Category Archives: US Senate

Democratic Senators Tell White House of Concerns About Health Care Law Rollout, Obamacare impact on jobs Public Health and Prevention Fund and their reelection

Posted on April 26, 2013 | 112 comments

Democratic Senators Tell White House of Concerns About Health Care Law Rollout, Obamacare impact on jobs Public Health and Prevention Fund and their reelection

“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)[1] imposes numerous tax hikes that transfer more than $500 billion over 10 years—and more in the future—from hardworking American families and businesses to Congress for spending on new entitlements and subsidies. In addition, higher tax rates on working and investing will discourage economic growth both now and in the future, further lowering the standard of living.”…Heritage Foundation

“However … health insurance rates and benefit coverage plan costs have continued to increase. As a result of those increases, county employees have experienced a pay decrease that has grown larger each year.”…Guilford County Interim Manager Sharisse Fuller

“Can we stop calling ObamaCare the Affordable Care Act now?”…Guilford College student

 

From the NY Times April 25, 2013.

“Democratic Senators Tell White House of Concerns About Health Care Law Rollout”

“Democratic senators, at a caucus meeting with White House officials, expressed concerns on Thursday about how the Obama administration was carrying out the health care law they adopted three years ago.

Democrats in both houses of Congress said some members of their party were getting nervous that they could pay a political price if the rollout of the law was messy or if premiums went up significantly.

President Obama’s new chief of staff, Denis R. McDonough, fielded questions on the issue for more than an hour at a lunch with Democratic senators.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, who is up for re-election next year, said, “We are hearing from a lot of small businesses in New Hampshire that do not know how to comply with the law.”

In addition, Mrs. Shaheen said, “restaurants that employ people for about 30 hours a week are trying to figure out whether it would be in their interest to reduce the hours” of those workers, so the restaurants could avoid the law’s requirement to offer health coverage to full-time employees.

The White House officials “acknowledged that these are real concerns, and that we’ve got to do more to address them,” Mrs. Shaheen said.

Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on health care, said he was extremely upset with Mr. Obama’s decision to take money from public health prevention programs and use it to publicize the new law, which creates insurance marketplaces in every state.

“I am greatly disappointed — beyond upset — that the administration chose to help pay for the Affordable Care Act in fiscal year 2013 by raiding the Public Health and Prevention Fund,” Mr. Harkin said.

The administration said it had transferred $332 million from the prevention fund to pay for “education and outreach” activities publicizing the new insurance markets, or exchanges.

To express his displeasure, Mr. Harkin has blocked Senate action on Mr. Obama’s nominee to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Marilyn B. Tavenner. By putting a “hold” on the nomination, aides said, Mr. Harkin hopes to draw the White House into negotiations on the future of the prevention fund, which he has championed.”

“Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland, said he told White House officials on Thursday that he was concerned about big rate increases being sought by the largest health insurer in his state. The company, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, has sought increases averaging 25 percent for individual insurance policies that will be sold in the state insurance exchange, and it is seeking increases of about 15 percent for small businesses. The company said the higher premiums reflected costs of complying with the new law.”

Read more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us/politics/democratic-senators-tell-white-house-of-concerns-about-health-care-law-rollout.html?_r=1&

112 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Economy, Employment, Health Insurance, Healthcare bill, Jobs, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama taxes, ObamaCare, The Case Against Barack Obama, Unemployment, US Senate, Washington DC, white house

Tagged ,

Senator Rand Paul letter to Harry Reid on Immigration Bill vs national security, Boston Marathon bombings, Student visa review or suspension, Immigrations allowed from Islamic extremism hotbeds

Posted on April 22, 2013 | 43 comments

Senator Rand Paul letter to Harry Reid on Immigration Bill vs national security, Boston Marathon bombings, Student visa review or suspension, Immigrations allowed from Islamic extremism hotbeds

” the FBI reviewed its records and determined that in early 2011, a foreign government asked the FBI for information about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The request stated that it was based on information that he was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.”…FBI press release April 19, 2013

“Saudi Arabia, which gave us 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, will soon get the coveted “trusted traveler” status from the Department of Homeland Security.”…NY post March 21, 2013

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”…Barack Obama

 

 

From Senator Rand Paul April 22, 2013.

“Sen. Paul Issues Letter to Majority Leader Reid Regarding Consideration of Immigration Bill

In the wake of the Boston Marathon Bombings, focus should be on National Security

Apr 22, 2013

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul today issued a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urging him to incorporate various national security concerns into the comprehensive immigration reform debate in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings. Sen. Paul believes that comprehensive immigration reform requires a strong national security and until we can fully understand the systematic failures that enabled two individuals to immigrate to the United States from an area known for being hotbed of Islamic extremism, we should not proceed.

TEXT OF LETTER:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Majority Leader Reid,

As our thoughts and prayers continue to go out to those affected by the tragedy in Boston, I urge you to incorporate the following national security concerns into the comprehensive immigration reform debate. Before Congress moves forward, some important national security questions must be addressed.

I believe that any real comprehensive immigration reform must implement strong national security protections. The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system. If we don’t use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.

We should not proceed until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system. Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism? Were there any safeguards? Could this have been prevented? Does the immigration reform before us address this?

There should be hearings in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that study the national security aspects of this situation, making sure that our current immigration system gives individuals from high-risk areas of the world heightened scrutiny.

In the wake of 9/11, there was a comprehensive reform of our intelligence gathering system, yet our improved intelligence gathering system did not adequately detect these extremists. We need to understand possible intelligence failures and craft solutions.

Media reports indicate that the deceased bombing suspect was interviewed by the FBI two years ago at the request of a foreign government. We need to know the details of this interview. We need to know if this interview might have given investigators any reason to conclude that this individual might be dangerous or at least worthy of further inquiry. If so, was there an intelligence failure? At the very least, it should be examined.

Media reports indicate that both the bombing suspects were legal permanent residents and one is reported to be a naturalized citizen.  We need to make sure that we have safeguards against this type of situation happening again.

In 2002, Congress set up the National Security Registration System (NSEERS), yet it was suspended in 2011 by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.  That system had problems, yet was still based on the practical idea that extra screening is necessary from nations that have a higher population of extremists. Congress might need a similar system updated for current circumstances to be rolled into comprehensive immigration reform.

