Tag Archives: October 18

Vermont Supreme Court Obama eligibility, October 18, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal, VT justices rule case is moot, Obama already president???

Vermont Supreme Court Obama eligibility, October 18, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal, VT justices rule case is moot, Obama already president???

“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

“Barack Obama, show me the college loans.”…Citizen Wells

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises?  This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

I received the email from H. Brooke Paige last night.

“VT Sup Court ruled today. Interesting decision that will allow us to
proceed to SCOTUS.”

Instead of expediting this case the lower court and VT Supreme Court dragged their feet thus making their decisions after the election.

In essence, the case is moot because Obama is already president and cannot run again.

“BURGESS, J. Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige appeals a decision by the Washington Superior Court, Civil Division, granting a motion to dismiss by the State and its Secretary of State James Condos.[1]
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in dismissing the suit on jurisdictional grounds because injury to his life, liberty, and property confers standing, as do Vermont election statutes, 17 V.S.A. §§ 2603 and 2617. Plaintiff
also asserts that the past presidential election does not render his case moot because this Court can still provide declaratory relief. We disagree, and dismiss the appeal as moot.”

“¶ 6. The central question now before this Court on appeal is whether the mootness doctrine bars review of plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff argues this case is not moot because the Court can provide relief by declaring that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen, and asserts that a controversy continues through plaintiff’s efforts to safeguard his life, liberty and property. Plaintiff also contends that this case satisfies two exceptions to the mootness doctrine. First, plaintiff anticipates that a situation involving an ineligible presidential candidate is capable of repetition yet evades review because President Obama may run for a third term if Congress repeals the Twenty-Second Amendment, or other presidential candidates not born of two U.S. citizens are likely to run
for president in the future. Second, plaintiff asserts that he suffers negative collateral consequences as a result of Barack Obama’s presidency that impact his life, liberty, and property.

¶ 7. The case is moot. Neither exception advocated by plaintiff applies here. Accordingly, this Court need not address plaintiff’s other arguments on standing or the merits.”

“¶ 9. Recognized principles of mootness apply to the present case because it no longer involves a live controversy. Plaintiff has no legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Barack Obama’s name was on the ballot, and he is now the President of the United States. President Obama is also unable to seek re-election.
U.S. Const. amend. XXII. The issuance of an advisory opinion assessing the merits of plaintiff’s argument about the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is beyond this Court’s constitutional prerogative. See In re Keystone
Dev. Corp., 2009 VT 13, ¶ 7, 186 Vt. 523, 973 A.2d 1179 (mem.) (explaining that this Court lacks authority to render an advisory opinion).”

Vermont Supreme Court Ruling.




Obama fact checked in print in NC, October 18, 2012, Rhino Times, John Hammer prints truth about Obama, Economy Obamacare Libya attack debate, Obama lies

Obama fact checked in print in NC, October 18, 2012, Rhino Times, John Hammer prints truth about Obama, Economy Obamacare Libya attack debate, Obama lies

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

“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 function of the press is very high. It is almost Holy.
It ought to serve as a forum for the people, through which
the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or
suppress the news is a breach of trust.”
…. Louis D. Brandeis

From John Hammer of the Rhino Times, in Greensboro, NC October 18, 2012.

“Another debate and another pounding of the economic policies of President Barack Hussein Obama by Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

Obama has a difficult task running for reelection with the economy in its current shape. Romney is relentless in pointing out that the economy grew slower this year than last year and grew slower last year than the year before, and that 23 million Americans are unemployed. When Romney says the real unemployment rate is 10.7 percent Obama doesn’t argue. When Romney says that Obama has piled up budget deficits of over $1 trillion year after year, Obama doesn’t argue.

Obama does say that his policies are going to work, but it’s hard to sell the idea that policies that haven’t worked for four years are suddenly going to start working in the fifth year or maybe the sixth year or the seventh year.

Romney talks a lot about Obamacare, but Obama doesn’t. He talks about bringing health care to every American, but he doesn’t dwell on Obamacare because polls show that most Americans are against it. It’s his signature piece but he has all but given up selling it to the American people.

When it comes to the contraception aspect of Obamacare, Obama is extremely misleading. Nobody is talking about not providing contraception services. The question is, who pays. According to Obamacare it has to be a free service. Why? Why is that free? Most medical care is not free even if you have insurance. What’s more, Obamacare will force the Catholic Church and other religious organizations to provide abortion services that they believe are morally wrong.

If Obamacare is not changed by the courts or by Congress, it is likely that Catholic hospitals, clinics, social service providers, universities, schools and other outreach programs will close. Perhaps Obama has been listening to his Catholic Vice President Joe Biden and not the Catholic bishops. But he might want to pay attention because if Catholic hospitals close in the major cities, there is going to be a health care disaster, and the Catholic bishops have made it abundantly clear that they are going to have no part in providing abortions.

Biden was entirely wrong in his answer about the situation with Obamacare and the Catholic Church, but then Biden has been told by at least one bishop that he is not a Catholic in good standing and should not participate in the sacraments.

, , ,

There are only two possibilities I can think of when it comes to the response by President Obama to the planned and well-executed terrorist attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya.

One is that when an American ambassador was killed in the line of duty for the first time since 1979, during the Carter administration, President Obama decided that in the midst of a presidential election he could not afford to admit that he had refused to give an American ambassador in one of the most dangerous places on earth adequate protection. So he lied to the American people about what happened and hoped that the truth wouldn’t come out until after Nov. 6.

The other is that the Obama administration is so incompetent that it borders on criminal. For two weeks the Obama administration – through its press secretary, Jay Carney, and the US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice – claimed that the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration over a video some nutcase in California made.

But the night of Sept. 11, when the attack was underway, Obama should have immediately known that an American embassy compound where the American ambassador was in residence was under attack by well-organized and well-armed terrorists. We have one of the most sophisticated communications systems in the world. If the president isn’t informed about a terrorist attack on a US embassy compound immediately, then what is the system used for? To make sure Obama doesn’t miss any basketball scores? When high-level State Department officials are being killed that is an emergency.

The State Department knew. The intelligence community knew. Obama made a big deal about watching the attack on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan live in the White House. It wasn’t exactly true that they were watching it live, but they were watching the video the night that it happened.

The American embassy compound in Benghazi had surveillance cameras. The Rhino Times office also has surveillance cameras. You can watch The Rhino Times surveillance cameras real time from a computer, tablet or smart phone anywhere you can hook up to the internet. I cannot believe that the surveillance cameras at the American compound in Benghazi were not hooked up to some communication device so that they could be watched by people in the State Department and intelligence community.

Even without the surveillance cameras, the US had competent people on the ground who, once they got away from immediate danger, reported to their superiors. In fact, according to the State Department timeline, a call about the attack went out immediately with frequent updates. The State Department knew as soon as the men in the compound knew that they were under attack by an organized force.

Vice President Biden says that he didn’t know, and that is entirely possible. Why would anyone bother to tell the vice president, even if he were a competent, honest, intelligent human being? The vice president isn’t going to be making any decisions. He is completely out of the loop as long as the president is alive. Biden may still believe that the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration or he may believe that it took place in the last century where he evidently spends a lot of his time.

But President Obama knew or should have known within minutes exactly what was happening in Benghazi. He should have received the reports from those on the ground and he should have been watching the action on the surveillance cameras. But the reports from those in the compound who escaped only to be attacked at the so-called safe house about a mile away should have been more than enough proof that this was a highly organized, well-planned attack.

So in this next debate Obama needs to explain to the American people what happened. Was there such a tremendous communications breakdown that he didn’t get word from Libya about what happened for two weeks? Did the State Department put the Benghazi terrorist attack report on a sailing ship to send it to the White House? How on earth could a report and surveillance video take two weeks to get to the White House?

Obama needs to explain. If the first day the White House had gotten the story wrong that could be attributed to an honest mistake, but in today’s world to claim that the White House didn’t get information from its embassy for two weeks is simply a lie or evidence of overwhelming incompetence.

, , ,

Liberals love this, and the moderator for the presidential debate, Candy Crawley, is certainly a card-carrying liberal, which is why she re-asked the incredibly stupid question about making AK-47s illegal in the United States. Romney answered the question correctly by saying that fully automatic weapons are already illegal in the US. They have been since 1934. It is possible to get a license to have one, but it is not easy or cheap.

One of the so-called fact checkers said Romney was wrong when he said that fully automatic weapons were illegal. Technically Romney was wrong. Most people would tell you that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon without the proper permit, but the fact checkers evidently would tell you that is wrong because you can carry a concealed weapon on your own property without a permit. Technically there was no Vietnam War, but that is simply not how we speak. Technically only a couple of hundred people get to vote for president, but candidates and pundits talk about voters in the presidential race all the time. Nobody says “people who vote for electors committed to one candidate,” we call them voters.

However, what the question was about were “assault weapons,” which is a term invented during the Clinton administration. The AK-47 is not an assault weapon; it is an assault rifle because it is fully automatic and for all practical purposes illegal. The assault weapons ban was not about banning a particular kind of rifle but banning rifles because of the way they looked. Rifles that operate identically could be legal or illegal based on how they looked. One that looked like a hunting rifle would be legal and one that looked like an assault rifle would be illegal.

It was a law that simply made people who want all guns to be illegal happy, but didn’t really do anything. Now many hunters are using what are technically assault weapons for hunting. They are lightweight, accurate and make good hunting rifles. And it is true that they are used to kill people. But knives are also frequently used to kill people and there was no question for the candidates about making knives illegal.

, , ,

President Harry S. Truman, a Democrat who won the respect of both parties and whom history has smiled upon, had a plaque on his desk that read, “The Buck Stops here!”

President Obama, a Democrat who has not won the respect of Republicans and is losing the respect of many Democrats and whose place in history is unknown, has no such plaque, and up until Tuesday night did not follow the philosophy expressed on the plaque.

We know this because Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was sent out to take the fall for Benghazi. The buck stopped with the secretary of state, not the president. You have to wonder what Truman would say about such cowardice by an American president.

Obama takes full credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden although he was over 7,000 miles away. That was Obama who took Bin Laden out, not the Navy Seals who were onsite risking their lives and doing the shooting. But when an American ambassador gets killed in the line of duty for the first time since 1979, it was not Obama’s fault, but the fault of the secretary of state.

During the second presidential debate on Tuesday night, the story changed again. Evidently having Hillary Rodham Clinton take the fall for the terrorist attack in Benghazi was not working with the American people. So during the Tuesday night debate Wendy Crawley threw Obama a softball so he could take full responsibility for the failure.

The attack was on Sept. 11, and on Oct. 16 the president finally takes full responsibility. It does make you wonder how many months it would have taken for Obama to take full responsibility if it wasn’t an election year.

, , ,

The more we learn about Obama the more questions arise. According to his own personal history Barry Obama quit being Barry and became Barack when he was at Occidental College in Los Angeles. By the time he went to Columbia University he was going by Barack exclusively, even to the point, according to his sister, of trying to get his family to call him Barack. But Martha Raddatz reportedly invited Barry Obama to her wedding. So if everyone called him Barack and had no reason to even know that he was called Barry as a kid, why was Barry invited to the wedding.

Or did really close friends at Harvard call him Barry? We’ll never know.

, , ,

They call it the Stupid Party for a reason, and unfortunately the reason hasn’t gone away. Four years ago the moderator of the vice presidential debate, Gwen Ifill, had written a book about Obama. If he were elected her book would make money, if he lost then the book would go in the remainder bin. She had a lot of money riding on the outcome of the debate and the election.

But then the Republicans allow that snafu to be topped. Barry Obama went to Martha Raddatz’s wedding and she was invited to the Obamas’ wedding but didn’t attend. However, her husband (now her ex) did. Do the Republicans vet these people at all? Do they have a list of Obama’s immediate family and if the person is not on that list, not named George Obama for instance, then they are eligible?

Then when you think it can’t get any worse they come up with this woman for the second town hall meeting, Candy Crawley, who gave Obama 9 percent more time than Romney and was much harder on Romney than on Obama. She also selected the questions, which were Obama-friendly, and asked her own follow-up questions, which she was not supposed to do according to the agreement signed by both campaigns.

This just in for the next and final debate, Obama’s campaign Communications Director David Axelrod is unexpectedly unavailable to moderate the debate so the Commission on Presidential Debates has asked Michelle Obama if she will step in. The Commission on Presidential Debates has noted that Mrs. Obama is a Harvard Law graduate like president Obama but did not attend Harvard Law School at the same time as President Obama, so they do not think she will have a conflict of interest based on their law school years.

The Republican Party has reportedly agreed to accept Michelle Obama as a fair and impartial moderator but has insisted that her daughters not be allowed to sit with her while she moderates the debate.

Who are these people on the Commission on Presidential Debates? Do they pick moderators from a list submitted by the Obama campaign? It’s like having the Ram’s Club pick the referees for the Duke-Carolina game. The Republicans have four years to get their act together but they had better get some conservative Republicans appointed to the Commission on Presidential Debates.”



Taxes, Unemployment, Businesses don’t pay taxes people do, Citizen Wells open thread, October 18, 2010

Taxes, Unemployment, Businesses don’t pay taxes people do, Citizen Wells open thread, October 18, 2010

The far left, in ignorance, or as part of their agenda of the end justifies the means, perpetually bashes business and the so called fat cats. They believe that anyone making more money than they should pay more taxes. They believe that corporations are evil.

Here is the truth about taxing business and increased business expenses.
Rush Limbaugh, for many years has done an excellent job of explaining the impact of tax increases on American business and ultimately the American public. He explains that corporations do not pay taxes. This also includes non corporations, all business entities. This is the huge message that you never hear from the left, the business bashers. We already have a seious unemployment situation due to Obama and his far left socialists. I am concerned that tax hikes or hidden cost increases that will begin kicking in 2011, coupled with out of control government spending , will take us over the edge. Our new Congress will have to work fast to deactivate the tax and spend Health Care Legislation, cut taxes and provide a more business and jobs friendly envioronment.

Businesses ultimately do not pay taxes. Taxes become part of the cost of doing business. They are passed on to consumers and impact employment and the overall econo. When a business incurrs higher taxes or other increased costs, some combination of the following occurs:

  • The increased costs are passed along to consumers. This could be a local family run dairy farm. The cost increases are reflected in higher milk prices. When higher inheritance taxes are in effect, the children of the dairy farmers could be forced to shut down. That would, of course, diminish supply.
  • The increased costs prevent more hiring from occuring. The spectre of tax increases is causing that now.
  • The increased costs can lead to layoffs and schedule decreases. Our high unemployment rate is witness to that.
  • The increased costs can lead to pay freezes and pay cuts.
  • The increased costs prevent bussinesses from spending money on expansion and new technology, futher putting a damper on the economy.

And don’t forget, people with money start businesses. Questions they must ask are is it feasible, will it make money and where do I locate. Taxes always influnce those decisions.

So when you are encountered by a brain dead, far left sheeple, educate them on higher taxes and business bashing.