The Self-Destruction of the Mainstream Media

American Thinker

For  the past forty years the mainstream media has become increasingly liberal and  more overt in promoting the policies of the Democratic Party.  This  evolutionary process reached its zenith in 2008 when the media were instrumental  in Barack Obama being elected President.   Many journalists dropped  any pretense of objectivity and became not only cheerleaders but active de facto  members of the campaign.   What has their loyalty and prostration  achieved for the journalism community?   During the past two decades  no other sector of the economy has  experienced such overwhelming financial and employment  devastation.

Holy Coast

Continue reading

Another amazing Obama photo

American Thinker

Our genius president has done it again. In a group photo of national leaders at the Open Government Partnership event at the United Nations, President Ego decided to wave at the camera, blocking the face of the man standing next to him, so it is not possible to identify him.

American Thinker

Ordinarily, I would suspect this is a photshopped image. But it comes to us via Obamaphillic MSNBC, and is credited to Allan Tannenbaum-Pool / Getty Images. Because it is copyrighted, we can’t show you the entire photo, only a thumbnail, so click on over to MSNBC here, and see for yourself.

If George W. Bush had done this, it would be on the front page of the New York Times, and every broadcast network news show.

More Obama photo merriment:

American Thinker

American Thinker

Hat tip: Hot Air

Update:

The great Zombie at the PJM Tatler verified that the picture exists on the Getty Images website, and is not a hoax, even though to his eye, it looks fake. He also identifies the humiliated foreign leader as Tsakhia Elbegdorj of Mongolia.

 

Barack Obama, winning friends for America.

Source:

Omitting for Obama

Western Journalism

The Obama administration was embarrassed by a series of revelations about its most radical actions, assumptions, and associations in 2009. While Fox News and the conservatives on talk radio and the Internet broke and developed these stories, Americans following only the “mainstream” media would never have heard these reports.

Obama’s administration has benefited from major censorship by the media

Instead of acting as government watchdogs holding the people in power accountable, the nation’s broadcast news networks deliberately suppressed and de facto censored embarrassing scoops – at least until President Obama or Congress took action and made them impossible to ignore.

In many cases, this resistance to real news extended even to newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times, which are supposed to be more substantive and thorough than highly-paid TV news talking heads or unpaid bloggers. A Media Research Center study of four such stories highlighted by the New Media in 2009 that were damaging to the Obama “brand” found that the news was not only slow in arriving, it was fast in disappearing:

# Van Jones. On September 3, blogger Jim Hoft reported that Obama “green jobs” guru Van Jones had signed a petition in 2004 demanding a probe into charges the Bush administration “deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.” Fox News Channel jumped on the story. But it didn’t draw a single story on ABC or NBC until after Jones resigned his office at the very start of September 6. CBS filed one, and ABC five. NBC never devoted a single full story to Jones (just mentioned him as a distraction in eight pieces). They noticed a few outrageous Jones remarks like suggesting a black child would never shoot up a school, but never noticed Jones calling himself a communist. Even the newspapers were stubborn in their avoidance: the Washington Post failed to publish a story until the morning before Jones resigned, and the New York Times failed to publish a story until after he resigned.

# ACORN. On September 10, the website Big Government exposed with shocking hidden-camera footage how the leftist Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) in Baltimore advised a man and woman posing as a pimp and a prostitute how to shelter their illegal income from taxes, even as they claimed they were bringing in under-age girls from Latin America to be their sex workers. While the video aired heavily on Fox News, the broadcast network evening news shows stayed silent for five days until Congress moved to deny the group’s millions in federal funding. (ABC broke the network blackout on Saturday morning, September 12 to briefly note the Census Bureau cut off ties to the group.) While the journalists kept releasing videos from ACORN offices – in Washington D.C., Brooklyn, and San Diego – in the end, ABC and CBS aired only one full story, NBC three. As the rest of the country was laughing at Jay Leno ACORN skits, the networks didn’t find it a laughing proposition when President Obama claimed to George Stephanopoulos: “Frankly, it’s not something I’ve followed closely,” adding he had not been aware that ACORN received much federal money. None noted the comment or Obama’s long relationship with the group in Chicago, working as an ACORN trainer and even as ACORN’s attorney in court.

