Saturday, November 14, 2009

CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION

Exit the Czar

Steve Rattner, the journalist turned banker turned Car Czar, steered his way to the pinnacle of the New York–Washington elite, the most effectively ambitious player of his generation. Then, just as he reached the top, he lost control.

Published Aug 2, 2009

(Photo: Chris Buck/Corbis Outline)

It was a call that, in a sense, Steven Rattner had been waiting for most of his life. It was the week between Christmas and New Year’s, and he was vacationing in Europe when Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner got him on his cell phone. Geithner isn’t chatty, and came right to the point: He wanted Rattner to head the task force charged with saving the American auto industry, “if they could get him,” as one White House official put it. The assignment was one of the most difficult jobs in the American economy and, as such, a huge honor for an enlightened capitalist like Rattner.

Rattner had already had three highly successful careers, first as a journalist, then an investment banker, and finally the head of a private-equity fund—“a New York financier” was the shorthand used in the papers. He was already a power in politics; Rattner and his wife raised millions, and any Democrat of ambition beat his way to their door. Mayor Bloomberg picked him to manage his money. His network, too, encompassed the top tier of the Obama administration, as well as most of boldface Washington. He’d known Geithner, along with the president’s chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, for years; they were, in effect, residents of the same small neighborhood, as Rattner sometimes thought of it.

For a man like Rattner, government service was the necessary next step. It would crown consummate financial competence with high moral purpose. Without it, the triumph of ambition would not be quite complete. And yet Rattner hesitated. He’d long been a matchless careerist who, as one admirer said, “never made a misstep.” He wasn’t one to leap impetuously. The decision would be evaluated in terms of gradations of risk, a business problem.

To help him, Rattner turned to his friends, fellow residents of the neighborhood. Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the Times, who counts Rattner among his closest friends and counseled him, says, “This was something he had to do. He would have kicked himself if he hadn’t, though on a personal level, I hated to lose him [to Washington].” Bloomberg, whom Rattner considered a very close friend, voted no. Why would Rattner want to get mired in bureaucracy? “You’re out of your mind,” he told Rattner.

Rattner, too, worried about the fallout. Would he be tainted if he failed? After careful reflection, he assessed the risks as middling. “Nobody’s going to blame me for the downfall of the American automobile industry,” he told a friend. He leaned toward taking the post. And yet it was difficult to make the leap. It was Barry Diller, CEO of IAC, who helped to nudge him over the edge. “It’s an adventure, but only if you take it. Don’t be afraid of failing,” he said.

Several weeks after taking Geithner’s call, Rattner arrived at a response, the one most everyone expected all along. “What am I saving myself for? If not now, when?” he asked a friend, with theatrical flourish.

Six months after taking the job, Rattner (who declined to comment for this story) had helped to perform a seeming magic trick, rewriting the understanding between the car companies and the unions while bending the companies’ financiers—his friends and peers—to his will. With what seemed a cool, almost arrogant confidence—his casual dismissal of GM CEO Rick Wagoner reflected this quality—he had played a large role in restructuring the American car industry, accomplishing what few had thought possible a few months earlier, and in record time.

Then, on July 13, Rattner announced that he was stepping down. His resignation took most of Washington and New York by surprise. Though the work of the task force was winding down, Rattner had let friends know that he’d planned to stay in Washington, a financial samurai ready to attack the next problem the president set before him. The announcement was accompanied by praise for his performance, but the applause was almost drowned out by a scandal Rattner had left behind in New York. He hasn’t been accused of anything, yet Rattner had become ensnared in a “web of corruption,” as it was sometimes called, in order to get state pension money for his private-equity firm to manage.

In Rattner’s conception, money was necessary but not sufficient. He wanted to be useful, to give back—noblesse oblige, after all. But Rattner’s previous life pulled him back, and faced with the reality of politics, where appearances matter, Geithner and Summers didn’t push for him to stay. “If this thing gets worse, and it sounds like it might, if they jam him,” explains a Treasury source, reflecting the view at the top, “and [New York attorney general Andrew] Cuomo makes things hotter, it’s untenable. Everyone decided it was better for him to go.”

