thisone as just another frivolous election season rumor, it's impossible tomake any definitive statement about Senator McCain's presidentialeligibility because the issue is a matter of law rather than fact, andthe law is ambiguous," Snopes.com wrote.
But only one month before, inJune 2008, Snopes.com confidently disqualifiedas "false" the assertion that Barack Obama was not eligible to bepresident,affirming instead that he was a natural-born citizen within the meaningof Article II, Section 1.
With equal confidence, Snopes.com in the same monthdismissed as "false" the claim that the short-form Certificate of LiveBirth provided by the Obama presidential campaign was a forgery.
On Sept. 18, 2008, after McCainhad won the Republican Party presidential nomination, Law.com reported a San Franciscofederal judge ruled McCain's assertion of U.S. citizenship was "highlyprobable."
Third-party presidential candidateAlan Keyes was excoriated for bringing a federal lawsuit challengingObama's eligibility, but as the Law.com article pointed out, Keyes hadalso brought the U.S. District court challenge of McCain's eligibility.
Throughout the 2008presidential campaign, the Web continued to buzz with stories questioning McCain'seligibility without reporting similar issues were being raised aboutObama.
Tags: McCain birthers
An epitaph for CPAC By Joseph Farah
An epitaph for CPAC (CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL ACTION CONFERENCE 2010)
It all started for me last year about this time.
Fresh from sponsoring CPAC in 2009 and addressing the group on multiple occasions dating back to the 1980s, I thought I would plant a seed in the minds of the organizers for the 2010 affair.
So I sent a brief e-mail to event director Lisa De Pasquale suggesting that if CPAC 2010 were planning to do anything on the constitutional eligibility issue, I would like to be the speaker on that subject – what are the facts, why it's important.
I never heard back from her and didn't really give it another thought, until September – eight months later – when suddenly that innocent, private e-mail between a sponsor of CPAC and the director suddenly became "news."
It began when Republican blogger Jon Henke declared an ill-fated boycott of WND. I say ill-fated because WND had a banner year for revenues and traffic. That should tell you something about his level of influence in the world of politics and news. Henke did his best to get the Republican Party to withhold advertising from WND, never thinking, of course, to suggest the same to the Democrats, who outspent Republicans nationally and in WND in the election year 2008.
Nevertheless, Henke was rewarded with multiple appearances on MSNBC and became a darling of the George Soros-backed slime machine Media Matters as a result of his attack on WND.
His next step was calling CPAC to ensure that I would be banned from speaking there in 2010.
Henke quoted De Pasquale as saying: "Farah asked if he could speak on the issue (birther movement), but that isn't something we're interested in."
Now, remember, De Pasquale never bothered to provide the courtesy of an answer to my private and, I had presumed, confidential letter. But, here she was disclosing it to a guy not pushing the Republican Party in a "conservative" direction, but one who is pushing it in the opposite direction.
Still, I held my tongue – even though CPAC was obviously giving aid and support to a guy actively trying to discredit and boycott one of the group's sponsors.
But, it got worse.
About a week later, she gave another interview to the Los Angeles Times about my public banishment from CPAC, ridiculing not only me but even CPAC's constituency, the people who attend the conferences.
She told the paper I had asked to discuss the eligibility issue, but was turned down.
"It would fill a room," she was quoted by the Times as saying. "But so would a two-headed monkey. There really are so many more important issues, and it's only a three-day conference."
Do you get the picture? CPAC knows the topic would be popular among attendees – maybe even a draw for the conference. In other words, that's the level of contempt she has for the CPAC attendees.
I decided right there and then that WND would no longer sponsor CPAC as long as an arrogant, know-it-all wannabe like De Pasquale was running it. When others confronted De Pasquale on her ill manners, unprofessionalism and condescension, she finally wrote me an e-mail. But it was hardly the letter of apology one might expect under the circumstances. She explained that she was "just answering questions from the media."
Apparently, De Pasquale and the CPAC leadership are more concerned about pleasing the media than their long-time sponsors and speakers – even people like me who are under siege from the left, the soft-right and the media establishment.
It didn't surprise me later, therefore, when this same leadership made the conscious decision to include in its sponsors for 2010 a group promoting same-sex marriage.
How stupid is that?
Officially, not even Barack Obama supports same-sex marriage. Officially, not even Hillary Clinton supports same-sex marriage. That's how unpopular this fringe movement is. It has been rejected by voters in America every time it has been put to the test. Some polls show opposition to same-sex marriage as high as 90 percent. Yet, there was CPAC catering to the same-sex marriage movement at America's most well-known "conservative" conference.
That's why today I pronounce CPAC dead.
It's one of the reasons I am organizing a conference this September called "Taking America Back." This one is about the ultimate issues of God, the Constitution, the tea-party uprising, freedom and justice.
There will be no two-headed monkeys.
There will be no same-sex marriage sponsors.
But there will be free and open discussion of issues like the constitutional eligibility of the man occupying the White House.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His book "Taking America Back: A Radical Plan to Revive Freedom, Morality and Justice" has gained newfound popularity in the wake of November's election. Farah also edits the online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
Tags: CPAC 2010
One of the reasons for need for recusal of the US attorney?s office, is a conflict of interest
REPLY TO OPPOSITION WAS FED EXED LAST WEEK, SHOULD BE FILED TODAY
Posted on | March 8, 2010 | 1 Comment
Dr. Orly Taitz, esq
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE §
Plaintiff, §HONORABLE ROYCE LAMBERTH
§ PRESIDING
v. § Civil Action: 10-151 RCL
Barack Hussein Obama, § REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
§ PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
§ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Defendant. §
Motion for leave of court to add Ronald Machen , JR, US Attorney, Rudolph Contrehras, Assistant US Attorney, Alan Burch, Assistant US Attorney as additional defendants and add a Cause of Action for RICO-Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations as an Additional cause of action in the first Amended Complaint.
1. RICO
One of the reasons for need for recusal of the US attorney's office, is a conflict of interest between the interests of the main client of the US Attorney's office-People of the United States of America and interests of the Defendant Barack Hussein Obama.
The number one function of the US Attorney's office is to protect us, the public from criminal activity, violation of criminal statutes, fraud and treason.
I have presented in my Quo Warranto complaint not only ample evidence of Barack Obama usurping the position of the President and Commander in Chief, but of him violating federal statutes, defrauding Social Security and engaging in identity theft in using social security number 042-68-4425.
I have provided affidavits from licensed investigators, as well as an official Selective Service printout, showing him using this Social Security number, even though it was assigned to another individual, born in 1890 and assigned in CT between 1976-1977, while Obama resided in HI, and in light of the fact that Obama was never a resident of CT.
This evidence is so overwhelming, that it doesn't even require additional investigation.
Pursuant to US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 1 § 4 – Misprision of Felony
§ 5-121.05. Compromise of felony ; withholding information; receiving compensation from person arrested or liable to arrest; permitting escape.
