(Oct.30, 2009) — Dispite all his rancor and loony constitutional theories,Judge David O. Carter has failed to give final judgment in the caseBarnett vs. Obama, leaving the door open to further filings andproceedings.
Hisruling has not dismissed the case, but rather merely dismissedarguments presented so far. This is the interpretation had if youreadthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 and 58.
(b) Judgment on Multiple Claims orInvolving Multiple Parties.
When an action presents more thanone claim for relief—whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim —or when multiple parties areinvolved,the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, butfewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expresslydetermines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise,any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewerthan all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all theparties does not end the action as toany of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before theentry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’rights and liabilities.
Rule58 (a & b)readsas follows:
Everyjudgment and amended judgment must be set out in a separate document,but a separate document is not required for an order disposing of amotion:
(1)for judgment underRule50(b);
(2)to amend or make additional findings under Rule52(b);
(3)for attorney’s fees underRule54;
(4)for a new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment, underRule59; or
(5)for relief underRule60.
(b)Entering Judgment.(1)Without the Court’s Direction.
Subject to Rule54(b)andunless the court orders otherwise, the clerk must, without awaiting thecourt’s direction, promptly prepare, sign, and enter the judgment when:
(A)the jury returns a general verdict;
(B)the court awards only costs or a sum certain; or
(C) the court denies all relief.
Fromthis it can be seen that since the clerk has not yet added a Judgmentrecord to the Docket, that Carter is indicating, despite his heavyhandedness to the Plaintiffs, that he might allow a second amendedcomplaint, which includes a request for relief for the politicalcandidates, whom he acknowledged had standing, so long as their requestfor relief was redressable: such as a monetary reward howsoeversmall.
JudgeCarter has from 10 to 30 days after his ruling on the Motion to Dismissto add such a judgment dismissing the case with prejudice to the docket,otherwise he is formally indicatingthat he expectsDr.Orly Taitz, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, and Attorney Gary Kreep,for his plaintiffs,to submit a request to file asecond amended complaint. Indeed, without such rulingadded to the docket, the Plaintiffs can initiate such a request action.
The judge who was stringing along the Birther inquiry in the California case involving Attorney’s Kreep and Taitz, has just entered the dirty pineapple enclave of Obamanism Thirdworldness.
Judge Carter is a very bright justice and yet in all of this he has appeared being tainted by Mr. Obama associations to be nothing but 3rd World. For starters, Robert Bauer as this blog reported is married to Anita Dunn who works under David Axelrod as the pictures reveal quite intimately. Mr. Bauer is also Mr. Obama’s attorney who works for the international law firm, Perkins Coie.
The problem there starts in Judge Carter just hired a law clerk named Sid Velamoor who worked for Perkins Coie. In such a national case as this, Judge Carter is not that inept to have done this career ruining maneuver in hiring someone from a law firm who has had received most of the 2 million dollars Mr. Obama has spent on the Birther case.
This blog noted that something odd appeared to be going on, a feeling with Judge Carter, that it looks as if this was happening in Kenya, that it looked like a Judge with a stinking fish and was auctioning off to a high bidder in sometimes a Hillary Clinton was making pillow talk, and at other times, it was Bearick Obama. The end result is the appearance looks like the most powerful man in America forced Judge Carter to hire a clerk to write a decision throwing out Obama’s case, and the clerk worked for Obama’s personal attorney.
If one wants to visit the past, that would be like George W. Bush hiring Patrick Fitzgerald for Justice Department head of attorneys and having his case dismissed……….or exactly the literal case of Barack Hussein Obama being caught with Rahm Emanuel in buying a senate seat from Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whereby Blagojevich was arrested, but in being warned off, Mr. Obama later hired Patrick Fitzgerald for the head attorney’s job at justice.
This entire process now stinks from the head, gills and guts of this fish.
What makes the situation most unique is Judge Carter apparently thinks by all these appearances of impropriety that he can sound legal in writing this:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became president of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.”
Judge Carter dismisses the case, but then says the Courts should be hearing this case on the natural born Citizen Constitutional requirements. He then goes on to pass the buck on all future cases as Federal Constitutional Law that only Congress can remove a criminal in the White House sitting in the Oval Office.
The problem with this is, the Supreme Court hounded President Abraham Lincoln, Justice and Federal hounded President Nixon and Vice President Agnew, and there is that little precedent of 2000 when a United States Supreme Court legally awarded one George W. Bush the Presidency of the United States of America in an election.
Understand this people, what the Courts award, the Courts therefore have jurisdiction to take away.
Judge Carter is completely wrong in this and he knows fully well he is. He is buying time in this while America is placed in jeopardy, and he looks like a 3rd world Obama figure in what he has just done.
There is no one in the White House who is above the Law of America. Judge Carter has hinted that a person in the Oval Office has carte blanche to steal, rape, molest children and murder at length, with only the Congress being the body to remove said person. Congress has no penal system, so that is why Justice under Richard Nixon was going to prosecute him. This is why President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon as all Americans are under judicial jurisdiction.
As stated, Judge Carter knows all of this, and it is beneath his intelligence to put forth this simpleton ruling which sullies his calling as a United States Marine. He alone knows in that order, that specifically a President and any civilian in control of the Department of Defense as Commander in Chief, is also under the mandates of the Military Code, in a President can in fact face Court Martial, because he is a person of both civilian and military jurisdiction. In reference, a President or one in the Oval Office can pardon both civilian criminals and military criminals.
Therefore I have great sadness that Judge Carter considering his background has ruined himself over this as the tides of battle turn and what has Obama paving the way today, is someone like Andrew Jackson or Theodore Roosevelt unleashing the wheels of justice tomorrow in rooting out the treachery and treason against these United States of America.
America has ceased to exist as a Republican form of Government. It is not some socialist orb or even a communist clique anymore, all it is in the tarnished souls groping about at Obama midnight is a 3rd world despotry where kangaroo courts, deputy despots and Obamalings now rule not by law, but by fiction.
With such silence, the United States passed from existence to the grave.
.....But the Constitution which at
any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the
whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all....
......If in the opinion of the people
the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any
particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the
Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though
this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the
customary weapon by which free governments are
GEORGE WASHINGTON’S FAREWELL ADDRESS
TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
A Californiajudgehas dismissed a complaint challenging President Obama's eligibility to be president citing the "birth certificate from the state of Hawaii" that apparently refers to anInternetimage of a "Certification of Live Birth" released during Obama's campaign.
The ruling came this morning from Judge David Carterwho as WND reported last nightapparently recently hired a law clerk out of thelawfirm that has been paid nearly $1.7 million to defend Obama from such eligibility challenges.
AWikipedia pagehas been cited by dozens of bloggers after it listed Siddarth Velamoor as one of the newest law clerks for Carter – who today released his ruling dismissing the complaint in the Barnett v. Obama case in the Central District, Southern Division Court in Santa Ana, Calif.
With very few exceptions, for decades the inaptly named
With very few exceptions, for decades the inaptly named Nobel ‘Peace Prize‘ has been bestowed upon the anti-human amongst us; most notably terrorists andMarxists. This award has become a tool of the world’s leftist ruling-elite ranks to be given to those who are the most corrupt of us. Note: Leftists love dishonesty and those who get away with perpetrating it upon others. These are the beings they idolize. They view corruption and treachery as a pleasant and invigorating game of deceiving and ultimately destroying their fellows.
In the past, however, no matter how heinous were the deeds of the recipients (Yassar Arafat comes readily to mind), there were still some of those deeds by which the Nobel Committee could judge them. No more. With the advent of Barack Hussein Obama as the US’ dictator-in chief, the Nobel group decided to throw away any last vestiges of its substance and value to anyone by giving the award to the US presidential usurper. And Obama’s receipt of this once-but-long-ago valued prize was voted on a mere 11 days after he took office — before he had even begun the behaviors that would exhibit his atrocities. But, the NPP committee has indicated that this now-dubious “prize” was given to the dictator in order to encourage him to continue his suppressive promises and ways toward dismantling the United States of America in favor of a Marxist government. And in his first months of leading the country over a cliff and into an apparently almost bottomless pit, Obama has done precisely that. Foreign entities are now firmly in control of the USA. Note: In any sane society, this type of action — and those who perpetrate it — would be immediately stopped. But, tragically, the world’s liberals and leftists no longer maintain even a semblance of normalcy.
If the USA falls to Marxist oppression — and with all of Obama’s Marxist anti-human Czars seemingly replacing or at least mirroring cabinet positions and the leftist-run Congress now seizing their personal power over that of We-the-People it appears that it soon will — democracies and republics worldwide will fail and fall. The long bastion of freedom and hope — the United States of America — will no longer be in existence to fight for liberties and against the subjugation of tyrants waging wars against vulnerable countries. We have already seen it in the Obama Administration’s support of would-be dictator and former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya who is attempting to seize absolute control of Honduras. Dictators Barack Obama, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez all support Zelaya over the Honduran people and their legalConstitution. Birds of a feather, folks — birds of a feather. We are known by the company we keep and support.
So, all in all, Obama’s being awarded the NPP shouldn’t really come as a surprise. The Nobel “peace” prize continues to be awarded to those who bring iron-fisted control over their societies — not peace. But that’s what the ruling elite want — stable suppressed peoples so that these elite can do what they will without fear of reprisal. No matter how corrupt and perverse these elite become there will no longer be the strong and free society of the USA to stop them. This award’s recipient makes perfectly logical sense.
2009) — Moments ago, Commander Charles F. Kerchner, U.S. Naval Reserve (Ret.)
issued the following statement in response to Judge Jerome B. Simandle’s
dismissal of his case:
monarchy/federal government has now spoken, with the complicity of the Main
Stream Media and the major political parties and
their respective party leaders — but especially the Progressive Caucus
members of the DNC and their cohorts and sycophants and other Marxist supporters
of Obama — has now placed “We the People” in the proverbial Catch 22
the People it was up to the Courts. Now the Federal Court system which is
supposed to be the guardian of the Constitution tells the We the People it is up to the
Congress. And even worse, the federal court in my case just told the People that
as long as the Congress and the Executive Branch usurp and ignore the
Constitution in such a way as to injure all Citizens and everyone in this nation
equally, it is quite OK with them and they will not intervene to protect the
Constitution or We the People.
disgraceful point of view and decision!
for Obama or the DNC-led Congress to usurp the 1st
Amendment and 2nd Amendment rights of We the People? and then the
Courts will tell us that we were all injured equally so we have no standing to
redress it and we lose our freedom of speech and
our right to
unbearable to hear these words from the court. As the arguably greatest U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s word
said in the past, to not hear these constitutional questions is treason to the
We need to
throw everyone in the Congress out in 2010 who is enabling this travesty to
continue. And as to the Main Stream Media and the Courts, they should be ashamed
of themselves for what they are doing to this our Constitutional Republic and
We’ve lost a
skirmish or battle. Now on with the war in the higher courts! We are absolutely
going to appeal this disgraceful and cowardly decision by our federal trial court in NJ.
The Hon. Jerome B. Simandle of the Federal District Court in the District of New Jersey at 10:39 a.m., on October 21, 2009, filed his long-awaited opinion dismissing the Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. complaint/petition. In the complaint/petition, we allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. We also allege that even if he was so born, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was a British subject/citizen when Obama was born and Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen, all of which makes him ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We also allege that Congress violated it constitutional duty under the Twentieth Amendment to adequately investigate and confirm whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Judge Simandle ruled that the plaintiffs do not have Article III standing and that therefore the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered an “injury in fact.” It added that plaintiffs’ alleged injury is “only a generally available grievance about government” and “is one they share with all United States citizens.” Finally, it said that plaintiffs’ “motivations do not alter the nature of the injury alleged. . .”
By way of footnote, the Court said that even if the plaintiffs could show that the Court had Article III standing, they would not be able to show that the court should exercise jurisdiction because prudential standing concerns would prevent it from doing so.
Finally, the Court again in a footnote said that it cannot take jurisdiction of the issue of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and whether Congress has acted constitutionally in its confirmation of Obama for President because the matter is a “political question” which needs to be resolved by Congress. The Court said that there simply is no room for judicial review of political choices made by the Electoral College and the Congress when voting for and confirming the President. The Court added that the plaintiffs’ remedy against Congress may be achieved by voting at the polls.
It is important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama has conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. It is also important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Rather, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case because of jurisdiction and the political question doctrine without commenting on the underlying merits of whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Court also did not rule that the plaintiffs’ claims are frivolous. Given the nature of the Court's decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief.
As promised, plaintiffs will be filing an appeal of Judge Simandle’s decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
As very few of our Congressional elected officials—Democrats AND Republicans—are taking any actions or exhibiting any desire to stop the Obama Dictatorship and We-the-People are now being completely left out of any and all legislation that directly affects us, I can only surmise that we as the Nation of the United states of America may have reached the point of no return in our rapidly forced descent into totalitarianism.
From the anti-American and anti-human recently-passed Congressional bills, I have also concluded that—as these self-same elected officials no longer care what their constituents think—our attempts to stop the insanity of government officials summarily stripping us of our own money and our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties via peaceful means may have now come to an end. They haven’t worked. In actuality, even our September 1.7 millions-person-march on Washington D.C. in opposition to ObamaCare and Cap and Tax barely elicited yawns from both the Executive and Legislative branches of government—the ones the American people elected to office in the first place. Instead, delivering yet another slap to the faces of the American people, Obama skipped town that day to be fawned over by a hand-picked crowd of his supporters in Minnesota.
How did this dismantling occur? The beginnings of the Progressive/Communist/Marxist movement began in the US—in earnest—under Democrat President Woodrow Wilson and was expanded in the 1920s by ACLU founder Roger Nash Baldwin. There are many books and articles written about Baldwin—I’ve written a few also—so if you wish to research his or Wilson’s progressive and pro-communist backgrounds, I encourage you to do so. In this column, however, I will concentrate on more recent events leading to our demise.
The Beginnings of Recent Leftist Democrat Destructions
Established in 1977 under then leftist President Jimmy Carter, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was enacted to force banking institutions to provide loans to low income people—many of whom could not or simply did not pay the loans back. As well as being used as a liberal/leftist slush fund, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were utilized to finance the mortgages of low-income individuals who could not qualify to purchase a home under traditional 30-year fixed financing. So, ARMs (adjustable rate mortgages) were given to the unqualified buyer. Beginning with extremely low mortgage payments, the unqualified-under-any-sane-circumstances buyer “bought” his or her home. The problem—just as if it had been planned—came when the mortgage rates increased, balloon payments came due and the ARM buyers paycheck didn’t increase at the same rate as his mortgage payments did. The marginal buyers were in trouble and, then, so was the economy.
The Leftists’ intermediary move to better Ensure the Deal?
To top that off, on 15 September 2008—under two months prior to the US Presidential and General elections—a coordinated and as yet “culprits-unnamed” draw-down on money market accounts to the tune of $550Billions in under 2 hours (a run on the banks) was announced by the Federal Reserve. It quickly pumped $120Billions into the system, temporarily shut down the Reserve and announced if it had not done so, by 3:00 p.m. that same day $5.5Trillions would have been lost by the USA alone and the world economic system would have crashed and burned.
