Is Obamacare Illegal?

MUST WATCH -- EXCLUSIVE VIDEO
CLIENT'S ATTORNEY EXPLAINS HIS CASE

Will the Court Rule Against Obamacare? 


Obamacare Appears Demonstrably Illegal As A Result of Chief Justice Roberts Ruling ... a Clear Violation of the Origination Clause of the US Constitution ... which becomes true only after it was ruled a tax.

As we all have learned ... in politics and legal issues, anything can happen.  Things often don't turn out the way we hope they might but at least this is the first ray of hope I have seen recently on these issues.

It appears that this could be true. The Supreme Court's ruling that Obamacare is a tax opens the hastily created 2700 page healthcare bill to a clear case that as a tax the way in which the legislation was created clearly violates the constitutional law known as the Origination Clause.


According to the Article 1, Section 7, of the United States Constitution any legislation to create a tax to be collected by the federal government must originate in the House of Representatives. This is known as the Origination Clause. PLF claims that the original bill that was used to create Obamacare originated in the Senate and not the House, thus making Obamacare illegal. Based on this information they are now moving forward with the case in the court system.

After the arguments were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in March, it appeared that the insurance mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act was doomed.  Many were hoping that the entire health care package would be thrown out as well.

On June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision.  In a move that stunned the nation, the vote was 5-4 to uphold the insurance mandate and the rest of the Affordable Care Act.  The vote had come down to a 4-4 vote, giving Chief Justice John Roberts the deciding vote.  Although known as a conservative, Roberts voted that the insurance mandate was illegal ONLY because it was tied to a tax.  He ruled that since the penalty for not being insured was to be collected by the I.R.S., that it amounted to a tax and that Congress has the legal right to levy taxes.

In his ruling, Robert’s also stated that the requirement to force someone to purchase a product or pay a penalty does violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Because he also ruled that the insurance mandate was a tax and not a penalty, that it no longer violated the Commerce Clause and as such was legal.

However, by Roberts’ very ruling, he actually made the insurance mandate illegal and subject to further litigation and possibly still being thrown out.

In 2010, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a suit on behalf of Matt Sissel challenging the legality of the insurance mandate on the grounds of his being forced to purchase health insurance or face a penalty.  When the U.S. Supreme Court took on three other cases, the PLF put Sissel’s case on hold pending the court’s decision.

We all know what that decision was, but in making his ruling, Chief Justice Roberts opened up the door for another legal challenge.  PLF has just asked the courts once again to overturn the insurance mandate on two grounds.

The first issue was created when Roberts declared the penalty to be a tax.  According to the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution, all tax or revenue generating legislation must begin in the U.S. House of Representatives.  The Affordable Care Act was first introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the U.S. Senate and not the House.  Therefore, the insurance mandate tax violates the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution and must be struck down.

“With Obamacare, the legislative process was backwards— and that makes it unconstitutional. If it’s a tax, as a Supreme Court called it, then it started in the wrong house.”

The second issue is that since the U.S. Senate cannot initiate any tax or revenue generating legislation, the penalty for not purchasing health insurance cannot be a tax according to the Origination Clause.  If it cannot be a tax, then it has to be a penalty and thus we go back to a violation of the Commerce Clause which Chief Justice Roberts said the insurance mandate would be.

“When we focus on the Origination Clause, we’re not talking about dry formalities and this isn’t an academic issue. The Founders understood that the power to tax, if misused, involves the power to destroy, as Chief Justice John Marshall put it. Therefore, they viewed the Origination Clause as a safeguard for liberty. They insisted that the power to initiate new taxes should be left with the lawmakers who are most directly accountable to voters— members of the House, who are elected every two years by local districts.”

Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia recently ruled that PLF’s argument based upon the Origination Clause can proceed forward in the court. PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard commented saying:

“Our commitment is strengthened, and our fight goes on.”

Pacific Legal Foundation has amended their initial suit, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, to include the argument of the Origination Clause.  The legal action is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Even if America is cursed with four more years of Barack Obama and Democratic rule, there is still hope that the insurance mandate will be repealed by the courts.  If so, it is vitally important that the Republicans continue to control the House because as long as they do, they should be able to block any legislation to impose the penalty as a tax.

Matt Sissel says he is in the legal fight for the long haul. As a small business owner in Iowa City, Sissel said:

“I am in this lawsuit to defend liberty and the Constitution. That purpose and that promise continue today. My lawsuit is more important than ever, and we’ll move ahead with it, all the way up the judicial system, if necessary.”

“Quitting is never an option. In the military we learned you don’t stop halfway up the hill. The same goes with our courtroom challenge to Obamacare. I’m grateful to PLF for sharing my determination to move forward.”

This challenge may be the last hope of fighting off Obamacare and the huge negative impact it is having on our nation, economy, and healthcare industry. This battle may be long and expensive but Sissel and the PFL are determined to see it through to the end. We all need to get behind them and support them in any way possible if there is any hope left to stop the ugly beast known as Obamacare from devouring us all.