It is unlawful for any private detective, or any member of the police force, or for any other person to compromise a felony or any other unlawful act, or to participate in, assent to, aid or assist any person suspected of crime to escape a full judicial examination by failing to give known facts or reasonable causes of suspicion, or withholding any information relative to the charge or suspicion from the proper judicial authorities; or in any manner to receive any money, property, favor, or other compensation from, or on account of, any person arrested or subject to arrest for any crime or supposed crime; or to permit any such person to go at large without due effort to secure an investigation of such supposed crime. And for any violation of the provisions of this section, or either of them, such member of the police force, or private detective, or other person guilty thereof, shall be deemed as having compromised a felony , and shall be thereafter prohibited from acting as an officer of said police force, or as a private detective, and shall be prosecuted to the extent of the law for aiding criminals to escape the ends of justice.
Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 1 § 3. Accessory after the fact:
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.
US attorneys' actions in not prosecuting this matter goes beyond mere negligence, it falls within the realm of misprision of felony, compromising of felony and aiding and abetting commission of felony, predicate acts, which will tie in the above US attorneys to Mr. Obama and sufficient for RICO legal action.
These actions of Obama and US attorneys have exposed me to further severe emotional distress, assaults, insults, death threats, and numerous hate crimes relating to my legal actions, representing my clients and myself and trying to protect the public at large from this massive fraud committed by Obama and currently aided and abetted by US attorneys.
2. As felonies were reported, the court itself cannot ignore those issues and obligated to investigate
Evidence reported in the complaint and the application for preliminary injunction provides affidavits of licensed investigators as well as Selective service official printout, which clearly indicate use of multiple social security numbers, social security fraud, identity theft, fraud as well as high likelihood of a number of other white color crimes by the defendant. At this point if the court does not grant the application or dismisses the complaint, the court itself will be guilty of aiding and abetting all of the above crimes and misprision of felonies. As such the court has no other alternative, but to proceed with the discovery, and proceed expeditiously.
3. The court is entitled to obtain Defendant's Records.
The defendant intentionally misrepresents the complaint by claiming that the plaintiff is not entitled to the Defendant's records quoting Freedom of Information Act.
This is a case of Quo Warranto. The defendant is an attorney, who during the campaign represented himself as a constitutional scholar and a constitutional professor. As such he is surely aware of the fact that Quo Warranto has existed for some 700 years before the Freedom of Information act was ever enacted.
I have requested that the Attorney General and US attorney fulfill their duties and verify Obama's qualifications under Quo Warranto. As they breached their duties, I am asking the court to grant me Ex Relator Status, step in the shoes of these derelict US attorneys, who didn't do their job, which we, the tax payers, have paid them to do. As the court grants me Ex Relator status, I will be entitled to obtain all the necessary records to prove or disprove Obama's legitimacy. This shows that the Defendants assertion that I have no Entitlement to records is an absurd and was brought to confuse Your Honor.
4. Defendant's claim that my complaint is a non-justiciable political question, is a complete absurdity and was brought to mislead Your Honor.
About a third of the brief, 4-5 pages is completely irrelevant, as those are devoted to the mechanisms of the elections and removal of the president from office. I have never asked your Honor to remove Mr. Obama from office. All I have asked for, is discovery, and based on this discovery, a declaratory relief, declaring whether Mr. Obama has indeed qualified to office or not per Quo Waranto and per Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. Did he provide valid records or did he defraud the voters, Electors and Congress? This is the whole purpose of Quo Warranto. Quo Warranto was used for hundreds of years. It is codified in DC statutes as explained in the complaint. The Department of Justice and US Attorneys' office in the Central District of CA argued that the District of Columbia is the proper jurisdiction and Judge David O. Carter has dismissed the Quo Warranto in CA, noting that he doesn't want to "rob the District of Columbia of its' Jurisdiction." We are now in the correct jurisdiction, I applied correct statutes. After the discovery and trial, your Honor will make a Declaratory Relief, whether the defendant was qualified based on Quo Warranto or whether he occupied his position based on fraud. After the declaratory relief the Congress and Senate will be able to proceed with impeachment and removal. I am providing, as exhibits, letters I have received from Senator McCain, Mr. Obama's opponent in the 2008 general election, and a letter from senator Sessions received by one of my supporters. Both letters state that they cannot get involved, while the matter is being decided by the courts, as this will be seen as an ethical violation and interference with the work of another branch of the government. As the District of Columbia is a proper jurisdiction and Congress cannot get involved until there is a judicial determination and declaratory relief, it is not only your right your Honor to adjudicate, it is not only a justiciable issue, but as the Chief Judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia, you have a duty to exercise your jurisdiction, as according to the undying words of Justice Marshall, not exercising Jurisdiction, where it lies, is a treason to the Constitution.
Moreover, I have presented evidence of felony committed by the defendant in his use of multiple Social Security numbers, as well as clear evidence of his use of the Social Security number of at least one deceased individual. Your Honor, as an officer of the court, you have an obligation to proceed, as not doing so will expose Your Honor to the liability of aiding and abetting commission of felony and misprision of felony. Your Honor has no other choice, but to proceed with the discovery.
5. Standing
As I have stated previously, this complaint is a motion for leave of court for Ex Relator status in Quo Warranto. DC statute does not require any particular standing or any damages for Quo Warranto, therefore standing and damages are moot points, brought by the defendant to simply muddy the issues.
Muddy the issues, is probably the operative term to characterize the opposition brief, as it didn't address any issue, didn't address any law or any injury. It was written specifically to skirt the issues, misrepresent the facts and belittle and denigrate me in the eyes of the court. Very telling, is a remark on page 8,line 1, calling application for preliminary injunction rambling. I have to state that the opposition brief definitely goes beyond rambling, it goes into the territory of assault on the intelligence of each and every American, and there are millions of Americans following this case. The opposition brief did not address any fact or any law presented in the application.
The defense claims that I didn't suffer any injury. The defense can't find any injury in the Obama administration applying pressure on different agencies intimidating and harassing me and my plaintiffs and investigators. They could not find any harm in daily death threats, vandalism, tampering with my car and endangering my family, constant assaults coming from the media, which became the regime propaganda machine, from the law enforcement and US attorney's office itself refusing to investigate any crimes against me, or from use of the Judiciary as a tool to intimidate me and endanger my law license.
What exactly will it take for the Department of Justice to concede that indeed I was harmed or in imminent danger of being harmed? Do I need to be actually crucified? Knowing the modus operandi of Holder Department of Justice, I am not sure even that will be enough. They might still find some reason to state that there was no harm, no injury. They probably will state that the nails were not long enough, who knows…
The extent of damages and indifference and unwillingness to act by law enforcement and the Department of Justice has prompted me to file a complaint with the UN commission for Human Rights defendants.
To summarize the issue of damages standing, I have enumerated my damages in grand detail in the complaint, however I did not need to show any damages, as Quo Warranto statute does not require one seeking ex relator status any particular standing or damages.
