Can you say double-digit inflation and a continuing union strangle hold on America’s future?
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 6, 2010
President Obama‘s proposed budget would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday. Proposed tax cuts for the middle class account for nearly a third of that shortfall.
The 10-year outlook released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is somewhat gloomier than White House projections, which found that Obama’s budget request would produce deficits that would add about $8.5 trillion to the national debt by 2020.
The CBO and the White House are in relative agreement about the short-term budget picture, with both predicting a deficit of about $1.5 trillion this year — a post-World War II record at 10.3 percent of the overall economy — and $1.3 trillion in 2011. But the CBO is considerably less optimistic about future years, predicting that deficits would never fall below 4 percent of the economy under Obama’s policies and would begin to grow rapidly after 2015.
Deficits of that magnitude would force the Treasury to continue borrowing at prodigious rates, sending the national debt soaring to 90 percent of the economy by 2020, the CBO said. Interest payments on the debt would also skyrocket by $800 billion over the same period. …Continue Reading
Second Amendment & Larry Sinclair–
Boldly going where no man has gone before, William Shatner stars in youtube video displaying the art of negotiation with thugs. I think it’s an oldie but it’s definitely a goodie. I found this over at Jeff Rense’s site. Mr. Rense has for a long time given Larry Sinclair an opportunity to be heard concerning his allegations of drug use and consensual sex with Obama.
Media Bias and Tea Party -
March 5th, 2010 | Author: Josh Painter
Whenever some whack job commits a violent act, the Obamunist media tries to spin the story that the perp is somehow a “right wing extremist” and then attempts to tie him to the Tea party movement. It happens every time. They did this with Joseph Stack, who flew his airplane into the IRS building in Austin, even though in his suicide note, Stack dissed capitalism and quoted the father of communism Karl Marx.
Now they’re doing it again with Pentagon shooter John Patrick Bedell. The Christian Science Monitors’s screaming headline: “John Patrick Bedell: Did right-wing extremism lead to shooting?” The Associated Press: “Angry anti-gov’t writing linked to Pentagon gunman”. Anyone who is angry at the government, in the view of the statist media, must be a Tea Partying right-winger.
Fortunately, the new media is around to act as a watchdog on the old. Michelle Malkin rains on their parade of prevarication:
Thirty-six-year-old John Patrick Bedell’s voter registration records in Hollister, CA are available for any journalist before he/she goes off and labels him a “right-wing extremist.”
Guess which party he registered under in 2005 and was actively registered under as of 2008?
Had they been interested in the truth, the statist media could have checked this out for themselves….Continue Reading
ChiBama Politics –
I never thought I would live to see the day when our government at every level cannot be trusted. Where is the media?
DENIED UIPA RESPONSES AFTER DOING INTERNET BACKGROUND CHECKS ON THE POLITICAL VIEWS OF PERSONS MAKING UIPA REQUESTS
by Sharon Rondeau
The U.S. Constitution is being burned as the Hawaii DOH continues to hide the truth about Obama
(Mar. 5, 2010) — Among the documents which The Post & Email Legal Fund recently acquired with the financial assistance and support of the readers of this e-Newspaper, shocking evidence has been found which apparently indicts officials of the Hawaii Department of Health for conspiracy to deprive U.S. citizens of their constitutional right to due process.
The incriminating evidence was found in an inadvertent disclosure of emails between Ms. Janice S. Okubo, Communications Director for the Department, and Kenneth David, Supervisor of the Vital Statistics Office.
It appears that David took it upon himself to do background checks on those making UIPA requests and on that basis suggested to Okubo to deny responding to their lawful requests for the release of government documents, requests which they made on the basis of the grants of rights of access accorded them by the Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA).
Following this email exchange, the Department of Health discriminated against citizens whom it perceived to have “a hidden agenda.” The term “hidden agenda” was coined by David to refer to citizens who questioned Obama’s legitimacy to hold the office of president: a clearly political view, on which basis they could not be lawfully denied access….Continue Reading
Natural Born Citizen –
Another must have from Attorney Mario Apuzzo when debating who is or is not a ‘natural born citizen’.
The question which has gripped our Constitutional Republic is whether putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution provides that: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Despite the fact that Article II itself, and when read together with Articles I, III, IV and Amendments Eleven, Fourteen, Fifteen, Nineteen, Twenty-Four, and Twenty-Six, clearly makes a distinction between a “Citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” when it comes to deciding whether Obama is eligible to be President under Article II, many incorrectly interpret a “Citizen of the United States ” to be the same thing as a “natural born Citizen.” With these two clauses not having the same meaning, the proper eligibility question is not whether Obama is a “Citizen of the United States.” Rather, the correct inquiry is whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen.”
Most probably recognize that United States citizens are created either at birth or at the moment of naturalization. The former is a native (using that term in its modern sense and not in the sense that the Founders used it) and the latter is not. Most probably also recognize that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But what many fail to recognize is that the event of birth has two natural elements which always have and always will be present in every birth: (1) the place where one was born and (2) the two parents who procreated the child. Hence, some also fail to understand that there are two types of born citizens, one being a born “Citizen of the United States” and the other being a “natural born Citizen.” Under current law, a born “Citizen of the United States” is one granted that status under the 14th Amendment or Congressional Act (e.g. Title 8 Section 1401), both of which consider either (1) being born on United States soil or (2) being born to at least one United States citizen parent sufficient conditions for being granted the status of a born “Citizen of the United States.” Never in our history has the United States Supreme Court or the Congress ever required that one needs to satisfy both of these conditions in order to be a “citizen of the United States.” But as to a “natural born Citizen,” we have a different story.
To understand what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we have to revert to the Founding era to determine what the Founders and Framers intended that clause to mean. In analyzing what meaning the Framer’s gave to the “natural born Citizen” clause, we must remember that they wrote the Constitution in the historical context of having won a Revolution and in having to constitute a new society. They were inspired by and found justification in the political philosophy of natural law and the law of nations and not that of the English common law in going forward with that Revolution and they relied on that same law when defining national citizenship. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution grandfathered all persons to be eligible to be President who were “Citizens of the United States” at the time the Constitution was adopted. These persons would have been adults who were born in the colonies, children born in the new states, or adults inhabiting or naturalized under the naturalization laws in either place, at the time that the Constitution was adopted, provided they all adhered to the American Revolution. Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) explained that under English common law that prevailed in the colonies these original citizens included persons who were born in the colonies or new states to alien parents. These original citizens, whether born in the country or out of it, were all naturalized to be “citizens of the United States” by simply adhering to the American Revolution. The Founders in Article II grandfathered these “citizens of the United States” to be eligible to be President, provided that they were such at the time of the adoption of the Constitution which we know occurred on September 17, 1787. The grandfather clause is obsolete today.
The Founders themselves, being born prior to independence were subjects of the British Crown and to other foreign sovereigns but adhering to the American Revolution became part of the first “citizens of the United States.” All being born in the colonies before the Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776 to British parents, the first seven Presidents were born subjects of Great Britain (born subject to a foreign power) and therefore needed the grandfather clause to make them eligible to be President. …Continue Reading