American Grand Jury
Monday, July 26th, 2010
Judges evade Obama birth-certificate query
July 26th, 2010
Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suddenly have abandoned plans to assess damages against an attorney whose clients are challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president after he argued that if there was to be punishment, he would have the right to know whether the defendants could have mitigated their injury by publicly releasing Obama’s birth documentation.
The decision came from Judge Dolores Sloviter in the Kerchner vs. Obama case handled by attorney Mario Apuzzo. The court had ordered Apuzzo to explain why defense costs shouldn’t be assessed against him for the “frivolous” appeal.
However, her newest order denied Apuzzo’s request to reconsider the case and stated “based on Mr. Apuzzo’s explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause.”
The case was filed against Obama, Congress and others just before Obama was sworn into office, arguing that Obama was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen.
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery!
“We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that he is at least a ‘citizen of the United States’ under the Fourteenth Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii,” the lawsuit claims.
Apuzzo represents Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.
Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, the House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”
The district court rejected the case based on issues of “standing” and never addressed the core issues presented. The appellate court did the same.
But Apuzzo had explained to the court that under standard rules of judicial procedure, while they allow for damages to be assessed in “frivolous” cases – even though the district never made that ruling – there also is a responsibility on the part of the defendants to mitigate their damages.
In this case, he asked the court to “enforce my right to discover whether defendants had a copy of the [certificate of live birth, Obama's] 1961 long-form birth certificate, and related documents showing that Obama was born in Hawaii which they could have simply shared [with] … the Kerchner plaintiffs.”
He said had those actions taken place and the documents been provided, the plaintiffs “would not have come into existence.”
That disclosure, he argued, “would have mitigated the damages and costs they now claim they suffered from having to defend plaintiffs’ appeal.”
“To confirm the veracity of the defendants’ representations, I also have a right under (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) 26(a)(1) and 26(b)(1) to receive a copy of those documents,” he argued. “Should the court be inclined to find that I am liable for defendants’ damages and costs, I also request that the court defer entering judgment on damages and costs until I have had an opportunity to address the amount of damages claimed by defendants, the issue of proximate cause, and whether defendants satisfied their burden to mitigate those damages.
“So that I may have a meaningful opportunity to present defenses to defendants’ claim of damages and costs, including showing that defendants have failed to mitigate their claimed damages, I am requesting limited discovery of Obama’s (certificate of live birth), his 1961 long-form birth certificate, and any documents that may be relevant in showing where Obama was born, along with a hearing on the record at which I will have a fair opportunity to present witnesses, evidence and defenses to the defendants’ claim of damages and costs,” he wrote.
The court’s response was to drop the “Order to Show Cause” almost immediately, referencing only Apuzzo’s “research.”
Apuzzo told WND the case, which now is being prepared for the U.S. Supreme Court, probably was impacted by his explanation of his rights and his suggestion a simple disclosure of Obama’s birth documentation could have resolved the issue and “mitigated” the defendants’ claimed damages.
He also said it’s essential to obtain a decision from the highest court in the land, because, of the multitude of cases that have been brought over the eligibility issue, virtually none has addressed the question itself. All have been decided on “standing” or other side issues.
“Only the Supreme Court can decide the issue in the context of Article 2 standing,” he said.
He explained Obama can claim no special privacy rights to his birth documentation since his campaign already has posted online an image of a “Certification of Live Birth,” a document critics say was available to children not born in Hawaii at the time. Documents supporting the birth certificate also should be public, Apuzzo argued.
Posted by Bob Filed in Barack Obama, Court Eligibility Cases, Eligibility Attorneys
Migrants sell up, flee Arizona ahead of crackdown
July 26th, 2010
PHOENIX, July 25 (Reuters) – Nicaraguan mother Lorena Aguilar hawks a television set and a few clothes on the baking sidewalk outside her west Phoenix apartment block.
A few paces up the street, her undocumented Mexican neighbor Wendi Villasenor touts a kitchen table, some chairs and a few dishes as her family scrambles to get out of Arizona ahead of a looming crackdown on illegal immigrants.
“Everyone is selling up the little they have and leaving,” said Villasenor, 31, who is headed for Pennsylvania. “We have no alternative. They have us cornered.”
The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.
The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day laborers, landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of Arizona, which borders Mexico.
It makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime and requires state and local police, during lawful contact, to investigate the status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant.