Read More: MRC Special Reports

Say It Loud — I’m Conservative, and I’m Proud!

American Thinker

By Lloyd Marcus

In 1968, James Brown released his song, “Say It Loud — I’m Black and I’m Proud.” The cruelest and saddest effect of slavery and racism in America is that it caused us blacks to hate ourselves. When I was a kid, I picked up an unspoken vibe from my fellow blacks that light-skinned blacks were better than us of a darker completion. “Good hair” meant similar to white. One summer afternoon, my mom yelled, “You kids get in the house! You’re gettin’ too black out there in that sun!” I remember thinking, What is wrong with getting darker? This mindset is why Brown’s black pride anthem was so important and empowering.

Thank God that today, black youths would consider Brown’s song absurd and laughable. Despite what civil rights dinosaurs (stuck in the past), race profiteers, and the Obama administration would have us believe, America’s race relations have come a long way, baby.
Blacks are CEOs and multimillionaires. A full-figured, dark-skinned black woman could arguably be the most influential woman in the world, and a black man resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The emergence of blacks from slavery to power confirms the God-inspired greatness of America. While the NAACP continues to sing, “We Shall Overcome,” news flash — the truth is that we have overcome!
As singer/songwriter of the “American Tea Party Anthem,” do I need to pen a silly song titled “Say It Loud – I’m Conservative and I’m Proud”? Liberals use their bully pulpits of the White House and mainstream media to misrepresent and demonize conservatism. This has made many conservatives fearful of coming out of the closet. Even George Bush felt the need to soften conservatism by putting the word “compassionate” in front of it. Such pandering to the left only contributes to the lie that conservatism is heartless and cruel. The truth is quite the opposite. Liberalism is arrogant, demeaning, and harmful. True compassion is expressed through conservatism.
And yet, far too often, we conservatives allow ourselves to be put on the defensive for telling the truth and offering our commonsense solutions. We allow the left to dictate the rules and what we can and cannot say. They even determine what is or is not racist. It was recently reported that liberal democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid described then-Senator Barack Obama as “light-skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
Apparently Democrats Reid and V.P. Joe Biden, who made a similar racial comment, agree with L.A. Times reporter David Ehrenstein. Ehrenstein, a black man, called Obama “a Magic Negro” in an article. Conservative Rush Limbaugh was called a racist for simply mentioning the L.A. Times story.
Here is the blatant double-standard. Jackson, Sharpton, the NAACP, Democrats, and the mainstream media would have a cow had a conservative made the same comments as Reid. After they publicly flogged the racist conservative Republican SOB, they would demand his resignation. Reid apologized, and his liberal buddies ask us to forgive him. I mean after all, isn’t that what Jesus would do? Don’t you just love it when libs, whose mission is to ban God from the public square, refer to Jesus?
Taking back America requires that we stop being intimidated. We must boldly stand up for what is right, commonsense, and truly compassionate. For example, speaking English is unquestionably crucial to moving forward economically in America. Frustratingly, conservatives who encourage all Americans to speak English are attacked by the left as racist. Shake it off and keep telling and standing up for the truth.
The Tea Party Movement has been a coming-out party for conservatives, a kind of Proclamation of Liberation. We are standing up and saying “no” to political correctness and liberal tyranny. Still, like battered wives, some conservatives are shy about espousing the virtues of conservatism. They cannot bear the pain of being branded with the “R” for racist on their forehead for opposing any Obama agenda item. Nor can they handle being called heartless and cruel for opposing Obama’s redistribution of wealth via government-run health care.
On March 27, I will be on the road again with national Tea Party Express Tour III (TeaPartyExpress.org). I performed as a singer and speaker on tours I and II. Perhaps I should take a cue from James Brown and write a song to perform — one that will empower my timid conservative brothers and sisters who have been beaten down by liberal abuse and tyranny. “Say It Loud — I’m Conservative and I’m Proud!”
Now if I can just master a few of those dazzling James Brown dance moves. I can imagine the live report of my spectacular tea party performance: “Reminiscent of the late godfather of soul, amazingly, Lloyd does a spin and a split; the crowd goes wild! Oh my gosh, somebody call 9-1-1!” On second thought, I think I’ll stick to just singing and speaking.
Lloyd Marcus, (black) Unhyphenated American, singer/songwriter, entertainer, author, artist, and Tea Party patriot.

