more bi partisan politics at work here that ignore the needs of the people they represent ... they give the banker a bail out but won't let the unemployed have a measly check...

Jobless benefits start ending on Sunday
By Tami Luhby, senior writerFebruary 26, 2010: 3:55 PM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Depending on extended unemployment benefits to see you through the Great Recession?

You'd better not: The Senate failed to push back the Feb. 28 deadline to apply for this safety net.

Starting Monday, the jobless will no longer be able to apply for federal unemployment benefits or the COBRA health insurance subsidy.

Federal unemployment benefits kick in after the basic state-funded 26 weeks of coverage expire. During the downturn, Congress has approved up to an additional 73 weeks, which it funds.

These federal benefit weeks are divided into tiers, and the jobless must apply each time they move into a new tier.

Because the Senate did not act, the jobless will now stop getting checks once they run out of their state benefits or current tier of federal benefits.

That could be devastating to the unemployed who were counting on that income. In total, more than one million people could stop getting checks next month, with nearly 5 million running out of benefits by June, according to the National Unemployment Law Project.

Nice spin! We are being prepped 4 days in advance, the snow didn't cause unemployment,,, what it caused was short pay days ... are these guys reall in touch with reality ?



WASHINGTON, March 1 (Reuters) - White House economic adviser Larry Summers said on Monday winter blizzards were likely to distort U.S. February jobless figures, which are due to be released on Friday.

"The blizzards that affected much of the country during the last month are likely to distort the statistics. So it's going to be very important ... to look past whatever the next figures are to gauge the underlying trends," Summers said in an interview with CNBC, according to a transcript.

Construction activity was hit particularly hard by the storms, but many restaurants and stores also had to close, putting the brakes on hiring plans and temporarily throwing some employees out of work.

Summers, director of the White House's National Economic Council, also said the United States was closely monitoring Greece's debt problems and U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was encouraged by what he had heard from European officials about the issue.

"With respect to Europe, I am obviously very concerned about what's happening in Greece and Portugal, in Spain, in Italy, on the European continent," Summers said.

"I think there have been increasing signs of recognition both in Greece and in the major countries of Europe that this is a situation that has to be managed; that combination of getting the Greek budget under better control and providing more support is necessary to stabilize this situation."

Summers brushed aside speculation that he was interested in changing jobs.

"I like what I'm doing," he said. "My view is if the president asks me to do something in which I think I can make a contribution, the right approach to it is to say yes, and that's why I'm very pleased to be here working at the National Economic Council." (Reporting by Jeff Mason and Ross Colvin; editing by Chris Wilson)

[link to www.reuters.com]

An actor walks upon the floodlit stage of life
wearing a mask of an angel beneath a demon's gown.
Pretence smiles upon the crowded hall of life
holding out hope as bright as it is false.
Son of a woman in whose veins flows the blood
of ancient Ireland and dark Africa's plains.
You are Obama, nick-named the standing king
You are Barack, oh, son born to deceive
The suffering hoards of Africa look up to you,
See a black saviour where nought but a Judas strides.
An entrapper of nations, bringer of dismal war
Behind the robes and the nylon wings of hope
Oh, may those who look upon you, see you as you are.
May those who hope in you behold you as you be
A prince deceitful to bring down Africa's shrines
A siren who leads Africa's ships onto rocks of obliteration.
Your rule my lord will not be one of peace
Your reign my king will not be one of smiles
Even as we speak in caves both dark and dank
Enraged fanatics plot your dark demise
They will put around your head a bloodwet martyr's crown.
Oh black Kennedy following the one before
May God forgive thee and thy fiery spouse
As you walk in silence from the stage of life
Barack Obama, blessed son, Oh standing king.

Credo Mutwa

Wow star do you suppose this is what they have replaced the second coming with now that Anu can t reappear. Sh-it no holograms in the sky , no fireworks and holographic alien spaceships...this shows how desperate they are to rule and that they have been brought on even ground where the masses are so easily manipulated and fcuked with. Let s see how long they last.