6. Additional standing as a Republican candidate for the position of Secretary of State of California
Currently I am running as a Republican for the position of the Secretary of State of California. I have previously on multiple occasions requested from the current Secretary of State Debra Bowen, a Democrat, information regarding Mr. Obama's eligibility. I believe that Ms. Bowen has refused to verify Mr. Obama's eligibility and refused to provide me and my clients, candidates on the ballot in 2008 election, pertinent information for political reasons. There was no justification in her refusal to verify Mr. Obama's vital records and eligibility. I have filed legal actions in the state of CA on behalf of my client Ambassador Alan Keyes, presidential candidate on the ballot in Keyes et al v Bowen et al, as well as on behalf of vice presidential candidate for Ron Paul, Ms. Gail Lightfoot. On December 12, at 4:40PM, before the electoral vote I have filed with the Supreme Court on behalf of Gail Lightfoot et al an application for stay of the electoral vote Lightfoot et al v Bowen 08A524 . Chief Justice John Roberts has decided to hear this case in the conference of all nine Justices on January 23, however inexplicably the case was erased from the docket on January 21st. After complaints from the public the case was re-entered on the docket, however at a later date, as I questioned Justice Scalia about the case, he had no knowledge of the existence of the case. I have addressed this matter with Justice Roberts on March 13, 2009. (youTubeOrlyTaitzAddressingJohnRoberts). After nearly a year I did not hear from Justice Roberts or any of the law enforcement in relation to erasing of my case from the docket.
All the above facts show that I in good conscience exhausted all means available, and Quo Warranto is the only legal action available to resolve the issue of eligibility and suspected fraud committed by the defendant in the 2008 Presidential election.
7. Traceability of injury
The defense is stating that the injury of $20,000 sanctions is not traceable to the defendant. Let's try it again slowly.
I never had any sanctions assessed against me: never before and never after. I never had any reprimand against me. I have a perfectly clean record. The only time in my life, when I was sanctioned by the court, is where Judge Land stated that my representation of the members of US military questioning Barack Obama's legitimacy to presidency is frivolous, and due to that he sanctioned me.
Let's see, what did he find frivolous? I forwarded to Judge Land reports from licensed investigators, showing that Obama used multiple social security numbers, none of which were issued in Hawaii, where he claims he was born, and where he was raised. Who is usually using multiple social security numbers of others? Typically people, who were not born in this country, are the people, who do not have a valid social security number and need to resort to stealing the Social Security numbers of others.
I presented information that Obama refused to unseal his original birth certificate and all other vital records, and the fact that the state of Hawaii statute 338-17 allows a foreign born child of Hawaiian resident to get a Hawaiian birth certificate, as well as the fact that statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate of one relative based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborative evidence. This evidence is at leastsufficient evidence to order discovery. Clearly there is nothing frivolous in bringing an action on behalf of the members of the military seeking to verify Obama's legitimacy in light of all the above facts.
Who sealed his original vital records, who is refusing to unseal them? Obama!
Who is using social security numbers of deceased individuals and numbers never assigned? Obama!
Judge Land is a federal employee and as such works for the Chief Executive in the Federal government, Obama. Does the assistant US attorney have to be Albert Einstein to be able to trace the connection between Barack Obama's social security fraud, his obfuscation of all of his records, my bringing this issue to court and the decision by judge Land to use $20,000 in sanctions to silence me? I believe traceability is very clear and I don't need to belabor on this any further.
8. Background of the case
About a third of the brief is dedicated to the background of the case, which was completely bent out of shape and the truth was misrepresented. I don't need to write 5-6 page of the background. I can summarize the background of the case in one sentence. Obama's legitimacy for presidency was never adjudicated on the merits, no discovery was done, since no judge so far had the guts to hear the case on the merits.
We don't need to go far. A year ago Attorrney John Hamenway, 30 year veteran of JAG and State department foreign corps have brought to this district court Obama eligibility issue Hollister v Soetoro. Obama was named by the last name he used in Indonesia, Soetoro, since there is no record of him legally changing his name back to Obama, and there is a high likelihood that Obama was inaugurated and sworn in under the name, which is not legally his. Judge James L. Robertson came up with a decision, that the proper prima facia evidence should not be viewed and discovery and trial should not go on, since Obama's legitimacy for presidency "was twittered and massaged on the blogs". The whole country didn't know whether to laugh or to cry reading this opinion of a Federal judge. To add insult to injury Judge Robertson has threatened attorney Hemenway with sanctions. Same modus operandi, as I experienced with Judge Land. The only difference was, that older Judge Robertson had enough life wisdom, common sense and experience to stop short of actually assessing those sanctions, he stopped at repriment, which Hemenway is currently appealing in the Court of Appeals. Younger and more eager to get promotions Judge Land actually assessed those sanctions. Regardless of nuances both decisions are upfront to basic law and Constitution and decency. Today Judge Robertson is known through the blogosphere, through the Internet as a twitter judge. As I have filed my complained with the UN and has given some 700 interviews all over the World. Attorney, judges and public around the World are buffled and bewildered at what is happening in the US. Clearly Judge Robertson knows that twittering and massaging on the blogs is not a proper form of evidence, that there is a need to unseal the original birth certificate and all the other vital records. So what is the explanation to such indefensible decisions? The only reasonable explanation, is that not only attorneys like I and Hemenway were threatened, but Federal Judges themselves were threatened and intimidated by the Obama regime, by the Obama administration, that there was some fear of retaliation from Holder department of Justice, from Pelosi Congress.
Here is another example. I am forwarding a transcript of the July 13 hearing in Keyes et al v Obama in front of judge David O. Carter in the Central District of CA (as more plaintiffs were later added to the case, and the plaintiffs were listed in alphabetical order, it was renamed as Barnett et al v Obama et al). At a time when Judge Land claimed that Obama illegitimacy cases are frivolous, a more experienced judge David O. Carter was stating on the record time and again that this case is very important for the military and for the country as a whole, and it needs to be heard on the merits. Judge Carter has scheduled the case for trial for January 26, 2010 in CA. Later, on October 1, 2009 Obama administration was able to place as a law clerk with judge Carter one Sidharth Velamoor, an attorney who is still listed as working for Perkins Coie, Obama's defense firm, the firm of Robert Bauer, Chief White House Legal Counsel. From October 1 the attorney for the defense firm was doing legal research for the presiding judge and drafting orders. Is it surprising to you Your Honor to find out that judge Carter has suddenly changed his opinion and decided that he no longer has jurisdiction, even though he was adamant he had it before. I suddenly felt that I was immersed back in the nightmare of the dictatorial regime of the Communist Soviet Union, from which I escaped earlier. There were other interesting connections and correlations between Mr. Velamoor and Mr. Obama. Both of them are officially graduates of Columbia university, however different legal directories show Velamoor graduating either from Columbia law school or Commenis law school in Bratislava Slovakia and some 400 students attending Columbia same time as Obama and taking same courses as Obama can't remember seeing him there. Yet another interesting fact: both came from the same small community of Mercer island, WA. While Obama claims, that his mother lived on HI in 1961-1962, official records of the university of HI show her as dropping out at this time. She was nowhere to be found for nine months from December 1960 to end of August 1961, when she reappeared on Mercer island and enrolled as a student in University of Seattle Washington for Fall and winter quarters of 1961-1962. Nothing about Mr. Obama seems to be true. A lot about Mr Obama is questionable an a reason for deep concern. What I am doing today is equal to a new civil rights movement, a movement to reassert civil rights of the US citizens to have their cases heard in the court of law based on the Constitution, based on clear evidence, proper original valid records, not based on twittering, not based on intimidation of judges and attorneys. If Obama regime is successful in silencing attorneys like me, working pro bono to uphold the constitutional freedoms, then we don't have a Constitution, then we have a dictatorship, a tyranny.