Hmmm. Was this run on the banks and potential destruction of the economic system a way to better ensure Obama would be installed as POTUS? I don’t know but, it was certainly highly “coincidental” wasn’t it? This bank-run caused President Bush—under the prodding of the Democrat-run Congress—to call for TARP or “Troubled Asset Relief Program“ to be instituted. Note: It appears that the economy was doing too well for the Left to take any more chances that their Marxist candidate wouldn’t win. So…the run on the banks was necessary. What a movie this will make. But, who will play Obama? Will Obama soon control the film industry—at least the small portion he doesn’t currently dominate?
Change You Can Believe in but, Are Not Allowed to Know
The US POTUS Candidate (who may or may not be a US citizen—“Don’t ask don’t tell” is Obama’s motto on his birth certificate issue) Barack Hussein Obama was chosen by US and World leftists as their representative to employ and conduct the fast, furious and final disintegration and desolation of the United States of America. And, Obama is conducting a brilliant campaign of doing so. In just a few short months Obama has brought the USA to its knees and terrorists everywhere to wild and unbridled applause. In just 9 months, Obama and his minions (including his Uber-Marxist Czars) has stolen more money (and continues to do so) from We-the-People than all other POTUS’ in history—combined. And he is redistributing it to his cronies and countries of choice—with a few bucks trickled down to the voting poor. Obama has vowed to shove his Cap and Tax and government-run ObamaCare down the throats of the American people. This is despite the facts that consistently the American people have polled in large majority against Cap and Trade (which will cause an energy-cost increase of between $2,000-4,000/year per family and eliminate millions more jobs), 80-85% of the American people polled have said they like their current healthcare insurance plans and do NOT want government-controlled healthcare (aka “public option&rdquo. Change has come folks. But, it no longer seems to be the change that those who voted for Obama thought it would include. And all of their “change” is now happening behind closed Democrat doors. We-the-People are neither invited to participate in our country’s business nor to make any more decisions regarding it. Our rulers have spoken—loudly.
The Real Mission of the World’s Left
In virtually everything they say and do, Obama, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate have made it crystal clear that they do not care what We-the-People want. They are now talking only amongst themselves and taking only their own counsel. They want control OVER us—purely and simply. And they’re gaining more and more of it each and every day. Cap and Trade (now called the “Climate Bill&rdquo will not help the climate. But, it will take more of the people’s assets and give them to the UN. Did you know that Obama is planning to cede what’s remaining of US sovereignty in December at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen? See the video and article below. If they don’t send chills down your spine nothing will. The signing this treaty will place the United Nations in charge of US energy policy. Did you know that? And leftist Democrats are now openly running as Republicans. One prime example is that of New York’s 23rd District Dierdre Scozzafava. Scozzafava is pro-abortion, pro-big labor, votes to raise taxes and is supported by leftist groups including the Working Families Party, which calls itself “New York’s liveliest and most progressive political party.” The real conservative running in this race is Doug Hoffman. To add insult to injury, Newt Gingrich is supporting the radical Scozzafava. Note: More suspicions confirmed about Newt?
The poorer and less educated countries become, the easier it is to control both said countries and their populations. And, with regards to ObamaCare, the fewer people in a country—the easier it is to control. Marxism is a feudal system, which incorporates the elite ruling class at the top and the soon-to-be-poor workers (aka proletariat) at the bottom working for the elites. The proletariat have nothing except that which their totalitarian government decides to “bestow” upon them. And the bestowing is not, by any stretch of the imagination, equal.
And from the 1963 Communist Goals for the USA (it took awhile but, Obama is now driving them through) are a few of the tactics used. The complete list can be accessed via the URL below:
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike. Sound familiar? It should. It’s what the leftist Congress and Dictator-in-Chief have been using as one of their guidelines since they were elected. And the endgame? It’s to control who can be controlled and terminate those who refuse. Simple process and to the point…don’t you think?
Sher Zieve is an author, political commentator, and staff writer for The New Media Alliance. Zieve’s op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massachusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Ms. Zieve is currently working on her first political book: “The Liberal’s Guide To Conservatives.” Sher can be reached at Sher_Zieve@yahoo.com
Sarah Palin weighs in on the Baucus bill for fascist come Marxist healthcare control. She does not fail to address Barack Obama and what we should characterize as his deceit and destructiveness.
by Gov. Sarah Palin, 10/17/2009, 10:57pm CT
Now that the Senate Finance Committee has approved its health care bill, it’s a good time to step back and take a look at the long term consequences should its provisions be enacted into law.
The bill prohibits insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and from charging sick people higher premiums.  It attempts to offset the costs this will impose on insurance companies by requiring everyone to purchase coverage, which in theory would expand the pool of paying policy holders.
However, the maximum fine for those who refuse to purchase health insurance is $750.  Even factoring in government subsidies, the cost of purchasing a plan is much more than $750. The result: many people, especially the young and healthy, will simply not buy coverage, choosing to pay the fine instead. They’ll wait until they’re sick to buy health insurance, confident in the knowledge that insurance companies can’t deny them coverage. Such a scenario is a perfect storm for increasing the cost of health care and creating an unsustainable mandate program.
Those driving this plan no doubt have good intentions, but good intentions aren’t enough. There were good intentions behind the drive to increase home ownership for lower-income Americans, but forcing financial institutions to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them had terrible unintended consequences. We all felt those consequences during the financial collapse last year. Unintended consequences always result from top-down big government plans like the current health care proposals, and we can’t afford to ignore that fact again.
Supposedly the Senate Finance bill will be paid for by cutting Medicare by nearly half a trillion dollars and by taxing the so-called “Cadillac” health care plans enjoyed by many union members. The plan will also impose heavy taxes on insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, and clinical labs.  The result of all of these taxes is clear. As Douglas Holtz-Eakin noted in the Wall Street Journal, these new taxes “will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums.”  Unfortunately, it will lead to lower wages too, as employees will have to sacrifice a greater percentage of their paychecks to cover these higher premiums.  In other words, if the Democrats succeed in overhauling health care, we’ll all bear the costs. The Senate Finance bill is effectively a middle class tax increase, and as Holtz-Eakin points out, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation those making less than $200,000 will be hit hardest. 
With our country’s debt and deficits growing at an alarming rate, many of us can’t help but wonder how we can afford a new trillion dollar entitlement program. The president has promised that he won’t sign a health care bill if it “adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.”  But his administration also promised that his nearly trillion dollar stimulus plan would keep the unemployment rate below 8%.  Last month, our employment rate was 9.8%, the highest it’s been in 26 years.  At first the current administration promised that the stimulus would save or create 3 to 4 million jobs.  Then they declared that it created 1 million jobs, but the stimulus reports released this week showed that a mere 30,083 jobs have been created, while nearly 3.4 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was passed.  Should we believe the administration’s claims about health care when their promises have proven so unreliable about the stimulus?
In January 2008, presidential candidate Obama promised not to negotiate behind closed doors with health care lobbyists. In fact, he committed to “broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are. Because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process. And overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists...”  However, last February, after serving only a few weeks in office, President Obama met privately at the White House with health care industry executives and lobbyists.  Yesterday, POLITICO reported that aides to President Obama and Democrat Senator Max Baucus met with corporate lobbyists in April to help “set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform.”  Needless to say, their negotiations were not broadcast on C-SPAN for the American people to see. Presidential candidate Obama also promised that he would not “sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.”  PolitiFact reports that this promise has already been broken three times by the current administration.  We can only hope that it won’t be broken again with health care reform.
All of this certainly gives the appearance of politics-as-usual in Washington with no change in sight.
Americans want health care reform because we want affordable health care. We don’t need subsidies or a public option. We don’t need a nationalized health care industry. We need to reduce health care costs. But the Senate Finance plan will dramatically increase those costs, all the while ignoring common sense cost-saving measures like tort reform. Though a Congressional Budget Office report confirmed that reforming medical malpractice and liability laws could save as much as $54 billion over the next ten years, tort reform is nowhere to be found in the Senate Finance bill. 
Here’s a novel idea. Instead of working contrary to the free market, let’s embrace the free market. Instead of going to war with certain private sector companies, let’s embrace real private-sector competition and allow consumers to purchase plans across state lines. Instead of taxing the so-called “Cadillac” plans that people get through their employers, let’s give individuals who purchase their own health care the same tax benefits we currently give employer-provided health care recipients. Instead of crippling Medicare, let’s reform it by providing recipients with vouchers so that they can purchase their own coverage. Now is the time to make your voices heard before it’s too late. If we don’t fight for the market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven reform plan that we deserve, we’ll be left with the disastrous unintended consequences of the plans currently being cooked up in Washington.
- Sarah Palin ---------------------------------------------
The health care bill that emerged from the
Senate Finance Committee this week will not pass the Senate in its current form
if Democrat leadership comply with procedural rules, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
told conservative bloggers on a conference call this morning. However, he
expects the Democrats to abuse the reconciliation process to get the legislation
Hatch’s extensive remarks were pointed and
sharply critical of the Senate Democrats’ health care plan and the “shell game”
he says they played in creating and passing the bill out of the Senate Finance
Democrats’ claims of bipartisanship on the
basis of Sen. Olympia Snowe’s (R-ME) sole Republican vote are a “joke,” Hatch
remarked, and he noted that if the opposition had worked with his party, they
could have had 70 or 80 votes when the bill landed on the Senate floor. In his
view, that bipartisan coalition of one may not hold
“I don’t know if [Sen. Snowe] is going to
stick with them,” he said. But if she doesn’t, “It
would be a tremendous defeat for them.”
And victory in health care is something
that Hatch says is crucial for Democrats this year.
“The [Obama] administration and Democrats
would be sorely hurt if they can’t pass some form of health care reform, and
they’re going to put the screws to every Democrat in Congress” to see that it
gets passed, Hatch said. Their motivation? A fear of losing seats in the next
election if members return to their districts without a
As to the nuts and bolts of the
legislation, Hatch was outright disgusted at the sheer cost of the legislation
and the Democrats’ obfuscation as to what its true cost will
We’re being asked to increase the deficit
by another $250 billion, at a time when Democrats have already tripled our
deficit to $1.4 trillion … Now they’re asking us to raise the debt ceiling. When
is this spending madness going to stop?
Hatch believes the Democrats have no idea
what impact the Baucus bill will have over the long term, that the director of
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) admits he has no idea what the impact on
health care premiums will be, and that the process is moving too fast for the
CBO to accurately peg the costs of the plan. Hatch says that the American people
“I want the full legislative bill, with
the full and final score, to be available to every American,” he said, because
the reforms affect every American and every business. “They’ve promised a new
era of open government; it’s time they live up to that
As to other problems with the bill, Hatch
believes a public option ultimately will be included in the final bill, but the
form it will take remains up in the air. He also sees the question of abortion
funding as being unresolved. Questions remain regarding the application of the
Hyde Amendment, a limitation that bars the use of federal funds to pay for
abortions, which must be renewed annually in order for the ban to remain in
What message should grassroots
conservatives take to the streets to halt the Democrats’ health care
They should be emphasizing too much
spending … It’s too much spending, too much government, too much taxes, and no
way to pay for it.
The Organizer-n-Chief is
so desperate to silence any and all debate on his plan to nationalize 1/7th of
the US economy by confiscating control of the US health and insurance industry,
that he has established a stool pigeon hot line on the White House web site,
calling for his rat fink minions to narc out their neighbors if they dare to
speak out against ObamaCare.
Hitler and Goebbels would
be proud of Obama’s firstname.lastname@example.org effort to track
and silence his political opponents… But American citizens are just plain pissed
off about it!
Organizer-n-Chief Orders Citizen Army to
In response to public
outcries against Obama’s rush into unbridled Marxism, the breaking point of
which appears to be his plan to capture federal control of the entire health and
health insurance industries, Obama is ordering his “civilian troops” to confront
dissenting voices, currently turning town hall propaganda meetings into TEA
Party revolts across the country.
When Obama grabbed federal
control of the banking and auto industries, the people were shocked to learn
what kinds of “change” Obama had in mind for their once-free republic. But as he
moves on an industry that not only represents 1/7th of the US economy, but a
matter of life and death for millions of Americans, the people decided to its
time to confront their representatives in a very personal
Thrown off balance by the
unexpected rude awakening of the normally silent sleeping public, Obama’s
henchmen immediately set up a direct snitch-line to the White House and ordered
its well organized and well funded citizen thug militia into the field of battle
at upcoming town hall meetings.
Within hours of White
House marching orders being issued to the Obama goon squad, the shouting turned
to shoving at several town hall meetings across the country. What did Obama
think would happen when his labor union and ACORN thugs arrived to confront
citizens already fed up with being ignored by their federal employees? -
Is Obama Intentionally Inciting
Obama’s “brown shirt”
effort to mobilize his labor union and ACORN thugs against his political
dissenters is likely to result in outright violence. Sooner or later, one of
Obama’s thugs is going to “get in the face” of the wrong angry citizen and when
that happens, the talking will end and the violence will
The career community
rabble-rouser said - “I want you to go out and get in their face!”
Leftist Democrats are
accusing average American citizens of “lying” about his health care plan. They
have labeled all honest dissenting Americans “right-wing crackpots” who are
engaged in “spreading lies” about Obamanations nationalization of America. And
he has ordered his citizen troops to “go out and get in their
What possible positive
result does he expect from that ill-advised maneuver?
Who’s Lying Here?
O-bots are telling the
people that Obama is not after a “single payer” socialized health care system,
and call all who say otherwise “liars.” But here’s a video of Obama himself
talking about his “single payer” Marxist ambitions, along with his Marxist
friends in congress...
There is NO debate over
the very real fact that health care is expensive in America, in part because
it’s the best health care anywhere in the world.
There’s also NO debate
over the fact that health care insurance is TOO expensive and TOO limited in
coverage. It has been that way ever since congressional Democrats led by Teddy
Kennedy, invented the HMO and became the paid-for prostitutes of the biggest
lobby in Washington DC today, trial lawyers.
But here are the two
BIGGEST lies in America today concerning health care, and they are being told by
Obama and congressional Democrats.
Federally run heath care
is not socialized medicine. But of course, it is! Obama run
socialized medicine is not only the best answer, but the only
Like every federally run
entitlement program in America today, Medicare is indeed going bust. Of course
EVERY federally run entitlement program, which already consumes more than 60% of
the entire federal budget, has either already gone bust, or is fast going
The notion that the
federal government is the answer to any problem in America is a gigantic lie
itself. The federal government is at the root of every problem in America today,
including the so-called “health care crisis.”
Americans can see the Lie
Contrary to the popular
belief held by leftist Washington elitists, Americans are NOT stupid, nor are
they incapable of managing their own lives, including their health care
Americans were born with
an ability to smell a leftist liar from miles away and they are sick and tired
of being lied to by Washington bureaucrats on both sides of the political aisle.