The U.S. government estimates 100,000 unauthorized migrants left Arizona after the state passed an employer sanctions law three years ago requiring companies to verify workers’ status using a federal computer system. There are no figures for the number who have left since the new law passed in April.
Some are heading back to Mexico or to neighboring states. Others are staying put and taking their chances.
In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.
On Saturday and Sunday, Reuters counted dozens of impromptu yard sales in Latino neighborhoods in central and west Phoenix/
“They wanted to drive Hispanics out of Arizona and they have succeeded even before the law even comes into effect,” said Aguilar, 28, a mother of three young children who was also offering a few cherished pictures and a stereo at one of five sales on the same block.
She said she had taken in just $20 as “everyone is selling and nobody wants to buy.”
Comment by American Grand Jury:
Reuters is trying to write a “sob” story here. They feel so bad for the illegals having to leave Arizona. The timing is long overdue.. it is time that the illegals are forced off their lazy butts to leave Arizona. They have been sponging off the the welfare State for years now. Good riddance.. don’t let the door hit you on the fanny on your way out! Arizona is not worried.. we will survive! Once the dust settles people will start moving to Arizona just to live in a legal and “non-sanctuary” State.
Posted by Bob Filed in BS Meter is High, Illegal Aliens and Immigration
The Productive Class and the American Aristocracy
July 26th, 2010
This is somewhat of a long article but very well written. If you are interested in learning how American “snobs” think and handle their affairs this is a good summation. Snobbery never changes.. you can read all about it in the Bible. What is critically wrong with America’s ruling class is the darkside.. they all worship the devil either directly or indirectly.. money, power and control is their game plan.. using and abusing are their functions.. hate, poverty, racism, condemnation are just a few of their methods.
As the hostilities between the current government and the Tea Party movement have become increasingly rancorous, the division of American society into two cultures holding thoroughly incompatible worldviews has become obvious. In fact, the two forces are clearly on an unavoidable collision course. Although many people may understandably be most interested in knowing which side will prevail, I think an equally important and troubling question is precisely by what means the matter will be resolved. Will reason prevail and the people in power either have their agenda confirmed or step aside gracefully? Or will there be intransigence, increasing conflict, and even violence?
I do not believe that the answer to that question is by any means obvious.
In his excellent American Spectator article on “America’s Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution,” Angelo Codevilla calls these two antagonistic and irreconcilable groups the ruling class and the country party. Although I agree with Codevilla’s outline of the two groups, I prefer to characterize them as the progressive aristocracy and the productive class. In fact, I think that it’s vitally important for those in the productive class to understand that what Codevilla calls the ruling party is an aristocracy, albeit a corrupt one.
Differences in nomenclature notwithstanding, Codevilla’s article is particularly useful in its lengthy descriptions of the two parties to the conflict, for they are more than just political movements and are in fact separate cultures. The culture of the progressive aristocracy is devoted to statism, whereas the productive class tends to hold classical liberal values.
Unlike their voters, who are in the country party and adhere tenaciously to their values, Republican politicians are eager to join the aristocracy, Codevilla observes:
Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class. . . . Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind.
Rush Limbaugh read extensively from Codevilla’s article on his radio program on Tuesday, and he correctly noted that Republican politicians’ position on the edge of the aristocracy makes them extremely insecure and manipulable by the Democrats:
The Republicans want to be even more accepted in the ruling class. They want to be even more powerful. They want to be considered part of it. They want to be in the clique.
To that I would add many of those serving in conservative think tanks, foundations, advocacy groups, publications, and websites. They provide the intellectual cover for Republicans eager to flatter their way into what they fancy will be real membership in the aristocracy. Thus Limbaugh rightly observes, “Our battle is as much with those in the Republican Party who defend statism as with the radicals in the Democrat Party.”
Codevilla notes that this ruling class is nothing like the American leaders of the past, who came from truly diverse backgrounds and held a variety of beliefs while accepting the nation’s founding values. And unlike most past aristocracies, which were based on heredity, the progressive aristocracy is based on commitment to a set of ideas. Foremost among these is hostility toward Christianity: “While the unenlightened ones believe that man is created in the image and likeness of God and that we are subject to His and to His nature’s laws, the enlightened ones know that we are products of evolution, driven by chance, the environment, and the will to primacy,” Codevilla writes.