VERY QUIETLY OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT

Tea Party Patriots

Read and face up to the real truth!

In general, “media” refers to various means of worldwide communication.  The majority of American’s media (news reporting agencies, TV, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, and movies) are owned and operated by very like mined people, socially and politically.  They have the monopolized ability to what is and is not seen, hear and reported and are thus very influential in the attitudes and behaviors for social and political change in America to their way of thinking.  They control the airwaves and presses and thus control the flow of information they want known and not known.

They support people, organizations, institutions, businesses and causes that further of their views and thinking.  They make sure the majority of the population hears, rehears, reads and rereads the same information over and over till it is accepted as a fact!

It has been observed that ten percent of people are thinkers; fifteen percent of people think they are thinkers, twenty five percent of people wish they were thinks and fifty percent of people would rather die than think.  I add this thought to that observation, that of the ten percent that are thinkers, at least fifty percent of them are socialist-progressive thinkers.  These are the majority of the owners of the global media and are of this mind set.  The news media is their way of indoctrinating and manipulating in a creatively entertaining format to get the masses to believe and accept they know what is best for us, socialism!

They always show us the choices, left or right, liberal or conservative, pro-choice or pro-life, progressive or traditionalist, Democrat or Republican.  A limited, constricted, slanted either or choice, rarely the true facts unless exposed and forced, creating division.

The pretense of the media is there to keep check on our government, to protect the people all the while subversion, betrayal, deception, and treason.  Why would I say this?  This information on the following pages is actual historical fact that has and is being subverted by intimidation, deception, and lies.  The so-called leaders of our country, in all three branches of our nation, our elected representatives sworn to uphold and protect our constitution are committing treason.  They are ignoring their oath and destroying our nation and its sovereignty.

This is not just in Washington, DC.   Not one state electoral board or state attorney checked.  The Illinois state government representatives and Illinois Democrat party knew and never tried to stop this from happening.  The real question I have is not of his eligibility anymore as he was not, rather …

When did Barack Hussein Obama II become an American citizen?

Let me repeat that, reread it and think about it!

When did Barack Hussein Obama II become an American citizen?

AP declared Obama Kenyan-Born

John Charlton The Post & Email     October 16, 2009

What most people know is that the Associated Press (AP) is one of the largest, internationally recognized, syndicated news services.   What most people don’t know that is in 2004, the AP was a birther news organization.

How so?  Because in a syndicated report, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times, and which was, as of this report, available at

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

The AP reporter stated the following:

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

This report explains the context of the oft cited debate, between Obama and Keyes in the following Fall, in which Keyes faulted Obama for not being a natural born citizen, and in which Obama, by his quick retort, So what?  I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency, self-admitted that he was not eligible for the office. Seeing that an AP reporter is too professional to submit a story which was not based on confirmed sources (ostensibly the Obama campaign in this case), the inference seems inescapable: Obama himself was putting out in 2004 that he was born in Kenya.

The difficulty in finding this gem of a story is hampered by Google, which is running flak for Obama:  because if you search for Kenyan-born US Senate you won’t find it, but if you search for the phrase without quotes you will find links which talk about it.

For those who believe what they see, a full sized screen capture of the page from the Kenyan Sunday Standard, electronic edition, of June 27, 2004 is page three of this four page handout.  Just in case that page is scrubbed from the Web Archive.

Readers should take note that this AP story was syndicated world-wide, so you should be able to find it in major newspapers, archived in libraries world-wide.  If any reader does this, please let The Post & Email know, so that we can publish a follow up-story.  You can scrub the net, but scrubbing libraries world-wide is not so easy.

