Category Archives: Canada

Ted Cruz Vermont eligibility lawsuit update, February 19, 2016, Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige, Cruz not natural born citizen, Cruz born in Canada in 1970, Canadian Citizenship Act of 1976 Cruz born a Canadian Citizen AND a British Subject

Ted Cruz Vermont eligibility lawsuit update, February 19, 2016, Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige, Cruz not natural born citizen, Cruz born in Canada in 1970, Canadian Citizenship Act of 1976 Cruz born a Canadian Citizen AND a British Subject

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the Vermont Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio eligibility challenge:

“UPDATE – Paige v. State of Vermont, et al (Secretary of State, Jim Condos,
Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz and Marco Antonio Rubio)

Citizen Wells,

February 18, 2016 – All parties, the Vermont State Defendants, Cruz and
Rubio,  have responded each   with their own Motions to Dismiss, the first
effort of a disingenuous and desperate lawyer who wants to shield his
client from having to face the music.

It is exciting to have defendants who, because of their divergent
political leanings refuse to cooperate in developing a unified strategy to
extinguish the humble, tenacious plaintiff. Unfortunately, the attorneys
for Rubio and Cruz seem amazingly unfamiliar with the “natural born
citizen(ship)” subject matter – regurgitating the tripe and drivel
regularly posted on “obot” websites; while Daloz, the state’s Asst. A/G,
appears to be doing a “cut and paste” job from his 2012 effort. Truly sad
to see such vacuous “work product” for these high priced “Blackstone
Lawyers.” (Thomas Jefferson complained that “many a law student finds
Blackstone’s writings – a smattering of everything, and his indolence
easily persuades him that if he understands Blackstone , he is a master of
the whole body of law.”)

I have filed separate Opposition Briefs for each of the defendants’
Motions to Dismiss as each develops a differing approach to defend their
favorites particular “flavor” of natural born citizenship.

•       Vermont Assistant Attorney General Todd Daloz offering “born in country
with at least one citizen parent” to defend the democratic darling, Mr.
Obama.

•       “K’ Street Mouthpiece (D.C.) Brady Toensing, representing Rubio, arguing
that “native birth” (14th Amendment citizenship) alone is sufficient to
qualify his “son of Cuban parents” to serve as President.

•       Lastly, Gregory D. Cote, Esq., the Beantown Lawyer (“Redacted”) makes a
valiant attempt to convince anyone who will give him “the time of day”
that his Canadian Citizen client, Cruz,   is somehow more than merely a
“citizen of the United States” a condition granted to him by Congress, not
by his birth circumstances alone the condition necessary to be a Natural
born citizen (i.e. born in country to two citizen parents – Vattel, 1758).

Further it has come to light that since Cruz was born in Canada in 1970,
prior to the Canadian “Citizenship Act of 1976,” he was born a “Canadian
Citizen AND a “British Subject”  having “the right of abode” whereby he
could moved to the “British Isles” and gotten a job and taken up permanent
residence without needing to take any further action .
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/cit/overview/hist.asp

The Vermont Primary Election is held on Town Meeting Day, March  1st, and,
since the defendants have argued that the issues are not “ripe” until the
passing of the election,  our next move will be to ask the court to
prevent the Secretary of State from releasing the results of that election
until the court determines the qualification of candidates Cruz and Rubio
AND  whether their names appearing on the ballot has cause damage to the
other candidates, sufficient to alter the results of the election.”

Ted Cruz Illinois court eligibility appeal, Lawrence Joyce plaintiff, Cruz not natural born citizen, Judge Maureen Ward Kirby will hear arguments at Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago, Cruz born in Canada

Ted Cruz Illinois court eligibility appeal, Lawrence Joyce plaintiff, Cruz not natural born citizen, Judge Maureen Ward Kirby will hear arguments at Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago, Cruz born in Canada

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

From New York Magazine February 18, 2016.

“Lawsuit Over Ted Cruz’s Eligibility to Run for President Heads to Court”

“During Wednesday night’s CNN town hall, Ted Cruz dismissed the latest legal threat from Donald Trump, assuring a voter that he’s definitely eligible to run for president. “Under the law the question is clear,” he said. “There will still be some who try to work political mischief on it, but as a legal matter this is clear and straightforward.” Unlike Cruz’s right to air old footage of Trump on Meet the Press in a campaign ad, the issue raised by Cruz’s birth in Canada to an American mother actually isn’t settled — but now it looks like we may finally get an answer. CNN reports that an Illinois judge has agreed to hear arguments in a lawsuit challenging Cruz’s eligibility on Friday.