An American Tragedy

 

Joe the Plumber ... Dead in 2012

This is a most common chilling story that has played out all over America since Barack Obama became President. I know because it happened to my small business as well. Americans cannot afford the failed policies and the "on the job training" of its President during the next four years.

TIME FOR CHANGE ...

Joe the Plumber ... Dead in 2012

WATCH THIS SHORT MOVING VIDEO HERE...

Axis of Evil

Obama has already decided ... 
what he will do if he is Re-Elected
This is another of Obama's surprises
Obama has made to a secret deal ...

with Russia.

Obama will disregard what is best 
for the security of America ...

What will we do?

Equal Pay or Performance?

Recently on Facebook ... "equal pay is not a womans issue --- it's a human right."

 "Why is this even a question?" 

... and "why would any woman vote Republican?"

I responded: "This is a sham issue. It has been clearly proven that women most often receive equal pay but have different priorities and responsibilities in the home and as a result often work less hours and earn less."

The problem is that many of us are looking at the equal pay issue from two totally different perspectives. This is a key to why Obama has failed to create jobs and why Romney will succeed in creating jobs.  Romney understands how business works, and it is not legislated by government.

I will attempt to explain this from real personal experiences in the actual free enterprise business world that I have worked in for the past 45 years.

Ever wonder why charter schools are so much more successful? Results and performance are at the top of their agenda ... not mandated government guidelines. 

In the real world of small business ... performance based pay is the rule. It cannot be directed by politicians or unions and their good intentions without bad end results.

My first job was as a timekeeper at McDonnell Douglas. My first week on the job, it took me a few days to figure out my responsibilities. After a few days, I realized I could get all of my work done in half the allotted time. One day at in the fifth hour of my shift I had finished my work for the day. The guy sitting next to me said; “you can’t do that” “what” I asked. “You can’t finish early, it makes the rest of us look bad,” he said. "That’s your problem" I replied. 

An hour later my boss (a woman) walked by. She looked at my desk, and the guy next to me as well. She walked over to his desk and took half of his remaining work and put it on my desk. A year later when I was laid off ... this same guy was still there because he had seniority over me. In your world this might make sense; but in my world it does not.

This is the union system. I am sure at some point it has brought  benefits to many ... but it is certainly not better for performers or the employers who hire them. 

The whole equality in pay issue is for the most part whining. 

If a person does not like the way they are treated by their employer ... they should find another job, and be more careful in finding it. 

Many employers are not fair to anyone ... ever. This has nothing to do with equal pay but rather a boss who is a jerk.That is the way it has always been ans ALWAYS will be. 

Some employers are more than very fair ... find that employer and do great work there. The jerk boss loses the great employee every time. Then, everybody wins. Race, gender or sexual orientation should not ever even be an issue. 

I must assume that the inequality charge is not that women do not receive equal pay within the failing union system.

My next job was for the largest real estate company in America at the time. Everyone was paid with the same performance based pay schedule. No performance … no pay. Lots of performance ... lots of pay. I found that if you were willing to do things others were afraid to do ... the results were much better. I soon found myself earning more than double the amount of lower achievers for the same number of hours worked on the job. 

I was quickly promoted, and made the manager over the others. I then spent my time helping others learn the skills needed to perform better. When I succeeded on this mission, my income was more than triple that of the other managers doing the same work, I was quickly promoted to vice president over 10 other managers. 

My performance there resulted in my income being more than double that of the executive vice president over me. This system worked well for me, until I was driving a Mercedes 450SL and my boss was driving a Fiat. When a plan was put in place that reversed performance pay to equalize things ... I simply went to my boss and explained it must be changed or I would resign. He changed the plan.

Women consistently were my better performers, and as a result many women were either paid more or worked less as their personal needs dictated. My top performer was a Jewish man who came to me after driving a dutch cheese truck.  He became number one out of over1500 sales people. His parents were murdered in a Nazi concentration camp and he worked harder to succeed. Needless to say he was the top performer and was paid much more than the others. His race or gender was not ever considered. Nobody was ignorant enough to complain that he was paid many times more than all others for the same number of hours worked.

I did have one challenge that comes to mind with an escrow officer who worked for me. When she became pregnant, she informed her manager (a woman) that our insurance did not include pregnancy as required under an idiotic rule created in Sacramento. And as a result, that I was required to pay for her pregnancy. I had my manager check it out, and was told she was correct. I said fine, and paid a large sum for her pregnancy. 

There were no hard feelings; but I also made a business decision. The next week, I gave a raise to everyone equal to their health insurance cost, and then cancelled health Insurance for all. There was not one complaint. This is how legislated bureaucratic BS is dealt with in the free business world.

Never in this process was race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation even considered in the performance based pay system. Some women did better, they were paid more. When trying to make everyone's pay equal was tried … the result was lower performance. 