Hanen of Sentinel Blog Radio broke the public news of the existence of this AP story at on October 14, 2009 at 12:31 pm.  However, The Post & Email can confirm that a professional investigator had uncovered this story months ago, and that certified and authenticated copies of this report, meeting Federal Rules of evidence, have already been prepared and archived at many locations nationwide.

It should be noted that on January 8, 2006, the Honolulu Advertiser also reported that Barack Hussein Obama was born outside the United States.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/08/ln/FP601080334.html


Home
National
Sports
Special Reports
Commentaries
Intelligence
Letters
Editorial

Big Issue | Financial Standard | Maddo | Pulse | Style | Society
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate


Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.

Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his divorce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.

Barrack Obama

“It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race,” Ryan, 44, said in a statement. “What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign – the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play.”

Although Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one ‘avant-garde’ club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable, lashed out at the media and said it was “truly outrageous” that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records.

The Republican choice will become an instant underdog in the campaign for the seat of retiring Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald, since Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.

“I feel for him actually,” Obama told a Chicago TV station. “What he’s gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn’t wish on anybody.”

The Republican state committee must now choose a replacement for Ryan, who had won in the primaries against seven contenders. Its task is complicated by the fact that Obama holds a comfortable lead in the polls and is widely regarded as a rising Democratic star.

The chairwoman of the Illinois Republican Party, Judy Topinka, said at a news conference, after Ryan withdrew, that Republicans would probably take several weeks to settle on a new candidate.

“Obviously, this is a bad week for our party and our state,” she said.

As recently as Thursday, spokesmen for the Ryan campaign still insisted that Ryan would remain in the race. Ryan had defended himself saying, “There’s no breaking of any laws. There’s no breaking of any marriage laws. There’s no breaking of the Ten Commandments anywhere.”

—AP

A Chronology of Deceit

One can now ask an important question which has not yet been emphasized enough:  Just when did Obama begin to publically claim he was born in Hawaii? This question is distinct from the question, just where in fact was Obama born?  And from the other question, what do official documents say about where he was born?

Regarding his claims, we can summarize what is known:

1.  As of Monday, Aug. 28, 2006, Obama’s Campaign was putting out that he was born in Hawaii.   This is known from the introductory speech given by Prof. George A. O. Magoha, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nairobi, on the occasion of a speech given there by Senator Obama that day. (One presumes that the Vice-Chancellor was given notes from the Obama campaign, as is customary on such occasions)

2. From the newspaper reports above, it is clear that the Obama campaign was putting out that he was born in Kenya, or overseas, during the period of June 27, 2004, until January 8, 2006.

3. In October of 2004, during the ABC Chicago Affiliate’s broadcast of the Obama-Keyes debates, Obama openly admitted he conceded that he was not a natural born citizen.

(C-Span aired the uncut version of the debates, which contained this exchange, in the 2nd half of April, 2005) [Alan Lee Keyes served in the U.S. Foreign Service, was appointed Ambassador to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations under President Ronald Reagan, and served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs from 1985 to 1987]

4. It is known from a classmate of Obama at Harvard University, that while at Harvard, Obama at least on one occasion admitted that he was born in Kenya. (This friend went on record on a call in radio program in Idaho in early July, 2009)

If any reader can find a link which documents a claim to a birth location before Aug. 28th, 2006, which differs from this timeline or which supports it; please let The Post & Email know of it, by posting it in the comment section below.

In a follow up report, The Post & Email has published a brief analysis of the Google Newspaper archive, which shows that Obama’s story changed after June 27, 2004.

Finally, that the AP did cover this story, reprinted by the East African Standard, can be seen from the citation made to AP stories about it (Jack Ryan dropping out of the race), in the following contemporary news articles, which however are incomplete:

June 25, 2004  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123716,00.html

June 26, 2004  Bellview News Democrat

June 26, 2004  AP Online Story by Michael Tarm

June 25,  2004  AP Syndicated Story by Maura Kelly Lannan

(Second Source on June 26, 2009, which cites Associated Press Special Correspondent David Espo and reporter Dennis Conrad as contributors to this report)

(Third Source, The Ledger, print edition of June 26, 2009: partial republication)

Received December 8th, 2009:

VERY QUIETLY OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT

AP- WASHINGTON D.C. – In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.

