Lunes, 30 de noviembre de 2009
  • The Wall Street Journal
  • DECEMBER 1, 2009

Honduran Election Gains Backing



Honduras's President-elect Porfirio Lobo began lobbying on Monday for international recognition of his victory and an end to the country's diplomatic isolation over the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya.

A day after winning the controversial ballot, Mr. Lobo, a conservative former rancher, said governments holding out on recognition "are punishing those who went to vote, who do so every four years, and have nothing to do with what happened on June 28."

The election was the country's first since the army removed Mr. Zelaya from office at gunpoint in June, a move much of the world condemned as a coup. Many Hondurans say the ouster was done legally to stop an attempt by Mr. Zelaya to stay in power past his term -- charges he denies.

In addition to Mr. Lobo, Honduras's provisional government has emerged as a winner in the crisis. The de facto leaders of this tiny nation stood up to the international community, got Washington to change course, and appear to have ensured Mr. Zelaya won't return to the presidency.

The U.S. praised the election as credible and said Mr. Lobo would be Honduras's next president. Arturo Valenzuela, U.S. assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, also kept the pressure on the provisional government to reconcile with Mr. Zelaya, saying more needs to be done to restore full democracy.

"While the election is a significant step in Honduras's return to the democratic and constitutional order after the 28 June coup, it's just that: It's only a step," Mr. Valenzuela said.

Colombia has recognized the results, as have Panama, Peru and Costa Rica. Spain's Foreign Minister Miguel Ángel Moratinos, who has been at the forefront of efforts to reinstate Mr. Zelaya, said that while Spain didn't recognize the election, it wouldn't disregard the vote, implying it might recognize Mr. Lobo in the coming months.

Despite opposition to the vote from nations including Brazil and Argentina, analysts expect a growing list of countries to back the results as the only logical way out of the impasse. Turnout was 61% -- higher than in the previous election, and evidence that Hondurans had rejected Mr. Zelaya's call for a boycott.

In the months following Mr. Zelaya's ouster, the de facto leaders of Honduras came under enormous pressure from Washington and other capitals to allow him back into the presidency.

The interim leaders held firm, insisting they were defending their democracy from Mr. Zelaya and his biggest ally, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. Mr. Zelaya had alienated Honduran institutions such as Congress and the courts, as well as much of the middle class, by calling for a referendum to measure voter interest in potentially rewriting Honduras's constitution. Mr. Chávez rewrote Venezuela's constitution to extend his stay in power.

Analysts say the de facto government's defiance wouldn't have been sustainable had the presidential ballot not already been planned for November, just five months after Mr. Zelaya's ouster.

While the U.S. wanted to pressure the government led by interim President Roberto Micheletti into allowing Mr. Zelaya to serve out his term, analysts say Washington decided the vote was the most pragmatic solution.

"Elections were the escape belt," says Eric Farnsworth of the Council of the Americas, a U.S. trade group. "It was the way to put Zelaya and Micheletti into the history books. We didn't support either of those guys."

The biggest loser in the vote may be Mr. Zelaya. In an interview Monday, he continued to chastise both the interim government and the president-elect, Mr. Lobo. Mr. Zelaya said the turnout figures were inflated, and suggested there was voter fraud. He didn't offer evidence of either.

Congress is set to vote Wednesday on Mr. Zelaya's temporary reinstatement. But Sunday's ballot left many lawmakers emboldened to block his return.

"There isn't a chance of him coming back and there never has been," said Maru Landa de Bulnes, a congresswoman from Mr. Zelaya's Liberal Party, who said she will vote against reinstatement.

Write to Nicholas Casey at [email protected] and David Luhnow at [email protected]



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:28
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Lula’s Diplomatic Embarrassment in Honduras

Posted by Juan Carlos Hidalgo

One of the big losers from yesterday’s successful election in Honduras has

 been Brazil’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who demonstrated that
under his presidency, Brazil is not ready to play a positive leadership role in

 the hemisphere.

Not only did Lula seem to be complicit in smuggling deposed Honduran

 president Manuel Zelaya into the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa—an

 irresponsible move that risked the possibility of major confrontations and

 bloodshed in that country—but he stubbornly refuses to recognize

 yesterday’s election as legitimate.

Lula’s grandstanding has nothing to do with a supposed commitment to

democracy, of course. After all he continues to lavish praise on the Castro

 brothers’ dictatorship in Cuba, has said that Hugo Chávez is the best

 president Venezuela has had “in one hundred years” and was one of the

first world leaders in congratulating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s blatant rigged

 election in Iran. Indeed, the same week he announced his refusal to

 recognize the elections in Honduras, he gave Ahmadinejad a warm

 welcoming in Brasilia.

Some had hoped that due to its size and recent assertiveness in world

 affairs, Brazil could play a constructive role in Latin American affairs. It’s

 quite clear that this won’t happen under Lula’s watch.

Instead, Lula continues to be much more responsible on domestic matters—

supporting market democracy in Brazil—and reckless in foreign affairs. Or,

as Cuban writer 
Carlos Alberto Montaner says, a sort of Dr. Jekyll y Mr. Hyde.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:15
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


Appealsbriefs scheduled in Obama eligibility challenge

'Welook forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutionalcase'

Posted: November 29, 2009
9:17 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A briefing schedule has been announcedby the 3rd U.S. Circuit

 Court of Appeals in a case alleging Congressfailed in its

constitutional duties by refusing to investigate theeligibility of

Barack Obama to be president, according to

an attorney handlingthe challenge.

WND previously reported on the lawsuit

filedby lead plaintiff Charles F. Kerchner Jr.

and others against Congress.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed the action

inJanuary on behalf of Kerchner, Lowell T.

Patterson, Darrell JamesLenormand and

Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants

were BarackHussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate,

House ofRepresentatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney

along with HouseSpeaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case focuses on the alleged failure ofCongress to follow the

Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states,"provides that

Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' bythe Electoral

College Electors."

The case asserts "when Obama was born hisfather was a British

subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same."

The Constitution also provides, the lawsuitsays, "If the president-

elect shall have failed to qualify, then thevice president elect shall

act as president until a president shallhave qualified."

See the movie Obama does not want you to see:Own the DVD that

probes this unprecedented presidential eligibilitymystery!

"There existed significant public doubt andgrievances from

plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regardingObama's

eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn dutyto

protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under

the20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to

confirmwhether Obama, once the electors elected him, was

qualified," the caseexplained.

Now the attorney has posted an onlinestatement that the brief on

behalf of the appellants is due Jan. 4,2010.

In an e-mail announcing the schedule,Kerchner wrote, "We look

forward to moving ahead with this veryimportant constitutional

case along the legal pathway to the ultimatedecision maker for this
historic and precedence setting lawsuit, theU.S. Supreme Court."

He continued. "They will determine theanswer to the

pressing legal question ofwhat is a 'natural born citizen' of the

USA per Article IIconstitutional standards and did Obama and the

U.S. Congress violatethe Constitution and statutory laws and my

constitutional rights duringthe 2008 election cycle."

"I say Obama does not meet the founders andframers intent for

the Article II eligibility clause. I say Obama is adeceiver and a

usurper," he wrote today.

Apuzzo earlier argued in his notice of appealthat the district court

judge "avoided" a conclusion on the merits ofthe case.

"We allege that Obama has not conclusivelyproven that he was

born in Hawaii. More importantly, we also allegethat he is not an

Article II 'natural born Citizen' because when Obamawas born his

father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself wasthe

same," he wrote.

The lawyer saidit is important that the court did not rule Obama

was born in Hawaii,nor did it rule that the claim was frivolous.

It simply said the case was dismissed becauseof a jurisdiction


"By the court finding that plaintiffs do nothave standing and that

their claims present a political question, thecourt was able to avoid
having to address the underlying merits of theKerchner case. With

such a decision, the American people unfortunatelystill do not

know where Obama was born and whether he is an Article

II'natural born Citizen' and therefore constitutionally eligible to

bepresident and commander in chief," the attorney said.

"A court cannot refuse to hear a case on themerits merely because
it prefers not to due to grave social orpolitical ramifications," he

continued. "The court's opinion dismissingthe Kerchner

complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner casebut

rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to

reachthe merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II

'naturalborn citizen.'

"The American people deserve to know whetherObama was in fact

born in Hawaii. More importantly, even if he is bornin Hawaii,

given that he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship,the

American people deserve to know whether he is an Article

II'natural born citizen' which would make him eligible to be

president,"the attorney said.

WND reported earlier whenKerchner publicly argued the courts

have an obligation to make adecision on Obama's eligibility.

He wrote, "The federal courts and judges arecommitting treason to
the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction andgetting to the merits

in the various cases before them regarding theArticle II eligibility

clause question for Obama."

He said his basis for such a statement is theopinion of U.S.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote inan 1821

case, Cohens vs. Virginia:

"It is most true that this court will nottake jurisdiction if it should

not: but it is equally true, that itmust take jurisdiction if it should.

The judiciary cannot, as thelegislature may, avoid a measure

because it approaches the confines ofthe constitution. We cannot

pass it by because it is doubtful. Withwhatever doubts, with

whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, wemust decide it, if

it be brought before us. We have no more right todecline the

exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp thatwhich is

not given. The one or the other would be treason to

theconstitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly

avoid; but wecannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our

best judgment, andconscientiously to perform our duty. In doing

this, on the presentoccasion, we find this tribunal invested with

appellate jurisdiction inall cases arising under the constitution and
laws of the United States.We find no exception to this grant, and

we cannot insert one."
WND has reported on dozens of legalchallenges to Obama's status

as a "natural born citizen." TheConstitution, Article 2, Section 1,

states, "No Person except a naturalborn Citizen, or a Citizen of the

United States, at the time of theAdoption of this Constitution, shall

be eligible to the Office ofPresident."

Some of the lawsuits question whetherhe was actually born in

Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out ofthe country, Obama's

American mother, the suits contend, was too youngat the time of

his birth toconfer American citizenship to her son under the law at

the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama'scitizenship through his

father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction ofthe United Kingdom

at the time of his birth, thus making him a dualcitizen. The cases

contend the framers of the Constitution excludeddual citizens from
qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question hiscitizenship by virtue of his attendance

in Indonesian schools duringhis childhood and question on what

passport did he travel toPakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistentrefusal to release

documents that could provide answers and theappointment – at a

cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – ofmyriad lawyers to

defend against all requests for his documentation.While his

supporters cite an online version of a "Certification ofLive Birth"

from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point outsuch

documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

The ultimate questions remain unaddressed todate: Is Obama a

natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn'tdocumentation been

provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does itmean to the

2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealedthat there has
been a violation?

WND has reported on another case thatwas dismissed by U.S.

District Judge David Carter in California. Italso now is heading to

the appeals level.