They have watched DC elitists bankrupt every thing they touch for decades and
they are fed up with the outright lie that the federal government is capable of
fixing anything in America.
Worse yet, they are fed up
with being handed the bill for Washington DC’s irresponsible spending habits and
they are ready to put a stop to it right here and right now. Nationalized health
care is the straw that broke the camel’s back and ended any form of civil
tolerance for blatant nonsense!
AARP on the Run
Obama pimps running AARP
have been bought and paid for by leftists, just like the labor movement and all
other special interest voting blocs.
For years, senior citizens
bought the notion that AARP was looking out for their best interests, believing
it was a senior citizen watchdog group allegedly looking out for the special
needs of Americas aging population.
But seniors have now
busted AARP executives pimping for Obama and his socialized medicine at the
expense of their very lives, and confronted by AARP members, AARP execs are
scrambling to publicly distance themselves from Obama’s health scare scam,
albeit yet another outright lie. AARP execs are in Obama’s hip pocket and that’s
where they will stay…
Congress isn’t reading the Bill, but
Citizens are forced to do
their own homework if they want any truth to what Washington DC is doing. Get
real! Obama won’t even disclose his birth, adoption, college or passport
records. You think he’ll be “transparent” in his efforts to replace the free
republic with a secular socialist global state, or his rush to grab 1/7th of the
Here’s a detailed list of
what Washington Democrats don’t want you to know about their plans for YOUR
Health Care Bill in Bullet
48 Important Things to
Know about Obama’s Healthcare Plan – no matter what your politics might be, you
had better read them very carefully! This is the TRUTH about ObamaCare!
Page 22: Mandates audits
of all employers that self-insure!
Page 29: Admission: your
health care will be rationed!
Page 30: A government
committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an
insurer, there will be no appeals process)
Page 42: The “Health
Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no
Page 50: All non-US
citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
Page 58: Every person
will be issued a National ID Health card.
Page 59: The federal
government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts
for electronic funds transfer.
Page 65: Taxpayers will
subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU,
UAW and ACORN)
Page 72: All private
healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare
Page 84: All private
healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total
government control of private plans)
Page 91: Government
mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
Page 95: The Government
will pay ACORN and AmeriCorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health
Page 102: Those eligible
for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
Page 124: No company can
sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” is permitted against
the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
Page 127: The AMA sold
doctors out: the government will set wages.
Page 145: An employer
MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
Page 126: Employers MUST
pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
Page 149: Any employer
with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an
8% tax on payroll
Page 150: Any employer
with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays
a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
Page 167: Any individual
who doesn’t have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be
taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 170: Any
NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for
Page 195: Officers and
employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American
financial and personal records.
Page 203: “The tax
imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it really says
Page 239: Bill will
reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.”
Page 241: Doctors: no
matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
Page 253: Government sets
value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc.
Page 265: Government
mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
Page 268: Government
regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
Page 272: Cancer
patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
Page 280: Hospitals will
be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
Page 298: Doctors: if you
treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you
will be penalized by the government.
Page 317: Doctors: you
are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
Page 318: Prohibition on
hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
Page 321: Hospital
expansion hinges on “community” input: in other words, yet another payoff for
Page 335: Government
mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing
Page 341: Government has
authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
Page 354: Government will
restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
Page 379: More
bureaucracy: Tele-health Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
Page 425: More
bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide,
Page 425: Government will
instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc.
Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
Page 425: Government
provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
Page 427: Government
mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your
Page 429: Advance Care
Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient’s health
deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the
Page 430: Government will
decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
Page 469: Community-based
Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
Page 472: Payments to
Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
Page 489: Government will
cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
Page 494: Government will
cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those
This list of real gems
covers less than HALF of the working bill being forced through congress by
left-wing dictatorial thugs. Citizens are reading the bill and taking notes.
Maybe Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats in congress should try
Grassroots vs. Obama Mob
The propaganda pumping out
of the White House about town hall dissenters being some well-organized and
lobbyist funded right-wing conspiracy is just plain bunk purely designed to
discredit the very real voice of dissent rising up across the
Republicans are so
fractured and divided, busy in-fighting over political issues today, that they
couldn’t successfully organize a neighborhood yard sale if their lives depended
on it and they had a whole year to do it…
Yet labor unions and ACORN
are the best community rabble-rousers in America, and combined, they make up the
vast lion’s share of the Obamanation constituency.
The Clash of Right vs. Might
The American citizens
currently taking a stand for freedom and liberty in health care are late to the
party, but they are RIGHT! Rather than listening to those voices of honest
dissent from taxpayers, Obamanation seeks to silence all dissent by labeling
these folks “racists” or “fascists” or “right-wing nuts.”
When those efforts only
further angered the crowds, Obama decided to challenge Right with
Instead of listening to
the half of the nation who voted against him and everything he stands for in a
true act of bi-partisan leadership, he start hurling insults, set up a direct
White House snitch-line, and ordered his rabble-rousing army into
It’s just another blatant
power and revenue grab by the Organizer-n-Chief and they are not above using
might to force it down the throats of American citizens desperately trying to
stop it by peaceful demonstration.
Push is coming to Shove
Obama, Pelosi and Reid
have made it clear, and O-bots across America agree. Thursday, the AFL-CIO
announced plans to mobilize labor activists to attend town hall meetings in 50
congressional districts this month to counter the conservative
As far as they are
concerned, they didn’t just win an election last year, they won the right to ram
anything they want down the throats of every American whether American citizens
like it or not.
Every policy passed in the
first six months of Obama rule, was passed without any effort towards
bi-partisan support. In fact, not a single bill has passed with bi-partisan
support and Democrats have made a game out of publicly thumbing their nose and
laughing at congressional Republicans who don’t have an ounce of power to stop
Answering right with might
only promises to escalate the tension as American taxpayers attempt to make
their voices heard in a political climate of outright heavy handed
In an emergency White
House strategy meeting called in response to growing public opposition to
Democrats Marxism, Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, said “any
advertising attack would be met with a bigger response.” – “If you get hit, we
will punch back twice as hard,” Messina told senators, according to two people
in the room.
“It’s a challenge, no
question about it, and you’ve got to get out there and make the case,” Sen.
Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said afterward. “This is not the time for the
Demonstrating a certain
Chicago thug mentality when heckled at a town hall styled Philadelphia, he Obama
immediately defaulted to – “If they bring a knife to the fight, - we bring a
gun.” He went on with, – “From what I understand, folks in Philly like a good
It’s nothing short of
Chicago styled thuggery and absolute federal fascism… They plan to take on the
American people in an all-out grudge match to the finish, just to force all
Americans to swallow their Marxist agenda no matter how many it
But I’m afraid that they
have grossly miscalculated their opponents - the average American citizens.
Typically happy to
silently go about their daily business of making a living and raising a family,
these folks are assumed by leftists to be ignorant, weak, disengaged and
disorganized. But they are organizing, and they are engaging the enemy, and
unlike members of congress too lazy or ignorant to read the legislation before
voting on it, citizens are demonstrating that they are none of these things, the
least of which, weak!
When Obama’s might runs
head-on into the American right in the coming days, the left is going to learn a
very valuable lesson about American citizens….
We are the most patient,
tolerant and generous people on earth, up to a point.
Now that Obamanation and
his leftist press has pushed the nation beyond that point, I am reminded of a
Thomas Jefferson quote that seems to fit the occasion…
“As our enemies have found
we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight
like men also.”
Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense
commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He
is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB Williams’
website is jb-williams.com/
With too little notice in the liberal
press and too little public debate, President Obama last week put America on the
fast track to socialized medicine with the goal of having legislation passed by
Congress before the end of summer.
At issue is whether America will continue
to have a largely free-market-oriented health-care system or a government-run
system where politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., make the most
fundamental decisions about how we enter life, how we leave it and how we are
cared for when we are ill.
If Obama prevails, people who have so
little respect for human life and private property that they approve of
tax-funded abortion and tax-funded killing of human embryos will be empowered to
decide who gets what tax-funded medical care and when.
Our health care will belong to the
government just as surely as General Motors does.
Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski of
Maryland attended a meeting Obama held last Tuesday with members of the Senate
Finance and Health committees, which have oversight of the health care
legislation Obama seeks. She emerged with a message from the Great Nationalizer
"He wants the bill through the Senate and
the House before the August recess so we can conference and have it done in
September and signed in October," Mikulski told Congressional Quarterly Today.
"He said we needed to be unflinching and unflagging." That same day, Obama
released a follow-up letter he sent to Sens. Max Baucus (D.-Mont.) and Ted
Kennedy (D.-Mass.) chairmen of the two committees.
The Great Nationalizer made two crucial
points in this letter: He urged creation of a government-run health insurance
company and accepted the idea -- which he claimed to oppose during his
presidential campaign -- that the federal government should require all
Americans to buy health insurance.
"I strongly believe that Americans should
have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private
plans," wrote Obama. "This will give them a better range of choices, make the
health care market more competitive and keep insurance companies honest."
"I understand the committees are moving
towards a principle of shared responsibility -- making every American
responsible for having health insurance coverage, and asking that employers
share in the cost," he said.
If Obama and congressional liberals have
their way, two of the three elements of a fully socialized health care system
will be locked into law before Thanksgiving. The government will own a
health-insurance company, and the government will require you to buy health
insurance. The only thing Obama and congressional liberals won't formally
require -- this year -- is that you buy your government-mandated insurance from
the government-owned company.
You will be "free" to buy private
insurance. And this will facilitate the big lie Obama and the liberals will tell
all summer long with constant help from the liberal press: We aren't
nationalizing the health care system. This isn't socialized medicine. But
government-owned health insurance will quickly become an offer you can't refuse.
If Obama gets what he wants, private
health insurance companies will be thrown into competition with an entity that
can draw on the entire taxing-and-borrowing power of the federal government to
subsidize its product.
Employers faced with the choice of buying
the more expensive private insurance or the subsidized government product will
obviously gravitate toward the government plan. This will be especially true of
large, public-stock companies run by remote corporate managers whose personal
interest in profit may not be mitigated by any moral or sentimental
consideration for their workers, most of whom they have never met.
If Obama prevails in the health care
debate, the last surviving customers of the last surviving private
health-insurance companies will be old-time American capitalists --
entrepreneurs who own their own companies, actually know and care about their
employees, and see money not as an end in itself but as an instrument to be used
in the pursuit a higher good.
The coup de grace for these old-time
American individualists -- the type of people who built our country, made it
wealthy and kept it free -- is already being calculated in the White House and
on Capitol Hill, where they are talking about diminishing the tax exemption for
the insurance premiums paid by corporations.
Obama and congressional liberals will
demonize successful American entrepreneurs riding outside the socialist system
as "rich" people whose "corporate" wealth can be tapped by eliminating their
insurance "tax break" to pay for the government insurance of the less
Big business, having already dumped its
workers onto the government insurance rolls, will crawl into bed with big
government. Your liberty will be crushed as these behemoths embrace.
Socialized medicine must be stopped this
summer -- or not at all.
Congressional advocates of the latest health care reform proposal claim that it will not cost ordinary Americans more--the costs will be borne by "the rich" and by employers. After all, both the House and the Senate versions require employers who do not provide health benefits to pay higher taxes.
But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently reported what economists have long known: Regardless of who is formally required to pay, the burden of these taxes and costs will ultimately fall primarily on employees through lower wages. An employer mandate does not give workers without health insurance something for nothing but rather forces them to purchase it out of their wages whether they like it or not--and no matter how low those wages are. Congressional rhetoric to the contrary, much of the burden of paying for an employer mandate will fall on ordinary Americans, and lower-income workers will be hit the hardest.
Both the House and Senate drafts of health care reform include so-called "employer mandates" or "pay or play" provisions. These mandates require employers to pay higher taxes if (a) they do not offer health insurance, or (b) they offer it but have employees who decline it and instead use the government system.
The Senate version requires employers to pay $750 a year for each full-time employee without health coverage. The House version goes further, requiring most employers who do not provide health benefits (or whose employees decline it) to pay a penalty of 8 percent of their payroll. It has even been proposed that employers whose employees enroll in Medicaid may be required to pay this tax.
The ostensible purpose of such a tax penalty is to discourage employers from dropping workers onto the taxpayer-subsidized government plan. The tax will pay a portion of the public's costs when employees use the new government system instead of employer-sponsored insurance. However, the actual result will be lower pay and job losses, especially for low-income workers.
Costs Paid by Employees, Not Employers
Advocates of an employer mandate claim that employers and "the rich" will bear the burden of health coverage. However, the CBO recently reported that ordinary workers--not their employers--will ultimately bear the full cost of any reforms that make health insurance more expensive for employers.
Although workers do not physically write a check for their health benefits, their employers write a smaller check to them every payday. Workers pay for health benefits through lower wages. As the CBO explains:
Although employers directly pay most of the costs of their workers' health insurance, the available evidence indicates that active workers--as a group--ultimately bear those costs. Employers' payments for health insurance are one form of compensation, along with wages, pension contributions, and other benefits. Firms decide how much labor to employ on the basis of the total cost of compensation and choose the composition of that compensation on the basis of what their workers generally prefer. Employers who offer to pay for health insurance thus pay less in wages and other forms of compensation than they otherwise would, keeping total compensation about the same. ...
[I]f employers who did not offer insurance were required to pay a fee, employees' wages and other forms of compensation would generally decline by the amount of that fee from what they would otherwise have been.
Employers do not have limitless funds to dole out according to their own generosity. They must pay for all benefits and wages out of revenue received from customers; therefore they must decide how many employees to hire, and what to pay, based on the total cost of having that employee (and that employee's productivity). It does not matter from the employer's point of view how compensation is divided between wages, benefits, and payroll or other taxes.
If Congress makes health coverage more expensive for employers, or requires new payroll taxes, employers will be forced to cut wages to make up the difference. Even if the law stated (as the House bill does) that employers could not cut pay directly to make up for the cost of health care, they will ultimately, somehow have to do just that.
For example, they could give smaller raises (too small to keep pace with inflation), less frequent promotions, lower starting pay to new employees, and/or wage cuts due to "the recession" until their total costs of employing a worker had fallen by nearly the same amount as the employer mandate imposed by Congress.
No Free Lunch
An employer mandate does not give workers without health coverage a "free lunch": They will not be able to keep their current wages and benefits and have health care added to it at their employers' expense. Instead, the proposed laws would effectively force them to purchase health insurance and therefore spend less on other goods. Some workers will prefer this arrangement, but many others will not. In essence, the Congress would be telling the poor: "If you now have to choose between food and health insurance, you no longer have that choice--from now on you have to buy the health insurance."
Wage Cuts for Low-Income Workers
These wage reductions will most seriously affect low-income workers. Most higher-income earners already have health benefits and so will not experience any wage cuts as long as their health insurance meets the new federal requirements.
The employer mandate's burden would primarily fall on lower-income and less-skilled workers who do not currently have health coverage. The House version would force these workers to take the equivalent of an 8 percent pay cut--amounting to $1,600 a year for a full-time worker earning $10 an hour.