The lawsuit in question actually has nothing to do with Trump (though, it’s unlikely we’d be debating the obscure legal arguments over whether Cruz is a “natural born citizen” if it weren’t for the ex–reality star). Suburban lawyer Lawrence Joyce initially filed an objection to Cruz’s placement on the primary ballot with the Illinois Board of Elections, but it was dismissed earlier this month. Now the Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago has agreed to hear the case.

Legal challenges over Cruz’s eligibility have been filed in at least three states. Joyce seems primarily concerned about the political fallout from the questions surrounding Cruz’s candidacy, rather than the possibility of a secret Canadian infiltrating the U.S. government. He told Chicago’s WLS that he’s concerned about what would happen if the challenge came from a Democrat in the fall after Cruz secured the GOP nomination. “At that point, all of his fundraising would dry up. And his support in the polls would drop dramatically. He may be forced at that point to resign the nomination,” he said.”

Read more:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/ted-cruz-eligibility-case-heads-to-court.html

Ted Cruz Harvard law professor Cruz not eligible, Born in Canada, Not natural born citizen, Laurence H. Tribe also Obama professor, I cannot support Ted Cruz and disregard for US Constitution, Many experts coming forward

Ted Cruz Harvard law professor Cruz not eligible, Born in Canada, Not natural born citizen, Laurence H. Tribe also Obama professor, I cannot support Ted Cruz and disregard for US Constitution, Many experts coming forward

“Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.”…constitutional law professor Mary Brigid McManamon

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

I have liked Ted Cruz’s positions on many matters for years.

It does not matter to me how conservative he is, how popular he is and how much he protests that he is eligible.

I cannot support Ted Cruz and his untested arrogant position on his natural born citizen status.

I am certain that others agree with me.

He only makes Donald Trump look better.

And that is Trump, who questioned Obama’s eligibility.

Ted Cruz’s own Harvard Law Professor,  Laurence H. Tribe, is questioning his eligibility.

From the Boston Globe January 11, 2016.

By Laurence H. Tribe

“There’s more than meets the eye in the ongoing dustup over whether Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as president, which under the Constitution comes down to whether he’s a “natural born citizen” despite his 1970 Canadian birth. Senator Cruz contends his eligibility is “settled” by naturalization laws Congress enacted long ago. But those laws didn’t address, much less resolve, the matter of presidential eligibility, and no Supreme Court decision in the past two centuries has ever done so. In truth, the constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen” is completely unsettled, as the most careful scholarship on the question has concluded. Needless to say, Cruz would never take Donald Trump’s advice to ask a court whether the Cruz definition is correct, because that would in effect confess doubt where Cruz claims there is certainty.

People are entitled to their own opinions about what the definition ought to be. But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an “originalist,” one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption. To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”

Read more:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/11/through-ted-cruz-constitutional-looking-glass/zvKE6qpF31q2RsvPO9nGoK/story.html

From Mary Brigid McManamon, constitutional law professor, January 12, 2016.

“Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural-born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator’s parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth. This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.”

Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

From Gabriel J. Chin at the Michigan Law Review 2009.

John McCain, with two US Citizen parents, has questionable status.

“A. Citizenship and Natural Born Citizenship by Statute

According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” Unless born in the United States, a person “can only become a citizen by being naturalized . . . by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens . . . .” A person granted citizenship by birth outside the United States to citizen parents is naturalized at birth; he or she is both a citizen by birth and a naturalized citizen. This last point is discussed thoroughly in Jill A. Pryor’s 1988 note in the Yale Law Journal, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty.

The Supreme Court holds that the citizenship statutes are exclusive; there is no residual common-law or natural-law citizenship. Citizens have no constitutional right to transmit their citizenship to children. In Rogers, the Supreme Court upheld a statute requiring children born overseas to citizen parents to reside in the United States to retain their citizenship. Since “Congress may withhold citizenship from persons” born overseas to citizen parents or “deny [them] citizenship outright,” it could impose the lesser burden of requiring U.S. residence to retain citizenship.

Congressional power to withhold citizenship from children of U.S. citizens is not hypothetical; for decades, it was law, and to some extent still is. The Tribe-Olson Opinion proposes that “[i]t goes without saying that the Framers did not intend to exclude a person from the office of the President simply because he or she was born to U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military outside of the continental United States . . . .” However, the Seventh Congress, which included Framers Gouverneur Morris and Abraham Baldwin among others, did precisely that. In 1961 in Montana v. Kennedy, the Supreme Court construed an 1802 statute to mean that “[f]oreign-born children of persons who became American citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854, were aliens . . . .” Thus, children of members of the armed forces serving overseas, and diplomats and civil servants in foreign posts, were not only not natural born citizens eligible to be president, they were not citizens at all.