Read more: How Former Car Czar Steve Rattner Lost Control Just as He Reached the Top of the New York-Washington Elite -- New York Magazine http://nymag.com/news/features/58193/#ixzz0WtVWLjQZ

*************************************************************************

The Truth Behind Auto Dealership Closings

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Furor-grows-over-partisan-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html

>>> Definition of Change:
>>> --- Clever New Methods Of Graft & Political Dirty Tricks.
>>>
>>>
>>> This could be a scandal of epic proportions and one that makes
>>> Nixon's Watergate or Clinton's Monica Lewinsky affair pale by
>>> comparison. Why was there neither rhyme nor reason as to which
>>> dealerships
>>> of the Chrysler Corporation were to be closed? Roll the clock back to
>>> the
>>> weeks just before Chrysler declared bankruptcy. Chrysler, like GM, was
>>> in
>>> dire financial straights and federal
>>> government graciously offered to "buy the company" and keep them out of
>>> bankruptcy and "save jobs." Chrysler was, in the words of Obama and his
>>> administration, "Too big to fail," same story with GM.
>>>
>>>
>>> The feds organized their "Automotive Task Force" to fix Chrysler and
>>> GM.
>>> Obama, in an act that is 100% unconstitutional, appointed a guy named
>>> Steve

>>> Rattner to be the White House's official Car Czar- literally, that's
>>> what
>>> his title is. Rattner is the liaison between Obama, Chrysler, and GM.
>>>
>>>
>>> Initially, the national media reported that Chrysler had made this list
>>> of
>>> dealerships. That is not true. The Washington Examiner, Newsmax,
>>> Fox
>>> New and a host of other news agencies discovered that the list of
>>> dealerships was put together by the "Automotive Task Force" headed by no
>>> one
>>> other then Mr. Steve Rattner. Now the plot thickens.
>>> Remember earlier we said earlier that there was neither rhyme nor reason
>>> why
>>> certain dealerships were closed? Actually there's a very interesting
>>> pattern
>>> as to who was closed down. Again, on May 27, 2009, The Washington
>>> Examiner
>>> and Newsmax exposed the connection. Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships
>>> closed
>>> by the federal government 788 had donated money, exclusively, to
>>> Republican
>>> political causes, while contributing nothing to Democratic political
>>> causes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The only "Democratic" dealership on the list was found to have donated
>>> $7,700 to Hillary's campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards.
>>> This
>>> same dealership, reportedly, also gave $200.00 to Obama's campaign. Does
>>> that seem a little odd to you?
>>>
>>> Steve Rattner, the guy who put the list together. Well he happens to be
>>> married to a babe named Maureen White. Maureen happens to be the former
>>> national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As such,
>>> she
>>> would have access to campaign donation records from everyone in the
>>> nation,
>>> Republican or Democrat. But of course, this is just a wacky coincidence,
>>> we're certain.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then comes another really wacky coincidence. On that list of dealerships
>>> being closed down, a weird thing happed in Arkansas, North
>>> Louisiana, and Southern Missouri. It seems that Bill Clinton's former
>>> White
>>> House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns a chain of dealership in that
>>> region, partnered with a fellow by the name of Robert Johnson. Johnson
>>> happens to be founder of Black Entertainment Television and was a huge
>>> Obama
>>> supporter and financier. These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores
>>> under
>>> the company title of RLJ-McClarty-Landers. Interestingly, none of their
>>> dealerships were ordered closed - not one- while all of their competing
>>> Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep dealership were! Eight dealerships located near
>>> the
>>> dealerships owned by McClarty and Johnson were ordered shut down. Thus,
>>> by
>>> pure luck, these two major Obama supporters now have virtual monopoly on
>>> Chrysler sales in their zone.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't that amazing? Go look in The Washington Examiner, the story's
>>> there, and it's in a dozen or so other web-based news organization, this
>>> isn't being made up.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now if you thought Chrysler was owned by Fiat, you are truly mistaken.
>>> Under
>>> the federal court ruling, 65% of Chrysler is now owned by the federal
>>> government and the United Auto Worker's union- Fiat owns 20%. The other
>>> 15%
>>> is till privately owned and presumably will be traded on the stock
>>> market.
>>> Obama smiles and says he doesn't want to run the auto industry.
>>>
>>>
>>> As horrifying as this is to comprehend, and being as how this used to be
>>> the
>>> United States of America, it would appear that the president has the
>>> power
>>> to destroy private businesses and eliminate upwards of 100,000 jobs,
>>> just
>>> because they don't agree with his political agenda. This is Nazi Germany
>>> stuff, and it's happening right here, right now, in your back yard.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are voices in Washington demanding an explanation, but the
>>> "Automotive Task Force" has released no information to the public or any
>>> of
>>> the senators demanding answers for what has been done. Keep your ear to
>>> the

