The Left has been inexorably denigrated “birthers” who believe that Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements for President and that he knows that he doesn’t and is hiding this fact. Liberals and Progressives are protecting him because they support his far left ideological positions and want him in power.
Since there has been so much controversy and no definitive answers regarding Obama’s place of birth, is too much to ask to have him produce an authentic copy? In virtually any other walk of life, this would not be such a big issue but for someone who was seeking out the Presidency, it is.
The reason is that the Constitution places strict mandates regarding his country of birth and citizenship.
This enigma persists solely because of Obama’s intransigence in refusing to reveal a legal copy. Obviously, this issue would go away instantaneously and he wouldn’t have to deal with multiple lawsuits, revisit the question frequently or even waste time addressing it in some other fashion if he could produce such a copy.
So why has he not done so (even though he claims he has)?
Well maybe he really has something to hide like not truly being able to meet the Constitutional requirements for becoming/being President. That is, if it is confirmed that he was not born an American citizen (or variants on this), he may have to be removed from office.
We strongly feel that issue should have been legally addressed far before the election. Given the singular importance of this and the attendant mysteries surround his birth (in addition to other inscrutable periods of his life), he should have not been sworn in as President without producing a simple document that virtually every other citizen in this country has to show for a variety of reasons throughout their mundane lives.
Even his outspoken supporter, defender and friend and vehement attacker of “birthers”, the Governor of Hawaii, has been unable to find a legal birth certificate despite his searches.
Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate
Suggests controversy could hurt president's re-election chances
Jerome R. Corsi January 19, 2011
Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president's chances of re-election in 2012.
Donalyn Dela Cruz, Abercrombie's spokeswoman in Honolulu, ignored again today another in a series of repeated requests made by WND for an interview with the governor.
Toward the end of the interview, the newspaper asked Abercrombie: "You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama's birth certificate. How is that coming?"
In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue will have "political implications" for the next presidential election "that we simply cannot have."
Suggesting he was still intent on producing more birth records on Obama from the Hawaii Department of Health vital records vault, Abercrombie told the newspaper there was a recording of the Obama birth in the state archives that he wants to make public.
Abercrombie did not report to the newspaper that he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigations to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives.
"It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down," Abercrombie said.
For seemingly the first time, Abercrombie frankly acknowledged that presidential politics motivated his search for Obama birth records, implying that failure to resolve the questions that remain unanswered about the president's birth and early life may damage his chance for re-election.
"If there is a political agenda (regarding Obama's birth certificate), then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president," he said.
So far, the only birth document available on Obama is a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth that first appeared on the Internet during the 2008 presidential campaign. It was posted by two purportedly independent websites that have displayed a strong partisan bias for Obama – Snopes.com released the COLB in June 2008, and FactCheck.org published photographs of the document in August 2008.
WND previously reported the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to authenticate the COLB posted on the Internet by Snopes.com and FactCheck.org.
WND has reported that in 1961, Obama's grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, could have made an in-person report of a Hawaii birth even if the infant Barack Obama Jr. had been foreign-born.
Similarly, the newspaper announcements of Obama's birth do not prove he was born in Hawaii, since they could have been triggered by the grandparents registering the birth as Hawaiian, even if the baby was born elsewhere.
Moreover, WND has documented that the address reported in the newspaper birth announcements was the home of the grandparents.
WND also has reported that Barack Obama Sr. maintained his own separate apartment in Honolulu, even after he was supposedly married to Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother, and that Dunham left Hawaii within three weeks of the baby's birth to attend the University of Washington in Seattle.
Dunham did not return to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii in June 1962 to attend graduate school at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.
Conceivably, the yet undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Abercrombie has discovered may have come from the grandparents registering Obama's birth, an event that would have triggered both the newspaper birth announcements and availability of a Certification of Live Birth, even if no long-form birth certificate existed.