Denial of automatic citizenship had very different implications than it would now because until the late nineteenth century, there was little federal immigration law. There were no general federal restrictions on who could enter the country, no provisions for deportation of residents who became undesirable, and immigration officials to deport them. Of course, these children could become citizens by individual naturalization. But even if the child suffered based on lack of citizenship, according to the 1907 Supreme Court decision in Zartarian v. Billings, “[a]s this subject is entirely within congressional control, the matter must rest there; it is only for the courts to apply the law as they find it.””

Available at the Wayback Machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20091007052748/http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/why-senator-john-mccain-cannot-be-president-eleven-months-and-a-hundred-yards-short-of-citizenship

And Citizen Wells January 13, 2011.

Speaker Boehner and congress, Legal experts speak out, Obama eligibility, Obama issues

If Ted Cruz want my and others’ support he must do the following:

Apologize to the American people for his arrogance and disregard for the US Constitution.

Immediately seek a ruling from the courts or advisory opinion from the FEC.

Citizen Wells

 

Chinese oil firm in biggest takeover of Canada Nexen Inc., $ 15.1 billion acquisition, Oil sands shale gas western Canada, Ottawa last deal of its kind

Chinese oil firm in biggest takeover of Canada Nexen Inc., $ 15.1 billion acquisition, Oil sands shale gas western Canada, Ottawa last deal of its kind

“Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”…Barack Obama 

“Canada has outperformed the U.S. since then. In 2010, according to the International Monetary Fund, Canada grew at 3.2% versus 2.9% in the U.S. In 2011, the IMF estimates Canada will grow at 2.9%; unemployment is now 7.3%. The IMF’s U.S. growth forecast is 2.5% this year, and U.S. unemployment is 9.1%.

One explanation for Canada’s more robust growth is its strong commitment to energy, which has become more valuable in U.S. dollar terms under Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s inflationary policies. Alberta is now producing two million barrels per day but expects that number will grow to four to five million within a decade.”…Wall Street Journal Sept. 12, 2011

“For the first time in recent history, the average Canadian is richer than the average American, according to a report cited in Toronto’s Globe and Mail.

And not just by a little. Currently, the average Canadian household is more than $40,000 richer than the average American household. The net worth of the average Canadian household in 2011 was $363,202, compared to around $320,000 for Americans.”…US News  July 18, 2012

 

From People’s Daily Online February 27, 2013.

“Chinese oil firm in biggest takeover”

“CHINA’S dominant offshore oil producer has completed a US$15.1 billion acquisition of Canada’s Nexen Inc, winning a key international platform for its global expansion.

The closing of China’s largest overseas takeover comes seven months after it was first announced.

CNOOC Ltd’s acquisition of Nexen, which has oil sands and shale gas in western Canada and conventional exploration and development in the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, will increase the Chinese firm’s production by 20 percent and its proven oil and gas reserves by 30 percent.

Yang Hua, CNOOC’s vice chairman, said Nexen was attractive because it had a diversified product portfolio and the majority of its assets were in politically stable regions.

CNOOC, which failed in its US$18.5 billion bid for Unocal Corp in 2005 due to the United States’ political opposition, started to track Nexen as a potential target the same year, Yang told Xinhua news agency.

In 2011, CNOOC acquired struggling Canadian oil sands producer OPTI, becoming a partner with Nexen in the Long Lake project in Alberta. The OPTI deal paved the way for the Nexen acquisition, Yang said.

Moody’s Investors Service said the ratings and stable outlooks of CNOOC and its parent will remain unchanged after the closing of the Nexen deal.

Senior analyst Simon Wong said the acquisition would “strengthen CNOOC Ltd’s position as one of world’s largest independent exploration and production companies and further diversify its product portfolio, in spite of its weakened credit metrics.”

Canada granted its approval in December after CNOOC agreed to various conditions. CNOOC made commitments regarding transparency, disclosure, commercial orientation, employment and capital investment that “demonstrate a long-term commitment to the development of the Canadian economy,” Canadian authorities said.

But Ottawa indicated this was the last deal of its kind it would approve by saying it wouldn’t allow foreign state companies to control the nation’s oil sands.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the US approved the deal earlier this month, clearing the last major hurdle for the acquisition to succeed.”