The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the  Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.

Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim.   The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as President.  When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Britain ‘s Daily Mail has also carried
the story in a front-page article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned,” leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups,  Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey.   This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president.  Donofrio’s case is just one of eighteen (18) suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records.  Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder.  Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.

LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON’T !

Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?  While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi ?  So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.  It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,

2) He traveled with a British passport,

3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.


Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No, it is not possible.  Why, Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list

in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.  If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.  And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.  Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how and/or when he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

Whores…I mean Senators march the Health Bill forward

Canada Free Press

By Dr. Laurie Roth  Wednesday, December 23, 2009

The Health care bill arrogantly moves along dreaming for the day it can be in Obama’s next speech.  It has its designer, socialist clothes ironed and glowing red, ready to shine off the Obama teleprompter.  This health care bill has moved half way home and is primed for the Christmas eve vote in the middle of the night while we are all sleeping or dreaming of wassail and gifts.  So far it seems the waffling Senators have been offered the world for their vote.

It has been a week in Vegas for many Senators….excuse me whores.  Just to name a few pay offs we see Senator Nelson from Nebraska getting 100 million for his state;  Florida got their Medicare program frozen so they wouldn’t get Medicare cuts that the other states would get.  That was a 25-30 billion dollar pay off.  Senator Dodd got 100 million for a hospital in his state, on and on.  The pay offs were everywhere and the whores gave up their meat.  Reid got the 60 votes he needed to shut down debate and move things forward.

Obama’s negative ratings have never been higher and poll after poll show the vast majority of the American people don’t want this Health Care bill crammed down their throat but who cares what we think?  Obama needs the Health bill, not the American people.  Obama needs cap and trade, not the American people.  Obama needs another cigarette.

Regardless of the last minute tricks and changes,  we can pretty well count on the fact that abortions will be paid for; health care rationing will occur, targeting our seniors;  Doctors will be paid whatever the Government says they will be paid; Insurance companies will be forced to raise their rates and will increasingly not be able to compete against the rigged and controlled prices;  and my personal favorite:  We will all be forced by the Federal Government to have health care or be fined and sent to prison.  They will have the power as well to determine what the right health care will look like so don’t think you can hide behind your private plan.

Understand that this Government, the one that wants health rationing for seniors and to kill babies, will decide how your health care looks…..that is the health care you are allowed to get.  If America is to allow this draconian,  unconstitutional health nightmare to land,  people of all ages will die prematurely,  real health care will have to submit to financially contrived budgets decided by bureaucrats and we will have no privacy left.

I have talked with several attorneys who have studied the health care bill and are currently analyzing the constitutional betrayal of this bill.  Among these include Michael Connelly michaelconnelley.vivit.com and Steve Eichler faxdc.com.  They all have told me on air and off air that should this pass, legal actions, addressing the constitutional breach of forcing health care on the people will go all the way to the Supreme Court.  We think we see clogged courts now, just wait.  The American people won’t take this ethical, legal and constitutional betrayal and violation.

Perhaps one of the many formal responses to the Government should be a class action suit from the American people.  While we are pursuing legal responses we must make sure and vote our brains out in 2010 and send most of congress home to pursue other careers.  If we can’t impeach this President (which he deserves) we must and can vote him out at year four.  Once he is out and a real patriot is in the White House we must cut off all funding for unconstitutional health bills and neuter them.  We must explore ways to repeal,  unfund,  challenge with other legislation and demand that un-American bills not stand against the American people

Harry Reid slips in a bombshell for Obamacare foes

The American Thinker

Dec. 22, 2009

Rick Moran
What did we ever do to deserve Harry Reid?

When the “manager’s amendment” was passed in the dead of night, I pointed out that the wonks had yet to give it a good going over to discern what other surprises might lurk in the convoluted language used to obscure so much in the bill.

