Friday, February 19, 2010


Hope 'n' Change: Lawyers Still Have Outsized Influence
Battle lines are being drawn for the upcoming health care summit that Barack Obama is orchestrating to save his signature legislative agenda item. The vocal and powerful trial lawyer lobby has made clear that they don't want tort reform on the table when Obama and the Democrats meet with key Republicans on Feb. 25. The American Association for Justice and other trial lawyer groups practically own the Democrat Party, and their power has been felt twice in recent years when the livelihood of these ambulance chasers has been threatened. They killed medical liability reform under George W. Bush, and they have thus far kept meaningful tort reform out of pending legislation.
Obama has signaled a willingness to discuss malpractice reform, though he remains against caps on lawsuits. His supposedly open-minded view on tort reform is light on details, however, and that makes Republicans skeptical about how much he is willing to give on the issue. DNC Chair Howard Dean spoke an inconvenient truth when he said that Democrats "did not want to take on the trial lawyers." If Obama's past performance is any guide, the trial lawyers will be able to keep him right where they want him -- their hip pocket.
"The ink is barely dry on the pay-as-you-go law, and Democrats are seeking to bypass it to enact parts of their job-creation agenda," reports The Hill. We're shocked -- shocked! Democrats are working to classify unemployment insurance and COBRA health benefits as emergency spending that isn't subject to the "paygo" rules. Paygo, which Obama signed into law on Feb. 12, requires that some new spending (the exemption list is long) be offset by spending cuts elsewhere or tax increases.
After devising a $787 billion "stimulus" plan that didn't curb unemployment and -- according to a New York Times/CBS poll -- didn't convince the public that it "created or saved" jobs, it goes without saying that Democrats are keen on lowering expectations on the new $154 billion "jobs" bill which passed the House. The Senate has a smaller measure which spends "only" $15 billion.
The House bill promises job creation through such measures as providing aid to the states, extending unemployment benefits, and infrastructure improvements. Yet the original stimulus included many of these same programs and bailouts, leading to the logical question: Why try something again when it didn't work the first time? Well, that's why this is called a jobs bill, not a stimulus. Clearly, congressional Democrats hope the jobs this bill saves will be their own in November.
If you thought spending upwards of $2.5 million on advertising during the Super Bowl to promote the upcoming census was a waste of money, that's just the tip of the iceberg. An audit of last fall's address canvassing portion of the census, in which workers fixed the GPS coordinates of households in preparation for this spring's count, found that it cost almost 25 percent more than the original estimate of $356 million. The extra $88 million in expenses found during the audit are an obvious concern since the bulk of the work is yet to be done. Among the excuses given were workers who were paid for the training but quit before the work actually began and others who fudged their mileage reimbursements to pad their paychecks.
The census is mandated by the Constitution to determine proportional representation through an accurate count of the populace, but in more recent times states have pushed hard for the largest possible compliance rate in order to ensure they receive "their share" from the federal trough. Consequently, the census questions become quite a bit more intrusive than "How many people live at this residence?" According to the Census Bureau, the count determines the fate of over $400 billion in federal funding. That's where the real fraud will begin.
Income Redistribution: The Deficit Commission
While Democrats on the Hill are working to circumvent paygo to increase the federal deficit on "emergency items," Barack Obama signed an executive order Thursday creating a bipartisan fiscal commission tasked with addressing the nation's $12.3 trillion debt. "It keeps me awake at night, looking at all that red ink," the president said, just before again lamenting that he "inherited" the mess. The poor dear.
To head the commission, Obama chose Alan Simpson, a former RINO Senate whip, and Erskine Bowles, Bill Clinton's former chief of staff. The commission will have 18 members, six chosen by the president, six by congressional Democrats and six by congressional Republicans. GOP leaders haven't yet decided whether to participate.
This year's deficit is projected to hit $1.6 trillion, or almost 11 percent of GDP. The administration forecasts the deficit to remain above $1 trillion for three consecutive years. The commission's mandate is to make recommendations by December for reducing that deficit to 3 percent of GDP. Given that Obama also called Thursday for another $50 to $100 billion stimulus plan, however, this commission is laughable.
Also amusing is its "bipartisan" nature. CNBC's Larry Kudlow said, "Simpson's to the left of Erskine Bowles," adding, "It's an excuse to raise taxes -- when we need to be cutting tax rates." The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore agreed, writing, "Don't expect any tax cuts from the Obama deficit reduction panel. This is looking with each passing day like a political ploy to make a tax increase seem imperative and unavoidable. If that's what Mr. Obama wants, that's what he's likely to get with Alan Simpson helping to run the show."
As the supply of U.S. debt begins to outstrip demand for it, the federal budget is absolutely a major concern. The trouble is, Obama's policies are taking us in the wrong direction.

The BIG Lie
"Our work is far from over but we have rescued this economy from the worst of this crisis." --Barack Obama

19 FEBRUARY 2010



He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.


“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

- Leo Rugiens

No comments:

Post a Comment