>>> ground for more on this story. If you've ever wanted to make a
>>> difference
>>> about anything in your life, get on the phone to your national senator
>>> or
>>> representative in the House and demand an investigation on this.
>>>
>>> Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, "All that's necessary for
>>> evil
>>> to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Car Czar No More
>>> An amazing thing happed as this story was going to press. Obama's Car
>>> Czar,
>>> Steve Rattner, resigned on July 13 and was promptly replaced by former
>>> steel
>>> workers union boss Ron Bloom. According to CBS News,
>>> Rattner left "to return to private life and spend time with his
>>> family."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Treasure Secretary Tim Geithner said, "I hope that he takes another
>>> opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the
>>> future." By the way, Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million
>>> dollar pay-to-play investment bank scandal in New York. Uh-oh! But,
>>> we're
>>> certain that had nothing to do with his resignation. And, according to
>>> several news sources out there, there are rumors he's being investigated
>>> for
>>> what could be pay-to-play scandal involving the closing of Chrysler and
>>> GM
>>> dealerships.
>>> ---- Really? Again, that couldn't have anything to with his resignation-
>>> that's ridiculous! Like CBS said, this guy just wants to spend more
>>> quality
>>> time with his family. Obama has thirty-two personally appointed "czars"
>>> that
>>> answer to no one but him, all of whom are acting without any
>>> Constitutional
>>> authority. But hey, we're sure they all have "unique skills," as Tim
>>> Geithner likes to say.

*********************************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“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

I SPEAK THEREFORE I AM

PRESIDENT OBAMA was too busy to attend the celebrations
in Germany this week marking the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago.
But he did appear by video, delivering a few brief and bloodless remarks
about how the wall was "a painful barrier between family and friends"
that symbolized "a system that denied people
the freedoms that should be the right of every human being."
He referred to "tyranny," but never identified the tyrants --
he never uttered the words "Soviet Union" or "communism,"
or example. He said nothing about the men and women
who died trying to cross the wall.
Nor did he mention Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan
-- or even Mikhail Gorbachev.

He did, however, talk about Barack Obama.

"Few would have foreseen," declared the president, "that a united Germany would be led by a woman from [the former East German state of] Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it."

As presidential rhetoric goes, this was hardly a match for "Ich bin ein Berliner," still less another "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." But as a specimen of presidential narcissism, it is hard to beat. Obama couldn't be troubled to visit Berlin to commemorate a momentous milestone in the history of human liberty. But he was glad to explain to those who were there why reflections on that milestone should inspire appreciation for the self-made "destiny" of his own rise to power.

Was there ever a president as deeply enamored of himself as Barack Obama?

The first President Bush, taught from childhood to shun what his mother called "The Great I Am," regularly instructed his speechwriters not to include too many "I's" in his prepared remarks. Ronald Reagan maintained that there was no limit to what someone could achieve if he didn't mind who got the credit. George Washington, one of the most accomplished men of his day, said with characteristic modesty on becoming president that he was "peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies."

Obama, on the other hand, positively revels in The Great I Am.

"I think that I'm a better speechwriter than my speechwriters," he told campaign aides when he was running for the White House. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I'll tell you right now that . . . I'm a better political director than my political director."

At the start of his presidency, Obama seemed to content himself with the royal "we" -- "We will build the roads and bridges . . . We will restore science to its rightful place . . . We will harness the sun and winds," he declaimed at his inauguration.

But as the literary theorist Stanley Fish points out, "By the time of the address to the Congress on Feb. 24, the royal we [had] flowered into the naked 'I': 'As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress.' 'I called for action.' 'I pushed for quick action.' 'I have told each of my cabinet.' 'I've appointed a proven and aggressive inspector general.' 'I refuse to let that happen.' 'I will not spend a single penny.' 'I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves.' 'I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half.'" In his speech on the federal takeover of GM, Obama likewise found it necessary to use the first-person singular pronoun 34 times. ("Congress" he mentioned just once.)

At this rate, it won't be long before the president's ego is so inflated that it will require a ZIP code of its own.

Then again, how modest would any of us be if we were as magnificent as Obama knows himself to be? "I am well aware," he told the UN General Assemblyof the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world." in September, "

In 1860, writes Doris Kearns Goodwin in her celebrated biography Team of Rivals, an author wishing to dedicate his forthcoming work to Abraham Lincoln received this answer: "I give the leave, begging only that the inscription may be in modest terms, not representing me as a man of great learning, or a very extraordinary one in any respect."

Obama has often claimed Lincoln as a role model. Apparently it only goes so far.

by Jeff Jacoby

Sunday, 15 November 09

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“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

Monday, November 9, 2009

HERE IS ONE WAY TO WEAKEN THE OLIGARCHY IN WASHINGTON

ON THEIR WAY to Washington after last week's special elections

to fill two vacancies in the House of Representatives are

John Garamendi of California's 10^th congressional district,

and Bill Owens of New York's 23^rd.

When the congressmen-elect are sworn in,

the House will again have its full complement of representatives.