Job Losses for Low-Income Workers
On July 24, the federal minimum wage will rise to $7.25 an hour. Employers cannot legally take the full cost of the employer mandate penalty out of the paychecks of anyone earning close to this minimum. Thus, paying $7.25 an hour plus the health care tax will make unskilled workers even more expensive to hire. So, as the CBO points out, their employers will respond by laying them off or hiring fewer of them in the first place:
[A] play-or-pay provision would reduce the hiring of low-wage workers, whose wages could not fall by the full cost of health insurance or a substantial play-or-pay fee if they were close to the minimum wage.
Health care reform is supposed to help vulnerable workers. But the House's approach to health care reform will cost many of them their jobs.
Tax Increases on Ordinary Workers
President Obama promised not to raise taxes on workers earning less than $250,000 a year, and supporters of an employer mandate claim that they will not make low- and middle-income workers bear the burden of paying for it. The focus on the surcharge on those earning over a million dollars a year reinforces this impression.
However, low-income workers will bear much of the cost, paying higher taxes indirectly through reduced wages. The House bill imposes what is effectively an 8 percent surtax that applies only to workers who do not already have health insurance, most of whom are already in the lower-income strata and can least afford to pay higher taxes.
James Sherk is Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy and Robert A. Book, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in Health Economics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
(Oct. 17, 2009) — The internet has a way of
attracting attention to the most peripheral of stories and facts; but in the
case of the stories surrounding Barack Hussein Obama this is even more true,
because so little is known for certain about the man, of whom U.S. Senator Joe
Wilson (R) of South Carolina said, “You lie!”
It’s important not to lose focus on reality by
giving too much attention to theories, speculation, or
Let’s cut through the fluff, then, and first list
what we don’t know.
WHAT IS NOT CERTAIN ABOUT OBAMA’S
1) We are not certain that his legal name is
“Barack Hussein Obama”. In the election
his supporters chided everyone for calling him by that name. They insisted it
was “Barack Obama”. But an Indonesian reporter found his school registration in
that country, and his name appears there as, “Barry Soetero.” A former U.S.
Ambassador to the Vatican, who was one of his professors at Harvard University,
remarked, “I knew him as ‘Barry’; the first time I heard “Barack”, was when he
ran for the Presidency.” His friends at school in Hawaii also knew him by that
first name. The image of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB), which his
Campaign put on the internet — which has never been authenticated either by a
licenced expert or by any Hawaiian official — says his name is “Barack Hussein
2) We are not certain on which day or at which hour
he was born. Not because of the claims of his opponents,
but because of what he himself has said: at the international conference in the
Caribbean in the spring, he said he was 3 months old when the Bay of Pigs
incident occurred — therefore indicating he was born in January of 1961. At a
rally in New Hampshire during his run for the Presidency, he told a crowd that
he was born at 1:06 PM. The COLB that his campaign puts forward claims he was
born on Aug. 4, 1961 at 7:58 PM.
3) We are not certain if he was born at a
hospital or not; or at which hospital. We are not certain at which hospital because
his sister Maya and various news agencies have claimed he was born at Queen’s
Hospital; but he claims he was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for
Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii. Yet, while children such as the
Nordyke twins, who were born Aug. 5, 1961 in the same town, have a long form
hospital vault certificate, which is sufficient to prove that they are U.S.
Citizens; Dr. Fukino of the Hawaiian Department of Health affirmed on July 27,
2009, that she has seen his “original vital records”, in the plural, on which
basis she claims him to be a “natural-born American citizen”. The multiple
nature of documents leads researchers to believe that Obama was not born in a
hospital, but at home; and that several documents were submitted to establish
4) We are not certain of the spelling of his
father’s first name. The University of Hawaii retains his
father’s registration records, and these indicate it is spelled “Barack”; a
paper written by his father for a journal in Africa lists his name as “Barak”;
his friend Mr. Omolo, from youth, says it is spelled “Barrack”, and a host of
African newspapers spell it the same way.
5) We are not certain in which country he was
born. Some newspapers say he was born
in Indonesia, some in Kenya, some in Hawaii. Some researchers believe he was
born in Canada.
6) We are not certain if his parents married or
when they met.In his biography he says his father and
mother met in Russian language class; but that course did not begin until
December, 1960; and if his birth day was Aug. 4, 1961, they had to meet sometime
around Saturday, Nov. 4, 1960. Their marriage certificate has never been
published or discovered.
7) We are not certain if he was adopted by Mr. Lolo
Soetero. Yes there is a school record in Indonesia,
but no record of any adoption has been found in the U.S.A.; though, the divorce
filing for his mother and Mr. Soetero indicate him as a child of the marriage,
8. We are not certain if he ever had a U.S.
passport before he was a U.S. Senator. Considering that he had multiple
citizenships, from childhood, he could have, but we just don’t
9. We are not certain if he requested financial
assistance as a foreign student at the University of Hawaii, Occidental College,
Columbia University or at Harvard University. We don’t know simply because he has refused
to release all such records; and those institutions also have
10. We are not certain how or when he got his SSN
or if it is a legitimately issued number. Researcher Susan Daniels found that it was
issued sometime in the period of 1977-1979, when Obama was a student in Hawaii.
The only problem is, that it appears to have been issued in the State of
Connecticut, and to be the SSN of someone who is 104 years old, at the
11. We are not certain when he began to claim to be
born in Hawaii, or when he stopped claiming to be born in Kenya. This is the conclusion of the testimony of a
classmate and numerous news articles, never corrected or refuted by his
12. We are not certain if he is a KGB agent or
not. Tom Fife’s testimony and the
evidence of his numberous contacts with Marxists and Socialists throughout his
life, beginning with Frank Marshall Davis, the KGB lead agent in Hawaii during
his youth, seem to indicate that he was. Some have suggested he was a CIA
operative, but his multiple SSNs exclude that, according to Rev. Sam Sewell, who
has experience in Military Intelligence.
13. We are not certain if Obama at birth was a U.S.
Citizen. This is because if he was born outside the U.S.A., his mother, not
being yet 19 years of age, could not transmit her U.S. Citizenship to him,
according to the laws of the time.
WHAT IS CERTAIN
What is certain is 1 fact; it’s not speculation;
it’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s not based on rumor or the allegations or
speculations of his opponents or supporters. It’s a fact he proclaims every
day, and asserts about himself in his biography, Dreams
of My Father.
1) We are certain that his father is Barrack
Hussein Obama, Sr., a man who was a subject of the British empire on Aug. 4,
1961, and a transient alien in the U.S.A..
WHAT THIS 1 FACT
2) This one fact proves that according to the British Nationality Act of
1948, that — let’s call him by this name for the sake of ease — Barack Hussein Obama II was at birth a
3) And this conclusion in law, in turn,
proves that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America;
because according to 4 rulings of the Supreme
Court, a natural born
citizen is, “one born in the country of parents who are citizens,” and since his
claimed father was a British subject, not a U.S. Citizen, even if Obama is a
U.S. Citizen, he is not a natural born citizen. (It is important to note that
“natural born” is a legal term, “natural-born” can be used also for the medical
term, of a natural birth without caesarean
4) And this conclusion, in turn, proves that he is
not eligible to hold, accept or retain the office of President of the United States, on account of the
absolute prohibition in Article II, Section i, paragraph 5, of the U.S.
Constitution, that the president be a “natural born
5) And this conclusion, in turn, proves in law that
Barack Hussein Obama is not the lawful president of the U.S.A., and that none of the laws he signs, the
appointments he makes, or the actions he takes are binding in law on anybody.
6) And this establishes that in law he is a
usurper, a pretender, and not the lawful Commander-in-chief of the U.S.
7) And this proves, beyond the shadow of doubt,
that the U.S.A. is currently in its greatest Constitutional
So don’t get confused by speculation, rumor, or
conspiracy theories. This 1 fact and its consequences in law are all that is
necessary to act as a concerned citizen, and to vote accordingly, to march on
Washington, D.C., or to justify his immediate and peaceful arrest by lawful
authorities in any
The Kenya Standard -- "It seems Barack
Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America (via a sleepy village
in Kenya called Nyang’oma K’Ogelo) can do no wrong."
The Nigerian Observer --
"Americans will today go to the polls to elect their next President with
Democratic Party candidate, Senator Barack Obama largely favoured to win. The
Kenyan-born Senator will..."
AllAfrica.com -- " Little wonder then
why Kenyan-born Barack Obama, America's first Black
"For Ghana, Obama's visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African
history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this
presidential visit to the continent of his birth."
And The Ghana Times -- "So far, the odds
favour the once underdog in American politics, Obama, the African-American
Senator from Illinois state. A Congressional Quarterly (CQ) politics monitored
on BBC put the Kenyan born American ahead of his rivel, John
Then there's Mama Sarah, Obama's step-grandmother. She said Obama was born in Kenya,
and she was there.
Then there's the recording of the Kenyan Ambassador saying Obama was born in Kenya on the "Mike
In The Morning" show on WRIF radio, in
Ok, ok, none of these are "official" sources -- but this
The Kenyan National Assembly, Official Report, Wednesday, 5th November, 2008 --
"Dr. Khalwale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. You have heard none
other than the Leader of Government Business acknowledge that because of Obama's
win in the United States of America (USA), the House is crippled. Could we
allow him to move a Motion for Adjournment so we could also continue the
celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA? I humbly
Don't believe Kenya? How about
"Duckworth is happy to point out that she and Hawai'i-raised Punahou graduate
Obama have 'a kama'aina connection.' Both were born outside the country --
Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand."
The point here is that there are plenty of reasons
to question who and what Barack Obama is.
Obama admits he was, "at birth," a Kenyan
citizen and a subject of Great Britain. He has proffered a book, a phony birth document and some old
newspaper clippings as
documentation that he's eligible to serve as POTUS.
Obama continues to fight the release of
his bona fides with millions of dollars
and both federal and private attorneys, arrogantly assuming that the American
People will just sit there with their mouths shut while he shreds the U. S.
To top it all off, the Democratic National
Committee filed fraudulent "Official
Certification of Nomination" papers for Barack Obama and Joe Biden in all 50
The legacy media has completely abandoned its
responsibility as the government's watchdog, has become political, and is
functioning as an Obama propaganda outlet. Don't expect them to ask any
The history of the current President of the United States, Barack Obama, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these United States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
1. He has violated his oath to defend the US Constitution by exercising powers forbidden by the Constitution.
2. He has used public money to purchase private companies.
3. He has illegally tried to use public money to create publicly owned companies.
4. He has embezzled public money allocated by Congress for rescuing distressed private financial institutions, and used it to purchase automobile manufacturing companies.
5. He has given our public money to finance foreign automobile companies.
6. He has given our public money to a foreign state to finance their state-run oil company while refusing to allow us to develop our own oil resources.
7. He has violated the principle of balance of powers by usurping Congress’ role of law maker.
8. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
9. He has ignored the laws protecting us from the insolvency of financial institutions.
10. He has demanded and implemented Tax-and-Spend laws that inevitably lead to economic collapse.
11. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by appointing a judge to the Supreme Court based not on ability to interpret the Constitution, but on radical ideology and color of skin.
12. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Czars to harass our people and eat out their substance.
13. He has violated the balance of powers by appointing Czars with far reaching powers who are accountable to no one but himself.
14. He has as a matter of patronage stolen private industries from shareholders and given them to workers’ unions.
15. He has substantially benefited his political financial supporters by giving public money to foreign industries.
16. He has arranged very large unscrupulous deals with private companies to exchange public money for his political advertising.
17. He has attempted to create a public industry, a health insurance company, that would compete with existing and similar private industries in open defiance of the consent of the people, and the letter and intent of the Constitution.
18. He has attempted to annul freedom of speech by setting up an illegal reporting system for recording the names of dissenters and by publicly attacking private citizens who oppose him.
19. He has counted illegal aliens as citizens to skew his standing with Congress.
20. He has illegally fired Inspectors General who found wrong-doing with his political crones.
21. He has attempted to insert himself into even the most personal life experience, our end of life care.
22. He has attempted to refuse to pay for medical treatment for wounded soldiers.
23. He has refused his assent to Laws of Congress, exercising false powers of veto that are contrary and insubordinate to the Constitution.
24. He has contradicted and violated the rule of law regarding bankruptcy after forcing the failure of one of our largest automakers.
25. He has appointed a Secretary of State who is ineligible for office.
26. He has attempted to force all citizens into mandatory servitude to the government.
27. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our lands, the merciless Islamo-fascist terrorists whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
28. 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.
29. He has combined with Communist, Socialists and Fascists to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our American character, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.
30. He has, in collusion with an insolent and irresponsible Congress, imposed Taxes against our consent not only on us, but also on our beloved children and our grandchildren denying them any representation.
31. He has nullified parts of our Constitution, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally our Form of Government.
A President whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant is unfit to be the Chief Executive of a free people.
For footnotes and additional information regarding the origin and validity of the 31 reasons listed above, visit one or both of the following links:
In addition, a lot of people are wondering what it would take to impeach Barack Obama. Here is a good summary about impeachment in general from the American Bar Association website, <http://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html>
Consider the following as well:
1. H.R. 2454 is Barack Obama's "Carbon Cap-and-Trade Bill." This bill would eliminate millions of jobs in American. For example, it would eliminate 200,000 jobs just in the state of Texas. It would give the Federal Government significant control over the Energy Industry, and impose crushing costs on consumers and businesses coast to coast. It would further increase the size of the Federal Government and "is likely to be the biggest tax increase in American history."
Plus, and this will blow your mind........ even the man who originated the "Cap-and-Trade" theory in the 1960's, Thomas Crocker, is adamantly opposed to the passage of H.R. 2454. Why? Because, as Thomas Crocker explains, it has no chance of working (i.e., improving the environment) unless every major industrial country on earth agrees to participate. If every country does not participate then Mr. Crocker says, "It's stupid and a complete waste of money and effort." Many countries, including China and Russia have refused to participate.
Therefore, obviously, if any nation's President wants to go ahead and implement "Cap-and-Trade" anyway, without every other country committed to a worldwide treaty, then his intent is to knowingly harm his own nation or else, he's just stupid. I don't believe Barack Obama is stupid. I do believe he is a very misguided individual. You can decide for yourself whether or not Obama wants to pass "Cap-and-Trade" to intentionally harm America. The fact remains, "Cap-and-Trade" is so extremely risky and convoluted, that this bill alone may be enough to ruin the US economy for decades to come. The debate on this topic should be as simple as what Thomas Crocker said, "It's stupid."
2. H.R. 3200 is Barack Obama's government controlled health care hoax. It is not about health care. H.R. 3200 is a charade, a sham and nothing more than a political left-wing power grab. This bill will destroy health care in America and further rip apart one of the precious fabrics of this Nation.
Why is it so hard for people to understand, "There is no such thing as magic?" Either, the taxpayers have to pay the bills or the Nation defaults on it's financial obligations. Today, every living person in the United States (of every age) would have to pay $349,136.00 to payoff our liabilities. So, let's do the math. How many of you and how many of your children have an extra $349,136.00 laying around to payoff your share of our liabilities?
