Where Constitutional Truth & Spirit Unite
Thanks to Leo Donofrio for the tip that the ‘fightthesmears’ site reversed their scrubbing tactic:
The only pertinent point that matters: ” That same Act ‘GOVERNED‘ the status of Obama Sr’s children”
Their words, NOT ours and they are in conflict with the qualifications set forth in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution.
You don’t know me, yet you act as if you are above me.
You don’t know me, yet you mock me.
You don’t know me, yet you sit in judgement of me.
In a world as complicated as the one we live in today, we must remain ever vigilant to the values, beliefs and wisdom of our founding fathers. As journalists and national media hosts, under the constitution, it is your job to to protect the Constitution. Freedom of the press was to be the tool that was supposed to protect the people from government tyranny ever happening, yet you have turned your backs to us and for what reason.
When you pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are worth more than others, you are going against every fiber that great document was written on.
When you pick and choose which parts deserve your reporting, you are desecrating the life and blood of every American Soldier who has fought & died for your freedoms.
What will you say I wonder when our brave men & women return to a country that is less free than the one they were fighting in. When those foreign nations are freer than the one they have returned to.
When the qualifications for the highest political office of our nation are no longer held reverent, then there is nothing left.
When the people no longer have the right to a legitimate election of legitimate candidates, we are no longer a free nation.
When the one holding the highest office of the land is not made to adhere to the laws of the land, we are no longer a free nation.
So, let there be an Emperor
Let there be Czars
For we no longer have a media to protect the people afar.
Sincerely,
An American Patriot for the Preservation of the Constitution
H Res 593: Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.
This has some in a tizzy crying foul; those who still cling to the Kenyan birth.
You see, tucked away in this non-binding resolution, such as the S RES 511, Congress has uttered another useless ‘whereas’ by adopting Hawaii the home of the 44th President. So What is the big deal?
None for me. Obama could have been born in a manger in the White House for all I care; it still does not make him eligible to be POTUS according to the Supreme Court ruling as to the definition of natural born citizen as it pertains to Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution.
Via Leo Donofrio, Esq:
On December 13, 2007 Obama swore to and signed the document below:
And on that same day he forwarded the following document to the Arizona Secretary of State:
[These images and Obama’s possible perjury thereto were first highlighted by The Obama File.]
The US Constitution requires that the President must be a “natural born citizen” of the US. The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” – the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.
Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President. He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.
Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?
BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.
The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”. Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. But the Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement. SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”. Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.
Obama – the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history directly stated that there were doubts as to his nbc status. Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.
Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.
When you swear that what you say is true, then – to the best of your knowledge – what you say must be true. If you are a gifted Constitutional scholar/professor who knows of a SCOTUS holding which calls your “natural-born citizen” status into question and directly states that there have been doubts thereto, but you go ahead and swear under oath that you are – in fact – a natural-born citizen, then you are also – in fact – guilty of false swearing.
You can’t legally swear to the best of your knowledge that you are eligible to be President when the SCOTUS last word on the issue directly calls such eligibility into doubt. You can’t even do that with a straight face let alone a sworn oath.
Even if the current SCOTUS were to one day hold that Obama is a natural-born citizen despite his British/Kenyan birth through his father (who was never a US citizen) that would not have been a holding available to Obama at the time he swore he was eligible.
The states of Arizona and Virginia accepted as true the false sworn statements by Obama and thereafter placed his name on the ballots. He was then elected President. The voters in Virginia and Arizona were directly defrauded by Obama’s false affirmations.
When Obama swore he was eligible, he lied. He didn’t swear that he might be eligible or that there was a good chance he would be found eligible. He swore that he was – in fact – eligible. Obama’s certain affirmations under oath and penalty of perjury are false. He could not have been certain and he should not have sworn that he was. He’s guilty of false swearing despite whatever definition of natural-born citizen comes down the pike.
On December 13, 2007, Obama could not have been certain he was eligible to be POTUS. He may have believed he could be held eligible according to his own hopes and his own analysis of what the current SCOTUS might say. But such an analysis could be nothing more than an intellectual guess. The affirmations demanded that he swear he was – in fact – eligible to be POTUS.
A statesman puts the safety and legal sanity of the nation ahead of himself. Obama reversed that call to honor and placed himself ahead of the law. The law questioned his eligibility but he swore under oath no such question existed.
The proper thing for Obama to have done was raise the issue before the American people prior to the election. Perhaps he could have accomplished this by bringing a law suit to determine whether he could satisfy these affirmations without perjuring himself. He did no such thing. He swore something was true when he knew the truth was in doubt. Regardless of what SCOTUS might say about this issue in the future, no future holding can change the facts as they existed on December 13, 2007.
Obama has now been intellectually convicted of false swearing.
