Now We Know Who Was Right about Obama

American Thinker

Now  we know.  After three years in office and the launching of his second election campaign,  we have experienced President Obama’s leadership.  We can see whom we  elected president — the mystery man of 2008 revealed.

Democrats  were in ecstasy over the great healer, the multiracial candidate who would bring  together red states and blue states, black and white, coasts and flyover  country.  Republicans saw the man with the most leftist, least bipartisan  voting record in Congress being installed in the White House.  We now know  who was right.

Continue reading

Obama Destined to Be a Footnote in Presidential History

American Thinker

Barack Obama has set a course that will leave his legacy as no more than a footnote in American presidential history.  For all of the bluster and glory, for all of the pomp and circumstance, and yes, for all of the anticipated hope and the promised change, the whirlwind of hype and expectation surrounding the president a mere two years earlier has virtually dissolved.

He was the man destined to save this country from his predecessor’s failures.  He was the man who would end the war in Iraq, finish the war in Afghanistan, and shut down the prison at Guantánamo Bay.  He was the man charged with rescuing the faltering American economy.  He was the man who would usher in a post-racial era in an allegedly inherently racist American society.  And he was the man who had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize based not on tangible accomplishment, but simply upon these very expectations.


On all of these accounts, President Obama has been a striking failure.

Where is Obama’s Nobel Prize money?

Washington Examiner

There’s some buzz going around the net over the question of what President Obama has done with the $1.4 million he won as part of the Nobel Peace Prize. Well before Obama accepted the award, the White House announced he would give the money to charity. Yet it’s been two months since the president went to Oslo, and there’s no word of him giving it away.

Some commentators have speculated that Obama is hanging on to it himself. But the White House says the president hasn’t yet received the money, so it follows that he hasn’t yet given it away. “I know they continue to talk about it,” spokesman Robert Gibbs said at a January 19 briefing. “I think he has not received any money yet. But as soon as they — as he makes those donations, we will let you guys know.”

The situation seems a little odd. If you win the Nobel Prize, don’t they just give you the money? Why doesn’t Obama have it yet? It turns out there’s a reason.

“He hasn’t received it because they haven’t asked to have it transferred,” says Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute. “It is up to the laureate to decide. My understanding is that they are looking into certain legal questions, and once those legal questions are settled, it will be done…once they ask for it, the money will be transferred immediately.”

Prize winners can have the money without delay, but Lundestad says it is not unheard of for a laureate to leave the cash with the Nobel Foundation for some period of time after winning. “The most difficult cases are with laureates who are in prison,” he says. And there is no time limit for Obama to receive the money. So for the moment, the money remains deposited with the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm. “The money is in the bank,” Lundestad says. “We are leaving this entirely to the White House.”

To some in the White House, and to many of the president’s supporters, the Nobel was almost an embarrassment, the symbol of the too-much-praise that has been heaped on Obama in the last couple of years. In an effort to de-emphasize the whole thing, Obama made short work of his trip to Oslo to receive the award. And now, it appears he’s in no hurry to deal with the money he won, either.

OVERWHELMING Lies To America By Obama

The accumulated weight of Obama’s deceit is overwhelming…

* During his campaign for the presidency and since, Obama repeatedly assured us that he would protect Medicare against cuts; but he now presses for passage of bills that include savage cuts in Medicare.

* To obtain passage of his first stimulus bill, Obama assured us that 90% of the jobs created would be in the private sector; but as he well knew, most of them were to be in the p! ublic sector.

* Early in the health care debate, Obama assured us that he had not said that he favored a single payer system; but he was on record as having said exactly that.

* Obama gave primary voters a firm assurance that if he became the nominee of the Democratic party he would (unlike Hillary Clinton) abide by the campaign finance limits of public funding; but as soon as he became the party’s nominee, he reneged on that pledge.

* During the presidential campaign Obama criticized the presence of former lobbyists in the Bush administration and solemnly assured us that he would appoint no lobbyists to his administration; but once elected he proceeded to appoint even more lobbyists than his predecessors.

* Obama criticized the size of George Bush’s deficit and promised to stop deficit spending if elected; but he has already quadrupled the size of the deficit he objected to and recklessly continues new federal spending in the trillions.

Complete Story:

Nothing About Obama Is On The Level

The Obama File

Robert Bauer is the chief of the political law group at Perkins Coie, the Seattle law firm hired by the Obama Campaign to prevent the American public from seeing a wide range of Obama’s records that could prove, or disprove, his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the Constitution’s requirement that the president be a “natural born” citizen under Article Two, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Obama continues to stonewall the release his bona fides to the American People.  These documents include his long-form birth certificate, his medical records, passport records, as well as other records that may possibly be relevant, such as records regarding Obama’s possible adoption by his Indonesian stepfather or college application and tuition financial aid records which would reveal whether Obama was ever registered as a foreign student.