To mark the occasion, here is a short civics quiz:

1. According to the Constitution, how many members serve in the House of Representatives?

2. Why did the Framers believe the size of the House should be kept at a fixed number?

3. As of 2009, which of the following approximates the number of residents in each congressional district: (a) 530,000 (b) 700,000 or (c) 970,000?

Go to the head of the class if you recognized all three as trick questions.

To begin with (answering Question 1), the Constitution does not stipulate the number of House members, other than allowing no more than one representative for every 30,000 residents. Sixty-five men were elected to the first House of Representatives, but it was taken for granted that the membership would increase with the nation's population.

Far from favoring a fixed membership for the House (Question 2), the Framers opposed the idea. They went out of their way to dispel "fears arising from the smallness of the body," as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 55, and took it "for granted . . . that the number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution." Madison reinforced the point in Federalist No. 56, assuring those who worried that a 65-member House would grow distant and oligarchical that "the foresight of the [Constitutional] Convention has . . . taken care that the progress of population may be accompanied with a proper increase of the representative branch of the government."

Since 1911, the number of House seats has been frozen at 435. The number of Americans, meanwhile, has tripled.

For the next 12 decades, "the progress of population" was indeed accompanied by an increase in the size of the House, which was enlarged after each census. But the House didn't grow as fast as the American nation did, which meant that the ratio of congressmen to citizens -- a measurement of democratic representation -- kept shrinking. There was one House member for every 37,000 Americans after the 1790 Census, but after 1850 the ratio dropped to one for every 98,000, and by 1900 it was down to one for every 194,000. In 1911, when Congress passed a bill expanding the House to 435 members, the population of the United States was up to 92 million: For every representative, in other words, there were more than 211,000 people.

Nearly a century later, the House membership remains frozen at 435, even as the US population has surged to 305 million. There are now more than 700,000 Americans for member of the US House, which is another way of saying that the average congressional district is home to 700,000 constituents.

Yet 700,000 is not the correct answer to Question 3. Since every state is entitled to at least one House seat, and since every state cannot be divided evenly into multiples of 700,000, the number of residents in each congressional district varies sharply. At the extremes, Montana's lone US representative has 967,000 constituents, while the member from Wyoming represents fewer than 533,000. That disparity -- more than 430,000 between the largest congressional district and the smallest -- means that residents of some states have considerably more voting power in Congress than residents of others. And that, insist the plaintiffs in a lawsuit making its way through a federal court in Mississippi, violates the principle of one-person, one-vote.

The lawsuit argues that only by enlarging its membership to at least 932 -- or better yet, 1,761 -- can the House return to districts of equal size. Whether the suit will succeed is an open question. But what a blessing if it did! Quadruple the size of the House, and congressional districts would again be small and compact, ideally suited to the retail politics of an earlier era, and more closely aligned with discrete communities and neighborhoods. Enlarge the House, and it would fill with new blood, new thinking, and new energy. Elections would be more competitive, since it would take fewer votes to win. The House would grow more diverse, more lively, more representative.

Today's incumbents would hate the idea, of course: It would dilute their power and make them more accountable. For a congressional baron, there could be no fate more odious. But James Madison would certainly approve.

by Jeff Jocoby

THE BOSTON GLOBE

Sunday, 08 November 09

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

**************************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“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

Thursday, November 5, 2009

THE MAD QUEEN NANCY PELOSI IS ACTUALLY MAJOR NICHOLSON REINCARNATED

http://satyambloggers.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/kwai.jpg

The Madness of Queen Nancy

It's one thing to be serene under fire, it's another to be delusional.

More than a few Democrats in Congress are perplexed and worried that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is insisting on ramming through a 1,900-page health care bill on Saturday, just days after her party took heavy losses in Tuesday's elections. "It reminds me of Major Nicholson, the obsessed British major in the film 'Bridge on the River Kwai,'" one Democrat told me. "She is fixated on finishing her health care bridge even as she's lost sight of where it's going and what damage it could cause to her own troops."

Indeed, the Speaker's take on Tuesday's off-year elections struck some of her own members as delusive "happy talk." "From our perspective, we won last night," a cheerful Ms. Pelosi told reporters, citing her party's pick-up of a single House seat in a New York special election and retention of another strongly Democratic seat in California.

That's not how many of her own troops see it. Democratic Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama told Politico.com that members are "very, very sensitive" to the fact that the agenda being pushed by party leaders has "the potential to cost some of our front-line members their seats"

On health care, added New Jersey Democrat Bill Pascrell: "People who had weak knees before are going to have weaker knees now."

Ms. Pelosi, however, apparently thinks the moment is ripe to use sheer political muscle to pass legislation reordering one sixth of the economy, with zero Republican support. The right mixture of "incentives" and Rahm Emanuel-style pressure, she believes, will bring enough Democrats to heel to vote for the bill.

