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? |