Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

It is time that the Birther lawyers start thinking like Lawyers, and not as bloggers when they petition the Courts

In October and November 2010, two petitions for writ of Certiorari were submitted to the US Supreme Court.  One was by Mario Apuzzo in November 2010


and the other by Orly Taitz. in October 2010, the month preceding Apuzzo's 

Both posed their opening questions very weakly, and so much so, that I personally view them as if they were written more like bloggers to a site Administrator than by lawyers to the US Supreme Court.  It really irks me that with all the time and information that is now known on Case law, as compared to this almost new field to most of us in 2008, that a better line of questioning wasn't done.

So in order to justify my criticism, and be constructive about it, I submit that these 6 questions in their entirety, or 6 of the same material substance and case citations, should have been the ones posed in the petitions of Apuzzo and Taitz to the US Supreme Court for Writs of Certiorari. I offer them for anyone in the future having Article III standing to sue Obama or an Obama appointee and Obama in the future, demanding he prove he even is US jus soli born, and has the right to be President via the US Constitution (which he always invokes in his Executive Orders), and demand the US Supreme Court uphold that a US Natural Born Citizen is and has been legally defined by the Courts as US soil born with a US Citizen Father at the time of birth.

"Birther" Challenge Questions to be posed to the US Supreme Court

1. Is the burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, upon those making the claim, (such as the President of the United States, or those aspiring to such office) as stated by 333 US 640 @ 653 Bute v. Illinois (1948), a requirement under Supreme Court ruling and the Law or not?

2. Is the requirement of presenting an identification of person, and proof of birth to follow 533 US 53 @ 54 and 62 Nguyen v. INS (2001) in which both hospital records of where born and witnesses to the birth, be a partial fulfillment of 333 US 640 @ 653, in which the Court would recognize such certification as rising to the level of a jus soli claim for High Federal Office?

3. Is there a requirement in the Constitutional Article specified as 2.1.4. (now 2.1.5) in which a Natural Born Citizen, and those seeking the Presidency of the United States, have sole legience to the United States at birth?

4. Does a Natural Born legience follow the condition of the nationality and citizenship of the child's father at birth or not?

5. Is the US Constitution to be understood in the natural sense per South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 @ 448 - 450 (1905), Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189, taking also into account the influence of Vattel -- even as cited in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 @ 289-290 (1814) -on the definitions of the framers in using "natural born citizen" in place of indigenes (indigenous) as used by Vattel?

6. Does every word of the US Constitution have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840); and is the precept of interpretation of the US Constitution to this effect, where "every word [of the US Constitution] must have its due force" active in the Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of the United States as it regards the Constitutional Article 2.1.4 (now Article 2.1.5)  "natural born citizen" clause or not?


Those are my 6 questions that I believe should be mandatory in filing "Birther" challenge cases against Obama in the US Supreme Court. 

In regard to question 4 above:

You will note in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 @ 330 (1939), that : "Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis."

In other words , the child , by both fact and de jure (by rule of Law), was born to a US citizen Father on US Soil at the time of birth in Perkins v. Elg in order to be called a Natural Born Citizen.

Obama has NO US CITIZEN Father, hence is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen...but a dual national born citizen, who does not even rise to the original intent of the 14th Amendment, as stated in Case law with the US Supreme Court, including Oral Argument observations like that made by Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg in the Oral Arguments of Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001).

[[[[[***** Update 11/29/2010  Kerchner v. Obama rejected.

There were some 265 other petitions of Certiorari that were denied along with Kerchner v. Obama.

On page 15 of the pdf. release, (see link below), it is stated that Kerchner v. Obama is denied. But compare. In other petitions of certiorari ff., a specific mention that: "Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition."

That is NOT so with Kerchner. In other words, Kagan and Sotomayor were allowed to howl down and voice their opinions against Kerchner, and refused to recuse themselves, nor were asked to.

I understand how that Kerchner, not being drafted, nor directly affected specifically to injury did not have sufficient enough Article III standing to sue. I get that.

I also get that his questions were lame as compared to how they should have been posed, and how that they should have been posed more  like mine above. I get that.

But why did Kagan and Sotomayor not recuse themselves or be forced to recuse themselves?

On that technicality alone, there is cause to rechallenge and re-petition.

I would say that if somebody was groped at the Airport because Obama green-lighted the TSA (a US Government entity, and the policy implemented on his/Obama's watch by an Obama appointee who Obama executively approved of / appointed/ or was a direct result of his Administration coming to power), file a rape / sexual molestation charge against Obama, use and incorporate all 6 of the above questions into your other questions, and I can almost guarantee the US Supreme Court will issue the Writ of Mandamus on Obama. File in Washington DC, at the US Supreme Court level, and file the Writ of Mandamus first...then go for the Certiorari.  *****]]]]]

Friday, November 26, 2010

Sarahpac video: We're gonna stand up! "GRRRR!!!" and a message to Congress, "Throw Obama the Usurper and alien NBC out of Office, NOW!!!"

Reloading the first video after accidentally erasing when removing drafts.  However, all things considered, it is an appropriate opening for the rallying cry to throw Obama out of Office by whatever legal and peaceful means possible. 

Yes, America is still angry over the Communist-Socialisms in both the Legislative and Executive Branches...but even as they continue, many of their supporters are defecting to our numbers and ranks.  We the people, be we the disenfranchised, or those promised tyranny and physical annihilation threats by Obama and Congressional officials,  or promised economic ruin by the Communist-Socialists who will break open our heads and bathe us in our own blood, or promised enormously high taxes to pay ourr fair share of wealth redistribution to Communists and dictatorships around the world...I say legally and peacefully, on this issue that can make it all go away in hours to less than 4 days..."We're gonna stand up and fight" by winning the hearts and minds of the Courts and those of Congress, and throw the bums out and/or watch them run (i.e., resign).  GRRRR!!!

On July 28, 2009, the US Senate unanimously passed a non-binding resolution, SR225 in which the following clause appeared: … “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

That NON-BINDING Resolution does not rise to an "act of Congress" of legally "conferring citizenship" as mentioned as the third alternative to obtaining the various types of US Citizenship as inferred by 523 U.S. 420 MILLER v. ALBRIGHT, SECRETARY OF STATE (1998)

With that, "non-binding resolution", the US Senate turned its back on the US Constitution, and chose to close its ears to anyone who dares bring up the Constitutional ineligibility of the Usurper Barack Hussein Obama.

Can they offer any proof that being born on US soil automatically makes one a Constitutionally defined “natural born Citizen” of the United States? No. Like Senator Feinstein, they might cite the 14th Amendment of 1868  as their excuse to declare someone born on US Soil as “natural born”, but even the Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg shot down that argument in 2001 in the Oral Arguments of Nguyen v. INS.
Justice Ginsburg states:
“ … if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father's citizenship, go back before 1934….”

In other words, any claim of the 14th Amendment granting citizenship via a maternal citizen birth on US Soil is Bovine Ordure. Neither the second article of the US Constitution allows for such an interpretation, nor does the 14th Amendment.     And it is a liberal justice,  in Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg who de facto obliterates the perfidious sneer and Left Wing canard where they argue that the 14th Amendment = Presidential qualification.

In  523 US 420, Justices Scalia and Thomas, agreed in Miller v. Albright that the Court has no power to provide the relief requested because the petitioner sought a conferral of citizenship on a basis other than that prescribed under the Law: that of birth, and that of naturalization. The petitioner sought to be granted a US Citizenship outside of the naturalization process because they were born outside the US. In NOT releasing his Long Form Certificate of Live Birth, Obama is demanding that he be presumed a US Citizen and qualified based on essentially the same principle...a non-binding resolution (hence, a not legally binding utterance), to justify his running for and usurping the office.  Scalia told the petitioner in Miller, a decade previously, that only Congress by a Legislative Act can grant a US Citizenship outside of the birth and naturalization processes.