Can you imagine the liberal uproar if sports stars or entertainment stars were told that they would be paid equally on the basis of their actual hours worked?

Perform more you get more … end of discussion.

It's the results that count.

Connect The Dots

Hmmm ...

• A new Obama Appointee
• Unemployment numbers 
• Mysteriously Drop
• Employment Numbers Were Ginned

Believe it ...

A couple weeks ago, this column analyzed the inflation rate reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and concluded that you should rely on your common sense when the government reports questionable statistics. 

If they don’t make sense based on what you see, experience, and hear from your friends, then they’re probably wrong. Last week’s unemployment number – which decreased to a still-dismal 7.8% – should not only make no sense to you, but should have never made sense to the BLS and therefore should never have been issued.

So am I just popping off or is there a factual basis for this claim? Statistical analysis has to pass a smell test, and the BLS should have known that what they presented did not. Their own web site states that “The unemployment rate declined by 0.3% to 7.8% in September. For the first 8 months of the year, the rate held within a narrow range of 8.1% to 8.3%.” Nowhere is there any explanation of why this anomaly occurred.

You, sitting at home without a degree in statistical analysis, look at the statement from the BLS and scratch your head. Did something happen in the last month that radically changed our economy? If there were only 114,000 new jobs reported, how did 873,000 more people report being employed? 

If you were running the BLS, you would likely tell the people who brought you this nonsense to go back and check their figures. Or you might ask: if this is correct, have the numbers been wrong for the past year?

Then you would start to search for correlating information. Let’s see, the average work week increased by 0.1 hours. Yes, that’s six minutes – not exactly steamrolling. Then you would see that the underemployment rate remained steady at 14.7%, and you would recall that just a week ago, the anemic economic growth of 1.7% for the second quarter was revised even lower to an abysmal 1.3%. You might ponder the whole matter, take a break, drive to lunch, see that gas prices are astronomical, and come to the conclusion that this unemployment number is just nuts.

Arriving back home after having lunch (which cost a few bucks more than a couple of months back), you begin to do a little research. You review the comments made on September 13^th by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. He spoke of the continued weakness in the U.S. economy, and, in fact, the entire justification for his QE3 announcement – made just three weeks before the BLS announced the surreal dip in the unemployment rate – was the weak job market. Was Bernanke just totally out of touch? Then you remember that right after Bernanke’s QE3 announcement, the survey of America’s CEOs reported that their level of confidence in the economy plummeted to the lowest level since the third quarter of 2009. These are the folks who actually hire people for jobs.

You now apply some common sense to this entire situation. You see that the labor force participation rose a meager 0.1% from the prior month – observing with frustration that if it were the same as it was in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 11%. You also notice that the number of long-term unemployed remains at 4.8 million Americans.

You eventually discover that the unemployment rate is determined by a household survey of a very small proportion of the population. And then it hits you – the BLS merely spoke to a few Americans who have been unemployed for what seems like forever, who in quiet desperation told the BLS that they started a home business. Of course, the BLS doesn’t ask “and how is that going?” They just mark that person down as employed. Poof: 873,000 fewer unemployed Americans.

We interviewed Jim Borbely, an economist, of the Current Population Survey department of the BLS. He indicated they perform a monthly survey of 60,000 homes that rotates every four months. I asked him whether anyone looked at the numbers, noticed what appeared to a major statistical anomaly, and said “Boy, we gotta do this over; it just doesn’t make any sense.” He told me that no one did that – they just applied the same procedures that they’ve been using for sixty years. When I pointed out that the numbers made no sense mathematically or scientifically, he just stuck to his endorsement of their process. The most I could get him to admit was that “It could be a statistical anomaly that could correct itself next month.” When I stated that this could potentially have a significant impact on the presidential election, he replied “We are not a political organization.”

Which is, on the face of it, an utter fallacy; any branch of government is political. More importantly, Obama appointed a new Director of the BLS – Erica Gorshen, a Harvard graduate with a PhD in Economics, a former union member, and the teacher of a class called Statistics for Economists: Trade Unions, Collective Bargaining, and Public Policy. She claims that she is nonpartisan, but who in their right mind would conclude that she is anything other than a member of the left-wing “intelligentsia”?

The question we’ll never get answered is who ultimately approved the release of these errant numbers? Of course, no one had a political agenda; but, if that were true, why didn’t Obama appoint someone from the Heritage Foundation? They have some pretty qualified folks over there.

Or there is the other possibility. The BLS operates within the Department of Labor, whose Secretary is Hilda Solis, easily the most partisan member of Obama’s cabinet. That’s hard to believe, what with Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius floating around, but it’s true. Then we have a President who just offered to cover the legal costs of defense contractors who break the law by not sending out legally-required notices to employees 60 days before anticipated layoffs. Then you think: could these be manipulated numbers? You betcha! There is another way to gin numbers than changing them around. You can gin them by ignoring significantly invalid numbers and treating them as real. Either way it is still ginning.