Federal Election Commission records show more than $1,650,000 in payments made by Obama for America to Perkins Coie, while the law firm was representing Obama in various court cases which have sought to obtain Obama’s long-form birth certificate to determine if he is a “natural born” citizen

The FEC allows elected officials to use campaign funds to pay legal fees only if the action/investigations arise as a result of their tenure in office or campaigns, according to Politico.

The following is information was compiled by FReeper Starwise from the official Federal Elections Commission website for disbursements by the Obama campaign to the law firm of Perkins Coie, Obama’s primary law firm in various eligibility suits:

Year-End 2008 Obama for America disbursements to Perkins Coie were:  $173,052.52

Amended post-general election Obama for America disbursements to Perkins Coie were:  $205,323.00

April 2009 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie were:  $688,316.42

July 2009 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie were:  $270,754.18

October 2009 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie were:  $314,018.06

January 2010 Obama for America quarterly disbursements to Perkins Coie are not yet available.

The official FEC website, to which the Obama and other campaigns must report their financial activity, must be taken by even the most skeptical among us as valid documentation of the reported $1.4 or $1.8, or anything in between, figure that the Obama campaign has spent to hide Barack Obama’s questionable background from the American People.

Now that Bauer is safely tucked away in the White House, Obama has resorted to illegally using Justice Department attorneys to represent him in his ongoing battle to hide his questionable background from the American People.

The use of civil servants to further Obama’s coup d’etat is clearly illegal. Torm Howse, the co-founder, and National Board Director of United Civil Rights Councils of America says the statutory law of the United States Code is extremely clear, even often in multiple ways, that:

a)  the Attorney General cannot represent/defend Obama in any challenge that involves a question of his citizenship, for the relevant statutory laws mandate that the AG be on the prosecuting side against Obama, if the AG is involved, at all… In fact, whether intentional or not, Obama and Holder can be hit with “constructive fraud,” at the very least…

b)  the AG also *cannot* represent/defend Senators or the Senate body, itself, in these constitutional questions, either… Again, whether intentional or not, you have that “constructive fraud” against the rule of law thing again…

c)  there are various statutory standings provided for even “mere” individual Citizens to sue Obama, Congress, etc.

d)  Obama’s “Presidential records” are expressly PUBLIC by mandate of simple written law (and, combined with using AG Holder & U.S. Attorneys, i.e., our *taxdollars*, in an expressly-unconstitutional manner, defending Obama in any citizenship issues, then Obama gets to pay back every single red cent of that $1.7+ million spent so far… plus interest and penalties, naturally… plus, getting deported, or imprisoned, or whatever else…).

Howse has detailed and provided the direct links to all of these applicable federal statutes, here.
And if you don’t think Obama, his stooge that’s running the Justice Department, and the Democrats aren’t above perverting the law of the land, just read this — nothing about Obama, his administration and the Democrats is on the level.

Congrats, Democrats. You own Obamacare

The Washington Examiner
December 22, 2009

It took hundreds of millions of dollars in bribe money to win over Sens. Mary Landrieu, of Louisiana, Ben Nelson, of Nebraska, and Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, (plus even more millions for a senator whose identity cannot be determined thanks to the obtuse language of the bill). By hook or by crook, Obamacare’s Senate backers got their magic 60 votes. Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, his 57 Democratic colleagues; and both Senate independents own Obamacare. Their votes moved Obamacare past its biggest legislative hurdle yet in a tally taken in the dead of a very cold Sunday night on a massive bill none of them actually read in its entirety.

These 60 senators have joined in what surely ranks among the most breathtakingly arrogant spasms of anti-democratic hubris in American legislative history. By every credible measure of public opinion, opposition to Obamacare has grown for months as people learned more about it. Fully 61 percent of those responding to CNN’s most recent survey turned thumbs down on Obamacare. And still these 60 senators opted to thumb their noses at the majority.

Just how bad is Obamacare? Here are some of the proposal’s most important flaws, as described by one of the proposal’s most passionate critics:

  • It forces you to pay up to 8 percent of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not.
  • If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2 percent of your annual income to the Internal Revenue Service.
  • After being forced to pay thousands in premiums for junk insurance, you can still be on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses.
  • Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
  • It allows insurance companies to charge older people 300 percent more than other customers.
  • The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, you family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

Care to guess the name of the Obamacare critic who pointed out these and many more flaws in the bill? Try Jane Hamsher of the very liberal blog, Fire Dog Lake, who called Obamacare “a con job.” Clearly, opposition to Obamacare has grown to span the political spectrum. Yet these 60 senators couldn’t care less. May the day come soon when all of them have to explain their disdain for their constituents

Obama Health Care Reform and the Constitution

Tips to J.C.