So the fact remains that Obama cannot grant himself a retroactive citizen status, and unless he had a Congress prior to his illegal election declare him in a binding resolution that he was a United States Natural Born Citizen...which has NEVER happened...and thus signed of by any previous US President serving in office...again, which has never happened...he cannot claim an end run around the lack of standing he has to claim a US Natural Born Citizenship.

Further, in  Miller v. Albright, Justice Stevens further elaborated:
"There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U. S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress."

By acquiring a Kenyan Natural Born Citizenship at birth via his Kenyan National father, an alien national visiting in the US on student visa,  Obama cannot EVER legally claim a US NBC status under US Supreme Court Law and Precedent. 

As Justice Ginsberg herself alluded to in the 533 US 53 Oral Arguments, that although Natural Born Citizenship has de facto been via a US Citizen Father and US Citizen Mother on US Soil or US Territory from May 25, 1934 ff.; prior to May 25, 1934, Constitutionally speaking, a US Citizen Father (or the presumption of one)  and US Soil or Territory was all that was required to make one a US Natural Born Citizen.

In his speeches, Obama only infers that he is a "citizen of the United States", and never (as far as I am aware) states a "Natural Born Citizen" status of the United States.   He has even gone so far as to state that he is a "citizen by birth" and that he claims to be born in Hawaii, but has offered no proof as required under 333 US 640 @ 653 and the documentation per 533 US 53 @ 54 and 62...the HOSPITAL he alleges to be born in records with WITNESSES TO THE BIRTH.

Born Citizenship, a citizenship that denies the legal right to seek the Presidency or a Presidential succession office,  could be acquired by simply being born on US Soil, being born on a US Flagship or sovereignty (such as a US embassy or US Territory) without any foreign legiences.    That is the level that Obama claims by seeking out and ( de facto illegally) taking office as president...a level both pro and anti Obama debaters all agree on, that he has had at least a dual Kenyan legience at birth via his Kenyan national father.

Research Obama, and again, notice he has never said that he is a United States Natural Born Citizen...he always says, "I am A CITIZEN of the United States."  
Such a declaration does not rise to the Level of Founder's Intent on the Natural Born Citizen clause, which Madison demands must be interpreted under strict literalism.

The damage control machine of the now partisan (formerly non-partisans) advisory to the Congress of the United States, issued the ff. advisory twisting and contortions of NBC issue, and told Congress to IGNORE anyone concerned about Obama's inelligibility.   The overpaid and under-worked Congress, too busy calling and fund-raising an average of 4-5 hours a day the moment they enter or re-enter Congress, keeping their eye on the golden parachutes and the deceptive pride of legislative leverage and the pride of power, reached for any excuse they could to remain as apathetic and unattached to the concerns of the constituents and their failure to protect and defend the US Constution as possible.  This is what they read:

Members of Congress Memo--What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions

The memo as explained in a WorldNetDaily video summary:

Notice how Satanic and sneaky the Obama worshippers twist Perkins v. Elg...at next to the last page, they write:

"The Supreme Court in Perkins v. Elg thus found that one born "in" the US, even of alien parentage,  is a US citizen at birth and...."

The writer clearly and blatantly lies to Congress in order to dupe them!!!   A US Citizen father at the time of the child's birth in Perkins v. Elg is intentionally mislabeled as "alien parentage" to make him sound equivalent to Obama's alien national father with NO US CITIZENSHIP. 

The Congressman or Congresswoman is given the pitch to confuse "natural born citizenship" with any kind of "birth citizenship" available.  Why not?  That same last Congress  was so self-serving and corrupt that they literally passed  bills written by Communists and Socialists and Unions seeking to change laws and set up slush funds for themselves, looting the US Treasury. 

  Was Obama born by a Caesarian section? No.  Was he a test tube baby?  No.  That proves he was born naturally.  Or maybe if we say he was born naked, we can say "au naturel" and twist the definition that way and make him an "au naturel born citizen"...but of which country? 


So what are the facts of Perkins v. Elg?  That at the time of birth, the child was born on US soil to a US Citizen Father...at the time of birth.  The fact that the father renounced his US Citizenship later, did not reflect ill upon the child.  It was only because of the Father's US Citizenship, that the child born on US soil coul claim to be a United States Natural Born citizen...a US Citizenship Obama's father NEVER had to confer on Barack II.

Page 307 U. S. 330

This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis.

Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided.

[In other words, the son is born to a US Citizen Father on US Soil...totally alien from if the father had remained a German National, had a son born on US soil and repatriated to Germany with the child...in which the child in the second scenario is NOT SUBJECT to US jurisdiction. 

 When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States.

To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:

"Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright.

[In other words, Barack Obama Sr., a citizen of Kenya sired Barack Obama II, in a foreign land.  Regardless that the son was born in a foreign land -- in that case, the USA -- Perkins v. Elg at the cited point of 330 by those who issued the memo, will have their heads metaphorically handed them in the US Supreme Court of Law, because the language of nationality of the father as being a United States Citizen at the time of the child's US birth, makes any citation of it for an Obama defense  -- when Obama's father was an alien national Barack's ENTIRE LIFE, including at the time of birth  --that such a Perkins v. Elg defense would be slapped back upon those who argue this as their primaryt defense of Obama, as an ostentacious display of incompetence or as an intentional intent to defraud.)

He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages."

The essence is this, AT THE TIME OF BIRTH, the Father was a Naturalized US Citizen who renounced his German Citizenship and swore legience to the United States.  That US Citizenship jus sanguinis passed to the son.  Further, the son was born on US Soil.

Notice the pattern in this US Supreme Court Law citation, even in Perkins v. Elg :

1) The REQUIRED US Citizenship of the father,

2) THE REQUIRED US birth location.

Barack Hussein Obama II has NO US Citizen Father...only a Foreign National, a Citizen of Kenya. 

Obama fails point #1.

Further, as previously pointed out, in both 2009 and in 2010, the Kenyan Government officially insists that the same Barack Obama who became "President" of the USA, was "native-born" (sired by a Citizen father on sovereign soil of the same) in and to Kenya.

Obama depends on being above the law, and skirting the fact that Nguyen v. INS  533 US 53 @ 54 and 62 requires that Obama or anyone who seeks to produce records at the Federal level for acceptable to the Court identification purposes, must produce the hospital records (i.e., the name and location and seal of the hospital on the records) as well as "witnesses to the birth."  

Have those records been produced?  No.  So who was Obama's birth physician?  No one knows.  Who was the hospital Administrator who signed off the hospital records?  Shhhh, it's a "State Secret".  How much did Obama weigh at birth?  What? You mean to tell me it isn't on his alleged Certification of Live Birth? 
The US Senate has the power to Remove Obama...but what is also important to know, is that the House of Representatives has the power to lay Obama on trial and IMPEACH the Usurper.  Thus says James Madison on June 17, 1789.  I include the following to help those reading realize that Founder's Intent on the US Constitution and the Czar substitution cabinet in place of Congress or  even if it were intended as a combining of power between the Executive Branch in Congress, the very act of Czars to legislate laws as if a legislative wing of the Executive Branch are removable offenses that not only can be acted upon by either or both Houses of Congress, but that the Czars and Obama are instantly contrary to the US Constitution's allowances and provisions as declared in the record in 1789 through the declarations and the eyes of James  Madison.   


June 16, 1789
MR. MADISON stated:

If the construction of the constitution is to be left to its natural course with respect to the executive powers of this government, I own that the insertion of this sentiment in law may not be of material importance, though if it is nothing more than a mere declaration of a clear grant made by the constitution, it can do no harm...