Otherwise, there are two ways to default on our Nation's financial obligations: (1) Refuse to pay and suffer the consequences imposed on us by other Nations around the world, or (2) Default by "devaluation of the US dollar." This means printing more and more money, until we intentionally devalue our own currency to the point where everyone loses; the people we owe money to lose, as well as our own citizens who are left holding currency which is worth next to nothing. In either default scenario everyone loses, except a very few "insiders in the know" who invest appropriately and get out of our currency far ahead of time.
H.R. 3200 is ridiculously unaffordable! It's unaffordable, unless you significantly reduce the quality of health care, plus taxpayers pay hundreds of billions of dollars more in taxes for poor government administration, poor care, and also, for coverage for those who don't want health insurance, don't need health insurance or can't afford better health coverage. Including, 33 million illegal aliens, and many more illegal's to come.
Lastly, how are the American people going to respond when the Federal Government starts closing thousands of nursing homes across America because we simply can't afford to keep them open? And too, where are the millions of elderly people currently in those nursing homes going to go when their nursing homes are closed?
3. Senate Bill 560 and H.R. 1409 are Barack Obama's gift to labor unions. These two bills give away worker's rights and employer's rights to labor unions on a "Sliver Platter." The EFCA should be titled the "Employees Forked by Congress Act."
Listen very carefully...... there are no citizens anywhere in America asking for this legislation! The only voice in America asking for this legislation is the special interest group know as labor unions (i.e., UAW, SEIU, etc.) Nothing is broken within the National Labor Relation Act and nothing needs to be fixed. Labor laws are already tipped far to unfairly in favor of labor unions. Even to the extent that today it is perfectly legal for unions to blatantly lie to workers during organizing. Maybe there was some justification for allowing unions to lie to workers in 1934, but in today's world it seems unconscionable that our US Government should somehow endorse lying. If the labor law playing field is adjusted at all it should be adjusted more in favor of truth, honesty, integrity and fair play, which is exactly the opposite of what these two bills propose. The supporters of this legislation should be ashamed for even being associated with something as devious and unethical as these two bills.
S.B. 560 and H.R. 1409 are deceitful, unconstitutional and nothing more than an "under the table" trade between Barack Obama and Big Labor Unions.
These two bills add no value to anything, anywhere, except to increase the size of Labor Union's bank accounts; and unnecessarily increase the authority of the Federal Government. This legislation harms workers, harms businesses, harms the economy and harms America! At the same time, the legislation makes the Federal Government larger, more expensive and more wasteful. Too, it makes Labor Unions billions of dollars richer, much larger and much more powerful, without unions producing anything or adding value anywhere.
This legislation will do the very same thing to the entire Nation that the UAW did to General Motors over the last 50 years. In 1999 General Motors stock was trading at $95.20 per share. On March 5, 2009, General Motors stock was trading at $1.97 per share. Two months ago GM was in bankruptcy. Today, thanks to more than $80,000,000,000 from the American taxpayer, GM is out of bankruptcy and offering totally insane incentives to try and make a go of it.
This legislation is anti-employee, anti-business, anti-cooperation, anti-growth and rips at the heart of Freedom in America! At a time when our tax base in the United States should be a major concern for every single individual living in this country, S.B. 560 and H.R. 1409 will drive more jobs overseas and further rip apart one of the basic fabrics of this Nation....... the work place.
4. H.R. 45 is the "Blair Holt's Firearm Act of 2009." Barack Obama, Eric Holder, new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and many others in the Administration are aggressive proponents of substantially increased gun control. This has been proven around the world time and again, to be absolutely the wrong thing to do.
5. Senate Bill 773 is the "Cybersecurity Act of 2009." Don't think for one second that this Administration does not want to control the Internet, as well as every other aspect of your life.
6. The "Fairness Doctrine" is the Administrations avenue to shut down talk radio. The "Fairness Doctrine" was repealed by Congress in 1985, but a month does not pass that some Democrat or someone in the Administration doesn't talk about the need to re-institute the "Fairness Doctrine." The dishonestly named "Fairness Doctrine" is something which is horribly bad for America.
7. The US National Debt tonight is $11.9 trillion dollars. The US Unfunded Liability (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) is $107.4 trillion dollars. The Federal Government intends to borrow an additional $1.5 trillion dollars in 2010. The interest payment alone on our National Debt last year exceeded $450 billion dollars. The United States is collapsing into bankruptcy faster than you can say, "Grigori Yefimovich Rasputin lives in the White House."
8. No one can see the end to the reckless over spending and excessive Government borrowing! Congress has long been out of control with regard to excessive spending. However, this Administration is now spending money four times faster than ever before, with no end in sight and no plan for recovery. The White House and many in Congress act as though: (1) Either, money is free, or (2) They've accepted that financial doomsday is coming soon and they're fine with that prospect.
The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.
The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.
It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):
"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would behttp://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/chiefjusticemarshallwordsontreasontoconstitution.jpg
The Judge in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and the Judges in the other cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits to see if Obama is Constitutionally eligible or not. I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this.
Interesting discussion, personally I would lean to the view that a President cannot accept a prize awarded with, at least potentially, the objective to exert influence on his future policy decisions. Given fact that the Nobel Committee is a foreign entity my thought would be that “…And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State…” applies in this case.
- David Crockett
By: J.P. Freire Associate Commentary Editor 10/09/09 10:59 AM EDT
There’s a problem for President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize victory and it’s not his inexperience. From Article I, Section 9 of “that neglected curio,” the U.S. Constitution:
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Per Wikipedia, the Nobel Prize is awarded as follows:
“…the Norwegian Nobel Committee consists of five members elected by the Norwegian Storting (the Norwegian parliament). In its first stage, several thousand people are asked to nominate candidates. These names are scrutinized and discussed by experts in their specific disciplines until only the winners remain. This slow and thorough process is arguably what gives the prize its importance. Despite this, there have been questionable awards and questionable omissions over the prize’s century-long history.”
While the Norwegian Parliament has no say in who receives the prize, the role it plays in selecting the committee ties it to the state. Congress will have to vote on whether to allow Obama to accept the prize.
UPDATE: Well, Roosevelt and Wilson accepted it while in office, but does anyone know if there were similar questions being asked at the time?
UPDATE 2: Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center sends me this, U.S. Code Title 5, Part III, Subpart F, Chapter 73, Subchapter IV, Section 7342: Receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations. (Of course.) It does specify that the President is included in this:
(b) An employee may not— (1) request or otherwise encourage the tender of a gift or decoration; or (2) accept a gift or decoration, other than in accordance with the provisions of subsections (c) and (d).
(c) (1) The Congress consents to— (A) the accepting and retaining by an employee of a gift of minimal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy; and (B) the accepting by an employee of a gift of more than minimal value when such gift is in the nature of an educational scholarship or medical treatment or when it appears that to refuse the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States, except that— (i) a tangible gift of more than minimal value is deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States and, upon acceptance, shall become the property of the United States; and (ii) an employee may accept gifts of travel or expenses for travel taking place entirely outside the United States (such as transportation, food, and lodging) of more than minimal value if such acceptance is appropriate, consistent with the interests of the United States, and permitted by the employing agency and any regulations which may be prescribed by the employing agency.
Depositing the money with the employer would mean, well, putting it in the Treasury I would assume. But what of the title of Nobel Prize winner?
(d) The Congress consents to the accepting, retaining, and wearing by an employee of a decoration tendered in recognition of active field service in time of combat operations or awarded for other outstanding or unusually meritorious performance, subject to the approval of the employing agency of such employee. Without this approval, the decoration is deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States, shall become the property of the United States, and shall be deposited by the employee, within sixty days of acceptance, with the employing agency for official use, for forwarding to the Administrator of General Services for disposal in accordance with subsection (e)(1), or for disposal in accordance with subsection (e)(2).
So to play it safe (and to get some kudos for constitutional-mindedness) he should have Congress do a quick vote to allow him to accept the award. (Perilous question: If Congress passes a resolution allowing him to accept this award before they pass health-care reform, they could face criticism for bad priorities. It also becomes even more of a political football.)
And, lest we forget, the law definitely appears to discourage this sort of thing:
(i) The President shall direct all Chiefs of a United States Diplomatic Mission to inform their host governments that it is a general policy of the United States Government to prohibit United States Government employees from receiving gifts or decorations of more than minimal value.
Well, if you can become President without
having any executive experience and next to no federal legislative experience,
why not get the Nobel for likewise doing nothing?
If you can have a best seller, written by
somebody else, and create a following of adoring fans who cannot pinpoint the
source of their adoration, other than warm fuzzies and leg tingles, why not run
for President and see what happens? And if warm fuzzies and leg tingles get you
the Nobel, all the better!
Lots of people are scratching their heads
today wondering what is going on in Scandinavia. Awarding the Nobel to people
who are thoroughly undeserving is becoming a tradition rather than an anomaly.
Look at the list.
Any outfit that would honor Jimmy Carter
and Arafat and Gore yet ignore Reagan lacks sufficient credibility to be taken
Meanwhile, since Obama took office the
world is even more embroiled in war, conflict, tension and strife. There have
been zero advances toward peace, and certainly, nothing this administration can
point to worthy of a Nobel affirmation, unless of course, you believe smooth
words, phony diplomacy and global capitulation to thugs is the path to
Indeed, history shows, weak knees and
pleasing words more often than not usher in wars and rumors of wars. Democrats
routinely plead peace playing the dove and provoke war. Republicans
traditionally build our defenses, confront the thugs, and exact
Alfred Noble, the chemist and armaments
manufacturer, is likely shaking his head in disbelief. The prize that bears
his name too frequently recognizes
As I was growing up in the Soviet Union, I remember how the Communist Regime was jamming Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, BBC. I remember my parents and their friends huddled around the transistor radios trying to catch a glimpse of hope, a word of truth over the jamming.
It is truly De Ja Vu. Now two of my previous web sites were destroyed by hacking. I noticed, every time there is an important court hearing coming, my web site is being hacked. Google is flashing a sign that there is malware on her site, don’t go there. After the hearing the sign would disappear. As I saw someone tamper with my pay-pal on the previous web site, as my case Lightfoot v Bowen was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court and had to be re-entered on the eve of the hearing in conference, as someone disconnected a fumes emissions hose in my car, I am left to wonder “When will we see a glimpse of hope in this country, when will the decent people of this country, and decent politicians(might be an oxymorone), media with journalistic integrity will rise against this corrupt and oppresive establishment and will demand and will get real accountability in the government.
A couple of days ago Yahoo was showing one of top AP headlines “Secretary of Health and Human Services Katherine Sebelius is saying everyone should get Swine Flu vaccinations.” It was frustrating to read. Though I would like to see women in the top echelons of power, and it is nice to see a woman reaching a position of a cabinet minister, I was incensed by the lack of integrity and disclosure. How can Katherine Sebelius tell all the citizens of this country to get vaccinations without letting them know that flu vaccines sent to 18 European countries by Baxter Pharmaceuticals contained lethal active avian flu virus. European press has written about it and so did Canada free press. Why American press is behaving like Pravda and TACC during Stalin and Breznev and not providing this information to American citizens? Why most of American press is hiding the facts that I provided, that according to licensed investigators, Obama has been using a social security number of a deceased individual for most of his life, the fact that he has 39 different social security numbers in National databases, the fact that he refuses to sign a consent to release his original hospital birth certificate with the name of the hospital, doctor and signatures and his hospital birthing file, while coming from HI that allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence?
(Oct. 7, 2009) — Today was published the Court
order resulting from the Oct. 5th hearing in Barnett vs. Obama, issued by federal
judge, David O. Carter, in the Southern
Division of California.
The order, reads as follows:
On September 8, 2009, the Court previously set
tentative case management dates. The Court now orders those dates be made
Case Management dates are as
Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing — December 7, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. File
Motion for Summary Judgment — November
16, 2009 Opposition
to Motion for Summary Judgment —
November 26, 2009 Reply
to Motion for Summary Judgment —
November 30, 2009 Final
Pretrial Conference — January 11, 2010,
at 8:30 a.m. Jury
Trial — January 26, 2010, at 8:30
The implication of the Court’s order finalizing the
dates is obvious:
you do not finalize dates unless there
will be a trial. And there
would not be a trial,unless
the Motion to Dismiss requested
I just got an order from judge Carter. He does not
say outright that the motion to dismiss, but he says that the dates for trial
are final. We might need to ask for the clarification, but from the first glance
it looks like a go.
Activity in Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Captain
Pamela Barnett, et al v. Barack Hussein Obama, et al Order on Motion to Dismiss
Obama no show at Czars Hearing: Too Busy Supporting Honduras totalitarianism
As Obama goes on supporting the plans of the (Chavez backed) dictatorship proposed by that of rightfully and lawfully deposed President Manuel Zelaya, Obama is a no-show at the hearings calling for investigation into the constitutionality and duties of Obama's czars.
Obama sent not one representative to the hearings to explain himself - to anyone.
Don't ask- won't tell.
In Honduras Obama has turned his back on democracy in favor of his communist brothers.
There was a constitutional transfer of power to Roberto Micheletti in Honduras after then president Zelaya attempted to change the constitution to allow himself to remain in power. The Supreme Court stepped in to prevent Zelaya's unconstitutional coup and removed him from the country to prevent his inciting Chavez backed riots.
In an attempt to force the Honduran government to return power to the threatening dictator Zelaya, the United States under Obama has revoked the visa of Roberto Micheletti and the 14 supreme court judges.
Although the next election cycle is scheduled for November Obama has told temporary president Micheletti and the Honduran Government that those elections will not be recognized. All nonhumanitarian aide has been stopped.
Return Zelaya to power or else.
Just as Obama turned his back on the Iranian people demanding democratic justice in the streets of Iran after corrupt elections so too Obama has turned his back on one of the only pro-american countries left in South America.
The people of Honduras are shocked by the one dependable defender of freedom in the world turning it's power switch to off.
Zelaya is backed by Hugo Chavez, Ortega, the Cuban brothers Castro, and now Obama.
Though Obama answers to no one, congress, the american people, the media, he did make time to sacrifice the dalai lama in favor of China today.
Our new foreign and domestic policy- turn our backs on good people - and stand for Obama's special interests.
How much RED do we have to see before people get it?
Editorial: Oct. 7, 2009 — Endemic Corruption and what to do about it
October 7, 2009 by
by John Charlton
We face a plague of endemic corruption in America; endemic because widespread and infecting every branch of government; corruption because it has perverted the purpose of the authorities created by the U.S. Constitution to uphold that constitution; a plague, because it is destroying the nation.
Citizens have filed suit; they have petitioned Electors; they have written, faxed, emailed, called, and even, you might say, harassed their elected representatives.
But the Courts have refused to hear the cases or denied them for specious reasons; the Electors ignored them; the Congressmen dismissed them as ignorant or mistaken.
Yet such a massive conspiracy cannot hide the facts of the case:
1) Barack Hussein Obama has claimed Barrack Hussein Obama Sr., as his father.