Your Honor the choice is clear: you can be one of those judges who summarily dismissed each and every pleading by Thurgood Marshall, not willing to rock the boat and the establishment, or you can be Judge Earl Warren of the 21stCentury and uphold the system of Justice and the Constitution.
Fraud is a fraud, regardless of who perpetrates it, whether it is perpetrated by one forging documents to get a deed to a house or a lease to the White House. No one is above the law. The Nation is watching and the Nation is waiting. UN committee for Defenders of the Human Rights is watching and waiting for your decision. After I have done over 700 interviews all over the World, the World is watching and waiting for your decision. Your decision can be one of obfuscation of all of vital records of one sitting in the White House, it can be a decision of aiding and abeting Social Security Fraud and Misprision of Felony of Social Security Fraud and Identity theft by Mr. Obama, or it can be a decision of upholding the law. Your decision can signify further persecutions of me, as a decedent fighting Obama regime, or it can be a decision putting an end to persecutions. The decision is yours and the Nation is watching and the World is watching.
Wherefore the plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable court to deny the defendant's motion to dismiss and grant her application for injunctive relief as stated above.
/s/ DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ
By:__________________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
Tel.: 949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603
PROOF OF SERVICE
I CERTIFY THAT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ABOVE PLEADINGS WAS SERVED on 02.12.10 by First Class Mail.
Alan Burch, Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia
555 4th str.,N.W.
Washington D.C. 20530
/s/Orly Taitz
Proposed Order
Plaintiff's Application for preliminary injunction is granted.
Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.
Defendant is ordered to release by March 8,2010 his original birth certificate, which was allegedly obtained based on the defendant's birth in Kapiolani hospital in Hawaii on 08.04.61.
Defendant is ordered to release his birthing (live birth or labor and delivery) file from Kapiolani Hospital by March 8, 2010.
Defendant is ordered to release by March 8 his school enrolment records and financial aid application records from Occidental college, Columbia University, Harvard University and Punahoa High School.
Defendant is ordered to release by March 8, 2010 any and all of his passport applications.
Defendant is ordered to release by March 8, 2010 his Social Security application and explain why Social Security number, used by him for most of his life, including Selective Service application shows 042- ,the code of the State of CT, even though the defendant never resided there, and why this number shows as being assigned to an individual born in 1890, even though the defendant was not born in 1890 and is not 120 years old.
Defendant is ordered to provide an explanation by March 8, 2010, why National databases Choice Point and Lexis –Nexis show him using as many as 39 different Social Security numbers, none of which were issued in the state of Hawaii.
Mr. Michael Astrue, Director of the Social Security Administration, is ordered to provide by March 8, 2010 an original Social Security application for Barack Hussein Obama and an explanation why is he using a Social Security number issued in the state of Ct, to an individual born in 1890, even though the Defendant never resided in the state of CT and was not born in 1890, as well as access to the original Social Security application of the Defendant to be granted to the Plaintiff's forensic document expert.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is ordered to release by March 8, 2010 Defendant's passport application and access to such application to be granted to the Plaintiff's forensic document expert.
It is so ordered and adjudged
Honorable Royce C. Lamberth
UPDATE ON DC CASE
Posted on | March 9, 2010 | No Comments
I just talked to the clerks for Judge Lamberth, as my reply to the Opposition to the Application for the Preliminary Injunction has not been docketed yet.
I talked to clerks Daniel and Elliott. Clerk Elliott is assigned to my case. He stated that due to the fact that the mail goes through security, there is a delay in docketing. He assured me that Judge Lamberth will read my reply to opposition before rendering his decision. I asked, why there was no decision, since DC rules dictate 20 day policy, which expired on March 8.
He stated that in 10 months that he worked in this office he never saw applications for preliminary injunctions being filed, so he didn't know what to say, but he assured me that Judge Lamberth will get to it as soon as he can.
Tags: OBAMA TAITZ
The mystery surrounding Barack Hussein Obama has gone on too long.
http://www.thepostemail.com/legal-fund/
Legal Fund
The mystery surrounding Barack Hussein Obama has gone on too long. It is obvious to everyone that a man charged with the most important office in the world, the U.S. Presidency, ought to be forthcoming and open about his origins and background!
Furthermore, we, the citizens of the United States of America, have the God-given, absolute, inalienable right to know who the man in the White House is and where he came from!
Moreover, Obama promised a transparent government. But has not delivered.
For more than a year average American citizens have used the Sunshine Provisions of the laws of Hawaii to make reasonable and lawful requests for information regarding Obama's vital records (original, amended or otherwise) and the events surrounding the preparation of public statements by the Hawaii Department of Health regarding these records.
But, these requests have been denied in violation of Hawaiian Law.
However, Hawaii Law grants citizens the rights to public access of information; and accords them the right to defend these in court. This legal defense fund is to defray their expenses in undertaking such legal action.
Whether you voted for Obama or not; whether you agree with his politics or not; all can recognize that no harm shall come to the nation, if the Hawaii Department of Health releases to the public the records it holds regarding the vital events of Obama's life. Only those who want to promote division or a climate of secrecy and elitism, could possibly be opposed to a release which will undoubtedly restore the confidence of the American people in the integrity of the Hawaiian Government.
The Post & Email, therefore, has established a legal fund to collect donations from those wishing to assist in the necessary legal action(s) to obtain the release of the original vital records of Barack Hussein Obama and information related to the operations of the Department of Health of Hawaii and its Vital Records Office, whether related or not related to the public statements of Dr. Chiyome Fukino, M.D., Director, and Ms. Janice Okubo, Communications Director, of said Department.
Those who have made such UIPA requests and have been refused, can indicate their willingness to sign on as potential plaintiffs through the contact form, linked above this page through the words, "Contact Us."
Your donation to this fund is one of the best practical ways to expose the truth behind the mask that is Obama.
Those wishing to make a donation to assist this effort can do so by one of two means. They can send a check, payable to
The Post & Email Legal Fund
POB 302
Stafford Springs, CT 06076
Or they can use a credit card or their paypal account, by pressing the Paypal Button:
The Post & Email is a new media initiative of American patriots, collaborating together to break the blockade on information, imposed by the Main Stream Media in the last election cycle. It has established this fund as a way of fulfilling its civic duty to the nation, for the sake of furthering the peace and tranquility of the public order.
Those wishing to promote the knowledge of the existence of this fund, via the Internet, can use the gif image at the top of this page. This image was artistically created, using as a background, a modified photo of Makena Beach, originally taken by Gary Sullivan, USGS, who grants use to the public, with the proviso of a citation to the USGS.gov site. Use of this image, obviously, does not in any way constitute an endorsement of this fund or its activities by the USGS. The gif image above is merely an artistic decoration, and is not the official logo of the Fund, nor should it be used as such.
© 2009 - 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.