I am clearly of opinion ...that we ought in this and every other case to adhere to the constitution, so far as it will serve as a guide to us, and that we ought not to be swayed in our decisions by the splendor of the character of the present chief magistrate, but to consider it with respect to the merit of men who, in the ordinary course of things, may be supposed to fill the chair. I believe the power here declared is a high one, and in some respects a dangerous one; but in order to come to a right decision on this point, we must consider both sides of the question. The possible abuses which may spring from the single will of the first magistrate, and the abuse which may spring from the combined will of the executive and the senatorial qualification.

When we consider that the first magistrate is to be appointed at present by the suffrages of ...millions of people...it is not to be presumed that a vicious or bad character will be selected. If the government of any country on the face of the earth was ever effectually guarded against the election of ambitious or designing characters to the first office of the state, I think it may with truth be said to be the case under the constitution of the United States. With all the infirmities incident to a popular election, corrected by the particular mode of conducting it, as directed under the present system, I think we may fairly calculate, that the instances will be very rare in which an unworthy man will receive that mark of the public confidence which is required to designate the president of the United States.

...the senate...which is constitutionally authorised to inspect and controul his conduct....

The high executive officers, joined in cabal with the senate, would lay the foundation of discord, and end in an assumption of the executive power, only to be removed by a revolution in the government

I believe no principle is more clearly laid down in the constitution than that of responsibility After premising this, I will proceed to an investigation of the merits of the question upon constitutional ground.

I have since the subject was last before the house, examined the constitution with attention...that where the constitution is silent it becomes a subject of legislative discretion, perhaps, in the opinion of some, an argument in favor of the clause may be successfully brought forward on this ground I however leave it for the present untouched.

By a strict examination of the constitution on what appears to be its true principles, and considering the great depart ments of the government in the relation they have to each other, I have my doubts whether we are not absolutely tied down to the construction declared in the bill

In the first sec tion of the 1st article, it is said, that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States

In the second article it is affirmed, that the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America

In the third article it is declared, that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as congress may from time to time ordain and establish I suppose it will be readily admitted, that so far as the constitution has separated the powers of these great departments, it would be improper to combine them together, and so far as it has left any particular department in the entire possession of the powers incident to that department, I conceive we ought not to qualify them farther than they are qualified by the constitution

The legislative powers are vested in congress, and are to be exercised by them uncontrolled by any other department, except the constitution has qualified it otherwise The constitution has qualified the legislative power by authorising the president to object to any act it may pass, requiring, in this case two thirds of both houses to concur in making a law, but still the absolute legislative power is vested in the congress with this qualification alone.

The constitution affirms, that the executive power shall be vested in the president: Are there exceptions to this proposition? Yes there are. The constitution says that, in appointing to office, the senate shall be associated with the president, unless in the case of inferior officers, when the law shall otherwise direct. Have we a right to extend this exception? I believe not. If the constitution has invested all executive power in the president, I venture to assert, that the legislature has no right to diminish or modify his executive authority.

...The judicial power is vested in a supreme court, but will gentlemen say the judicial power can be placed elsewhere, unless the constitution has made an exception? The constitution justifies the senate in exercising a judiciary power in determining on impeachments: But can the judicial power be farther blended with the powers of that body? They cannot. I therefore say it is incontrovertible, if neither the legislative nor judicial powers are subjected to qualifications, other than those demanded in the constitution....

Mr. James Madison, June 16, 1789

June 17, 1789
...when I consider, that if the legislature has a power, such as contended for, they may subject, and transfer at discretion, powers from one department of government to another; they may, on that principle, exclude the president altogether from exercising any authority in the removal of officers; they may give it to the senate alone, or the president and senate combined; they may vest it in the whole congress, or they may reserve it to be exercised by this house. When I consider the consequences of this doctrine, and compare them with the true principles of the constitution, I own that I cannot subscribe to it.

...There is another maxim which ought to direct us in expounding the constitution, and is of great importance. It is laid down in most of the constitutions or bills of rights in the republics of America, it is to be found in the political writings of the most celebrated civilians, and is every where held as essential to the preservation of liberty, That the three great departments of government be kept separate and distinct; and if in any case they are blended, it is in order to admit a partial qualification in order more effectually to guard against an entire consolidation. I think, therefore, when we review the several parts of this constitution, when it says that the legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States under certain exceptions, and the executive power vested in the president with certain exceptions, we must suppose they were intended to be kept separate in all cases in which they are not blended, and ought consequently to expound the constitution so as to blend them as little as possible.

...for if an unworthy man be continued in office by an unworthy president, the house of representatives can at any time impeach him, and the senate can remove him, whether the president chuses or not.

The danger then consists merely in this: the president can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it. What will be the motives which the president can feel for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate to prevent it? In the first place, he will be im-peachable by this house, before the senate, for such an act of mal-administration; for I contend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust. But what can be his motives for displacing a worthy man? It must be that he may fill the place with an unworthy creature of his own. Can he accomplish this end?

No; he can place no man in the vacancy whom the senate shall not approve;
and if he could fill the vacancy with the man he might chuse, I am sure he would have little inducement to make an improper removal. Let us consider the consequences.

...If this should not produce his impeachment before the senate, it will amount to an impeachment before the community, who will have the power of punishment by refusing to re-elect him. But suppose this persecuted individual, cannot obtain revenge in this mode; there are other modes in which he could make the situation of the president very inconvenient, if you suppose him resolutely bent on executing the dictates of resentment. If he had not influence enough to direct the vengeance of the whole community, he may probably be able to obtain an appointment in one or other branch of the legislature; and being a man of weight, talents and influence in either case, he may prove to the president troublesome indeed.

...If the president should possess alone the power of removal from office, those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; the lowest officers, the middle grade, and the highest, will depend, as they ought, on the president, and the president on the community. The chain of dependence therefore terminates in the supreme body, namely, in the people; who will possess besides, in aid of their original power, the decisive engine of impeachment.

Take the other supposition, that the power should be vested in the senate, on the principle that the power to displace is necessarily connected with the power to appoint. It is declared by the constitution, that we may by law vest the appointment of inferior officers, in the heads of departments, the power of removal being incidental, as stated by some gentlemen. Where does this terminate? If you begin with the subordinate officers, they are dependent on their superior, he on the next superior, and he on whom? — on the senate, a permanent body; a body, by its particular mode of election, in reality existing for ever; a body possessing that proportion of aristocratic power which the constitution no doubt thought wise to be established in the system, but which some have strongly excepted against: And let me ask gentlemen, is there equal security in this case as in the other? Shall we trust the senate, responsible to individual legislatures, rather than the person who is responsible to the whole community? It is true the senate do not hold their offices for life, like aristocracies recorded in the historic page; yet the fact is they will not possess that responsibility for the exercise of executive powers which would render it safe for us to vest such powers in them. But what an aspect will this give to the executive? Instead of keeping the departments of government distinct, you make an executive out of one branch of the legislature; you make the executive a two-headed monster...you destroy the great principle of responsibility....

Mr. James Madison, June 17, 1789

[And thus we are today, at the point where Obama and his Comunist-Socialists are creating the Two-headed monster of the Executive Branch, and intend a tyrannical over-taxing Communist-Socialist Police State to rule America...and if they cannot acheive that, to make it as vulnerable to not just terrorists, but to nuclear attacks by newly armed sovereign Third World rogue nations, and anyone that hates for whatever reason.]


Contrary to Obama's Communist-Socialist reinterpretation:
"The Constitution of the United States is a Constitution of limitations and checks. The powers given up by the people for the purposes of Government, had been divided into two great classes. One of these, formed the State Governments, the other the Federal Government."
Mr. James Madison
Speech in Congress on the Jay Treaty. March 10, 1796


To Edmund Pendleton

N. York June 21. 1789.

Dear Sir,

...The Constitution has omitted to declare expressly by what authority removals from office are to be made. Out of this silence four constructive doctrines have arisen

1. that the power of removal may be disposed of by the Legislative discretion. To this it is objected that the Legislature might then confer it on themselves, or even on the House of Reps, which could not possibly have been intended by the Constitution.