WND has also reported that Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008, has maintained that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither Honolulu hospital – Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center – has any record that Obama was born there.
The shooting of Arizona Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords by a deranged 22 year old gunman has predictably but despicably precipitated a fusillade of culpatory attacks by liberals and Progressives, including politicians and the news media, who blame this tragedy on everyone important who holds conservative views including especially Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Parties. This assignation is reprehensible, irresponsible (particularly the news media and politicians), incorrect and ironic. We suspect that if the victim instead were a Republican, liberals would be insinuating that the individual had it coming to them because of their "Neanderthal" ideological views.
What we do know is that the perpetrator had clinically evident mental illness, possibly paranoid schizophrenia, was a pot head and heavy drinker of alcohol and a liberal with radical political views. The politician he shot was a Democrat and liberal. Thus, there is no conservative or right wing factor here though the Democratic politicians and the liberal Netroots and news media would have you believe that such was irrefutably the case.
The list of these contemptuous, disgraceful perpetrators is too long to list. Included among these are some of the anticipated suspects: Keith Olberman, Paul Krugman, Wolf Blitzer, Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos, (Hanoi) Jane Fonda, Sen. Dick Durbin, former Sec. of the Defense William Cohen, Rep. James Clayburn (3rd highest ranking Democrat in the House) CNN and MSNBC.
In fact, in his NY Times blog, Paul Krugman wrote:
"You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers."
Where were all these individuals while the Left was relentlessly threatening President Bush and V.P. Cheney in some of the vilest ways and continue to do so particularly against Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh? We didn’t hear them complaining or calling for the cessation of such inflammatory attacks and language. Actually, they were among those who were spewing the Left’s incessant incendiary rhetoric. We also didn’t hear them complain about the film “The Death of a President” which was a depiction of the assassination of President George Bush and which won the International Film Critics Award (as a far left political statement) or even when he was depicted with Nazi symbols. There were no condemnations when John Kerry stated regarding President Bush that “I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.” They also didn’t complain that Obama was inciting violence when he declared at a Philadelphia fundraiser in 2008 regarding Republicans: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”, a statement which he has often repeated.
Such is the irony of their present, unfounded accusations which the American public has been able to easily discern. For several reasons based on their corrupt moral algorithm, they don’t consider these blatant improprieties and transgressions to be as such. However, to rational and neutral observers, this is incontrovertibly a double standard.
Exacerbating the situation are the immediate attempts by the Left’s to use this tragedy in order to gain support for their liberal agenda of gun control and the restriction of free speech - prohibiting what they deem to be provocative (according to their double standards). As Rahm Emanuel famously posited:
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
These are a continuation of relentless attempts to provide the government with ever increasing power over its citizenry while concomitantly abridging and restricting our rights, freedoms and ability to protect ourselves as explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
We must remain vigilant if we want to remain free.
Over the last several days (1/5 and 1/6), the comics posted ingeniously characterize Obama's disdain for the U.S. Constitution and the rights and will of the American people. This is consistent with his contemptuous actions over the last 2 years whereby he has sought to impose his ideologies and government control over us by whatever means possible and independent of voter sentiment.
Such are the actions of a dictator who must be removed from office. Our country and we, the citizens, will continue to experience greater suffering while relentless losing more rights and freedoms until he is no longer the "president".
The House Republican leadership has a novel and educational idea to open up the next session on Jan 6th, 2011: read the Constitution in its entirety from the floor of the chamber. It has been quite apparent that over the past two years, aided by Pelosi, Reid and Obama, the spirit of the Constitution has been wantonly violated as has specific strictures.
A little re-education regarding this most important document that serves to protect our rights and freedoms may be quite valuable vis-a-vis future proposed legislation.
Then again, the left has shown an utter disdain for the Constitution and would rather pervert it to such an extent so as to render it almost irrelevant. With such an attitude, reading it will accomplish little for those willing to destroy it the most.