I’m sure you’ll be happy to know that the wonks have not disappointed us.

Buried in the amendment is a bombshell; there will be no way to amend parts of Obamacare. Apparently, Reid wants to make this bill something like a royal decree where no one can change what has already been wrought.

The Weekly Standard blog has the story:

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill–and it’s supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to this subsection.”

and i quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

this is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.


Get that? No repeal, no amendments, no nothing. That part of Obamacare is as set in stone as the idea that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It is unalterable – which, of course, means the entire bill is off limits.

The goal is to guard against the possibility that the GOP may win back the House and Senate some day and may wish to repeal or drastically alter Obamacare. In the dead of night, Harry Reid has turned the United States from a constitutional republic into a banana republic monarchy.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff should be worried…

The Post & E-Mail

Legal Analysis by John Charlton

President Barack Obama holds a briefing on Afghanistan with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Situation Room at the White House on Oct. 30, 2009. Seated at the table clockwise from the President are NSC Advisor James L. Jones, Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff  Admiral Mike Mullen, Commandant of the United States Marine Corps General James T. Conway,  Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead, WH Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Deputy National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force General Norton A. Schwartz,  Chief of Staff of the Army General George W. Casey Jr., Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James E. Cartwright, Secretary of Defense William Gates, and Vice President Joe Biden (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).President Barack Hussein Obama is briefed on Afghanistan by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Situation Room at the White House, on Oct. 30, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).

(Dec. 12, 2009) —  The Joint Chiefs of Staff should be worried of the dire punishment they will face, when they are one day convicted of treason against the United States of America for siding with the enemy and giving him aide and comfort.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is quite specific that in such a case even the Joint Chiefs can be punished with death, on order of a military tribunal.

The Uniform Codes of Military Justice, on the crime of treason says under Article 906 — Espionage, section c:

A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:

(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.

(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.

(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.

(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36).

Under section b, the same article specifies when the sentence of death may be imposed:

(1) No person may be sentenced by court-martial to suffer death for an offense under this section (article) unless–

(A) the members of the court-martial unanimously find at least one of the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c); and

(B) the members unanimously determine that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, including the aggravating factors set out under subsection (c).

(2) Findings under this subsection may be based on–

(A) evidence introduced on the issue of guilt or innocence;

(B) evidence introduced during the sentencing proceeding; or

(C) all such evidence.

(3) The accused shall be given broad latitude to present matters in extenuation and mitigation.

Let’s examine whether the Joint Chiefs have committed a court-marshall offense worthy of death.

They have supported a man who is clearly a usurper, as if he were the President of the United States

This fact is manifest and notorious.  There is one thing certain about Obama, and the Joint Chiefs know it:  his father was a British subject.  Fourt Supreme Court Cases declare that to be a natural born citizen, both parents must be U.S. Citizens.  The Constitution clearly states in Article II, section ii, paragraph 5, that “No person except a natural born Citizen . .  shall be eligible to the Office of President”  The Joint Chiefs have been duly informed by many letters from military personnel, and from lawyers, such as Dr. Orly Taitz.  The Joint Chiefs have the opportunity and aide of the best legal counsel.

The Joint Chiefs therefore have knowingly sided with a usurper to the Presidency, and given him obedience as if he were the President of the United States.

In doing so they have violated their oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and committed treason.

A Usurper of the office of the Presidency is the greatest enemy of the Republic

Emmerich de Vattel, the renowed political philosopher, whose treatise, The Law of Nations, was the guiding legal authority of our Founding Fathers, when crafting the Constitution, described in succint and poignent words, the importance of the Constitution of any Republic, in Book I, chapter 30 of his work:

To attack the constitution of the state and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are instrusted.  The nation ought constantly repress them with its utmost vigor and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires.

A “capital crime” is one meriting the punishment of a public execution.  A “perfidious abuse” is a a treacherous misuse.  Therefore de Vattel is clearly saying that the intentional, knowing violation of the Constitution is a crime worthy of death, a crime of treason.  The importance of loyalty of the Joint Chiefs is the greatest of all outside the government, because without the U.S. Military, the People have no one to uphold the Constitution when that government might fail.