Posted by Bob Filed in AGJ Public Service, Guest Contributors
Multiple Ranches In Laredo, TX, Taken Over By Los Zetas
July 25th, 2010
Publisher’s Note: We are now receiving numerous conflicting reports regarding the veracity of this article. Numerous sources on the web (found via Google search) are picking up on this report, just as we did at The Cypress Times. The original writer for this article stands by his sources. If you wish to inquire about the sources, please visit the original story source URL listed in the article body below. I can tell you that as of now The Cypress Times has been unable to confirm the story. – John G. Winder, Publisher – The Cypress Times.
UPDATE: Story is now 100% confirmed by second source within the Laredo Police Department
The bloodbath continues along our southern border and now word is coming in that Los Zetas, the highly trained killers formerly with the Gulf Cartel, have crossed into the United States and taken over at least two ranches in the Laredo, Texas area. I am receiving word that the owners of the ranches have evacuated without being harmed.
Founder of the San Diego Minutemen Jeff Schwilk tipped me off to this story and passes along the following information on the location. The ranches are said to be “near Mines Rd. and Minerales Annex Rd about 10 miles NW of I-35″.
Update – Statement from Mr. Schwilk:
I can personally vouch that this info came in late last night from a reliable police source inside the Laredo PD. There is currently a standoff between the unknown size Zeta forces and U.S. Border Patrol and local law enforcement on two ranches on our side of the Rio Grande. The source tells us he considers this an “act of war” and that the military is needed on the border now!
Comment by American Grand Jury:
This is serious business.. we have a Commander-in-Thief sitting on his dead ass crying “racism” and suing the State of Arizona claiming we have no right to protect ourselves. Well Usurper Obama, you are full of hot air. WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT! By the way, what is going on in Texas has been happening here in Arizona for a long time. We have had Mexican drug gangs operating in the State for years. They may have not taken control of any ranches yet but they have killed citizens in our State, including one prominent Rancher in Southern Arizona. We have all kinds of problems in Phoenix with kidnappings, murder and drug trafficking.. compliments of Mexico and the illegal alien problem.
We need the Feds to send in the troops and close down our Southern border.. what about it Usurper? Are you going to protect this Nation? Oh, I forgot, you don’t give a crap about this Nation.. you aren’t even a US “natural born” citizen. Your allegiance is to the Muslim world not America.
NEW Information:
Not sure what to believe but I received this from one of our American Grand Jury members. It seems logical. I hope this is indeed true and the local authorities have it under control.
Here is the update:
Regulator wrote on Jul 25, 2010 4:03 PM:
“Here is the deal on Laredo, Yes they are having trouble and yes A Ranch was taken over.. BUT tx rangers, pd and sheriffs are working with some fed agents. The people are contained in one location. The group is surrounded by both Mexican law enforcement and ours…, It is not that particular gang but a group that are trying to excape the Mexican Gov… After speaking directly with the mayor in Laredo, I am at ease they have this situation under control… Also The mayor said HE is the one calling for the media blackout because he does not want “all the militias and citizens” coming down there and literally starting a war.”
Additional Comment by American Grand Jury:
I hear from a lot of Obots that AGJ is just trying to spread propaganda.. No, that is not true. I leave that up to the Obots. That is their field of expertise. When we find a story that has been shaded so to speak we make an effort to repost the truth. Now I don’t really know what is going on in Laredo. I hope for the best, I really do. No one wants to see Mexican cartel thugs invade our country. The truth of the matter is they are already here and have been for years. The drug cartels have infested many of our cities.
THE REAL ISSUE is we have an illegal alien invasion in this country and it is fast becoming a powder keg waiting to explode. Obama is doing nothing about it and his incompetence has reached “treasonous” levels. The man would really rather play golf than defend our borders. I support Arizona 100% in their efforts to deal with the problem. If the progressives want to call it racism then so be it. We all know the real truth. This is about protecting the welfare system, Democratic votes and power structure in this Country. It has nothing to do with racism. Those that stand in protest and preach “racism” are really saying they want something for nothing.. walking across a border and sponging off the system doesn’t convey any citizenship rights. Again, it is simply wanting the taxpayer in this Country to do something for illegals that their own Country won’t do for them. Go back to Mexico and CHANGE your system of government to give you free welfare if that is what you want. That is what you are supposed to do. We don’t need your kind of change here in the United States.
Posted by Bob Filed in Arizona Immigration Lawsuits, Illegal Aliens and Immigration
Hearing on Arizona immigration law begins
July 24th, 2010
PHOENIX — A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause “irreparable harm” and intrude into federal immigration enforcement.
“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).
Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department’s argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is “preempted” by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.