2) Barrack Hussein Obama Sr., was a british subject at the time of Obama Jr.’s alleged birth day, of Aug. 4, 1961; and was always either a british subject, or citizen of Kenya.
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.
A native or natural born citizen is one born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Nor can the logical and legal conclusion be ignored, despite all the ridicule and excuses of the Media and government officials:
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., is not eligible for the office of President, regardless of where he was born; regardless of whether he does or does not have a birth certificate; or can or cannot prove his birth story; regardless of whether he has to prove or does not have to prove what he claims. He claimed it. STOP.
What to do now, about this Endemic Corruption?
When all else fails, its best to consider the common sense solution.
First, if those who have the duty of acting fail to act, either those who are their superiors or their subordinates must act, when it is a question of justice.
It is a question of justice.
Now who are the superiors of the Federal Government? And who are the inferiors?
We the People. Because We the People gave the Federal Government its existence. It says so, right in the first paragraph of the U.S. Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
If there is a hierarchy of rights in the Constitution, it is clearly those signified by this, its Preamble. “Preamble” means what “walks before hand”, “introduces”, or “sets the context.” As such everything else that follows in the Constitution and Amendments, and the entire government which flows from that is so determined.
Thus when meeting any elected federal official, or going before any court, you have every right to read them the riot act, that is, the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, as the introduction and explanation for your reason of appearing before them. And you should do this, because it is evident they have all forgotten it.
This is a perpetual relation and right that applies to all of us: “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
This Preamble is also common sense; it affirms nothing else but the natural law notion of subsidiarity. The law of subsidiarity was enunciated by Pope Pius XI, in his Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, paragraph 80:
the …most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them…(n. 79) Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of “subsidiary function,” the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State.
In the case of the United States, since there is no reason for the Federal Government to encompass or exercise all the rights or powers of its citizens(indeed this is expressly denied in the 9th and 10th Ammendments), it is unjust that it do so.
It is also nonsensical for citizens to act as if the Federal Government encompasses the same.
The Theory of Pre-Constitutionalism
This is the rationale for what might rightly be called a theory of Pre-Constitutionalism.
The fundamental thesis of which is, that there exist rights of We the People, which they have from the Creator of the natural order of things; and that such rights were not only the basis for justifying the promulgation of the Constitution, but are also the basis for upholding it.
The immediate consequent of this principle of pre-constitutionalim is this: that as soon as all the Branches of the Federal Government have refused to uphold the Constitution in any case which regards unconstitutional action; We the People have the immediate right to take action, because they have de factorenounced their right.
Hence, since the Constitution gives to no branch of the Federal Government the right to act unconstitutionally; and since the same Constitution does not deprive the citizens of the right to seek justice in such cases (indeed in the 1st Amendment it grants the right to petition for grievances), it follows that the Citizens can lawfully establish such institutions and take such actions as are necessary to uphold the Constitution.
If they could not, then the Constitution could not be enforced in such cases.
Since We the People gave the Constitution its being, existence and authority; We the People obviously have the right and authority to create institutions and take actions to see that it is upheld; whether these are judicial, or otherwise.
This is the logic invoked by the American Grand Jury Movement, most of whose critics ignore these more fundamentals laws and rights. However, to be consistent with the theory of Pre-constitutionalism, such institutions should in no way submit to constitutional institutions, nor are they requireed to do so, since the authority which empowers them is superior to the Constitution; and the rights which they exercise to act to uphold it are likewise prior and superior to all constitutional powers and obligations.
Indeed, it is precisely because the schools of Law in the United States ignore a proper treatement of the fundamental principles of law and right, and of governement, that most laywers and seemingly all judges, either do not understand this argument, or refuse to admit it; since they are officers of a court established only to act within the boundaries of what follows from the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, they are not trained to look backwards toward it.
OF VERY RECENT PRECEDENT, A SELF-ABDICATION BY THE COURTS OF THEIR AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION
by John Charlton
(Oct. 7, 2009) — Standing is a legal concept which has been employed in many suits regarding challenges to Obama’s usurpation of office. For most Americans it is a concept which is obtuse, illogical, and non-sensical; but what most do not know that it is of very recent provenance, originating only in the last 35 some years.
A legal definition of the standing doctrine is as follows — I quote from
There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.
In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx’s declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).
Standing is founded “in concern about the proper–and properly limited–role of the courts in a democratic society.” Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.”Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that “federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.’ ”Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity , 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.
Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show `a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.”Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).
Let’s Break down the Legalese in Lujan
First, the often praised Justice, Justice Anthony Scalia, wrote the key decision inLujan vs. Defenders of Wildlife; so it is a judge praised for his upholding of the Constitution, who in fact undermined the rights of all U.S. Citizens to see that the Constitution is upheld. Let’s examine the arguments Scalia marshalled in Lujan to see how he did this.
The case was brought by Wildlife advocates who wanted a previous decision by the Department of the Interior, which arrogated a right to regulate the activities of wildlife protection outside of the U.S. jurisdiction, that is in foreign countries, restored. The patent folly of the attempt of the plaintiffs is evident to anyone: the U.S.A. does not have authority to govern other countries. The case could have been dismissed on that basis alone. So the use of the case to abdicate the court’s authority to enforce the Constitution, is rather quite absurd.
First Justice Scalia lays out the context of the legal dispute:
While the Constitution of the United States divides all power conferred upon the Federal Government into “legislative Powers,”Art. I, § 1, “[t]he executive Power,” Art. II, § 1, and “[t]he judicial Power,” Art. III, § 1, it does not attempt to define those terms. To be sure, it limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies,” but an executive inquiry can bear the name “case” (the Hoffa case) and a legislative dispute can bear the name “controversy” (the Smoot Hawley controversy). Obviously, then, the Constitution’s central mechanism of separation of powers depends largely upon common understanding of what activities are appropriate to legislatures, to executives, and to courts. In The Federalist No. 48, Madison expressed the view that “[i]t is not infrequently a question of real nicety in legislative bodies whether the operation of a particular measure will, or will not, extend beyond the legislative sphere,” whereas “the executive power [is] restrained within a narrower compass and . . . more simple in its nature,” and “the judiciary [is] described by landmarks still less uncertain.” The Federalist No. 48, p. 256 (Carey and McClellan eds. 1990). One of those landmarks, setting apart the “Cases” and “Controversies” that are of the justiciable sort referred to in Article III — “serv[ing] to identify those disputes which are appropriately resolved through the judicial process,” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990) — is the doctrine of standing. Though some of its elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self government, the core component of standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case or controversy requirement of Article III. See, e. g., Allen v. Wright,468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984).
Scalia then cites the recent cases which have established this novel interpretation of the doctrine of standing:
Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” — an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972); [n.1] and (b) “actual or imminent, not `conjectural’ or `hypothetical,’ ” Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983)). Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of — the injury has to be “fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976). Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Id., at 38, 43.
He then explains the requirement this “doctrine” imposes upon the one brining the lawsuit:
The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990); Warth, supra, at 508. Since they are not mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof,i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation. See Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 883-889 (1990); Gladstone, Realtors v.Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 114-115, and n. 31 (1979); Simon, supra, at 45, n. 25; Warth, supra, at 527, and n. 6 (Brennan, J., dissenting). At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we “presum[e] that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim,”National Wildlife Federation, supra, at 889. In response to a summary judgment motion, however, the plaintiff can no longer rest on such “mere allegations,” but must “set forth” by affidavit or other evidence “specific facts,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e), which for purposes of the summary judgment motion will be taken to be true. And at the final stage, those facts (if controverted) must be “supported adequately by the evidence adduced at trial,” Gladstone, supra, at 115, n. 31.
Justice Scalia then explains what this “doctrine” requires in the pleadings presented by the plaintiff:
When the suit is one challenging the legality of government action or inaction, the nature and extent of facts that must be averred (at the summary judgment stage) or proved (at the trial stage) in order to establish standing depends considerably upon whether the plaintiff is himself an object of the action (or forgone action) at issue. If he is, there is ordinarily little question that the action or inaction has caused him injury, and that a judgment preventing or requiring the action will redress it. When, however, as in this case, a plaintiff’s asserted injury arises from the government’s allegedly unlawful regulation (or lack of regulation) of someone else, much more is needed. In that circumstance, causation and redressability ordinarily hinge on the response of the regulated (or regulable) third party to the government action or inaction — and perhaps on the response of others as well. The existence of one or more of the essential elements of standing “depends on the unfettered choices made by independent actors not before the courts and whose exercise of broad and legitimate discretionthe courts cannot presume either to control or to predict,” ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 615 (1989) (opinion of Kennedy, J.); see also Simon, supra, at 41-42; and it becomes the burden of the plaintiff to adduce facts showing that those choices have been or will be made in such manner as to produce causation and permit redressability of injury. E. g., Warth, supra, at 505. Thus, when the plaintiff is not himself the object of the government action or inaction he challenges, standing is not precluded, but it is ordinarily “substantially more difficult” to establish. Allen, supra, at 758; Simon, supra, at 44-45; Warth, supra, at 505.
Then Scalia explains how this “doctrine” is based on earlier Supreme Court decisions which self-exonerated the Court from upholding the Constitution and ipso facto prevented a manner of recourse for grievences from citizens seeking the Court to uphold it:
We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government — claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large — does not state an Article III case or controversy. For example, in Fairchild v. Hughes,258 U.S. 126, 129-130 (1922), we dismissed a suit challenging the propriety of the process by which the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. Justice Brandeis wrote for the Court:
“[This is] not a case within the meaning of . . . Article III . . . . Plaintiff has [asserted] only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law and that the public moneys be not wasted. Obviously this general right does not entitle a private citizen to institute in the federal courts a suit . . . .” Ibid.
In Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), we dismissed for lack of Article III standing a taxpayer suit challenging the propriety of certain federal expenditures. We said:
“The party who invokes the power [of judicial review] must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally. . . . Here the parties plaintiff have no such case. . . . [T]heir complaint . . . is merely that officials of the executive department of the government are executing and will execute an act of Congress asserted to be unconstitutional; and this we are asked to prevent. To do so would be not to decide a judicial controversy, but to assume a position of authority over the governmental acts of another and co equal department, an authority which plainly we do not possess.” Id., at 488-489.
Justice Scalia then cites the precedents in questions of eligibility for office:
In ExparteLévitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937), we dismissed a suit contending that Justice Black’s appointment to this Court violated the Ineligibility Clause, Art. I, § 6, cl. 2. “It is an established principle,” we said, “that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action and itis not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.” Id., at 634. See also Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne, 342 U.S. 429, 433-434 (1952) (dismissing taxpayer action on the basis of Frothingham.).
And another case regarding the denial of taxpayer rights to seek redress for unconstitutional misuse of taxes:
More recent cases are to the same effect. In United States v.Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974), we dismissed for lack of standing a taxpayer suit challenging the Government’s failure to disclose the expenditures of the Central Intelligence Agency, in alleged violation of the constitutional requirement, Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, that “a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.” We held that such a suit rested upon an impermissible “generalized grievance,” and was inconsistent with “the framework of Article III” because “the impact on [plaintiff] is plainly undifferentiated and common to all members of the public.” Richardson, supra, at 171, 176-177. And inSchlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974), we dismissed for the same reasons a citizen taxpayer suit contending that it was a violation of the Incompatibility Clause, Art. I, § 6, cl. 2, for Members of Congress to hold commissions in the military Reserves. We said that the challenged action, “standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance . . . . We reaffirm Lévitt in holding that standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of th[is] kind . . . .” Schlesinger, supra, at 217, 220. Since Schlesingerwe have on two occasions held that an injury amounting only to the alleged violation of a right to have the Government act in accordance with law was not judicially cognizable because “assertion of a right to a particular kind of Government conduct, which the Government has violated by acting differently, cannot alone satisfy the requirements of Art. III without draining those requirements of meaning.” Allen, 468 U. S., at 754; Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 483 (1982). And only two Terms ago, we rejected the notion that Article III permits a citizen suit to prevent a condemned criminal’s execution on the basis of “the public interest protections of the Eighth Amendment;” once again, “[t]his allegation raise[d] only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance . . . and [was] an inadequate basis on which to grant . . . standing.” Whitmore, 495 U. S., at 160.
It is notable that in all these cases, denying tax-payer standing, what is being defended in actuality, is the claim to use constitutional power by politicians, unconstitutionally.
Scalia then explains the logic in his argument, that the Article III Judiciary was instituted to protect individuals, not the entire nation:
To be sure, our generalized grievance cases have typically involved Government violation of procedures assertedly ordained by the Constitution rather than the Congress. But there is absolutely no basis for making the Article III inquiry turn on the source of the asserted right. Whether the courts were to act on their own, or at the invitation of Congress, in ignoring the concrete injury requirement described in our cases, they would be discarding a principle fundamental to the separate and distinct constitutional role of the Third Branch — one of the essential elements that identifies those “Cases” and “Controversies” that are the business of the courts rather than of the political branches. “The province of the court,” as Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 170 (1803) “is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals.” Vindicating the public interest (including the public interest in government observance of the Constitution and laws) is the function of Congress and the Chief Executive. The question presented here is whether the public interest in proper administration of the laws (specifically, in agencies’ observance of a particular, statutorily prescribed procedure) can be converted into an individual right by a statute that denominates it as such, and that permits all citizens (or, for that matter, a subclass of citizens who suffer no distinctive concrete harm) to sue. If the concrete injury requirement has the separation of powers significance we have always said, the answer must be obvious: To permit Congress to convert the undifferentiated public interest in executiveofficers’ compliance with the law into an “individual right” vindicable in the courts is to permit Congress to transfer from the President to the courts the Chief Executive’s most important constitutional duty, to“take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Art. II, § 3. It would enable the courts, with the permission of Congress, “to assume a position of authority over the governmental acts of another and co equal department,”Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S., at 489, and to become ” `virtually continuing monitors of the wisdom and soundness of Executive action.’ “Allen, 468 U. S., at 760 (quotingLaird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 15 (1972)). We have always rejected that vision of our role:
“When Congress passes an Act empowering administrative agencies to carry on governmental activities, the power of those agencies is circumscribed by the authority granted. This permits the courts to participate in law enforcement entrusted to administrative bodies only to the extent necessary to protect justiciable individual rights against administrative action fairly beyond the granted powers. . . . This is very far from assuming that the courts are charged more than administrators or legislators with the protection of the rights of the people. Congress and the Executive supervise the acts of administrative agents. . . . But under Article III, Congress established courts to adjudicate cases and controversies as to claims of infringement of individual rights whether by unlawful action of private persons or by the exertion of unauthorized administrative power.”
Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288, 309-310 (1944). “Individual rights,” within the meaning of this passage, do not mean public rights that have been legislatively pronounced to belong to each individual who forms part of the public. See also Sierra Club, 405 U. S., at 740-741, n. 16.
Nothing in this contradicts the principle that “[t]he . . . injury required by Art. III may exist solely by virtue of`statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing.’ “Warth, 422 U. S., at 500 (quoting Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617, n. 3 (1973)).