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90778/8144674.html

 

 

Obama gas price facts August 6, 2012, Canadians embrace oil jobs, Canada unemployment rate falls to 7.2 percent, Canadians richer than Americans for first time

Obama gas price facts August 6, 2012, Canadians embrace oil jobs, Canada unemployment rate falls to 7.2 percent, Canadians richer than Americans for first time

“For the well-off in this country, high gas prices are mostly an annoyance, but to most Americans they’re a huge problem, bordering on a crisis.”…Barack Obama May 2008

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,”…Barack Obama May 2008

“Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”…Barack Obama 

Obama’s “energy policy”, aka Chicago style pay to play politics, is destroying this country’s economy and jobs. Citizen Wells has kept you informed about the impact of high gas prices.

From Citizen Wells July 29, 2012.

“Gas prices are going back up and currently average $ 3.49 in the US. One of the biggest reasons gasoline prices have not risen further is the downturn in the US and world economies.”

“In 2009 when Obama took office, gasoline averaged around $ 1.85 a gallon. Here is a chart of gasoline prices for the last 3 years.”

“The Obama administration, despite the nation’s economic woes, effectively killed the job-producing Keystone Pipeline last month. The Arab Spring is turning the oil production of Libya and other Arab nations over to the Muslim Brotherhood. Iraq is distancing itself from the U.S. And everyone recognizes that Iran, whose crude supplies are critical to the European economy, will do anything it can to frustrate America’s strategic interests. In the face of all of this, Obama insists on cutting back U.S. oil potential with outrageous restrictions.”

“Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.”

“After Obama Blocks Pipeline, China Readies $15.1B Canadian Oil Deal”

“When President Barack Obama blocked the Keystone Pipeline, Republicans said the move would encourage Canada to pursue oil deals with China instead of the United States and cede a massive chunk of North American oil assets to the communist nation.

Now, with China’s state-run oil company CNOOC poised to cut a $15.1 billion deal–the largest ever foreign acquisition for a Chinese company–with Canadian oil company Nexen, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) are in full backpedal mode.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/july-29-2012-gas-prices-up-obama-energy-policy-rewards-friends-punishes-americans-alaska-island-giveaway-to-russians-keystone-pipeline-canada-china-oil-deal/

Not only are Obama’s policies stalling the economy with the high price of gas, they are killing jobs in the oil industry. Our friends to the north are not so foolish.

From the Wall Street Journal September 12, 2011.

“Canada’s Oil Sands Are a Jobs Gusher”

“For all its soaring rhetoric, President Obama’s “jobs speech” last week didn’t demonstrate a lick of insight into why economies grow or how wealth is created. It was merely trademark Obamanomics: using government diktat to move money that’s over here, over there.

Having spent an hour the day before with Ron Liepert, the energy minister from the Canadian province of Alberta, I found it especially disturbing to hear nothing in the speech about reversing the administration’s anti-fossil-fuels agenda. Canada has recovered all the jobs it lost in the 2009 recession, and Alberta’s oil sands are no small part of that. The province is on track to become the world’s second-largest oil producer, after Saudi Arabia, within 10 years. Meanwhile Mr. Obama clings to his subsidies for solar panels and his religious faith in green jobs.

U.S. unemployment is high because capital is on strike. Short-term offers to coax investors into taking new risks aren’t going to cut it when they have been forewarned that the president intends to pay for it all by raising taxes in the out years. The market dropped over 300 points the day after Mr. Obama’s speech.

On the regulatory front the picture is even gloomier. Much of America’s vast untapped energy potential lies dormant because Mr. Obama’s regulatory watchdogs have spent the past three years throwing sand in the gears of the permitting process for exploration and exploitation on federal lands. Separately, TransCanada has been trying since September 2008 to get a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast. The Environmental Protection Agency has so far blocked it.

TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline could mean 118,000 American jobs, if the U.S. government ever issues the permit.

A glimpse of what all this has cost the U.S. economy can be seen by looking north to Canada, where animal spirits have been unleashed in the energy sector. Canada’s close economic ties to the U.S. have traditionally meant that when the U.S. gets the sniffles, Canada gets swine flu. This time it’s been different. Part of the reason is that Canada’s housing market was not poisoned by a federal government push to put unqualified borrowers into homes they could not afford. After the 2008 collapse of the housing bubble in the U.S., the Canadian financial sector remained strong.

That alone was not enough to protect Canada from the effects of the U.S. recession. The manufacturing sector was hit hard, and in the first quarter of 2009 the economy contracted by an annualized 7.9%.

Yet Canada has outperformed the U.S. since then. In 2010, according to the International Monetary Fund, Canada grew at 3.2% versus 2.9% in the U.S. In 2011, the IMF estimates Canada will grow at 2.9%; unemployment is now 7.3%. The IMF’s U.S. growth forecast is 2.5% this year, and U.S. unemployment is 9.1%.

One explanation for Canada’s more robust growth is its strong commitment to energy, which has become more valuable in U.S. dollar terms under Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s inflationary policies. Alberta is now producing two million barrels per day but expects that number will grow to four to five million within a decade.”

Read more:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904836104576560933917369412.html

From US News  July 18, 2012.

“For the First Time, Canadians Now Richer Than Americans

The average Canadian household is worth about $40,000 more than their American counterparts”

“The net worth of the average Canadian household in 2011 was $363,202.
While Americans might enjoy throwing politically-charged barbs at their neighbors to the north, Canadians now have at least one reason to be smug.

For the first time in recent history, the average Canadian is richer than the average American, according to a report cited in Toronto’s Globe and Mail.

And not just by a little. Currently, the average Canadian household is more than $40,000 richer than the average American household. The net worth of the average Canadian household in 2011 was $363,202, compared to around $320,000 for Americans.

If you’re thinking the Canadian advantage must be due to exchange rates, think again. The Canadian dollar has actually caught up to the U.S. dollar in recent years.

“These are not 60-cent dollars, but Canadian dollars more or less at par with the U.S. greenback,” Globe and Mail’s Michael Adams writes.

To add insult to injury, not only are Canadians comparatively better-off than Americans, they’re also more likely to be employed. The unemployment rate is 7.2 percent—and dropping—in Canada, while the U.S. is stuck with a stubbornly high rate of 8.2 percent.

Besides a strengthening currency and a better labor market, experts credit the particularly savage fallout from the financial crisis on the U.S. economy and housing market, which torpedoed home values and gutted household wealth. According to the report, real estate held by Canadians is worth more than $140,000 more on average and they have almost four times as much equity in their real estate investments.”

Read more:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/07/18/for-the-first-time-canadians-now-richer-than-americans

 

Everett WA, Seattle Washington, Internet attacks, Pacific Northwest, Open Thread, December 29, 2009, Coffee shop discussions, Health Care Bill, Obama, Harry Reid, Obama thugs

We were in the Pacific Northwest over the past one and a half weeks. Part of this time we were in the Everett, WA area. You remember, where one of the regular attackers of me, this blog, Orly Taitz and others lives. This person, has made nasty, viscious remarks and threats to me for many months and comments that could be construed as death threats to me and others.

Well, this bold individual was in striking distance for several days recently. I took the addressses of where this individual supposedly works and lives and I was only a few miles away on four different days at a local coffee shop. Also, under the “fickled finger of fate” category, I was in contact with a regular commenter on this blog. Her husband is from Everett. We had an interesting set of email exchanges.

Here is the rest of the story.

If one only developed an opinion of the Everett/Seattle area people from this rabid commenter and others spewing hate and filth, one would believe that all of the people there are unstable and blind kool aid drinkers. Thank God, this is not the case. On two different mornings, two diferent groups of men at adjacent tables were talking politics. They were neither praising Obama, Harry Reid or the Health Care Bill. In fact, on the second of these two days, one of the gentlemen had come here from Canada and he gave the notion of government run health care the double thumbs down. To say the least I was relieved and pleased to find sanity there.

Senate Health Care Bill, Government health care, Canadian health care, Cost reduction, Waiting lists, Deferred screening, Cato Institute, Sally C Pipes, Stop this bill

I am not going to address the lies being told by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama about covering more Americans and reducing costs with government run health care. Unless you are a far left, socialist wacko, your good common sense will help you realize the liberal Democrats are lying. Instead I offer a video, that corroborates a body of evidence that proves that government run health care is bad for the citizens and will destroy our health care system. I can assure you from my recent dealings with the Social Security Administration that we do not want the government involved.

“The Difference Between Canada and the U.S. Health Care Systems”

“Sally C. Pipes understands Canadian health care. As the former Assistant Director of the free-market Fraser Institute, she lived under Canada’s national health care system.

Today Pipes is president of the Pacific Research Institute and author of the new book, The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care. She spoke at the Cato Institute July 15, 2009.”

Here is a link to the latest Senate Health Care Bill.
We must try to stop this criminal attempt by the liberal Democrats to ruin our health care.
However, “Let not your hearts be troubled”, we are changing Congress in 2010.
Sharpen your pencils and update your score cards.