WND also has reported that among thedocumentation not yet

available forObama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou

school records,Occidental College records,

ColumbiaUniversity records,Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School

records, Harvard Law Reviewarticles, scholarly articles from the

University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his

years as an Illinoisstate senator, his Illinois

State Bar Association records,any baptism records and his

adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information aboutObama's eligibility,

WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaignto raise

contributions to post billboards asking a simple question:"Where's

the birth certificate?"

"Where'sThe Birth Certificate?" billboard at the Mandalay Bay resorton the Las Vegas Strip at the Mandalay Bay resorton the Las Vegas Strip

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than

480,000 signaturesdemanding proof of his eligibility, the

availability of yard signs raisingthe question and the production of

permanent, detachablemagnetic bumper stickers asking the


The "certification of live birth" postedonline and widely touted as

"Obama's birth certificate" does not in anyway prove he was born

in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" documentis easily

obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true"long-form"

birth certificate – which includes information such as thename of

the birth hospital and attending physician – is the onlydocument

that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he hasnot

permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings wereheld to determine

whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionallyeligible to be

president as a "natural born citizen," no controllinglegal authority

ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Your donation – from as little as $5 to asmuch as $1,000 – can be

made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donationsare not tax-

deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can

bearranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM.

If you wouldprefer to mail in your contributions, they should be

directed to WND,P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure

to specify the purposeof the donation by writing "billboard" on the
check. In addition,donations of billboard space will be accepted,

as will significantcontributions specifically targeted for geographic

If you are a member of the media andwould like to interview

Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND

Tags: Obama eligibility

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:52
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 28 de noviembre de 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009

Obama's Constitutional Lack of Eligibility - The Three Enablers - 30 Nov 2009 Issue of Washington Times National Weekly - page 9

The ad depicts "The Three Enablers" of Obama's usurpation of the Office of the Presidency and Commander-in-Chief of our military in violation of the eligibility clause of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Despite the pleas and petitions of the hundreds of thousands of Americans, the Congress will not look at or investigate the merits of the charges despite holding hearings and investigations of John McCain in April 2008 on similar eligibility charges thus violating our right to equal protection under our Constitution. The Courts will not hear in a trial the merits of the charges. And the Main Stream Media will not talk about the merits of the charges and discuss the legal and Constitutional issues involved with the American people. The Three Enablers are not being responsive to questions and concerns of We the People and have placed a "cone of silence" over this issue to the detriment of Constitution and the Republic. And their ignoring the People endangers our liberty.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please help the cause to fund more ads to educate the People about Obama's usurpation of his office:


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 23:12
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Formal treason charges filed against Barrack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, reach Monroe County Tennessee Grand Jury - Tuesday December 1, 2009

Obama Treason Charges Advance In Tennessee Grand Jury

 By JB Williams  Saturday, November 28, 2009

On June 10, 2009 I wrote about formal treason charges filed against Barack Hussein , aka Barry Soetoro, in - Is Obama Guilty of Treason? I followed that column up with - Why Commander Fitzpatrick Is NOT Guilty of Mutiny! on June 13. Since then, numerous others have filed similar treason charges against Obama/Soetoro with little or no fanfare…

If Obama is indeed guilty of treason - then we have a growing list of folks who are also committing treason. Namely, every member of law enforcement and the justice system who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic - along with every individual in Washington DC and beyond who has chosen to look the other way while denying American citizens their day in court - claiming that no citizen has the “legal standing” to ask who in the hell Barack Hussein Obama really is…

After visits from the Secret Service and months of rejection by the courts, Commander Walter Fitzpatrick may get his day in court.

On Tuesday December 1st 2009, Retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III will present the evidence behind his treason complaint against Obama/Soetoro to all thirteen members of aTennessee Grand Jury in Monroe County Tennessee.

The road to justice has been bumpy, to say the least. Commander Fitzpatrick has been ridiculed, blocked in court house halls, threatened, accused of mutiny and labeled a “crackpot” by Obama supporters who see no need for a standard background check for the most powerful office in the world.

Fitzpatrick had to go so far as to file criminal obstruction charges against Grand Jury Foreman Pettway before he would gain access to the court.¬† Despite it all, Commander Fitzpatrick forged ahead and on December 1st, his complaint will be heard by his local Monroe County Tennessee Grand Jury.

Now, this places the Tennessee Grand Jury squarely in the middle of the biggest Constitutional Crisis in U.S. history. Fitzpatrick will be under oath before the Grand Jury on Tuesday. If the Grand Jury has any doubts about Fitzpatrick’s testimony, they must arrest him for perjury on the spot. If they don’t arrest him for perjury, they are accepting his testimony as true and accurate…

If Article II—Section I—Clause V of the U.S. Constitutionmeans nothing—then no part of the Constitution means anything today. On the other hand, if the Monroe County Tennessee Grand Jury follows its oath to uphold, protect and preserve the Constitution and apply the law equally to all, then the charge of treason must be allowed its day in court.

The Monroe County Grand Jury appears ready to act on its oath and authority. But if they don’t, they could become thirteen new members of a long list of folks equally guilty of treason, for turning their heads the other way and denying the American people access to the courts in what might be the greatest case in U.S. political history.

Thirteen members of the Monroe County Grand Jury hold the future of Constitutional Law in their hands. Come Tuesday, they will have an opportunity to keep their oath to the American people - the citizens of Monroe County and state of Tennessee. Of course, they will also have an opportunity to do what several civil and criminal court judges have already done on the matter. They can turn their heads and deny citizens their right to be heard…

But with each passing day, the stakes get higher and higher in the case over who Obama/Soetoro really is and whom he really serves. Atop the growing list of unconstitutional acts by the Obama administration is the Samson Alabama story in which—
An Army investigation has found that the use of armed military policemen from Fort Rucker in response to mass murders in Samson violated federal law.” —reports the Associated Press.

“The Army earlier confirmed that 22 military police and an officer were sent to Samson after the mass slaying of 10 people on March 10. - The Department of Army Inspector General found a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which restrains the use of the military for civilian law enforcement purposes.”

Yet ten months after inauguration, Obama’s entire past remains a mystery under lock and key. Obama has spent almost $2 million in legal fees to keep his life Top Secret, not counting millions in tax-payer funded road blocks thrown up by Obama’s Justice Department, which has sent numerous federal attorneys into court after court to file dismissal requests on the basis of “standing” - with great success. They don’t want the courts to ever decide Obama’s Constitutional eligibility on “merit,” because if discovery ever goes forward and Obama’s files are opened up, Obama is finished and so is his Marxist Global Agenda!

Make no mistake… The courts have clearly ruled that NOAMERICAN CITIZEN has the “proper standing” to ask even the most fundamental questions about Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro). The American press has not only ignored these facts, but mocked anyone willing to ask the right questions - of the right people - in the right way.

Tuesday, the Monroe County Grand Jury will get an opportunity to make history and reverse the modern trend of denying citizens their day in court. The people have a right to know who and what Obama really is. Let’s see if the Monroe County Grand Jury has the backbone to force Obama to answer that question.

When an unconstitutional resident of the White House rushes a laundry list of unconstitutional policies through, including the use of the Military against U.S. citizens—against the demands of the American citizens, it’s time to ask some very serious questions and the American people deserve no less than honest answers.

The Monroe County Grand Jury will hear these and other charges Tuesday December 1st. God help this nation if they lack the courage to take a stand with the citizenry of this great nation.  The future of American justice hangs in the balance! The people deserve much more than a simple birth certificate. They deserve a legitimate government - limited to its constitutional authority - and they deserve a justice system willing to uphold those foundational principles and values.

All eyes across this nation will be on Monroe County Tennessee this week!

Bookmark and Share | (15) Reader Feedback | Subscribe 

JB Williams Most recent columns

JB 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

JB Williams can be reached at: [email protected]

Older articles by JB Williams


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:36
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Responsible citizens should demand an immediate Congressional inquiry
intoO Obama’s history. Obama obviously has something to hide.

President Barack Obama continues to embarrass the United States of
America with his bowing to heathen emperors, ignorant proclamations
 and inept appointees. Obama, fawning and inexperienced, described
China’s economic growth to a Shanghai student audience as “an
accomplishment unparalleled in human history.”

The Chinese, however, are focused on a serious matter: Obama’s
irresponsible budget deficit that will cause them to stop buying our
debt and bankrupt us. Responsible United States citizens must move
 to stop Obama before he purposely destroys our economy and nation.

Obama’s actions are purposely intended to bring America to penury.
Obama despises everyone who works and is successful. Obama’s
 lifelong communist indoctrination demands destruction of the
United States’ free enterprise economy. Post-destruction desperation
 is planned to make citizens amenable to submission to total
government-bureaucrat domination.

The secreted restrictions of liberty and free choice already written
in the Obama health care plan and cap-and-trade legislation confirm
Obama’s agenda.

Responsible citizens should demand an immediate Congressional
 inquiry into Obama’s history. Obama obviously has something to hide.
 Obama’s campaign spent more than $1.6 million dollars and more than
 $1 million of Treasury funds to support Obama’s refusal to do what
every little leaguer and typical citizen must: show an original birth certificate.

In 2008, Democrats held a congressional hearing challenging
 U.S. Sen. John McCain’s eligibility as affected by his birth in the
Panama Canal Zone. No such inquiry has been made into Obama’s eligibility.

Congress must demand accountability from Obama. How did Obama travel
in the 1980s to Muslim lands forbidden to United States passports. Demand
to see Obama’s birth certificate, school records, passport, Selective Service
registration and financial records.

U.S. District Judge David Carter recently dismissed an inquiring lawsuit
stating that only Congress had authority to demand answers and investigate
Obama’s past.



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:07
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
ObamaWorld -- Treat SEALs Like Terrorists And Terrorist Like Citizens
The Freedom Post blogg
is expressing anger about the terrorist who is believed to be responsible for the brutal death and mutilation of four U.S. security guards was supposedly given a "fat lip" by Navy SEALs, who are now being charged with assault.  That's it.  Poor baby!  They can burn and mutilate our guys, drag their dead, burned bodies through the streets, hang them from a bridge (all things they did in this case), and we've reached the point where a fat lip is the moral equivalent and is considered a war crime.  God help us!

Welcome to the backwards world of Barack Obama and his limp-wristed, maggot-infested Marxist government.  In Barack's World, terrorists are given constitutional rights, while citizens' rights and freedoms are taken away.  Terrorists are tried as civilians and our military are tried as war criminals.  Welcome to Obama's World.

Why would anyone want to defend this country under this Commander-in-Thief?

We have an America-hating, terrorist-loving Attorney General, Eric Holder, who when asked if he would read Osama bin Laden his rights should he be captured, he said, after much hesitation, "it depends." (

It depends!  On what?  What scenario could possibly warrant a non-U.S. citizen, a terrorist no less, caught on foreign soil in the time of war, being given constitutional rights?

The last sentence of the FOX News
story, possibly unknowingly, reveals the reason such disgraceful acts are allowed to stand:

The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the AbuGhraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.