The obsession Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have with passing health care strikes some Democratic moderates as a completely misplaced priority. Polls show that fewer than a fifth of Americans rank health care reform as the most important issue. Their biggest concern right now is jobs. Only 29% of voters in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll believe the economy "has hit the bottom."

That's also the message from Moody's Mark Zandi, who has become the de facto chief outside economic adviser to the Democratic Congress in recent months and has been telling House Democrats to expect unemployment to be "sticky and stubborn," remaining near 10% a year from now. A similar warning comes from Christina Romer, chair of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, who predicts unemployment will be 9.5% when midterm elections occur a year from now.

These considerations spook not just the 49 House Democrats who sit in districts won by John McCain last year. Even liberals say lessons need to be taken from Tuesday's shellacking: "What the exit polls showed was real voter fatigue with how crowded the plate is," Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, chairman of his party's freshman class, told the New York Times. "We need to take a deep breath, step back and clean the plate before we add to it."

That the bill would be a job killer isn't the only concern. Democrats worry about a backlash from the one-fourth of seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage -- a program that faces steep cuts in both the likely Senate and House bills.

But Speaker Pelosi isn't about to step back. In fact, she plans to force her troops to vote on health care just one day after Friday's jobless numbers are due, which are likely to show unemployment still growing. "When I take this bill to the floor, it will win," she proclaimed earlier this year.

One Democratic House moderate says the leadership has mislearned a lesson from the 1994 collapse of Hillary Clinton's health care bill. "They believe they lost the elections that year because they failed to pass anything," he says. "But they forget it might have been even worse if they'd passed the wrong bill."

The obsession with passing a clearly flawed and overly complex health care bill does indeed recall the classic movie in which Major Nicholson (played memorably by Alec Guinness) convinces his fellow British POWs in Thailand to build a railway bridge for their Japanese captors -- losing touch with the larger reality that the bridge would be used by the enemy against his own people.

John Feenery, who worked for then-House Minority Leader Bob Michel, sees many similarities with Congress's ill-fated rush to pass "catastrophic" health coverage for seniors in 1988. "Like the catastrophic bill, the Democrats' health care bill frontloads the pain and backloads the gain," he told CNN last month. Because Democrats wanted to avoid a negative deficit score from the Congressional Budget Office, taxes went up immediately while benefits were phased in. But seniors revolted. House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski was famously chased down a Chicago street by an angry mob. In November, 1989 -- almost exactly 20 years ago -- Congress took the extraordinary step of repealing the catastrophic health care law.

Should the far more complex health care bill now being debated pass, no one expects it could be fully repealed. But Democrats surely would pay a political price for passing a liberal bill with no bipartisan support. Like Major Nicholson on the River Kwai, they may wake up to find they built a monument to a set of presumptions that were really a form of madness.

BY JOHN FUND

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL'S POLITICAL DIARY ONLINE

THURSDAY, 05 NOVEMBER 09

******************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“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

WILL THE RNC WAKE UP AFTER THE 2010 ELECTION AND DISCOVER A RINO IN ITS BED IN FLORIDA?

One of the most memorable scenes
in the movie The Godfather was
when the Jewish producer who
refused to feature the young Italian-
American singer (Frank Sinatra ?)
in a movie is punished by the Godfather.
One of the prized posessions of the producer
was his champion thoroughbred race horse.
One morning he wakes up to find his horse's
bloody severed head under the sheets at his
feet.

The above cartoon by Investor's Daily Ramirez
perfectly captures the shock of the Republican
National Committee as it wakes up after an election
to discover that the Republican candidate it successfully
supported in an election is a RINO
(a Republican in name only).

One of the reasons why so many voters who
would normally vote for the Republican candidate
in an election are reluctant to do so is because all too
frequently in the past the Republican National Committee
had supported with its endorsement and fiancial
candidates who later turn out to be traitors to the
Party and all that it is supposed to stand for.

Conservative voters have had enough of Arlen Spector
(The Awful Spectre), Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and
others who either change their party affiliation after
having been elected as Republicans or remain in the
Party and show that they are really just RINO.

-Leo Rugiens
*****************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“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

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Monday, November 2, 2009

WHETHER ENOUGH PEOPLE WILL WAKE UP IN TIME TO PREVENT AMERICA FROM BEING DISMANTLED IS THE QUESTION

"Just one year ago, would you have believed

that an unelected government official,

not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate

but simply one of the many 'czars' appointed by the President,

could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses

by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another 'czar' would be talking about restricting talk radio?