Then again, maybe not – that is if it is read again and again as the president of the Roanoke Tea Party, Chip Tarbutton, suggested somewhat tongue in cheek. He stated that, "If it was up to me, they could spend the whole congressional session reading the Constitution and nothing else, and they wouldn't do as much damage as the last Congress did."
Just keep Congress from passing legislation and imposing more regulations and taxes…
A solution that we can all live with!
'We the people' to open next Congress House to read Constitution
Stephen Dinan The Washington Times December 23, 2010
The Constitution frequently gets lip service in Congress, but House Republicans next year will make sure it gets a lot more than that - the new rules the incoming majority party proposed this week call for a full reading of the country's founding document on the floor of the House on Jan. 6.
The goal, backers said, is to underscore the limited-government rules the Founders imposed on Congress - and to try to bring some of those principles back into everyday legislating.
"It stems from the debate that we've had for the last two years about things like the exercise of authority in a whole host of different areas by the EPA, we've had this debate in relation to the health care bill, the cap-and-trade legislation," said Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, who proposed the reading. "This Congress has been very aggressive in expanding the power of the federal government, and there's been a big backlash to that."
Setting aside time at the beginning of the congressional session for the reading is just one of the changes to House rules that Republicans say are designed to open up the legislative process. They say the new rules also will try to bring some restraints to lawmaking after decades in which both Republican and Democratic leaders whittled away opportunities for real legislative give-and-take.
The biggest changes would make it easier to cut spending and harder to create entitlement programs, while imposing restrictions that could keep leaders from jamming massive bills onto the House floor before lawmakers have had a chance to digest them.
"To begin to restore trust with the American people, Republicans have pledged to operate Congress differently: with real transparency, greater accountability and a renewed focus on the Constitution," said Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, who led the GOP's transition team. "The sweeping reforms offered in this package make clear we intend to keep that promise."
The chief criticism from Democrats has been the GOP's decision to exempt some tax cuts from the pay-as-you-go rule, which requires new spending to be offset by corresponding budget cuts. Republicans want to exempt tax cuts of the George W. Bush era and alterations to the alternative minimum tax.
"Their proposal leads us down the same path of fiscal negligence that the GOP took the nation down when [Republicans] got rid of pay-go in 2002," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrat. "We know how that story ends: ballooning deficits and an economic crisis not seen since the Great Depression."
In the Senate, where Democrats will retain a majority by a much smaller margin, returning Democrats are pondering how to rein in repeated Republican filibusters. All returning Senate Democrats have signed a letter, first reported by National Journal, asking Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, to consider taking action to change the chamber's operating rules.
The letter sets the stage for another round of discussions on whether to curtail the practice, though it's unclear how much room there is for major changes, since Republicans are likely to be united against anything that would constrain their rights as the minority party.
Liberal legal scholars on Thursday praised the movement to curtail filibusters.
The House rules changes, meanwhile, have won praise from open-government advocates, who say lawmakers and the public now have better access to legislation and committee proceedings and give them a chance to weigh in on the drafting and voting on the bills.
One key change would require bill sponsors to add statements to the congressional record citing the specific constitutional authority for the actions they are proposing.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is on the defensive over the new health care law. A federal district judge in Virginia ruled this month that the general welfare and commerce clauses do not give the federal government the authority to require individuals to purchase health coverage, under pain of a financial penalty.
As least as a discussion point, the Constitution has proved to be the "comeback kid" of the past two years.
For example, the word "unconstitutional" was used 408 times in congressional debates during the 111th Congress, according to a search of the Congressional Record. That was up from 283 in the 110th Congress and is the most since the immediate aftermath of the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress.
Even before that, the presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican, seemed to tap a nerve with voters looking for more discussion about the founding document, the core of the blossoming "tea party" movements.
"If it was up to me, they could spend the whole congressional session reading the Constitution and nothing else, and they wouldn't do as much damage as the last Congress did," said Chip Tarbutton, president of the Roanoke Tea Party in Roanoke, Va., which is in Mr. Goodlatte's district.