Tags: OBAMA HAWAII CERTIFICATE
Obama - Maybe a Citizen of the United States But Not a Natural Born Citizen -
Obama - Maybe a Citizen of the United States But Not a Natural Born Citizen - Thanks Pastor Charles
Posted on March 5th, 2010 by David-Crockett
A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers published
The question which has gripped our Constitutional Republic is whether putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution provides that: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Despite the fact that Article II itself, and when read together with Articles I, III, IV and Amendments Eleven, Fourteen, Fifteen, Nineteen, Twenty-Four, and Twenty-Six, clearly makes a distinction between a "Citizen of the United States" and a "natural born Citizen," when it comes to deciding whether Obama is eligible to be President under Article II, many incorrectly interpret a "Citizen of the United States " to be the same thing as a "natural born Citizen." With these two clauses not having the same meaning, the proper eligibility question is not whether Obama is a "Citizen of the United States." Rather, the correct inquiry is whether Obama is a "natural born Citizen."
Most probably recognize that United States citizens are created either at birth or at the moment of naturalization. The former is a native (using that term in its modern sense and not in the sense that the Founders used it) and the latter is not. Most probably also recognize that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But what many fail to recognize is that the event of birth has two natural elements which always have and always will be present in every birth: (1) the place where one was born and (2) the two parents who procreated the child. Hence, some also fail to understand that there are two types of born citizens, one being a born "Citizen of the United States" and the other being a "natural born Citizen." Under current law, a born "Citizen of the United States" is one granted that status under the 14th Amendment or Congressional Act (e.g. Title 8 Section 1401), both of which consider either (1) being born on United States soil or (2) being born to at least one United States citizen parent sufficient conditions for being granted the status of a born "Citizen of the United States." Never in our history has the United States Supreme Court or the Congress ever required that one needs to satisfy both of these conditions in order to be a "citizen of the United States." But as to a "natural born Citizen," we have a different story.
To understand what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is, we have to revert to the Founding era to determine what the Founders and Framers intended that clause to mean. In analyzing what meaning the Framer's gave to the "natural born Citizen" clause, we must remember that they wrote the Constitution in the historical context of having won a Revolution and in having to constitute a new society. They were inspired by and found justification in the political philosophy of natural law and the law of nations and not that of the English common law in going forward with that Revolution and they relied on that same law when defining national citizenship. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution grandfathered all persons to be eligible to be President who were "Citizens of the United States" at the time the Constitution was adopted. These persons would have been adults who were born in the colonies, children born in the new states, or adults inhabiting or naturalized under the naturalization laws in either place, at the time that the Constitution was adopted, provided they all adhered to the American Revolution. Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) explained that under English common law that prevailed in the colonies these original citizens included persons who were born in the colonies or new states to alien parents. These original citizens, whether born in the country or out of it, were all naturalized to be "citizens of the United States" by simply adhering to the American Revolution. The Founders in Article II grandfathered these "citizens of the United States" to be eligible to be President, provided that they were such at the time of the adoption of the Constitution which we know occurred on September 17, 1787. The grandfather clause is obsolete today.
The Founders themselves, being born prior to independence were subjects of the British Crown and to other foreign sovereigns but adhering to the American Revolution became part of the first "citizens of the United States." All being born in the colonies before the Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776 to British parents, the first seven Presidents were born subjects of Great Britain (born subject to a foreign power) and therefore needed the grandfather clause to make them eligible to be President. Andrew Jackson, the seventh President, born on March 15, 1767, was the last President who could utilize the grandfather clause to make him eligible to be President. Justice Story observed in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States that for the Framers to allow naturalized citizens (who like them were born subject to a foreign power and as we shall see below not "natural born Citizens&rdquo to be eligible to be President was an exception to "the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties." III J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Sec. 1473 (1833). Being born on December 5, 1782, on United States soil (in New York and therefore not born on foreign soil) to parents who had also become "citizens of the United States" by election to be loyal to the American Revolution (not born to foreign parents), Martin Van Buren, the eighth President (his mother was of Dutch ancestry and his great-great-great-great-grandfather Cornelis had come to the New World in 1631 from the Netherlands) was the first United States President not born a British or other foreign subject (not subject to a foreign power by being born either on foreign soil or to a foreign parent) who was born a "natural born Citizen" and who therefore did not need the grandfather clause to make him eligible to be President. The New Netherland Institute describes Van Buren's family history as follows: "In fact, although they were fifth generation Dutch, all of their forebears were of Dutch extraction. The original Van Buren had come over in the 1640's during the Van Rensselaer era when all of Columbia County was part of the Rensselaer Estate. And the original immigrant forbear probably came over sponsored by Killian Van Rensselaer, among many other immigrants, to occupy the Rensselaer estate. As a result Martin Van Buren was pure Dutch, and still spoke Dutch, the language that prevailed for many generations in that part of New York State along the Hudson River."http://www.nnp.org/nni/Publications/Dutch-American/buren.html. It has been said that Van Buren is the first President born under the American flag.
On the other hand, for children born after the adoption of the Constitution in 1787, the same Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides, among other things, that only a "natural born Citizen" is eligible to be President. An Article II "natural born Citizen" is one granted that special status under American common law that has its origins in natural law and the law of nations. With citizenship being a matter of status having international implications, the Framers would have expected its definition to be supplied by public law or the law of nations and not by any municipal or English common law, which the States continued to use to resolve their local problems concerning contracts, torts, property, inheritance, criminal procedure, etc. Under the law of nations, to be a "natural born Citizen," the child needed to be born in the United States (or what may be deemed its equivalent) to two citizen parents. This definition of a "natural born Citizen" is found in and has been confirmed by the following United States Supreme Court cases and other authorities:
1. Samuel von Pufendorf, The Whole Duty of Man According to the Laws of Nature (William Tooke trans., Ian Hunter & David Saunders, eds., Liberty Fund 2003, Book II, Chapter 6 (1691): "Citizens are either Originally so; that is, such as are born in the Place, and upon that Account claim their Privileges; Or else, Adscititious; that is, such as come from Foreign Parts. Of the first Sort, are either those who at first were present and concerned in the forming of the said Society, or their Descendants, who we call Indigenes, or Natives."
2. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (original French in 1758 and first English in 1759): "The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens". In the 1797 English edition, the translator replaced the word "indigenes" with "natural-born citizens." Hence, it read: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Hence, while the definition of a natural born citizen never changed in Vattel's texts, the term to express it was changed from "indigenes" to "natural-born citizens."
With many of the Founders being proficient in Latin, Greek, and French, they probably obtained the clause "natural born citizen" and its synonym, "native," from ancient Latin text which was also translated into English rather than from simply copying the clause "natural born subject" from the English common law and substituting the word "citizen" for "subject." That ancient text was found in Institutio Oratoria, by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (or Quintilian), published in Latin in the first century A.D. The Framers were well read in the Roman and Greek classics. Jefferson and other Founders had a love for Roman history and education. From the excellent research conducted by John Greschak, we learn the following: "In 1774, the phrase natural born citizen was used in an English translation (from the Latin) of the book Institutio Oratoria, by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (published in the first century A.D.); this was done in Chapter I of Book VIII. The phrase is found in the Latin text: Quare, si fieri, potest et verba omnia et vox huius alumnum urbis oleant, ut oratio Romana plane videatur, non civitate donata. Quintilianus, Institutio Oratoria, Book 1, Chapter VIII. There have been at least five different English translations of this work and this sentence. The first was by Guthrie in 1756. Since then, there have been translations by Patsall (1774), Watson (1856), Butler (1920-2) and Russell (2001)."http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm. Greschak found that Guthrie in 1756 used the word "native" when translating Quintilianus' reference to that Roman citizen who because of birth and family upbringing was expected to be most able to speak the pure Roman language. In referring to the same type of citizen, Patsall in 1774 translated the same sentence as: "Therefore, if possible, every word and the very tone of voice, should bespeak the natural born citizen of Rome, that the language may be purely Roman, and not so by a right different from birth and education" (emphasis supplied). Greschak states: "I do not claim that this is the first use of the phrase natural born citizen, but it is the earliest use of which I am aware." Id. "Alumnum" means "nourished, brought up; reared/fostered by; native, brought up locally." (Latin-English Dictionary 1.97FC). "Urbis" means city. Parentage, education, and upbringing made an "alumnum urbis oleant." Just being born in the city was not sufficient to meet the definition of the phrase. It was both birth in the locality and parental and institutional rearing and education from birth that produced the "natural born citizen."