What’s amazing is that they think we’re stupid enough to believe this pile of cow manure. America was stupid enough to put this crowd into office; I guess they believe that they can sell us anything.

Bruce Bailosky Townhall.com 10/15/2015

The Obama Lies and the Cover-up

Libya attack covered up

by Obama administration, 

asserts Heritage Foundation

The conservative Heritage Foundation is continuing to be a leading force against what it considers to be a cover-up within the Obama administration of the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans at the U.S. Consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi last month.

The campaign, consisting of reports, blog posts and now an event and video — which even includes a suggestion that President Obama would “coincidentally” strike Libya ahead of the presidential debate on national security and foreign policy — is aimed at forcing the administration to abandon the “ridiculous story” that a YouTube video was to blame for the attack.

The Heritage Foundation points to a two-page timeline sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform outlining 13 known threats in less than six months.

“It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” wrote House Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) in an Oct. 2 letter to Clinton. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

The committee is holding a hearing Wednesday (“The Security Failures of Benghazi“) with Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene R. Lamb, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, Utah National Guard’s Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, and Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy providing testimony.

Also Wednesday, Heritage hosted an event, “Intelligence and Security Failure: Attacks in Benghazi and Across the Middle East Reveal Ongoing Threat of Terrorism” in which national security and intelligence experts argued that the loss of life in the Sept. 11 attack was a direct result of security and intelligence failures, as well as the Obama administration’s blindness to the other side of the coin of dictatorships falling in the Arab Spring.

Posted by Allen McDuffee on October 10, 2012  Heritage Foundation

The Jobs Question ...

I wonder ...


Now put on your football headgear and dig down deep to try and get this question right, football fan or not.

A Football Question?

Last year.....after the Packers / Bills game, Buffalo released quarterback Trent Edwards.

During the Packers / Eagles game, the Packers injured
Philadelphia quarterback Kevin Kolb.

Philadelphia then had to play backup quarterback Michael Vick.

During a playoff game against the Eagles, the Packers injured Michael Vick and another backup was needed.

After the Packers / Cowboys game, Dallas fired Wade Phillips and most of his staff .

After the Packers / Vikings game, Minnesota fired Brad Childress and most of his staff.

Four weeks after losing to the Packers, the 49er's coach Mike Singletary and most of his staff were fired and replaced.

During the Bears Playoff game, the Packers injured Jay Cutler and backup Todd Collins forcing the Bears to go with 3rd string quarterback Caleb Hanie.

So here's the question...



Is it just me ... 
or did the Packers ...
create more jobs last year ...
than Obama?

Holder ... He Led Armed Takeover

As a college student, 

the now Attorney General 

Eric Holder

participated in the  

Armed Takeover 

of the Columbia University 

ROTC office

Future U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is seen in the 1973 yearbook of Columbia University in New York City. He graduated from the Ivy League school that year. (Image courtesy of "University Archives, Columbia University in the City of New York.

Barack Obama Appointed and Continues to support and affirm this Radical Racist who was a leader in an armed takeover at Columbia University.

The only way the president and the mainstream media missed this type of anti-American activity is that they apparently support it and deliberately ignore it. Is it now any wonder why Holder chose not to prosecute the Black Panther thugs at the voting booths?

As a freshman at Columbia University in 1970, future Attorney General Eric Holder participated in a five-day occupation of an abandoned Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) headquarters with a group of black students later described by the university’s Black Students’ Organization as “armed,” The Daily Caller has learned.

Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler has not responded to questions from The Daily Caller about whether Holder himself was armed — and if so, with what sort of weapon.

Holder was then among the leaders of the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS), which demanded that the former ROTC office be renamed the “Malcolm X Lounge.” The change, the group insisted, was to be made “in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood.”

Black radicals from the same group also occupied the office of Dean of Freshman Henry Coleman until their demands were met. Holder has publicly acknowledged being a part of that action.

The details of the student-led occupation, including the claim that the raiders were “armed,” come from a deleted Web page of the Black Students’ Organization (BSO) at Columbia, a successor group to the SAAS. Contemporary newspaper accounts in The Columbia Daily Spectator, a student newspaper, did not mention weapons.

Holder, now the United States’ highest-ranking law enforcement official, has given conflicting accounts of this episode during college commencement addresses at Columbia, but both the BSO’s website and the Daily Spectator have published facts that conflict with his version of events.

Holder has bragged about his involvement in the “rise of black consciousness” protests at Columbia.

“I was among a large group of students who felt strongly about the way we thought the world should be, and we weren’t afraid to make our opinions heard,” he said during Columbia’s 2009 commencement exercises. “I did not take a final exam until my junior year at Columbia — we were on strike every time finals seemed to roll around — but we ran out of issues by that third year.”

Though then-Dean Carl Hovde declared the occupation of the Naval ROTC office illegal and said it violated university policy, the college declined to prosecute any of the students involved. This decision may have been made to avoid a repeat of violent Columbia campus confrontations between police and members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1968.