Thanks for that liberal, Marxist "Hope and Change" Democrats.  Thanks go to you too "sensitive" Marxist media-types like Communist Keith Olbermann and Radical Rachel Maddow, who feigned "moral outrage" over how the poor terrorists were treated at Abu Ghraib.

This is the upside-down world you've created, turning our brave, tough as guts military, whose former objective was "to kill bad guys and break things" into de-balled, feminized, feel-good sensitivity zones of political correctness.  Have fun protecting yourself because our brave and heroic military, once feared, admired, and respected by both friends and foes, has now been officially neutered by a bunch of Marxist ACORN and ACLU attorneys.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:32
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 22 de noviembre de 2009
Viernes, 20 de noviembre de 2009


Hateful Ft Lauderdale Palestinian Protest Features Pro Illegal Groups [Video]

A protest yesterday in Ft Lauderdale, Florida by Hamas supporting Palestinians calling for the death of Jews and to "get back in the oven", featured some of the people and groups we love here at Digger's Realm. From one wearing an Obama hat to groups carrying the "Worker's Struggle" Che Guevara "Si Se Puede" signs that we see all the time at protests on the side of those supporting massive illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Si Se Puede Che as seen at
a pro-illegal alien march
For those of you out there who don't think that all of these leftist and socialist groups are in bed together let me assure you that they certainly are. Those calling for the death Israel and Jews are the same groups pushing for socialism in our country and the destruction of America.

In the video below you will see that the Pro-Palestine group becomes increasingly angry and violent and starts pushing across the street into a protest across the street. This is all happening in the United States. While they would try to lead you to believe that those in support of law and order are the hateful racists, it becomes quite clear after you watch only one or two videos that the truly hateful and violent are those that claim they are doing so for the "worker".



Tea partiers brutally beaten by pro-amnesty group
Shocking! Illegal immigration protesters attacked, pushed into traffic

Posted: November 17, 2009
10:13 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Che Guevara supporters with a radical pro-amnesty coalition viciously attacked and bludgeoned tea party protesters at a Florida anti-illegal-immigration rally, including a 62-year-old man who was beaten and kicked in the face.

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC called for "Tea Parties Against Amnesty and Illegal Immigration" to form quickly across the nation on Nov. 14. In less than 30 days, protests were scheduled for more than 50 towns and cities.

But two Fort Lauderdale, Fla., tea party protesters were brutally beaten by pro-amnesty activists on the day of the nationwide rally as they attempted to film Florida's Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition counterprotest.

ANSWER members carried Che Guevara signs and other black and yellow placards that stated "Full rights for all immigrants." They shouted, "Amnesty yes, racists no!"

As the two men attempted to film the protest, an ANSWER member in a black tanktop and blue jeans lunged after one of the cameramen and beat him with a sign, pushing him into traffic. Another ANSWER member in a white T-shirt attacked the same cameraman while the victim defended himself with what appears to be a camera tripod.

A female tea party protester began screaming as Dave Caulkett of Floridians for Immigration Enforcement and the initial ANSWER attacker fought in the middle of the street.

The following is a video of the attack released by ALIPAC:

Supporters of President Obama's amnesty plans attacked Tea Party Against Amnesty & Illegal Immigration demonstrators in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009. One of the men attacked is 62 years old," ALIPAC reported. "Dave Caulkett of FLIMEN is assaulted and then kicked in the face while he is down. The other cameraman from the tea party is hit with several signs."

ALIPAC revealed that ANSWER Florida sent out an e-mail invitation urging members to join its "protest to shut down racist anti-'amnesty' rally" in Fort Lauderdale prior to the event. ANSWER's letter stated the following:

The ANSWER Coalition is calling on all its members, allies, and friends to join us tomorrow to confront and shut down the racist "Anti-Amnesty Tea Party" in Fort Lauderdale.

The "Anti-Amnesty" rallies being held across the country tomorrow have been initiated by fascist, white supremacist organizations that include the Minutemen and the so-called Americans for Legal Immigration.

Recent months have shown a significant rise in extreme-right activity with hate crimes and attacks on immigrants skyrocketing. White supremacist and fascist organizations have boasted rapid growth since the onset of the economic crisis. The new administration has continued the government's anti-immigrant policies with "desktop raids" – the liberal response to the fascist like workplace raids of the Bush years.

Racism is like anything else in this world: in order to make it fall, you must smash it! That is why we are calling on all people to come out tomorrow, to organize a militant confrontation with the so-called "tea baggers." Beating back these forces will require us to organize together, take the streets, fight the racists wherever they show their faces and drive them out of every community. …

We are building a movement that will beat back racism so that working people of all nationalities can unite and fight against our one, shared enemy: capitalism. Amnesty, full rights for ALL immigrants, is a demand that should be raised not just by the immigrant communities, but by every working class community in our struggle to solve this crisis by our own means.

Join us tomorrow, and join us in building the movement against racism and capitalist exploitation!

As WND reported earlier, ALIPAC Chief William Gheen said his group had been calling for a "peaceful, political revolution and uprising in America."


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 18:59
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 18 de noviembre de 2009  

E-mail Author
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version

November 16, 2009 10:00 AM

Trial and Terror
The Left gets its reckoning.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other top al-Qaeda terrorists to New York City for a civilian trial is one of the most irresponsible ever made by a presidential administration. That it is motivated by politics could not be more obvious. That it spells unprecedented danger for our security will soon become obvious.

The five 9/11 plotters were originally charged in a military commission. Military commissions have been approved by Congress and the courts. Eleven months ago, the jihadists were 
prepared to end the military case by pleading guilty and proceeding to execution. Plus, the Obama administration is continuing the commission system for other enemy combatants accused of war crimes. If we are going to have military commissions for any war criminals, it is senseless not to have them for the worst war criminals. In sum, there is no good legal or policy rationale for transferring these barbarians to the civilian justice system. Doing so will prompt a hugely costly three-ring circus of a trial, provide a soapbox for al-Qaeda’s anti-American bile, and create a public-safety nightmare for New York City.
The terrorists are clearly committed members of the al-Qaeda conspiracy to wage a terrorist war against the United States — so much so that KSM cannot help himself, bragging about his atrocities against our country, including the 9/11 massacre of nearly 3,000 Americans. Further, controversy surrounds the intelligence-collection measures used by the Bush administration after 9/11 — measures such as enhanced interrogation that, though they saved countless lives, have been stridently condemned by the antiwar Left. This antiwar Left, President Obama’s base, has demanded investigations and prosecutions against Bush officials.

The Obama Justice Department teems with experienced defense lawyers, many of whom (themselves personally or through their firms) spent the last eight years volunteering their services to America’s enemies in their lawsuits against the American people. As experienced defense lawyers well know, when there is no mystery about whether the defendants have committed the charged offenses, and when there is controversy attendant to the government’s investigative tactics, the standard defense strategy is to put the government on trial.

That is, Pres. Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, experienced litigators, fully realize that in civilian court, the Qaeda quintet can and will demand discovery of mountains of government intelligence. They will demand disclosures about investigative tactics; the methods and sources by which intelligence has been obtained; the witnesses from the intelligence community, the military, and law enforcement who interrogated witnesses, conducted searches, secretly intercepted enemy communications, and employed other investigative techniques. They will attempt to compel testimony from officials who formulated U.S. counterterrorism strategy, in addition to U.S. and foreign intelligence officers. As civilian “defendants,” these war criminals will put Bush-era counterterrorism tactics under the brightest public spotlight in American legal history.

This is exactly what President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder know will happen. And because it is unnecessary to have this civilian trial at all, one must conclude that this is exactly what Obama and Holder want to see happen.

During the 2008 campaign, candidate 
Obama and his adviser, Holder, rebuked the Bush counterterrorism policies and promised their base a “reckoning.” Since President Obama took office, Attorney General Holder has anxiously shoveled into the public domain classified information relating to those policies — with the administration always at pains to claim that its hand is being forced by court orders, even though the president has had legal grounds, which he has refrained from invoking, to decline to make those disclosures. Moreover, during a trip to Germany in April, Holder signaledhis openness to turning over evidence that would assist European investigations — including one underway in Spain — that seek to charge Bush-administration officials with war crimes (which is the transnational Left’s label for actions taken in defense of the United States).

Now, we see the reckoning: Obama’s gratuitous transfer of alien war criminals from a military court, where they were on the verge of ending the proceedings, to the civilian justice system, where they will be given the same rights and privileges as the American citizens they are pledged to kill. This will give the hard Left its promised feast. Its shock troops, such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, will gather up each new disclosure and add it to the purported war-crimes case they are urging foreign courts to bring against President Bush, his subordinates, and U.S. intelligence agents.

There is, however, a patent political rationale behind Obama’s decision.

The terrorists are clearly committed members of the al-Qaeda conspiracy to wage a terrorist war against the United States — so much so that KSM cannot help himself, bragging about his atrocities against our country, including the 9/11 massacre of nearly 3,000 Americans. Further, controversy surrounds the intelligence-collection measures used by the Bush administration after 9/11 — measures such as enhanced interrogation that, though they saved countless lives, have been stridently condemned by the antiwar Left. This antiwar Left, President Obama’s base, has demanded investigations and prosecutions against Bush officials.

The Obama Justice Department teems with experienced defense lawyers, many of whom (themselves personally or through their firms) spent the last eight years volunteering their services to America’s enemies in their lawsuits against the American people. As experienced defense lawyers well know, when there is no mystery about whether the defendants have committed the charged offenses, and when there is controversy attendant to the government’s investigative tactics, the standard defense strategy is to put the government on trial.

That is, Pres. Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, experienced litigators, fully realize that in civilian court, the Qaeda quintet can and will demand discovery of mountains of government intelligence. They will demand disclosures about investigative tactics; the methods and sources by which intelligence has been obtained; the witnesses from the intelligence community, the military, and law enforcement who interrogated witnesses, conducted searches, secretly intercepted enemy communications, and employed other investigative techniques. They will attempt to compel testimony from officials who formulated U.S. counterterrorism strategy, in addition to U.S. and foreign intelligence officers. As civilian “defendants,” these war criminals will put Bush-era counterterrorism tactics under the brightest public spotlight in American legal history.

This is exactly what President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder know will happen. And because it is unnecessary to have this civilian trial at all, one must conclude that this is exactly what Obama and Holder want to see happen.

During the 2008 campaign, candidate 
Obama and his adviser, Holder, rebuked the Bush counterterrorism policies and promised their base a “reckoning.” Since President Obama took office, Attorney General Holder has anxiously shoveled into the public domain classified information relating to those policies — with the administration always at pains to claim that its hand is being forced by court orders, even though the president has had legal grounds, which he has refrained from invoking, to decline to make those disclosures. Moreover, during a trip to Germany in April, Holder signaledhis openness to turning over evidence that would assist European investigations — including one underway in Spain — that seek to charge Bush-administration officials with war crimes (which is the transnational Left’s label for actions taken in defense of the United States).