I would like the US-VISIT/OBIM program studied to see if it actually works, or at least study the process by which we collect and analyze biometric data on immigrants.

Our refugee programs have proven to be a problem. On, January 29, 2013, two Iraqi citizens living in Bowling Green, in my home state of Kentucky, were sentenced to long prison terms for participating in terrorism and providing material support to terrorists while living in the United States. How did this happen? Does the current immigration reform address how this might have happened? We may need more scrutiny when accepting refugees from high-risk nations.

I want to make sure that any new bill addresses the visa entry and exit programs, in addition to refugee programs that have proven problematic in Bowling Green and possibly, if media reports are correct, in Boston.

Finally, do we need to take a hard look at student visas? Should we suspend student visas, or at least those from high-risk areas, pending an investigation into the national security implications of this program?

I respectfully request that the Senate consider the following two conditions as part of the comprehensive immigration reform debate:One, the Senate needs a thorough examination of the facts in Massachusetts to see if legislation is necessary to prevent a similar situation in the future. Two, national security protections must be rolled into comprehensive immigration reform to make sure the federal government does everything it can to prevent immigrants with malicious intent from using our immigration system to gain entry into the United States in order to commit future acts of terror.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul, M.D.”

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=776

43 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, FBI, Government, Illegal immigrants, Immigrants, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Terrorist Attacks, Terrorists, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Senate, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Natural born citizen controversy over, Constitution FEC ruling Senate Resolution 511 and founding fathers provide answer, Politico The Blaze Media and politicians clueless

Posted on March 16, 2013 | 96 comments

Natural born citizen controversy over, Constitution FEC ruling Senate Resolution 511 and founding fathers provide answer, Politico The Blaze Media and politicians clueless

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“You can’t fix stupid.”…Ron White

I have reported several Obama controversies from early in 2008. The Larry Sinclair Obama sex and drug encounter, Obama’s ties to Rezko and corruption in Chicago and Illinois and Obama’s eligibility deficiencies and efforts to hide his records.

I do not often report on the eligibility issue but I have kept the Hassan vs FEC rulings in the forefront for a reason. The FEC has helped to clear up some of the confusion regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen. This also explains why Obama refused matching funds from the FEC in 2008. He was not eligible for matching funds or the presidency.

The Obots, imbeciles in the biased mainstream media and politicians were either confused, ignorant and/or biased in 2008 when Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen was questioned. Many of them used the terms citizen, naturalized citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably. If Obama had requested matching funds from the FEC, as he had promised to do, his eligibility would have been challenged, as was Abdul Hassan’s.

There is no more controversy.

The US Constitution is a good starting point. It states:

“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 . . . .”

This confirms that citizen is not equivalent to natural born citizen.

The FEC ruling against Abdul Hassan on September 2, 2011 states:

“No, as a naturalized American citizen, Mr. Hassan is not eligible to receive
presidential matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act (“Matching Payment Act”).

The United States Constitution provides that “[n]o 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 . . . .” U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 1, cl. 5.”

Click to access AO%202011-15.pdf

Senate Resolution 511 from April 30, 2008, which Barack Obama signed, states:

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 193”

McCain had 2 US citizen parents. Lawyers and legislators must be specific in what they include and omit.

The founding fathers, some of whom were trained in the law, had a clear understanding of what a natural born citizen is and that is why they had to be grandfathered in.

Case closed!

We have come to expect biased reporting from Politico and of course The Blaze, owned by Glenn Beck, who is clueless regarding Obama’s eligibility, predictably mis reporting on the Natural Born Citizen clause.

From The Blaze January 8, 2013.

“POLITICO WONDERS: IS TX SEN. TED CRUZ A ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’ ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR THE U.S. PRESIDENCY?”

“Only one week into his tenure as a Texas senator, Ted Cruz, 42, is already drawing presidential murmurs. While it’s certainly too early to tell what sort of leader Cruz will be, in practical terms, Politico raised a larger issue on Monday evening. Based on the fact that the politician was born to an American mother and a Cuban father in Canada, the outlet wondered if he is eligible to run for the American presidency.

The question at the center of the discussion is hypothetical at this juncture, as there’s no indication that the new senator is interested in the role. According to some, the fact that he was born outside of the U.S. could cause constitutional complications and uncertainties that would potentially cloud a candidacy. However, there is no precedent to examine that answers the viability question definitively. Politico explains:

While there’s no legal precedent for Cruz’s situation, most constitutional scholars surveyed by POLITICO believe the 42-year-old tea party sensation would be OK. But there’s just enough gray area to stoke controversy, as Cruz learned during his campaign for Senate last year.”

“Despite this analysis, it’s important to remember that Cruz is a newly-minted congressman. There’s no indication that he’s interested or seeking the presidency and such prospects, even if he does show an inclination, are years away. Still, on a grander scale, the discussion about natural born citizenship is pertinent — and one that seems continually unresolved.”

Read more:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/08/politico-wonders-is-tx-sen-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen-eligible-to-run-for-the-u-s-presidency/

Huh???

What is going on at American Thinker? Too much Orwellian brainwashing?

Thanks to Obama Release Your Records for calling them out.

“Last Word: American Thinker Pushes Leftist Myth 14th Amendment Citizen Is Natural Born Citizen”

“Note to American Thinker’s Ken Blackwell, Bob Morrison, and J.R. Dunn.
If you don’t like Article II of the Constitution then seek to have it
amended. Crapping all over it and misleading your readers is
disgusting and shameful. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are
citizens of the United States but they are not “natural born Citizens”
of the United States. See here and here.

Either you three are the stupidest fools on the planet or you are
purposely misleading the readers of American Thinker. And judging by
the lashings you’re receiving in the comment threads they clearly are
not stupid. Again, if you don’t like the Article II requirement then
have it amended. Articles in question declaring several potential, and
ineligible, presidential candidates eligible, here and here.

You say:
“Consider this historical question: Could it have been the original
intent of the Founders to disqualify themselves from serving as
president? It was not until Martin Van Buren, eighth president, that
we elected a man who had been born an American citizen.”

I was going to point out the Grandfather Clause to you but your reader
Countryman did it for me:”

Read more:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/03/american-thinker-pushes-leftist-myth.html

96 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, FEC, Founding Fathers, Government, Lawyers, media, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, US Senate, Washington DC, white house

Sequestration impact on Federal Education Programs, Automatic across the board reductions in discretionary programs, Obama stimulus and failed energy spending helped create huge deficit

Posted on February 26, 2013 | 10 comments

Sequestration impact on Federal Education Programs, Automatic across the board reductions in discretionary programs, Obama stimulus and failed energy spending helped create huge deficit

“Why was Obama in constant contact with Tony Rezko in 2004 when Rezko was conspiring with William Cellini to use TRS, Teacher Retirement Fund, assets for political gain and personal enrichment?”…Citizen Wells

“What do you think a stimulus is? It’s spending – that’s the whole point! Seriously.”…Barack Obama

“…and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.”…Margaret Thatcher

Much is being said about the impact of sequestration on federal education spending.

From the NEA.

“Impact of Sequestration on Federal Education Programs – State-by-State

Across-the-board cuts known as “sequestration” are scheduled to go into effect on March 1, 2013 unless Congress acts.  These cuts – nearly $3 billion for education alone —  would result in:

  • Services cut or eliminated for millions of students.
  • Funding for children living in poverty, special education, and Head Start slashed by billions.
  • Ballooning class sizes.
  • Elimination of after-school programs.
  • Decimation of programs for our most vulnerable—homeless students, English language learners, and high-poverty, struggling schools.
  • Slashing of financial aid for college students.
  • Loss of tens of thousands of education jobs—at early childhood, elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels.

http://www.nea.org/home/52610.htm

Sequestration defined.

From Idea Money Watch.

Q. What is sequestration? (Pronounced se″kwes-tra´shun)
A. Sequestration is a fiscal policy procedure adopted by Congress to deal with the federal budget deficit. It first appeared in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985.

Simply put, sequestration is the cancellation of budgetary resources — an “automatic” form of spending cutback. (Learn more here.)
 Q. Why is sequestration important now?

A. The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) established a 12 member Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction  (or “super committee”)  charged with reducing the deficit by an additional $1.2 – $1.5 trillion over ten years. The BCA also included a sequestration hammer should the super committee fail, a provision intended to “force” the super committee to act.

Despite the threat of sequestration, the super committee failed. Announcing its inability to reach an agreement on November 21, 2011, the members of the bipartisan committee stated  that “after months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee’s deadline.”

So, as established in the BCA, sequestration was triggered when the super committee failed to reach an agreement. Sequestration generates automatic cuts for each of nine years, FY 13-21, totaling $1.2 trillion. Sequestration was originally scheduled to take effect on Jan. 2, 2013. However, it was delayed for two months – until March 1, 2013, by the deal struck on New Year’s Eve, called the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

Now, without Congressional action to prevent sequestration, the first round of cuts will take place on March 1, 2013.

The 2013 cuts apply to “discretionary” spending and are divided between reductions to  defense ($500 billion) and non-defense ($700 billion). 

Q. What must occur in order to avoid sequestration?  


A. Sequestration can only be avoided if Congress passes legislation that undoes the legal requirement in the BCA and that President Obama will sign before March 1, 2013.

While advocacy efforts to prevent sequestration are beginning to spring up, the strongest efforts focus on preventing the deep cuts to defense spending.


Q. Can the Executive Branch reconfigure sequestration cuts?


A. No. The cuts are automatic, across-the-board reductions to all discretionary programs unless exempted by the BCA. (A list of exempt programs is available here.) The Executive Branch will have no authority or ability to redistribute the cuts.

http://www.ideamoneywatch.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60&Itemid=72

$ 3 billion in education cuts because our spending is out of control.

How did that happen?

Here is part of the reason.

A $840 billion Obama stimulus program.

From The Foundry October 18, 2012.

“The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.”

“So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

  1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
  2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
  3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
  4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
  5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
  6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
  7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
  8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
  9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
  10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
  11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
  12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
  13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
  14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
  15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
  16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
  17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
  18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
  19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
  20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
  21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
  22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
  23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
  24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
  25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
  26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
  27. Vestas ($50 million)
  28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
  29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
  30. Navistar ($39 million)
  31. Satcon ($3 million)*
  32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
  33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.”

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/

WE warned you.

Obama is doing to the US education system what he and his cronies did to Illinois.

From Citizen Wells March 29, 2012.

“Obama, Blagojevich and their cronies used the citizens of Illinois, Teachers Retirement System, hospitals and taxpayer dollars for their own benefit.”

“2003: “Of the five funds, the one in the sorriest shape is the Illinois Teacher Retirement System, which provides the pensions for suburban and downstate teachers. Its ratio of assets to liabilities stood at a mere 52 percent last year, so poor that it was considered among the five worst-funded plans in the country.”

“In 2002, the year after Obama made the pitch, the Illinois Teacher Retirement System reported an 18% increase in assets managed by minority-owned firms. Ariel’s share grew to $442 million by 2005.

In 2006, after the federal investigation became public, the teacher pension board severed its relationship with Ariel, concluding that Ariel’s investment returns were insufficient.”

“In addition to lining their own pockets, the money gained through the scheme was funneled to the campaigns of Blagojevich and Obama. Prosecutors have identified two $10,000 payments that were made to Obama’s US Senate campaign through straw donors Joseph Aramanda and Elie Maloof, which originated from a kickback paid by investment firm, Glencoe Capital, to secure approval for a $50 million deal.
Aramanda and Maloof also each gave Obama $1,000 for his failed run for Congress in 2000. Once Obama became a US Senator, Aramanda’s son was granted a coveted intern position in Obama’s Senate office in Washington during the summer of 2005, based on a request which the Obama’s camp has admitted came from Rezko.”

“Mr. Obama also recently pointed to his work on the Illinois pension issue as a model for what he would do as president to promote minority-owned companies.”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/tag/obama-doing-to-us-what-he-did-to-illinois/

10 Comments

Posted in 2009 Stimulus Bill, Barack Obama, Blagojevich, Budget, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, corruption, Deficit, Economy, Education, Energy, Financial crisis, Government, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Schools, The Case Against Barack Obama, US House of Representatives, US Senate, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

Federal budget deficit explained in common sense terms in NC, John Hammer Rhino Times, January 24, 2013, Obama and congress increased spending 40 percent

Posted on January 26, 2013 | 31 comments

Federal budget deficit explained in common sense terms in NC, John Hammer Rhino Times, January 24, 2013, Obama and congress increased spending 40 percent

“only 2 percent of the 3.5 million jobs gained since the recession ended in June 2009 are midpay. Nearly 70 percent are low-paying jobs”…AP, Kitsap Sun January 22, 2013

“We tried our plan—and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.”…Barack Obama

“the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

Common sense in print in NC.

From John Hammer of the Rhino Times January 24, 2013.

“If you listen to Democrats, and even some Republicans, for the federal government to balance its budget would require draconian cuts that would decimate the Defense Department and put major social welfare programs in bankruptcy. But the truth is that the federal government will take in $2.9 trillion in revenue this fiscal year. If the federal government would simply reduce spending to what it was a mere five years ago it would have a surplus instead of a trillion dollar deficit.

In 2007 the federal government spent $2.7 trillion. That was during the presidency of George Walker Bush and the budget deficit was about $200 billion, because the revenue that year was $2.56 trillion.

What Congress and President Obama have managed to do since then is increase spending astronomically. The projected spending for 2013 is $3.8 trillion. So even though revenue has increased to $2.9 trillion the deficit is still right around a trillion dollars.

It is an unbelievable increase in spending. The problem is not, as Obama continues to say, that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. The problem is that Obama and Congress have increased spending by 40 percent in the past five years. This is during a period of almost no inflation.

Since 2007 the federal government has increased its spending by $1.1 trillion. It is an incredible amount of money and it would be nice to blame it all on Obama, but Obama is a co-conspirator. Spending bills have to originate in the House, which the Republicans have controlled since 2011. Obama in his first term had pretty much free rein in Congress. The Democrats controlled the House and for almost a year had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Spending skyrocketed and in Obama’s first year in office, 2009, the budget deficit increased to $1.4 trillion.

What could only be done in Washington – where reality left the building decades ago – is that the budget deficit has remained over $1 trillion. The reason for the budget deficit in 2009 was the $1 trillion stimulus plan that Congress passed and Obama signed as soon as possible. That was supposed to spike up the spending, but then it was supposed to come back down.

It never has.

But the country ran pretty well in 2007. We were fighting the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, Social Security was being paid, as were Medicare and Medicaid. The federal government was throwing money at local governments, as it does, but evidently to go back to those years would be a tremendous hardship. It’s hard to believe.”

Read more:

http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-Columns-c-2013-01-23-214571.112113-under-the-hammer.html

31 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Budget, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, Defense, Deficit, Democrats, Economy, Government, NC, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama taxes, republicans, The Case Against Barack Obama, US economy, US House of Representatives, US Senate, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

House Senate Obama judges et al require Constitution 101, Natural born citizen not equal to citizen, Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Posted on January 3, 2013 | 37 comments

House Senate Obama judges et al require Constitution 101, Natural born citizen not equal to citizen, Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin”…Samuel Adams, 1776

 

Obama, many senators, congressmen, judges and state officials have a poor understanding of and little respect for the US Constitution. Over the past 5 years we have watched and listened as the natural born citizen requirement has been butchered and ignored. Now we are confronted by the attempts by many to misinterpret, ignore or subjugate the Second Amendment to 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”

Citizen is not equal to natural born citizen and therefore cannot be used interchangeably.

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Infringement: The encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract.

Constitution 101 classes was first mentioned at Citizen Wells on December 17, 2008. This was prompted by the numerous absurd, erroneous, incompetent responses from senators and congressmen when Obama’s natural born citizen status was questioned.

From Citizen Wells December 17, 2008.

The ultimate objective of a presidential election to inaugurate a
constitutionally qualified president that as closely as possible
reflects the will of the people.
The states have been given the power and the duty to control presidential
elections by the US Constitution.

The pervasive attitudes of the state officers and election officials is
that they, incorrectly, have no power to qualify presidential candidates
and/or they depend on political parties to vet the candidates.

The political parties have evolved and changed since the creation of the
US Consitution and are given no powers. However, members of the parties,
as US Citizens have an implied duty to uphold the Constitution and party
officers typically have taken oaths as elected officials to uphold the
US Constitution.

Clearly, the intent of the US Constitution and Federal Election Law is
for an eligible candidate to move through this election process to allow
for a constitutionally valid vote by Electors.

All officers and election officials, most judges and most Electoral
College Electors were informed prior to the general election and
particularly prior to the Electors meeting and voting, of compelling
evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president. Despite
these warnings, Electors met and voted on the basis of party loyalty or
perceived directives from the states. State or party policies dictating
how an Elector votes violate the spirit and letter of constitutional
and federal law.

Even though the manner of Electoral College voting in clearly defined by
the US Constitution and Federal Election Law, some states have included
explicit references to law in their Certificates of Voters that are
signed by Electors and state officers. Below are certificates from 2004.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004_certificates/

Alabama

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and this state, certify”

Alaska

“by authority of law vested in us”

Arizona

“by authority of law in us vested”

Arkansas

“as provided by law”

California

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and the state of california, do hereby certify”

Connecticut

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States
and in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Connecticut”

Hawaii

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Idaho

“having met agreeably to the provisions of law”

Illinois

“as provided by law”

Indiana

“as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States”

Iowa

“in accordance with law”

Kansas

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Kentucky

“In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and with sections 7-11 of Title III of the
United States Code”

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.
“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.”
Minnesota

“In testimony whereof, and as required by the Twelth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States we have hereunto set
our hands”

Montana

“agreeable to the provisions of law”

Nevada

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

New Jersey

“proceeded to perform the duties required of us by the Constitution
and laws of the United States.”

North Carolina

“by authority of law in us vested”

Pennsylvania

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Rhode Island

“in pursuance of law”

South Carolina

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Tennessee

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Utah

“in pursuance of the statutes of the United States and of the statutes
of the State of Utah”

Virginia

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Washington

“pursuant to the provisions of federal and state law”

Conclusion

  • The US Constitution is clear on presidential eligibility and how
    Electoral Colleges Electors are to vote.
  • Ignorance is no excuse. Everyone involved was forewarned. Voting
    party line over law will not be tolerated.
  • Electors and state officers have signed or will sign Certificates of Voters
    for the 2008 Election. As you can see from the above, they will
    certify that they are aware of the law and are abiding by the law.
  • Kentucky gets the award for the most constitutionally clear wording
    and should be applauded for doing so.
  • There are consequences for false attesting.
  • One of the consequences is that the votes of many Electors are now
    null and void.
  • Impeachment, recall, firing, criminal charges forthcoming?

Constitution 101 classes will begin soon.

State officers, election officials, judges and, of course,
US Supreme Court Justices will be invited. Stay tuned for a
class near you. I suppose Washington DC should be first.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/2008-electoral-college-votes-certification-of-voters-state-laws-us-constitution-electors-signed-certification-certifications-invalid-obama-ineligible-violators-should-be-prosecuted-constitutio/

Nothing has changed!

John Boehner, soon after Constitution 101 classes were held for the new congress in 2011, misquoted the natural born citizen requirement in an interview.

From Citizen Wells February 13, 2011.

“John Boehner has failed Constitution 101. He is still using citizen interchangeably with natural born citizen.”

“I believe that the president is a citizen. I believe the president is a Christian. I’ll take him at his word,” said Boehner, appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/john-boehner-fails-constitution-101-meet-the-press-interview-boehner-natural-born-citizen-not-citizen-obama-eligibility/

Eric Cantor, considered as a replacement for Boehner as Speaker of the House, has made similar ignorant comments about Obama being a citizen instead of a natural born citizen.

We must keep pushing accountability.

At the end of the day, all that we have is the US Constitution and it’s provision for being armed,  to protect us from the tyranny of government.

37 Comments

Posted in Accountability, Barack Obama, Bill of Rights, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, Congress, constitution, Constitution Hall of Shame, Election Law, Eligibility, Government, Judges, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Second Amendment, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, US House of Representatives, US Senate, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

Washington Post and Labor Dept. facts expose Obama lies, Bush Tax cuts, Employment data, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, Playbook of Goebbels Orwell

Posted on October 8, 2012 | 10 comments

Washington Post and Labor Dept. facts expose Obama lies, Bush Tax cuts, Employment data, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, Playbook of Goebbels Orwell

“With a 63.7% labor force participation, “conditions in the labor market are considerably worse than indicated” in July’s report”…economist Joshua Shapiro, WSJ August 3, 2012

“Obama energy policy: Pander to the left, lie to the poor and working class and enrich his friends.”…Citizen Wells

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

 
In a recent campaign ad video, Barack Obama makes the usual litany of false claims about the Bush tax cuts, the employment situation that he inherited and what he will do to stimulate the economy.

“When I took office we were losing nearly 800,000 jobs a month and were mired in Iraq. Today I believe that as a nation we are moving forward again. But we have much more to do to get folks back to work and make the middle class secure again.

Now, Governor Romney believes that with that even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy and fewer regulations on Wall Street all of us will prosper. In other words he’d double down on the same trickle down policies that led to the crisis in the first place. So what’s my plan?

First, we create a million new manufacturing jobs and help businesses double their exports. Give tax breaks to companies that invest in America, not that ship jobs overseas.

Second, we cut our oil imports in half and produce more American-made energy, oil, clean-coal, natural gas, and new resources like wind, solar and bio-fuels—all while doubling the fuel efficiencies of cars and trucks.

Third, we insure that we maintain the best workforce in the world by preparing 100,000 additional math and science teachers. Training 2 million Americans with the job skills they need at our community colleges. Cutting the growth of tuition in half and expanding student aid so more Americans can afford it.

Fourth, a balanced plan to reduce our deficit by four trillion dollars over the next decade on top of the trillion in spending we’ve already cut, I’d ask the wealthy to pay a little more. And as we end the war in Afghanistan let’s apply half the savings to pay down our debt and use the rest for some nation building right here at home.”

Obama has consistently blamed George Bush for our economic woes, but the truth is that the Democrats controlled both houses of congress the last 2 years of the Bush Administration and they, combined with Obama, have caused the most harm.

From the Washington Post October 1, 2012.

“Obama’s claim that the Bush tax cuts led to the economic crisis”

“Now Governor Romney believes that with even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy, and fewer regulations on Wall Street, all of us will prosper. In other words, he’d double down on the same trickle-down policies that led to the crisis in the first place.”

— President Obama, in a new two-minute television ad released Sept. 27, 2012

“This election to me is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment. This is a clear choice. The Republican plan is to cut more taxes on upper income people and go back to deregulation. That is what got us into trouble in the first place.”

— Former president Bill Clinton, in an Obama campaign ad running since August

When two different people give virtually the same message in two different ads, it’s a good bet that the language has been carefully poll-tested. Both President Obama and former president Bill Clinton assert that Mitt Romney wants to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut financial regulations — which they suggest is a recipe for another economic crisis.

The name “George W. Bush” is never mentioned but is certainly implied. This leads to the question: Did the Bush tax cuts cause the economic crisis?

We’ve been interested in the Clinton comments for some time and never quite got a satisfactory response from the Obama campaign. But Clinton used the vague word “trouble,” which could be broadly defined as also meaning higher deficits. (Clinton’s staff did not respond to queries about what he meant.) Certainly the Bush tax cuts did play some role in higher deficits, though, as we have noted, increased spending played a bigger role.

But Obama is not vague at all. He highlights the tax cuts and then says the “same trickle-down policies” — Democratic code for tax cuts for the wealthy — led to the “crisis.” The campaign’s back-up material labels that as “economic crisis,” thus leaving no ambiguity about his reference.”

