Click on the photo for the full clunker!
Yearly Archives: 2009
Herseth-Sandlin & Her Stimulus Oversight
I was not at all quiet about my displeasure of Stephanie’s vote for the $787 stimulus aka C.R.A.P. bill. When I questioned her on it, she said that she was able to vote ‘yes’ because, unlike the TARP, the C.R.A.P. had the oversight needed to avoid wasteful spending.
So, read for yourself, the kind of stimulus, or as Michelle Malkin puts it : ‘smut-ulus’, that Stephanie is overseeing:
· $25,000 to the San Francisco Cinematheque in San Francisco, California. The website’s calendar states that next season will be announced in the weeks ahead but the News tab describes recent Co-presentations such as a documentary on “the legendary underground filmmakers Mike & George Kuchar” and thier film “Thundercrack” of which a reviewer raves: “Witness if you dare, the world’s only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla. Ecstasy so great that all heaven and hell becomes just one big old Shangri-La!” First mention on the website’s Archives tab is Treasures IV: American Avant-Garde Film which includes Peyote Queen. Peyote Queen is billed as: “A classic of the psychedelic tendency … An attempt to visually render the wealth of kaleidoscope visions of peyote, the hallucinogenic cactus ritually used by the Indians of New Mexico” … an “… exploration in the colour of ritual, in the colour of thought, a journey in the depths of sensorial disorder, of the inner vision, where mysteries are represented in the theatre of the soul.”
· $25,000 to Jess Curtis/Gravity, Inc. in San Francisco, California. One of their most recent works is the Symmetry Project where nude couples are mounted on each other in various poses. Note in the first pictures nude children are present with nude adults.
We now have ‘Smut–ulus’ we can believe in thanks to Stephanie, however, is this the kind of oversight you want for your health care?
I guess for Stephanie, her view of wasteful spending oversight wasn’t quite the kind she promoted during the 2008 election.
When you lie down with dogs, it doesn’t matter what color you are, especially in partisan politics.
A Question for Upcoming Townhalls
While health care will be the HUGE issue at upcoming town halls, we must not let this opportunity pass by. We must be given a straight answer from our US Congressmen & Senators:
Why are you allowing this president to run amuck and bypass Congress & what are you going to do to overturn the appointment of all these czars?
Blue Dog Dodgeball
Fire up the phones.
Dodging the wrath of Pelosi and her cronies to salvage support for future pet projects they may have in the works, the blue dogs have made what they call a deal at our expense.
The bill will still be laden with taxes, fines but especially it will be mandatory and controlled by government appointed bureaucrats.
GOP Health Reform Bill Looks Promising
Vis FoxNews:
House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a $700 billion health care plan that would offer tax credits to help people buy insurance, yet unlike Democratic proposals, wouldn’t require either individuals or employers to get coverage.
OK, this is good. The Report goes on:
The plan avoids expanding the federal role in overseeing the health insurance industry. Unlike Democratic proposals, it would not set up new federally regulated purchasing pools for individuals and small businesses.
Cool, tell me more:
It would provide grants to states to help set up high-risk pools for people with medical problems who are denied coverage by commercial insurers.
(snip)
The GOP bill would take on medical malpractice, limiting jury awards for pain and suffering and creating new health courts in which a specially trained judge would hear and decide cases involving medical negligence.
Now that;s what I call putting those ‘trip & fall’ lawyers in their place.
So far, so good, but as always, we will have to wait for the audit by Heritage to understand the real ‘nuts & bolts’ of it.
AS I Said: “British at Birth”
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.
Open Letter to the Main Stream Media & Conservative Radio Hosts
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
Obama Intellectually Convicted of False Swearing
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.]
Don’t You Dare Tax My “Plugs”
via Drudge: The Senate Finance Committee has discussed imposing a 10% excise tax on cosmetic surgery deemed unnecessary for medical purposes.
still developing…
Constitutionally Speaking 