 [i.e., they may not later vote that they have "no removal powers" or "no powers to impeach".  They cannot simply cut these powers out.  Like the Natural Born Citizen Clause, it must remain intact in order to maintain an intact US Constitution.  While the option of adding maximums to the specific language is allowed, they cannot remove from the bare minimums of the Founding Document ratified under Madison's watch.]

2. that the power of removal can only be exercised in the mode of impeachment. To this the objection is that it would make officers of every description hold their places during good behavior, which could have still less been intended.

3. that the power of removal is incident to the power of appointment. To this the objections are that it would require the constant Session of the Senate, that it extends the mixture of Legislative & Executive power, that it destroys the responsibility of the President, by enabling a subordinate Executive officer to intrench himself behind a party in the Senate, and destroys the utility of the Senate in their legislative and Judicial characters, by involving them too much in the heats and cabals inseparable from questions of a personal nature...

4. that the Executive power being in general terms vested in the President, all power of an Executive nature, not particularly taken away must belong to that department, that the power of appointment only being expressly taken away, the power of Removal, so far as it is of an Executive nature must be reserved. In support of this construction it is urged that exceptions to general positions are to be taken strictly, and that the axiom relating to the separation of the Legislative & Executive functions ought to be favored. To this are objected the principle on which the jd. construction is founded, & the danger of creating too much influence in the Executive Magistrate.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Rush Limbaugh, a closet Birther coming out on Obama being a Usurper to the US Presidency, or just biding his time until it all hits the fan for Obama?

October 2008, the Birth certificate issue doesn't pass the smell test for Rush:

October 23, 2008

RUSH:..."If Obama's grandmother is deathly ill, why has this been announced days ago and he's only going now," or tomorrow, or whenever it is. ....Am I not asking obvious questions? Who announces days in advance they're rushing to the side of a loved one who is deathly ill but keeps campaigning in a race that's said to be over, only to go to the loved one's side days later? See, I think this is about something else. You know what's really percolating out there? I've been laying low on this because it hasn't met the threshold to pass the smell test on this program.

This birth certificate business, this lawsuit that a guy named Philip Berg filed in Philadelphia in August for Obama to produce his genuine birth certificate and he still hasn't replied. You've got a deathly ill grandmother, you are going to rush to her side a few days from now, when you first announced this, you're going to rush, you're going to hurry, you're going to make tracks, you're going to get over there because you don't want your grandmother to die before you got there like your mother did, but somehow you keep campaigning, you take three days to get over there, if he's left yet, and this birth certificate business, I'm just wondering if something's up. I have no clue, and folks, I'm telling you, this has not reached the threshold until now, and it's popping up all over the place. There are a lot of people now that are starting to speculate and be curious about this.

I don't know, let's say for example that somebody does come up with proof that something's screwy with his birth certificate and something's screwy about the fact that he's allegedly a natural citizen, American citizen, but may not be, dual citizenship, born in Kenya, who knows, there's all kinds of stuff out -- so what? What's going to happen this late in the campaign? Do you think if it's proven that they're going to dump him? That's not going to happen. But still, these are just questions that I have. And, look, both of my parents have died. When I was told the end was near, bam, I got there, fast as I could. I didn't announce to the audience, "I just got word my father is said to be passing away and in four or five days I'm going to go to Missouri. In the meantime, I will not leave you here on this radio program." These are just natural questions. I think any inquisitive reporter -- I know the risk I'm running here by raising all this. But I wouldn't be me if I didn't do that."

June 10, 2009


RUSH: What do Obama and God have in common? Neither has a birth certificate. How do they differ? God does not think he's Obama. And there's another difference between God and Obama, and that is that liberals love Obama.

July 20, 2009

RUSH: This is a town meeting in Delaware. An unidentified woman and Representative Mike Castle have the following exchange. It's about Obama's birth certificate.

(begin soundbite)

WOMAN: I want to go back to January 20th, and I want to know, why are you people ignoring his birth certificate? (cheers and applause) He is not an American citizen. He is a citizen of Kenya. I am American. My father worked -- fought in World War II with the Greatest Generation in the Pacific theater for this country, and I don't want this flag to change. I want my country back! (cheers and applause)

CASTLE: If you're referring to the president there, he is a citizen of the United States. (crowd shouting)

WOMAN: All the men and women who died for this country in 1776 'til the present time. I think we should all stand up and give Pledge of Allegiance to that wonderful flag (cheers and applause) people that sacrificed their lives for our freedom. Everybody stand up. (end soundbite)

RUSH: State of Delaware, Mike Castle, town meeting, woman wants to know why nobody's interested in the fact that he hasn't shown anybody his birth certificate. If you couldn't understand her, she was saying he's a citizen of Kenya. I'm American. My father worked, fought in World War II, the greatest generation, Pacific theater for this country, and I don't want this flag to change. The crowd went nuts. There's all kinds of stuff bubbling up out there.

[Notice that Castle did NOT say "natural born citizen", nor could he offer any proof Obama even was a US Citizen, per 533US 53 @ 54, 62 and 333 US 640 @ 653).  -- Brianroy]

May 28,2010

CLINTON: Hawaii, the state where President Obama has born, has done everything they can to debunk this myth that he wasn't born in America. They've done everything but blow up his birth certificate, but it in neon lights and hang it on the dome of the Capitol. But 45% of registered Republicans still believe that he is serving unconstitutionally. Why? Because they've been told that by the only place they go to get information.

RUSH: Now, who does he think that is? So Bill Clinton trashing yours truly -- a harmless, lovable little fuzzball here, El Rushbo -- at the Yale commencement address last Sunday. You know, we have not made a big deal about the birth certificate on this program. I've purposely stayed away from it. But I don't believe that they have blown it up and put it in neon lights. I believe the truth is you can't find it, and the governor out there, Linda Lingle, said, "Eh, we're going to stop all these requests to see it." So Clintons asks: Why do these 45% registered Republicans believe that? It's 'cause they've been told that by the only place they go to get information."

...RUSH: I checked the e-mail during the break and quite naturally, a lot of people say, "What do you mean, Rush, you haven't made a big deal out of Obama's birth certificate?" I haven't. You ought to see the e-mails I get from people who call themselves "birthers" who are livid at me for not picking this up so what I did during the break I went back to my own website, two things I found. First, July 31st, 2008. This is from the Stack of Stuff Quick Hits page, and I'm just going to read what I said: "Oh, that birther thing, you know, the birth certificate thing. Andy McCarthy wrote a brilliant piece on this whole birth certificate controversy at National Review Online. Really, he says, it's not about the birth certificate. It's about Obama's honesty.

"He hasn't released his law school records, his law review records, his Columbia records, his university records. He hasn't released a lot of things. This thing could easily be shut down if Obama would just release the birth certificate. You remember the Drive-By Media and the Dan Rather business? Dan Rather, faked documents. Mary Mapes and Dan Rather faked documents to show that Bush skipped out of National Guard service, and they ended up giving Dan Rather an award! They circled the wagons. Peter Jennings and Brokaw, they gave him an award for great work. They circled the wagons. They made it up, and now, 'This is just a bunch of kooks. The birthers are just a bunch of kooks,'" about this birth certificate. Now, that's the first reference. August 12th, 2009, Stack of Stuff Quick Hits Page, story three.

I found this. (laughing) We have an amazing search engine at RushLimbaugh.com. When I found this, I chuckled because I remembered it.