He said the key test for lawmakers such as Mr. Goodlatte is whether they treat the constitutional reading as "window dressing" or whether it sparks the kinds of discussions that could lead to a major re-evaluation of the role of the federal government.
"If they follow through on it, it'll create some very difficult conversations, because what they'll end up doing is finding a lot of things already in place are unconstitutional," Mr. Tarbutton said.
Mr. Goodlatte credited Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, a Republican, with coming up with the idea of a public reading of the Constitution. Mr. Cuccinelli brought suit against the federal health care law and won the judge's ruling that part of the law is unconstitutional.
Mr. Goodlatte said it's too early to tell exactly how the reading will go, though he expects many members to take part.
The article below details the outrageous arrest, conviction and sentencing of a man who was found to have to unloaded guns in his car which were legally purchased and properly stored. Unfortunately for him, this occurred in liberal N.J. which has among the nation’s most stringent gun control law. Luckily, N.J. Governor Chris Christie was apprised of the absurdity of this case and commuted the sentence.
Such strict gun control laws may ostensibly be in direct conflict with our Second Amendment rights. Furthermore, research has consistently and irrefutably shown that states in which such laws are enacted have a statistically higher crime rate.
We must vigilantly protect our right to bear arms. In many nations it has been this right which has protected the citizenry from oppressive and tyrannical governments.
Christie Commutes Sentence of Man Serving 7 Years for Transporting Legal Guns
Jonathon M. Seidl December 21, 2010
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has commuted the sentence of a man sentenced to seven years in prison for transporting guns he owned legally.
27-year-old Brian Aitken was arrested, charged, and convicted in 2009 after his mother called 911 (but hung up), worried that he was distraught over not being able to spend time with his son and was considering suicide.
Police eventually traced the call and found Aitken. And when they did, they also found two unloaded handguns in his his trunk, which he owned legally. The guns were there, he says, because he was in the process of moving.
That apparently didn’t matter.
“This case is the perfect storm of injustice,” Aitken’s attorney, Evan Nappen, told the Daily Caller last month.
Now it seems Christie agrees. On Monday the governor commuted Aitkens sentence to time already served and ordered him released as soon as it’s “administratively possible.”
The Daily Caller reports:
New Jersey law requires residents who want to transport firearms legally to request a permit from a local law enforcement office and produce a letter stating why it is necessary for them to carry a gun.
Aitken’s attorney argued that his client was innocent of any offense because the firearms were legally purchased (at a Bass Pro Shop), properly stored, and unloaded. And though New Jersey has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Aitken’s attorney said his client did not violate any law because he was in the middle of moving residences between two states.
Nonetheless, Aitken was sentenced to seven years in prison in August. His supporters say the judge refused to accept evidence supporting his defense. He was convicted of the same kind of felony a criminal who had bought guns with intent to commit a crime would have faced.
Aitken moved from Colorado, where gun laws are much more reasonable, to New Jersey after separating from his wife in 2008. His original plan was to be closer to his son. Now that seems possible.
Attorney General Eric Holder has brought the regard, presitge and position that he holds to a new, immeasurably low level. This is an amazing feat given that the honor had been previously held by the abysmally incompetent Janet Reno. In fact, his job performance, or lack thereof, makes her accomplishments and management appear respectable.
Holder shows a total lack of understanding and appreciation of his position, responsibilities and the U.S. Constitution which he is charged with adhering to. In fact, he openly and egregiously flouts the basic principles of this document which he clearly despises and finds it to be an obstacle to his Progressive and racist agenda.
On innumerably occasions, he has displayed a lack of regard for equal rights and treatments. Some, minorities and especially blacks in particular, he feels should be accorded greater rights, privileges and entitlements especially at the expense of others, notably whites. The racist bias that has suffused the Dept. of Justice under his watch and which has been countenanced by him, are well known (see The New Black Panther Party issue as but one example).