The ROTC headquarters was ultimately renamed the Malcolm X lounge as the SAAS organization demanded. It later became a hang-out spot for another future U.S. leader, Barack Obama, according to David Maraniss’ best-selling ”Barack Obama: The Story.”

Holder told Columbia University’s graduating law students during a 2010 commencement speech that the 1970 incident happened “during my senior year,” but Holder was a freshman at the time. “Several of us took one of our concerns — that black students needed a designated space to gather on campus — to the Dean [of Freshmen office. This being Columbia, we proceeded to occupy that office.”

Holder also claimed in his 2009 speech that he and his fellow students decided to “peacefully occupy one of the campus offices.” In contrast, the BSO’s website recounted its predecessor organization’s activities by noting that “in 1970, a group of armed black students (the SAAS) seized the abandoned ROTC office.”

While that website is no longer online, a snapshot of its content from September 2010 is part of the archive.org database.

In a December 2010 GQ magazine profile of Holder, one of his Columbia friends confirmed that he and Holder were both part of the ROTC office takeover.

Holder particularly “connected with four other African-American students” at Columbia, correspondent Wil S. Hylton wrote. “We took over the ROTC lounge in Hartley Hall and created the Malcolm X Lounge,” said a laughing Steve Sims, one of those students.

Hylton described Sims as “the attorney general’s closest friend” and “a man Holder describes as his ‘consigliere.’”

By Charles C. Johnson and Ryan Girdusky The Daily Caller 09/30/2012

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/30/as-college-sophomore-eric-holder-participated-in-armed-takeover-of-former-columbia-university-rotc-office/#ixzz284Y5n1rP

Where Evil Lurks

Do Democrats Own The Terms 'Racism" and "Lying"?

Democrats have run a number on Republicans.

They have skillfully captured certain words in the American lexicon and redefined them, applying Democrat-themed meanings for the specific purpose of cowing Republicans into silence and submission. I have watched the escalation of this vocabulary abuse for almost a decade, and I am sorry to say, this particular Democrat scheme is working.

Republicans seem afraid to speak the unvarnished truth about Democrat party leaders for fear of reprisals in the mainstream media, an organization that has repeatedly proved that it is indisputably in the tank for Barack Obama.

What are Republicans afraid to say?

Republicans seem afraid to say that Barack Obama, 44th president of the United States, seems to be a racist and a liar whose clumsy, inexperienced efforts at leadership have put our nation’s economy and our citizens’ safety in jeopardy and has proven incompetent and unfit for office.

Meanwhile, Democrats seem quite comfortable throwing labels of “racism” and “lying” about freely when they attack Republicans, comfortable in the knowledge that no Republican dare do the same. With full support and acquiescence from a compromised media that long ago lost its objectivity, charges of “racism” and “lying” have morphed into an Orwellian fog, becoming purely political terms to browbeat Republicans, allowing Democrat leaders to dodge the discussion of tough issues.

Americans have seen “racist” tendencies from Democrats who reflexively jump to the assumption that any white Republican who disagrees with Obama’s failed policies is doing so because Obama is a Black man. Meanwhile, many Democrats openly support Obama for the simple reason that he is Black. Furthermore, Obama’s surrogates are quick to circle the wagons and level accusations of “racism” should anyone point out their obvious, raced-based prejudices.

When Obama was elected president by a majority of Americans, it sure seemed that the race-baiting which went on during the 2008 campaign would finally have to be put to rest. But, in the past three years since Obama’s election, the “racist” moniker seems to be flung about with even more frequency than before the election.

In addition, too many Democrats have shown that they do not understand the definition of racism and, instead, seems to think that racism is a one-way street—that it only exists as a White against Black issue. In reality, any person who immediately assumes that a person’s actions towards them are solely based on one’s ethnic origin may be exhibiting symptoms of racism.

Still, almost anyone who criticizes Obama and the Democrats’ failed policies is labeled as a “racist”. When Black Republicans, such as me, criticize the president’s failed policies, Democrats know that the “racist” moniker won’t work, so instead, we are attacked as “traitors to our race”, or the media tries to portray us as stupid or corrupt.

But if a president’s policies are bad, if they fail to achieve their objectives (such as Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Caulkers, green energy investment initiatives, the “summer of recovery” or the Stimulus) is it really “racist” to criticize the policy or to think that the American people deserve better—even if the policy is advocated by a Black man? Is it “racist” to criticize the president because he has failed to submit a viable budget to congress for the past four years, or just incompetence on the part of the president?

The president also seems to be a liar. According to Webster, a liar is “a person who tells lies”, who deliberately “makes an untrue statement with the intent to deceive; to create a false or misleading impression.”

Isn’t that exactly what Obama has done when he says: he didn’t really know or hear the Rev. Jeremiah Wright preach anti-American sentiments, or when he writes about events that are patently untrue in his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, or when Obama deliberately tells lies about Romney and Bain Capital, or when Obama deliberately lies about the debt ceiling, or when Obama tries to claim the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya was not terrorism?

