Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace

Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace

By Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.

The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a "natural born citizen" must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens. By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president. Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court.

The relevant Obama admission

At the official Obama campaign website – Fightthesmears.com – just below the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) – the following admission was also published:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children.
This was republished from a Factcheck.org, article which further stated:

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
The constitutional question presented is whether a person born with citizenship in and allegiance to a foreign nation can be considered a "natural born citizen" of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1.

The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual discusses problems associated with dual citizenship:

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:
(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

This helps explain why the definition of "natural born citizen" as one born in the nation to parents who are citizens makes perfect sense in that such a person will not be infected by dual-allegiance problems. If the parents are citizens, neither will confer allegiance to a foreign nation. Additionally, if one is born on soil foreign to the parents, that nation is likely to recognize the person as a citizen. Owing allegiance to more than one nation is an unnatural circumstance of citizenship.

While the Constitution requires representatives, senators and presidents to be citizens, Article II, Section 1, additionally requires that the president's citizenship be "natural born." A natural born citizen is not a higher level of citizen. "Natural born" simply describes a circumstance of citizenship.

There are multiple circumstances that create "citizens at birth." Some require a federal statute for citizenship while others rely on the 14th Amendment. Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to deem every person born in the United States a natural born citizen, they certainly could have included such plain, unequivocal language. But they didn't.

In 1790, the first Congress deemed all persons born of two United States citizen parents abroad to be "natural born citizens," but the words "natural born" were repealed in 1795. Congress never again legislated the definition of "natural born citizen," and no United States statute currently defines the term or even mentions it.

The citizenship of a person born in the United States to parents who are citizens is self-evident and has never required naturalization, a federal statute or an amendment, and the Supreme Court has indicated that such persons are the only citizens who satisfy the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1.

Origin of the natural born citizen clause

The strict constitutional requirements were enacted to exclude citizens for the sake of national security in safeguarding the office from inexperience and from persons who may not have sole allegiance. It appears the clause was first introduced for constitutional consideration in a letter from John Jay to George Washington dated July 25, 1787:

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Jay underlined "born" which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth. The "natural born" requirement renders irrelevant that a person – born to foreign or dual allegiance – may not have renewed his foreign citizenship upon reaching maturity. One is either eligible to be president at birth, or one will never be eligible.

An important historical definition of "natural born citizen" comes from a 1797 translation of the "Law of Nations," a 1758 text by Emerich de Vattel, which summarized that body of international law known also as the "Law of Nations":

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.

Note that a child of former aliens can be a natural born citizen under this standard if born in the United States to parents who were naturalized prior to the child's birth. That was made clear by the Supreme Court's opinion in Perkins v. Elg.

It appears from James Madison's notes of August 1787 that the delegates used the terms "native" and "natural born citizen" synonymously. Additionally, Ben Franklin stated that the framers frequently consulted Vattel's text. Also consider that Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the authority to "punish ... offenses against the Law of Nations."

In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Chief Justice John Marshall stated:

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. ..."
Chief Justice Marshall relied upon a pre-1797 edition of Vattel's text. The 1797 translation was adopted by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), where Chief Justice Waite stated:

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. ...
It's significant that this decision was issued six years after the 14th Amendment was enacted. As such, Minor illustrates that the 14th Amendment simply defines who is a citizen, not which citizens are natural born.

If Obama had run for president in 1874 – six years after the 14th Amendment went into effect – he wouldn't have been eligible since he doesn't fit the Minor Court's standard for a natural born citizen.

The strange case of Chester Arthur

The holding in Minor v. Happersett must have given Chester Arthur nightmares when he ran for vice president in 1880, six years after Minor. Arthur, a prominent New York lawyer, managed to conceal from public view that his father didn't become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after he was born. Therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth.

Arthur's deception in concealing this fact involved numerous lies to the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper concerning his father's heritage, immigration and age. He also quite famously burned most of his papers and lied about his own age.

Historical records bear witness that this issue was never discussed in relation to Chester Arthur's eligibility until recently. Helping to cloud the issue all these years was a famous conspiracy theory expounded by a New York lawyer named Arthur Hinman who alleged Chester Arthur was born in Canada and was therefore not eligible. This sensational and unfounded conspiracy theory took the spotlight and unfortunately provided a smokescreen to conceal the true eligibility defect.

Chester Arthur is the only president prior to Obama who – after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, expired – was not born in the United States of two citizen parents. As such, Obama supporters have sought to use Chester Arthur as precedent for justifying Obama's eligibility. Such reliance is unfounded because it wasn't known at the time Chester Arthur held office that he was born with dual nationality. That this was concealed from the general public is confirmed by two important law review articles.

In the September/October 1884 issue of The American Law Review, George C. Collins discussed the citizenship status of persons born on U.S. soil to foreign parents. In the concluding paragraph, Collins stated:

Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth.
It's ridiculous to imagine the sitting president wouldn't be mentioned when the article concerns the issue of whether a person born of an alien father is even a United States citizen.

Chester Arthur's true eligibility defect doesn't appear to have been mentioned in any historical record until December 2008 when it was exposed at my blog. Clearly, Chester Arthur's deception cannot serve to validate anyone's presidential eligibility. He got away with it, but that doesn't make it right.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In 1898, Justice Horace Gray wrote one of the most controversial opinions in Supreme Court history wherein a man born in the United States of Chinese alien parents was held to be a citizen. Wong Kim Ark is the precedent relied upon for the assertion that any person born on United States soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen. But that's not accurate. The holding in Wong Kim Ark appears to require for citizenship that a person be born on United States soil to parents who are permanently domiciled here. If the domicile requirement is upheld in future cases, anchor babies will no longer be assumed to be United States citizens.