And it has failed.  And yet the Joint Chiefs have aided and abetted that failure, but obeying a dictator, a usurper, a Marxist who is step by step transforming the United States into a second Soviet Union.

There is no greater betrayal of the Constitution than to usurp the highest office of the land, the office in which the Constitution ought to be personified and protected with the greatest personal convinction and loyalty.  There is no greater crime of collaboration in such a crime that the complacency and adhesion of the Joint Chiefs to such a criminal.

The Joint Chiefs have sided with the Enemy

This is a public fact, and a notorious one.  The Joint Chiefs have on numerous occasions publically stated that they fully back Barack Obama.  They have fulled their otherwise normal duties, yet given allegience to a usurper, the worst enemy of the State.

The Joint Chiefs have given aide and comfort to the Enemy

The Joint Chiefs have given aide and comfort to the Enemy by publically supporting his decisions, persecuting military personnel who have objected to Obama’s unproven eligiblity status (cf. case of Major Stephen Cook), and threatened subordinates with dire consequences if they seek to challenge him (cf. case of Connie Rhodes not being allowed to attend a court hearing).

The Joint Chiefs have sent men to death, at the word of the Enemy

Great would be the public outcry if Al-Qaeda ordered the execution of U.S. Military personnel and the Joint Chiefs in league with that enemy, carried through the sentence of death against their own.

But although they have not committed this crime, they have committed a greater one: because they have sent men to their death at the word of Barack Hussein Obama, who has unlawfully entered into the power and authority of the Presidency, and who according to the Constitution has no more authority to command U.S. armed forces, that Osama bin Laden.

But being that Obam is a usurper, the Joint Chiefs have sent men to death for a mere man, and at the word of a criminal.  This is even more disgraceful, since the Joint Chiefs have the duty to forego politics and ought to be men of a finer character than the Machiavellian Liar in the White House.

The Joint Chiefs have knowingly undermined national security in a grave manner

The Joint Chiefs by giving obedience to the enemy of the Republic have knowingly undermined national security in the gravest of manners; because national security requires first-and-foremost that the U.S. Constitution be upheld, and if you defend all the borders against terrorists, but allow the government to fall into the hands of a dictator, you have injured in the most grave manner the national security, even if in your puritanical vainglory, you take pride in the former and ignore your guilt in the latter.

The Joint Chiefs have trangressed every pre-requisite for court-martial and a death sentence

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, as cited above, requires one of 3 conditions to be met, to obtain a death-sentance in a court-martial (Article 906, section c):

(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.

(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.

(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.

(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36).

The U.S. Constitution specifies that treason shall consist in siding with the enemy and giving him aide and confort.  This the Joint Chiefs have undeniably done.  Therefore they are guilty of treason, which according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice is punishable by death.

Second they have knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.

Third, in the commission of this offense they have not only created a grave risk of death, but have sent men to their deaths, to uphold the pretense of their own self-righteousness.

Therefore they more than qualify for court-martial and a death sentence, imposed by a military tribunal.

And when the American people finally rise up and overthrow the usurper and his cohorts, loyal and true members of the U.S. Military will hall them from the holes into which they have fled, and bring them before a military tribunal on charges of treason.

And for that reason, the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be worried…

We are in big trouble

Dec.14, 2009

American Thinker

By Larrey Anderson

// <![CDATA[//
// <![CDATA[//
Our country is in big trouble … huge trouble. It is time that Americans took a hard look at our values, our conception of justice, and our standards for truth. This piece is intended as a first step in that direction.