That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers -- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish? Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called 'experts' deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments? Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones? Does any of this sound like America? How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough. How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? ... How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin. Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to 'change the United States of America,' the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country. ... Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year -- each bill more than a thousand pages long -- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question -- and the biggest question for this generation." --economist Thomas Sowell

Re: The Left

"[O]ur federal government, from the White House through Congress, and so many state and local governments, seems to be demonstrating every day that they cannot make things better. They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths -- spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally. And in the long term everyone -- well, not those in government, but most everyone else -- seems to know that won't work. It's not a way out. It's not a path through. ... When I see those in government, both locally and in Washington, spend and tax and come up each day with new ways to spend and tax -- health care, cap and trade, etc. -- I think: Why aren't they worried about the impact of what they're doing? Why do they think America is so strong it can take endless abuse? ... We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they're not optimists -- they're unimaginative. They don't have faith, they've just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don't mind it when people become disheartened. They don't even notice." --columnist Peggy Noonan

Liberty

"Ah! Re-regulation. What a great idea. As I recall, the Soviet Union and old Eastern Bloc tried heavy government control and regulation, and it didn't work. The people rebelled. They wanted economic freedom, the right to keep their own money, the right to start their own businesses and the right to climb the ladder of success in a free economy. Now here's a counter-thought. The Ronald Reagan free-market revolution, which included regulation lite, a sound dollar and low tax rates, launched a three-decade-long boom. And yes, the Gipper's policies were copied around the world. ... So why not try something different? Unfashionable as it may be today, why not go back to the supply-side model of lower marginal tax rates for individuals and businesses, large and small? ... It's the incentive model of economic growth. At lower tax rates, where folks keep more of what they earn and invest, greater after-tax rewards spur greater work effort and investment risk. They also boost asset values. This is exactly what the economy needs: a rejuvenated dose of incentives -- permanent incentives. Think of this: At the same wage level from cost-conscious businesses, a 10 percent personal tax cut provides a handsome after-tax wage-increase incentive that will spur individuals to go back to work -- simply because work will pay more after-tax. ... That's the message for economic freedom fighters everywhere: Unite, and throw off your chains. Especially here in America." --economist Lawrence Kudlow

Insight

"It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of 'Freedom or dictatorship?' into 'Which kind of dictatorship?' -- thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice -- according to the proponents of that fraud -- is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism). That fraud collapsed in the 1940's, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory -- that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state -- that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders -- that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique -- that fascism is not the product of the political 'right,' but of the 'left' -- that the basic issue is not 'rich versus poor,' but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government -- which means: capitalism versus socialism." --philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

The Gipper

"There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right." --Ronald Reagan

Government

"The recently revived idea of creating a government-run health plan to compete with private insurers may reinforce the impression that President Obama and his allies in Congress are standing tall against those corporate fat cats who delight in denying lifesaving care to children and old ladies. But Obama and the insurers still see eye to eye on a central element of his health care agenda: the requirement that every American obtain medical coverage. It's obvious why the insurers like this idea. What industry wouldn't welcome a law that forces everyone to buy its product? But the insurers also argue that a mandate will help control costs, and the president agrees. Judging from the experience in Massachusetts, which imposed its own insurance requirement in 2006, they're both wrong. ... Since 2006, Michael Cannon notes in a recent Cato Institute paper, health insurance premiums in Massachusetts have risen by 8 percent to 12 percent a year, almost double the national average. During the same period, total medical spending has increased by 28 percent. The cost of subsidizing coverage through the state's Commonwealth Care program is expected to hit $880 million next year, 20 percent more than originally projected. ... [W]hen you subsidize something, people tend to consume more of it. Total spending is therefore bound to be higher, whether it's covered through direct taxes or through the indirect tax of forcing people to pay for insurance they don't want." --columnist Jacob Sullum

For the Record

"It takes no great leap of faith to understand that people who don't pay taxes in the first place welcome the prospect of increasing the burden on those who do -- especially if the 'taking' classes correctly expect to be the beneficiaries. So, too, those whose 'poverty level' exempts them from taxes correctly see the mediocre care under a nationalized health system as better than the longer waits and ER dependency they now experience, especially if someone else is paying the freight. What the average American may regard as inferior care and service is seen as an improvement by those who live at least partly off government redistribution programs. This constituency cares not a whit for the increased costs to taxpayers and future generations of taxpayers; they don't pay taxes, so it's not their problem. Nor do they care about the prospect of reduced overall care quality and availability; they see it as an improvement on what they experience now. Most of all, they have no fear of the vastly increased power a socialized medicine program would give the bureaucracy through control of a major portion of the American economy. They see the government as the main source of sustenance and problem-solving in their own lives -- so the bigger, the better." --columnist Richard Weitz