Regardless, the holding in Wong Kim Ark did not state that such a citizen was "natural born." In fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he favorably discussed Minor v. Happersett:

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. ... 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. ..."
While the dissent feared the majority holding would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president, Justice Gray's restatement of the Minor Court's definition of a natural born citizen as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens stands in direct contrast to the dissent's fear.

A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, "NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT" (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):

If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, "no person, except a native-born citizen"; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase "native-born citizen" is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, "native citizen" should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.

The term "native born citizen" has been erroneously substituted for "natural born citizen" by numerous commentators. Mr. Morse correctly points out that the two are not synonymous. His article also proves once again that Chester Arthur's dual nationality was hidden from the public. There would have been no point in writing the article – which doesn't mention Chester Arthur – had the nation previously condoned a president born with dual allegiance.

The argument against Obama being eligible rests on multiple Supreme Court cases that define a "natural born citizen" as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens. This is not a political issue. It's a legal issue faced by a nation where nobody is supposed to be above the law. As such, it deserves judicial review.

[For the most comprehensive etymological deconstruction of the term "natural born Citizen," I strongly recommend, "What Is A Natural Born Citizen Of The United States?" by John Greschak.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leo Donofrio is an attorney with 20 years' experience. He is a partner in the law firm of Pidgeon & Donofrio and he authors the Natural Born Citizen blog.

.................................................................................

No only is obama not eligible to be president because he is not a "natural born citizen" this blog entry exposes the fact that he is hiding his true identity and is a FRAUD

Obama is an IMPOSTER promoted by the DNC

Obama can't prove he is a US citizen with any document that can be validated by a US citizen or court of law. Obama is in fact an undocumented alien that has been elected president. (Story Reports)

The short form "certification of live birth" obama claims as proof he is a US citizen cannot be validated because Hawaii and obama will not let any US citizen validate his "certification of live birth". Its a limited information document with nothing that can be verfied. Obama hides behind the state of Hawaii and its deception of his true identity.

Wasted Time With People Who Lie And Defend The Liar obama

People who believe obama are either deceived or are themselves like obama deceivers. Don't waste your time trying to convince them obama is a liar.
Brief History of the United States Citizen Militia

It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. … If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. --- Samuel Adams


Wasted Time With People Who Lie And Defend The Liar obama

Time for a reality check. There are people who will defend obama and not deny he is a liar. How do they do this? These people will counter with the argument that people who listen to Rush Limbaugh, for example, believe a liar.

They will not deny obama is a liar and also add that both republicans and democrates promise things and lie during campaigns. They say both republicans and democrates don't keep promises they make. They equate not keeping promises with not doing what was promised during a campaign. This a form of lying. Not only does obama not keep promises he makes but lies about what he will do and has done. Obama lies about what congress is doing. He only speaks in partial terms or vague, obscure and minimal ways. He uses key words to invoke emotions and hide the truth of his lies.

Obama supporters become surrogates for obama. They morph into liars just like obama. They transform themselves into the epitome of a liar and mimic obama.

My point is these people waste a sane person's valuable time. Don't waste anymore time with people who mimic their hero obama. Don't argue with them. Don't engage them. These people are not worth the energy expended to explain simple facts.

Instead work to explain real facts about the FRAUD obama to sane people who have not given themselves over literally to "the dark side". "The dark side" represents all who deny the truth and believe a lie.

These people are beyond hope. There are many who lack the knowledge of the truth about obama or ignore it. There are many who have been deceived by obama and the "state run media". Many people can be told the truth and then make up their own minds without the "state run media" obama uses to sell his lies to the public.

I confronted an individual today about obama and this was the result. He attempted to make an example out of Rush Limbaugh as a liar. I asked him, give me one example of a lie Rush has told. (Remember a mistake is not a lie if it is corrected and was done in honesty.) There was total silence. No response. No answer to my question. I was surprised. I expected him to say something Rush had said then corrected and then try to tell me this was a lie Rush had spoken. Obama does not make mistakes but lies on purpose. Seldom is there a correction unless he must because it is so obvious.

This is one way obama supporters operate. They can deny the truth. They can also ignore the truth and point to another individual as their example of a liar to hide the facts about obama.

As I said these people are not worth wasting any time on. Concentrate on people who live in reality. Work with people who still are able to think on their own.

There is hope. I won't waste my time anymore with people who believe and support the liar obama. Obama is not just an occasional liar. Obama is a lie manifested as somebody that everyone can trust and belive.

Obama was cross bred as a liar and deceiver. People who believe obama are either deceived or are themselves like obama deceivers. The blind leading the blind. Most of them are beyond hope.

Find free men and women who want to stay free and speak the truth to them. The truth will set you free but a lie will keep you in bondage. Obama supporters are in bondage to obama. They are in effect his "slaves". Obama purchased them with his deception and half truths or twisted truths.

Don't stay in bondage to obama. Break the chains of his lies and deceptions. Think for yourself. Research what obama does and says. Compare what he does and says with what happens. You will find obama is a con man and a FRAUD. If you check out what obama does and says with the truth of what really happens you will loose the chains of your bondgage.

Obama is a destroyer. A deceiver. A task master or slave owner.

.........................................................................................

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." -"Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." --Tench Coxe, 1788.

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, Liberty decreases." -- Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of the US (1743 - 1826)

Obama is a sick man and should be removed from office

This is a limited record of a habitual, shameless liar, a man who will say anything to get what he wants.