He also panders to special interest groups and those that are openly hostile to our country and intolerant of our culture. His actions seem to be intentionally aimed at undermining and weakening America – an agenda that is consistent with a far left Progressive. In his view, rights are not truly equal – the Constitution be damned.
We staunchly and relentlessly continue to call for either his resignation or firing which would be in the best interests of this country and its citizens.
Holder's Dept. Of (Social) Justice
Investor’s Business Daily 12/15/2010
Politics: This Justice Department's social activism knows no bounds. First it meddled in a border state's right to protect itself.
Now it's trying to rewrite school policy to pander to Muslim law.
On Monday, Justice sued an Illinois school district for rejecting a Muslim teacher's request to take a three-week leave of absence to travel to Mecca. The suit claims that the Berkeley School District discriminated against middle-school instructor Safoorah Khan, whose religion "required" her to perform the hajj, and is seeking damages for this so-called victim.
But it's not stopping there. It seeks an order mandating school officials adopt policies accommodating all Muslim customs, no matter how unreasonable.
Attorney General Eric Holder is fulfilling a promise to pander to the special interests of Muslims. In June 2009, he pledged "a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim community" that includes "robust enforcement" of "religious freedoms."
"We are committed to using criminal and civil rights laws to protect Muslim Americans" in the workplace, housing market and schools, he said, adding that he was making it "a top priority."
Earlier this month, Holder spoke in San Francisco at the annual dinner of an anti-FBI group called the Muslim Advocates, whom he described as "partners in our work to promote tolerance."
He told Muslims gathered there that all 94 U.S. attorney's offices were partnering with the department's Civil Rights Division to act as "force multipliers" in helping to protect the Muslim community. He informed them that he'd brought a third of the nation's U.S. attorneys to Washington for an unprecedented meeting to work on being more "sensitive" toward Muslims.
"Last year," moreover, "I established an Arab-American and Muslim Engagement Advisory Group to help identify more effective ways for the Justice Department to foster greater communication and collaboration — as well as a new level of respect and understanding — between law enforcement and Muslim and Arab-American communities," Holder said.
This attorney general's many speeches reveal an agenda more radical than even his mentor Janet Reno's. It's plain that he's an activist, not an impartial enforcer of the nation's laws.
His audiences are a who's who of progressive causes — all sharing a common goal of obtaining "social justice" and "economic justice," as opposed to just plain equal justice under the law. They include activists not just for Muslim and Arab rights, but also black civil rights, gay rights, transgender rights, Indian tribal rights, housing rights, and on and on. It's a multicultural panderfest.
Here's just a sampling of his speaking engagements over the past two years:
• National Indian Nations Conference.
• African Union Summit.
• Metropolitan Black Bar Association Annual Dinner.
• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month Program.
• American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee 30th Annual National Convention.
• Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) 50th Annual Conference.
• Legal Services Corp.
• Federal Bar Association's Advancement of Social Justice.
• National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.
• Hispanic National Bar Association Annual Conference.
• National Black Prosecutors Association.
• NAACP.
• Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice & Congressional Black Caucus Symposium on Rethinking Federal Sentencing Policy.
Divide-and-pander groupism is the new normal at Justice. At Justice's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month Program last June, Holder announced — in addition to enforcement of special new rights for gays — a new "Diversity Management Plan" that includes the creation of a new department position: Deputy Associate Attorney General for Diversity.
Holder's obsession with race was laid bare in his 2009 Black History Month speech in which he called Americans "cowards" for not doing more to speak out against racism. The disconnect of bad-mouthing America as racist in the wake of its electing a black president (and his own appointment as the first black attorney general) was lost on him.
Still, he slammed "socially segregated" whites who live in "electronically padlocked suburbs" and schools that are "too willing to segregate the study of black history."