Culture

"Last week, the Pew Research Center released a poll showing that belief in, and concern for, climate change is evaporating. Belief in global warming has dropped from 71 percent in April to 57 percent; only 36 percent believe man is mostly responsible for climate change. Only 35 percent of respondents said it's a 'very serious problem,' down from 41 percent. This is after more than a decade of near-relentless fearmongering -- er, sorry, 'education' -- from Al Gore, academia and Hollywood. They can't persuade the American people to spend trillions for less than a degree Celsius of cooling a century from now. No doubt the fact that neither climate models nor doomsday predictions have panned out (there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998) is a big part of the story. But my hunch is that the bigger reason for the shift is that Democrats are threatening to really do something about it, and the costs no longer seem hypothetical. Throw in a bad economy, and Americans simply balk. And that's Americans -- the notion that China, India and Brazil are going to don carbon handcuffs is just silly. Those countries want to get rich, and they'll gladly sell their carbon to do it. But the anti-global-warming industry seems to be on autopilot, churning out books that only half-jokingly propose eating your pets. Others insist that Americans will have to restrict themselves to only one child, just like in authoritarian China. If those are the costs, free people will not pay them." --National Review editor Jonah Goldberg

Reader Comments

"Excellent essay on 'Nobody Questions That.' Your Essential Liberty Project is also an excellent start to stress the importance of the U.S. Constitution. I believe it may be wise to send copies of the Constitution to our congressmen and president -- they seem to be unfamiliar with it and perhaps have not read it. I keep a copy in my purse and on more than one occasion have taken it out. Keep up the good work!" --Debi

"What else can we do to defend our Constitution from the traitorous politicians ruining (ruining not running!) our country? I can write letters and emails till I'm blue in the face, and what good does it do? Instead of defense we must start a new offense! Educating the general public is the only way to get that done. Supporting The Patriot Post is the most honorable mission I can think of, other than professing my Christian faith, in saving this country. God's richest blessings to The Patriot Post!" --Kurt

"I felt like standing up and cheering after reading Mark's piece. This gang of carpetbaggers we now have in this administration are going to destroy what we have long giving our Blood and Treasure for. Wake up America before it's too late. This is another fight that we must win. I just hope its not too late already. We yet may have to defend our founders legacy." --Ann

"Have arms, will travel!" --R.

The Last Word

"The Democrats' all-new 'opt out' idea for health care reform is the latest fig leaf for a total government takeover of the health care system. Democrats tell us they've been trying to nationalize health care for 65 years, but the first anyone heard of the 'opt out' provision was about a week ago. They keep changing the language so people can't figure out what's going on. The most important fact about the 'opt out' scheme allegedly allowing states to decline government health insurance is that a state can't 'opt out' of paying for it. All 50 states will pay for it. A state legislature can only opt out of allowing its own citizens to receive the benefits of a federal program they're paying for. It's like a movie theater offering a 'money back guarantee' and then explaining, you don't get your money back, but you don't have to stay and watch the movie if you don't like it. That's not what most people are thinking when they hear the words 'opt out.' The term more likely to come to mind is 'scam.' While congressional Democrats act indignant that Republicans would intransigently oppose a national health care plan that now magnanimously allows states to 'opt out,' other liberals are being cockily honest about the 'opt out' scheme. On The Huffington Post, the first sentence of the article on the opt-out plan is: 'The public option lives.' Andrew Sullivan gloats on his blog, 'Imagine Republicans in state legislatures having to argue and posture against an affordable health insurance plan for the folks, as O'Reilly calls them, while evil liberals provide it elsewhere.' But the only reason government health insurance will be more 'affordable' than private health insurance is that taxpayers will be footing the bill. That's something that can't be opted out of under the 'opt out' plan. Which brings us right back to the question of whether the government or the free market provides better services at better prices. There are roughly 1 million examples of the free market doing a better job and the government doing a worse job. In fact, there is only one essential service the government does better: Keeping Dennis Kucinich off the streets." --columnist Ann Coulter

*****

Veritas vos Liberabit -- Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot's editors and staff.

The Patriot Post.com

Monday, 02 November 09

*********************************************************

Sunday, November 1, 2009

THE BIG LIE

http://www.monochrom.at/cracked/comments/GOEBBELS.JPG

REICH MINISTER OF PROPAGANDA
JOSEF GOEBELS

The will to power, which is the driving force behind the Obamacrats,
provides the energy for them to advance the agenda of the Obamanation. Republican democracy (that is republican with a small "r") depends for its success, its survival, on an educated electorate. Sad to say, all the empirical evidence about the education system of the United States points to massive failure of that system to educate the vast majority of our citizens. The ignorance which the average person in the street (as testified to by the comedy routine of Jay Leno asking passersby on the street to state simple facts like the name of the first president of the U.S., or the location of any major city of the United States) manifests in the political arena points inevitably to rule by oligarchies.