President Obama evidently believes that he can solve any problem with a speech. But he really does not care whether what he says is true or not, nor does he feel any responsibility to honor the assurances and promises he makes. As a result, this nation is now in a position where it cannot believe a word that he says, and that amounts to an unprecedented crisis of confidence in the Presidency. Democratic government will atrophy if we allow lying on this scale to count as the business as usual of politics.

(The point here is that obama will do or say anything to further his marxist communist agenda which is the total destruction of America as we know it. Obama has said he will transform and change America. Obama was saying he would enslave Americans and strip their freedoms away two ways. Some would be taken away slowly others faster but all opposition would be crushed under the heavy hand of the obama marxism sold to the public as "change" for their good. Obama is domestic enemy number one. A traitor to America and the enemy from within.) Story Reports

Barack Obama’s lies are far more corrosive and destructive, because they go to the heart of legislation and governance, and seriously undermine trust in government. His lies generally take a specific form: they attempt to persuade people to vote for him or his policies by categorically assuring them that they need not have the anxieties that they have been expressing. The lies say, essentially: trust me, support what I want, and I promise that what you fear will never happen. But in every case it soon becomes clear either that he knew perfectly well that what the public feared would in fact happen, or that he was giving a firm assurance that he was in no position to give, or that he had no intention of following through on his promise.

A short list of accumulated deciet by Obama’s is overwhelming:

* During his campaign for the presidency and since, Obama repeatedly assured us that he would protect Medicare against cuts; but he now presses for passage of bills that include savage cuts in Medicare.

* To obtain passage of his first stimulus bill, Obama assured us that 90% of the jobs created would be in the private sector; but as he well knew, most of them were to be in the public sector.

* Early in the health care debate, Obama assured us that he had not said that he favored a single payer system; but he was on record as having said exactly that.

* Obama gave primary voters a firm assurance that if he became the nominee of the Democratic party he would (unlike Hillary Clinton) abide by the campaign finance limits of public funding; but as soon as he became the party’s nominee, he reneged on that pledge.

* During the presidential campaign Obama criticized the presence of former lobbyists in the Bush administration and solemnly assured us that he would appoint no lobbyists to his administration; but once elected he proceeded to appoint even more lobbyists than his predecessors.

* Obama criticized the size of George Bush’s deficit and promised to stop deficit spending if elected; but he has already quadrupled the size of the deficit he objected to and recklessly continues new federal spending in the trillions.

* When campaigning Obama criticized bills before the congress that were too long for anyone to be able to read and promised to stop that; but the bills he has been backing throughout his first year are infinitely longer (2000+ pages) than the ones he criticized.

* Candidate Obama promised an end to the corruption of earmarks and pork, but in the bills he has supported this year there have been more and bigger earmarks than ever before.

* Candidate Obama promised us that CIA personnel involved in the interrogation of terrorists would not be prosecuted; but his administration is now doing exactly that.

* Obama assured a joint session of Congress that the health bill he supported (pre-Stupak) would not provide public funding for abortions; but bitter resistance on the part of House Democrats to inclusion of language to that effect soon proved that it did.

* Candidate Obama promised that he would make sure that there was always enough time for the public to read legislation before it was enacted; but he has done exactly the opposite, repeatedly pressing for even faster passage of even longer bills.

* Candidate Obama met fears that he would be a tax and spend liberal by promising, emphatically and repeatedly, that those earning under $200,000 would see no increase in their taxes of any kind; but he now urges passage of a healthcare bill that breaks that pledge in many different ways, and his unrestrained increase in federal spending makes more tax increases inevitable.

* Candidate Obama promised bipartisanship and an end to partisan bickering; but in a display of especially ruthless partisanship his allies have shut Republicans out of all key meetings on his health care initiative, with the unprecedented result that domestic legislation of historic importance garnered not a single Republican vote in the Senate.

* Candidate Obama criticized his opponent’s plan to tax employer paid healthcare benefits, and promised he would not tax them; but the bill he now backs will do just that.

* Obama had promised that he would not sign a healthcare bill that would add one dime to the federal deficit; but the bill he now backs adds trillions in new federal spending, offset only by new sources of revenue that are both uncertain and more properly seen as offsetting the already existing deficit.

* Obama coerced congress into passing his stimulus bill by promising that if it were passed unemployment could go no higher then 8%; but unemployment is now at 10%, and he could not possibly have had good reason to exclude that possibility.

* Obama promised that his cap and trade legislation will create jobs; but its massive tax increases will certainly hobble the economy and destroy jobs, while green jobs in significant numbers can at best be hoped for, but never promised.

* Obama has repeatedly assured the American people that if they like their current health plan they can keep it; but the House bill which he supported created huge incentives for employers to drop their coverage and shift their members to a public option.

* Obama has just as often assured the public that under his health plan everyone will be able to keep their current doctor; but many are certain to lose their doctors when ObamaCare’s large cuts in Medicare funding induce more doctors to withdraw from Medicare coverage, as they also would were employers to transfer patients to a public option to save money.

* Obama assured a joint session of Congress that his health plan would not fund illegal aliens; but his allies had been busy voting down amendments to that effect. (This was the point of Joe Wilson’s outburst.)

* Obama claimed that Caterpillar’s CEO had told him that Caterpillar would begin hiring again as a result of the stimulus bill; but that individual immediately announced that he had said no such thing, and that Caterpillar would in fact be laying off more workers.

* Candidate Obama promised that Guantanamo would be closed by January 1, 2010; but it is still open.

* Candidate Obama promised that his administration (unlike his predecessor’s) would be so transparent that TV cameras (C-Span) would be there for key deliberations; but an unprecedented level of secrecy prevails as the final stages of Obamacare are negotiated behind closed doors and kept so secret that even the Senate majority whip admitted that he had no idea what was going on. Requests for Obama to honor the promise of C-Span cameras are being ignored.

* To gain traction for his attempt to return a would-be socialist dictator in Honduras to power, Obama claimed that he had been overthrown in an illegal coup; but the congressional research service pointed out correctly that ex-President Zelaya had been removed for constitutionally sufficient cause by legal and constitutional means.

* Obama claims that he wants a public option only to increase choice and competition; but the House bill would clearly reduce choice both by squeezing unsubsidized private health plans out of the market, and by setting rigid conditions on acceptable plans that would narrow available options.

* Candidate Obama claimed that violent radical Bill Ayers was just another guy in his neighborhood; but the record shows that the two had worked closely together.

* Obama assured us that his stimulus bill would create or save a million jobs; but he was claiming as fact what could never have been more than a wild (and highly improbable) guess, and his more recent attempts to justify that guess have been fraudulent.

* Obama assured us that his health plan would never ration care, or “pull the plug” on grandma; but the legislation he backs sets up panels to make crucial decisions on when to withhold care, and it makes such deep cuts in Medicare that rationing is inevitable.

* Obama now assures us that health insurance premiums will not go up if ObamaCare becomes law, insisting indignantly that people who say this have not read the bill; but the legislation forces insurers to cover preexisting conditions, which will compel them to raise premiums substantially.

(Obama's lies go beyond irrational. Obama is irrational. He now knows his time is short. His season is about to come to a close with the nov 2010 elections. Obama must make his marxist moves now without regard to what Americans do or think. Obama I believe is mentally ill in addition to being a narcissist. I believe he has pathological narcissism and megalomania. Obama has an obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions. Obama is a sick man. He should be removed from office.) Story Reports

State revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat via the FCC regulating the internet

Red State:

Fcc chairman genachowski and the obama FCC are placing sensible cost-cutting and efficiency-gaining innovations in jeopardy with their talk of heavy-handed government regulation of the industry. The Internet has flourished since it came out from the thumb of government control when it was the ARPAnet, and became the free-wheeling marketplace it is today. Clearly, that scares people who want government to be in control of things.

And it’s total control they want, too. Because the second principle Genachowski asked for, “transparency,” doesn’t mean transparency of government. No, it means that the government is to claim the right to have access to every router in America, every switch, and every other piece of hardware that makes the Internet go. Public or Private, the FCC wants to be able to snoop on how it runs, to be able to control how it runs.

(This is the State revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, lower class, as obama views Americans. The FCC wants control of even your personal home router. To control how it runs. To control what you read and hear. To control the population. To turn American into a police state.) Story Reports

Does that scare you? It should. When you connect to the Internet, your home computer network (even if it’s just one computer) is now on the Internet. The Internet is not like a public road. It’s a vast series of private networks, all connected together. Government wants control over the whole ball of yarn, how everyone configures and runs their own private computers routing the packets of the Internet.

That control will have one immediate impact: The FCC will be picking winners and losers on the Internet, which is why Google is 100% behind this effort. Google will be a winner, thanks in no small part to its close ties with the Obama administration through Google CEO and Obama advisor Eric Schmidt, while those who invest in the capital of the Internet, the wires that criss-cross the country and the planet, will lose. If you look at any of the literature put out by the pro-Net Neutrality forces, you’ll see plenty of villification of ISPs, AT&T in particular.

The hope of the Net Neutrality left is that you’ll forget that today’s AT&T isn’t the huge monopolist of old, big and hated by many Americans. No, that AT&T is gone, and what is now called AT&T is actually the scrappy little Cingular, a company comparable in market capitalization to Internet firms like Google and Microsoft (and in fact Cingular/AT&T’s a bit smaller).

Of course, such class warfare is old hat to a little left-wing organization called "Free Press". Co-founded by a man named Robert McChesney, the organization I believe is best expressed as neo-Marxist. While the original Marxists wanted control of the means of production of goods, today the groups like Free Press want the state to control the means of production of information, as ours is increasing an information-driven economy.

(Remember obama is a MARXIST and wants to control all information through government regulation to regulate and kill any objection to his rule over America.) Story Reports

"Free Press" traditionally has sought tight state controls over television and radio, but now they have turned their attention to the Internet. They even have a front group for that purpose, called Save the Internet.

(These marxists groups work hand in sickle with obama to rape Americans freedoms. Obama uses these front groups and supports them as they support him. Obama wants to kill free speech on the internet and every where else he possibly can. He must do this so his propaganda will be majority of what we hear or read. Obama can't kill the messege but he can kill the messenger and the message of the free internet.) Story Reports

Save the Internet is innocuous looking at first. They take full advantage both major deceptions of the Net Neutrality movement. First, they make you think this is all a harmless little bit of technocracy, and not a power grab. In fact they’ve used that to trick some rightys into thinking that without Net Neutrality, ISPs might censor content. In fact it’s just the opposite: It’s only if Net Neutrality comes into effect that the censors of the left will even have the power to control the Internet.

Phase one, Net Neutrality, includes no plans to regulate content, just routing. But just as the FCC regulates content on television and radio, most famously in the case of the Janet Jackson Super Bowl show, so too will it be able to regulate content on the Internet should Net Neutrality be the law of the land.

The fight has already begun to prevent it, though. Comcast has taken the FCC to court, arguing that the FCC’s current reaches into Internet regulation go beyond the statutory powers the FCC has been granted. In fact, those who watch this industry closely tell me that the federal courts at this point are almost sure to rule in Comcast’s favor.

Genachowski has a plan though. It’s one you may have heard of before: Deem and pass. The backup plan the FCC has, in the event that the courts rule that the FCC no longer has the authority to regulate information services on the Internet, is to deem that ISPs are no longer information providers, and then re-pass the same regulations that the courts just threw out, then pass Net Neutrality on top of that. Once that happens, the government will be taking over another sixth of the economy.

Verizon is taking a leading role against the new deem and pass (demonpass?), and AT&T agrees, calling upon the Congress to take up these issues rather than leaving the FCC to expand beyond its legal bounds to do these things on its own. Of course, Democrats lack the votes for Net Neutrality, so it’s easy to see why nothing’s happened on that front.

We have to stop it, though. If ISPs are hindered, then the very foundation of the Internet will be hindered. The Internet’s backbone must continue to grow and to innovate as needed to withstand the ever-growing traffic burden we put on it, and no regulatory framework can keep up with how fast the Internet is changing. The market and competition will stamp out any hostile behavior faster than the government ever could, and without even any distortions or government-chosen winners and losers.

In particular, the coming wave of wireless, high-speed Internet access is going to rock the foundations of the broadband market. Sprint is already deploying its 4G WiMax network. When AT&T and Verizon counter with their 4G LTE networks, cable and DSL Internet will feel unprecedented pressure to deliver the best service to their customers for the lowest price. Unfettered technological advancement will save the day, not government.

As Reagan put it, “government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”

(Its more than just a problem now. Its all of Americans freedoms at stake. Obama will do anything to limit free speech. Anything. The FRAUD must be stopped at all cost. We as Americans are in a life and death struggle for our freedoms with the marxist obama. This is reality.) Story Reports

Ultimately, the goal of neo-Marxists like McChesney and Free Press is to have Single Payer Internet, with all the central government control and lack of freedom that the comparison with Single Payer Socialized Medicine would imply. Just as the “Public Option” for medicine was described as a “right” by the Democrats, so too do the Free Press people want Internet access to be a “right,” owned, operated, and controlled by the government. The UK has its doctors and hospitals controlled by the National Health Service, and McChesney would have our Internet under the control of a National Internet Service.

Phase 1 of Single Payer Internet is Net Neutrality, which establishes the baseline of FCC authority over the Internet. Phase 2 is the National Broadband Plan. To continue the Obamacare comparison, the goal of the Plan is to get “universal coverage.” Even if you live in the middle of nowhere, in a place that’s far too expensive to wire up, even though the technology is right around the corner for wireless Internet to come at high speed, the FCC neo-Marxists want to say everyone has a right to wired Internet access. And guess what will pay for it?

That’s right, you and I will pay for it with new taxes. For phones we already pay a “universal service” tax. The FCC wants to expand that to high speed Internet connections, thus, an Internet Tax. This is a tax that would never see a single Congressional vote, because the FCC would apply it all on its own with the authority vested in it by deem-and-pass Net Neutrality.

On top of that, prices will go up if the National Broadband Plan becomes reality. Your Internet bill at home could go up 25%.

And again, innovation will suffer further. Once the FCC starts dictating control over even the set top boxes your cable providers hand out to you, and after they’ve already taken control over routing on the Internet, truly there will be few or no ways for Internet service to get better in America without a game of Mother May I. Just think: In 10 years maybe even Iraq would have better Internet access than we’d have, should all this come about.

Of course, just as with Net Neutrality’s two big lies, the National Broadband Plan has a big lie behind it. Namely, the claim is that America “lags behind” the rest of the world in high-speed Internet access, and the problem is that there isn’t enough government involved yet. Once you stop laughing when given this argument, ask the neo-Marxist questioning you to adjust the broadband statistics for demographics and geography. Countries like Japan and the Netherlands have better Internet access per person not because their governments are working better, but because they are smaller, more densely populated countries. America will always have a different profile of Internet access as long as Americans are free to live anywhere we want on the fruited plain, whether in an apartment in a big city, on a farm on the plain, or in a cabin in the mountains.

(This is the type of information obama uses and tells Americans. It is a combination of half truth and lie. Obama cannot tell Americans the truth. The truth is not in him. Obama is just a marxist liar. Nothing more nothing less) Story Reports

It’s the same reason that American Internet access varies from Europe and Asia, that our need for the automobile varies from the rest of the world. We’re spread out, and we value our freedom to be spread out. And just as you can’t run public transit to every little suburb and rural area, so too can’t you immediately and cheaply get the best Internet access out to everyone at the same time. Higher costs, delayed implementations. These are facts of geography, and no amount of FCC regulation can fix that.

(Obama will tell you though this is possible and this is needed. It is like a "crisis" he creates to grab more control of your freedoms while telling you its all for your own good. Obama is poison. Obama is death to America. Obama is similar to rohm E. in that he is evil and they could be twins. Sons of the devils spawn or worse.) Story Reports

It’s harder to fight an unelected, unaccountable regulatory agency than it is a congressional action, but we can try. We’re the people and we will be heard.

(An elected and unaccountable congress is hard to fight also. It is obvious that this is what we are also fighting.) Story Reports

The FRAUD and LIAR obama appoints craig becker to the National Labor Relations Board

The FRAUD and LIAR obama appoints craig becker to the National Labor Relations Board while Congress is in recess.

The FRAUD obama said:

"The United States Senate has the responsibility to approve or disapprove of my nominees. But if, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis," he said in a written statement.

This is again a total lie.

All 41 Senate Republicans wrote Obama this week urging him not to use a recess appointment for Becker, a former top lawyer with Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO, whose nomination was rejected by the Senate last month, 52-43.

Becker's nomination was rejected by the senate 52 to 43. The republicans don't have the majority in the senate. It was republicans and democrates that rejected becker's nomination.

Obama is ruling against the will of the people. Becker's appointment is not in the interest of the American people it only in obama's interest to get another communist/socialist in the government.

"This recess appointment disregards the Senate's bipartisan rejection of Craig Becker's nomination to the NLRB," Chamber Vice President Randel Johnson said in a written statement.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also wrote Obama on behalf of 20 business groups that opposed Becker's nomination and decried the recess appointment.

"Overriding the will of the Senate and providing this special interest payback contradicts the president's claim to change the tone in Washington," he said. "The business community should be on red alert for radical changes that could significantly impair the ability of America's job creators to compete."

20 Ways Obamacare Will Increase Taxes On Individuals and Corporations

"Obamacare" will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. It is the grimreaper's desire for you to have obamacare.

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

Obamacare

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

(This will drive insurance companies out of business. It will cause insurance companies to be insolvent as the federal government. If an insurance company tries to raise the premium cost to cover their increase costs obama will deem the request “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and it will be denied. (Section 1003).

Many people will not own a policy until they get ill because of this provision. Its like waiting to buy auto insurance until after you have an accident because the insurance company must insure you for any reason at any time. Obama again is destroying the economy by destroying insurance companies. Obama is a marxist who knows free enterprise must be destroyed before the communist/socialist controlled state takes over.) Story Reports

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

(This is a direct assault on the consumer and insurance company. The government has no Constitutional authority to tell you what policy you can purchase to help keep yourself healthy. Obama wants to make sure your not healthy by telling you what to like in a dictatorship.) Story Reports

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

(This also is designed to drive insurance costs up to the point insurance companies must fold. Obama is telling any aand all health insurance companies what they must do. Obama is also telling business they must purchase a specific policy that covers everything. The cost of this type of policy will be a burden on business. Business will pass this cost onto you and me. Obama is counting on you not to realize this. Also obama has decreed illegal aliens must also have obamacare at NO COST. The American taxpayer must pay for the premiums of illegal aliens!) Story Reports

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employees’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

(This is all designed to destroy insurance companies and it will.) Story Reports

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

(I wonder if obama has a "bronze" plan?) Story Reports

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

(Think what this will do to employers that don't offer insurance. Obama fines $750 to $3,000 dollars. If its just $750 that would amount to $37,500. If its $3,000. per employee that would amount to $150,000. An employer with 49 employees or less would not pay this fine. So an employer with 50 employees or over will possibly fire several to avoid the obamacare fine. This will be a loss of jobs because of obamacare. Remember obama is destroying the economy on purpose and employment will decrease because of obamacare. This is obama's way of causing employers to layoff or fire people.) Story Reports

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? . The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

(This is obamacare's way of keeping costs "low" by keeping premiums low and driving insurance companies out of business because they can't afford to insure people. Any business will fold if it can't increase costs as the cost of business increases. Obama has "insured" the cost to insurance companies will explode and insurance companies will not be able to contain cost increases nor raise premium cost to cover increased obamacare costs. Obama must first drive insurance companies out of business before the only healthcare available is obamacare. Obamacare is just an empty IOU to get in a cue or waiting line. It is an empty promise for healthcare. Obama's IOU is in fact a "death certificate" issued in advance.) Story Reports

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

(No only will this bill cause employers to fire people to avoid obama fines it will cause your pharmaceutical drug costs to go up. Pharmaceutical companys will raise their prices to pay this mandated fee or tax and you will help pay for obamacare in this way also. Yes you will pay for obamacare when going to the drug store. Obama is a FRAUD who wants to tax you and America out of existence!) Story Reports

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

(Again if you use or buy any kind of "medical device" you will share in the cost of this also because medical device makers will raise their prices to offset this new fee or tax from obama. Yes again you will be paying for obamacare in this way also!) Story Reports

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

(This will drive insurance companys out of business. These companies must be able to take in more than they pay out and obamacare does not allow this unless his panel allows this. Companies are not in business to "break even". If that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003) Obama will "deem" increases unreasonable.) Story Reports

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

(This is an additional hidden tax for Americans. Of course these people if self employed will pass their costs on to you just lik a corporation. This is an additional double tax. $5,000 or more. Tax tax and more tax. This also is a penalty that costs you more if you are married. Its like welfare that encourages non marriage. Also crack heads can now feel free to spawn as many illegitimate babies as the system can stand.) Story Reports

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

(Nany botox pelosi will pay more.)

(So you see obamacare will cost you the individual taxpayer much much more than you think, Much more. Obamacare wants to tax you into the grave! Obamacare is obama's way of softly killing you. Obama really is the grim reaper.) Story Reports

Black widow hiding her past

Why does Michelle Obama lie about her past?

Michelle Obama's father earned at least US$42600 (over US$150000 today) in the late 60's through the 1980's thanks to his well paid engineering job with Chicago Water, which he got both on his merits and through his connections to the Democratic Party's political bosses.

The first floor 4 bedroom apartment overlooking a tree filled garden she grew up in was on Euclid Avenue, Chicago an area of spacious classical red brick buildings in well maintained grounds is a far cry from the 'one bedroom tenement' she claims to have been raised in. Mrs. Obama's mother did not work but looked after her husband and home, providing all the comforts of a solid middle class upbringing. Sports, music lessons, chess, good schools--both the Robinson children went to a special 'magnet' school for gifted children, vacations were all normal in the Robinson household.

So why does Mrs. Obama disparage her father's achievements in providing such a good life style and giving her the best?

(She is a marxist just like obama. Both are poison to America.) Story Reports

Muslims Exempt From ObamaCare

Bowing towards the new mecca and the 12th imam obama?


Muslims and the 12th imam

(So then Obama is exempt? Yes but he and all of congress are exempt anyway. Obamacare does not apply to congress.)
...............................................
Muslims Exempt From ObamaCare Because it Violates Sharia Law?

The Senate health care bill just signed contains some exemptions to the "pay-or-play" mandate requiring purchase of Obamacare-approved health insurance or payment of a penalty fine. As Fox News has pointed out, for instance, the Amish are excused from the mandate:

The Amish are excused from the mandate

So while most Americans would be required to sign up with insurance companies or government insurance plans, the church would serve as something of an informal insurance plan for the Amish.

Law experts say that kind of exemption withstands scrutiny.

"Here the statute is going to say that people who are conscientiously opposed to paying for health insurance don't have to do it where the conscientious objection arises from religion," said Mark Tushnet a Harvard law professor. "And that's perfectly constitutional."

(Isn't this just beyond crazy. Obamacare violates the US Constitution in many ways but this law expert is citing the fact that certain people can "opt out" of obamacare if they are conscientiously opposed to paying for health insurance because their religion says health insurance is forbidden. Muslims can opt out for instance.

My instant "religion" says I am opposed to obmacare because it would violate my belief that government is not a religion unto itself and obama is not my master.) Story Reports

Apparently, this exemption will apply similarly to believers in Islam, which considers health insurance - and, for that matter, any form of risk insurance - to be haraam (forbidden).

According to a March 23 publicationon an authoritative Islamic Web site managed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, various fatwas (religious decrees) absolutely forbid Muslim participation in any sort of health care or other risk insurance.

(Wow this fatwa was just issued after obamacare was signed into law by the FRAUD obama. I think people should get some person to issue a fatwa that they are exempt from obamacare as obama's muslim brothers are. I need some other fatwas to be issued also like, not owing any taxes and not having to obtain any house or car insurance. Are muslims exempt from this also?) Story Reports

.........................................................................................

In this article, we have evidence that the Iranian leader is close to saying Obama is the return of their savior...the 12th Imam.

In this article, we have evidence that the Iranian leader is close to
saying Obama is the return of their savior...the 12th Imam. The
article confirms that the letter of praise sent to Obama for winning
the election (the 1st such US letter since the birth of their
country's government) was approved by Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i. The
article says that Khameneh'i recently said relations with the US may
not remain cut, in a speech to the Zoroastrians (the very fact that he
spoke to that crowd is worthy of another post...but I digress). The
article says...

"...Mr. Obama must realize the important significance of the decision,
meaning that the man who has sent him the message is not Mr. Ahmadi
Nezhad, but the leader, and therefore his reply must be addressed to
the right man: Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, the man who in the Iranian
system, takes all major domestic and foreign decisions."

Then, it says...

"Meantime, and while waiting for Mr. Obama taking the helms in
Washington, Mr. Ahmadi Nezhad has called on Iranian experts in economy
to 'draw plans for solving the world’s financial and economic crisis
based on Iranian indigenous methods' and urged Iranians to 'present
the Imam of the Rightfulness to the international public'."

First, he says to prepare plans for solving the WORLD'S financial and
economic crisis. Then, he ways such plans are meant to get ready for
the rule of the Imam...while waiting for Obama to take office.

The aricle concludes with...

"According to Shi’a Muslims, Mehdi, their twelfth imam who went into
hiding in a well in the city of Samarra, in Iraq, when he was eight
year-old some 1.400 years ago, would reemerge when the world is
saturated with sin, corruption and injustice. This is why Mr. Ahmadi
Nezhad, in true believer in the powers and mission of imam Mehdi, has,
with all members of his cabinet, pledged to him in writing to prepare
his reappearance, due to take place from a well in Jamkaran, near the
holy city of Qom, 150 kilometres south of the Capital and the cradle
of militant Shi’ism.

"His relationship with the Waiting imam is such that according to his
close aides, when he went for the first time to New York to address
the United Nations General Assembly three years ago, the hided messiah
visited him while delivering his speech.

'My new duty, our new duty is to present the imam of rightfulness to
the world, to the international community. We must try hard to make
the international public opinion to know and to listen to the message
of Mehdi', Mr. Ahmadi Nezhad insisted."

The Iranian leader just happen to meet the Hidden Imam at the UN
General Assembly in the USA. Does anyone know where Obama was on that
day?

Kenneth Clifton

Liberals manufacture a hate crime epidemics

(Many liberals will lie, cheat, steal, beat up, and even kill people to further their Liberal causes. Killing people includes killing the unborn also.) Story Reports

Liberals manufacture a hate crimes

Michelle Malkin

After years of covering racial hoaxes on college campuses and victim sob stories in the public arena, I’ve encountered countless opportunists who live by that demented mindset. At best, the fakers are desperately seeking 15 minutes of infamy. At worst, their aim is the criminalization of political dissent.

Upon decimating the deliberative process to hand President Obama a health care “reform” victory, unpopular Beltway Democrats and their media water-carriers now claim there’s a Tea Party epidemic of racism, harassment, and violence against them. On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a tepid, obligatory statement against smearing all conservatives as national security threats. But her lieutenants had already emptied their tar buckets. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen blamed Republican leaders of “stoking the flames.” Democrat House Whip James Clyburn accused the GOP of “aiding and abetting” what he called “terrorism.”

Yet, the claims that Tea Party activists shouted “nigger” at black House Democrats remain uncorroborated. The coffin reportedly left outside Missouri Democrat Rep. Russ Carnahan’s home was used in a prayer vigil by pro-life activists in St. Louis protesting the phony Demcare abortion funding ban in President Obama’s deal-cutting executive order. Videotape of a supposed intentional spitting incident targeting Missouri Democrat Rep. Emanuel Cleaver at the Capitol shows no such thing. Cleaver himself backed off the claim a few days later. He described his heckler to the Washington Post in more passive terms as “the man who allowed his saliva to hit my face.” Slovenliness = terrorism!

The FBI is now investigating the most serious allegation – that Tea Party activists in Virginia are somehow responsible for a cut gas line at the home of Democrat Rep. Tom Perriello’s brother. But instead of waiting for the outcome of that probe, liberal pundits have enshrined the claim as conclusive evidence of the Tea Party reign of terror.

Need more reasons to treat the latest Democrat hysteria with a grain of salt the size of their gargantuan health care bill? Remember:

*In November 2009, Kentucky Census worker Bill Sparkman was found dead in a secluded rural cemetery with the word “Fed” scrawled on his chest with a rope around his neck. The Atlantic Monthly, the Huffington Post, and liberal media hosts stampeded over themselves to blame Fox News, conservative blogs, Republicans, and right-wing radio. Federal, state, and local authorities discovered that Sparkman had killed himself and deliberately concocted a hate crime hoax as part of an insurance scam to benefit his surviving son.

*In mid-October 2008, news outlets from Scranton, Pa., to ABC News, to the Associated Press and MSNBC reported that someone at a Sarah Palin rally shouted “Kill him” when Barack Obama’s name was mentioned. In fact, the Secret Service (which was at the event in full force) couldn’t find a single person to corroborate the story – other than the local reporter for the Scranton Times-Tribune who made an international incident out of the claim. Agent Bill Slavoski “said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment,” the paper reported in a red-faced follow-up. Maybe the shouter is hiding with Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman’s real killer.

*In late October 2008, a gaggle of liberal blogs spread the rumor that a Republican supporter of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s had shouted that Barack Obama was “a nigger” during a campaign rally in Iowa. Video and first-hand accounts showed that the protester did not shout “he’s a nigger,” but “he’s a redistributor.” A lefty activist at the “progressive” Daily Kos blog confirmed the truth – but to this day, the crisis-manufacturing smear lies uncorrected and unretracted across the Internet.

*In September 2009, supporters of Colorado Democrat Rep. John Salazar falsely accused a town hall protester of hurling a death threat at the congressman. Liberal blogs again disseminated the angry Tea Party mob narrative. A week later, the local press quietly reported that Grand Junction police had investigated the incident – and determined the claim was “unfounded.” A police spokeswoman revealed that “[p]eople who witnessed the interaction between the man who made the complaint and the suspect confirmed they never heard any direct threats made regarding Congressman Salazar; the witnesses included a Grand Junction cop “in close proximity when the interaction took place.”

*In late August 2009, as lawmakers faced citizen revolts at health care town halls nationwide, the Colorado Democratic Party decried a vandalism attack at its Denver headquarters. A hammer-wielding thug smashed 11 windows and caused $11,000 in property damage. The perpetrator, Maurice Schwenkler, turned out to be a far Left nutball/transgender activist/single-payer anarchist who had worked for a SEIU-tied 527 group and canvassed for a Democrat candidate. Nevertheless, State Democrat Party chair Pat Waak continued to blame “people opposed to health care” for the attack.

Then, as now, being a Democrat Party official means never having to say you’re sorry for smearing conservative dissent.

(Many liberals will lie, cheat, steal, beat up, and even kill people to further their Liberal causes. Killing people includes killing the unborn also.) Story Reports

GOP can strangle 'Obamacare'

(The war on obamacare continues on three fronts. 20 states taking obama to court. Passing state laws forbidding obamacare to force Americans to buy gov insurance. Ammending state constitutions to outlaw obamacare. Obama is an outlaw of the federal government gone amuck.) Story Reports

GOP can strangle 'Obamacare'

wnd Story

Members of the Republican Party can, if they move into the majority in Congress this fall as many pundits are forecasting, put a stranglehold on "Obamacare," President Obama's nationalization of health care, simply by cutting off the dollars, according to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

In a Fox News interview on Sean Hannity's show, Gingrich discussed the thousands of pages of new law signed by Obama this week and what it means for America.

"My predictions is you're going to get a Republican Congress in 2010 in the election," the former House speaker said. "They're going to come in and they're going to refuse to fund any of these new offices.

"Then in 2012, you get a new president. And I think probably in February of 2013, they repeal the entire bill. Replace the good parts. Because there are some things – out of 2600 pages, there are probably 200 pages that are pretty good," he said.

Polls show a high level of opposition to Obama's plan among American people. One recent poll showed 49 percent believe it to be unconstitutional to require under penalty of law that consumers buy health insurance policies approved by the government.

Gingrich said the Obama campaign, however, is bigger than just health care, citing efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to take over the economy through regulation of emissions.

"I think the average American has two feelings. One, that on the thing that matters most right now which is the economy, this administration is just gone. Everything they're doing makes it worse, not better," Gingrich said.

"Two, that this administration wants to use power in the rawest possible way, almost like a Chicago machine to fundamentally change America. Even if the American people are opposed."

Citing approval ratings for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of 11 percent and Senate majority leader Harry Reid of 8 percent, Gingrich noted Richard Nixon's approval rating was in the 20-percent range when he resigned.

Gingrich also said there's an "outside chance" a lawsuit against "Obamacare" will be upheld in court.

"Based on a 1992 Supreme Court decision which said that the federal government cannot punish you for failure to do something, I think that there's an outside chance the suit will hold up. And that … will stop the individual mandate at the federal level," he said.

(I believe its much better than an "outside" change obamacare will be left in the "outhouse" of the Liberal cesspool where obama resides.) Story Reports