1) Values
The story of Tiger Woods and his (now admitted) “infidelity” is everywhere. The Woods’ story has piqued the prurient interests of America and the world. The story has dominated the mainstream media for days while the injustice being committed against our Navy Seals and the revelation of the computer code from the CRU (exposing the biggest hoax in the history of the world) have gotten scant attention.
Tiger Woods was on the cover of every magazine and tabloid that I saw while standing in line at the grocery store yesterday. Those publications and those stories are on the grocery stores’ racks for a reason: Americans are buying them.
We are more interested in the private life of a guy whose claim to fame is that he can hit a little ball with a stick better than anyone else in the world (whoopee!) than we are about the destruction of our culture.
It is not Tiger Woods’ moral values that concern me. (Celebrities of his stature face enormous temptations from all kinds of hustlers and harlots everyday of their lives.) It is the facts that while our freedoms and Constitution crumble before our eyes … we are focused on Tiger and his bimbos.
This is our iniquity — not Tiger’s.
2) Justice
Meanwhile our politically correct military has arraigned two Navy Seals for allegedly punching Ahmed Hashim Abed in the lip. Abed was the terrorist who, several years ago, led the murder and the brutalization of the corpses of four Blackwater security people in Iraq.
Al Qaeda instructs its members how to claim and/or fake being tortured if a member of the terrorist organization is  captured.
But Al Qaeda is not the real issue here. We are. America has become so politically correct that a terrorist/murderer/sadist, who bitches about his bloodied lip, might get some of the best and bravest men on this planet thrown into jail. Americans had better pay attention, and soon, to this nonsense.
Very special and highly trained military men, including these Navy Seals, are all who stand between a worldwide Islamic war of Jihad and you and me. If we do not rise up to defend these brave soldiers, and demand a full pardon and their immediate release, here is what will happen: Dedicated young men and women will refuse to put their lives on the line if a poke in the face, of someone who would kill them in a heartbeat, gets the soldiers time in the brig.
Would you take that job? Make those sacrifices?  Put your life on the line? Would you complete your mission, catch the bad guy, and then be thrown into jail for your efforts? I wouldn’t. No rational human being would.
Justice in the real world is not politically correct. “Pretty please” or “We respect your unmitigated desire (and efforts) to kill us” are not phrases that matter to a mass murderer. And the next time some whiny PC liberal tells me “We are better than they are,” my reply is going to be, “Of course we are. That’s why Ahmed Hashim Abed only got (allegedly) punched in the face. He wasn’t shot in the head, beaten with sticks, burned, and hung on a bridge. How much better than they are do we have to be to make you happy?”
3) Truth
Since the release of the CRU documents that prove the fraud of the science behind man made global warming, Al Gore has said at least three times (Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun puts it at four) that the emails and information were all ten years old. This is a lie. It has been repeated again and again by Al Gore. Some of the emails are less than two months old.  And dozens upon dozens are less than ten years old. And everyone — but Al Gore — knows it.
Watch the video of the CNN interview with Gore here. One reporter does say to Gore, as a kind of aside, “Some of them [the emails] were from ten years ago, but many of them were far more recent than that.”
Gore ignores the statement. Neither of the two reporters further disputes Gore’s “ten year old” fabrication. No follow-up challenge from the CNN reporters to Gore’s out right lie. None.
The mainstream media has downplayed the significance of the CRU documents. The headline of a recent AP story proclaims that the science from the CRU was not faked.  Really? As (among others) Marc Sheppard, Lord Monckton, and I have proven the CRU findings most certainly were doctored. The raw date was manipulated to “prove” that the world is exponentially warming. There is no doubt about this.
And still, the mainstream media has not challenged Al Gore on the blatant absurdity of his claim that the documents were at least ten years old and have no real impact on the AGW debate. CNN did ask him to recite his new poem on the impending doom of mother earth. See that video here. (But not if you have recently eaten a meal.  You could lose it.)
John 8:32 states the following:
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
The corollary of this brilliant piece of scripture should also be written.  It would go something like this:
If you ignore the lies, the lies will imprison you.
Wake up America. The time for the truth to set us free is growing very, very short.

Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional.

Family Security Matters

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

This statement from a 1994 Congressional Budget Office Memorandum remains true today. Yet, all of the leading House and Senate health-care reform bills require Americans to either secure or purchase health insurance with a particular threshold of coverage, estimated by CBO to cost up to $15,000 per year for a typical family.