“The Pinocchio Test

It is time for the Obama campaign to retire this talking point, no matter how much it seems to resonate with voters. The financial crisis of 2008 stemmed from a variety of complex factors, in particular the bubble in housing prices and the rise of exotic financial instruments. Deregulation was certainly an important factor, but as the government commission concluded, the blame for that lies across administrations, not just in the last Republican one.

In any case, the Bush tax cuts belong at the bottom of the list — if at all. Moreover, it is rather strange for the campaign to cite as its source an article that, according to the author, does not support this assertion.

We nearly made this Four Pinocchios but ultimately decided that citing deregulation in conjunction with tax cuts kept this line out of the “whopper” category. Still, in his effort to portray Romney as an echo of Bush, the president really stretches the limits here.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-that-the-bush-tax-cuts-led-to-the-economic-crisis/2012/09/30/06e8f578-0a6e-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

Thanks to the Washington Post for clearing up the big lie.

I will address the rest of the false claims.

Probably the biggest of the many lies that Obama has told about the economy has to do with job creation and what he inherited. Without fail, all of the historical data from the Labor Dept. reveal that the job losses and economic calamity began when the Democrats controlled Congress and in many cases worsened with Obama in office.

Recently I explained how the jobs situation worsened even though the “unemployment rate” dropped. The Labor Dept. counts part time workers the same as full time for employment numbers. In September the number of people who could only get part time employment skyrocketed. So, the unemployment rate dropped but the jobs situation worsened.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/7-8-percent-unemployment-rate-truth-obama-wont-admit-citizen-wells-analysis-of-facts-part-time-workers-counted-as-employed-obama-and-democrats-worsen-job-opportunities/

Obama stated:

“When I took office we were losing nearly 800,000 jobs a month”

The job losses were high and the Democrats controlled both houses. Approximately 4 million fewer people were employed from the time that the Democrats took control of both houses until Obama took office.

The employment population ratio was 63.3 percent in January 2007, 60.6 in January 2009 and 58.7 in September 2012. A significant drop during Obama’s tenure.

The Labor Force Participation Rate was 66.4 percent in January 2007, 65.7 in January 2009 and 63.6 in September 2012. Another significant drop during Obama’s tenure.

Obama stated:

“First, we create a million new manufacturing jobs”

Obviously, Obama’s record on creating jobs as indicated by labor Dept. data dispels that lie. Without Obama in office the statement works.

Obama stated:

“Second, we cut our oil imports in half and produce more American-made energy, oil, clean-coal”

Oh really?

“if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them”…Barack Obama

And Obama stated:

“Fourth, a balanced plan to reduce our deficit by four trillion dollars over the next decade on top of the trillion in spending we’ve already cut”

Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

10 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, Democrats, Economy, Election 2012, Employment, Government, Jobs, Lies, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama taxes, Orwell, Pay to play politics, President Bush, The Case Against Barack Obama, Unemployment, US economy, US House of Representatives, US Senate, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

White House cleaning, Congress flushing, Remove Obama and congressmen ignoring US Constitution, Obama eligibility and Justice Department oversight, Senator Coburn

Posted on October 5, 2012 | 32 comments

White House cleaning, Congress flushing, Remove Obama and congressmen ignoring US Constitution, Obama eligibility and Justice Department oversight, Senator Coburn

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, including Tony West, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Now, I don’t get upset when foreign and national journalists fail to mention Tony Rezko, or the Daley boys, or how the Chicago machine plans to staff the Department of Justice, and the new Department of Homeland Casinos.”…John Kass, Chicago Tribune July 30, 2008

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

I have a younger friend who is a PHD candidate in history, In a recent conversation she brought up the disturbing fact that we have lost our checks and balances. Of course I readily agreed.

Recently at Citizen Wells you were informed that Obama nominated Tony West for a permanent position as the number three person in the US Justice Department. West is a friend of Obama, finance co chair of Obama’s California campaign in 2008, but wait, it get’s better. Tony West was at the top of the list of Justice Dept. attorneys in a response to a lawsuit filed by retired Naval Commander Charles Kerchner on January 21, 2009, challenging Obama’s eligibility.

Then, on June 24, 2010, Tony West represented the Justice Department and ultimately Obama, in a question and answer session before the House Judiciary committee. For example:

“The Civil Division is vigorously defending the Affordable Care Act health care reform statute against multiple lawsuits brought on constitutional and other grounds.””The President has pledged to make this Administration the most open and transparent in history, and the department is doing its part to make that pledge a reality.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/obama-corrupts-us-justice-department-chicago-style-tony-west-promotion-classic-obama-pay-to-play-west-and-usdoj-complicit-with-obama-hiding-records-and-eligibility/

Where in the hell is the House Judiciary Committee? What is Congressman Howard Coble of NC doing about this?

Here is another, in a long string of congressmen, failing to do their constitutional duty, providing lip service to their constituents, and maintaining status quo.

From WND October 4, 2012.

“SEN. COBURN DUCKS ON BIRTH CERTIFICATE PROMISE
Arpaio investigator says lawmaker didn’t want to see evidence”

“Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., appears to dodging a campaign promise he made to look into evidence President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.

In a letter to a constituent dated Oct. 2, Coburn said his staff had reached out to the office of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Phoenix after making a promise to tea-party activist Miki Booth at an Aug. 7 town hall appearance in Claremore, Okla. At the campaign event, Booth was seen on video confronting the senator about a letter she had written to him.

“My staff has reached out to Sheriff Arpaio’s office,” Coburn wrote in the constituent letter. “However, I have yet to be presented any credible evidence to demonstrate President Obama was not born in Hawaii.”

From there, Coburn cited Obama being placed on state ballots for president as proof Obama’s birth certificate is genuine.

“Furthermore, all 50 states saw fit to put Mr. Obama on their ballots in 2008 and again in 2012,” Coburn wrote. “This includes Arizona, which was recently provided verification of President Obama’s birth by Hawaii. I remain open to hearing and reviewing any supporting evidence.”

However, Mike Zullo, lead investigator for Sheriff Arpaio’s law enforcement investigation into Obama’s eligibility, insists Coburn has yet to see the evidence his team has uncovered indicating the document the White House posted as Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.

“I was initially contacted by Ken Ashton, an aide to Sen. Coburn in Sen. Coburn’s Washington office, on Sept. 4,” Zullo explained to WND. “I provided Ashton at his request, an overview of the sheriff’s investigation, focusing on the document fraud.”

Coburn’s office has not replied to WND’s request for comment.

Zullo told WND he emphasized to Ashton the sheriff was not investigating the president but the long-form birth certificate released by the White House April 27, 2011, to determine if that document was legitimate.

“I told Ashton that it would be appropriate for Sen. Coburn to contact Sheriff Arpaio directly to fulfill the commitment Coburn had made to his constituents,” Zullo said. “I explained Sheriff Arpaio was prepared and looking forward to answering any questions Coburn might have.”

Zullo documented his discussion with Ashton in an internal memo sent to Arpaio’s office Sept. 4. Zullo told Arpaio that he expected Coburn would contact the sheriff to request access to the evidence after Ashton and Coburn had an opportunity to study the overview.

Two weeks later, Zullo received a second phone call from Ashton in which Ashton seemed intent to emphasize the fact that he had called Arpaio’s office Sept. 4 in his capacity as an investigative aide to Coburn.

“I told Ashton that Coburn should speak directly to Sheriff Arpaio, because the sheriff had to make the decision to release evidence from the investigation,” Zullo recalled.

“I specifically pointed out to Ashton he would not be able to use his phone call to me as a substitute for Sen. Coburn talking directly to Sheriff Arpaio.”

Zullo told WND he felt Ashton’s second phone call was disingenuous, almost as if Ashton wanted Zullo to agree to a cover story.

“At the conclusion of the phone call, I felt Coburn’s office was attempting to use Ashton’s phone call as evidence that Coburn contacted the sheriff’s office,” Zullo said, “when the truth is Coburn never contacted Sheriff Arpaio, and Coburn never requested any evidence be provided to him for his inspection.”

Zullo said the episode was typical of the repeated frustrations the sheriff has experienced trying to get Congress to look at the birth certificate evidence.

“Ashton was trying to create the illusion that somehow the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office had not provided Sen. Coburn with any credible evidentiary information, even though Ashton never requested to see the evidence,” Zullo said.

“Even if Ashton had requested to see the evidence, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office would not blindly send out the evidence without first requiring Sen. Coburn to talk with the sheriff so the sheriff could make a determination whether or not it was appropriate to release the evidence to the senator’s office.”

Zullo’s final conclusion was that Coburn’s office was just engaging in politicking, and Ashton only wanted to create “the illusion the evidence had been examined.”

“The truth appears to be that Sen. Coburn has no serious interest in conducting an honest evaluation of whether or not Obama’s birth certificate is genuine, or the computer-generated forgery we have concluded the document is,” Zullo said.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/sen-coburn-ducks-on-birth-certificate-promise/

Mr. Coburn, I have seen no credible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. In fact, the bulk of circumstantial evidence prior to 2008 strongly indicates that Obama was not born there. If you wish to compare credentials, I am available.

“Mr. Smith goes to Washington” airs on Turner Classic Movies tonight. I will watch it again. Perhaps all of those in office should as well.

32 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Eligibility, Government, Justice, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pay to play politics, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, US Department of Justice, US House of Representatives, US Senate, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Senators Burr and Coburn Press Conference, February 16, 2012, Plan to Save Medicare, Immediate and long term reforms based on choice and sustainability

Posted on February 15, 2012 | 73 comments

Senators Burr and Coburn Press Conference, February 16, 2012, Plan to Save Medicare, Immediate and long term reforms based on choice and sustainability

From the office of NC Senator Richard Burr, February 15, 2012.

United States Senator ∙ North CarolinaRichard Burr

217 Russell Senate Office Bldg. ∙ Washington, D.C. 20510

(202) 224-3154 ∙ FAX (202) 228-2981

http://www.burr.senate.gov

 

MEDIA ADVISORY: Senators Burr and Coburn to Hold Press Conference Unveiling Plan to Save Medicare

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEWednesday, February 15, 2012 CONTACT:  David Ward (Burr) – (202) 228-1616John Hart (Coburn) – (202) 228-5357

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) will hold a press conference on Thursday, February 16th at 12:30 p.m. to introduce the “Seniors’ Choice Act”, a proposal to save Medicare from insolvency through immediate and long-term reforms based on choice and sustainability.

WHAT:                 Coburn-Burr Medicare Reform Proposal

 

WHERE:               Senate Radio/TV gallery S-325

 

WHEN:                 Thursday, February 16 at 12:30 p.m.

73 Comments

Posted in Citizen News, Congress, Government, Health Insurance, Medicare, NC, News, North Carolina, republicans, Seniors, Taxes, US Senate, Washington DC

Tagged , , , ,

Obama GA ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 2, Robert Bauer et al help Obama hide records

Posted on January 20, 2012 | 126 comments

Obama GA ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 2, Robert Bauer et al help Obama hide records

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 2

Robert Bauer, et al help Obama keep his records hidden.

In Part 1 it was revealed that Obama, in 2008, despite support for and a earlier pledge to accept them, opted out of Federal Matching Funds.

“If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

“Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/obama-ga-ballot-challenge-natural-born-citizen-status-judge-michael-malihi-why-did-obama-refuse-matching-funds-in-2008-part-1/

Advisory Opinion Request: General Election Public Funding

From Obama attorney Robert Bauer to FEC

February 1,2007
“This request for an Advisory Opinion is filed on behalf of Senator Barack Obama and the committee, the Obama Exploratory Committee, that he established to fund his exploration of a Presidential candidacy. The question on which he seeks the Commission’s guidance is whether, if Senator Obama becomes a candidate, he may provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and accepting the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party’s nominee.”

“Senator Obama, fully committed to competition on the same terms as all other
candidates, has decided that, if he becomes a candidate, he will also instruct his campaign to proceed with active fundraising for the general election. But the Senator would not, if the law allows, rule out the possibility of a publicly funded campaign if both major parties’ nominees eventually decide, or even agree, on this course. Should both major party nominees elect to receive public funding, this would preserve the public financing system, now in danger of collapse, and facilitate the conduct of campaigns freed from any dependence on private fundraising.”

“The legal question presented under Commission regulations is whether a candidate provisionally raising general election funds, segregated from other funds and not available for expenditure until nomination, has “accepted” this money. Candidates establishing eligibility must certify that they have not accepted money for the general election. 11 C.F.R. § 9003.2(a)(2). The rules do not address the question posed here: has the candidate accepted the money if it is held in escrow and never used, allowing for these funds to be returned and for the candidate to qualify for public funding?”

FEC advisory opinion

From Robert D. Lenhard to Robert Bauer

March 1, 2007

“We are responding to your advisory opinion request on behalf of Senator Barack Obama and Obama for America, formerly known as the Obama Exploratory  Committee (the “Committee”),1 requesting whether Senator Obama may, under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act (the “Fund Act”), as amended, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“FECA”), and Commission regulations, solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election while retaining the option of refunding the contributions and receiving public funds for the general election if he receives his party’s nomination for President.

The Commission concludes that Senator Obama may solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election without losing his
eligibility to receive public funding if he receives his party’s nomination for President, if he (1) deposits and maintains all private contributions
designated for the general election in a separate account, (2) refrains from using these contributions for any purpose, and (3) refunds the private
contributions in full if he ultimately decides to receive public funds.”
“Senator Barack Obama is a United States Senator from Illinois, elected in 2004, who is a candidate seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for the office of President of the United States in the 2008 election. The Committee is his principal campaign committee.”

“If a candidate fails to qualify for the general election, any contributions designated for the general election that have been received from contributors who have already reached their contribution limit for the primary election would exceed FECA’s contribution limits.”

Obama helps block Republican FEC appointee.

From the Washington Post December 11, 2007.

“Paralyze The FEC? Splendid.”

“What if the country held an election and there was no one to make sure that candidates played by the rules — no agency that could issue regulations, write advisory opinions or bring enforcement actions against those breaking the law?”

“The six-person FEC — three members from each party — enforces the rules it writes about how Americans are permitted to participate in politics.”

“The FEC’s policing powers may soon be splendidly paralyzed. Three current FEC members, two Democrats and one Republican, are recess appointees whose terms will end in a few days when this session of Congress ends — unless they are confirmed to full six-year terms.

Four Senate Democrats decided to block the Republican, Hans von Spakovsky. Republicans have responded: “All three or none.” If this standoff persists until Congress adjourns, the three recess appointments will expire and the FEC will have just two members — a Republican vacancy has existed since April. If so, the commission will be prohibited from official actions, including the disbursement of funds for presidential candidates seeking taxpayer financing.”

“The Post wants von Spakovsky confirmed only to keep the FEC functioning. He is being blocked because four senators have put “holds” on his nomination. One of those four who might be responsible for preventing the FEC from being able to disburse taxpayer funds to Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John Edwards is . . . Barack Obama.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001559.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Philip J Berg files lawsuit in Philadelphia Federal Court

August 21, 2008

Defendants: Obama, DNC, FEC

Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore ineligible to be President.

August 27, 2008

Complaint served on the U.S. Attorney for DNC and FEC

Motion filed by Robert Bauer, et al October 6, 2008

“BRIEF OF DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON
DISPOSITIVE MOTION”
“In his Complaint, plaintiff Berg alleges that Senator Barack Obama, the
Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States, is not eligible to serve as President under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution because, Mr. Berg alleges (falsely), Senator Obama is purportedly not a natural-born citizen. Complaint ¶3. Mr. Berg seeks a declaratory judgment that Senator Obama is ineligible to run for President; an injunction barring Senator Obama from running for that office; and an injunction barring the DNC from nominating him.

On September 15, 2008, plaintiff Berg served on Senator Obama’s office a
request for production of seventeen different categories of documents, including copies of all of the Senator’s college and law school applications, requests for financial aid, college and law school papers, and “a copy of your entire presidential file pertaining to being vetted.” Plaintiff also served 56 requests for admission on Senator Obama. On that same date, plaintiff served on the DNC 27 requests for admission and requests for production of five categories of documents, including all documents in the possession of the DNC
relating to Senator Obama.1

On September 24, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, on the grounds that, as a matter of law, plaintiff has no standing to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for President of the U.S. and has no federal cause of action.”

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S OPPOSITION TO
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE INJUNCTION TO STAY
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 4, 2008

October 21, 2008

“II. BECAUSE THE COMMISSION HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE WHETHER CANDIDATES MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY, IT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FROM THIS CASE

The Commission is the independent agency of the United States government vested with exclusive jurisdiction to administer, interpret and enforce civilly the FECA. See 2 U.S.C. §§ 437c(b)(1), 437d(a), 437d(e) and 437g. The Commission also exercises jurisdiction over the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9001 et seq., and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9031 et seq.2 These statutes only confer on the Commission jurisdiction over issues concerning the financing of federal campaigns: regulating the organization of campaign committees; the raising, spending, and disclosing of campaign funds; and the receipt and use of public funding for qualifying candidates.

None of these statutes delegates to the FEC authority to determine the constitutional eligibility of federal candidates, and Berg does not allege otherwise. Although the Commission determines whether certain presidential candidates are eligible for public funding, it has no power to determine who qualifies for ballot access or who is eligible to serve as president. Thus, because the Commission has no authority to take action against Senator Obama as suggested by Berg, the Commission should be dismissed from this case with prejudice.”

From the FEC motion above:

“On September 24, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, on the grounds that, as a matter of law, plaintiff has no standing to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for President of the U.S. and has no federal cause of action.”

This is true.

From Robert Bauer, et al’s motion:

“Although the Commission determines whether certain presidential candidates are eligible for public funding, it has no power to determine who qualifies for ballot access or who is eligible to serve as president.”

This is also true. However, if an advisory opinion requesting Obama’s eligibility for matching funds, questioning his Natural Born Citizen status, had been submitted before Obama opted out, it appears that the FEC would have been compelled to respond and their response could be challenged.

It is becoming clear why Obama did not accept matching federal funds in 2008.

More on this chicanery to come.

126 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Election, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Law, Election update, Electors, FEC, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, US District Court, US Senate, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,