Obama... Anu's stand in

Ponder this Unemployment Number for US -- 34%
Quote

Population of these United States is 310,000,000
Population that is under 15 years old 60,000,000
Population that is over 68 years old 35,000,000
___________________________________________
Working age population is 215,000,000

Population that is in prison is 2,300,000
Population that is in military 1,400,000 (Army Navy Air Force Marines)

Disabled working age population 1,300,000

_______________________________________
Available workforce 210,000,000

People employed full time 137,000,000 (from the DOL)

People unemployed or under-employed in the working population 73,000,000

73 M divided by 137 M times 100 for the percentage.

Thus 34% of the working population is unemployed or underemployed.

Even if you were to say that 40 million were college or seniors in high school students or housewives, you will have 33 million unemployed.

Colleges conducting their own surveys keep coming up with this 33 million number of people who would be working if only they could find a real job.

President Obama: Replace Rahm with Me ...an open letter from Michael Moore

Friday, March 5th, 2010

Dear President Obama,

I understand you may be looking to replace Rahm Emanuel as your chief of staff.

I would like to humbly offer myself, yours truly, as his replacement.

I will come to D.C. and clean up the mess that's been created around you. I will work for $1 a year. I will help the Dems on Capitol Hill find their spines and I will teach them how to nonviolently beat the Republicans to a pulp.

And I will help you get done what the American people sent you there to do. I don't need much, just a cot in the White House basement will do.

Now, don't get too giddy with excitement over my offer, because you and I are going to be up at 5 in the morning, 7 days a week and I am going to get you pumped up for battle every single day (see photo). Each morning you and I will do 100 jumping jacks and you will repeat after me:

"THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECTED ME, NOT THE REPUBLICANS, TO RUN THE COUNTRY! I AM IN CHARGE! I WILL ORDER ALL OBSTRUCTIONISTS OUTTA MY WAY! IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T LIKE WHAT I'M DOING THEY CAN THROW MY ASS OUT IN 2012. IN THE MEANTIME, I CALL THE SHOTS ON THEIR BEHALF! NOW, CONGRESS, DROP AND GIVE ME 50!!"

Then we will put on our jogging sweats and run up to Capitol Hill. We will take names, kick butts, and then take some more names. If we have to give a few noogies or half-nelson's, then so be it. In our pockets we will have a piece of paper to show the pansy Dems just how much they won by in 2008 -- and the poll results that show the majority of Americans oppose the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and want the bankers punished. Like drill sergeants, we will get right up in their faces and ask them, "WHAT PART OF THE PUBLIC MANDATE DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND, SOLDIER?!! DROP AND GIVE ME 50!"

I know this is the job Rahm Emanuel was supposed to be doing.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have always admired Rahm Emanuel (if you don't count his getting NAFTA pushed through Congress in the '90s which destroyed towns like Flint, Michigan. I know, picky-picky.). He is what we needed for a long time -- a no-apologies, take-no-prisoners fighting machine. Someone who is not afraid to get his hands dirty and pound the right wing into submission. Far from being the foul-mouthed bully he has been portrayed as, Rahm is the one who BEAT UP the bullies to protect us from them.

That's certainly what he did in 2006. After six long, miserable years of the middle-class getting slaughtered and the poor being flushed down the toilet, Rahm Emanuel took on the job of returning Congress to the Democrats. No one believed it could be done.

But he did it. Big time. He put the fear of God into the party of Rush and Newt. They had never been so scared. More importantly, though, he instilled a sense of hope in the Democrats that they could actually score the mother of all hat tricks in 2008 -- and with you, an African American no less, in the pole position!

It worked. The Darkness ended. The vast majority of nation wept with joy on the night of the election (those who weren't weeping went out and bought a record number of guns and ammo). Unlike the last president, you didn't "win" by 537 votes in Florida (although Gore won the popular vote by a half-million), you beat McCain nationally by 9,522,083 votes! The House Democrats got a walloping 79-vote margin. The Senate Dems would caucus with a supermajority of 60 votes unheard of in over 30 years. The wars would now end. America would have universal health care. Wall Street and the banks would, at the very least, be reined in. Hardworking citizens would not be thrown out of their homes. It was supposed to be the dawning of a new age.

But the Republicans were not going to go quietly into the night. You see, instead of having just one Rahm Emanuel, they are ALL Rahm Emanuels. That's why they usually win. Unlike most Democrats, they are relentless and unstoppable. When they believe in something (which is usually themselves and the K Street job they hope to be rewarded with someday), they'll fight for it till the death. They are loyal to a fault to each other (they were never able to denounce Bush, even though they knew he was destroying the party). They dig their heels in deep no matter what. If you exiled them to a lone chunk of melting polar ice cap, they would keep insisting that it was just a normal "January thaw," even as the frigid Arctic waters rose above their God-fearing necks ("See what I mean -- this water is COLD! What 'global *warming*'?! Adam and Eve rode dinos...aagghh!!... gulp gulp gulp").

We thought we were all done with this craziness, but we were mistaken. Like a beast that you just can't cage, the Republicans convinced not only the media, but YOU and your fellow Dems, that 59 votes was a *minority*! Precious time was lost trying to reach a "consensus" and trying to be "bipartisan."

Well, you and the Democrats have been in charge now for over a year and not one banking regulation has been reinstated. We don't have universal health care. The war in Afghanistan has escalated. And tens of thousands of Americans continue to lose their jobs and be thrown out of their homes. For most of us, it's just simply no longer good enough that Bush is gone. Woo hoo. Bush is gone. Yippee. That hasn't created one new friggin' job.

You're such a good guy, Mr. President. You came to Washington with your hand extended to the Republicans and they just chopped it off. You wanted to be respectful and they decided that they were going to say "no" to everything you suggested. Yet, you kept on saying you still believed in bipartisanship.

Well, if you really want bipartisanship, just go ahead and let the Republicans win in November. Then you'll get all the bipartisanship you want.

Let me be clear about one thing: The Democrats on Election Day 2010 are going to get an ass-whoopin' of biblical proportions if things don't change right now. And after the new Republican majority takes over, they, along with a few conservative Democrats in Congress, will get to bipartisanly impeach you for being a socialist and a citizen of Kenya. How nice to see both sides of the aisle working together again!

And the brief window we had to fix this country will be gone.

Gone.

Gone, baby, gone.

I don't know what your team has been up to, but they haven't served you well. And Rahm, poor Rahm, has turned into a fighter -- not of Republicans, but of the left. He called those of us who want universal health care "f***ing retarded." Look, I don't know if Rahm is the problem or if it's Gibbs or Axelrod or any of the other great people we owe a debt of thanks to for getting you elected. All I know is that whatever is fueling your White House it's now running on fumes. Time to shake things up! Time to bring me in to get you pumped up every morning! Go Barack! Yay Obama! Fight, Team, Fight!

I'm packed and ready to come to D.C. tomorrow. If it helps, you won't really be losing Rahm entirely because I'll be bringing his brother with me -- my agent, Ari Emanuel. Man, you should see HIM negotiate a deal! Have you ever wanted to see Mitch McConnell walking around Capitol Hill carrying his own head in his hands after it's just been handed to him by the infamous Ari? Oh, baby, it won't be pretty -- but boy will it be sweet!

What say you, Barack? Me and you against the world! Yes we can! It'll be fun -- and we may just get something done. Whaddaya got to lose? Hope?

Retardedly yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

P.S. Just to give you an idea of the new style I'll be bringing with me, when a cornhole like Sen. Ben Nelson tries to hold you up next time, this is what I will tell him in order to get his vote: "You've got exactly 30 seconds to rescind your demand or I will personally make sure that Nebraska doesn't get one more federal dollar for the rest of Obama's term. And then I will let everyone in your state know that you wear Sooner panties, backwards. NOW DROP AND GIVE ME 50!"

AY 14, 2009 4:36AM
Obama Employs Bush Administration Tactic, Blocks Photos
RATE: 15 Flag
Email






On Wednesday, Obama said he “would try to block the court-ordered release of photos showing U.S. troops abusing prisoners.” The release, which was to be the result of a Freedom of Information Act request made by the ACLU, had been reasonable in the final weeks of April, but today, Obama chose to come out against the release.

According to the Associated Press, “out of concern [that] the pictures would "further inflame anti-American opinion" and endanger U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan” Obama planned to block them.

Obama intends to block the release of the photos because they may negatively impact American empire and American military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Gen. Ray Odierno, a prime architect of “the surge” in Iraq, and Gen. David Petraeus influenced Obama’s decision after informing the administration that they were afraid the photos will “cost American lives.”

Obama suggested that the “photos had already served their purpose in investigations of "a small number of individuals” and "the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken."

Also, Obama made the argument that "these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib."


When choosing to make a “mockery” out of his “promise of transparency and accountability” (as one member of the ACLU put it), Obama is fine with contending that if information requested does not show something worse than said previous atrocity or does not show that something more inhumane happened the information should not be released.


Even if the information would give further credence to the argument that the Bush Administration tortured (which many in the corporate news media are still reluctant to outright accept as they continue to cling to the “enhanced interrogation technique” euphemism when discussing “torture”), the fact that it does not top the brutality of a batch of previous photos means that the ACLU’s FOIA request should not be fulfilled.


The ACLU released a response to Obama’s decision, which was written by Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:


The Obama administration's adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president's stated desire to restore the rule of law, to revive our moral standing in the world and to lead a transparent government. This decision is particularly disturbing given the Justice Department's failure to initiate a criminal investigation of torture crimes under the Bush administration.


"It is true that these photos would be disturbing; the day we are no longer disturbed by such repugnant acts would be a sad one. In America, every fact and document gets known – whether now or years from now. And when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up. Any outrage related to these photos should be due not to their release but to the very crimes depicted in them. Only by looking squarely in the mirror, acknowledging the crimes of the past and achieving accountability can we move forward and ensure that these atrocities are not repeated.

"If the Obama administration continues down this path, it will betray not only its promises to the American people, but its commitment to this nation's most fundamental principles. President Obama has said we should turn the page, but we cannot do that until we fully learn how this nation veered down the path of criminality and immorality, who allowed that to happen and whose lives were mutilated as a result. Releasing these photos – as painful as it might be – is a critical step toward that accounting. The American people deserve no less."




Obama said of the Freedom of Information Act in a January 21 memo, “The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.”

But, on matters of American empire or “state secrets,” the administration is as bad as Bush if not worse.

Robert Gibbs’ press briefing on the reversal shows just how poor a case the administration has for keeping these photos from being released:

QUESTION: Can you go over the sequence of events that led to this thought process? Because, on April 24th, when the Pentagon was explaining its decision to release the photos, it said that -- the spokesman said that there was a feeling that the case had pretty much run its course.
GIBBS: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: And now you’re saying that the president feels that there’s a strong argument to be made...
GIBBS: Because the argument that the president has asked his legal team to make is not an argument that the previous legal team made in that case. They argued a couple of different things, including, a law enforcement exception. And the judge ruled that, to seek a law enforcement exception, you have to -- you have to disclose the name of the person that would be -- that harm would be derived for in seeking that exception. This is a different argument that the president thinks is compelling.
QUESTION: Well, when did he decide that it was important to make that argument? Did one of the lawyers come to him and say...
GIBBS: No. He came to the lawyers.
QUESTION: And when did all that...
GIBBS: That was a meeting that was held last week in the Oval Office.
QUESTION: Robert, if that was such a compelling case, why was that not weighed in April then? Because it seems like -- was there a failure here at the White House in the first go-round in April to fully weigh the national security implications?
GIBBS: The argument that the president seeks to make is one that hasn’t been made before. The -- I’m not going to get into blame for this or that. Understanding that there was significant legal momentum in these cases prior to the president entering into office, we are now at a point where it is likely that some stay will be asked to prevent the release of these photos. And I believe the date -- I think we have until June 8th to appeal -- to seek review of those decisions by the Second Circuit.
QUESTION: But on April 24th, you also said, quote, “The Department of Justice decided, based on the ruling, the court ruling, is that it was, quote, hopeless to appeal.”
GIBBS: Right. QUESTION: Now you’re saying it’s not hopeless. GIBBS: Well, based on the argument that -- yes, I said that it was hopeless based on the argument that was made during the course of the original FOIA lawsuit, the appeal, the three-judge ruling, and the decision to decline the full circuit to make that -- to make those determinations. The president isn’t -- what I’m saying to you, Ed, is the president isn’t going back to remake the argument that has been made. The president is going -- has asked his legal team to go back and make a new argument based on national security.
QUESTION: This new argument -- if you’re saying, basically, that this could put troops in further harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan, Former Vice President Cheney, General Hayden, others have made the same argument about releasing the so-called torture memos. Do you have any regrets about putting those memos out? They’ve made the same argument about them?
GIBBS: No. Well, I’ll use the example I’ve used on this before, Ed. You didn’t begin to report on enhanced interrogation techniques at the release of the OLC memos, did you?
QUESTION: No.
GIBBS: OK. The -- I’m saying...
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
GIBBS: Hold on. I’m also sensing that the graphic that CNN uses to denote what happens when somebody gets waterboarded wasn’t likely developed based on reading memos that were released three weeks ago. The existence of enhanced interrogation techniques were noted by the former administration in speeches that they gave. You read about the enhanced interrogation techniques in autobiographies written by members of that former administration. The notion...
QUESTION: The graphics would not also be based on any prisoner photos you might release because we already know that people were abused in prisons. So why not put them out there?
GIBBS: I’m not sure that you’d do a graphic of a photo.
QUESTION: No. A graphic of someone being abused. We’ve all seen Abu Ghraib photos, and you were saying about the photos back in April, lack, it’s already exhausted and, essentially, these photos are going to come out anyway.
GIBBS: Based on the previous legal argument, yes. The previous legal argument denoted that the case had been lost. There’s a new legal argument that’s being made. My sense is, Ed, why do you do a graphic on CNN?
QUESTION: We’re trying to show people -- explain to people...
GIBBS: OK. The president believes that the existence of the photos themselves does not actually add to the understanding that detainee abuse happened, was investigated, that actions were taken by those that did, indeed, or might have undertaken potential abuse of detainees. And those cases were all dating back to finishing in 2004.
GIBBS: The president doesn’t believe the release of a photo surrounding that investigation does the anything to illuminate the existence of that investigation, only to provide some portion of sensationality.
QUESTION: Robert, is that really his role to decide whether or not it illuminates? That’s not the president of the United States’ role to decide, well, this is information will illuminate for the people, and this information isn’t.
GIBBS: No, the -- the -- the role of the president in this situation is as commander-in-chief. And if he determines that, through the release of these photos, that they pose a threat to those that serve to protect our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan through the illumination of whatever, he can make a determination to ask his legal team to go back to court and make a legal argument that he doesn’t believe was made and provides the most salient case and most important points for not releasing these photos.
Those determinations are, indeed, made by this president and -- and -- and are being made.
QUESTION: The Bush administration has obviously made the argument that releasing these specific photographs will endanger troops, and they did so in the way that you described, with -- with seeking the FOIA exemption for law enforcement personnel.
GIBBS: Right.
(interruption)
QUESTION: The specific avenue that your -- that your legal team’s going to go, you’re not sure if it’s going to be going back to the district court or...
GIBBS: I don’t know the -- I’ll check with -- put that -- we’ll check with -- with those guys specifically. I think, in some ways, they’re looking at whether it is to go to a lower court or to go to the Supreme Court.
QUESTION: And then just to follow up on the new argument, so are there specific -- is there specific case law arguments that the president knows that exist that were not used? Because it’s -- I find it hard to believe that the Bush administration didn’t turn under every rock to try to find an argument to do this.
GIBBS: Well, the president doesn’t believe that was the case. And the president, after reviewing the case, believes that -- that we have a compelling argument. [emphasis added]
Already reluctant to have the Justice Department enforce the rule of law and hold investigations and prosecutions for torture and crimes against humanity, how do arguments that the president can decide what illuminates a situation and what doesn’t, that the president didn’t misjudge the national security implications of the photos, and that the press doesn’t need these photos to report on treatment of detainees help the administration at all?

Of course, the press needs these photos to be released so they can cover the issue of torture and war crimes, which were part of Bush Administration policy. What else is going to motivate them to cover the issue? Ethics and morals?

This reversal is just one event in a series of events that have occurred in relation to state secrets, accountability, and transparency since Obama was inaugurated.



Obama’s vow “to open government more than ever” was sharply contradicted by his Justice Department which chose to “defend Bush administration decisions to keep secret many documents about domestic wiretapping, data collection on travelers and U.S. citizens, and interrogation of suspected terrorists.”



In March, the Obama administration continued a tradition of the Bush Administration and, citing state-secrets privileges, they, like the Bush Administration, continued to stall a suit brought by the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, which claimed that the government illegally wiretapped and violated the charity’s right to due process and freedom of speech because the government thought the charity was funding terrorism.



The Justice Department defended torture memo author John Yoo and Attorney General Eric Holder defended the decision claiming that it was in “the best interest of the United State.”



To mark Obama’s 100days in office, Sen. Russ Feingold released a “report card” on “actions to restore the rule of law.” Obama’s actions on state secrets earned him the worst grades.



Feingold cited the fact that Obama had “invoked the state secrets privilege in three cases in the first 100 days -- Al Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama, Mohammed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, and Jewel v. NSA” and had not taken a position on the State Secrets Protection Act.



Obama “issued an immediate halt to the military commission proceedings for prosecuting detainees and filed a request in Federal District Court in Washington to stay habeas corpus proceedings there.” But, most recently, the administration is seriously considering reviving military commissions for prosecuting Guantanamo detainees.



Even worse, Obama is considering “indefinite detention” for Guantanamo prisoners.



Now, Larisa Alexandrovna has compiled an article that suggests the “Obama Justice Department is continuing to cover up Bush-Era crimes.”

The decision to hold back the photos is another blow to freedom and democracy that follows a plethora of blows which have occurred in this decade.



The logic that these photos will create terrorism is patently false. It’s not the photos of torture that kill our soldiers, but the fact that the U.S. military and CIA tortures or tortured that creates or created terrorism.



We as a people must seriously consider how this decision to hide photos reflects our society’s values and how it shows our unwillingness to demand accountability and the enforcement of the rule of law.



What does the Obama Administration really want? The American people and its military forces to be safe from “terrorism” or the American people to stop demanding that the Obama Administration investigate and prosecute Bush Administration officials for torture and crimes against humanity?

Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and US President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address

Consider this:

1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer" . He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. NOTE: Click on "lawyer" to see the actual documents.

2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993.

3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.

Source: [link to jdlong.wordpress.com]


4. A senior lecturer is one thing.. A fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago
.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

Source: [link to blogs.suntimes.com]


7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the US Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence . not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video: [link to www.breitbart.tv]


9. Free Republic: In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal..

10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Libertyand the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech???