"I'm looking for something on Moammar Khadafy because you won't believe this, folks. By the way, Khadafy was the original birther back in -- no, he was -- back in 2007 he predicted that Obama would go soft and deny his Muslim roots and become too white. I found it here. September 2008, it was a YouTube clip, Khadafy insists Barack Obama is a Muslim. 'Obama suffers inferiority complex. It might make him behave whiter than the white. He should be proud of his African Muslim identity.'" I found it here, September 2008. It was a YouTube clip, Khadafy insists Obama is a Muslim, Obama suffers inferiority complex. So the first birther was Khadafy.

We were pointing this out. Look, I've warned many of you people about this several times: If you're gonna write me e-mails and challenge my veracity and honesty, don't, because I have backup on this.

November 22, 2010 

 RUSH: I'm just sitting here thinking: What if I said I was in Selma? I mean, who could say I wasn't? In 1965 I was 14 years old, just up north a little bit in Missouri. I could say I was in Selma. Imagine how things would change if I said I was in Selma. Obama, if you have forgotten, back in March of 2007 during the presidential campaign, Obama said that he was the fruit of Selma. (interruption) No, no, no, no, no. He really did. He said he was the fruit of Selma.

OBAMA 2007:
This is the site of my conCEPtion.
 I am the fruits of your labor.
I am the offSPRING of the moveMENT.
So when people ask me whether I've been to Sel-muh befo', I tell 'em I'm comin' home.

RUSH: He'd never been there and his father never was there. His father was a communist in Kenya. (interruption) "[P]eople ask me whether I've been to Selma befo'"? Oh, that's the dialect. That's what Harry Reid calls it. (interruption) "The moveMENT"? Well, that's how Jesse Jackson says "movement" and that's how Malik Shabazz says "movement": "The moveMENT," and also "the fruits of their labor," that he was from Selma. "So when people ask me whether I've been to Selma befo', I tell 'em I'm comin' home." (interruption) I don't know why he doesn't talk that way in the White House, but he doesn't.

But his dad was never in Selma. (laughing) Nor was his mother in Selma. (interruption) George who? (interruption) Oh, George Obangodongo? The guy living in the hut? Oh, he wasn't in Selma, either. None of the Obama Odongos were in Selma! They were in Kenya. (interruption) No, they weren't even thinking of Selma! Obama was four years old when Selma happened. Obama was born in '61. The Selma March was four years later. He could not have been conceived in Selma, unless he's lying on the birth certificate. (interruption) No, he was not thinking of a woman named Selma. Look, he says here... Listen to this again. This is March 4th, 2007. This is Obama claiming to be the fruit of Selma.

OBAMA 2007: This is the site of my conCEPtion. I am the fruits of your labor. I am the offSPRING of the moveMENT. So when people ask me whether I've been to Sel-muh befo', I tell 'em I'm comin' home.

RUSH: Well, now, Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march was four years later. So he could not have been "conceived in Selma," unless the information on the birth certificate is inaccurate -- if he was part of the moveMENT. So the mystery deepens.

November 23, 2010

[In comparing the fake #2 Taliban Leader who conned Obama's terrorist appeasement negotiators in Afghanistan, and got loads of cash, and not only wasn't who he said he was, but known he wasn't who he said he was by those in the Afghanistan Government,
at ca. 2:00 ff., the most numerically popular radio host of our genereation, Rush Limbaugh said:]

"...and ushered into the Presidential Palace. The impostor got into the equivalent of the White House in Afghanistan. Did they not ask this guy for some kind of identification? They clearly didn't. They clearly didn't ask this guy for his birth certificate. How in the world, how in the world could they trust in a leader and even give money to somebody who has not been properly vetted? Uhhhh....well, because it happened here in the United States. We have an impostor for all intents and purposes serving in the White House."

see also:

Update 12/07/2010 

Rush asks in December 2010, "Where are the Wikileaks of Obama's Birth Certificate?"

end of update

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789 by George Washington

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

I wish all an early Happy Thanksgiving Day, which falls on Thursday November 25, 2010, wherever in the world you might be reading or viewing from.  May all fellow believers into Christ Jesus rest and comfort in G-D's love, tender mercies and loving-kindness. 

Let each and every day have a measure of Thanksgiving to G-D for blessings great and small, and even just for living...and joy and communion be found everlasting for all, whosoever will, come to and believe into Christ Jesus our L-RD, who came down from Heaven, was made man, paid for our sins at the Cross, died as was raised the Third Day, walked the Earth for a month and a half more before ascending into Heaven before many witnesses.  A Testimony uncontested by those ancients, even the most hostile of them, of the same generation as these events occurred in. 

May you worship and give thanks to G-D wherever you are, and may G-D smile upon and bless you as according to your needs, through riches in glory in Christ Jesus. 

May all we who believe into Jesus Christ, and proclaim Him as the Only Way, Truth, and Life offered by the Father unto the world, unite in prayers of Thanksgiving on this day and all days...be we Gentile (of the nations) or Jew (the blessed first chosen of G-D's favor, to be honored by the saints when fellow believers into Yeshua/Jesus among us, and still to be shown greater patience and understanding/intelligent courtesy otherwise).


Wednesday, November 17, 2010

George Soros at the Columbia University "World Leaders Forum" - 56 minute video

George Schwatrz-Soros  starts out expressing what his Market and Human fallibility theory is:
1)    @ 3:16 to 3:24 on the video
"Rational human beings don't base their decisions on reality, but on their understanding of reality; and the two are never the same."

2)  @ 4:24 to 4:31
"...Markets are unable to assure the optimum allocation of resources."

Then leaving his theory aside, says he states how that the US and Germany are nations having too much surplus wealth in the world. After a few minutes he opines:

@ 13:12 to 13:39
"For instance, Europe, European banks hold more than a trillion uh, uh euros of Spanish debt, of which more than half is held by German and French banks.  The large provision seems to endanger the credit worthiness of the European banking system, depriving them of the capacity to add to their positions."

In other words, Soros  basically says that Germany and France should forgive 500 billion euros of Spanish debt, and take the hit as redistributive wealth, because they endanger the entire European banking system by carrying too much debt for other nations...or being too wealthy.  A criticism he refuses to place China or Japan in the same tank for, both of those nations having an equal amount of currency exchange rate debt carrying for the United States.

He immediately then states that the creation of the Euro was what caused the European banking crisis in 2008, before inferring that this Euro (the very demonstration of a One World Currency), even applied in the very best scenario of a Western European and regional multi-national environment, was an experiment THAT FAILED.   And then obliviously ignores the very points he has just conceded. 

One thing for certain...in a one-on-one debate, Soros' opponent can utterly destroy Soros' by using Soros' own concessions and self-contradictions in the arguments and "solutions" he presents.

He infers the need of a centralized and centrally controlled Euro bank, but he does not bring what he truly believes in -- Communism renamed as "State Capitalism" -- to the forum.  He just tries to Cass Sunstein "nudge" you to draw that same conclusion for yourself. 

@ 16:53 ff. we find Soros blaming Germany:
Says Soros:  "Germany, which had been traumatized by two episodes of runaway inflation...since Germany was heading into elections, it was unwilling to ACT...so the Greece crisis festered and spread."

Germany, says Soros, was the real reason for the Greece financial meltdown.  In short,  Soros blamed the European domino effect of banking crises at the feet of Germany and its national banks, not on Greece or its runaway spending, excessive corruption and labor union cost-increase excessives.  

But look on the horizon, the savior nation of the world (in the mind of Soros):
@ 18:06 to  18:16
"The turning point came when China re-entered the Market and bought Spanish bonds and the Euro."

China, if you remember, is the economic engine, the COMMUNIST ENGINE renamed as State Capitalism, that Soros wants to bow down to, and the rest of the world bow down and submit to as the new masters of the financial world, and all that such entails.