Suite 101

David J. Shestokas

Washington assumes that Congress has the authority to directly regulate the doctor patient relationship. Is there validity to that assumption?

Often Congress passes legislation without including statements in the law of the constitutional authority it has acted under. When this happens the courts must sort out the authority under which a given law was passed. The oath of office taken by each Representative and Senator requires that each support and defend the Constitution bearing true faith to the document. Consideration of this oath would include an obligation to consider the constitutionality of laws being passed. This obligation applies to President Obama’s pending health care reform.

Congressional Oath of Office to Support and Defend the Constitution

Article VI of the Constitution requires all federal officials to take an oath of office. Since 1884, the Congressional Oath of Office taken by all Senators and Congressman has been:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

This oath by its own terms requires members of Congress to act in accordance with the Constitution in the conduct of their offices. When there is a statement of constitutional purpose in legislation the courts are given significant direction in interpreting the law and its validity.

Social Security Considered by Court After Program Was Entrenched

By the time litigation regarding Social Security reached the Supreme Court there had been collected $150,000,000 in payroll taxes, a huge bureaucracy was in place and some claimants were all ready getting benefits. The Court was faced with a fait accompli and came up with a convoluted opinion in Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937) to uphold a law which would have been a nightmare to dismantle.

// <![CDATA[//

Ads by Google

What’s Wrong with America
We’re Facing 3 Major Problems That Could Lead to Disaster. A Must Read
Pocket $44,000+ in HITECH
Sign up for our free EMR and keep all your stimulus incentives.

// <![CDATA[//

This historical situation applies to the current health care debate as Congress attempts to impose its will on one-seventh of the American economy. There are significant constitutional considerations involved in the debates regarding health care. Current proposals do not include statements of constitutional authority.

Doctor Patient Relationship Subject to Constitutional Right to Privacy

The Supreme Court has been very protective of the doctor/patient relationship and finding that the federal government has little if any business being involved in that process.

In the 1925 case of Linder v. United States, a doctor proscribed morphine for a patient allegedly in violation of federal law. The doctor was prosecuted and found guilty in overturning his conviction the Court said: “Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.

More recently the right to privacy in medical decisions found in the 9th and 10th Amendments has become important to the Court and was the principal factor in Roe v. Wade. In 2003, in rejecting an appeal of Conant v. Walters, the Court refused to change a lower court decision that allowed doctors to be involved with their patients regarding medical marijuana. In 2005 the Court upheld Oregon’s assisted suicide law in Gonzales v. Oregon.

Individual Mandates

A principle element of President Obama’s health care reform proposals includes something called individual mandates. These mandates would essentially require someone to obtain health insurance or face financial penalties. Government would be involved in some of the most private decisions individual Americans make.

Consider the Constitution Before Passing Laws

The congressional oath of office requires support of and true faith to the Constitution. Fulfillment of that oath includes passing constitutional legislation. Inclusion of a statement of constitutional purpose and authority gives the courts significant direction in future rulings
Read more at Suite101: Obama Health Care Reform and the Constitution: Can Congress Regulate Health Care Choices? |

Senate and Obama ignore the Constitution to Socialize Healthcare

The Betrayal

Copyright © 2009 Impeach Obama Campaign

Dr. (Mengele) ObamaIn an outrageous example of the abuse of near dictatorial power, the leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid, forced a vote on nationalized health care. With total disregard for the will of the people and turning a blind eye to the United States Constitution, Reid sought passage for this bill by corrupting the legislative system.

“This process is not legislation. This process is corruption,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, referring to the last-minute blitz of dirty deal making that enabled Obama to lock in the 60 votes needed to pass the bill.

[

We Have Come Full Circle

The Post & E-Mail

by KJ Kaufman

The Battle of Charlestown (c/o The National Archives).

(Dec. 21, 2009)  —  Many of us were taught that the American fight for Independence began as a fight of no taxation without representation as the Colonists were being taxed by King George III when the Colonists had no representation in British Parliament.  Although this characterization is certainly true, the ultimate decision to declare independence was much more than that.  The colonists were developing a nation.  Today, we would think of them as modern day entrepreneurs.  At every turn they were being taxed so as to make their exports less attractive and imports exorbitantly expensive.  Their commerce was obstructed and they were sent goods of lesser quality.  American Independence truly began as a culmination of infringements of the colonists’ God given rights being usurped by a mad man in England and also by the British Parliament.  I use the term mad man, not in hyperbole, but in earnest as King George III suffered throughout his life from mental illness.