Now, we see the reckoning: Obama’s gratuitous transfer of alien war criminals from a military court, where they were on the verge of ending the proceedings, to the civilian justice system, where they will be given the same rights and privileges as the American citizens they are pledged to kill. This will give the hard Left its promised feast. Its shock troops, such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, will gather up each new disclosure and add it to the purported war-crimes case they are urging foreign courts to bring against President Bush, his subordinates, and U.S. intelligence agents.
From indictment to trial, the civilian case against the 9/11 terrorists will be a years-long seminar, enabling al-Qaeda and its jihadist allies to learn much of what we know and, more important, the methods and sources by which we come to know it. But that is not the half of it. By moving the case to civilian court, the president and his attorney general have laid the groundwork for an unprecedented surrender of our national-defense secrets directly to our most committed enemies.

The five jihadists in question are alien enemy combatants currently detained outside the United States. They are not Americans and are not entitled to the protection of our Bill of Rights. That means that in a military-commission trial, they would be given only those rights Congress chose to give them.

At Gitmo, they’ve insisted on representing themselves. In a military commission, we can allow them to do that, but we don’t have to. The commission rules provide for the appointment of military counsel and permit the combatants to retain their own lawyers. This is significant because discovery rules require that the defense be given mounds of information for trial preparation. Much of that information is top-secret intelligence. Importantly, however, we do not have to show the terrorists themselves any classified information. Only counsel who have the required security clearances, and are duty-bound not to reveal the nation’s secrets to the nation’s enemies, get access. The rules are saliently different in the civilian justice system, where, the attorney general has promised, this case will be treated like any other criminal case. In federal court, defendants — even illegal aliens — are vested with constitutional rights that Congress may not alter or reduce. One of those is the right to represent oneself, meaning: to conduct one’s own defense without the participation or interference of an attorney.

In 1975, the Supreme Court ruled in Faretta v. California that this right to self-representation is absolute. As Justice Potter Stewart put it, “forcing a lawyer upon an unwilling defendant is contrary to his basic right to defend himself if he truly wants to do so.” To borrow Holder’s pet phrase, we are supposedly bringing terrorists into civilian court to honor “the rule of law.” Well, our rule of law holds that a defendant may tell the judge that he does not want a lawyer, that he wants to conduct his own defense, and that he wants to see all of the legally required discovery himself — not have a lawyer or some other government operative restrict his access.

The judge may try to talk the defendant out of his decision to be his own lawyer. The judge may appoint “stand-by counsel” to advise the defendant and to be available to represent the defendant if he changes his mind. Under Faretta, however, the judge may not deny the defendant the right to conduct his own defense.

By transferring this case to civilian court rather than leaving it to be handled by the military-commission system created by Congress, Obama and Holder have needlessly created a perilous dilemma. Do we deny KSM & Co. the right to represent themselves and thus risk reversal of any convictions on Sixth Amendment grounds? Do we grant them self-representation but withhold critical discovery and thus risk reversal on due process grounds? Or do we grant them self-representation and disclose directly to our wartime enemies the nation’s security secrets, which they can then pass on to confederates who are actively targeting us for mass-murder attacks?

In the military court, there would be no such dilemma. Indeed, in the military court, this case would be over now. If President Obama had simply let it proceed, there would have been no trial, and these war criminals would be well on their way to the execution of death sentences.

But then the Left would not have gotten its reckoning. Can’t have that.


— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Instituteand the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008).

Tags: OBAMA terrorists NY

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:56
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar


Obama's betrayal of America growing exponentially

By Sher Zieve

Obama and his administration have been caught in another huge lie and, this time, it's a doozey! Remarkably, one of Obama's own state-run media ABC News broke the story. For months now, Obama and his various administration mouthpieces have been extolling the virtues of the dictator-in-chief's "creation" of millions of new jobs! With millions of verifiable jobs having been lost since Obama usurped the position of POTUS and hundreds of thousands more still being lost each and every month, anyone who still maintains the ability to think knows this was a lie. And now another immense ObamaLie has been exposed.

ABC News followed up on the Obama Administration's claims (on its website) — which included amounts spent, jobs "created or saved" and the Congressional districts which 'dear leader' had 'positively impacted.' One of the immediate problems is that the Congressional districts which had ostensibly received the ObamaMoney (where the ObamaJobs had been created) did not and do not exist! For example, just a few of these reported by ABC include:

"In Oklahoma, lists more than $19 million in spending — and 15 jobs created — in yet more congressional districts that don't exist.

"In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent — and 39 jobs created — in nonexistent districts

"In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars"

The ObamaSite lists other states in which Obama has listed other bogus districts and other bogus jobs he claims to have "saved or created"

And in US territories from Puerto Rico through the US Virgin Island to the Northern Mariana Islands, Obama claims to have given over $100 Millions and created many jobs. The problem is that all of these claims are bogus. They are outright lies and this is abject theft by government officials of OUR money. And what does Obama and Co do when confronted with the truth? They simply make up more lies to cover their other lies

Where have the $787 Billions in "stimulus" monies gone? We may want to check Obama's and his friends' multiple bank accounts. These are no more than very powerful crooks, folks. This is betrayal of the American people and America, itself.

Obama has also told his ObamaRun EPA to threaten those who oppose his Cap and Tax bill with "disciplinary actions" if they tell the public the truth as they know it. EPA attorneys Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel were threatened with such disciplinary actions if they did not either change a video opposing Obama's Cap and Tax or remove it altogether. Note: Where Obama rules, there is no longer free speech. This is betrayal of American citizens and the First Amendment of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Obama has ordered the mastermind of 9/11 and about a dozen of his cohorts to be tried in New York City; where the 9/11 massacre occurred. These beasts are to be given full US Constitutional rights — I suspect even more rights than those of US Citizens — and the US government will, ultimately and by ObamaDesign, be placed on trial; not the terrorists. And now, to rub more salt and gasoline into a festering and painful wound, the Muslim Obama is telling Congress not to investigate the terrorist massacre committed by Muslim Nidal Malik Mohammed against soldiers at Fort Hood. Note: Obama still refuses to call this a terrorist act. By his refusal to protect the USA and its people from its enemies, Obama has abrogated his contract as POTUS and is, for all intents and purposes, siding with said enemies. He has become this country's greatest enemy to date. This is betrayal — of and in the highest order — of the USA and its people.

Obama has repeatedly stated that with or without the American people's agreement he WILL pass ObamaCare so that his government's control of them and their assets (that's We-the-People and our assets) will be under the dictator's control and belong to him. He has also vowed to give ALL illegals in the country amnesty in 2010, so that his illegal-soon-to-be-legal-if-Obama-has-his-way voter base can replace the legal one that is now opposed to both him and his policies. He does not intend to ever give up his position. That is, until he's named ruler of the world. This is so far beyond betrayal that there may not currently be a term for it.

Each and every day the ObamaMachine's betrayal of the United States of America is growing exponentially. And it appears to have no plan or desire to stop. How long do we allow this to go on, America? How long?

Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist:

Video Included EPA Threatens Own Lawyers Over Video Critical Of Cap and Trade:

Obama tells Congress do not investigate Ft. Hood Massacre:

© Sher Zieve


Tags: Obama betrayal of America

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:01
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 17 de noviembre de 2009

The Whitewash Begins Barack Obama said on Saturday he would hold to account those who missed warning signs that could have prevented a shooting rampage on a Texas army base earlier this month that killed 13 people.

"If there was a failure to take appropriate action before the shootings, there must be accountability," Obama said in his weekly address.

"Given the potential warning signs that may have been known prior these shootings, we must uncover what steps -- if any -- could have been taken to avert this tragedy," he said.

"We must compile every piece of information that was known about the gunman, and we must learn what was done with that information.  Once we have those facts, we must act upon them."

That's the ticket Obama, change the focus from an investigation into a terrorist attack on your watch to a witch-hunt for the person who didn't report Hasan.

Nowhere in Obama's remarks, does he use the words Muslim, Islam, jihad, or terror.  He chooses to use antiseptic words -- shooting -- tragedy -- gunman -- words that hide what happened at Ft. Hood.

Obama is going to bury this entire incident -- another lone gunman stressed out by the thoughts of war -- you just watch.

Calling It What It Is -- Terrorism

   Army was afraid to deal with Hasan because he was a Muslim  (02:24)


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:36
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Obama is NOT Eligible

By Paul Hollrah | 11/17/09 | 06:57 AM EDT | 0 Comments

President James A. Garfield once said, “I love agitation and investigation and glory in defending unpopular truth against popular error.”

If Garfield were alive today he would glory in defending an unpopular truth… which is that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States… against popular error… which is the incomprehensible claim of sunshine patriots that it makes no difference whether or not Obama meets the “natural born” standard required under the U.S. Constitution.

So, in the Garfield tradition, let us defend an unpopular truth.

In a recent column titled, “Obama’s Dual Citizenship,” we examined the basis of the claim that Obama is not a “natural born” United States citizen, as required by Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. To arrive at that conclusion it is first necessary to establish that Obama was born with dual citizenship.  

Obama tells us that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a citizen of Kenya, and Stanley Ann Dunham, an 18-year-old American girl. But, regardless of the place of his birth (some insist that he was born in Kenya), the fact that his parents were of diverse nationality… one Kenyan and one American… provides sufficient proof that, under all of the applicable law, U.S. and foreign, he started life with dual citizenship. 

At the time of Obama’s birth, Kenya was a colony of the United Kingdom, therefore Obama’s father, having been born in Kenya, to Kenyan parents, was a British subject. So what does that mean for Obama?  

Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…”

Obama’s father was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of his birth. Therefore, under British Law and American law, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born with British citizenship “by descent” from his father, and with American citizenship by descent from his mother. 

However, Obama’s dual British-American citizenship was short lived. Following Kenya’s independence from Great Britain, Kenya’s newly-adopted Constitution went into effect on December 12, 1963, when Obama was two years and four months old. Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the Kenyan Constitution, relating to citizenship, provides, in part, as follows:

“(1) Every persons who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Obama Sr.), or a British protected person, shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963. Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya. (Obama’s paternal grandparents were both born in Kenya)

“(2) Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Obama Jr.), or a British protected person, shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”  

In other words, on December 12, 1963, Obama lost his dual US-British citizenship and became, instead, a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya. However, Kenyan dual citizenship had its limits. Chapter VI, Section 97 of the Kenyan Constitution provides as follows:

“(1) A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya, made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”

Subsection (7), referenced above, gave the Kenyan parliament the option to provide a grace period during which dual citizens could make their election of nationality after reaching age twenty-one. Since Obama clearly did not renounce his U.S. citizenship during the grace period following his 21st birthday, The Rocky Mountain News has reported on September 3, 2009 that his Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1984, his 23rd birthday.  

However, having established that Obama was, in fact, born with dual US-British citizenship, and that he held dual US-Kenyan citizenship from the age of two until at least his twenty-first birthday, it now becomes necessary to answer the critics who assert that United States law does not recognize dual citizenship. Not true.