What about other Democrat leaders? Such as when Harry Reid claims that Mitt Romney didn’t pay his taxes? Or whenEric Holder says he knew nothing about Fast and Furious? Or when Elizabeth Warren claims she is part Native American so she can game a hiring system which is tilted in favor of quotas and minorities?

In the past three and a half years, Republicans have worn out the pages of the thesaurus looking for euphemisms for lying. Republican punditry, speeches and writings are chock full of alternatives: mislead, mischaracterize, misrepresent, untruth, misspeak, prevaricate, fabricate, story, taradiddle, fairy tale, inaccurate, falsehoods, dishonest, distortion, whopper, canard, deceit, stretching the truth.

Supposedly, according to Republican “strategists”, using the word “lie” is too direct, too brutal, too hostile and might coarsen the dialogue between political parties. Using the word “liar”, they contend, would lead to vicious attacks from the mainstream media and would cause Republicans to lose respect or votes or the moral high ground. But, I would hate to hear what these Republican pundits think is too coarse or too harsh, if they think that the attacks from Democrat leaders over the past few years have been friendly banter.

When did our country slip so far, fall so low, that we have become so handcuffed by political correctness that we are unable to call a thing by its true name? Socrates understood that watering down one’s language does not change the truth or make it more palatable, just more confusing.

Our founding fathers understood that too. Our founding fathers were some of the most courageous and least politically correct folks of their century (think Ben Franklin).

Their willingness to speak the truth as they saw it may be one of the reasons why they had the courage to attack tyranny and hypocrisy and hold up the flawed policies of a greedy and ignorant king for the world to see, and in doing so, lay the foundations for the greatest free government in the history of the world.

Republicans need to stop being cowed by rants of “racism” and they need to stop trying to find ways to soften the reality of Obama’s widespread and repeated deceptions.

Perhaps Wednesday’s debate might be a great place to start.

 Lurita Doan Townhall.com 10/1/2012

Defining Racism

A Vote For Abortion

Last week a former abortionist ... 

who admits to having committed around 1200 abortions, appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee. 

A short while later ... 

the Democrats rejected a bill 

that would have stopped this evil in DC.

This past year, we have witnessed the worst 
forms of the evil of men on the Internet. 

Only yesterday ... the Chinese government driving a street flattening machine over a man who was protesting the unfair confiscation of his home. The brutal murder of our Ambassador to Libya by Islamic crazies.  Chainsaw be-headings by drug cartel maniacs on our Mexican border to serve as a warning. And innocent Christians being burned alive by Sunni Muslims in Nigeria.

Evil men and their evil deeds are ...
 alive and well in our world today.

As evil as these acts are, how could they be any worse than the killing and dismemberment of live fully formed babies as clearly explained by the abortion doctor above? This testimony was before a congressional committee earlier this year. (Please note that it's difficult to listen to this clip, but there are no actual pictures of the evil.)

These abortions are carried out every day. 
That is 3,425 babies murdered today and 
two dead babies each and every minute. 

We need to keep this in mind when we go to the polls. 
The vote for or against these abortions is ongoing as well. 

The Democrats in congress overwhelmingly voted against limiting the worst form of these killings including partial birth abortions ... 

The Democrats cast these votes ...
even after listening to this doctor's testimony. 

And of course, if re-elected President Obama's deliberate and certain pro-abortion judicial appointments will continue and expand this evil daily throughout the next American generation. 

On the other hand, a victory that will lead to the reduction in the number of these late term abortions is only one supreme court appointment away. 

We must stop the ongoing cold-blooded murder of these innocent babies. 

This is the most important issue facing all American voters. 

A vote for Democrats is a vote for Abortion ...

A vote for Abortion is a vote for murder.

The congressional hearing was on the so-called Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would have banned abortions after 20 weeks in D.C., based upon the fact that unborn babies can experience pain at that stage of pregnancy.

Dr. Anthony Levatino, who has since turned his life around and is now pro-life, was speaking in favor of the ban. And his testimony is perhaps the most brutal explanation you will ever hear for why abortion is evil - plain and simple.

For those who may be tempted to write off Levatino’s testimony because he’s just “another pro-life nutjob,” it’s interesting how his testimony has eerie echoes to that of notorious late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart, who is still involved in the gruesome trade. 

During a preliminary injunction hearing in a US District Court in 1997 on the issue of late-term abortions, Carhart testified that he would sometimes dismember advanced-stage unborn babies during abortions, while the babies were still alive. Carhart described in detail the process of grasping the limb of the baby to be removed, and then twisting it off. 

When asked if the babies usually die during the process of dismemberment, Carhart responded, 

“I don’t really know. I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see the fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.”

If these babies were  killed during the commission of the robbery or assault of a woman ... it is murder. 

How can these evil deeds ever be 
considered as anything other than ... 

cold-blooded murder?

"For You formed my inward parts;

You wove me in my mother’s womb ...

My frame was not hidden from You

When I was made in secret,

And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;

Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;

And in Your book were all written

The days that were ordained for me,

When as yet there was not one of them."

Psalm 139: 13-16

Obama Versus Obama

Obama Versus Obama  

Thomas Sowell  -- Sep 25, 2012  --  Townhall.com  

 Many voters will be comparing Mitt Romney with Barack Obama between now and election day. But what might be even more revealing would be comparing Obama with Obama. There is a big contrast between Obama based on his rhetoric ("Obama 1") and Obama based on his record ("Obama 2").

For example, during the 2008 election campaign, Obama 1 spoke of "opening up and creating more transparency in government," so that government spending plans would be posted on the Internet for days before they passed into legislation. After he was elected president, Obama said, "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government."

This Obama 1 sounds like a very good fellow. No wonder so many people voted for him.

But then there is Obama 2. He passed a mammoth ObamaCare bill so fast that even members of Congress didn't have time to read it, much less the general public. It was by no means posted on the Internet for days before the vote, as promised.

The Constitution of the United States requires transparency as well. When people are nominated by a President to become Cabinet members, the Constitution requires that they be confirmed by the Senate before they can take office, so that facts about them can become known before they are given the powers of their offices.

Although President Obama complied with this requirement when he appointed Cabinet members, he also made other appointments to powerful positions created by Executive Orders -- people aptly called "czars" for the vast, unchecked powers they wielded, in some cases greater than the powers exercised by Cabinet members.

These "czars" never had to be confirmed by the Senate, and so had no public vetting before acquiring their powers. We had unknown and unaccountable rulers placed over us.

Another aspect of transparency was the Constitution's requirement that Congress pass a budget every year. The Democratically controlled Senate during the Obama administration has not passed a budget for three consecutive years.

Passing a budget makes the administration tell the public what it will pay for, what it will have to cut to reduce the deficit -- and how big the deficit will be if they don't cut anything. By not even passing a budget, Obama 2 and his party are in effect saying to the public, "It is none of your business." Transparency?

In his oath of office, Barack Obama swore to see that the laws are faithfully executed, as all Presidents do. But that was Obama 1. Once in the White House, Obama 2 proceeded to explicitly waive the enforcement of laws he didn't agree with.

The immigration laws are a classic example. Failing to get Congress to pass some version of amnesty, Obama 2 simply issued an Executive Order exempting certain classes of illegal immigrants from the immigration laws on the books.

Too many people have gotten sucked into a discussion of whether it is a good or a bad thing for people brought into the country as children to be exempted. But the whole reason for Constitutional government is to have all three branches of government agree on what the laws of the land shall be.

Obama 2 has decided instead that if Congress doesn't do what he wants, he will do it by himself through Executive Orders.

If any President can unilaterally change the law, we are not likely to have the same freedom under rule by presidential fiat as under Constitutional government. This is especially dangerous in a President's second term, when he need no longer have to consider what the voters want. With a couple more Supreme Court appointments he can permanently change the very nature of American government.

One of the most dangerous examples of a lack of transparency was inadvertently revealed last March when Obama 2, unaware that a microphone was on, told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that, after he is reelected, and never has to face the voters again, he will have the "flexibility" to make a deal with Russia on missile defense systems.

In other words, Obama will be able to make a deal with a country that has been America's most implacable and most formidable adversary for more than half a century -- a deal he couldn't make if the voters knew about it before the election. Think about that chilling prospect, and what it reveals about the real Obama.

Obama Versus Obama  -- Thomas Sowell  -- Sep 25, 2012  --  Townhall.com  

25 Questions For Obama

25 Critical Questions 

for ABC-NBC-CBS-NYT-

NPR-CNN-WASHPO-LAT ...

to ask Obama

President Obama's idea of speaking to the American people is to go on network talk shows, put on a big smile and basically say nothing. These are the questions America needs answered. 

The president has had four years to come up with answers ... 

What are your plans ... President Obama?

Hello Mainstream media. Thanks for coming. I invited you here to ask when is the last time any of you fearless pros asked the president as direct and challenging a question as these two hardballs he faced last week at Univision, the Spanish language network:

"I think up to 100 Mexicans might have died (in Operation Fast and Furious) and also American agent Brian Terry. There's a report that 14 agents were responsible for the operation, but shouldn't the attorney general, Eric Holder…have known about that and if he didn't, should you fire him?"

"You promised [immigration reform] and a promise is a promise. And with all due respect, you didn't keep that promise."

Those are some respectful zingers doing just what the press is supposed to: holding political leaders accountable for their words and actions. So, can you think of any tough question you’ve put to him lately? As in, sometime this term?

You don’t really want to look like lap dog sycophants, do you?  Good. Then here are a few suggestions:

Ask him if his policies toward the Middle East may have contributed to current violence there.