As many of you know, Tea was taxed.  In Boston, Patriots dumped tea (circa 1773) into the harbor in protest which sparked elevated tensions and resulted in the passage of the “Intolerable Acts” by the British Parliament, but there was trouble in Boston and elsewhere long before the dumping of tea.  The Revolution began as the result of numerous punitive actions against American commerce as well as taxation.  The Revolution began as the result of:

  • English merchants enjoying a monopoly on raw materials and requiring importation of manufactured goods from Great Britain.
  • Discriminatory trade practices where American exports were devalued and British imports were so highly valued that there was a never ending debt cycle for the American farmer and merchant.
  • In 1765, seeking to alleviate their war debts, the British Parliament levied a Stamp Act tax which required all legal documents, newspapers and many other articles to have a Stamp placed upon them.  The colonists had no representation in the British Parliament and maintained responsibility for levying their own taxes that they sent to the British Crown.  This was the first tax against the colonists imposed by a government body in which they had no representation.  The Stamp Act Tax was repealed by the British Parliament just one year after it had gone into effect.
  • Even though the British Parliament had repealed the Stamp Act, during the same session, they asserted their supposed right to tax the colonists.
  • The colonists retaliated by general agreement to not purchase English goods that had taxes attached.
  • In Boston, the colonists were unruly, and the King sent British troops to occupy the city.  By 1760, the occupation had so added to the tensions that a snowball fight between young boys in Boston against British soldiers culminated in the “Boston Massacre” where gathering Bostonians were gunned down by British soldiers.  Five Americans were killed while many others were wounded.
  • Tensions remained in Boston for the next three years.  Even though the British Parliament repealed the Townshend Act which was the tax on tea, the British Parliament in response to the dumping of tea in the Boston harbor, passed the “Intolerable Acts” with its most restrictive measure being the closure of the port of Boston resulting in Massachusetts being under what can only be described as British martial law.
  • By May of 1774 a grassroots movement began in the colonies against tyrannical rule.  Many meetings throughout the colonies sprung up to reassert individual rights.
  • In the summer of 1774, the “Fairfax Resolutions” were drawn up and stand today as one of the first influential documents regarding American political thought.  The Fairfax Resolutions reiterated the limited powers of Parliament against the colonists and highlighted the rights of free men.
  • The colonists began their Congresses later that year in 1774 holding the First Continental Congress in September of 1774.[i]

I have highlighted above the many events of the 1760’s and 1770’s to show the parallels to modern day America.  The above illuminates egregious regulations of commerce, taxation and usurpation of individual rights.  In American modern times, can the last century as well as the events thus far into the new millennium be characterized in different terms other than parallel to those described above?  Is history repeating itself a mere two and a half centuries later?

The United States government under liberal and progressive plans has resulted in the promotion of the collective against the individual.  There can be nothing more un-American than to subvert the rights and liberties of the individual in advancement of the collective.  There was a time in America where we understood that to promote a Marxist ideology, an ideology that failed miserably during the 20th Century resulting in the death of tens of millions of human beings, was simply un-American.  Today, our Democratic leaders readily accept this ideology in direct contrast to our founding and in direct violation of our Constitution.  Let me share with you just a few statements from our Democratic Senators, uttered on the Senate floor in yesterday’s health care debate soliloquies.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) – Quoting Pulitzer Prize winner Richard Hofstetter, Senator Whitehouse charged:  “a political environment in which the rational pursuit of our well being and safety would become impossible…Tumbrils have rolled through taunting crowds, broken glass has sparkled in darkened streets, strange fruit has hung from southern trees…”

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) – “And that’s really what we are trying to achieve here is to create that availability of a right.  I don’t know of anyone that disagrees with the statement that health care in America ought to be a right…”

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) – “We are talking about a revolution in primary care here…Doctors, dentists, nurses and other medical professionals who agree to work in areas where there are limited medical services get help paying off their school loans.”

I led off with Senator Whitehouse’s comments because they are so offensive, they ought to be rendered moot just on their face, but unfortunately Senator Whitehouse’s attempt to use another’s words to push the deceit that if you are against health care reform with respect to this particular bill, then you are rolling fellow citizens to the guillotine or are a racist is outrageous and repulsive, utterly offensive, arrogant and self-serving.  Senator Whitehouse, in our history, it has been those with opinions such as yours, that the individual and individual rights can be subverted by his fellow man through the ways and means of government, who are first to throw the rope over the branch of the tree of tyranny.  You are a despicable excuse for a leader, and you are in direct violation of our Constitutional protections.  Consider yourself on notice.  Your tyranny will not prevail in a country of free persons.