The official position of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. State Department is excerpted as follows:

“The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time.   Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice…  

“U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship…

“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law…  

“However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country…”

In analyzing the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President of the United States, the operative words in the U.S. State Department policy, the law of the land, are these: 

  • Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries.
  • The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause.
  • Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law.

These are precisely the reasons why the Founding Fathers included the words “natural born” when drafting the words of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

When the Founding Fathers agreed to the basic qualifications of the individual who would serve as the Chief Magistrate of our nation… that he be at least thirty-five years of age and a natural born citizen of the United States…, the death and destruction of the War of Independence from Great Britain and from the tyranny of the British crown was still fresh in their minds. They knew well the dangers of having a commander in chief with divided loyalties and they specifically prohibited such a person from serving.   

However, in 2008, a coalition of voters… blacks who would have voted for any black man, even Willie Horton or O.J. Simpson, merely because he was black; young white liberals who paid no attention to who he was or what he stood for, but who thought it would be “cool” to have a “hip” black president; and other white Democrat partisans who would do anything or say anything just to regain power… have given us a leader who is not only sublimely naïve, totally inexperienced and unqualified, and grossly inadequate, but clearly ineligible. 

How we will ever extricate ourselves from this dilemma is unclear. Obama is well on his way to becoming a colossal failure as a president… the greatest failure in American history… and there is nothing we can do to prevent that. The sad part is, for Obama to fail the country must also fail. It is a Hobson’s Choice if ever there was one. But if we are to continue to lay claim to being a nation of laws, not of men, then we must find a way within the law to remove him. 

As for me, I’m like President Garfield. I love my country, I love agitation and investigation, and I glory in defending unpopular truth against popular error. That’s why I have no fear in saying that, under the controlling legal authority of the United States, Great Britain, and Kenya, Barack Obama is NOT eligible to serve as President of the United States. 

He should resign his office while we still have a fighting chance to save our nation.



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:00
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 16 de noviembre de 2009

Breaking from

No President Has Ever Bowed to a Foreign Leader — Until Now
President Barack Obama’s bow to the Japanese emperor Saturday — following his bow to the Saudi Arabian monarch in April — is creating a humiliating new precedent. Until Obama, no president of the United States in the more than 230 years since the country was founded in 1776 had ever bowed to a member of royalty.


Tags: Obama?s bow

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:46
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar










Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:23
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 12 de noviembre de 2009

Massive Election Fraud threw vote count against Hoffman

November 12, 2009 by John Charlton


(Nov. 12, 2009) — It looks increasingly that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her zeal to get the Health Care Federalization Bill passed, may have sworn in an unelected candidate for the NY-23 Congressional District, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and New York State laws.

As a matter of fact, not only has the Secretary of State of New York not certified the election, in which Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens vied in a special election, nearly head to head — after Scozzafava retired in humiliation, having lost the support of conservatives in her district — but that vote count is in doubt this morning.

The Post-Standard of Syracuse published this morning a detailed report which lists all the irregularities; errors of vote counting which were all against Doug Hoffman.

Ryan said an important factor in the decision to concede was the unexpected — and erroneous — close vote in Oswego County,where polls had Hoffman with a double digit percentage point lead heading into Election Day.

“That’s the thing that threw us off,” Ryan said.

Oswego County elections officials blame the mistakes on “chaos” in their call-in center that included a phone system foul-up and inspectors who read numbers incorrectly when phoning in results. Of 245 races in the county — not including the congressional and court races — 84 had incorrect totals reported election night.

In the congressional race, more votes were cast in Oswego County than any other in the 11-county district.

The district’s second biggest voter turnout was in Jefferson County, where Hoffman also has benefited from a turnaround since election night, gaining about 700 votes. Owens led Hoffman by 300 votes on the final election night tally. But after recanvassing, Hoffman now leads by 424 votes, 10,884 to 10,460.

Jerry Eaton, the Republican elections commissioner for Jefferson County, said inspectors found a problem in four districts where Hoffman’s vote total was mistakenly entered as zero.

“Hoffman definitely gained votes where he didn’t have them,” Eaton said.

Since 10,200 absentee ballots were distributed, and more than 1,300 returned from pro-military Jefferson Country alone have not even been counted (a more than 70% return rate on ballots distributed), there is a good chance that Dough Hoffman has won the election.

The consistent errors in the election process against Hoffman’s vote count, can only indicate one thing: a conspiracy to commit election fraud on a massive scale.

It turns out that Pelosi’s swearing-in of Owens had the political effect of garnering the addition Republican vote, of Cao, in the vote for the Health Care Bill, which passed narrowly, 220-215.  The election fraud, in the NY-23 district, therefore, puts in doubt the legitimacy of that vote also.

The question of the day, therefore, is: “Was this election fraud organized and directed from the White House, which had everything to gain or lose, based upon a favorable or unfavorable vote tally?”


Thursday, November 12, 2009

NY 23- Has the majority ruled?

Word in from NY 23 that Conservative Doug Hoffman now trails by just 3000 votes as the official  tabulation process continues. "The new vote totals mean the race will be decided by absentee ballots, of which about 10,200 were distributed."  Among the absentee ballots that remain uncounted are "military and overseas ballots received by this coming Monday (and postmarked by Nov. 2)..."
But Bill Owens "was quickly sworn into office on Friday, a day before the rare weekend vote in the House of Representatives.  His support sealed his party's narrow victory on the health care legislation."
By what right does anyone declare and act on an election outcome before all the votes are counted?  Whatever candidates do to declare or concede victory, elections are decided by what the people do with their votes, not what the candidates do with their speeches.  Or at least that's the way its supposed to be when government of, by and for the people still functions.
Sad on this day after veterans day, to reflect on the fact that among the votes still uncounted when Owens was being sworn in are many cast by people who are right now risking their lives in service to their country.  Yet we let ambitious political parties hijack the electoral process in a fashion that sends the clear signal- your votes don't matter.
By such carelessness does a free people discard the respect for their sovereignty that is the essence of liberty.  I assume that if the vote turns out to favor Doug Hoffman, Owens will have to give up the seat he would thus prematurely have assumed.  But maybe not.  After all, once the candidates and the Parties agree to an election outcome,  why should the voters matter?
It's ironic that when it comes to ignoring the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency, the politicos want us to accept the notion that all that matters is the electoral majority.  Now when it comes to deciding who's sworn in after an election, the people's votes remain uncounted, and all that matters is the candidates' declarations of victory or concession.  For those willing to understand, this little episode reveals the truth.  Once respect for the Constitution and its principles has been discarded, we'll quickly discover that the notion of majority rule has been thrown away as well.  The American people will find themselves cast down, to languish as other peoples have historically done, under the boot heel of arrogant elites who will resume their accustomed place as the dictators of human destiny.




Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:46
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 10 de noviembre de 2009


By Lynn Stuter
November 10, 2009

Tomorrow is Veterans Day, commemorating our men and women who fought (and died) to keep this country free under the Constitution and Bill of Rights established by our Founding Fathers.

On November 4, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama was elected to the office of president of the United States. The evidence grows that Obama is not an American citizen, was not eligible to the office he holds, should never have been allowed on the ballot in any of the 50 states.

1. Not one of the Senators of Representatives in Congress has actually seen Obama's birth certificate. They have seen pictures of a document posted on the internet, but they have not seen the actual birth certificate.

2. Hawaii claims to hold a birth certificate for Obama but that does not mean Obama was born in Hawaii. At the time Obama contends he was born (1961), Hawaii (Act 96, Session Laws of 1911, Special Session of 1909 and the Organic Act) allowed for the birth registration, in Hawaii, of foreign-born children. Until the actual birth certificate is produced and examined; where Obama was actually born is unknown and unproven.

3. No Hawaiian hospital is willing to own up to Obama being born there. Meanwhile, Obama and his half-sister have claimed he was born at two different hospitals. When Obama finally decided he was born at one particular hospital, internet sites set about to "correct" their stories to reflect his unproven claims, including the left-wing website,

4. On page 26 of his book, Dreams from my Father (2004, paperback edition), Obama states he found his birth certificate in with other documents in his grandparents home. If Obama was actually born in Hawaii, such undermines the need for Hawaii to produce a laser printed document only produced after 2001—the Certification of Live Birth that has appeared in pictures on the internet, that Hawaii refuses to authenticate, and that forensic experts have dubbed a forgery.

5. Obama has claimed dual citizenship at birth, American by his mother, Kenyan by his father (actually, this would be British as Kenya was a British colony at that time). Historically, "natural-born" requires two American parents. This makes Obama ineligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution, irrespective of the birth certificate issue. Whether a dual citizen at birth, indications are that Obama because an Indonesian citizen and remains so today.

6. African newspapers have consistently claimed that Obama is "Kenyan-born". One such article that recently surfaced is dated 2004. This means he did not have dual citizenship at birth was a British subject at birth as his mother was not of the age required to confer her citizenship to Obama.

7. Obama's paternal step-grandmother, Sarah, also claims he was born in Kenya and she was present at his birth.

8. Obama was listed, in the Soetoro/Dunham divorce papers, as dependent on Lolo Soetoro for the purposes of education. As Obama was over the age of 18 at the time, he could only be considered the legal child of Lolo Soetoro if he was legally adopted by Soetoro. Evidence points to him being adopted by Lolo Soetoro, to becoming (ca 1966) an Indonesian citizen. No evidence exists that he was ever an American or that he reclaimed American citizenship. The terminology used in the divorce papers may have been to facilitate Obama in receiving foreign student aid to attend college in the United States.


9. Indications are that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrat National Committee personnel knew Barack Hussein Obama was not eligible to the office of president; that the nomination of a non-American as the Democrat candidate was deliberate.

Since his usurping of the office of president, Obama has worked tirelessly to dismantle what remains of the once great nation, the United States of America. He has

1. plunged this nation $1.4 trillion dollars further in debt, more than any president in history;
2. pushed every piece of Marxist legislation to come forth from the House and Senate;
3. taken over private companies in violation of the United States Constitution;
4. used the public coffers to bail out his Wall Street benefactors;
5. used his public office to promote and assist radical left-wing organizations like the Black Panthers, ACORN, and;
6. surrounded himself with czars who have a known Marxist agenda;
7. traveled the world denigrating America and the American people;
8. bowed in fealty to his Muslim brothers;
9. partied hearty in the White House at taxpayer expense while Americans lost their jobs;
10. insulted America's allies at every opportunity while affiliating himself with the leaders of Marxist regimes.

More recently, one of Obama's Muslim brothers shot and killed at least 13 people, wounded at least 31 at Ft Hood in Texas. While former President George Bush and his wife, Laura, met with families, the wounded, and mourners, Obama was in DC, twisting the arms of members of the U.S. House of Representatives to pass his Marxist healthcare reform bill (H.R. 3962). After all, if he can't kill them with bullets, what better way to kill them than by withholding (rationing) health care?