“How is there a preemption issue?” the judge asked. “I understand there may be other issues, but you’re arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?”
At issue in Thursday’s hearing, argued in a tan-colored “special proceedings” courtroom” inside the federal courthouse, was whether Bolton would grant a preliminary injunction to stop the law from taking effect while the federal lawsuit proceeds.
As dozens of protesters marched outside, the hearing marked the first round in the Obama administration’s effort to stop the state’s crackdown on illegal immigration. The tension in the courtroom reflected a broader national debate over what has become a political divisive issue: whether police should have the power to question people they suspect are in the United States illegally.
“The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power,” Kneedler told a rapt courtroom. Brewer, whose fierce criticism of the federal lawsuit has helped her popularity at home, watched silently from the front row, drawing a “Good afternoon, Governor” from the judge.
Lawyers for Brewer argued with equal force that the legislation, scheduled to take effect July 29, is a legal expression of a sovereign state’s right to secure its borders against a tide of illegal immigration. The federal government, the lawyers said, has failed to act.
“We keep hearing that we can’t really do anything about these illegal aliens — Arizona should just deal with it,” said John J. Bouma, Arizona’s lead attorney. “Well, the status quo is simply unacceptable.”
The law, which Brewer signed in April, empowers police to question people they have a “reasonable suspicion” are illegal immigrants and to send them to federal authorities for possible deportation. President Obama has strongly condemned the law, and the Justice Department filed suit July 6, setting up an unusual clash between the federal government and a state over who should enforce the nation’s immigration laws.
Bolton did not indicate how she might rule, saying only that she will take the matter “under advisement.” But she did subject Justice Department lawyers to some pointed questions.
Comment by American Grand Jury:
This is going to be a landmark decision. I hope Judge Bolton has enough guts to take care of business. It is obvious that Obama and Holder are just trying to use this case as a Hispanic “racial” vote getting circus.
If the Feds don’t want to close the borders and get rid of the illegals, then Arizona has every right to do the job themselves.
It is not complicated: It is illegal to be in this Country without a Visa. If you break the law and enter the country illegally you should pay the price of being deported. EVERY OTHER COUNTRY in the world deports illegal aliens, some including extensive penalties, fines and jail time.
What makes America the “freeloader” capital of the world for a bunch of Mexicans to come here, abuse our laws, get free welfare and then openly state “they hate us.. Viva La Mexico..”
Bull-Schitt! Viva La America.. If you don’t like it, that’s tough! GO BACK to the dump you call Mexico. Most Americans have had it with this progressive-liberal nonsense. The taxpayers here are sick and damn tired of paying for your welfare, your children’s welfare.. and your country’s (Mexico) welfare.
Posted by Bob Filed in AGJ Public Service, Illegal Aliens and Immigration
Ex-congressman: President a ‘threat,’ must be impeached
July 24th, 2010
‘We have man in White House who brazenly disregards his oath of office’
A former congressman and GOP presidential candidate says for current members of the House and Senate to uphold their oath of office that includes the defense of the United States against enemies “foreign and domestic,” they need to be filing impeachment charges against Barack Obama.
Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., joined what has become a growing surge of those recommending the ultimate solution for a president they believe not only has disagreeable policies, but is participating in actions that damage the nation.
Tancredo wrote in a opinion piece in the Washington Times that, “Mr. Obama’s refusal to live up to his own oath of office – which includes the duty to defend the United States against foreign invasion – requires senators and representatives to live up to their oaths. Members of Congress must defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, that means bringing impeachment charges against Mr. Obama.”
The ultimate guide to Obama’s radical agenda – and how to stop it!
Tancredo is not the first to raise the idea of impeachment against Obama, who has implemented legislation and policies effectively nationalizing financial institutions, automobile companies, health care and many other previously private interests.
In fact, he was not even the only person on this particular day. Times columnist Jeffrey T. Kuhner, who also is president of the Edmund Burke Institute, wrote at the same time, “President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.”
Kuhner continued, “He is slowly – piece by painful piece – erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there – yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela’s leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above – one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It’s time for him to go.”
Tancredo’s arguments aren’t complicated. During his brief presidential run in 2008 he focused on the border security issue of the United States, and he still is concerned that the failure to secure the U.S. boundary – especially with Mexico – will lead to tragic consequences at the hands of border-crossing terrorists.
Tancredo appeared on Fox News today to defend his position from skeptics, saying Obama’s responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution and the United States, not “fundamentally transform” them.
“Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms,” Tancredo warns, affirming his belief that Obama is more dangerous for the United States than al-Qaida.
“He is more dangerous simply because he is inside,” he said. “Few people took him seriously about fundamentally transforming America. That is what he is all about. That is what he has set about doing. He is a committed ideologue. When you have someone like that in the White House, it is a scary proposition.”
He cited the president’s lack of action to adequately secure the border with Mexico.
“He’s putting his country in danger,” Tancredo said. “The country the Founders put together, that’s what’s in jeopardy.”
“Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress, but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law. Whether he is putting up the weakest possible defense of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the Justice Department’s legal obligation to support existing law; disenfranchising Chrysler and GM bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers; or implementing yet a third offshore oil-drilling moratorium even after two federal courts have thrown out two previous moratoriums, President Obama is determined to see things done his way regardless of obstacles,” Tancredo wrote in his op-ed.
“To Mr. Obama, the rule of law is a mere inconvenience to be ignored, overcome or ‘transcended’ through international agreements or ‘norms.’”
Tancredo wrote that the “dedicated Marxist who lives in the White House” holds power over budgets, the judiciary, national defense and health care. As such, “his regime and his program are not just about changing public policy in the conventional sense. When one considers the combination of his stop-at-nothing attitude, his contempt for limited government, his appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it – all of these make this president today’s single greatest threat to the great experiment in freedom that is our republic.
“Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al-Qaida. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents.”
Tancredo, who served five terms representing Colorado and now is chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation, was joined by Kuhner, who accused Obama of abusing his office and violating his oath.
Kuhner cited Obama’s demand that all Americans buy health insurance.
“The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power,” he wrote. “Yet Obamacare’s most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens.”
He further cited Obama’s actions regarding the BP oil spill.
“There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia’s Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda.”
He also wrote about the takeovers in the auto and financial industries, and the New Black Panther case.
“Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper,” he said. “As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site.”
Tancredo nearly two months ago broached the subject of impeachment, suggesting an “impeachment file.”
“I believe there is a growing body of evidence of impeachable offenses sufficient to warrant a formal impeachment resolution in the House, followed by a trial in the Senate,” he wrote at the time.
And the suggestion even has come from onlookers at a presidential appearance. CNN has documented when Obama made a surprise visit to a crowd on a shuttle bus, one onlooker shouted, “When are you going to quit. When are you going to be impeached?”
The issue even has appeared among online gamers, when Microsoft told an Xbox user the signon name “Impeach Obama” was not allowed because, “If you were President Obama, how would you feel if someone wanted to impeach you?”
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, in a column on WND, discussed the ImpeachObamaCampaign.com that they launched.
They reported that many, instead of examining the evidence, attacked the messengers.
“We expected these attacks,” they reported. But they said the unresolved issues include:
“Gerald Walpin, inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, investigated Kevin Johnson, a big buddy of the president, for misuse of funds from an AmeriCorps grant. Obama did not like Walpin’s investigation and findings, whereupon he vindictively fired Walpin to cover for his friend, Johnson. A subsequent investigation vindicated Walpin’s judgment in the matter. “Barack Obama oversaw the effective takeover by government of banks, the largest insurance company (AIG), General Motors and Chrysler – the bulk of the U.S. auto industry – thus stripping bondholders, shareholders and others of their personal property. “Barack Obama is actively pursuing cap-and-trade legislation. Instead of taxing the very air we breathe, it will instead, in a manner of speaking, tax the air we exhale, giving the government unprecedented control over the economy and American businesses. Those taxed businesses will then pass the fees onto the American people. “Spending American citizens’ money, Barack Hussein Obama is running up our debt at an alarming rate. In just the nine months since Obama assumed office, our national debt has gone up by over a trillion dollars. To put that figure in perspective, it took George W. Bush eight years to add $4.8 trillion to the national debt. “And, to add insult to injury, Obama is printing money like it’s going out of style. The effect will be hyperinflation, a crippling of our economy and, quite possibly, personal hardship on a scale that has not been experienced since the Great Depression. “Barack Hussein Obama appointed countless “czars” to oversee everything from the closing of Guantanamo to the food we eat. These czars don’t have to be approved by the Senate. The czars have unprecedented power and report only to Obama. Members of both parties are disturbed by these extra-constitutional excrescences. Sen. Robert Byrd said: “The accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances.” Rep. Jack Kingston called the czars a “parallel government.” “And finally, Obama consistently refuses to approve the release of his actual birth certificate, college transcripts and his medical records. Is he trying to hide something that will threaten his presidency?”