The few are able to manipulate the 30-40% of the electorate who are so ignorant they will believe anything that a charismatic leader, a Jim Jones, a Barack Obama, would tell them. Adolph Hitler and his Minister of Propaganda showed the world how easy it is to manipulate public opinion by the BIG LIE. Tell an untruth over and over again and pretty soon the ignorant 30-40% of the electorate will vote the way you want them to. For Hitler the big lie was the guilt of the Jews for the near destruction of the Germany during the Weimar Republic. His success with that big lie enabled him to do the Holocaust with the silent assent of the majority of the German People.

We are witnessing another example of the effectiveness of the BIG LIE as it is being used in the current healthcare legislation debate. Jeff Jacoby tells us about it:

*************************************************************

TWO THINGS supporters of a government-run "public option" for health insurance

know for sure.

One is that private health insurers are raking in obscenely high profits.

The other is that only a government rival can force them to compete on price.

In a clever new commercial featuring Heather Graham as an agile sprinter named "Public Option," the left-wing pressure group MoveOn combines both themes, describing insurance companies as "lazy" and "bloated from the profits of raising our health care costs sky-high." Why, it asks, should anyone resist the competition a public option would generate? After all, "competition is as American as apple pie." In a less amusing print ad a few weeks ago, MoveOn charged that "insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up, as long as their profits are safe."

President Obama also attacks health insurers as avaricious profiteers.

"The insurance industry is making this last-ditch effort to stop reform," he declared on Oct. 16, "even as costs continue to rise and our health-care dollars continue to be poured into their profits (and) bonuses." When he addressed Congress in September, Obama insisted that only a public option will "keep insurance companies honest." On the White House Blog, ObamaCare opponents are accused of "fighting to protect insurance industry profits."

Indeed, there is no shortage of voices characterizing health insurers as greedy villains. Earlier this year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised her party for highlighting "the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry." On CNN last week, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown demanded a public option "so the insurance industry can't continue to game the system and discriminate" against women and the disabled -- tactics insurers have used to "quadruple their profits in the last five years." If quadrupled profits don't seem rapacious enough, the union-backed Health Care for American Now! ups the ante, claiming, according to the AFL-CIO's news blog, that "during the past five years, health insurance company profits have soared by 1,000 percent."

Outbidding them all is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Health insurance companies "are so anti-competitive," he said last month, "because they make more money than any other business in America today."

To such overheated agitprop, the only useful response is a cold shower of facts, and the Associated Press supplied a timely one last week. For all the impassioned talk about obscene profits and bodies piling up, AP's Calvin Woodward reported, "health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent" of revenues, a return "that's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries."

87 cents out of every premium dollar

pays for medical services,

according to a PriceWaterhouseCoopers study

for America's Health Insurance Plans.

Insurance company profits account for just 3 cents.

On the Fortune 500 list of top industries, health insurance companies ranked 35^th in profitability in 2008; their overall profit margin was a mere 2.2 percent. They lagged far behind such industries as pharmaceuticals (which showed a profit margin of 19.3 percent), railroads (12.6 percent), and mining (11.5 percent). Among health insurers, the best performer last year was HealthSpring, which had a profit of 5.4 percent. "That's a less profitable margin," AP noted, "that was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach, and Molson and Coors beers."

For the most recent quarter of 2009, health-insurance plans earned profits of only 3.3 percent, ranking them 86^th on the expanded Yahoo! Finance list of US industries. The application-software industry, by contrast, is pulling in profits of nearly 22 percent. Why aren't MoveOn and the Democrats demanding a "public option" to compete with Microsoft and Adobe and drive down their "immoral" profits?

There are certainly industries doing worse than health insurance -- airlines and newspapers, for example -- but the notion that health insurers "make more money than any other business in America today" is preposterous. Advocates of a public option may find it tactically expedient to paint insurers as insatiable predators, swollen with ill-gotten profits. The reality is otherwise.

Still, the critics do have one thing right: More competition would bring down health-care premiums. But the way to increase competition is not by adding a government-run health plan to the 1,300 private firms already providing Americans with health insurance. After all, there's no public option for auto insurance and life insurance, yet they're sold in a highly competitive national market. There is no reason health insurance can't be sold the same way.

Hyperbole and the health-care debate

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
November 1, 2009

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6503/hyperbole-and-the-health-care-debate

Next: More competition, less government

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
*****************************************************

BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
IS A
USURPER

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
TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii

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:
http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

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.
_

HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS

“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

The Huffington Riposte