In commemorating the men and women who have died for our country, for the cause of freedom, Public Television broadcast a show Sunday night on the vast cemeteries that sprinkle the European landscape where Americans fought and thousands died in World War II. They fought for their country and for those who came after them, their progeny.

And now we stand at the precipice of the totalitarian state with a man occupying the White House, usurping the Oval Office, who isn't an American; who has, by his own actions and words, declared himself a Marxist.

The United States Congress, assembled, has refused to remove this usurper sitting illegitimately as our president.

The United States Supreme Court, and lower courts, have refused to address the growing body of evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is not our legitimate president; going so far as to make the ludicrous claim that they cannot overturn the vote of millions, in essence saying that popular vote (if it could even be claimed to be uncorrupted) is above the law.

The mainstream media of the United States has refused to expose this illegitimate president. Indications are that their actions are the result of threats and duress should they expose Obama for the fraud he is.

If those who are supposed to uphold our laws, according to their oath of office, refuse to do so, then they leave the American people no choice but to take matters into their own hands.

This past week we have seen three shootings occur in this country—in Florida, in Texas, and in Washington state. Each of these shootings was directed against a company or government entity seen as unjust. This is the direct result of the refusal of those entrusted to do so, to uphold the law; this is a direct result of the corruption that permeates our government and the companies now seen as partnered with it in the fascist state. When the rule of law breaks down, and it has, then anarchy reigns.

All the men and women who have died for this country, it would seem, from the War of Independence to present day, have died in vain.

Are you angry yet?

© 2009 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Activist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned with the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.

Web site:

E-Mail: [email protected] 


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:54
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 08 de noviembre de 2009

UPDATE 1-SCENARIOS-USSenate now in healthcare spotlight

Sun Nov 8, 2009 12:02amEST

(Adds second Republicanbacking health reform, details)

By John Whitesides

WASHINGTON, Nov 7(Reuters) - After a narrow win in the U.S. House of Representatives,President Barack Obama's fight for a sweeping healthcare overhaul movesto the U.S. Senate where it faces a difficult path to approval.

The Senate's version ofhealthcare reform has been stalled as Democratic leader Harry Reidawaits cost estimates from congressional budget analysts and searchesfor an approach that can win the 60 votes needed to overcome Republicanprocedural hurdles.

Eventually, the Houseand Senate will have to reconcile their separate bills into a singleproposal that can be signed by Obama, who has set a now-threatened goalof finishing work by the end of the year.

Here is a look at howthe issue might play out as it moves through Congress over the next fewweeks:


Reid has made histoughest decision in merging the separate bills passed by the Financeand Health panels: He included a national government-run publicinsurance option, which was part of the Health bill but was not in theFinance measure.

Reid also included acompromise that would allow states to decline to participate, or "optout," of the government-run program -- an effort to appease moderates,most from conservative Republican-leaning states, who oppose a nationalpublic option.

Reid has little marginfor error -- Democrats control exactly 60 votes, the number needed toovercome procedural hurdles and pass a bill. Most of the dozen or soDemocratic moderates in the Senate remain uncommitted or oppose thepublic option.

Senator Joe Lieberman,an independent who caucuses with Democrats, opposes the public optionand has said he will side with Republicans to block a final vote on anybill that includes one.

Senators Mary Landrieu,Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh and Blanche Lincoln are the other Democrats whoappear to be most resistant to Reid's approach on a public option.

Obama has been meetinglawmakers privately at the White House in an effort to persuade theuncommitted moderates, and Senate leaders have explored possiblealternatives that could keep them on board.

One of those could beRepublican Olympia Snowe's favored approach of a "trigger" that wouldactivate a government plan in states where there is not enoughcompetition in the insurance market.

Snowe is the onlyRepublican in the Senate to back one of the healthcare reform bills ina committee vote, but she has said she will oppose a bill with the"opt-out" public option.

A first-term HouseRepublican, Anh Cao of Louisiana, became the second Republican toendorse the healthcare overhaul on Saturday when he backed the Housebill.

Reid is waiting for theCongressional Budget Office to provide him cost estimates, andDemocrats say a response is not expected until at least late next week.

Reid could be ready topublish the measure and move to floor debate fairly quickly once hegets the estimates, but the Senate will be in recess for a week aroundthe Thanksgiving holiday in late November.

Democratic aides saidthe bill is likely to drop a mandate that all employers offer insuranceto workers or pay a penalty. Differences over the amount of subsidiesoffered to help lower- and middle-income people buy insurance and onthe taxes imposed to pay for the plan must also be overcome.

A floor debate thatcould last several weeks is now expected to begin in the next few weeks.


Once the Senate andHouse have passed separate measures, they will appoint negotiators to aconference committee that will negotiate the differences. Their finalbill must be passed again by the House and Senate.

It is at this stagewhere Obama and White House staffers can become most active inclosed-door negotiations, cementing what they want in a final bill andwhat they think is most likely to pass in each chamber.

A final bill would besent to Obama for his signature, with a goal of finishing work by theend of the year.

Deadlines on the bill have slippedrepeatedly, however, and Reid has raised the possibility that finalaction on the measure could drift into January. (Editing by Arshad Mohammed and Peter Cooney)

© Thomson Reuters2009. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts ofcontent from this website for their own personal and non-commercial useonly. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content,including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited withoutthe prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and itslogo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reutersgroup of companies around the world.

Thomson Reutersjournalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fairpresentation and disclosure of relevant interests.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:19
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

November8,2009 by JohnCharlton


From theAtlantic to the Pacific, andfrom the borders of Canada to the RioGrande, the U.S. House has firedthe opening salvo in what looks soon tobecome a veritable SecondAmerican Revolution.
Against thewishes of the majority ofAmericans, Nancy Pelosi lead the Democraticmajority of 215 (with 1Republican) against the Republican leadopposition of 210 (with 36Democrats), and passed the bill. It now goeson to the U.S. Senate,where it will be much more difficult to forge avictory vote.
Americancitizens are outraged at thepower grab being foisted upon them. TheBill has become the singleissue which is waking the American public tothe power-grab agenda ofthe Obama regime; even as the vast majorityrefuse to admit theillegitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama to hold theoffice.The logicalself-contradiction isseen in the very arguments being used onconservative forums, wheremany who hold that the President is noteligible to hold the office arereacting as if the Bill will obligatethe American public according tolaw.

 The UnitedStates is presently infull panic mode, and it does not derive from theshooting at Ft. Hood.Citizensneed to get a hold ofthemselves and think rationally.Now thetime has come to decidewhether you are going to live a life ofemotions, emotive reactions,and a politics of sentimentality, andaccept slavery in Obama’s Marxiststate, or decide to live according toright reason and recognize theindisputable fact, that Obama is not theU.S. President and has nopower to pass any bill, let alone the HealthCare Bill. (Here’s the proof thathe is noteligible forthePresidency)You justcannot have it both ways.Don’t listento the Republicanoperatives in your midst who will say, “Trust us,support us, we canwork through this; don’t go to extremes, Obama doesnot mean what heintends; what we were saying about the Bill is notgoing to happen!” —Oh, they’re not saying that today? —Wait,then,  until the weekafter Obama puts his invalid signature on theinvalid bill.  Thencome back and tell me what you are hearing fromthe leading Republicans.
It’s in theinterest of theRepublican party who put Obama into power, to corral uphis oppoentsand slowly demoralize them by inaction and induce them tobend theirknees and bow down to him. They would not havegiven you a ineligible Marxist as President if itwere not to testwhether you are an idiot or a partiot — and theypresume you are anidiot.

 They would not have given him power, if it was not to makeyouserve him; and him rule over you!
As long asyou keep listening to thepurposeful misinformation and propaganda ofthe Main Stream Media, youare intellectually trapped in a dead end,no-escape scenario; and Obamasupporters are going to laugh you all theway to the FEMA gulags.The choiceis yours!Liberty ordeath!Chooseliberty that you may live!Resist andrefuse to comply with allunlawful Federal dictates.Return toConstitutional principles,which alone uphold your inalienable rights tolife, liberty and thepursuit of happiness.Thechoice isyours!Thesad truthis, that if you joined with the patriots in the Eligibilitymovementfrom the beginning, you would not now be in this predicament.Willyouserve Obama so long as it is pleasant to do so?Haveyou notyet realized that he wants you to serve him, even if it isverydisplesant to you?That’swhatslavery means, after all….


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:57
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

From Fox News, November 7, 2009.

“House Passes Health Care Bill”

“The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.
In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.

The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin a long-delayed debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later — and Obama issued a statement saying, “I look forward to signing it into law by the end of the year.”

“It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it,” said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.

In the run-up to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups. They prevailed on a roll call of 240-194.

Ironically, that only solidified support for the legislation, clearing the way for conservative Democrats to vote for it.

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government’s mandates.

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation.

At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the bill’s most controversial provision, the government would sell insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies sold by private firms.

A cheer went up from the Democratic side of the House when the bill gained 218 votes, a majority. Moments later, Democrats counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and let loose an even louder roar when Pelosi grabbed the gavel and declared, “the bill is passed.”

The bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats.

From the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement saying, “We realize the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energized that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system.”"

“”We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, `this is making me sick,”‘ jabbed Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., adding that Democrats were intent on passing “a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding” bill.”

Read more:


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:07
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Anoche la Casa de Representantes voto a favor del Proyecto de Ley  H.R.3962
220 Congresistas se plegaron a los deseos de  extrema izquierda del Usurpador en degradar los cuidados de salud en existencia,  en lugar de reformar el ya existente y 215 votaron en contra.

En el presente toda persona que necesite los cuidados de emergencia de algun hospital por ley tiene que ser atendido y tratado, aun si necesita operacion oestadia sin que le cuestionen o limiten por su estado migratorio o nacionalidad.

Si la persona se encuentra en el pais ilegalmente o con visa pero es mayor
de 65 o tiene hijos menores automaticamente califica para ser cubierta
por programas estatales en caso de necesitar asistencia en hospitales ,
esto ultimo ha sido utilizado por  mujeres embarazadas
 de America Latina que llegan solo para que sus hijos nazcan aqui y contar co n losbeneficios futuros de todo ciudadano, aunque regresen a sus paises de origen.
Si la persona es ciudadana por nacimiento o por naturalizacion pero no es mayor de 65 ni tiene hijos menores no esta cubierta y depende del hospital el termino de pago , que mayormente la perdida total recae sobre el hospital sin la obligacion del paciente de por vida dicha deuda.

Se conoce de los grandes problemas economicos  de hospitales que han tenidoque cerrar aun con ayuda federal para dichos menesteres.