What Scalia deftly avoids discussing are the higher principles involved, namely the upholding of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
Why the Court Cannot Abdicate its own Jurisdiction
The Article III Judiciary has the role of deciding all “cases and controversies”; if, as Scalia says, that only the Executive Branches and Legislative Branches can uphold the Constitution, then there exists no means against usurpation when the Executive and Legislative have colluded in the conspiracy. And when one party controls both branches, you have the perfect storm, as it were; if the Judiciary refuses to intervene.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
The “shall extend to all Cases” is a mandatory statement, as much as it is a universal one. If the Court refuses to extend its jurisdiction to all Cases, then it is acting unconstitutionally. The “arising under this Constitution”, clearly explains that it is the duty of the Court to uphold the Constitution; because since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, its very determinations indicate that diverse parties have rights, and that these rights must be upheld if the Constitution is to remain legally binding.
To refuse to uphold the Constitution, or the constitutional exercise of authority by the other 2 branches of government, for any reason whatsoever, is innately unconstitutional, because it is directly contrary to the duty of the Article III Judiciary.
The controversy then is, “Whether the Executive and Legislative branches have a right to exercise their authority, when that excercise is clearly unconstitutional?” The obvious answer is “No.” Thus there ought to be no question of applying the standing doctrine to such cases; there ought to be first a determination if the action of itself was unconstitutional; if it was, then all citizens should have standing in virtue of the 9th Amendment, which expressly reserves to We the People any right not specified in the Constitution. And since there is no right granted in the constitution, for any branch to violate the constitution, the people retain the right to see that it is enforced, since the U.S. Constitution is first and foremost a historical and legal contract imposed by the People upon the People.
The logic could not be simpler. The cowardice of the Court could not be clearer.
This is why it is so obvious to the common man or woman, that the Judiciary is shirking its duty.
Lectric Law Library:– The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.
A BRIEF LISTING OF THE IDEOLOGICAL ERRORS BY WHICH THE RULING ELITE OF AMERICAN HAVE BLINDED THEMSELVES TO USURPATION
A Philosophical Sketch by John Charlton
(Oct. 6, 2009) — In the last 9 months there have been numerous complaints and expressions of outrage, anger, disgust, despair, dismay, disdain and utter incomprehension at how many elected and non elected officials, how many judges and writers, and lawyers, and military brass, CEOs, bankers and leading talk-radio or talk-show hosts have failed to notice the obvious.
That Barack Hussein Obama has usurped the Presidency, not being a natural born citizen of the USA.
How elites can so persuade themselves of normalcy in a situation where the “King is not wearing any clothes” seems inexplicable to many; and of course, no one author’s opinion can give a complete explanation.
However, some recurrent themes can be traced back to underlying problems in American society, especially in the erroneous notions which have rooted themselves in the centers of learning, the halls of politics and the court rooms of justice; which errors explain why so many allegedly bright individuals, are blind and insensitive to the greatest of crimes.
10 PHILOSOPHICAL ERRORS WHICH DULL THE MINDS OF THE SOCIAL “ELITES” OF AMERICA
So let’s make a forensic list of the 10 most influential ideological errors afoot today in America, and explain briefly their origin, nature and effects. I will omit related errors, which are motives behind this usurpation such as Socialism, Marxism, and Racism.
This is not your granddad’s attitude to get things done and not fuss about side issues. This is the moral theory that in all human endeavors, there is no good other than utility, that is, than what is useful. In a word, if it is useful it is justified. By itself it does not seem dangerous to the public order, until you ask the question, “What is useful?”
This has nothing to do with a state of matter. Materialism is the philosophical theory that there are no absolutes, ideals, or spiritual realities, and that all there is, are tangibles and what procure tangibles: being materialistic then is to live for things solely attainable in this world, such as money, power and riches.
This has nothing to do with human liberty, though many Libertarians think so. This is the philosophical error which says a human individual is only and entirely what he is for himself; and that he should live for nothing but himself. Taken to extremes all followers of this theory would seek to destroy government and return to the stone age.
This is not the movement in art or architecture. This is the philosophical theory, which arose in the mid. 19th century, which holds that there is no true religion, because all attachment to religion is merely the expression of a subjective interior religious sense. Therefore according to this theory, religion and its moral values, should have no say or place in public life or in civil order or legislation.
This has nothing to do with being positive, or having a positive outlook on life. This is the philosophical theory that there is nothing just or true but what human society has declared to be such. The disciples of this theory in law, say crazy things like, “there is no controlling authority”; “it’s not a crime until it is criminalized”; there is no justice but what the written law declares as such.
This is the philosophical theory that man’s purpose in life is carnal pleasure. It’s a derivative of the error of Materialism. It has the obvious effect of leading its adherents to become addicted to sex, drugs, or intemperance of other kinds.
7. SECULAR HUMANISM
This is a buzz word for the religious error of known a century ago as Unitarianism, which is not confided to the Unitarian Churches; but which is the theory that the only social good or religious good consists in that set of beliefs in which all are united and all agree. Since man by his present state of nature always is in disagreement with some other man about at least something, sometimes; Unitarianism leads to agreeing not to believe; and hence is called secular humanism, which is a fancy name for believing in nothing but man; whatever than means.
This is a derivative of Modernism, but very different from it. Neo-Modernism is a philosophical error which arose in the 30’s, which holds that truth is not the right relation between the knower and the known, but rather is the ever evolving concept in the mind of the knower to suit whatever purpose or goal he finds expedient in the present. Neo-Modernism thus can also be traced back to Utilitarianism.
This is the philosophical theory of Spencer (yes, Darwin did not invent it), which holds that outside of human affairs nothing acts for a purpose or goal, but things happen by chance and are fundamentally inexplicable. While evolutionism has been accepted by many biologists to explain away God’s role in the origin of life, most other scientists realize its utter bunk, because if it were true, all scientific investigation would merely be the expression of our own mind’s view of reality upon reality, rather than the discovery of the truth of what is studied. Evolutionism, by necessity, admits that all consequences are progressive; and that change is always for the better.
This has nothing to do with patriotism as an American. It is a philosophical error which arose in the U.S. about a century ago, which holds that the only true form of Christianity is that which is an exercise of social justice, activism, and working to better the living conditions of the general public. As such it is a derivative of Materialism and Modernism. It denies that prayer, the pursuit of interior conversion and sanctification, and the contemplation of divine things are of any importance to man or the Christian.
THE RESULTS OF THESE ERRORS
The results of these many errors explain why so many do so little about the greatest political crisis in the nation. They are mentally numbed by these errors to make excuses not to act, if they see the problem; excuses not to admit the problem, if they see the facts; and excuses not to admit the facts, if they believe these might lead to a consideration of the problem.
This line of thinking works like this:
First, the individual lives for himself (Individualism), seeks only his own pleasure (Hedonism), makes decisions which lead only to immediate usefulness (Pragmatism) and regard tangibles (Materialism); never considering whether there is anything like justice or truth or virtue apart from the law (Positivism).
Since truth is always changing (Neo-Modernism) and since there are no fixed values that have a place in the public forum (Modernism) by which to make a decision or recognize a problem, the events of history, lawful or not, interpret reality, and thus they admit a constant change and name this progress (Evolutionism). Thus since appeals to other endeavors other than solving the economic crisis ought not be considered as a basis for action (Americanism), we should accept what is commonly promoted by the general outlets of the Mass Media and concentrate on being united under this umbrella of propaganda for the sake of unity (Secular Humanism).
Since only someone who is afflicted with a lousy but extensive education can succumb to so many philosophical errors at once without realize it, you find greater stupidity of this kind in Eastern or urban centers of the nation. However through the “boob tube” several generations of Americans have been spoon fed these errors through silly sit-coms and secularized dramas; until the virility and masculinity of the nation is nearly completely extinguished. (Just take a look at today’s youth: the girls dress like sluts, and the boys like cartoon characters!)
Now being a person of integrity means that you worry about dotting i’s and crossing t’s, while the Federal government is overthrown and the national treasure is ransacked by thieves.
And because these 10 errors are interlocked in the mind of many of the ruling class in America, you cannot easily dislodge one error, without the other 9 working to restore it; likewise you cannot awaken these folk with a merely citation of Vattel’s definition of what a natural born citizen is, for the same reason.
A federal judge in California today listened to governmentlawyers argue that a lawsuit over President Obama's eligibility should be immediately dismissed but refused to grant their request, saying he would make his decision and announce it later.
The result came this morning from U.S. District Judge David Carter, who already has set a tentative trial date for the dispute Jan. 26, 2010. The judge also already had lawyers draw up a tentative schedule for hearings and deadlines in preparation for the trial.
The lawsuit was brought by several political candidates and party officials, including former U.S. ambassador Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson of the American Independent Party.
They are suing Obama alleging he is not eligible to be president under the U.S. Constitution's requirement for a "natural born" citizen in the Oval Office. Forty-six of the plaintiffs are represented by Taitz, who has worked on a multitude of lawsuits over Obama's eligibility, and two – Drake and Robinson – are represented by Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.
Kreep told WND after the hearing it appeared to him the judge was expecting answers and failed to get them from government attorneys during the hearing.
"He was asking the [Department of Justice] to explain impeachment. If he really was [legitimately president], how would that work."
Kreep said he argued impeachment wasn't relevant, since "you have to have a valid, elected president." He said a court hearing with full disclosure of evidence is required, since the impeachment provision wouldn't technically apply to someone who never was qualified to be president.
Taitz was contacted by WND but declined to comment on today's hearing.
But Kreep said he argued that a simple numbers formula also doesn't apply. Many of the government arguments have noted the candidates who are plaintiffs, such as Keyes, did not have a reasonable mathematical probability of winning the presidential election.
That assertion is not relevant, Kreep said he argued. Had Obama's ineligibility been publicized before the election, Hillary Clinton likely would have become the nominee, and she might have been vulnerable to other candidates, he said.
Carter's order that no discovery of evidence will be allowed until his decision was continued today.
Lawyers representing Obama in the case claim "no single federal district court has the power to declare that a sitting president is not fit or qualified to occupy the office, and is, therefore, not a legitimate president."
The attorneys have argued the election process and Constitution allow only Congress to examine the credentials of a presidential candidate, and in any event, that opportunity is long gone.
They have argued, "Plaintiffs simply are not the proper parties to challenge President Obama's qualifications or fitness for office and this court is not the proper forum to decide this issue."
The plaintiffs, however, have argued on behalf of their "real, tangible injuries" from Obama's placement in the White House. If he is not eligible, "they have been denied a free and fair election."
They have suggested the simplest resolution is to put Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other government officials under oath and question them about Obama's birth and birth records.
They also have indicated plans to ask, if given permission by the court, for copies of Hawaiian records regarding Obama's birth, Washington state records regarding him and his mother, his Harvard Law School records, passport records and a long list of other documents.
According to Sept. 25 court documents the DOJ filed in response to Kreep's opposition to dismissal, the DOJ states, "The arguments made by these plaintiffs, in large measure, completely ignore the fact that Barack Obama is the president of the United States and seek to treat him as simply a candidate for office. Try as they might, plaintiffs cannot conceal the fact that what they are really seeking in this case is nothing less than a determination by this United States District Court that President Obama should be removed from office. The preposterous nature of this assertion is readily apparent. No single United States District Court has the power to try the question of whether a sitting president of the United States should be allowed to remain in office."
Kreep has requested immediate access to Obama's records, such as his original long-form birth certificate and his Occidental College records. The plaintiffs' suspicion is that those records would undermine the president's statements that he is a "natural born" citizen, which could disqualify him. For example, an original birth certificate could indicate it was a "delayed" filing, which could open the door for a birth location outside the United States.
Likewise, the Occidental College records could be significant if Obama attended on a program for foreign students or represented himself as a foreign student at the time.
The DOJ also filed a separate response to Taitz' opposition to dismissal Sept. 25, stating, "Much of the opposition filed by these plaintiffs is a disjointed polemic, completely devoid of citation to any case or statutory authority. Defendants will not waste the court's time, or that of undersigned counsel by seeking to respond to the many irrelevant statements and references made therein."
Both Taitz and Kreep have expressed significant differences of opinion in how the case should be handled. Should the lawsuit proceed, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been heard in open court.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
The motion hearing to consider the defense’s claim that the plaintiffs’ action should be dismissed ,will be heard in Federal Court this morning, in Santa Ana, California.
For all who have followed this case’s long docket history — it was originally entitled Keyes et. al. vs. Obama et. al., — it has been a long, nearly 9 month wait.
In August the lead plaintiff in the case was changed to Captain Barnett; ever since there has been much interest in getting to know this courageous Army Captain & woman, whose name will be forever tied to this legal counter-attack by American patriots against the tyrannical usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by the Chicago Mob.
I requested an interview with Captain Barnet some weeks ago, and am publishing it verbatim without editing just before the trial, so that all who are interested in knowing something about the personal story behind her defense of the Constitution, can understand better her motives and patriotism.
News agencies which wish to quote from this interview must receive copyright release from The Post & Email, by sending an email to me at the address on our About page.
This entire interview is Copyrighted under the laws of the United States, no reproduction in any form is permitted, neither in text, voice, or other media.
All bloggers take notice!This applies to you, even if you would have wanted to cite it. Release is only given to Dr. Orly Taitz’s website, if she desires; as courtesy for the favor of obtaining this interview. Bloggers can summarize in their own words, no citations allowed. Please do give a link, so as to allow your readers to hear what Captain Barnett says.
The Post & Email’s Interview with Captain Pamela Barnet, U.S. Army, Retired
MR. CHARLTON: It is a double honor to have the opportunity to interview you, Captain Barnett; first because you are a plaintiff in a legal action to protect this nation from the crime of usurpation — that of the highest office in the land — and second for your service to the country, in the U.S. Military. Many of the readers of The Post & Email are familiar with the basics of Dr. Orly Taitz’s action, Barnett et. al. vs. Obama et al., but before I begin our interview, can you tell me something about who Captain Pamela Barnett is, and something about your military service to our great nation?
CPT. BARNETT: First of all, I would like to say that I am thankful for the opportunity as a retired Army Captain to defend the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it promises to all Americans in the legal action CPT Pamela Barnett v. Barack Hussein Obama et al. I want to assure any reader of this interview that this is purely a legal action to get to the truth of whether Obama is a legal President under the U.S. Constitution.
I enlisted in the Army in 1990 and became a military journalist/photographer and deployed twice to Southwest Asia on various missions. I was awarded an active duty scholarship to finish my bachelor degree in Business and earn my military officer commission. As an officer, I have served in Military Intelligence, Public Affairs, and command positions.
I have always been an inquisitive person and began to investigate Obama’s eligibility when I had read about Philip Berg’s lawsuit against Obama in September, 2008. The more I researched Obama the more evidence I found (more than 300 pages) that his Constitutional Qualifications (particularly the natural born citizen requirement), were never vetted by anyone in an official capacity. My year of research has revealed that Congress has Never vetted Obama, Secretaries of State and county election commissions have Never vetted Obama, and the Democrat National Committee has Never vetted Obama.
MR. CHARLTON: For those unfamiliar with the case, can you summarize the chief claims of the plaintiffs, regarding the injustice they have suffered and the necessity of a court action?