Hence, Quintilianus' work which was translated from the Latin to the English provided the clause "natural born citizen" and the word "native" and the translators used the words interchangeably to mean the same thing. This fluctuation in translation explains why the Founders, too, used the words "native" and "natural born Citizen" synonymously.
Quintilianus also provides an explanation of how the Framers translated Vattel by taking his French words of "Les naturels, ou indigenes" or the same words translated into English as "natives or indigenes" and translated or converted them into "natural born Citizen" which is what they wrote into Article II. Being able to read and understand the definitions that Vattel gave to the clause "Les naturels, ou indigenes" (in French) and "The natives or indigenes" (in English), they realized that Vattel's clauses as written in either French or English were the equivalent to "native" or "natural born citizen" with which they were familiar from having found the clauses in ancient Latin text or its English translations that we saw above. The Founders would have been familiar with both "natural born citizen" and "native" from having seen the two expressions in these various English translations of the ancient Latin text. These English translations took the Latin clause "alumnum urbis oleant" and translated it into either "native" or "natural born citizen." Hence, it appears that the English translators believed that either "native" or "natural born citizen" captured the meaning of "alumnum urbis oleant." The Framers, applying their study and knowledge of natural law, would have equated Vattel's description of "Les naturals, ou indigenes" or "the natives or indigenes" found in Section 212, which was a citizen of true origin and therefore of the highest order with what Quintilanus called "alumnum orbis oleant," also considered by him to be a citizen of true Roman origin and of the highest order. In fact, during the constitutional debates the Framers also used both "natural born citizen" and "native" interchangeably, just as the English translators of the Latin term "alumnum orbis oleant" did. It would be highly coincidental that both the English translators of Quintilianus' Latin text and the Founders would have been using those two clauses interchangeably unless they were referring to the same concept, "alumnum orbis oleant." We know that the Framers chose "natural born Citizen" rather than "native." They then applied Vattel's definitions to the "natural born citizen" clause that they selected. It is also significant that the English translator of the 1797 English edition used "the natives, or natural-born citizens" in the place of "the natives, or indigenes." In making this change, this translator probably knew that the Founders used "natives" or "natural born Citizens" to represent the citizens of the highest order and whom Vattel called "Les naturels, ou indigenes," or what had been to date translated as "the natives, or indigenes."
3. The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814): Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, said: "Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says 'The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.'"
4. Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830): "If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country."
5. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): Justice Daniels concurring, cited and quoted from Vattel and The Law of Nations thus: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights." Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . ." It should be noted that Justice Daniel took out of Vattel's definition the reference to "fathers" and "father" and replaced it with "parents" and "person," respectively.
6. Rep. John Bingham, in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . " Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Session, 1291 (1866).
7. Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872): In explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," said that the clause "was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."
8. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875): "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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80. Minor did not cite Vattel but as can be seen the Court's definition of a "citizen" and a "natural born Citizen" are take directly out of Vattel's Section 212.
9. Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879): "[T]he offspring of free persons…follows the condition of the father, and the rule partus sequitur patrem prevails in determining their status. 1 Bouv. Inst., 198, § 502; 31 Barb. 486; 2 Bouv. Law Dict. 147; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U.S.] 242. This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen — as old as the common law, or even as the Roman civil law… No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any other civilized country. In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam, 31 Barb. 486, the court says: 'The universal maxim of [**17] the common law being partus sequitur patrem, it is sufficient for the application of this doctrine that the father should be a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother.' The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (page 101), says: 'As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.' Again, on page 102, Vattel says: 'By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.' This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case."
10. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884): "The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 306… [S]ubject to the jurisdiction thereof… is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance…. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized… Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations…. To be a citizen of the United States is a political privilege which no one, not born to, can assume without its consent in some form."
11. United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); "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."
12. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): It quoted the same definition of "natural born Citizen" as did Minor v. Happersett. It declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on United States soil to alien parents who were domiciled and legally residing in the United States and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a "citizen of the United States," It did not find him an Article II "natural born Citizen." Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent said that he would not have found Wong to be a "citizen of the United States" because his parents were not citizens. He also confirmed Vattel's definition of a "natural born Citizen."
The two citizen-parent requirement (not only just one parent) comes from the definition of a "natural born Citizen" referring to the child's parents in the plural. It also comes from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. Both parents must also be citizens in order for the child not to be born subject to any foreign power and therefore with any other conflicting allegiance or loyalty. Hence, given the Framers' use of the "natural born Citizen" clause, they required a would-be President to have both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens."
It is telling that of all the positions and offices the Framers provided for in the Constitution, only that of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) may be occupied only by a "natural born Citizen." They therefore believed that this singular and all-powerful office was more vulnerable to foreign influence than any other and they thereby sought to give it the most protection that they could. Minor said that there were doubts whether the children born in the United States to alien parents were "citizens." The Minor decision was decided in 1875 or 87 years after the Constitution was adopted and as Justice Waite explained in that decision our nation still had doubts on whether children born in the United States to alien parents were even citizens. If the Court had doubts about whether these children were "citizens," it surely had doubts whether they were "natural born Citizens." We cannot reasonably imagine that the Framers would have used a standard for a person to meet in order to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military which would have created doubts as to its meaning and which would therefore have put at risk the security and integrity of that critically important office. Surely, they would have relied on a definition that created no doubt which Minor explained was one that included that both the child be born in the country (or its equivalent) to citizen parents. Indeed, as Minor explained, such a standard created no doubt. It was through the "natural born Citizen" clause that the Framers sought to accomplish the goal of protecting the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military from foreign influence and of providing a definition of national citizenship which the nation would have no difficulty to understand.
Because "natural born Citizen" status requires unity of citizenship and allegiance, conditions which descend naturally to the child at the time of birth from the two events of birth in the United States and birth to United States citizen parents, this status provides a would-be President with the greatest degree of loyalty and allegiance to the United States, a quality that the Framers expected all Presidents and Chief Military Commanders born after the adoption of the Constitution to have. It is this high degree of loyalty and allegiance to the United States in a President and Military Commander in Chief of the Military that provides the nation and each of its citizens and residents with both the greatest confidence in the person holding that highest civil and military office and the greatest protection from enemies both foreign and domestic, or what John Jay in his letter of July 25, 1787, to then General Washington called "a strong check" on foreign influence invading our government. Wisdom shows that there is no sound national security or public policy reason why a Constitutional Republic such as the United States should demand anything less from a person who would aspire to the singular and all-powerful office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Because Obama was born 173 years after the Constitution was adopted, he cannot take advantage of Article II's now obsolete grandfather clause which would have allowed him to be eligible to be President if he could conclusively prove that he was a "citizen of the United States" (by conclusively proving he was born in Hawaii). Since he cannot utilize the grandfather clause, he must conclusively prove he is a "natural born Citizen" to be eligible to be President. But Obama's birth circumstances show that, even if he were born in Hawaii as he claims, he cannot satisfy his constitutional obligation under Article II. Obama's father, being born in the then-British colony of Kenya, was under the British Nationality Act 1948 a British subject/citizen and not a United States Citizen when Obama was born in 1961. Being here only temporarily on a student visa, he was not domiciled or permanently residing in the United States. Obama himself in 1961 by descent from his father was also born a British subject/citizen under that same 1948 Act. If Obama was born in Hawaii (a fact which he has yet to conclusively prove by presenting a contemporaneous birth certificate created in 1961 when he was born and not a Certification of Live Birth created in 2007 and posted on the internet in 2008), which would make him a dual citizen from birth of the United States and Great Britain, he could qualify as a "Citizen of the United States" under a liberal and questionable interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. But because his father was not a United States citizen when Obama was born, he was born subject to a foreign power which he inherited from his father. Being born subject to a foreign power like a naturalized citizen, he is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" and therefore is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the United States.
Tags: Obama Citizenship
President Obama is close to completing his socialist revolution. By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/05/the-united-socialist-states-of-america-40348471/
President Obama is close to completing his socialist revolution. Since coming to power last year, he has sought relentlessly to transform America. From his days as a student radical, Mr. Obama has been obsessed with smashing the traditional free-market system. Like most leftists, he thinks capitalism is the enemy.
"He was a Marxist-socialist in college," said John C. Drew, who knew Mr. Obama as a university student, in an interview. "He kept talking about the need to overthrow capitalism in favor of a working-class revolution."
One of Mr. Obama's favorite philosophers was Frantz Fanon, a post-colonial Marxist who championed Third World liberation movements. Fanon argued that the West - led by America - was based on racism, imperialism and the economic exploitation of the world's poor. The only remedy was authoritarian socialism and a massive redistribution of wealth from Western nations to developing countries.
Throughout his career, Mr. Obama has had radical associations. At Columbia University, while teaching constitutional law, he embraced postmodernist legal theory that maintains that the U.S. constitutional system presents an artificial veneer for liberty while actually advancing the economic interests of powerful white males. As a community organizer in Chicago, he studied and tried to mimic the activism of Saul Alinsky - a neo-Trotskyite who championed "permanent revolution." His longtime associates, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are supporters of Marxist liberation and share a deep hatred for the United States. They believe only fundamental, sweeping change can redeem America.
Rather than being a pragmatic centrist - as the mainstream media insists on portraying him - Mr. Obama is the very opposite: an ideologue who is pursuing his political project even at the risk of badly damaging the Democratic Party.
This explains his bizarre, almost reckless desire to ram Obamacare through Congress. The president has said he wants an "up-or-down vote" on his health care overhaul - preferably by the end of this month, before the Easter recess. In other words, he has given the green light to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, to use reconciliation, a parliamentary process designed to fast-track budgetary measures. Under these arcane rules, a simple majority in the Senate of 50 Democratic votes plus a tie-breaker from Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will be enough to pass health care reform. The filibuster will be rendered impotent.
This is unprecedented. Never in our history has reconciliation been used to pass a major piece of social legislation on a narrow partisan majority. Obamacare will overhaul nearly one-sixth of the U.S. economy. By contrast, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid passed with overwhelming bipartisan consensus. Contrary to popular myth, numerous Republicans endorsed the New Deal-Great Society welfare state. This is why repealing it has been so difficult (if not impossible).
The White House and its media allies claim that the 1996 welfare reform bill, the 1997 children's health insurance program and the 2001 Bush tax cuts were passed using reconciliation. This is misleading. Every one of these measures had strong Democratic support - especially in the Senate.
Mr. Obama is engaged in an abuse of power. He is thwarting the will of the majority of the American people who do not want socialized medicine. They rightly fear that the proposal's massive $1 trillion price tag will add to our skyrocketing national debt, which has brought us to the brink of ruin. They understand it will stifle medical innovation and reduce the quality of care, leading to rationing and longer waiting lines. It represents the greatest expansion of entitlement spending since the 1960s.
Moreover, Mr. Obama's actions are undermining the traditional system of checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers. The institutional role of the Senate is to serve as a bulwark against raw majority rule. By circumventing the filibuster, Mr. Obama is not only thumbing his nose at the voters - including those in Massachusetts who elected Republican Sen. Scott Brown - but the very constitutional safeguards meant to prevent this kind of usurpation of power.
His proposal seeks to create a centrally planned medical economy that will erect a gigantic government bureaucracy based on massive taxes, subsidies and regulations. Mr. Obama is willing to sacrifice his party's political fortunes in November - and even his own re-election in 2012 - because he understands one fundamental fact: Nationalized health care is the heart of cradle-to-grave statism. No country that has ever embraced socialized medicine - Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy - has ever been able to regain economic freedom.
This is not because government-run health care is so effective or beloved; rather, it fosters a debilitating spirit of dependency that is fatal to a self-governing people. In short, it kills the self-reliance and individualism critical to a free-market democracy.
For Mr. Obama, that is precisely the point. Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution, laid out the Marxist blueprint that has been followed by the radical left since 1917. Lenin urged that any disaster should be exploited to "hasten the destruction ... of the capitalist class." The 2008 Great Recession brought Mr. Obama to power. He has been seizing this crisis in order to overthrow the old capitalist order.
Mr. Obama is relentlessly giving birth to a new nation: the United Socialist States of America - the U.S.S.A.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the daily radio host of the "Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from noon until 3 p.m.
Tags: OBAMA SOCIALIST
Obama has come plummeting down to earthBy Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Expose Obama
http://www.exposeobama.com/2010/03/05/barack-obama-super-hero-falls-to-earth/
Barack Obama: Super Hero Falls to Earth
By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Expose Obama
Obama has come plummeting down to earth
Barack Obama was feted by many as a messiah. His supporters compared him to Jesus.
He even equated himself to Superman, saying at a dinner that he had been "born on Krypton and sent here … to save the planet Earth." The remark was presented as a joke, but the effect of Obama's ego is no laughing matter.
Now, just over a year into his term, his legislative agenda lies in ruins. Despite poll after poll showing that Americans' main priority is jobs, the president has focused on taking over the U.S. healthcare system.
Observing the wreckage, noted political pundit Charlie Cook candidly told Politico, "I think choosing to take a Captain Ahab-like approach to healthcare — I'm going to push for this even in the worst downturn since the Great Depression — is roughly comparable to Bush's decision to go to war [in Iraq], It basically destroyed the first year of a presidency."
What a fall, from "Super Hero" to obsessed Captain Ahab chasing his great white whale.