George Soros, according to his interview with Chrystia Freeland in New York of the Financial Times of London on October 23, 2009, advocates that China will be the new and smaller engine of the New World Order, replacing the US as a world leader, and that China would drive the Financial Sections of the world.

Soros in this Financial Times interview also openly advocates a new world currency forced upon the US. He says that China will be the new (albeit smaller) engine, and that the US is a “drag” upon the world.

So what between his speech to the Financial Times and now has changed?

Compare the speech with the schmooze Soros gave on CNN's GPS with Zakaria Fareed on February 28, 2010, wher Soros stated:
"Regulators are always behind the curve", therefore "the market should not be regulated."

"When I see a bubble, I buy that bubble, because that's how I make money"
...compare that with the George Soros who is trying to influence the market by his speeches to academics and economists, in order to create a wave of hysteria that shakes the Wall Street Markets so that he might sell short (bet / gamble  on losses to stocks and stock value) and make more money.  Perhaps Soros sees forums like Columbia University, and the brain trusts gathered there to then go out and frighten the Stock Market Casino participants and operators, so as to reduce the odds of the house and make the gambling percentages more in his favor.  After all, as Soros says in the above video about his theory of Human Fallibility and how he likes to operate:
"Rational human beings don't base their decisions on reality, but on their understanding of reality; and the two are never the same."

Again, on February 28, 2010, when asked by Fareed Zakaria about the US Markets needing to become more like the Chinese Model, in which Communism was called "State Capitalism" by Fareed, George Soros replied, " Again you, if you want to keep on going, they [the Free Markets] will have to modify their models."

In other words, Soros wants a Communist "State Capitalism" world, where the money and finances are centrally located and run by the Chinese.  We cannot take his speech at Columbia University to say that Soros condones individual sovereign states as individually running their countries as Communists in the Stae Capitalism Marketplace.  Clearly, Soros intends and means to use all his finances and resources to enslave the West, beginning with the United States, to be subject to the masters and "smaller engine" of the Chinese economy turned super-economy, as if he were bowing to the Imperial Emperor of Japan in World War II and following a like legience...but modernly, in our day, the masters are not Japanese militarily making the conquest, they are Chinese Communists economically buying up and taking over almost invisibly in their conquest of the world.

Just last month on October 7, 2010; at Project Syndicate, where George Soros makes his literary home, Soros wrote a piece called: "Wanted: Chinese Leadership on Currencies"
Soros admires that the Chinese use a deceptive two-tier currency, where the renminbi  has both a current and a capital account, whereby the capital account is very tightly controlled, allowing the Chinese to operate as if with a devalued currency, and rake in the profits by  how they are to manipulate export prices and exchange rates into their favor.  He essentially goes on and states that China needs to step up and take over as a world financial leader, and use its currency to stabilize the world markets (code for "replace the dollar"). 
I think that the one main overall point we can take away from the Columbia Speech, is that Soros, who elsewhere in his writings might be said to more or less have once identified himself with the Hungarian Gypsy Communists (upon going to Hungary in 1984 and establishing one of his foundations there), has clearly moved away from a once pro-Soviet "Open Society" acceptance of Communism into a wild-eyed  and perfidiously sneaky fanatical Maoist "Open Society" Communist ideologue. 

@28:54-29:14  of the above Columbia University video, Soros laments
"It would have been more effective to inject new equity into the balance sheets of the bank.    But the Obama Administration considered that politically uncceptable, because it would amount to nationalizing the banks.  And it would have been called "socialism". "
@ 30:59 to 31:11, Soros "nudges" a lie to the elite of Columbia University, and there is dead silence...no outcry, not even a coughing fit.
"But to cut back on Government spending at a time of large scale unemployment would ignore all the lessons learned from the Great Depression."
Actually, it was the Government's spending and spending programs that deepened the Great Depression and made it worse.  Soros is advocating not just a Socialist deliverance, but a Chinese Communist led one.  Really?  So, George, will the age of the new American factory worker that you are "nudging" for, will that   now begin at age 6, and the American diet consist of a bowl of rice and water, because that's all we will be able to afford in the New Chinese Economy while you eat steak, potatoes, and green veggies? 
I think that Columbia University has gone so far left in their elitism that they have, at least in appearance, either turned Communist-Socialist, or that they have lost their minds.  In a new Communist Society, the elites are among the first to be "purged" out of the new "Open Society" of Communism.  Oh yeah, enable the very guy who would love to see you all eliminated.  Where in 20th Century history have we seen that before?  The crowd attending Soros' speech are apparently utterly clueless as to the answer. 


Additional Update  11/18/2010:
   More Soros (relevant other) video found posted at the Blaze.com

end update

Allen West, heading for Congress with an anti-appeasement message

Three points in the video to cheer about:

1) If you go to war with Islamist Extremist terrorists, there should be no borders in our pursuing them  (a large portion of the video explaining this)

2) Obama has NO leadership qualities in regard to protecting US Sovereignty

3) If Obama took foreign campaign contributions to be elected in 2008, this should be investigated; and if did,  he should be forced to resign and run out of town on a wagon.

We need more "cream of the crop" articulate and intelligent Politically Conservative US Military Officers and Veterans of recent conflicts like Allen West to be elected to Congress, be our Protect and Defend the US and its Constitution "war hawks" voices there, and use intelligent arguments and "no surrender"  determination to make the changes necessary to preserve our US Constitution, US Sovereignty, and our Republic.

Mr. West, if you or any other Conservative Congressman reads this...in an accelerated version of Art Laffer's successful tax rate reduction and boost to the US economy in the 1980s, I propose this:

May the New Congress also propose, for across all tax brackets:
 a 20% Federal Income Tax Rate Reduction  for 2011,
 a 10% further Tax Rate Reduction for 2012,
and a Tax Rate FREEZE at 0% for 2013. 

I would also propose that in 2014, for income earners under $50,000, that there would be NO Increase;
for those making between $50,000.01 and $100,000.00, that there be a a no greater increase than 3% to 5%, but that the lesser or greater rate within that income bracket be determined by Congress in the year 2013 specified into the language of the bill.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Krugman advocates Death Panel massacres of Americans in the same breath as Value Added Taxes as equally viable. A look at this, H1N1, and Conspiracy Theory

On the Roundtable discussion with Leftist and Muslim activist Christianne Amanpour, New York Times Leftist Paul Krugman advocated the combined use of Death Panels to kill off US Citizens in conjunction with sales taxes, as if the two went hand in hand.

His apathetic specific suggestion of "a combination of death panels and sales taxes" is as without remorse...and he shrugs it off as a definitive coming event of necessity, "but it's not going to happen now." Really? Is that supposed to be comforting?

Watch it for yourself on the video below:

Paul Krugman of the New York Times:
"Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.@6:33-6:39
It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it's not going to happen now."

So remember...death panels and property seizures combined with Value Added Taxes on everything you buy and are hidden taxes, so you never know how much tax you are being gouged with...that is the agenda and the Leftist Communist-Socialist solution, as "reasonable"?

+++ Update entry 11/15/2010:

Only 2 years ago Krugman, to lazy to read the Healthcare Bill, accused Sarah Palin of fabricating the accusation of the Death Panel creation...stating on August 14, 2009  -
“…the charge that’s gaining the most traction is the claim that health care reform will create “death panels” (in Sarah Palin’s words) that will shuffle the elderly and others off to an early grave. It’s a complete fabrication….”

But then, in March of 2010, in an earlier Roundtable with Jake Tapper, “You can call them death panels, but they’ll save us money” Paul Krugman was on video saying the same thing...that they INDEED exist:

Communist-Socialist PAUL KRUGMAN, NY TIMES Obama Media Propagandist:

It’s amazing actually, think about people on the right.