"We must endeavor to integrate black history into our culture and into our curriculums in ways in which it has never occurred before," he lectured, giving it equal weight with "so-called 'real' American history."
Such demagoguery explains why, over the past 22 months, Justice has "reinvigorated" its civil rights enforcement activities. When it comes to combating hate crimes, however, it's still a one-way street.
"Our message is simple: If you engage in violence fueled by bigotry — no matter the object or nature of your hate — we will bring you to justice," Holder claims. Unless, of course you're club-wielding New Black Panthers and the object of your hate is white voters.
For the tens of millions of Americans who are vehemently opposed to Obamacare, its mandates and federal government intrusion in their health care, there is great news. U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson issued a ruling on intrinsic issues of Obamacare yesterday. His verdict was that the requirement that a person purchase health insurance "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power" meaning that it is unconstitutional.
On the question as to whether this issue could abrogate that entire legislation, he did not commit except to state that though there was not a severability clause in it, he did not have enough information to adjudicate this.
It is now on to the Supreme Court for this particular challenge of Obamacare. There are many other lawsuits waiting in the wings.
Federal Judge Declares ObamaCare's Mandate Unconstitutional
Philip Klein on 12.13.10
Dealing a blow to the Obama administration, a federal Judge on Monday ruled that the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance -- a central component of the national health care law -- "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."
In a 42-page ruling (PDF), U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson, an appointee of George W. Bush, said that the Commerce Clause of the constitution did not give the federal government the authority to force an individual to purchase something. He also rejected the Obama administration's argument that the mandate to purchase "minimum essential coverage" was justified by Congressional taxing power. At the same time, Hudson declined to overturn the entire law, severing the mandate from the rest of the legislation.
The decision arose from a lawsuit brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, one of the two main legal challenges to ObamaCare. The other one is led by Florida and involves 19 additional states.
"Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market," Hudson wrote. "In doing so, enactment of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I."
The judge went on to say that, "Because an individual's personal decision to purchase -- or decline to purchase -- health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not provide a safe sanctuary...The Minimum Essential Coverage Provision is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution. Therefore, the Necessary and Proper Clause may not be employed to implement this affirmative duty to engage in private commerce."
The Obama administration had also advanced a secondary argument that the mandate could be justified under the Congress's power to levy and collect taxes. Yet Hudson said this argument didn't hold up, because the revenue collection element is incidental to the mandate -- it's a penalty and its primary purpose is as a regulatory enforcement mechanism. Also, the legislation itself cited the Commerce Clause as its constitutional justification.
Hudson did rule against Virginia on two other counts, though. As enacted, the law did not include what's known as a "severability clause," which specifies that if one part of the law is struck down, the rest of the law stands. Virginia had argued that it should be struck down entirely if the mandate is considered unconstitutional, but Hudson declined to do so, saying the Court didn't have sufficient information to determine "what, if any, portion of the bill would not be able to survive independently."
Hudson also declined to grant Virginia's request for an injunction against the mandate, because it has not yet gone into effect.
The judge acknowledged that "the final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court."
It should be noted that in two other lower profile cases, liberal judges have upheld the health care law. So ultimately, it's likely that this will end up having to be decided by the Supreme Court, with Anthony Kennedy, as always, casting the deciding vote.
The arrogance, disdain for the average American, limitless deception, elitism and egregious naked power grab of Obama, Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats in the formulation and corrupt passage of government controlled health care exceeded a level of reprehensibility unparalleled in Washington politics. It irrefutably demonstrates an intention and method for stealing our personal rights and liberties away and providing an irreversible way for the federal government to rule us – not represent us.
This is government by fiat as in many Third World countries – not by legal, Constitutional means. As enumerated below, the Democrats sought to shield this legislation from attempts to change or nullify it and did so in ways that were blatantly unconstitutional and depraved.