De los cuarenta millones que dicen no cuentan con seguro de salud, es algo
 no totalmente cierto ya que se calcula a los indocumentados incluidos
 o  a los que  aun pudiendo pagar un seguro de salud prefieren no hacerlo ya que conocen seran atendidos por ley en los hospitales, o el costo de las polizas de sus empleadores es demasiado costosa para sus entradas  , otros al quedar desempleados y no poder costear  la continuidad mediante COBRA
 estos son los verdaderos que no pueden pagar , no se  cual sera la estadistica pero no son los cuarenta millones que dicen  los que no cuentan
con seguros de salud de una poblacion de mas de 300 millones.

De las casi dos mil paginas del Proyecto de Ley HR3962 existen cientos de
regulaciones que no benefician sino que perjudican a los que dicen seran
beneficiados entre ellas no solo el control sobre quienes tienen el derecho
de seguir viviendo aplicando la tecnologia existente  especialmente los que
cuentan con Medicare cuyos debiles beneficios seran reducidos por mas de
400 mil millones de dolares y por ende si no se cuenta con un seguro suplementario dicho proyecto perjudicara no solo a los que tengan el Medicare libre, sino tambien a las conciencias de los galenos que hicieron el  JURAMENTO
HIPOCRÁTICO como nos dice el doctor David Janda  en su articulo en

" Aplicare las medidas por el beneficio de los enfermos de acuerdo a mi habilidad y juicio:  lejos de
daños e injusticias."

Pregunto: si la habilidad es no solo disminuida sino que el juicio tendra que enfrentarsea burocratas que no sienten ni conocen al paciente y mucho  menos cuando las decisiones deben tomarse en segundos para seguir viviendo.

Los 220 legisladores que votaron a favor del control de los cuidados de salud del gobierno que es la medicina socializada, no han querido analizar las consecuencias que estadisticamente se conocen en los paises donde se ha implantado especialmente Inglaterra y Canada, quizas motivados por la idiologia , la ignorancia o la complacencia al Usurpador , pero lo cierto es que
tenemos el mejor sistema de cuidados de salud del mundo, con defectos si, con fraudes si, pero las causas no han sido enfrentadas en el Congreso con leyes para su correccion sino que han destruido algo que ha sido parte de la libertad que disfrutamos en lo que era una Republica.

" La medicina es la piedra principal en el arco del socialismo"

Vladimir Lenin.

Uno de los comentarios en paginas conservadoras como

DRUDGE REPORT  y  WorldNetDaily

Sobre que este proyecto penalizara con carcel a los que se nieguen
a comprar el seguro de salud del gobierno, ya su interpretacion
ha sido manipulada o silenciada por la prensa izquierdista.

Lo cierto es que aunque el Proyecto dice no es obligatorio bajo
Subtitle B--Public Health Insurance Option

Affordable Health Care for America Act (Introduced in House)


Nothing in this division shall be construed as requiring anyone to enroll in the public health insurance option.
 Enrollment in such option is voluntary.

Nada en esta division debe ser interpretada como requerimiento a alguien de participar en la opcion de cuidados de salud. Participacion en tal opcion es voluntaria.

Y si no es obligatorio como penalizan con multas quien no compre seguro de salud  y estas si no se pagan se puede encarcelar?

Congresista de Michigan Daven Camp ha publicado un reporte del Comite Conjunto en Impuestos confirmando que el ProyectoDemocrata de la Casa de Representantes puede imponer penalidades hasta
 de $250,000.00 en multas y cinco años de carcel
por dejar de comprar la cobertura apropiada de seguro.....

Viendo la manipulacion de la gran prensa y la apatia de informarse  de una gran mayoria que prefiere creer que sera beneficioso algo que en realidad es perjudicial no tenemos grandes esperanzas que en el Senado se paralice la medicina socializada impuesta como promesa y deseo del Usurpador, ansio estar equivocada e imploro un milagro por la  desintoxicación a quien le corresponda por el beneficio de las proximas generaciones y la salud en la recuperacion del pais.

Miriam Mata
Noviembre 8, 2009

Complete Roll Call

Yes Votes 

Corrine Brown D FL-3
Kathy Castor D FL-11
Alan Grayson D FL-8
Alcee L. Hastings D FL-23
Ron Klein D FL-22
Kendrick B. Meek D FL-17
Robert Wexler D FL-19
Debbie Wasserman Schultz D FL-20
Representantes de la Florida que votaron a favor de HR3962

Tags: Obama Congreso HR3962

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:47
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 07 de noviembre de 2009

DC Independent Examiner

Obamacare or Himmler Care?

November 7, 1:22 PMDC Independent ExaminerJames Simpson
The House of Representatives intends to ram its healthcare legislation through Congress as early as today (Saturday, November 7, 2009). A mere week ago it revealed some of what it plans to do to our "health" with the latest iteration of Obamacare. We can only say "some" because floor action will see new amendments added, and after that the bill must still be reconciled with the $2 trillion Senate abomination put out by Max Baucus's (D-MT) Finance Committee in October.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 10 year (2010-2019) cost of the House Democrats' bill at $1.055 trillion. As usual, there is so much budget gimmicry in these estimates as to make them virtually meaningless.

The Democrats are dishonest on so many levels about this healthcare "reform" it is almost impossible to untangle all their lies. Let's start by clarifying some basic truths.

First, who pays for healthcare right now? That's right, the taxpayers who foot the bill not only for their own healthcare, but for illegal immigrants, the poor and seniors as well. (Some seniors continue to pay a premium for Medicare but it still doesn't cover all the costs).

Who is feeling the pain of the rapid annual growth in healthcare costs that the Democrats claim so desperately to want to fix? Right, these same taxpayers.

Some will argue that employers pick up most of the tab. That is true when employers offer healthcare policies to their employees, but it is an illusion. Businesses must make a profit to remain alive, so every cost they pick up is passed on to the consumer in higher prices. So, in reality, we pay.

Others will remind us that actually, employers don't pay the entire tab -- that offering healthcare benefits is a big plus for employers because they get subsidized from the government. Since healthcare benefits become part of a "compensation package," employers actually pay less, by the amount of the government subsidy, than they would have to pay the employee otherwise.

True again. Employers don't pay the full cost of healthcare benefits, the government subsidizes them. But where does the government get the funds to subsidize employer-provided healthcare? From taxes or borrowing (which will require more taxes in the future to retire the debt). So who pays? Again, we pay - now or in the future.

One of the primary causes of skyrocketing costs in healthcare is the low cost or no cost healthcare available to low income groups, including illegal immigrants. This creates an explosion in demand, and as we have seen all over the world, immigration, both legal and illegal, to take advantage of our low cost, high quality services. Government sometimes reimburses doctors and hospitals for the service they provide, but not always. Even when they do, the reimbursement is often below cost, sometimes significantly below cost.

Who pays for all this? We pay! Twice!

We pay the taxes to cover the government reimbursements, and we pay in higher insurance premiums that result from doctors and hospitals trying to recoup their losses by passing them on in higher fees to private insurers. If this is not an option, they go out of business, reducing the availability of healthcare for everyone.

Who pays for that? We all do!

Now Reid, Pelosi, Baucus, et al proclaim "We're from the government, and we're here to help!"

We have to ask:

"Haven't you done enough already?"

First, the notion that this bill is a deficit reducer is a laughable fraud. They cost out the bill at $1.055 trillion. In and of itself, that should give anyone pause. Then they expect us to buy the same phony scoring they did on the Senate's Baucus bill.

They subtract out hundreds of billions of reimbursement cuts to doctors that experts agree will never happen. Indeed this phony maneuver was exposed when the Senate attempted to pass a stand-alone bill giving doctors back the pay cuts taken out in Baucus's bill. There are other similar gimmicks which reveal that much of the cost cutting is a mere illusion. It won't happen.

The bill raises $700 billion in new taxes. That much, you can be sure, is real. In addition to the explicit taxes in the legislation, the 1,990 page House bill imposes all kinds of uncounted taxes on insurers that will dramatically increase private health insurance premiums. This is similar to the Baucus bill, which would cause health insurance premiums to go up for most individuals as much as 199 percent!The true cost of the Baucus bill, when these phony savings and other hidden costs were considered, was at least twice the CBO estimate.

But the biggest fraud of all is that in order to make this program "budget neutral" i.e. not add to the deficit on paper over the ten years estimated, is that tax collections and program cuts begin immediately but the new program itself does not start fully paying out until 2015. So they are covering five years of cost with ten years of tax collections! Going past 2019 the deficit will skyrocket.

This all assumes of course that the projections they have produced have some basis in reality. The analysis so far should make a mockery of that notion. But it gets worse, much worse. As explained in an earlier article, such projections never include these programs' huge ripple effects.

First, the market distortions created by such programs require the government to create yet more programs to deal with them, for example, enforcement. Beltway "think tanks" get involved with all kinds of new ideas and some of these proposals become law, creating yet more bureaucracy. Politicians and beneficiaries get together to dream up new fixes and adds.

Second, they do not include the many changes and additions made after the bill becomes law. Such changes invariably increase program costs dramatically.

Finally, they never account for the explosion in demand created by moral hazard, i.e. the tendency of people to demand more services when the perceived cost is minimal or zero.

For example, Medicare and Medicaid have grown 2,735 percent between 1967, the first year they paid benefits, and 2008, the last full year for which actual data is available, after correcting for inflation.Together Medicare and Medicaid are the largest expenditure in the federal budget. In inflation adjusted dollars, Medicare paid out a modest $17 billion in it's first year of operation. In 2008 that cost had risen to $455 billion.

We are still waiting for Congress to explain how this monstrous bill is going to cut our costs. Included in the bill is about $400 billion in cuts to Medicare - spread over ten years. Will that do it? 

Given the system's current total outlays of about $500 billion, that is a significant cut. But how do Pelosi and Co. plan to ration the inevitable cuts in Medicare services to come? You guessed it. To paraphrase President Obama: " You'd better take the pill, Granny." And despite its supporters' claims that this is a reasonable provision, the government will become very pushy with "end of life counseling." They will have to be. The resources will just not be available to handle demand. So if your idea of cutting costs is to cull the elderly from the population, you should be okay with this bill.

Along with the death panels, this bill will create a new "Health Choices Commissioner" to lead a new Health Choices Administration, with the power to oversee and influence every aspect of healthcare, from auditing private insurance companies to dictating policies and coverages, from collecting information on your healthcare to deciding what your doctor gets paid.

Congress is selling their "reform" idea on the notion that we were paying too much for healthcare in the first place. It turns out that Congress isn't really interested in what we pay for it. Because for those of us who actually do pay for our healthcare, our costs are going to go through the roof!

For the privilege of paying much more than we pay now, we will get to see the quality, variety and availability of healthcare take a nosedive. If we are elderly, we can expect much longer waits for whatever care will still exist. All this is being done in the name of forcing a small segment of the population (12 million - about 4 percent) to get health insurance, even though those people can already receive medical care if they seek it out. 

We could go through this bill page by page and dissect every item to demonstrate the critical omissions, budgetary shenanigans, faulty reasoning and outright dishonesty. But whatever the cost of this monster, we shouldn't even be talking about it, because it shouldn't even be on the table. Never mind the fact that our crippled economy cannot handle another such tax and spend body blow. Never mind the fact that the Constitution never anticipated this role for government.