CPT. BARNETT: Speaking for myself, I have not been satisfied that Obama meets the Constitutional Qualification of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 – “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.” My extensive research reveals that Obama does not meet the natural born citizen requirement. This is why I am suing Obama.
The majority of plaintiffs are military veterans that swore and oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. For commissioned military officers this oath is forever unless we resign our commissions. Retired officers and enlisted members still fall under the regulations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; therefore, we are forever subject to recall to active duty and are obligated to report crimes that fall under the UCMJ. As acting Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Obama wages war on behalf of the United States and administers the laws of the UCMJ under Article 140. If he is an unlawful CINC, then any order he issues is unlawful and any military member cannot follow an unlawful military order.
Our lawsuit against Obama is to force discovery of Obama’s vital documents that have NEVER been revealed to the citizens of this country, and have a court rule on whether he meets the qualification of Natural Born Citizen as our founding fathers would have defined it. We have had to do this federal court action because of the massive failure of our election system, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the military to evaluate the Constitutional qualifications of Obama as well as his alleged fraud crimes.
The Plaintiffs and our attorney, Orly Taitz Esq., have contacted key members of Congress, the Military, the DOJ, and SCOTUS and made them aware of the facts surrounding Obama’s potential lack of eligibility and alleged fraud crimes, and have asked for investigation into what we believe to be the Usurpation of the office of the President. Up until this point no one has investigated this serious matter so hopefully now we should have standing in Federal Court. To deny us standing to adjudicate our grave concerns would be to deny our Constitutional rights.
MR. CHARLTON: Initially, this case was named Keyes vs. Obama; why did the name of the case change?
CPT. BARNETT: I have never asked Attorney Taitz why she had done this, but I think she feels that military members may have the best chance of obtaining standing in court.
MR. CHARLTON: Can you tell me when you signed on as a plaintiff in Barnett vs. Obama, and why?
CPT. BARNETT: As soon as Attorney Taitz started expanding the original plaintiff list of Keyes v. Obama, I asked to be included as a plaintiff. By the way, I was also a plaintiff on Lightfoot v. Bowen which was filed after Congress confirmed Obama, but before he was sworn in. This case was denied a hearing by California Superior Court and then denied a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court.
MR. CHARLTON: Many citizens are asking on blogs and forums, why is it this case took so long to be heard? Can you explain something about this to us who are not lawyers, and are not familiar with the legal system’s process?
CPT. BARNETT: For our case Orly had served Obama for his actions before he became POTUS. After months of waiting for a summary judgment, Attorney Taitz was able to get a court date to hear her request for a summary judgment. The judge did not agree on the manner of service by the plaintiffs, but then allowed Attorney Taitz to re-serve Obama which added another 60 days.
For the other lawsuits, the wheels of justice really do turn extremely slowly as I have found out. There have been approximately 30 cases related to Obama’s eligibility and not one case has been allowed to go to trial on the merits and not one judge has allowed any of the plaintiffs to have discovery of Obama’s birth and other records that could show him to be a British and or Indonesian citizen well into his college years if not until today. Phillip Berg, a lifelong Democrat andHillary Clinton supporter filed his first lawsuit against Obama over a year ago. The courts had denied him standing just like all of the other plaintiffs that have attempted to sue Obama or agencies that should have vetted Obama. One judge had the audacity to say that Obama’s eligibility had been blogged and “twittered” to death. Since when are twitters and blogs allowed as evidence in a court of law?
MR. CHARLTON: Were you present in court on Sept. 8, 2009, before Judge Carter?
CPT. BARNETT: No, I was not able to be present.
MR. CHARLTON: What is your impression of the character of Judge David O. Carter?
CPT. BARNETT: According to our attorney Orly Taitz, Esq. and court transcripts, Judge Carter, as a Marine veteran, realized the importance of our lawsuit and alluded to wanting to get to the truth of the matter. Up until this point, Judge Carter seems to be the only judge to be brought an Obama-eligibility lawsuit that takes his oath to uphold the Constitution seriously.
MR. CHARLTON: What is your sense of the accuracy of reporting in the Main Stream Media, regarding your case?
CPT. BARNETT: The problem with the media in general is that they wanted Obama to win the election and helped him by not exposing the eligibility issue until after Obama was sworn in. The media continue to be puppets of the Obama administration by regurgitating whatever Obama’s administration says instead of investigating to find out the truth.
Not surprisingly, Obama maniacs from MSNBC and CNN waved around Obama’s forged (according to affidavit filed with court) Hawaii Certification of Live Birth as proof that he was born in Hawaii when the state of Hawaii Never verified that document as being authentic. There were obvious problems with the Certification of Live Birth documents the Obama camp posted on the internet. One of the versions did not have the required Hawaii seal and the other one had the wrong seal for the year it was issued. This is why we need full disclosure of all Hawaii birth documents and policies and procedures.
None of these “news” broadcasters ever investigated the claims that the document is a forgery, or that Hawaii allows for registration of foreign births, delayed births or births only declared by one person without any corroborated facts. Also, of course the media did not research how our founding fathers would define a Natural Born Citizen. The media is as ignorant on the definition of natural born citizen as members of Congress who swore an oath to defend the Constitution have proven to be.
The most fair interview I saw was Lou Dobbs interviewing Orly and Alan Keyes. I am deeply disappointed in Fox News for never broaching the subject seriously when they have two attorneys as talking heads and a frequent Constitutional attorney as a guest.
Instead of being the watch dogs of our government, the media has become the lap dogs of the DNC and the Obama Whitehouse. This helped to bring us to a point in our country where I believe we have an unlawful POTUS.
MR. CHARLTON: What are the facts that often get omitted or distorted by the press, regarding your case?
CPT. BARNETT: Polarizing racist commentators have tried to label “birthers” as racists. Ambassador Alan Keyes, our most prestigious, well-known plaintiff is African American. We also have other plaintiffs of color. Race is a non-issue. Another big distortion is that the media has no idea of what a natural born citizen is, nor do they care to report the truth. They repeatedly trumpet that Obama is a “citizen”, completely ignoring the Constitutional qualification of needing to be a Natural Born Citizen. I have a letter from Senator Diane Feinstein that says Obama is a citizen, but fails to call him a Natural Born Citizen. Feinstein references the 14th Amendment even though the term Natural Born Citizen is not once mentioned in the Amendment.
MR. CHARLTON: Can you tell the readers something about what America means to you, and what is your notion of patriotism?
CPT. BARNETT: God, America and my family are everything to me. I can tell you how I feel about America by quoting a Kuwaiti woman whom I met in 1991. After the United States had freed Kuwait from the Saddam Husseindictatorship, I was invited to dinner at a Kuwaiti’s home. I was astonished by the great wealth in the household and I told the young wife, “You are so lucky. You have such beautiful things.”
She replied to me, “You are the lucky one. You are free.” I instantly got a lump in my stomach and got a tear to my eye. I was very naïve about the rest of the world up until then.
That’s what America is to me – Freedom from oppression, freedom to worship how you like, freedom to make a family with a person of your choosing. I regret that I lost touch with this woman, but she forever opened my eyes to how important freedom is, and America represents that to me and to the rest of the world as well.
MR. CHARLTON: What does it mean to serve the U.S.A. in the armed forces? What kind of woman or man ought to consider this?
CPT. BARNETT: It was an honor to serve in the military. The greatest honor is to be entrusted with the care of American soldiers. I miss it greatly, but God has other plans for me now. The love of my fellow soldiers and my country pushes me on to get to the truth of Obama’s eligibility. I will refrain from saying much else on whether someone should consider the military at this point in time.
MR. CHARLTON: On the other hand kind of man or woman, should the President of the United States of America be, as Commander-in-Chief?
CPT. BARNETT: A person loyal to our country exclusively (not a citizen of the world), a person who will honor the Constitution and defend it to his or her death, and a person of great moral fortitude that also has the wisdom to surround himself with others of great moral fortitude. If you have these qualities you would be able to carry out the duties of the POTUS and CINC and be able to honor you sworn oath to keep the greatest nation in history strong by protecting the God given rights of each individual citizen of the United States and forever representing a beacon of freedom to the rest of the world.
MR. CHARLTON: What kind of diligence ought the chain of command have for acknowledging legitimate orders, and questioning illegitimate ones?
CPT. BARNETT: Military officers take an oath to only follow lawful orders. An officer following unlawful orders would be subject to punishment under theUniform Code of Military Justice. Military officers operating outside the United States would not assuredly have the protections of the Geneva Conventionoperating under an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief. For example, American soldiers in Afghanistan could possibly be charged with war crimes because they were following the unlawful orders of a Usurper Commander-in-Chief.
MR. CHARLTON: How important to the nation is the “natural born citizen” clause in Article II, Section 2, paragraph 5, of the U.S. Constitution?
CPT. BARNETT: I think that is extremely important in ensuring a Commander in Chief only has loyalties to the United States.
Loyalty to the United States and the Constitution dwarfs any other POTUS qualifications. Our lawsuit asks for the court to evaluate whether Obama would be considered a natural born citizen when according to Obama he was the son of a Kenyan and born with British citizenship and he was also the adopted son of an Indonesian man Lo Lo Soetoro, (according to Ann Dunham, Soetoro divorce records). Obama has personally been involved in both Kenyan and Indonesian politics as a Senator which potentially go against the Logan Act.
MR. CHARLTON: Who is Barack Hussein Obama? What kind of a man does he seem to be, in your opinion?
CPT. BARNETT: With a case pending against Obama I will only say that he is suspiciously secretive.
MR. CHARLTON: What is your view on the current national crisis; is it grave; are we in the greatest danger we have ever been as a nation since the Civil War?
CPT. BARNETT: In my opinion our nation is facing the greatest danger since the Civil War. It is not just because there is a possible Usurper in the Whitehouse; it is also that Congress, state officials, courts and the Department of Justice have failed to safeguard the Constitution and are infringing on citizen’s rights like never before.
MR. CHARLTON: What can average American Citizens do on their own, to respond to this national crisis?
CPT. BARNETT: It seems as if the U.S. Congress and the DOJ don’t care to do anything about the crisis, but it looks as if some citizens are making inroads within their state governments. There are a couple different states investigating whether Obama should have been on the ballot in the first place.
MR. CHARLTON: How can those who are interested in helping the plaintiffs in Barnett vs. Obama, help out?
CPT. BARNETT: Prayers of protection for those seeking the truth about Obama’s eligibility and prayers that all truths will be revealed and justice will be done. Also, donations to Orly’s Defend our Freedoms Foundation, because she is doing the case pro bono and incurs a lot of expenses that need to be covered. Her website is www.orlytaitzesq.com where you can make a donation to her PayPal account. Supporters can also gather at the court house in Santa Ana for the hearing tomorrow morning, Oct. 5.
MR. CHARLTON: Is there anything you wish to add?
CPT. BARNETT: My eyes have been opened greatly to the injustices done to our Constitution by Congress as a whole and by activist judges that create laws that go directly against our Constitution.
I have become more thoughtful of others that have suffered injustices under our legal systems as my own rights have been denied as a military officer and a citizen wanting to defend our Constitution. I have also become keenly aware of a deep corruption within our government and its systems. Being a plaintiff in Barnett v. Obama is my contribution toward trying to honor my oath to defend the Constitution.
It has been a very long tiring journey, I pray that on Monday Judge Carter will allow our case to proceed and grant us immediate discovery of all of Obama’s records.
A hearing Monday is set to determine whether the U.S. Justice Department will get its motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of president or whether the case will move forward to be heard on its merits.
California judge David Carter scheduled a tentative trial date for the case for Jan. 26, 2010. But, to meet that trial date, the case must survive an Oct. 5 hearing on the Department of Justice motion to dismiss.
The California lawsuit is brought by several political candidates and party officials, including former U.S. ambassador Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson of the American Independent Party.
They are suing Obama alleging that he was not and is not eligible to be president under the U.S. Constitution's demand for a "natural born" citizen in the Oval Office. Forty-six of the plaintiffs are represented by Orly Taitz, who has worked on a multitude of lawsuits over Obama's eligibility, and two – Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson – are represented by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.
Kreep told WND one of three things will happen Monday: 1) the judge will make no decision and choose to issue a decision later, 2) the judge could grant the Department of Justice's motion and dismiss the case, or 3) all or part of the case will move forward.
Kreep said he doesn't believe Carter will decide to issue a decision later.
"I think he's ready to roll," he said.
As for option 2, Kreep said the case will not be finished if the judge grants the DOJ's motion to dismiss.
"If he does that, I know that I will file an appeal on behalf of my clients," he said. "It's up to Dr. Taitz what she does."
Taitz declined to comment on the Oct. 5 hearing
In option 3, part of the case could be thrown out. If all or part of the case moves forward, Kreep said, "I would be surprised if the DOJ didn't immediately file an appeal. The judge may knock out part of the case and we go forward and the DOJ appeals."
He said if the case moves forward, the parties will begin discussing discovery, which is the right to see the records in contention.
However, Kreep said, "I do not believe that the Department of Justice will allow any discovery to go forward. They are going to do anything they can to block any discovery if we survive the motion. They could take up an appeal, they can file another motion, but they will do everything they can to block discovery."
Justice Department lawyers representing Obama have claimed that the courts have no jurisdiction over any parts of the question.
According to Sept. 25 court documents the DOJ filed in response to Kreep's opposition to dismissal, the DOJ states, "The arguments made by these plaintiffs, in large measure, completely ignore the fact that Barack Obama is the president of the United States and seek to treat him as simply a candidate for office. Try as they might, plaintiffs cannot conceal the fact that what they are really seeking in this case is nothing less than a determination by this United States District Court that President Obama should be removed from office. The preposterous nature of this assertion is readily apparent. No single United States District Court has the power to try the question of whether a sitting president of the United States should be allowed to remain in office."
Kreep has requested immediate access to Obama's records such as his original long-form birth certificate and his Occidental College records. The plaintiffs' suspicion is that those records would, in fact, undermine the president's statements that he is a "natural born" citizen, which could disqualify him. For example, an original birth certificate could indicate that it was a "delayed" filing, which could open the door for a birth location outside the United States.
Likewise, the Occidental College records could be significant if Obama attended on a program for foreign students, or represented himself as a foreign student at the time.
The DOJ also filed a separate response to Taitz' opposition to dismissal on Sept. 25, stating, "Much of the opposition filed by these plaintiffs is a disjointed polemic, completely devoid of citation to any case or statutory authority. Defendants will not waste the court's time, or that of undersigned counsel by seeking to respond to the many irrelevant statements and references made therein."
In that filing, the DOJ also contends that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the plaintiffs lack standing.
Both Taitz and Kreep have expressed significant differences of opinion in how the case should be handled. Should the lawsuit proceed, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been heard in open court.
As for Monday, Kreep told WND, "It's all in God's hands."
Watch and learn of The Case Against Barack Hussein Obama. In addition to former Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, Keyes vs. Obama has more than forty retired Military service plaintiffs who are standing as true American Citizens to remove the illegal President of the United States.