The Goldwater Institute is attempting to block a crucial provision of Obamacare: the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board which is charged with creating Medicare policies and health care payments. It is an autonomous commission with members appointed by the President that is designed to have no Congressional oversight or be subject to judicial review.
This arrangement wreaks tyranny – and was just what Obama and Pelosi wanted.
The election was one payback for the public’s rebuking of this pernicious legislation. We strongly recommend that the soon to be Republican dominated House impose condign retribution for the depraved actions of these two despicable politicians. It can start, for example, by severely curtailing Obama and Michelle’s White House budgets including for parties, trips, etc.
Keep them on a short leash and punish them financially when possible!
Goldwater Institute Asks Court To Block Key Provision of Federal Health Care Law
Health care bill created ‘untouchable’ Independent Payment Advisory Board
Goldwater Institute News Release
November 16, 2010
PHOENIX – The Goldwater Institute has requested an injunction [1] to block a provision of the federal health care law that prevents Congress from repealing a new agency that would control health care payments. A preliminary injunction is needed so Congress can consider revoking the Independent Payment Advisory Board before the agency has been established.
Among other measures, the federal health care law orders the creation by 2012 of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, an unelected commission that will be free to set Medicare policy and health care payment rates with no meaningful congressional oversight and without the possibility of judicial review. The law also prohibits Congress from acting to repeal the agency in perpetuity, except for a narrow window in 2017.
“Protecting any new federal agency from being repealed by Congress appears to be unprecedented in the history of the United States,” said Diane Cohen, the Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney in this case.
The motion for preliminary injunction has been filed as part of Coons v. Geithner [2], one of nearly two dozen lawsuits around the country challenging the health care law. If granted by U.S. District Judge Murray Snow, the injunction will be the first time that any part of the law has been blocked, said Clint Bolick, litigation director at the Goldwater Institute.
“This injunction would restore power to our elected representatives to repeal an agency with new sweeping powers that are removed from any semblance of legislative, executive, or judicial review,” Mr. Bolick said.
The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represents a number of clients in this lawsuit including U.S. Representatives Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, and John Shadegg of Arizona. The congressmen have supported repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a 15-member commission appointed by the president that will have far-reaching and uncontrollable powers, Ms Cohen said.
Unlike any other federal commission, the Independent Payment Advisory Board won’t have to follow the basic steps for adopting and enforcing administrative rules. The board’s annual payment schedules and policy proposals can’t be examined by the courts and automatically will become law unless amended by Congress through a difficult and complex procedure.
Finally, even if Congress were to approve a repeal of the board in 2017, following the complex process allowed in the health care law, that repeal automatically would be delayed until 2020.
“No possible reading of the Constitution supports the idea of an unelected, standalone federal board that’s untouchable by both Congress and the courts,” Mr. Bolick said.
Just days after liberal correspondent Juan Williams was fired from NPR (National Public Radio) for expressing what was an innocuous personal feeling that apparently wasn’t in accord with political correctness as determined by NPR, a union worker was fired on the spot for wearing a Bush hat and sweat shirt that actually were in honor of his son who was stationed on the carrier U.S.S. George H. W. Bush. What we are witnessing is virulent political correctness with vicious consequences which is unilaterally practiced by liberals and the far left.
This is a planned attack on freedom of speech and thought which is protected by our Constitution. But of course, Obama and the left have stated myriad times that it should be a living, breathing and malleable document as it doesn’t reflect the times today.
They want those times now to apparently be the authoritarian control of speech, thought, opinion and relevant news by Obama, the Democrats, the mainstream news media and the unions.
WE MUST NEVER LET THIS HAPPEN AND WHEN IT DOES – FIGHT IT RELENTLESSLY.
WE MUST NEVER ALLOW OUR GOVERNMENT, POLITICIANS AND OTHER GROUPS TO CONTROL OUR SPEECH, THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS!
Union Stagehand Fired for Wearing Bush Hat and Shirt
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments