As the Ten Commandments instruct, envy is corrosive to the individual and to those societies that embrace it.
By ARYEH SPERO
One of my earliest childhood memories is of my parents talking about Nixon and the Watergate scandal. I remember the newspaper headline: “Nixon Resigns!” President Nixon’s fight against court subpoenas made international news. Yesterday President Obama completely ignored a court subpoena, and the world shrugged.
Obama’s behavior yesterday is even more disturbing than Nixon’s. Nixon at least respected the judicial branch enough to have his attorney’s show up in court and follow procedure. Nixon’s fight in the courts followed existing law. Nixon acknowledged the authority of the judicial branch even while he fought it. Obama, on the other hand,
essentially said yesterday that the judicial branch has no power over him. He ordered his attorneys to stay away from the hearing. He didn’t petition a higher court in a legitimate attempt to stay the hearing. Instead he showed complete contempt for the entire judicial branch and for the rule of law. Rather than respecting the legal process Obama went around the courts and tried to put political pressure directly on the Georgia Secretary of State. When that failed, he simply ignored the judicial branch completely.
The rule of law, and our three-branch system of government, now hang in the balance. If the Georgia court issues a ruling on the merits and an order finding Obama in contempt of court, and if that contempt order actually results in real punishment of some kind, then we will still have a Constitutional Republic. If this doesn’t happen, then Obama will have been rewarded for showing complete contempt for the judicial branch.
Understand that the goal of the Georgia ballot challenge was to have a court rule on the merits of the Constitutional question: Does the term “natural born citizen” in Article II of the Constitution, require a Presidential candidate to have two parents that were U.S. citizens at the time the candidate was born? Obama wants to avoid having a court rule on this question. That is why he didn’t show up and ordered his attorneys to not show up. He was hoping that the Georgia court would enter a default judgment rather than rule on the merits. If the court enters a default judgment, Obama will have succeeded in avoiding the Constitutional eligibility question. He will then appeal the default judgment, get the appellate court to suspend the default judgment pending appeal, and then delay the appeal until after the primary. This is undoubtedly Obama’s plan.
If the Georgia Court rules that Supreme Court precedent must be followed and therefore Obama simply does not meet the minimum Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President, then we will at least have succeeded in finding one court in the nation willing to do its job. If that court finds Obama in contempt of court, then we still have three viable branches of government. The Georgia court has the authority to do both of these things. The world should be holding its breath.
Unfortunately the world is apparently unaware that a great Republic is on life support. The Roman Empire died a slow death. It’s death was so gradual that few people living at that time probably noticed the individual events that marked the death throes of that great empire. Apparently the same is true of America. Yesterday marked a stunning turn of events in the constant power struggle between the three branches of our government. Our President openly showed that he believes he is completely above the law. I wonder if the court even noticed its own death certificate. We will see in a few days.
I will certainly try to explain this to the court in our proposed findings of fact and law that the court requested we file before February 5th.
All of your encouragement and prayers have been greatly appreciated. They are needed even more over the next few weeks. This battle is FAR from over. And it has taken on importance beyond what we predicted (which is truly astounding). Please tell everyone you know about Obama’s contempt of the judicial branch. Please explain to them what it really means. Even those that agree with Obama politically and disagree with our ballot challenge should be shocked, appalled, and scared of Obama’s contempt for the judicial system.
Co-Founder, Lead Counsel
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION
9040 Executive Park Drive, Suite 200
Knoxville, TN 37923
WesternJ said, “Yesterday President Obama completely ignored a court subpoena, and the world shrugged.”
The world didn’t shrugg, they are watching but are already under the influence of the NWO. They don’t get the news, they can’t respond. We can’t let that happen here.
Obama ignoring one judge is one thing, the Constitution says we have to vote for president in all 50 states. GA will mean he can’t run for president.
Next we get a lot of states to remove him from the ballot. Call or write your Secretary of State and let him know you want him off the ballot for being illegal. Get there contact number here.
The states can do this and there is nothing Obama can do about it.
Once again, the Republican Party is being tempted to vote for “the lesser of two evils”. A lot of Republicans are actually considering voting for Mitt Romney because they have bought the lie that he has “the best chance” of defeating Barack Obama in 2012. But just because he is the Republican candidate that is most like Barack Obama does not mean that he has the best chance of defeating him. The truth is that no self-respecting Republican should ever vote for Mitt Romney. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for the New World Order. Romney comes from the financial establishment, he is being showered with money from the financial establishment and he supports all of the goals of the financial establishment. This year, millions upon millions of dollars are being funneled into Romney’s campaign and into pro-Romney organizations. The New World Order is literally trying to buy the 2012 election for their dream candidate. Romney would be the ultimate Wall Street puppet, and if you cast a vote for Mitt Romney you are playing right into the hands of the financial elite.
If you do not believe that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for the New World Order, just consider Mitt Romney’s positions on the issues….
#1 The Federal Reserve
To the financial elite, there is no more important financial institution in the United States than the Federal Reserve, and Mitt Romney is a huge supporter of the Federal Reserve.
During one Republican debate, Romney actually tried to explain to all of us why “we need to have a Fed“.
Not only that, Mitt Romney has stated that he is not really concerned about what is going on over at the Federal Reserve. Mitt Romney has publicly stated that he is “not going to take my effort and focus on the Federal Reserve“.
That kind of talk is music to the ears of the financial elite.
Also, Romney fully supported the reappointment of Ben Bernanke as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve despite his absolutely horrific track record.
#2 Money From The Bankers
Mitt Romney is getting far, far, far more money from Wall Street bankers than any other Republican candidate.
In a recent article entitled “The Big Wall Street Banks Are Already Trying To Buy The 2012 Election“, I detailed how numbers compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show that Mitt Romney is getting more money from the employees of the “too big to fail” Wall Street banks than all of the other Republican candidates combined.
The following is an excerpt from that article that shows how much money employees of those banks (and their spouses) gave to various candidates for president during the first 9 months of 2011….
Mitt Romney: $813,300
Barack Obama: $198,874
Tim Pawlenty: $101,515
Rick Perry: $58,900
Jon Huntsman: $28,250
Ron Paul: $13,104
Herman Cain: $2,715
Michelle Bachmann: $1,500
Newt Gingrich: $1,250
Even though Romney’s poll numbers have been in the mid to low 20s most of the time, employees of the big Wall Street banks gave him $813,300 during the first 9 months of 2011 and they only gave $105,719 to the rest of the Republican candidates that were still in the race at the end of the third quarter combined.
During the last financial crisis, Mitt Romney was a very enthusiastic supporter of the Wall Street bailouts.
#3 The Wall Street Bailouts
Back in 2009, Romney delivered a speech in which he made the following statement about bailing out Wall Street….
“I know we didn’t all agree on TARP. I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses. For free markets to work, there has to be a currency and a functioning financial system.”
During the Wall Street bailouts, gigantic mountains of money were transferred from the pockets of U.S. taxpayers into the hands of greedy Wall Street bankers.
Wall Street would definitely like to have someone in the White House who will bail them out once again when the next great financial crisis strikes.
#4 Health Care
Republicans are supposed to be against Obamacare, and yet millions upon millions of them plan to vote for someone that came up with the plan that Obamacare was based upon.
Barack Obama has admitted that much of his health care plan came directly from what Mitt Romney did up in Massachusetts. In fact, a recent MSNBC article brought to light some new information about the relationship between Romneycare and Obamacare….
Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as “Obamacare.”
The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts.
Conservatives all over the country have been loudly denouncing the individual health insurance mandate in Obamacare, but Mitt Romney has had the gall to claim that the individual health insurance mandate that he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts was based on “conservative principles”.
So how has Romneycare worked out for residents of Massachusetts?
Well, according to the Daily Caller, health care costs and health insurance premiums have gone up dramatically in Massachusetts….
Since the bill became law, the state’s total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 percent. Medicaid spending has gone from less than $6 billion a year to more the $9 billion. Many consumers have seen double-digit percentage increases in their premiums.
That doesn’t sound good.
Romney now says that he wants to “repeal” Obamacare, but what he means by repeal may not be what you and I mean by repeal.
Someone should ask Romney what he meant when he stated that he wants “to eliminate some of the differences, repeal the bad, and keep the good” in Obamacare.
#5 Free Trade
Let’s just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.
It doesn’t matter that Mr. Obama can’t get the economy out of second gear. It doesn’t matter that he cynically betrayed his core promise as a candidate to be a unifying president. It doesn’t matter that he keeps blaming Bush. It doesn’t matter that he thinks ATMs are weapons of employment destruction. It doesn’t matter that Tim Geithner remains secretary of Treasury. It doesn’t matter that the result of his “reset” with Russia is Moscow selling fighter jets to Damascus. It doesn’t matter that the Obama name is synonymous with the most unpopular law in memory. It doesn’t matter that his wife thinks America doesn’t deserve him. It doesn’t matter that the Evel Knievel theory of fiscal stimulus isn’t going to make it over the Snake River Canyon of debt.
Above all, it doesn’t matter that Americans are generally eager to send Mr. Obama packing. All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won’t be another fiasco. But they can’t be reasonably sure, so it’s going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know. Read More
Remember the moment in 2008 when Charlie Gibson of ABC News asked Senator Barack Obama why he would support raising the capital gains tax even though “revenues from the tax increased” when the rate fell? Mr. Obama’s famous reply: “I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” Well, we were warned.
Here we are four years later, and President Obama on Tuesday night linked the term “fair” to U.S. tax and economic policy seven times. The U.S. economy is still hobbling out of recession, real family incomes are falling and 14 million Americans are unemployed, but Mr. Obama declared that his top priority is not to reform the tax code to promote growth and job creation. His overriding goal is redistributing income
.Mr. Obama endorsed the political ruse he calls the Buffett rule, which asserts as a matter of moral principle that millionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than middle-class wage earners. Specifically, Mr. Obama is proposing that anyone earning more than $1 million pay at least 30% of that income to Uncle Barack.
The report examined 10 major demonstration projects conducted by Medicare in which managed care programs and value-based payment programs are evaluated. The two types of healthcare reforms are key features of ObamaCare — the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which became law in March 2010.
In the managed-care programs — where care-management companies were hired to coordinate care between doctors and patients with chronic diseases like diabetes, sending nurses to monitor whether patients were following doctor’s orders — the CBO found that the programs did not reduce costs enough to save the government money.
“The evaluations show that most programs have not reduced Medicare spending: In nearly every program involving disease management and care coordination, spending was either unchanged or increased relative to the spending that would have occurred in the absence of the program,” the report said.
In the case of value-based payment programs — where hospitals are paid based on whether they achieve better outcomes for their patients — the CBO again found that all but one of the programs assessed did not reduce healthcare costs enough to save Medicare any money.
The central conflict of the Obama Presidency has been between the jobs and growth crisis he inherited and the President’s hell-for-leather pursuit of his larger social-policy ambitions. The tragedy is that the economic recovery has been so lackluster because the second impulse keeps winning.
Yesterday came proof positive with the White House’s repudiation of the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada’s $7 billion shovel-ready project that would support tens of thousands of jobs if only it could get the requisite U.S. permits. Those jobs, apparently, can wait.
Unless the President objected, December’s payroll tax deal gave TransCanada the go-ahead in February to start building the pipeline, which would travel 1,661 miles from Alberta to interconnections in Oklahoma and then carry Canadian crude to U.S. refiners on the Gulf Coast.
The State Department, which presides over the Keystone XL review because it would cross the 49th parallel, claimed yesterday that the two-month Congressional deadline was too tight “for the President to determine whether the Keystone XL pipeline is in the national interest.” The White House also issued a statement denouncing Congress’s “rushed and arbitrary deadline,” which merely passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
By Peter Ferrara on 1.18.12 @ 6:08AM
Those who contribute to, vote for, or otherwise support today’s Democrat party need to catch up to the curve. These are not your father’s Democrats. George McGovern would be a moderate in this party.
This is the party that rejected Hillary Clinton because she was not left enough. Instead it literally took a Marxist street agitator from the Chicago political machine and put him in the White House. Barack Obama was actually teaching the social manipulation methods of openly communist revolutionary Saul Alinsky to other Marxist revolutionaries for the radical communist front group ACORN. His weird name reflects his personal rejection of American culture. This is the person today’s Democrat party wanted for President.
But it is not just him. The leader of the House Democrats is former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, ultraleft San Francisco Democrat totem. She is virtually as far left as Obama, and her public statements make Sarah Palin seem like a Ph.D. in economics. She keeps telling us that unemployment insurance payments are the best way to restore booming economic growth and prosperity.
When the American people rebuked Pelosi’s ultraleft leadership as House Speaker, turning to the Republicans for the greatest House turnover since the New Deal, House Democrats responded with their own rebuke of the people. They voted Pelosi right back in as their leader, effectively saying to the American people that they were too stupid to know what they are doing, and that Pelosi’s ultraleft San Francisco values best represent the Democrat party’s ideals.
The Democrats also elected as DNC Chairman the unreasoned and far left screamer and name caller Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who also makes Sarah Palin look like a rocket scientist. She touts as her achievements in the Florida legislature the Florida Residential Swimming Pools Safety Act, and state regulation of dry cleaning prices. She compiled during her career there the widely noted most liberal-left voting record of any state legislator. The Democrat party considered that the perfect qualification for party chairman.
Here’s the links;
Conservatives can be a grudging lot. That’s especially true when it comes to President Obama. Even where he’s been in the right—whether it be killing Osama bin Laden or promoting charter schools—we can be stingy with praise.
So let us now, in full public view, credit his greatest public service as president: He is sending Americans back to the Constitution.
Yes, in the Bush years the air was also thick with accusations that the Constitution was being “shredded.” We now know that the professed concern for the Constitution was fake. We know it was fake because the same Bush claims of executive authority in war that provoked such apoplexy in our pundits, professors and politicos have for the most part been embraced by Mr. Obama—all to the distinct sound of silence.
Today we have a wholly different order of constitutional complaint. Where the accusations against Mr. Bush were led by prestigious law faculties and law firms, those against Mr. Obama reflect a more popular hue. Where the indictments of Mr. Bush were largely limited to war policy, those against Mr. Obama’s extend broadly to all areas of policy: foreign, economic and social. And where critics of Mr. Bush were obsessed with outcome, the discontent with Mr. Obama has been magnified by the uneasy sense that he is changing the fundamental rules of the game.