[Thanks to reader “Lawyer” for the affirmation scans and the legal tip on this issue.]
via Drudge: The Senate Finance Committee has discussed imposing a 10% excise tax on cosmetic surgery deemed unnecessary for medical purposes.
still developing…
via Breitbart:
“China’s success in shifting the structure of the economy towards domestic demand-led growth, including a greater role for spending by consumers, will be a huge contribution to more rapid, balanced, and sustained global growth,” Geithner said at the start of two days of high-level talks in Washington.
read full article here
In December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue. On July 21, 2009, The Western Center for Journalism obtained a copy of the June 10, 2009 Report that was updated on July 18, 2009. Read the full report HERE
While browsing through the evening news I came across this:
Now, why after a year has a so called picture of Obama as an infant been published in public and why in the UK? Why not the US?
Just publishing and saying so is not proof this is a photo of Obama, since his half-brother,Mark Ndesandjo, is a close likeness to Obama, right down to the lighter shade of his skin.
Mark Ndesandjo is the son of Barack Obama’s late father and his third wife, an American woman named Ruth Nidesand who runs the up-market Maduri kindergarten in Nairobi.
Also, Mark Ndesandjo has done several in-depth interviews with the media in the UK and China, but why none with US media?
This also comes on the brink of in-depth discussions with China over America’s unsettling debt that is owed to
Joseph Ndesandjo, another half-brother
them. Especially in the light of the London Times article in which this half-brother was urging that there needed to be more import of Chinese goods by Americans.
I am not buying into this photo, the timing of it’s arrival in public is too suspect and the smell of a rotten rat is getting pretty strong.
PS: Orly Taitz, Esq., the lawyer for the military officers questioning Obama’s legitimacy to hold office and fondly known as “Lady Liberty”, has just finished doing several interviews with overseas news outlets. Just thought you might like to know that.
UPDATE: How convenient of the Chicago Tribune to update their pictoral album right on que with the Times Online/London. When this album was 1st posted on Oct 28, 2008, there were only a few pages of photos. Funny how we were not allowed to see any of those Kenyan photos before the election. And still amazing is the fact that his family is still not talking either. Kenyan police still forbid any interviews of Grandma Obama in Kenya. hat/tip to sjb for reminding me of this site as I hadn’t revisited it since mid Nov.
While I am catching up aka recooperating from the long day yeterday, which began spending the day with the community and our local national guardsmen and then ended with quite an action packed night at I-90 speedway, I bring to you another in your face…”if this doesn’t make you angry, you are not paying attention” educational short quip from Trevor Loudon:
Charles Ogletree is a long time friend and mentor to both Michelle and Barack Obama.
[snip]
Ogletree’s first interest in the law came when he attended the trial of Black Power activist and then Communist Party USA member Angela Davis.
[snip]
Ogletree claims to have mentored mentored both Michelle and Barack Obama during their time at Harvard. According to Ogletree the Obama’s have called on him for advice since that time.
[snip]
In 2000 Ogletree joined the Reparations Coordinating Committee, a group pursuing a lawsuit to win reparations for descendants of African slaves.
The committee was convened by the TransAfrica Forum, a partner organization the radical Institute for Policy Studies. Ogletree serves on the Board of TransAfrica Forum-alongside long time Communist Party USA front activist Johnetta Cole and board chairman and Progressives for Obama founder Danny Glover.
The committees objectives were;
”To ascertain, document, and report comparative repair and restitution in the United States and abroad on behalf of the contemporary victims of slavery and the century-long practice of de jure racial discrimination which followed slavery;”
”A. To detail a range of feasible relief, reform, reconciliation, and restitution initiatives to make America better for everyone.”
”B. To identify and structure causes of action that would be cognizable in domestic and international tribunals and courts;”
”C. To begin a comprehensive review of such initiatives with leading domestic and international institutions”;
”D. And to work cooperatively with other groups pursuing reparation claims.”
The committee, which Ogletree co-chaired was a mixture of top trial layers and seasoned radical activists. It included Johnnie Cochran of OJ Simpson fame Randall Robinson and Ogletree’s co-chair Adjoa Aiyetoro, a former official of the Communist Party USA front US Peace Coucil with Obama’s one time employer Alice Palmer.
On December 8 2005, Former Black Panther members John Bowman, Hank Jones and Ray Boudreaux held a meeting at the Washington, D.C. office of Trans-Africa Forum. They were complaining about re-newed police investigations of a 1971 police killing in San Francisco that they had been accused of.
The three Panthers had been indicted at the time by a grand jury, but were released when the court rendered a decision stating the methods used to obtain information were unlawful.
The former Panthers were flanked by Danny Glover, reparations activist Ron Daniels, Democratic Socialists of America activist and Progressives for Obama co-founder Bill Fletcher jnr and Charles Ogletree.