To save his whale, Obama and his legislative allies Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are resorting to bare knuckled politics. The aptly named "nuclear option," a classic piece of legislative trickery involving the reconciliation fast-track, which he denounced while campaigning, has become his final option.
Rather than a white whale, we should call ObamaCare his white elephant. Even if it passes, most knowledgeable legal scholars believe it will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Matt Patterson, in an analysis prepared for the National Center for Public Policy Research, says the bill is unconstitutional for multiple reasons: "Both the House and Senate versions of ObamaCare contain penalty taxes on Americans who do not have government-approved health insurance, the so-called 'individual mandate.' Such a tax would function as a direct, or capitation, tax, as opposed to a tax on activity, such as excise or income taxes, and would therefore fall outside Congress' authority to tax income granted by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution."
The Constitution places strict restrictions on Congress' power to lay capitation taxes under Article I, Sec. 9, which reads "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Exemptions for some people built into the Senate bill's individual mandate tax would make it impossible for ObamaCare to meet this constitutional standard.
Patterson summarizes this way, "Some of the finest legal minds in the country have concluded that the enforcement provisions of ObamaCare's individual mandate would violate the both spirit and the letter of the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, President Obama and members of Congress think they are smarter than these scholars — and smarter than the authors of the Constitution."
The penalties for following Obama on his search for Moby Dick will be brutal for Democrats in Congress. With over 60 percent of Americans opposed to Obamacare the fall campaign could turn into a referendum on this unwise scheme. Senior citizens are understandably upset by the massive $400 Billion-plus cuts in Medicare mandated in the plan. Democrats are predicted to lose dozens of congressional seats, and they could even lose their Senate or House majorities.
Even if the Democrats don't lose their majorities, and the new Congress doesn't have the votes to repeal ObamaCare, the Supreme Court is likely to do the job. And they should; the bill isn't just unconstitutional, full of new taxes, too big and unmanageable — it is un-American.
Prosecuting Obama, drkate
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/prosecuting-obama/
Prosecuting Obama
©2010 drkate
When Obama is formally found ineligible for the Presidency, and is removed either through the 25th Amendment, impeachment, conviction in trial, or simple arrest, the charges he faces as the impostor-in-chief and as a private citizen are extremely serious. Even if he finishes his one and only term, the crimes he has committed will follow him the rest of his life.
And, it will not only be Obama who faces the wrath of justice, nor his various enablers. His IDEAS for this country–so representative of one hundred years of the reprehensible "progressive" assault on America– will be finally, once and for all, outed and stamped out.
Ft. Leavenworth Federal Prison
Obama's behavior, as well as that of Congress, is characterized by attacks on sovereignty of the Several States and provision of aid and comfort to our enemies…aka, 'treason'.
Obama could be charged right now for treason, usurping the Presidency, and a host of other actions were it not for the conspiracy of silence from the democrats, republicans, military, intelligence, and justice system. I believe the current government is so corrupt that everyone has something on everyone else, such that no one can say anything for fear of exposing their own nasty, unconstitutional, selfish, power-mongering illegal behavior and ill-gotten gains.
What Does Obama Know?
When the entire government allows a usurper into the White House, permits the takeover of the U.S. economy, and allows the inter-generational theft of money against all Constitutional provisions, something is going on. Somebody knows something, and it is extremely damaging.
We have considered in these pages the potential blackmail of Obama from foreign sources; but a picture is also beginning to emerge of domestic blackmail. Consider this: how could Bush, Cheney, Rice, the Clintons, Pelosi, Reid, and John McCain not know about Obama's radical past, ineligibility, and unseemly associates? Yet we heard crickets from all of them…a few hints from HRC but in the end even she was and has been silenced.
Given Obama's foreign policy mentor Brzeznski and his likely muslim brotherhood benefactors, Obama likely knows the CIA game being played out on the world stage in creating wars and events for the larger purpose of paying back benefactors and keeping the drugs, oil, and weapons flowing toward manufactured chaos. Does Obama know something about the causes, sponsors, set-up, and goals of the September 11, 2001 attack on America? Does Obama know who set up the economic terror attack of September 14, 2008?
His positions as a U.S. Senator, as a candidate for President of the United States, as pResident, and as private citizen after he is gone from the White House do not protect him or his enablers from Misprision of Felony, among other charges discussed below. U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 1, Section 4 provides that:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Similarly, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Alice Germond, and the DNC general counsel are not immune from prosecution under Title 18, as they did not disclose that Obama is not constitutionally eligible for the Presidency. And what about Eric Holder and all those Justice Department attorneys defending Obama against the people of the United States and the Constitution?
Other Criminal Liabilities
An excellent research memorandum written for Attorney Gary Kreep, of the U.S. Justice Foundation, identifies six (6) other criminal liabilities that will follow when Obama is found ineligible, which are listed below. Importantly, these same liabilities will follow Obama even if he manages to complete his term without being 'outed' as an imposter.
1. False Personation of Officer or Employee of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 912). "Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document,or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years,or both." The Supreme Court has upheld convictions for FalsePersonations in U.S. v. Lepowitch, (63 S.Ct. 914), and Lamar v. U.S., (36 S.Ct. 535).
2. Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud United States (18 U.S.C. 371). "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the UnitedStates, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for anypurpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
3. Activities Affecting Armed Forces During War (18 U.S.C. 2388(a)). Obama's claims to be an NBC in order to become Commander in Chief and then interferes by decision-making which favors our enemies
4.False Statement in Application and Use of Passport (18 U.S.C. 1542). Relating to Obama's multiple passports: diplomatic, British, Kenyan, and Indonesian. Obama hired the head of the firm that was responsible for the passport office break as an adviser.
5.False Personation of Citizen of the United States (18 U.S.C. 911). Falsely representing himself as a citizen of the United States.
6. Perjury (18 U.S.C. 1621). From the memorandum : "Mr. Obama has taken the oath of office of POTUS, in front of Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, in which he promises to "defend the Constitution". As an illegal alien, or even a non-natural born citizen, he would be acting as an ineligible President. Furthermore, as an attorney, and a former professor of Constitutional law, Barack Obama would have full knowledge of the requirements for an eligible candidate for the office of POTUS. This shows that he has willfully stated that he will and is acting contrary to his Presidential oath."
Combined, these charges represent more than 45 years in jail if convicted of all six. We all know that Obama thinks he can get away with this, and that is his war on America right now.
To convict on these crimes requires evidence of intent. Obama knows, or should know where he was born and his citizenship status. As a 'professor' of Constitutional law, he knows that the Presidency requires a natural born citizen, and thus knows he is not eligible. He has thus willfully–with intent– made false claims of his citizenship.
The Future looks Bleak for the Obama's
The incredible shrinking Obama, nothing but a string of lies held together by silly putty, faces a certain future of legal battles and significant jail time. This is no proud legacy to hand off to his children, imho, and it strikes me as child abuse.
What kind of man, creature, dissociated troubled soul would lie to Americans and America like Obama has? What kind of father would do this to his children?
A few pictures to ponder:
I think Alcatraz looks like a 'shovel ready' project worthy of stimulus monopoly money. Sure would be convenient to also house Pelosi there, she could feel more at home.
So there you have it: Leavenworth, Guantanamo, or Alcatraz. What is your preference for the anti-constitutionalists?
Tags: Prosecuting Obama