They’re simultaneously screaming:

“They’re going to send all of the old people to death panels AND it’s not going to save any money.”

That’s a contradictory point of view.

Jake Tapper: Death panels would save money,

Communist-Socialist PAUL KRUGMAN, NY TIMES Obama Propagandist: ..what, well it’d would be…

Tapper: theoretically. (laughter)

Communist-Socialist PAUL KRUGMAN, NY TIMES Obama Media Propagandist KRUGMAN: Theoretically, the Medical…the advisory panel which has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn’t do any good medically and so we’re not going to pay for it. That is actually going to save quite a lot of money; we don’t know how much yet: the CBO gives it very little credit. But most of the health care economists I talk to think it’s going to be a really, a really major cost saving.

So Krugman, just last March, argued FOR the Death Panels as a Cost Saving Mechanism...and personally, I really don't think it matters if he blows it off as intending to have menat that he is or was talking about with-holding life saving treatment for saving as little as $1 a day in prescription medication as being both justified and legal, or if he is or was advocating someone being directly given the needle shot in the arm and killed off by the Death Panel and person administering the shots, replacing flu virus shots with poison-laced statins.  Yeah Krugman, "it's going to be a really, a really major cost saving."   Uh, huh.

Krugman, is on video record twice, very clearly promoting that America should simultaneously slaughter the weak or undesirables (in the eyes of you Communist-Socialists), and now have merely amended your position  that the survivors be subject to hidden from the public VAT (value added taxes)?
He clearly owes Sarah Palin a sincere and very public apology for being slanderously wrong on the very death panels he NOW says are in the Healthcare Bill signed into Law and now advocates.   
End of update section ++++

In "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura", the episode that deals with the coming Police State and US Concentration Camp concerns, we find that the episode begins to mix Wrestling Television fantasy with actual concerns and reporting, so as to create deniability and call it "entertainment".  The deniability aspects are clearly the fabricated claims to the California camps, whereas other possible legitimate concerns in the film are actually toyed with, and played off.  But if nothing else, the show should make one think and process some of the news that is available, and the extremist views pushed by the Left.  The signs should NOT be ignored, and blown off as entertainment value alone.

In Massachusetts and Iowa,
in 2009 we've already had a transitory trial balloon floated and popped regarding using the H1N1 virus and a fake Media hysteria saying a "pandemic" was coming via the H1N1.

At least Canada had the guts in October 2010 to admit they were wrong to have over-reacted:

Prior to that, WHO (the World Health Organization) pated itself on the back, and said that their hysteria prevented a de facto Pandemic.  What a load of jackass manure. 

The US Center for Disease Control, reported an average to less than average 2,096 deaths in the USA, a nation of 320,000,000 plus. Hardly Pandemic numbers, unless they were hourly instead of over the course of 6 months.

But that didn't stop the Government in the US from allowing Concentration Centers of Disease and Health from being set up and Iowa and Massachusetts in anticipation that the Obama Administration could fabricate the H1N1 six months and more in advance, and make those two states on the firing lines for a Government self-generated crisis to warrantless invade homes, destroy private property of any kind with or without cause, and potentially concentration camp ship to kill off US citizens having legal and peaceful dissent. Only problem was, conservative publications like World Net Daily blew the lid off the Obama Administration plans, and millions of Americans became informed and rightfully suspicious.  So much so, that the arrogance of Congress over Heathcare, and the installation of Death Panels and a dictatorial Commisioner with powers greater than Heinrich Himmler had in Nazi Germany, that these empowered the legal and peaceful TEA Party awakenings across America.

We will have to ask ourselves in such a day as the next pseudo-crisis, be it in the very near future or later the same moral question we asked ourselves recently with the H1N1 deception, and plead with our fellow Americans:
   "American patriots, US Law Enforcement, US Military, US Intelligence, US Legislatures, Mr. and Mrs. average US Citizen, choose this day whom you shall serve, the Communist Muslim oppressors who have taken over the chief positions of power in the Federal and State Governments, those who wish to reign through terror and oppression, or do you serve to protect liberty through the US Constitution, and see that Constitution to be the rule of Law?  If you choose the rule of Law, demand that Congress investigate Obama and his violating the US Constitution; and that he prove by legal requirements that he is a US Natural Born Citizen by having a US Citizen Father and a hospital Birth Certificate listing the hospital and withesses to the birth per 533 US 53 @54 & 62 per 333 US 640 @ 653 , or reign the office."

The now 77 self-proclaimed Communist-Socialists of Congress will view the H1N1 failure as but a lack of a subservient ideological zealous well-armed as the military force, ready to carry out their whims, as Adolf Hitler's SS was willing to do so for him.  If they are allowed to created that sort of ideological army of armed idiots, as powerful and as well funded as the military (as Obama had Idi Amin demanded and/or proposed) the potential casualties inflicted or initiated by the armed thugs of Obama
could indeed exceed all past US wars combined.

It is morally reprehensible that Americans should allow such rhetoric by those occupying its Congress or Presidency and not demand and seek the legal remedies of Impeachments and or Writs of Mandamus with the US Supreme Court to halt such lunacy.


In quoting Iowa's own State issued document listing Iowa H1N1 policy before the alleged pandemic manifested, 

"The Iowa Department of Public Health has determined...
[for those of you that]

 have had contact with a person with Novel Influenza A H1N1...The Department has determined that it is necessary to quarantine your movement to a specific facility to prevent further spread of this disease.

"The Department has determined that quarantine in your home and other less restrictive alternatives are not acceptable," the document continues, before listing mandatory provisions of compliance with relocation to a quarantine facility.

People, when Obama called Americans "the enemy", he wasn't kidding.  That is how his foreign Muslim and Communist reared mind thinks.  We are thrust by Obama himself into Cold War not of our choosing with the Obama Administration, whose codespeak for "indoctrination" or "the White House Agenda" has been exposed by past Fox News media exposure of actual phone calls with the White House is "needle", and the codespeak for the White House Czar Board is "the Corporation". Separately, in August 2009, Glenn Beck interviewed and played the tapes where it was stated that White House officials and a Government entity of the Communist-Socialist propaganda set lamented that even when they employ the language of new communication to the NEA in an open phone line conference call, they can expect their cadre secrecy to be blown.

The problem I personally have with the H1N1 flu shots, is that they are NOT USA MADE.  They come from Europe and are loaded with stains.  Many seniors who get the shots, even in 2010, get very ill...and more likely, those who are weak already, are dying off after getting the shots (though I cannot confirm this).  This latter part is my hypothesis, one that needs some group to investigate and expose to the US public if verified as fully accurate.

The H1N1 in the Cold War - War Game scenario can potentially play out as the excuse of America's first anti-Communist annihilation in death camps that don't look like death camps, by which the Communist-Socialists simply isolate people like Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck, or the birthers, or any opposition. Mysteriously and quietly, days later, after being "vaccinated" or "medicated", all the "patients" die...and all of them coincidentally Republicans or Independents opposed to Obama.  That is likely the scenario that Krugman drools for and pines for.

The issue isn't over, even though Obama's pseudo-H1N1 Emergency Powers declaration on 10/23/2009 claims executive powers to swoop down and concentration camp his political enemies - - (like Iowa and Massachusetts proposed under the guise of forced vaccinations, arrest, and off site quarantine in their State Legislatures earlier this year) - - in an even more aggressive way than Woodrow Wilson was able to segregate his political enemies some 92 years ago, and even more aggressively than FDR segregated Japanese-Americans 67 years ago...we'll just have to wait and see.

Again, it goes back to the Healthcare Bill that Communist-Socialists rationalized should be passed without reading, and that only stupid people would tell him to "read the bill, read the bill.  Why read the bill when it takes 2 lawyers and 4 days to do it?' (Or words to this effect).
The Healthcare Bill  -- voted on and passed (majority unread) and signed by an illegal Usurper to the US Presidency -- reveals in the very first hour of reading, (follow the citations for self-definitions) is legally written in such a way that it authorizes the whim of the Commissioner, and virtually specifies an elimination of all Insurance Companies within 5 years.   , even if they make the interim period of the Commissioner making up her mind as to what is or is not acceptable coverage under her own subjective definition that is not accountable to anyone. It forbids the creation of new health insurance companies FOREVER. The Commissioner, in regard to overseeing healthcare -- currently the "I took $6 mil from 9 Healthcare companies " Nancy De Parle

-- Her power is to initiate a Concentration Camp Segregation and US version of Henreich Himmler's Nazi Concentration / Segregation Camp authorization has been made into Law illegally, but there none the less.  Without a legitimate US President signing, and any bill in contradiction to Founder's Constitutional Intent, is illegal.  However, those who can take it on per Writ of Mandamus (finacially and legally) aren't doing so.  It is as if they attack it via incompetence, just for show, or in a way showing fear to do within limits of those who would willingly crush them...people and sytstem entities we have yet to learn about.  In the meantime, per Congress...the Commissioner Nancy De Parle awaits her Communist-Socialist "green" orders, and temporarily is limited only by the Secretary of Treasury's budget. She (or the same office of Commissioner)  is also to be the absolute dictator as to who can or cannot get what Healthcare benefits and treatment (beyond the Deathcare license powers illegally granted her, becuase a Communist-Socialist affinity and vote prostitution in Congress prevailed) -- and blame the Secretary of Treasury that her budget was so allocated to such a small amount as to force. So why wouldn't people want to say "whoa" to Congress in person?

People who are affected by threat of Quarantine can legally fight back on the birther issue against Obama, and the unConstitutionality of the Healthcare Bill signed into law via a Writ of Mandamus filed directly to the US Supreme Court.  But until they are singled out, the Courts will not recognize them as having "standing" to contest either the illegal Law or Obama.


Regarding the Writ of Mandamus:

"The writ though of right is not of course: i.e. the applicant cannot have it merely for the asking, but must satisfy the High Court that circumstances exist calling for its issue.

Mandamus has always been regarded as an exceptional remedy to supplement the deficiencies of the common law, or defects of justice. Where another legal or equitable remedy exists, equally appropriate, convenient, speedy, beneficial and effectual, the writ will as a rule be refused."


"This writ was introduced to prevent disorders from a failure of justice; therefore it ought to be used upon all occasions where the law has established no specific remedy, and where in justice and good government there ought to be one. Mandamus will not lie where the law has given another specific remedy.

The 13th section of the act of congress of Sept. 24, 1789, gives the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. The issuing of a mandamus to courts, is ...constitutionally vested in the supreme court; but ...(t)he circuit courts of the United States may also issue writs of mandamus, but their power in this particular is confined exclusively to those cases in which it may be necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction."

Obama, by not just past facinorous behavior, but current and future behavior loathes the Articles of Law imbedded in the US Constitution, and the very notion of the freedom of the masses. Obama does not respect the requirements of  Constitutional Article Article 2.1. and the proof of a Long Form COLB because he doesn't respect EVERY OTHER SINGLE ARTICLE of the Constitution either.

The Writ of Mandamus for his long form COLB will preserve the integrity of the US Constitution from this foreigner who has moled his way into the White House, and wishes to dismantle this Republic and Democracy called the United States of America.

And if there is to be a Healthcare Pandemic self created, we would expect that those in Government creating the crisis would have safe zones to flee to.  To date, we have yet to account for over $157,000,000,000 that just vaporized off the books.  Oddly enough, that is enough money to build all the projects of underground refuges at Atlanta and Denver Airports and elsewhere, as proposed by last season's 2012 Conspiracy Theory episode with Jesse Ventura. 

In Episode 6, the camera focuses on a statue that is to read as a sign to decribe why there are known and restricted (secret clearance) undergound disaster shelters being at or very near airports such as in Atlanta, Georgia; Denver, Colorado, et al. 

This statue in particular of interest is that of a bird in demonic form, rising out of a suitcase, and "covering its ears" as it were.  A reasonable interpretation, if we follow the hypothesis that this bird symbolizes an actual message to elite with secret clearance to access these kinds of "refuge stations, is that: the stautue could represent a mutated "bird flu virus" that is unleashed as bio-suitcase bombs upon the world (or pehaps simply the United States) in order to depopulate it, and that the deafness is representative that those in charge will act as though deaf to the cries of this virus and its victims.  That is, by means of a pre-planned man-made pandemic, there would be a Conspiracy of the Elites of the Secret Societies of those already in various national and international governances and industriesbased out of the United States to intentionally reduce the population of the United States  by many tens of millions. 

However, the program "reaches" too much when it speaks of a "worldwide" conspiracy, when the evidence it claims to present is only from locations within the United States of America. 

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

The Usurper Obama spoke about there being as many as "100 shovel ready projects".  But where did the money go?  There is 862 Billion to account for.   If we account 25 billion dollars for roads and highways, we have only now accound for 25 billion of an 862 Billion dollar stimulus, leaving 837 Billion dollars unaccounted for.   So let us take away another 100 billion for Union Autoworker Pension Bailouts and miscellaneous Union Payoffs, and another 180 Billions to national and international / foreign banks.  This still leaves us 557 billion dollars.   So if about half, or about 400 billlion of the original 862 billion is alleged to be left -- but no one really knows, because there is no, and has NEVER been any audit transparency -- we still have 157 billion dollars to account for.  

    We know that that Yasser Arafat squirrelled away US funds meant for the West Bank into Swiss Bank accounts by the hundreds of millions, and the US never demanded it back.  Who can prove that Barack Obama and his cronies haven't also looted the US Treasuries and set themselves up with hundred million dollar or even billion dollar bank accounts  themselves?  They cannot disprove such a charge, even if it were not true, because there is NO TRANPARENCY.  And if such a charge is true, the Mainstream Media is unwilling to allow anyone to prove it...if they can get away with it. 

So where is the Media?  They are acting like this Chicago CBS reporter...crowd out and dismiss or even threaten Johnny Q Public with hostility
In fact, this is how the mainstream media works.

  An radio station in Chicago with a legitimate journalistic interest seeks an interview with Rahm Emmanuel, and has some questions on his "legality" to run for mayor of Chicago.  The Mainstream Media representaive from CBS News with another rude and obstreperous hater of decency and courtesy (journalistic ethics), forcibly crowds out the radio reporter.  Finally, when the radio reporter doesn't succumb to the body shoves and nudges, CBS tells the radio reporter,
 "If you don't stop interrupting, I'm gonna deck you".

The radio reporter filed a complaint with the police, and the Chicago CBS reporter / CBS representative was charged with criminal assault (via the threat).    But in most major media, they either deny or discredit, dismiss or cajole...and then laugh it off or justify it as the new American Patriotism, a Communist-Socialist America that is coming, and all of the current Republic are either to stupid or traitors to that which they by their will will force upon the rest of us, whether we like it or not.  That is how they rationalize their treason to the US Constitution, and refuse to give us equal voice.  

If or when you peacefully and legally speak up, be prepared to stay peaceful and legal and win the hearts and minds of those witnessing the injustice done to you.  It may be that we the majority will win by means of legal and peaceful means, and remove through Law, the Courts, law-makers, the engine of national suicide that the Communist-Socialists wish to turn on the rest of us will be dismantled and destroyed legislatively.  May G-D grant us victory to the saving of lives, and prevent the destroying of lives.  Amen.