Ogletree, said that the community should protect the rights of the former Panthers with their lives
””These gentlemen, Ray Boudreaux, Hank Jones and others have been victims of the most vicious forms of American terrorism and torture…It takes a village to protect its elders. We tell them today, through our presence here and through our commitment that we will provide a protective blanket over them. They will not come in this village and take these elders, except over our dead bodies”.”
Barack Obama called on Ogletree and Democratic Socialists of America member Cornel West, during his 2008 Presidential campaign. Ogletree and West both joined Obama’s Black Advisory Council.
Remember that “Voter Intimidation” last fall? This is the kind of intimidation Obama and his administraion supports and will go to great lengths to protect.
Trevor continues:
”Ogletree has advised Obama on reforming the criminal-justice system as well on constitutional issues. He is a member of the Obama campaign’s black advisory council, which also includes Cornel West, who teaches African-American studies at Princeton University. The group formed after Obama skipped a conference on African-American issues in Hampton, Va., to announce his presidential candidacy in Illinois.”
Read Trevor’s entire piece on the Obama/Black Panther/Black Reparation here.
Obama’s presidency is not about what is ‘Best for America”. Obama’s ‘Agenda’ is black reparation and if his policies are passed, he will not need a 2nd term.
The time to act is NOW!!!
In his own words, Obama on black reparations :
Conservative blacks respond:
UPDATE: Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. delivering a church speech in which he accuses Newt Gingrich of attempting to block blacks from entering the middle class.
As the media continues to desecrate the legal standing of those who’s only wish is to have a Constitutionally qualified President, I feel I must address this 1 more time so there is no misunderstanding of my research. Especially for my new readers.
When looking into the original intent of the framers of the 18th century, we must remember that women did not have the rights of men. A woman’s citizenship followed that of her father until the day she married. At that time, her citizenship was automatically transferred to that of her husband, thus the reason for the wording in the following statements of the framers:
Historical Fact #1: On July 25, 1787, John Jay, the 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the new Republic and also the President of the Continental Congress, wrote to George Washington the following:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our National Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.”
Historical Fact #3: Additionally, in 1800, Charles Pinckney ( Continental Congress (1777-78 and 1784-87) and S.C. state legislature (1779-80, 1786-89, and 1792-96) said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure…attachment to the country”:
“What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his American Father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and be removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return later in life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.”
Historical Fact #4: Further research brings us to St. George Tucker (Fourteenth and Fifteenth Congresses (March 4, 1815-March 3, 1819); chairman, Committee on District of Columbia (Fourteenth Congress), Committee on Expenditures on Public Buildings (Fifteenth Congress); author of Tucker’s Commentaries and of a treatise on natural law and on the formation of the Constitution of the United States and State senate, 1819-1823; chancellor of the fourth judicial district of Virginia 1824-1831):
“The Provision in the Constitution which requires that the President shall be a “natural born” citizen, unless he were a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was adopted, is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.
The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would render him a member of a fraternity of the crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.
Under the laws of the time, this would have meant that, as long as the father was a US citizen, then both parents were US citizens, thus the child was subject to no other jurisdictions and had no allegiance to any foreign nations.
Now fast forward to the 20th century when the laws were changed and women were given individual citizen status:
On 22 September 1922, Congress passed the Married Women’s Act, also known as the Cable Act. Now the citizenship status of a woman and a man were separate. This law gave each woman her own citizenship status. This act was partially drawn in response to issues regarding women’s citizenship that occurred after women were given the right to vote. From this date, no marriage to an alien has taken citizenship from any U.S.-born woman. Females who had lost their citizenship status via marriage to an alien could initiate their own naturalization proceedings.
1936
This act effected U.S. citizen women whose marriage to an alien between the acts of 1907 and 1922 had caused them to lose their citizenship status. These women, if the marriage to the alien had ended in death or divorce, could regain their citizenship by filing an application with the local naturalization court and taking an oath of allegiance. Those women still married to their husband were not covered under the act and these individuals would have to go through the complete naturalization process.1940
In 1940, Congress allowed all women who lost their citizenship status between 1907 and 1922 to repatriate by filling an application with the local naturalization court and taking an oath. The complete naturalization process was no longer necessary for any woman whose marriage between 1907 and 1922 caused her to lose her citizenship status.
Thus any child born to parents with different citizenship, was born holding dual citizenship and it is recorded in Congressional records that the US did not recognize dual citizenship for the purposes of Article II, Section I, Clause V.
When we look further into the study of the 14th Amendment’s drafting, we find a ruling from US Attorney General, George Williams (1865 to 1871 Williams served as United States Senator from Oregon. In 1871 he was a member of the commission to settle the Alabama claims from the Treaty of Washington. December 14, 1871-1875; Attorney General of the United States). George was a US Senator at the time of the drafting of the 14th Amendment:
“The word “jurisdiction” under the 14th Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. “Political and military rights and duties” do not pertain to anyone else.”
Essentially, what this means is that in order to be a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, one must renounce any other allegiances so that their US citizenship is solely under the “jurisdiction” of the United States. In fact, controversy at the time due to dual allegiances was so great that Congress, in a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 said:
“The United States have not recognized double allegiance”
Rep. Bingham commenting on Sec. 1992 said during debate on the difference between ‘natural born” and ‘born” citizenships under the 14th Amendment:
“It means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of “parents” [emphasis plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a “natural born” citizen.”
The term “natural born citizen” is only located in ONE place in the Constitution: Article II, Section I, Clause V:
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.
Now, make note of the phrase ” at the time of the adoption of this Constitution“. The framers grandfathered themselves in and limited the time that the grandfather clause could be used so that as soon as the next generation came of age, there would no longer be an option for someone with a foreign parent or foreign birth to hold the highest political office of our country.
It does not take a law degree nor even degree in history to figure this out. They used to teach it in grammar school, but unfortunately, American history has become passe’.
***************************************************************************************************************
All the above information can be found at the Library of Congress online and also at the Federalist Blog dot US
I sincerely hopes this helps to dispel all the myths floating around, especially when they come from our elected officials whom should know better and thus the reason I will not be voting for any of them to return to DC anytime soon. I’m thinking a change to Article 1 and congressional term limits are in order. How about you?
Also, please feel free to leave a comment if you have further inquiries as to citizenship and how it pertains to Article I or Article II and I will get back to you as quick as I can.
If you haven’t had the time to read though the pdf of the House ObamaCare bill & don’t have any particular weekend plans, here are some pretty frightening highlights you can start with. As for me, I have read enough already and am looking forward to a fun day at the Blue Angels Air Show with the granddaughter.
via FamilySecurityMatters.org:
Take a look at what actually is in the Health Care bill. Obama makes disingenuous comments like “You’ll still keep your doctor” or “You’ll keep your existing health care.” He is either lying to us or he has no idea what is in it. Take a peek at the full report, or look at some of the highlights here:Pg 22 of the HC Bill mandates the Government will audit books of all employers that self insure. Can you imagine what that will do to small businesses? Every one will abandon “self insurance” and go on Government insurance. So when Obama says that there will still be private health care, it’s simply a lie: this mandate will force employers to abandon their private plans.Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – a Government committee (good luck with that!) will decide what treatments/benefits a person may receive.Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE WILL BE RATIONED! (We all knew this, because health care is rationed in Canada and Britain, but Obama kept saying it would not be).Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You will have no choice!PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill – HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.Pg 58 HC Bill – Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accts for election funds transferPG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (read: ACORN).Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government will create an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Government control.PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill – Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange.PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Government will ration your Healthcare!PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill – Government mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example – Translation for illegal aliens.Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups, i.e. ACORN & Americorps, to sign up individuals for Government HC plan.PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members – your Health care WILL be rationed.-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill – Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Government on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Government Monopoly.pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill – Doctors/ AMA – The Government will tell YOU what you can earn.Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE.Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer with payroll $400k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.pg 150 Lines 9-13 Businesses with payroll between $251k & $400k who don’t provide public option pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Government will be taxed 2.5% of income.Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (the GOVERNMENT) will have access to ALL Americans’ finances and personal records.PG 203 Line 14-15 HC – “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that.Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors – doesn’t matter what specialty – will all be paid the same.PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor’s time, professional judgment, etc. Literally, value of humans.PG 265 Sec 1131Government mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.PG 268 Sec 1141 Federal Government regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!Page 280 Sec 1151 The Government will penalize hospitals for what Government deems preventable readmissions.Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Doctors who treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission – Government will penalize you.Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Doctors what/how much they can own.Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion – Government will mandate hospitals cannot expand.pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can u say ACORN?!Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 – Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures which of course forces health care rationing.Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc., forcing people into Government plan.Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!Pg 379 Sec 1191 Government creates more bureaucracy – Telehealth Advisory Committee. HC by phone.PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consultations. Think Senior Citizens end of life prodding.Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in how to die.PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An “advanced care planning consultant” will be used frequently as patients’ health deteriorates.PG 429 Lines 10-12 “advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from the Government to end a life!Pg 429 Lines 13-25 – The Government will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.Pg 469 – Community Based Home Medical Services/Non profit orgs. (ACORN Medical Services here?)Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION. 1 monthly payment to a community-based organization. (Like ACORN?)PG 489 Sec 1308 The Government will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Government into our marriages.Pg 494-498 Government will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services. You’d better speak up now before you are on the “advanced care consultation” list.full article here
Constitutionally Speaking 