Ascertained from the remaining quotes, it is duly noted that the Democratic Party continues to push the philosophical position and moral imperative that health care is a right.  Nothing could be further from philosophical and moral fact.  Health care is not a right as rights cannot be obtained through the subversion of another’s rights.  Health care is not a right nor is it a privilege, rather, it is a good and service for which will all strive to procure.  We all have a right to live and pursue our lives.  In that pursuit, we may choose to take care of ourselves and avail ourselves of health care.  However, nowhere contained within our rights can we require another to provide for our own care.  We can readily accept the generosity freely given by our fellow men and women, but we cannot force them to make a contribution to ourselves.

Our Declaration of Independence assured us of our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Our Constitution provided for us a bill of rights.  Neither document grants health care as a right, and there is absolutely no government empowerment to legislate such.  There is no philosophical moral imperative to the right of health care.  There is a moral imperative to resist at every turn the encroachment on another’s rights.

The Democratic Party is simply lost.  They no longer understand the American Founding nor the ideals and guarantees of our history.  To willingly, unlawfully and without authority expand the powers of government so that they resemble a Politburo more than our own Constitutional Republic was once considered tyrannical rule in this Country.  No more, today it is simply standard operating procedure for the Democratic Party.

Our commerce has been subjected to regulation where no enumerated power can be found for such encroachment into our free market system.  Our citizenry has been taxed in ways and by means that have no Constitutional founding and are in direct violation of our rights to our own property.  Our private businesses have been usurped through government infusions of money in total contradiction to its monetary powers contained in our Constitution.  We have been subjected to legislative act after legislative act in direct violation of everything we once believed and knew to be the fact of our inheritance.

As you can see from the events quoted at the beginning of this article, there comes a time in a man’s or a woman’s heart where he or she can take no more.  It is with this understanding that we know the time draws near when the masses will rise up to reassert their God given rights.  A free people will never willingly be subjected to tyranny.  It is only a matter of time before the citizens of these United States rise up as their forefathers did and declare that they have had enough.  Whether this revolution results in violence or continues through peaceful protest and redress remains to be seen.  What is certain is that the American People have only just begun to fight.

Attention U.S Senators

Dear Senators:

You have just met to vote on your parties  Illegal and Unconstitutional Health Care Reform Act on Monday at 1 am.

I am putting you on CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION that you do not have any LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL authority to vote yes on this issue. Therefore, your vote will be in VIOLATION of your OATH OF OFFICE and subject to removal.

Congress lacks the constitutional authority to regulate and control the practice of medicine in the jurisdiction of the States.

See Linder v. United States (…), 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925) (“Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government”);

Lambert v. Yellowly (…), 272 U.S. 581, 589, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926) (“It is important also to bear in mind that ‘direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.’ Linder v. United States 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect belongs to the states exclusively.”)

Oregon v. Ashcroff (…), 368 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The principle that state governments bear the primary responsibility for evaluating physician assisted suicide follows from our concept of federalism, which requires that state lawmakers, not the federal government, are ‘the primary regulators of professional [medical] conduct.’ Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002);

Barsky v. Bd. of Regents (…), 347 U.S. 442, 449, 74 S.Ct 650, 98 L.ED. 829 (1954) (‘It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its broders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state’s police power.’) The Attorney General ‘may not…regulate [the doctor-patient] relationship to advance federal policy.’ Conant, 309 F3d at 647 (Kozinski, J., concurring).”)

And certain features of this proposed law will certainly be unconstitutional; see:

United States v. Constantine (…), 296, U.S. 287, 56 S.Ct. 223 (1935) “We think the suggestion has never been made — certainly never entertained by this Court — that the United States may impose cumulativepenalties above and beyond those specified by state law for infractions of the state’s criminal code by its own citizens. The affirmative of such a proposition would obliterate the distinction between the delegated powers of the federal government and those reserved to the states and to their citizens. The implications from a decision sustaining such an imposition would be startling. The concession of such a power would open the door to unlimited regulation of matters of state concern by federal authority. The regulation of the conduct of its own citizens belongs to the state, not to the United States. The right to impose sanctions for violations of the state’s laws inheres in the body of its citizens speaking through their representatives. So far as the reservations of the Tenth Amendment were qualified by the adoption of the Eighteenth, the qualification has been abolished. (emphases added)


Article. IV.

Section. 3.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

For Health Freedom, John C. Hammell, President International Advocates for Health Freedom 556 Boundary Bay Road Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA… 800-333-2553 N.America 360-945-0352 World