Retired U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, a noted military leader who now is a presence on the Internet with his Stand Up For America and Veterans Defenders websites, told WND he would like Obama to resign.
Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific, said, “We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetero (AKA President Barack Hussein Obama) … based on incompetence, deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty and violation of the U.S. oath of office and the Constitution.”
“We can wait no longer for a traditional change of power and new government,” he has warned.
“‘We the People’ have had enough. Enough is enough. The Obama White House and identifiable members of Congress are now on a progressive socialist, treasonous death march and are bankrupting and weakening the country. We have watched them violate their sacred oath of office. ‘We, the People’ cannot wait for and solely rely on the next round of elections in November of this year. It is now and each day that these public servants must put the citizen’s interests above self-interest by resigning immediately,” he said.
Peter Ferrara, on the American Spectator website, also has predicted Obama’s resignation.
“I am now ready to predict that President Obama will not even make it [to 2012],” he wrote. “I predict that he will resign in discredited disgrace before the fall of 2012,” Ferrera said.
Posted by Bob Filed in AGJ Public Service, Guest Contributors
Britain Plans to Decentralize National Health Care
July 24th, 2010
LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.
Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.
Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.
The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent.
Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.
[yeah, but tens of thousands of jobs would be created in the PRIVATE medical sector.. the NY Times are such communists.. always trying to push socialism]
And back on the homefront, even in light of the news coming out of England about trimming socialized medicine, our dear old communist friend, Harry “Ding-bat” Reid has announced new plans for Obamacare:
Reid to Netroots: “We’re Going To Have a Public Option”
by Phillip KleinLAS VEGAS — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, seeking to console liberal activists who were disappointed by the final version of the national health care law, assured them that there would eventually be a public option.
“We’re going to have a public option,” Reid said. “The only question is when.”
Reid’s general comments reflected the same overall message to progressives that President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered earlier today. It essentially boils down to: We’ve done a lot of stuff, but we still have a lot of unfinished business, so campaign for us again.
Comment by American Grand Jury:
If we get rid of Reid in November he will not have a chance to approve the public option. Reid can be voted out and Obama can be impeached. After that we will move to arrest Pelosi for treason. After all, she was the DNC Chairman that committed fraud by sworn affidavit when she failed to truthfully notify the Election officials in 49 States that Obama was ineligible to run [as Obama is NOT a "natural born" citizen].
Posted by Bob Filed in Uncategorized
Biden on drugs: ‘We created 3.0 million jobs’
July 23rd, 2010
Biden: ‘The heavy lifting is over’
The “heavy lifting is over” when it comes to the Obama administration’s legislative priorities this year, Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday evening.
Biden said now that Wall Street reform is finished and signed into law, the administration could go out and make its political case for its accomplishment. [er, he means Obama and Biden can hit the golf course on extended vacation]
“We can go out and make our case,” Biden said at a fundraiser in North Carolina, according to a pool report.
President Obama signed Wall Street reform into law earlier this week, and signed healthcare reform earlier this year. Last year, he signed into law the Lily Ledbetter fair pay act and his $787 billion stimulus act.
But in terms of other legislative priorities, a number of items remain on the table. The House has passed a climate change bill, but that legislation stalled in the Senate and is now forcing a scaled-back approach. Democrats in Congress have yet to tackle campaign finance reform, immigration reform and other top issues as well.
Biden defended the administration’s actions on economic growth, especially as compared to the preceding George W. Bush administration.
“We stabilized the financial system,” Biden said. We were on the brink of a depression … We avoided a total economic meltdown,” he said. “There are 3 million [more] Americans working today than there were before we took office.
Comment by American Grand Jury:
“Plugs Biden”.. the world’s answer to degenerate disease. Along with his boss BO these two have created more havoc, lost more jobs and sustained more hatred toward the White House than any one sane person could have imagined.
I particularly like the one where “Our administration stabilized the financial industry and created 3,000,000 more jobs than when we took office.” If this enlightenment wasn’t such an outright lie, I would die laughing. I would love to see the 3 million jobs. Where are they? I don’t know a soul in the world that can identify this number as being true.
Its all HYPE folks. Get ready for the elections. Contrary to what Biden says, I predict the Dems are going to get their asses whipped at the ballot box.
Posted by Bob Filed in Anti-Obama Press, BS Meter is High