This legislation is not about healthcare, it is not about covering the few people who can legitimately be characterized as "uninsured." It is about raw political power pure and simple. The Communist from Chicago and his Congressional fellow travelers want to make sure the American public is under their collective thumbs in the most effective way possible: by having influence over our physical health.

Lenin said "Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism." Like the Nazis in World War II and the Soviets throughout the 20th century, the government intends ultimately to dictate the kind of care, the level of care and the quality of care we all receive - and where we receive it too. And just like Stalin's Soviet Union, the Nazis meant it when they said "we'll take care of you." But theirs is not the kind of "care" I would wish on anyone.

Should we be calling this Obamacare or Himmler Care?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:38
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Exclusive: Interview with Rep. Joe Wilson on Health Care

by Washington News Observer 

Today, tea party and other conservative activists are holding rallies in Washington,
DC as part of the “House Calls on Congress” event. Big Government has a reporter
covering the events and will have a report later today. Earlier this week, Washington
 News Observer sat down with South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson to discuss
 the current landscape for health care legislation.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:57
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 01 de noviembre de 2009

Obamacare is worst than I thought - Please Read (of course it is - it's a Marxist bill - surprised?)

by DefendUSx October 31, 2009 15:09

What's In and What's Out of Health Care Legislation

by Phyllis Schlafly of

As liberals rush ObamaCare through Congress, let's review the disparity between promises and text. Joe Wilson's declaration "You lie!" is ringing truer with each passing day.

Barack Obama promised "transparency" and giving the public five days to read the bill, but Senator Jim Bunning's (R-KY) amendment to require the bill, along with a final Congressional Budget Office score, to be posted online 72 hours before the vote, was defeated. Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) and Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) have been trying to get the House to agree to post the bill 72 hours before the vote, but while most Republicans have signed on, the Nancy Pelosi leadership is unwilling.

The Democrats still hope to rush the bill through unread. The 1,100-page Stimulus bill was posted online only 13 hours before the vote, and the 1,200-page Cap and Trade bill was posted only 15 hours before the vote.

Obama promised that the health-care bill would not cover illegal aliens, but Senator Chuck Grassley's (R-IA) amendment to require immigrants to prove their identity with a photo I.D. was rejected.

Obama promised that if you like your current health insurance you won't have to change it, but Senator John Cornyn's (R-TX) amendment to assure present insurance owners that they won't have to change their coverage, and that they can keep the coverage they have with their current employer without government driving up cost, was defeated.

Obama's appointment of 34 czars includes a Health Care Czar, but Senator John Ensign's (R-NV) amendment to require any health care czar to be subject to the constitutional Senate confirmation process was defeated. Obama's new Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, defends removing organs from terminally ill patients and from deceased persons even though they did not consent to be organ donors.

Obama promised that "under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions," and his Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tried to divert attention from this bold lie by obfuscating the Hyde Amendment. But the Hyde Amendment is not a law; it's a one-year-at-a-time rider that applies only to current Medicaid programs, and would not apply to the health-care law.

The Democrats five times (twice in Senate committees, three times in House committees) defeated amendments to prohibit the health-care plan from spending federal money or requiring health insurance plans to cover abortions. They also defeated Senator Orrin Hatch's (R-UT) amendment to respect the conscience rights of health-care workers who do not want to perform abortions because of moral or religious objections.

One amendment that did pass was Senator Maria Cantwell's (D-WA) amendment that gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to define cost-effective care for each medical condition and to punish doctors who treat high-cost patients with complex conditions. That has been Obama's goal from the beginning and will inevitably lead to the "death panels" Sarah Palin warned about.

Former Senator Tom Daschle, who was scheduled to be Health and Human Services Secretary or Health Care Czar until he had to bow out, said that the law should be written in generalities so the bureaucrats can fill in the details. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and a key Obama health care adviser, may be behind the Stimulus legislation that will send "embedded clinical-decision support" to doctors via computer to warn them about what is "appropriate" and "cost-effective," backed up by the threat to impose financial penalties on doctors who are not "meaningful users."

The Democrats' health-care "reform" carries a trillion-dollar price tag, will vastly increase the national debt hanging over our children and grandchildren, impose socialist control over one-sixth of our economy, and force us to obey totalitarian dictates. The mandate on employers to provide health insurance will result in lower wages and fewer jobs.

The mandate on individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, even threatening jail for those who fail to conform, amounts to a massive tax increase on individuals and families whose health insurance may lack all the new federally specified requirements.

Obama's "spread the wealth around" policy is evident in the big expansion of Medicaid combined with large cuts in Medicare. Former Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt says that the combination of mandates to buy insurance, guaranteed issue, and community rating amounts to massive income distribution that is hidden from public view and not even debated.

Finally, we are subject to the deviousness of what House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) calls the 70 phantom amendments that were added in secret after the bill was voted out by the committee. The bill may be even worse that we think.

(My thoughts: This bill is bad and a big fat lie. Obama lied on TV to the USA public. Keep on your congressmen and senators.)


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:59
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

ObamaCare Vs. The Hippocratic Oath

by Dr. David Janda  

Twenty-nine years ago I stood with my 150 classmates in Thorn Hall, at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, as Dean James Eckenhoff asked us to raise our right hands and repeat after him:    

I will apply measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.  In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice.


Those words, from The Hippocratic Oath written in 400 B.C., changed my life and the lives of the thousands of patients my classmates and I have touched over the past twenty-nine years. 

Through my career, I have tried to add to that Oath my obligation “To PREVENT Harm”, through my work in Prevention and at The Institute For Preventative Sports Medicine. I keep this Oath as my foundation as I review the current proposals for Health Care Reform.  Take all of the politics out of the latest versions authored by The Obama-Pelosi-Reid Administration, and it comes down to The Oath.

The sad fact is that the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Administration’s 1990 page health care reform bill (HR3962) and supplement(HR3961) violate The Oath by stripping  freedom from every person, family and business in Our country . This 19 ½ pound pair of documents, entitled ”Affordable Health Care For Americans Act,” will cost taxpayers over $1.2 Trillion, will institute 13 tax increases totaling $740 Billion, will increase Medicare Premiums to Seniors by $70 Billion, will cost shift $34 Billion to State budgets, and will cut Medicare benefits to Seniors by $426 Billion over ten years.

This current version of a Federal Government takeover of the health care delivery system is a carbon copy of what Obama, Pelosi and Reid tried to “jam” through Congress in July, with a couple of “new” additions to strip every American of even more Freedoms.  As Yogi Berra once said, “It’s deja vu all over again.”   

This version gives the rationing board, already established through The Stimulus Bill (The Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research), additional funding to establish a “Center” to institute the rationing of care.  Rationing is the heart and soul of this legislation. Rationing, as a method of “cost cutting,” is the most inhumane and unethical means of health care cost containment.   By definition, these bureaucrats will overrule licensed doctors, and preside over the denial of health care.

This Bill also creates a government regulated insurance “Exchange,” which will include a government subsidized and run insurance company, funded by The Treasury Department for start up costs of $2 Billion of tax payer money.  This “Exchange” will be overseen by a Federal bureaucrat given the title: “The Health Choices Commissioner.” The “Commissioner” will establish benefit standards for ALL members of the “Exchange,” not just the government-run company.  In other words, this Government CEO-equivalent will set the rules for all private companies who are “in competition” with the Federal Government. How fair is that? Sorry, I should have realized.  This is NOT about fair.  It is about CONTROL.  Too much government control is a recipe for disaster.

The most glaring difference between the Obama-Pelosi-Reid health care bill from July and this “new” version is the elimination of a very important sentence from the previous bill.  The July Bill (HR 3200) provided for The Health Benefits Advisory Committee whose role is to make recommendations on minimum benefit standards and cost sharing standards. The July Bill charged this Committee with the mandate to “ensure that essential benefits coverage does NOT lead to rationing of health care.” The current Bill establishes the same Committee but ELIMINATES the prohibition on rationing care.  

It is obvious.  The “New” Obama-Pelosi-Reid Health Care Bill’s heart and soul is based on (1) rationing and denying care to cut costs, and (2) taxing every American in its path.  The end result strips Freedom from every citizen. Then again, what would you expect from a document that uses the words “require” 118 times, “tax” 87 times, and “penalty” 113 times. 

The Oath my classmates and I took 29 years ago was based on the premise “Do No Harm.”  I cannot condone this legislation, which promises to HARM every person, family and business in our country.  We need to reject rationing, and fight the loss of control of our health care lives.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:30
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Obama Surrounds Himself With The Most Extreme Appointees In American History

SteveBaldwin says much has been written about Obama’s controversialappointments, not only to the federal bench, but to key cabinetpositions, as well as to the unaccountable (and probablyunconstitutional) "Czar" positions.  Much of the criticism has dwelledon the Obama administration’s lack of vetting when filling these rolls-- but that’s not the issue.

Tothe contrary, the Obama team did investigate thoroughly and they chooseprecisely.  When an administration repeatedly nominates hard-leftindividuals, it’s not a vetting error -- it’s a pattern.  We should notallow the media to portray these appointments as a series of errors;but rather, we need to realize that Team Obama is simply nominatingthose who share their goal of radically changing America.

MostAmericans have a hard time understanding this because they refuse tobelieve Obama is this extreme.  But he is.  For a year prior to hiselection conservatives warned voters that everything we knew aboutObama indicated that his views were far from the mainstream.  This wasobvious when one analyzed his friends, which groups he funded while a"community activist," his Illinois State Senate record, his UnitedStates Senate record and even what he wrote in his own books.

Thereality, of course, is that Obama’s views are far from the mainstreamand it is embarrassing so many Americans fell for his leftistcandy-coated lies.  Indeed, it appears that Obama is the most far leftpresident in American history.  His appointees only confirm this. These appointees hail from the crowd who regard their pedigree as the60’s activists who cheered on the Vietcong, while American boys wereslaughtered in the jungles of Vietnam.  They hate America, or moreprecisely, they hate America’s heritage; American institutions, and theAmerican Constitution.

Manyof these extremists nominated by Obama hail from academia, where theywere shielded from outside scrutiny while they quietly indoctrinatedour youth.  But don’t let the cloak of academia fool you; they are outto change America in ways most Americans oppose.  More importantly,Americans need to realize their views are Obama’s views.

TheAmerican media is partly responsible for bringing such extremists topower.  There is little doubt the media engaged in a massive propagandaeffort to convince Americans that Obama was some kind of hip moderate;a breath of fresh air, a reformer, and someone who would fight thecorrupt ways of Washington.  Until Americans wake up and stop relyingon the mainstream media for their source of news, they will continue topay a heavy price for their ignorance.  Unfortunately, this reportcovers just a few of Obama’s policy-makers, but there are many moresuch extremists within his administration.

Check out the rogue's gallery here . . .

Tags: Extremists Obama Czars

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:06
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar