Category Archives: Congress

The Corruption of America, Porter Stansberry, America is in decline, Americans Are Getting Poorer Fast, Entitlement root of many serious cultural problems

Posted on January 16, 2012 | 156 comments

The Corruption of America, Porter Stansberry, America is in decline, Americans Are Getting Poorer Fast, Entitlement root of many serious cultural problems

The following are exerpts from a well written article by Porter Stansberry on many of the economic and social woes of America. The full article is worthy of your time.

“The Corruption of America”

“Why I’m still bullish on America
By: Porter Stansberry
The numbers tell us America is in decline… if not outright collapse.

I say “the numbers tell us” because I’ve become very sensitive to the impact this kind of statement has on people. When I warned about the impending
bankruptcy of General Motors in 2006 and 2007, readers actually blamed me for the company’s problems – as if my warnings to the public were the real problem, rather than GM’s $400 billion in debt.

The claim was absurd. But the resentment my work engendered was real.

So please… before you read this issue, which makes several arresting claims about the future of our country… understand I am only writing about the facts
as I find them today. I am only drawing conclusions based on the situation as it stands. I am not saying that these conditions can’t improve. Or that they
won’t improve.

The truth is, I am optimistic. I believe our country is heading into a crisis. But I also believe that… sooner or later… Americans will make the right
choices and put our country back on sound footing.

Please pay careful attention to the data I cite. And please send me corrections to the facts. I will happily publish any correction that can be
substantiated. But please don’t send me threats, accusations against my character, or baseless claims about my lack of patriotism. If I didn’t love our
country, none of these facts would bother me. I wouldn’t have bothered writing this letter.

I know this is a politically charged and emotional issue. My conclusions will not be easy for most readers to accept. Likewise, many of the things I am
writing about this month will challenge my subscribers to re-examine what they believe about their country. The facts about America today tell a painful
story about a country in a steep decline, beset by problems of its own making.

One last point, before we begin… I realize that this kind of macro-economic/political analysis is not, primarily, what you pay me for. You rightly expect me to provide you with investment opportunities – whether bull market, bear market, or total societal collapse. And that’s what I’ve done every month for more than 15 years.

But that’s not what I’ve done this month. You won’t find any investment ideas at all in these pages. This issue is unlike any other I have ever written.

I’m sure it will spark a wave of cancellations – costing me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I fear it will spark a tremendous amount of controversy. Many
people will surely accuse me of deliberately writing inflammatory things in order to stir the pot and gain attention. That’s not my intention. The truth is,
I’ve gone to great lengths throughout my career to protect my privacy.

I am speaking out now because I believe someone must. And I have the resources to do it. I am sharing these ideas with my subscribers because I know we have arrived at the moment of a long-brewing crisis.

Our political leaders, our business leaders, and our cultural leaders have made a series of catastrophic choices. The result has been a long decline in
America’s standard of living.

For decades, we have papered over these problems with massive amounts of borrowing. But now, our debts total close to 400% of GDP, and America is the world’s largest borrower (after being the world’s largest creditor only 40 years ago)… And the holes in our society can no longer be hidden…

We’ve reached the point where we will have to fix what lies at the heart of America’s decline… or be satisfied with a vastly lower standard of living in
the future.

How do I know? How do I statistically define the decline of America?

The broadest measure of national wealth is per-capita gross domestic product (GDP). Economists use this figure to judge standards of living around the world.
It shows the value of the country’s annual production divided by the number of its citizens. No, the production isn’t actually divided among all the
citizens, but this measure provides us with a fair benchmark to compare different economies around the world. Likewise, this measure shows the growth (or the decline) in wealth in societies across time.

So… is America growing richer or poorer based on per-capita GDP? Seems like a simple enough question, doesn’t it? Is our economy growing faster than our
population? Are we, as individuals, becoming more affluent? Or is the pie, measured on a per-person basis, growing smaller?

This is the most fundamental measure of the success or the failure of any political system or culture. Are the legal and social rules we live under aiding
our economic development or holding us back? What do the numbers say?

Unfortunately, it’s a harder question to answer than it should be. The problem is, we don’t have a sound currency with which to measure GDP through time.
Until 1971, the U.S. dollar was defined as a certain amount of gold. And the price of gold was fixed by international agreement. It didn’t actually begin to
trade freely until 1975. Therefore, the value of the U.S. dollar (and thus the value of U.S. production, which is measured in dollars) was manipulated higher
for many years.

Even today, our government’s nominal GDP figures are greatly influenced by inflation. The influence of inflation is particularly pernicious in GDP studies.
You see, inflation, which actually reduces our standard of living, drives up the amount of nominal GDP. So it creates the appearance of a wealthier
country… while the nation is actually getting poorer.”

“You see, I believe the decline of our country is primarily a decline of our culture.

We have lost our sense of honor, humility, and the dedication to personal responsibility that, for more than 200 years, made our country the greatest hope for mankind. I want to detail some of the factors that gave rise to the current entitlement society. We have become a country of people who believe their well-being is someone else’s responsibility.

I’ve labeled these problems: The Corruption of America.

These problems manifest themselves in different ways across institutions in all parts of our society. But at their root, they are simply facets of the same
stone. They are all part of the same essential problem.

The corruption of America isn’t happening in one part of our country… or in one type of institution. It is happening across the landscape of our society,
in almost every institution. It’s a kind of moral decay… a kind of greed… a kind of desperate grasp for power… And it’s destroying our nation.

The Ethos of ‘Getting Yours’

Americans know, in their bones, that something terrible is happening. Maybe you can’t articulate it. Maybe you don’t have the statistics to understand
exactly what’s going on. But my bet is, you think about it a lot.”

“Bloomberg news published an article based on confidential sources about how Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs and the Republican U.S. Treasury secretary during the financial crisis, held a secret meeting with the top 20 hedge-fund managers in New York City in late July 2008. This was about two weeks after he testified to Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “well-capitalized.””

“This was the most outrageous example of graft and corruption I have ever seen. Certainly it involves more billions of dollars in misappropriated value than
any other similar story I can recall. These managers had the risk-free ability to make tens of billions of dollars, if not hundreds of billions, by using
derivatives to capitalize on what they knew was the imminent collapse of the world’s largest mortgage bank. Who picked up the tab? You know perfectly well.
It was you and me, the taxpayers.”

“What does that say about our country when even the most egregious kind of corruption – involving hundreds of billions of dollars – is simply ignored?

It seems like everyone in our country has lost his moral bearing, from the highest government officials and senior corporate leaders all the way down to
schoolteachers and local community leaders. The ethos of my fellow Americans seems to have changed from one of personal integrity and responsibility to
“getting yours” – the all-out attempt, by any means possible, to get the most amount of benefits with the least amount of work.”

“It is routinely alleged in national political debates that something is fundamentally unfair and un-American about the huge “wealth gap” between the poorest Americans and the wealthiest. Some politicians like to argue that the poor never have a real shot at the American dream, and as a nation, we owe them more and more of our resources to correct this injustice. Most important, it is alleged that only the government has the resources to correct this inequality.

This is a dangerous notion…

First, it promotes the idea of entitlement. Entitlement is a fairly new idea in the American political lexicon – perhaps because most of our nation’s wealth
is still fairly new. The American idea of entitlement argues that because you were born into a rich society, other people owe you something. The idea has
become pervasive in our culture. It underlies the basic assumptions behind the idea of a “wealth gap.” Implicit is the assumption that successful Americans
haven’t rightfully earned their wealth… that in one way or another, they’ve taken advantage of the society and have an obligation to give back most of what
they’ve “taken.”

As you’ll see, I believe the idea of entitlement lies at the root of many of our most serious cultural problems.

The more obvious problem is the idea that the government is responsible for fixing the “wealth gap.” But the government has proved wholly ineffective at
dealing with poverty in America. The data is nearly conclusive that government efforts are far more likely to be the cause of the wealth gap than the
solution.”

“It has now been almost 50 years since the start of the War on Poverty, President Lyndon Johnson’s program to radically increase domestic welfare spending.
These programs and their various spinoffs have been at the center of Democratic politics ever since. In fact, if you compare speeches about these programs from the mid-1960s until today, you will find the verbiage never changes. Obama is merely echoing the same calls for “social justice” that Robert Kennedy used in his ill-fated 1968 campaign for president.”
“And what do the Democrats do with this power? They push a form of American socialism. This political system features transfer payments, government jobs, and lucrative government contracts to voters in exchange for political support – and in many cases, outright bribes. They do all of these things under the cover
of “progressive” politics and “social justice.”

But if you brush away the veneer, what you find is a history of abuse of power, corruption, and outright bribery. Conyers himself was found guilty of several
minor ethical violations in 2006 – mainly of using his staff as personal servants, forcing them to babysit and chauffer his children. In 1992, he was one of
the most egregious abusers of the House Banking scandal. He wrote 273 bad checks and left his account overdrawn for nine months. But that’s all small-time
graft compared to how things really work in his office and in his district.

How do I know? Well… just ask yourself where Conyers’ wife sleeps today.

Monica Conyers, the wife of the second-longest tenured congressman in the United States, sleeps in a federal prison in West Virginia. She pled guilty to
bribery in June 2009. She is serving a 37-month sentence for accepting $60,000 in bribes as the president pro tempore of the Detroit City Council. And yet…
and yet… Conyers won re-election handily in 2010.”

“Government Employee Unions:
Organized Corruption

A big part of the answer lies in understanding the key mechanism in the Democratic Party’s funding system. (Don’t worry… so far, we’ve been talking about Democratic Party failures, but I’ll get to the Republicans next. The corruption of America is a bipartisan problem.)”

“A government union turns the public servant into the public’s master. It is a means of using the government’s own spending to organize control of that
government. And that is exactly what’s happened. The government, unlike private companies, isn’t limited by normal economics because the government controls the monopoly on force and has the power to levy taxes.”

“Our country’s core problems are not found in only one political party.

There is just as much corruption, if not more, on the Republican side of the aisle. It was, for example, as I pointed out earlier, a white, Republican-
appointed Treasury secretary (Henry Paulson) who tipped off 20 top hedge-fund managers about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s imminent collapse after assuring the public that it wouldn’t happen.

For big business, the powerful role of government in our society is simply too valuable to ignore. And the amount of corruption it inspires is stunning. Few
politicians even bother trying to hide the fact that they’re bought and sold like furniture.

Take Newt Gingrich. The white, Republican former House speaker was paid $1.6 million for “consulting” by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during a period of time the two firms were under constant attack by Newt’s fellow Republicans. Were the attacks efforts to truly reform a major threat to our financial system… or were they merely shakedowns? All we know for certain is Fannie and Freddie collapsed, just as many Republicans warned they would. The Republican effort to reform the firms failed. Newt collected $1.6 million.

Fannie and Freddie could end up costing taxpayers as much as $500 billion. No, I’m not ignoring the colossal role the Democrats played in staffing Fannie and
Freddie, lobbying Congress for the companies, etc. I’m simply pointing out that, in Washington, everything and everyone seems to be for sale, on both sides
of the aisle.”

“Here’s a simple solution. Hold the senators and congressmen personally liable for any deficit, each year. We elected these people to be our leaders. We did
not elect them to spend us into bankruptcy. We did not elect them to feather their own nests with unlimited public spending. We did not elect them to buy
votes. The only way to stop what’s happening is to make them personally responsible for their actions. Either they will balance the budget or face personal
financial ruin.

Demanding personal accountability for fiduciary responsibilities would have an immediate and profound impact on our society. It would wipe out the
entitlement mentality that’s destroying our society – almost overnight.”

“I do agree that the nation will soon face a choice between heading down the path towards fascism… or turning back the power of government and restoring the limited Republic that was our birthright. I continue to believe Americans will choose personal liberty.

I believe they will choose more freedom rather than more totalitarian rule. I don’t believe Americans will tolerate martial law for long – even in the advent
of a real emergency, which I do believe will occur.”

“What gives me confidence for the future? Gun sales, for one thing. U.S. citizens legally own around 270 million firearms – about 88 guns per 100 citizens
(including children) today.

That’s a hard population to police without its consent. America is the No. 1 country in the world as ranked by the number of guns per-capita. That plays a
major factor in the kind of government you will see take root in America. Things might go too far in this country for a while… And I’d argue they’ve been
going the wrong way for too long. But the government can only take things so far before they’ll be faced with a very angry, well-armed opposition.

If the government attempts to take our guns… my opinion would change immediately. But that’s one right the Supreme Court has been strengthening recently.
It gives me hope that most people in America still understand that the right to bear arms has little to do with protecting ourselves from crime and
everything to do with protecting ourselves from government…”

Read more:

http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pub/reports/201112PSI_issue.html

Thank you, Porter Stansberry,  for this well written and insightful article.

I urge you all to read the entire article and pass it along to your elected officials and those running for office.

156 Comments

Posted in America, Americans, Barack Obama, Budget, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, corruption, Democratic Socialists of America, Democrats, Economy, Financial crisis, Government, Money, Obama, Pay to play politics, Politics, republicans, Socialists, United States, US economy, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Ron Paul on Barney Frank panel for defense cuts, George Soros ties, Sustainable Defense Task Force, Institute for Policy Studies paper, Obama rule through executive orders

Posted on January 9, 2012 | 89 comments

Ron Paul on Barney Frank panel for defense cuts, George Soros ties, Sustainable Defense Task Force, Institute for Policy Studies paper, Obama rule through executive orders

(Highlighting by Citizen Wells)

From FrontPageMag.com January 2, 2012.

“Ron Paul’s Soros Defense Plan”

“It was recently observed that Ron Paul was to the left of Obama on national security and the best evidence for that statement can be found when one year ago Ron Paul joined forces with Barney Frank on a proposal to gut national defense via a panel of experts, quite a few of whom were tied to George Soros.

In July 2010, Barney Frank and Ron Paul co-authored a Huffington Post article rolling out their Sustainable Defense Task Force. The Task Force “consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum” would recommend a trillion dollars in defense cuts. The experts, however, didn’t quite “span the ideological spectrum” — more like float under it.

The panel of experts who would decide how to best gut national defense featured such independent thinkers as William D. Hartung of the New America Foundation. Hartung’s main expertise was appearing in “Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire.”

Then there was Lawrence J. Kolb of the Center for American Progress and Miriam Pemberton of the Institute for Policy Studies. If you want to know what the Center, the Foundation and the Institute all have in common, it’s Hungarian and smells like stale cabbage and the death of nations.

The rather creepy Institute for Policy Studies issued a paper proposing that Obama act as king and rule through executive orders. The New American Foundation is not only backed by Soros but has his son on its leadership council. The Center for American Progress is run by the co-chair of Obama’s transition team and is, for all intents and purposes, the think tank of the White House. All three are Soros funded.”
“But why would Ron Paul allow George Soros that much power and influence over America’s defense policy? There are a number of possibilities. There is the possibility that Ron Paul just didn’t know and didn’t bother to do his research. Which is not much of a recommendation for the job he’s running for. There’s another possibility that Ron Paul knew and didn’t care, that he had no objection to being part of a left-right alliance against the “American Empire” with Soros. But there’s also a third possibility.

During the previous election, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) ran an ad praising Ron Paul for his position against the war. AAEI was an umbrella group for MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, SEIU, Americans United For Change, the National Security Network and others in the progressive bestiary. A number of those beasties were Soros groups.

I’m not one to dabble in conspiracy theories, but when Soros pays for an ad praising you during the Republican primaries and then you put his experts in charge of America’s defense policy, then maybe some questions should be asked.”

Read more:

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/02/ron-pauls-soros-defense-plan/

From The Hill July 11, 2010.

“Panel commissioned by Barney Frank recommends nearly $1T in defense cuts”

“A panel commissioned by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is recommending nearly $1 trillion in cuts to the Pentagon’s budget during the next 10 years.

The Sustainable Defense Task Force, a commission of scholars from a broad ideological spectrum appointed by Frank, the House Financial Services Committee chairman, laid out actions the government could take that could save as much as $960 billion between 2011 and 2020.

Measures presented by the task force include making significant reductions to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, which has strong support from Defense Secretary Robert Gates; delaying the procurement of a new midair refueling tanker the Air Force has identified as one of its top acquisition priorities; and reducing the Navy’s fleet to 230 ships instead of the 313 eyed by the service.
Shipbuilding has strong support in the congressional defense committees, which write the Pentagon bills. Efforts to reduce the number of ships would run into resistance from the Pentagon and the shipbuilding lobby.

Frank on Friday warned that if he can’t convince Congress to act in the “general direction” of the task force recommendation, “then every other issue will suffer.” Not cutting the Pentagon’s budget could lead to higher taxes and spending cuts detrimental to the environment, housing and highway construction.

The acceptance of the recommendations would depend on a “philosophical change” and a “redefinition of the strategy,” Frank said at press conference on Capitol Hill.

He said the creation of the deficit reduction commission offers the best opportunity for the reduction recommendations. Frank wants to convince his colleagues to write to the deficit reduction commission and warn that they would not approve any of the plans suggested by the commission unless reduction of military spending is included.

The task force has looked at various options to trim the Pentagon’s budget in order to reduce the deficit. Those include a reduction in Army and Marine Corps end-strength by cutting back on personnel stationed in Europe and Asia; and rolling back Army and Marine Corps personnel as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan end.

The panel also looked into reforming military compensation, which could save about $55 billion; saving $60 billion by reforming the military healthcare system; and reducing recruiting expenditures once the wars wind down to preserve about $5 billion.

All of these recommendations would be expected to engender congressional opposition.

The task force also suggested canceling the V-22 Osprey program and the Marine Corps’s troubled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

The U.S. nuclear arsenal would also be on the chopping block, under the panel’s suggestions.

The task force recommends reducing the U.S. nuclear warhead total to 1,050.

Launchers would include 160 Minuteman missiles and seven Ohio-class submarines with 24 missiles (each with five warheads).

The panel also recommends retiring the Air Force bombers — “the bomber leg of the nuclear triad,” which includes land-based missiles and nuclear submarines — and ending work on the Trident II missile.

Frank acknowledged Friday that making cuts to the military’s healthcare system, known as Tricare, would be a “non-starter” with his congressional colleagues. But he said that suggestions on how to handle the nuclear arsenal and missile defense could get a “great deal” of support on the Hill.

Frank requested the creation of the task force in cooperation with Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

The Project on Defense Alternatives coordinated the work of the task force, which included the following members: Carl Conetta, Project on Defense Alternatives; Benjamin Friedman, Cato Institute; William Hartung, New America Foundation; Christopher Hellman, National Priorities Project; Heather Hurlburt, National Security Network; Charles Knight, Project on Defense Alternatives; Lawrence J. Korb, Center for American Progress; Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action; Laicie Olson, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation; Miriam Pemberton, Institute for Policy Studies; Laura Peterson, Taxpayers for Common Sense; Prasannan Parthasarathi, Boston College; Christopher Preble, Cato Institute, and Winslow Wheeler, Center for Defense Information.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/102677-panel-commissioned-by-barney-frank-recommends-nearly-1t-in-defense-cuts-to-close-deficit

From WND, World Net Daily, November 8, 2010.

“SOROS GROUP WANTS OBAMA TO RULE BY EXECUTIVE ORDER”

“It was progressives who won the mid-term elections, particularly incumbents in a socialist-founded congressional caucus that emerged from last week’s ballots virtually unscathed, boasted an article published by the George Soros-funded Institute for Policy Studies, a Marxist-oriented think-tank in Washington, D.C.

The article recommends that President Obama govern from executive order to push through a progressive agenda.
“Progressives won in the 2010 mid-term elections,” wrote Karen Dolan, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, or IPS, and director of the Cities for Progress and Cities for Peace projects based at the radical organization.

“The Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus in the House Democratic Caucus at over 80 members, emerged virtually unscathed, losing only three members,” she wrote, in the piece published on the IPS website.

“By contrast, the conservative Blue Dog Democratic caucus was more than sliced in half from 54 members to only 26. Further, of the 34 conservative Dems who voted against Obama’s Healthcare Reform, a mere 12 won re-election,” she wrote.

Dolan declared that “our work is now finally beginning.”

“The veil of a happy Democratic governing majority is finally lifted. We didn’t have it then; We don’t have it now. But what we do have now is a more solidly progressive bunch of Dems in Congress and a president presumably less encumbered by the false illusion that playing nice will get him a date with the other team.”

She went on to recommend that progressives “throw our support unabashedly behind the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and let’s push Obama to finally do the right thing through as many Executive Orders as we can present to him.””

http://www.wnd.com/2010/11/225829/

 

89 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, Defense, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Military, US Soldier, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Posted on January 3, 2012 | 19 comments

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Tonight, January 3, 2012, the Iowa Caucus will be held. Rick Santorum has been surging in the polls, close to the front runner , Mitt Romney.

I have been listening to Rick Santorum being interviewed for years and have always been impresssed with his solid, consistent answers. Santorum was interviewed on Meet The Press on Sunday, January 1, 2012. It is clear from the interview that Rick Santorum is the right man to be the Republican candidate and President. The antidote for Obama.

Watch the entire interview and read the transcript here. If the interview disappears, let me know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45840626/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-jan/#.TwMZmNQV33c

From the transcript:

“it’s funny. i haven’t asked anybody. and the reason i haven’t asked anybody, i’m sitting at 3% in the national polls. and i really haven’t gone out and asked any united states senator, i haven’t asked a single one to endorse me. but i felt like i had to earn it first. that i had to go out and prove to — you know, i lost my last race. and the general consensus was, you know, we like rick, but, you know, you can’t — who goes from losing their last senate race to winning the presidential nomination? my answer to that was, well abraham lincoln. but other than abraham lincoln, this is not a common occurrence”

“if people want to endorse me, i’d love their endorsements. but i’m not coming to be buddies with my — with, you know, my friends in the senate and house, i’m coming to change the entire nature of washington, d.c. it’s one — one of the benefits, frankly, of being out and looking in, and seeing what, you know, sometimes you said i was running as a consistent conservative. there are votes that i took, not that i advocated these things but i voted for some things and look back and say, why the heck did i do that? you get involved in sort of the the — the idea that well, you got to make things happen, and you forget sometimes, you know, sometimes making some things happen is not — you’re better off”
“what i’ve said is your role as a member of congress, if you look at the constitution, is to appropriate money. of course if you appropriate money you’re going to say where that money’s going to go. and historically congress has taken the role of, you know, allocating those resources, and jim demint who led the charge on pork barrel spending, earmarked things for years and years. so what happened, after i left congress, was budgets began to explode. when i was in the senate, i voted for tough budgets, i voted for restrictions on spending, and made sure that that didn’t happen. and as president, i propose cutting $5 trillion over five years. i propose we’re going to balance the budget in at least five years, hopefully sooner. so if you’re looking for someone who’s voted for tough budgets, voted for spending restraints, and”

“well, what changed was who he’s running against. at the time, that was five days or four days before super tuesday, it was after florida. it became clear to me that there were two candidates in the race at that point. i thought mike huckabee– i would have loved to have mike huckabee out there. but i made the political judgment, right or wrong, that the best chance to stop john mccain, which was what my concern was, i had served 12 years with john mccain, i like and respect john mccain immensely personally, and he’s done a lot of great things, obviously, for this country. but i did not think he was the right person, based on my experience and deep knowledge of his record, that he was the right person to be the nominee”

“of course my background is to find compromise. that’s what you have to do in order to get things done. but you don’t compromise on your principles. i use welfare reform as an example. i — i went out and helped author the welfare reform bill that became the contract with america bill, and then when i was in the united states senate, i managed that bill as a first-term, first-year member of the united states senate. i went up against daniel patrick moynihan and ted kennedy and battled over two vetoes of president clinton and was able to get it done. did i make compromises? you bet. but the compromises i made were not fundamental to the transformation that was important in welfare. which was to end the federal entitlement, the only bill that i’m aware of, only law that’s actually ever ended a broad-based federal entitlement. i was the author and manager of the bill on. and we put time limits on welfare. and we put a work requirement in place. those were the things that i believe were transformational. was i willing to compromise on day care funding? yes, i was. was i willing to compromise on transportation to get folks from welfare to work? yes, i was. but what we did was something that was moving the direction of a more limited government, and in order to get the necessary votes to get that done, you have to make compromise. but, we did a direction of limited government, maybe less than what we wanted to. but we weren’t going in the direction of more government, and getting less of more. that’s where republicans have been in error for so many years. and that is, compromising on just a little less big government, instead of saying no. no more compromises and less big government. we’ll compromise on less-less government. but, not going the other way.”

“you have to have someone you can work with. and this president has done more to divide than any other president that i’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime. this president goes out and gives speech after speech after speech trying to divide america between class, between income group, between racial and ethnic groups. this is the great divider in chief. and it’s very difficult when you’re being led by the president on a regular basis, not just as a party but individually, to then — and the president, who i don’t believe has met with boehner or any of the republican leadership, and now six months, hard to compromise and work with someone who won’t meet with you. who won’t sit down and try to negotiate things and try to talk. so i’m not surprised at all that republicans are having a difficult time with someone who has no interest”

“number one, he didn’t support the pro- democracy movement in iran in 2009 during the green revolution. almost immediately after the election — i mean, excuse me, like within hours after the polls closed ahmadinejad announced he won with 62% of the vote. within a few days, president obama basically said that that election was a legitimate one.”

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it. the problem was this was an illegitimate election, the people in the streets were rioting saying please support us president obama, we are the pro- democracy movement. we want to turn this theocracy that’s been at war with the united states, that’s developing a nuclear weapon, that’s killing our troops in afghanistan and iraq with ieds and the president of the united states turned his back on them. at the same time, a year later we have the same situation where muslim brotherhood and islamists are in the streets of egypt opposing an ally of ours, not a sworn enemy like iran, but an ally of ours like mubarak and he joins the radicals instead of standing with our friends.”
“we know by the israelis. we don’t have any evidence, if you look at what’s being done, most of the evidence to actually trails back to the israelis and the methodology that they use. there’s no evidence the united states is at all complicit in working at that. that’s what — i would be very direct that we would, in fact, and openly talk about this. why? because i want to make sure that iran knows that when i say that iran is not getting a nuclear weapon, that we will actually affect out policies that make that happen. this president has not done that. he has opposed tough sanctions on iran, on their oil program. why? because he’s concerned about the economy and his re-election instead of the long-term national security interests of this country. i would say to every foreign scientist that’s going in to iran to help them with their program, you will be treated as an enemy combatant like an al qaeda member. and finally i would be working openly with the state of israel and i would be saying to the iranis you need to open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will degrade those facilities with air strikes and make it very public.”

“iran would not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.”

“yes, that’s the plan. i mean you can’t go out and say, this is — this is the problem with this administration. you can’t go out and say this is what i’m for and then do nothing. you become a paper tiger. and people don’t respect our country. and our allies can’t trust us. that’s the problem with this administration.”

I was pleased to hear Rick Santorum make the following statement:

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it.”

I continue to endorse Rick Santorum for the Republican nomination and the presidency. He is the breathe of fresh air that this country needs.

19 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Election 2012, Election update, Electors, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pennsylvania voters, politicians, Politics, polls, Presidential candidate, Primary polls, republicans, Rick Santorum, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US economy, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

Rick Santorum endorsement, Citizen Wells endorses Santorum for presidency, God Family Constitution Defense Budget, Legal immigration, Obama eligibility

Posted on December 29, 2011 | 119 comments

Rick Santorum endorsement, Citizen Wells endorses Santorum for presidency, God Family Constitution Defense Budget, Legal immigration, Obama eligibility

My friends have been asking me for weeks what my preference in a presidential candidate is. For weeks I have been stating, Rick Santorum. An intelligent, well informed friend of mine who I have known for many years agrees.

So far my biggest gripe with Santorum was his response to Obama’s eligibility deficiency. However, many otherwise good Americans have been fooled by the Orwellian brainwashing of the mainstream media. Like many decisions in life, Santorum for me is the lesser of evils, however, I find most of his positions appealing.

From the DesMoines Register August 7, 2011.

“Candidate profile: Rick Santorum refuses to compromise on principles”

“Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum knew he was in trouble as he sought re-election to his third term in 2006.

Public opinion was hardening against the war in Iraq and the president who started it. All signs pointed to a bad year for Republicans.

His supporters were blunt, recalled Charlie Artz, a Harrisburg lawyer and a friend since they were in their 20s. To win, they said, you need to change
course. You need to soften your opinions.

But Santorum wouldn’t budge. He described the state of America’s families as a moral crisis. He declared the nation at a critical crossroads in a fight
against radical Islamists. And he ultimately lost by 18 points to Bob Casey Jr., the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent senator since 1980.

“Rick is a very devout Catholic guy, and he believes in the principles of the founding fathers of this country,” Artz said. “He is not willing to compromise
on that. He will stand for his beliefs and his principles above any political expediency.”

Santorum, 53, is not about to start mincing words now that he’s seeking the Republican presidential nomination. That leaves little room in the middle between his supporters and his detractors.

Jamie Johnson of Stratford is a Christian pastor who has worked in 40 Republican political campaigns over the past two decades. He said he was drawn to join Santorum’s presidential bid after watching him lead the charge on family values legislation in Congress.

“I thought, ‘Wow. This guy is a guy of energy and passion and convictions,’ ” Johnson said. “If there was ever a time for a muscular Republican leader to
stand up against President Obama, it is now. I don’t see Michele Bachmann or Tim Pawlenty or Rick Perry having the intellectual or spiritual muscle to go toe
to toe with Barack Obama.”

Jim Burn, chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, has closely monitored Santorum’s political career, too, but sees him in an entirely different light.
By 2006, Pennsylvanians had come to view Santorum as completely out of touch with their values, he said.

“He was viewed as a Republican with extreme right-wing beliefs and was not viable,” Burn said.

His story starts with emigrating granddad
Santorum’s political outlook is firmly rooted in family.

On the campaign trail, he frequently tells the story of how his grandfather came to America from Italy in the 1920s because he detested living under fascist
dictator Benito Mussolini. His grandfather worked in Pennsylvania’s coal mines until he was 72, Santorum said.

During a campaign stop in July in Marion, Ia., Santorum told of kneeling before his grandfather’s casket as a teenager and looking at his large folded hands,
holding a rosary. His grandfather’s independence and hard work brought freedom to his family, he said.

“He gave me the opportunities that I have,” Santorum said. “I feel like I am standing on his shoulders.”

He describes his grandfather, Pietro, known as Pete, and his father, Aldo, a psychologist, as strong-willed, a trait he shares.

His dad was a typical Italian father who “would always yell first and speak softly later,” he said.

Santorum grew up in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Both his father and mother, Catherine, a nurse, worked for the Veterans Administration.

After earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees, he became a staffer for Republican state Sen. Doyle Corman while he earned a law degree. Then, too, he
demonstrated his strong-willed streak.

Corman said he hired Santorum because he was bright and ambitious, and Corman let Santorum know he was free to argue with his boss about politics.

“If Rick thought that I was headed in the wrong direction, we would have debates over it, and the staff couldn’t believe how hot our debates would get at
times,” Corman recalled in a phone interview. “You could hear us through the walls, but I wanted that, and Rick made me think things out well.”

Fast-rising career in U.S. House, Senate
He was a young man on a fast track. He started work for a prominent Pittsburgh law firm and did some lobbying at the Pennsylvania Capitol. Four years after
graduating from law school, he launched a bid for Congress.

Corman and others told him to forget it because it would be too difficult to defeat a long-term Democratic incumbent.

“He beat that seven-term incumbent, and the rest is history,” Corman said.

As a 32-year-old freshman, Santorum joined former U.S. Rep. Jim Nussle of Iowa and others to focus on government reform, becoming a member of the “Gang of Seven” that exposed the House banking and post office scandals.

In 1994, at 36, he won election to the Senate, once again unseating an incumbent, Democrat Harris Wofford. Two years later, he was an author and floor manager of a landmark welfare reform act that moved millions of people from the welfare rolls to the work force.

Again and again, he pressed abortion fight
It was about this time that he and his family experienced a defining moment, underlining his commitment to reverence for life.

After Santorum and his wife arrived in Washington, D.C., their family quickly grew to three children. But in 1996, Karen Santorum, who had worked as a neo-
natal nurse and a lawyer, experienced a difficult pregnancy.

During labor, she developed a severe infection in her uterus, and her temperature soared to 105 degrees. Their son was born prematurely and lived only two hours.

Karen Santorum describes how she and her husband brought their deceased infant home instead of allowing the child to be placed in a refrigerated morgue.
Their daughter, Elizabeth, cuddled the infant and announced, “This is my baby brother, Gabriel; he is an angel.”

A priest celebrated the Mass of the Angels in his grandparents’ living room, and the casket was placed in the back seat of the family’s van as they drove to
the cemetery.

Karen Santorum wrote a book about her son, “Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum,” which includes a forward by Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

At the same time, Rick Santorum was leading efforts in the U.S. Senate to ban what he describes as partial-birth abortions.

Santorum acknowledges that other Republican presidential candidates also say they oppose abortion. But he portrays himself as the candidate who has a proven
record fighting to restrict it.

He has spoken of losing a battle against President Bill Clinton for a partial-birth abortion act.

“I didn’t just offer (the bill), but I stood there and fought … year in and year out,” Santorum said. “We lost because Bill Clinton would veto the bill. …
But I continued to fight. I continued to stand up for life, and God blessed us.” (The bill was signed into law under President George W. Bush.)

As senator, called for balancing the budget
Besides championing anti-abortion legislation in the Senate, he supported a balanced federal budget and a line-item veto to curb spending.

That record makes him the right choice to lead a nation confronting out-of-control spending and a downgraded credit rating, he says.

Even before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Santorum proposed transforming the U.S. military from a Cold War force to a more agile one to meet modern threats. He was also a leader on U.S.-Israeli relations, authoring the “Syria Accountability Act” and the “Iran Freedom and Support Act,” despite initial opposition from President Bush.”

“Santorum has campaigned more days and conducted more events in Iowa than any other candidate. But he has had difficulty gaining traction. In The Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll in June, he registered 4 percent support among likely Republican caucusgoers.

But he takes heart in a Quinnipiac University poll released last week that showed him in a dead heat with Obama in a theoretical presidential matchup in
Pennsylvania, a key swing state. And he reminds voters that he has twice defeated incumbent Democrats.

He also notes that Abraham Lincoln lost two Senate races before he was elected president.

His friend Artz says Santorum will outwork other candidates and would make a great president because he would always put the country first.

“I think he is going to surprise some people out there,” Artz said.”

““Rick won’t apologize for America being great, and he will defend Israel. He didn’t shy away from taking on the partial-birth abortion ban or welfare reform,
and he’s certainly not going to shy away from getting this country back on track.” — Kim Lehman, Iowa’s National Republican Committeewoman and former president of Iowa Right to Life

“I don’t comment on who would be a good president or a bad president, but I can tell you that a lot of Rick Santorum’s policies and priorities are not in
keeping with core constitutional principles.” — Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State

“Not many politicians have spine; this one does.” — Talk-show host Glenn Beck, introducing Santorum before a June interview on Fox News”

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/08/07/santorum-refuses-to-compromise-on-principles/

Rick Santorum meets my priorities of :

God
Family
Constitution
Defense
Budget

Rick Santorum, like other decent members of Congress such as Howard Coble was brainwashed by the mainstream media and their own congressional resources.

Rick Santorum told WND, “My understanding is that issue was solved. If there’s evidence to the contrary [showing Obama is not eligible], they should bring it forth.”

When Santorum was reminded about the Natural Born Citizen requirement he allegedly responded “I don’t think that’s what the Constitution requires, and he (President Obama) was born in the country, so it doesn’t matter.”

I personally believe that Rick Santorum, when properly advised , will reconsider his position on Obama’s eligibility and will be open to ask more questions and seek more answers.

Mr. Santorum, I am at your service.

Contact me.

Wells

119 Comments

Posted in Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, conservatives, constitution, Election 2012, Eligibility, Family, Glenn Beck, God, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pennsylvania voters, Politics, Presidential candidate, Presidential debate, republicans, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US House of Representatives, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

Natural Born Citizen lies and misrepresentations, Congressional Research Service Propaganda, Founding fathers intent, Obama eligibility, Leo Donofrio response

Posted on December 1, 2011 | 53 comments

Natural Born Citizen lies and misrepresentations, Congressional Research Service Propaganda, Founding fathers intent, Obama eligibility, Leo Donofrio response

Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States, and is criminally occupying the White House and should immediately be arrested. Irrespective of any deficiencies in his birth certificate, Obama did not have 2 US citizen parents and is not a Natural Born Citizen.
Presidential eligibility from the US Constitution

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Notice that being a citizen was not enough, unless you were so at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution. One must be a Natural Born Citizen. That requires 2 US citizen parents. The founding fathers understood that definition. One of the best examples I can think of this contextual knowledge is from the movie “A few good men.”

In 2008, John McCain was challenged on his eligibility. He immediately presented a legitimate certified copy of his original birth certificate. But since he was born abroad, the US Senate provided a resolution to clarify his status as a Natural Born Citizen.

“110th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. RES. 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary
April 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
April 30, 2008
Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the
United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in
the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States,
as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country
outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

 Notice that emphasis was placed on the fact that McCain had 2 US citizen parents. Also note that Obama signed the resolution.

In 2008, numerous congressmen were contacted regarding Obama’s eligibility issues. It appeared at the time that they were all reading from the same scripted agenda. In 2010 we learned why members of congress responded with the same language.

From Citizen Wells November 8, 2010.

“Mario Apuzzo, attorney in Kerchner v Obama, first broke this story on November 5, 2010.

“Members of Congress Internal Memorandum — What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions – Their Talking Points Internal Memo Revealed. This was the spin that the Members of Congress were given to keep the American electorate at bay and confused in the debate about Obama’s eligibility issues all the while the Congress did nothing to investigate the matter in a congressional hearing like they did for similar concerns about John McCain.

We have obtained a copy of the talking points memorandum put out by a lawyer for the Congressional Research Service to the Members of Congress back in April 2009 as to what to tell their constituents when they write to the Members of Congress and ask questions about Obama’s eligibility. Now we know why all the answers coming back to constituents sounded like they were written by the same person and were full of the same obfuscations, omitted facts from history, and half truths & non-truths. This copy was obtained via the diligent and persistent efforts of a patriot going by the pen name of “Tom Deacon” who obtained it from a Senator’s office. Now we know the talking points the DC insiders and politicians have been groomed with to feed to their constituents who have been asking questions about the eligibility issues. Thank you Tom.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/congress-internal-memo-obama-eligibility-what-to-tell-your-constituents-jack-maskell-memo-citizen-wells-open-thread-november-8-2010/

Chris Strunk gave us a heads up yesterday that Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service is at it again.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/

Leo Donofrio has responded to this latest attempt at obfuscation of the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.
“Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.
 
Yesterday, attorney Jack Maskell issued yet another version of his ever changing Congressional Research Memo on POTUS eligibility and the natural-born citizen clause.  The CRS memo is actually a blessing for me in that I’ve been putting a comprehensive report together on this issue for about a month now.  But not having an official source standing behind the entire body of propaganda made my job more difficult.
The complete refutation will be available soon, but for now I will highlight one particularly deceptive example which illustrates blatant intellectual dishonesty.  On pg. 48, Maskell states:

In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221
221 Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920). The Supreme Court also noted there: “It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.” 253 U.S. at 464.
Reading this yesterday, I had a fleeting moment of self-doubt.  Could I have missed this case?  Did the Supreme Court really state that the son of two aliens was a natural-born citizen?  The Twilight Zone theme suddenly chimed in.  I then clicked over to the actual case, and of course, the Supreme Court said no such thing.

The petitioner was born in California to parents who were both US citizens.  His father was born in the United States and was a citizen by virtue of the holding in US v. Wong Kim Ark.  His mother’ place of birth was not mentioned.  Regardless, she was covered by the derivative citizenship statute, and was, therefore, a US citizen when the child was born.

It was alleged that the petitioner had obtained a false identity and that the citizen parents were not his real parents.  But the Supreme Court rejected the State’s secret evidence on this point and conducted their citizenship analysis based upon an assumption these were petitioner’s real parents.
Having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen.  But Maskell’s frightening quotation surgery makes it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents.  The Supreme Court rejected that contention.  And Maskell’s ruse highlights the depravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat on this issue.  I can imagine Mini-Me sitting on his lap while this was being prepared.
When you look carefully at Maskell’s creative use of quotation marks, you’ll see that the statement is NOT a quote from the case, but rather a Frankenstein inspired patchwork.  He starts the reversed vivisection off with the following:
“[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son…”

These are the first few words of a genuine quote from the Court’s opinion.  Then Maskell goes way out of context for the next two body parts.  The first is not in quotation marks:

of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is

And finally, an unrelated quote from elsewhere in the Court’s opinion:
“a natural born American citizen ….”
Put it all together and you get the following monstrosity:
…the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”
But the Supreme Court never said that.  Here’s what they actually said:
“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.”  Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).

This real quote – when liberated from Maskell’s embalming fluid – does not resemble the propaganda at all.”

Read more:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/

53 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Election 2012, Election Law, Eligibility, Lawyers, Leo Donofrio, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Usurper, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Rezko sentencing November 22, 2011, Prosecutors seek stiff sentence?, Obama is not your friend, Tell all

Posted on November 9, 2011 | 20 comments

Rezko sentencing November 22, 2011, Prosecutors seek stiff sentence?, Obama is not your friend, Tell all

“Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action”

“The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama.”…Blagojevich defense subpoena of Barack Obama

“I’m assuming the information is about the payments made by Rezko to Obama, so we know we’re talking about the right conversation, right?” …Attorney Daniel Konicek, Frawley Deposition

“Why did the Illinois Senate Health & Human Services Committee, with Obama as chairman, create and push Bill 1332, “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” early in 2003, which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, just prior to rigging by Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

From the Chicago Tribune November 04, 2011.

“Prosecutors seek stiff time for Rezko”

“Federal prosecutors downplayed the extent of the cooperation provided by Antoin “Tony” Rezko in calling for the former top fundraiser to disgraced ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich to be sentenced to 11 to 15 years in prison.

Prosecutors noted that Rezko agreed to cooperate only after a federal jury convicted him in 2008 on 16 counts of fraud, bribery and money laundering and that he continued to hide many of his criminal activities in his first 19 interviews with the government.

The government didn’t call Rezko as a witness at either the Blagojevich trial or the recent trial of Springfield power broker William Cellini, saying in its filing that “the value of the information he could have provided was overwhelmed by the attacks that could be made on Rezko’s credibility.”

The government’s 48-page memo was filed late Thursday, just hours after a federal judge had unsealed the defense’s position paper on Rezko’s sentencing, scheduled for Nov. 22. Rezko’s lawyers argued that he should be sentenced to time served. He has already spent almost four years in custody while awaiting sentencing.

In its filing, the defense made much of the fact that Rezko had been harshly treated in jail — first at the downtown Metropolitan Correctional Center and then in a county jail in Wisconsin. It said he had “not enjoyed a breath of fresh air or a ray of sunlight” in his 44 months in custody and said conditions of that kind were usually reserved for “the most violent or mentally disturbed inmates,” not a public-corruption defendant.

Prosecutors argued that Rezko’s conditions of confinement do not justify a sentence of time served but agreed that U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve, in fashioning her sentence, should consider the nine months Rezko spent in solitary confinement at the Loop jail.

The government compared Rezko’s level of wrongdoing to that of Stuart Levine, a corrupt insider who faces about 5 1/2 years in prison after cutting a plea deal. But prosecutors said Rezko deserved a much stiffer sentence because Levine’s cooperation had been far more significant.

Calling his cooperation “truly remarkable,” prosecutors pointed out that Levine agreed to cooperate after he had been charged and even wore a wire on former Chicago Ald. Edward Vrdolyak, leading to Vrdolyak’s conviction.”

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-11-04/news/ct-met-rezko-sentencing-1105-20111105_1_antoin-tony-rezko-stuart-levine-loop-jail

From the Chicago SunTimes November 4, 2011.

“In court papers asking a judge to free him from jail later this month
rather than having to do more time, convicted political fund-raiser
Tony Rezko said that after spending 20 years in Chicago politics, he
was still taken aback by a request that allegedly came from former
Gov. Rod Blagojevich.”

“The filing did give new insight to the extent of Rezko’s cooperation
with the government, saying he had met with authorities 29 separate
days over the three years following his conviction and that memo
summaries of his interviews fill 360 pages.

Lawyers said that it was Rezko who initially implicated Monk, who was
charged, and government witness Joe Aramanda. Rezko also implicated
lobbyist John Wyma, they say, and Wyma gave the feds probable cause to
wiretap Blagojevich’s phones.

A onetime fund-raiser to Barack Obama, Rezko had voluntarily
surrendered to prison after he was convicted on 16 of 24 counts to
begin immediately begin his sentence.

Rezko was convicted of using his clout to control state government and
direct kickbacks from government deals to himself and others.

He spent 276 days in solitary confinement at the downtown lockup,
something that the jail typically does with high-profile inmates. He
was later moved to a county jail in Wisconsin and has lost more than
80 pounds since he’s been locked up with his “weight dipping to a low
of 154 pounds.”

“With this dramatic weight loss, Mr. Rezko has shrunk from a robust,
if somewhat overweight, man to a frail and gaunt shell of his former
self,” his lawyers wrote.

“He has not enjoyed a breath of fresh air or a ray of sunlight for
nearly three and a half years, and he has not been allowed to hug his
wife or daughter since he left the MCC nearly three years ago.””

“Lawyers said Rezko’s own success in business led him to branch out and
support numerous national, state and local politicians.

“And, of course, Mr. Rezko was a friend, advisor, and early supporter
of a young politician named Barack Obama,” lawyers wrote.

Federal prosecutors are expected to file a position on Rezko’s
sentencing late Thursday and sources say they are expected to ask for
a sentence greater than the 5 ½ years that co-conspirator Stuart
Levine is slotted to get under his plea deal.”

http://www.suntimes.com/8593723-417/after-44-months-tony-rezko-asks-to-be-sentenced-to-time-served.html

From John Kass of the Chicago Tribune June 13, 2008.

“The last thing Sen. Barack Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich needed was that letter written by convicted Illinois influence peddler Tony Rezko promising he’d never rat out his pals.”

“They are pressuring me to tell them the ‘wrong’ things that I supposedly know about Governor Blagojevich and Senator Obama,” the fundraiser (and Obama’s personal real estate fairy) wrote in a letter to U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve.

“I have never been a party to any wrongdoing that involved the Governor or the Senator,” Rezko argued. “I will never fabricate lies about anyone else for selfish purposes. I will take whatever comes my way, but I will never hurt innocent people.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-jun13,0,1570658.column

Every press report, every comment coming from Rezko’s attorney since then has indicated thet he has been cooperating with the feds.

The question is, why wasn’t Rezko called as a witness in the Blagojevich and Cellini trials?

The answer is.

To keep Obama’a name and activities out of court testimony and the press and set Rezko up with a tougher sentence as the fall guy. To keep him quiet.

If you are Tony Rezko, a Rezko family member or friend or one of Rezko’s attorneys, urge Mr. Rezko to reveal all about Obama. Obama is not your friend.

Contact me with a comment on this blog. I promise you that if Rezko talks, I will do everything in my power to get the information in front of the American public and appropriate members of Congress.

20 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, corruption, FBI, Federal Court, Illinois, Judges, Lawyers, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Patrick Fitzgerald, Pay to play politics, Prosecution, Rezko, Stuart Levine, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Department of Justice, William Cellini

Tagged , , , ,

Obama jobs pitch Greensboro NC Proximity Hotel stay, Occupy Greensboro protestors may picket Obama, Taxpayer funded campaign trip

Posted on October 17, 2011 | 20 comments

Obama jobs pitch Greensboro NC Proximity Hotel stay, Occupy Greensboro protestors may picket Obama, Taxpayer funded campaign trip

“Why did the Illinois Senate Health & Human Services Committee, with Obama as chairman, create and push Bill 1332, “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” early in 2003, which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, just prior to rigging by Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it“…Joseph Goebbels

From the Greensboro News Record October 17, 2011.

“Railing against Republicans, President Barack Obama on Monday pushed for a jobs package that Congress is splintering into pieces, as the White House predicted the Senate would start taking votes soon. Obama pressed lawmakers to act first on his idea of funneling aid to states to hire teachers and other workers.

Noting that Republicans in Senate rejected consideration of his whole $447 billion plan, Obama sought anew to turn that vote against them.

“Maybe they just couldn’t understand the whole thing at once, so we’re going to break it up into bite-size pieces,” Obama said in western North Carolina, back on the road to campaign for his agenda and, in turn, his own re-election.”

“Obama’s pitch came in the first stop of a three-day bus tour through North Carolina and Virginia. His goal is to keep pressure on Congress to act on individual pieces of his bill following last week’s Senate vote to shelve the plan.

A supportive crowed in broke into a chant of “four more years” for Obama. Said the president in response: “I appreciate the four more years, but right now I’m thinking about the next thirteen months.”

Republicans denounced the bus trip as nothing more than a taxpayer-funded campaign trip through two must-win states to try to bolster his standing for the 2012 election.”

http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/10/17/article/obama_begins_bus_tour_in_nc_to_promote_jobs_bill

Occupy protesters look for new campsite

“The neophyte Occupy Greensboro movement has a secure downtown campsite through Friday and is hunting another location to continue its protest for the long haul.

A day after staging a 600-person march through town protesting financial inequities, about 200 campers and part-time demonstrators agreed by unanimous consent Sunday evening to pursue other tactics, including the possible picketing of the Proximity Hotel where they expect President Barack Obama to stay tonight during his two-day visit to North Carolina and Virginia.

The group voted to ask Obama to meet tonight with some members — a delegation bearing letters of “individual grievances.”

“We wished to invite you to visit with our assembly and hear why the people gathered here are upset with our government,” the letter said.”

http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/10/17/article/occupy_protesters_look_for_new_campsite

In honor of Obama’s visit to my home state NC, here are 5 questions that we would like answers to:

1. Why did the IL committee you were chairman of in 2003 reduce the members of the IL Health Planning Board from 15 to 9 just before it was rigged by Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich?

2. Who murdered Donald Young, the choirmaster of your church, TUCC?

3. Why have you used numerous US Justice department attorneys and personnel, at taxpayer expense, to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

4. Why did your administration push through federal loan guarantees for Solyndra?

5. What was your involvement in project Fast and Furious?

I have many more questions for you, but this is a good start.

20 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Blagojevich, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, Donald Young, Economy, Election 2012, Eligibility, NC, News, North Carolina, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Rezko, The Case Against Barack Obama, Tony Rezko, US Department of Justice, US economy, US House of Representatives, US Senate, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

Occupy Greensboro protest, Saturday October 15, 2011, Downtown Greensboro NC, Government and institutions for sale to the highest bidder

Posted on October 16, 2011 | 15 comments

Occupy Greensboro protest, Saturday October 15, 2011, Downtown Greensboro NC, Government and institutions for sale to the highest bidder

The crowd at Occupy Greensboro was a fairly diverse group of people very different from the bulk of attendees at the Occupy Wall Street protest in NY City. Many of the Tea Party folks would have felt at home with signs blaming government. Of course the Che Guevarra flag  would not have been so inviting. I  am still watching the union and Obama camp involvement in NC and will continue to monitor it. Recently the ACLU was spotted near the University of NC at Greensboro with petitions against some form of job discrimination in NC. What they failed to mention is that NC is a right to work state. An employee can be fired for any reason. This keeps the unions out and companies in the state.

Morgan Freeman and other racists, most of the people in attendance were white since, duh, the majority of the population is.

From the Greensboro News Record October 15, 2011.

“When the Occupy movement that began on New York’s Wall Street comes to downtown Greensboro today, it will come with a head of steam that’s been building for weeks.

Organizers and supporters of Occupy Greensboro say the protests of economic inequity happening across the country inspired them to put together a local event.

Organizers say it also inspired them to do it the right way.”

“The group rented space at the park and the neighboring YWCA parking lot to avoid the standoff with police that happened at Occupy events in Boston and New York.

“The city greatly reduced its rental fee for us — from $700 a day to I believe around $200,” Wright said. “And we’ll have the YWCA parking lot for camping, which is private property.”

Initially, some in the group argued protesters should simply occupy the park without paying rent — under the theory there would be too many people for police to eject.

“In the end, we decided it was more important to have a good relationship with the city and the police,” Wright said.

Wright, a 29-year old who coaches lacrosse at Grimsley High and Wake Forest, said this is the first protest movement in which he’s taken part.”

Read more:

http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/10/14/article/occupy_organizers_want_family_event

From the Greensboro News Record October 16, 2011.

“Hundreds of protesters surrounded the Bank of America building downtown Saturday afternoon as part of the “Occupy Greensboro” protest.

“Banks got bailed out, we got sold out,” they chanted to the beat of a marching drum corps, raising handmade signs and unfurling banners.

“Lobbyists Eat the Constitution for Breakfast” read one.

“Eight Years of College and Laid off Twice,” another read. “Where’s My Bailout?”

Those who marched from the Phill G. McDonald Plaza to Festival Park said they were inspired by the movement that began on New York’s Wall Street and has spread all over the world.

Police Chief Ken Miller, who oversaw his officers at Festival Park and spent some time chatting with protesters, estimated the crowd at about 600.

Organizers had expected between 500 and 1,000 people.

Some of the targets of the protest: fraud in the financial industry, economic inequality, and elected officials who protesters said serve donors and lobbyists rather than the American people.

“It’s hard to live in America today without coming to the conclusion that our government and all of our institutions are for sale to the highest bidder,” said Michael Duncan, 22.

Duncan said he was lucky to find a job in computer technical support after he graduated from college two years ago — many of his friends didn’t.

But he was laid off just a few months later as the company he worked for downsized. He found another job after a few months but was laid off again within a year.

“Our economy is on the verge of collapse,” Duncan said. “And it’s because of a housing bubble created by bankers and people on Wall Street who sold us a bill of goods, defrauded the American people and then were bailed out by our government along with a lot of other major corporations as average workers were laid off, their pay cut, and their houses foreclosed.

“Anyone who isn’t angry about that hasn’t been paying attention.”

The demonstration remained peaceful. No arrests were made as of Saturday night.

The event’s organizers worked closely with police and city officials to be sure the demonstration would be safe, family friendly and nonviolent.”

“A few area elected officials and political candidates also were among the crowd, including at-large Greensboro City Council candidate Marikay Abuzuaiter and Guilford County Register of Deeds Jeff Thigpen.

Thigpen’s crusade against mortgage fraud and improper documentation by major national banks in Guilford County has gotten national media coverage.

“The people who started this aren’t the protesters,” Thigpen said. “They’re on Wall Street and they ran our economy into the ground. I believe in an America where there isn’t one standard for banks and another standard for the rest of us.””

Read more:

http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/10/15/article/600_march_downtown

Jeff Thigpen, the Guilford County Register of Deeds, is a good guy and a friend of mine. He has been doing some good work in the area of “robo signatures” and circumventing of chain of title in mortgages. However, he continues to repeat the party line in terms of placing the majority of blame for the economy and housing crisis on the lenders. More guilty in this sham are people like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Barack Obama in sync with organizations like ACORN who pressured banks to make loans to unqualified and risky borrowers. Jeff, I will be discussing that with you soon.

15 Comments

Posted in Americans, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, Congress, constitution, Economy, Government, NC, New York, News, North Carolina, Obama, Obama administration, Obama taxes, The Case Against Barack Obama, Unions

Tagged , , , ,

ACORN Behind Occupy Wall Street Protest, Obama Administration funding, Banks demonized and intimidated again, Obama community organizer tactics

Posted on October 6, 2011 | 31 comments

ACORN Behind Occupy Wall Street Protest, Obama Administration funding, Banks demonized and intimidated again, Obama community organizer tactics

I was in the process of following up on Patrick Fitzgerald, the US Justice Department and who they did and did not prosecute during the 2008 election cycle and moving forward when I came across this article. It came as no surprise to me.

From Judicial Watch October 5, 2011.

“ACORN Behind Occupy Wall Street Protest”

“A famously corrupt leftist community organization with deep ties to President Barack Obama is largely behind the national movement to “end economic segregation” and social injustice in the United States.

Best known as Occupy Wall Street, the rowdy protests have received quite a bit of mainstream media coverage around the world. Besides New York, disruptive marches have been held in other major U.S. cities such as Los Angeles, Seattle, Miami and Boston and more are scheduled in the coming days.

Among the goals is to get major banks to stop preying on the poor and people of color, according to the organizer of a Boston offshoot of an Occupy Wall Street rally. The event, promoted as Take Back Boston, was organized by dozens of local community groups that claim big banks have a pattern of pushing “bad loans on people of color and the poor.” As a result of the “predatory lending,” foreclosures have skyrocketed in urban communities, the organizers say.

Among the Take Back Boston organizers is a spinoff of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Amid a massive fraud scandal and a series of criminal probes, ACORN supposedly dismantled but the reality is that it simply changed its name. In fact, Judicial Watch recently published a special report (“The Rebranding of ACORN”) about the organization’s transformation into various spinoffs and affiliated groups.”

Read more:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/oct/acorn-behind-occupy-wall-street-protest

Prior to the 2008 election, ACORN with the help of Obama and his left wing associates in and outside of Congress, intimidated banks into making loans to many who would not otherwise qualify. The economic downturn forced many into foreclosure, although many of them would have failed anyway since they were not on sound economic footing. Now the banks are blamed for a situation created by the very forces blaming them. Pretty slick, eh?

From Citizen Wells  October 8, 2008.

 “Below is an exerpt from an official Acorn document.”

“ACORN Report
The ACORN Report is published by ACORN’s National Officeand contains up-to-date information. We have ACORN Reports indexed by date and topic available.”

“City Limits February 1999
During its 15 years in New York City, ACORN has helped squatters claim derelict city-owned property, forced bankers to invest in low-income communities, and organized a war against the city’s workfare program.

It’s also developed a reputation for no-holds-barred tactics—getting results through adversarial campaigns against bankers, politicians and bureaucrats using confrontation and concession rather than consensus. ACORN, unlike most social service non-profits, scorns charity. Their goal is to help poor people seize power.”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/obama-acorn-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-voter-fraud-seize-power-saul-alinsky-raila-odinga-obama-and-acorn-socialists-smoking-gun/

31 Comments

Posted in Acorn, Banks, Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Community Organizer, Congress, corruption, Economy, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama thugs, Patrick Fitzgerald, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Department of Justice, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,