Specifically, did his decision to pressure Mubarak out of Egypt and to forcibly remove Qaddafi from Libya enable radical elements hostile to the US to rise to power?

Ask him if his overall approach to engaging the Muslim world has produced positive results.

Ask him why, after the attacks on Egyptian, Libyan, and other embassies, his administration immediately asserted the fiction they were spontaneous demonstrations of religious grievance at an obscure internet clip critical of Mohammed.

Ask why for over a week it denied there was a deliberate targeting of America by terrorist groups on the anniversary of September 11th.  Ask him if it’s true the State Department had warnings of likely attacks in the Middle East at least 48 hours before they occurred.

Ask him, with or without warnings, why are American embassies in some of the most dangerous places on earth essentially unguarded? Will secretary of State Clinton be held accountable for this failure to protect American personnel?

Speaking of Obama team players, will any of you professional skeptics ask Harry Reid if he plans to apologize to Mitt Romney for falsely accusing him of paying no taxes for 10 years? And if he doesn’t, then why not?

Will any of you ask the president how he can serve all Americans, as he pointedly told David Letterman is his job, if he doesn’t even know what the national debt is or what he has added to it?

When the president declares he “saved the auto industry,” will you ask him if he thinks Ford Motor Company and the American plants of Toyota, Honda, and Nissan aren’t also part of the American auto industry?

Ask him—if Chrysler and GM couldn’t pay their bills--what he thinks would have happened if bankruptcy law had been allowed to operate in a normal way?  Would Americans’ demand for cars have been less? Wouldn’t Chrysler’s and GM’s assets have been sold in an orderly way to leaner competitors or start up companies, who would have created new jobs and joined other suppliers to serve the American market?

Will you ask if it isn’t it more accurate to say he saved the ruinous pay, benefits, and pensions of the United Auto Workers that GM and Chrysler employed, and did it by lawlessly ripping equity out of the hands of secured creditors and bondholders and gifting it to the labor unions?

And, isn’t it true that the happy talk a while back about GM paying back its loans was highly misleading, as in essentially false? That wasn’t income from auto sales, was it, just federal stimulus grants that GM turned around and handed back to the government? And don’t taxpayers still hold a major chunk of GM ownership in billions of devalued stock? And isn’t the company’s survival still very much in doubt?

Will you ask him if this is really a success story, or likely a terribly costly, vote-buying boondoggle that just hasn’t played out yet?

Those are just a few starters. If you all think about it, there are a lot of fastballs you could throw over the left edge of the plate—if your peripheral vision reaches there.

Shawn Mitchell  Townhall .com    9/24/2012

And here are a few more questions Bob West would like to ask.

The Islamic Jihadist enemies are now rioting in over 25 locations throughout the Middle East. Isn’t this clear evidence that your policies in dealing with these radicals is a dismal failure?

Ask him why did you vote against the Keystone Pipeline when it is clear that thousands of good jobs would have been created and it clearly would help our neighbor and help get off of mid-east oil?

Ask why do you refuse to assist our border states in the closing of our borders?

And why have you sealed your college transcripts and your passport records?

Here is a zinger ... What did you mean when you told the Russian president, Medevev; “This is my last election, after my election I will have more flexibility” Does this mean you plan to force a hidden agenda on America? If not tell us now … what are your plans for us after the election that we do not know about?

We need to know this one. With 53% of college graduates  either unemployed or working at a job that doesn’t require a degree. How will America turn this economy around to provide real  private sector jobs for our graduates?

Now lets go where the rubber meets the road. Is it true that you believe America would be better off with $10 a gallon gas and at double our current energy costs? 
If not, what did you mean when you said with your plan, energy prices must necessarily skyrocket?

Cap and trade is your stated plan for energy. Since the majority of Americans don’t want cap and trade, why has your administration chosen to regulate it into existence?

And Why MR. President … when you said you would unite America, did you decide to force your healthcare plan down the throats of the more than 50% of Americans who do not want it?

Isn’t the printing of money a hidden tax on all Americans in the form higher prices for all goods and services? Doesn't this money printing harm and deceive the poor most of all?

You said no new taxes for the middle class and then you passed a number of taxes … why did you lie?

No more roads and bridges or shovel ready rhetoric. What is your plan to stimulate private sector jobs?

Since your plan to increase taxes on the rich will have basically no impact on the deficit. And the printing of 40 billion in phony money each month is suicidal … What is your real solution for the American economy?

Every hour in America two viable babies are aborted late term. Since these babies would live if delivered Cesarean or otherwise doesn’t it bother you that these babies are being murdered? What is your plan to defend the rights of these unborn citizens?

You said; “we are gonna punish our friends and reward our enemies” … How can you serve all Americans when you plan on punishing 50% of the nation because they do not agree with you?

There are so many more questions to ask Obama. Hopefully Romney will be ready. We certainly cannot rely on the mainstream media to be objective or do their job.