I have checked the ARDC website and found this to be true. How could we have elected a man that is an enigma wrapped in a conundrum.

Pres. Barack Obama - Editor of the Harvard Law Review- Has No Law License???
May 15, 2009 by Johnny Alamo
I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel - and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license.

But being a licensed professional myself, I knew that every state not only requires licensure, they make it possible to check online the status of any licensed professional. So I did, and here's the results from the ARDC Website:
She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" you license five seconds before the state suspends you.


I tried looking up why she would "Voluntarily surrender" her license, but Illinois does not have its 1993 records online.

But when I searched for "Obama", I found this:


"Voluntarily retired" - what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too.

This is the former editor of the Harvard Law Review who doesn't seem to give a hoot about his law license.

Healthcare calls deluge House phone lines
By Jordy Yager - 03/16/10 03:08 PM ET

House phone lines were nearing capacity on Tuesday from thousands of calls on healthcare.

The House e-mail system was also deluged on Tuesday in what the House’s technology office called “a very significant spike” in traffic.

The office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) sent out a system-wide advisory to member offices at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, warning them of the dramatic increase in traffic.

“Our phone system is nearing capacity,” said Jeff Ventura, spokesman for the CAO. “It got critical enough whereby we notified all systems administrators throughout the House that the phone systems are overloading.”

While Ventura said that the CAO didn’t have specific numbers of how many calls the House was receiving, he did say that it would have to be “an extraordinary volume” in order for it to clog the system.

Ventura said that the surge in calls, which will result in occasional busy signals for callers, is likely to persist throughout the week.

The House is preparing for a possible weekend vote on healthcare reform.

Ventura added that there’s not much that can be done to alleviate the busy signals and he advised callers to keep calling until they get through.

“Unlike computers, which can be scaled to accommodate something like this in real time, phone lines are hard wired, so you have your capacity and once the capacity is full, you’re going to get the good old fashioned busy signal,” he said. “And that’s what’s happening.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/87123 ... hone-lines

Contact Louise Slaughter:

Washington D.C. Office
2469 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3615
Fax: (202) 225-7822

Contact Pelosi:

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100

Contact list – Blue Dog Democrats

Via Tea Party Patriots:

TARGETS BY STATE

ALABAMA

Rep. Bobby Bright, Alabama 2nd

[link to http://www.bright.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2901, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-8913
Local Office Number: (334) 794-9680, Local Fax Number: (334) 671-1480
Chief of Staff: Jason Buckner email: jason.buckner@mail.house.gov
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

ARIZONA

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, Arizona, 1st

[link to kirkpatrick.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2315, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-9739
Local Office Number: (928) 226-6914, Local Fax Number: (928) 226-2876
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

Rep. Harry Mitchell, Arizona 5th

[link to mitchell.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2190
Local Office Number: (480) 946-2411
Voted Yes on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona, 8th

[link to giffords.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2542, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-0378
Local Office Number: (520) 881-3588, Local Fax Number: (520) 322-9490
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

ARKANSAS

Rep. Marion Berry, Arkansas 1st

[link to http://www.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4076, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-5602
Local Office Number: (870) 972-4600, Local Fax Number: (870) 972-4605
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Mike Ross, Arkansas 4th

[link to ross.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3772, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-1314
Local Office Number: (870) 881-0681, Local Fax Number: (870) 881-0683
Voted Yes on Stupak, Voted No on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

CALIFORNIA

Rep. Dennis Cardoza, California 18th

[link to http://www.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6131, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-0819
Local Office Number: (209) 383-4455, Local Fax Number: (209) 726-1065
Voted Yes on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Jim Costa, California 20th

[link to http://www.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3341, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-9308
Local Office Number: (559) 495-1620, Local Fax Number: (559) 495-1027
Voted Yes on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Laura Richardson, California, 37th

[link to richardson.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-7924, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-7926
District Office Number: (202) 225-7924, District Fax Number: (202) 225-7926

Rep. Linda Sanchez, California, 39th

[link to lindasanchez.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6676
Local Office Number: (562) 860-5050

COLORADO

Rep. Markey, Colorado 4th

[link to betsymarkey.house.gov]

DC Office Number: 202-225-4676, DC Fax Number: 202-225-5870
Local Office Number: 970-221-7110, Local Fax Number: 970-221-7240
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

FLORIDA

Rep. Allen Boyd, Florida, 2nd

[link to boyd.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-5235, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-5615
Local Office Number: (850) 561-3979, Local Fax Number: (850) 681-2902
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Ron Klein, Florida, 22nd

[link to http://www.klein.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225.3026, DC Fax Number: (202) 225.8398
Local Office Number: (561) 544-6910, Local Fax Number: (561) 544-2864

Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, Florida, 24th

[link to http://www.kosmas.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2706, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-6299
Local Office Number: (407) 208-1106, Local Fax Number: (407) 208-1108
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

GEORGIA

Rep. Jim Marshall, Georgia 8th

[link to jimmarshall.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6531, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-3013
Local Office Number: (478) 464-0255, Local Fax Number: (478) 464-0277
Voted Yes on Stupak, Voted No on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. John Barrow, Georgia 12th

[link to http://www.barrow.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2823, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-3377
Local Office Number: (706) 722-4494, Local Fax Number: (706) 722-4496
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

IDAHO

Rep. Walt Minnick, Idaho 1st

[link to minnick.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6611, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-3029
Local Office Number: (208) 888-3188, Local Fax Number: (208) 888-0894
Chief of Staff: Kare Haas email: kate.haas@mail.house.gov
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently No on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

ILLINOIS

Rep. Daniel Lipinski, Illinois 3rd

[link to http://www.lipinski.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-5701, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-1012
Local Office Number: (312) 886-0481, Local Fax Number: (773) 767-9395

Rep. Melissa Bean, Illinois 8th

[link to http://www.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3711, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-7830
Local Office Number: (847) 517-2927, Local Fax Number: (847) 517-2931

Rep. Deborah “Debbie” Halvorson, Illinois, 11th

[link to halvorson.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3635, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-3521
Local Office Number: (815) 726-4998, Local Fax Number: (815) 726-8024

INDIANA

Rep. Peter Visclosky, Indiana, 1st

[link to http://www.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2461, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-2493
Local Office Number: (219) 795-1844, DC Fax Number: (219) 795-1850

Rep. Joe Donnelly, Indiana 2nd

[link to donnelly.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3915, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-6798
Local Office Number: (574) 288-2780, Local Fax Number: (574) 288-2825
Voted Yes on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Brad Ellsworth, Indiana, 8th

[link to http://www.ellsworth.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4636, DC Office Fax: (202) 225-3284
Local Office Number: (812) 465-6484, Local Fax Number: (812) 422-4761
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Baron Hill, Indiana 9th

[link to baronhill.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-5315, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-6866
Local Office Number: (812) 288-3999, Local Fax Number: (812) 288-3873
Voted Yes on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

KENTUCKY

Rep. Ben Chandler, Kentucky 6th

[link to chandler.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4706, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-2122
Local Office Number: (859) 219-1366, Local Fax Number: (859) 219-3437
Chief of Staff: Denis Fleming email: denis.fleming@mail.house.gov
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

LOUSIANA

Rep. Charlie Melancon, Lousiana

[link to http://www.melancon.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4031, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-3944
Local Office Number: (985) 876-3033, Local Fax Number:
Chief of Staff: Joe Bonfiglio email: joe.bonfiglio@mail.house.gov
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently No on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

MAINE

Rep. Michael Michaud, Maine 2nd

[link to michaud.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6306, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-2943
Local Office Number: (207) 942-6935, Local Fax Number: (207) 942-5907
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

MARYLAND

Rep. Frank Kratovil, Maryland 1st

[link to kratovil.house.gov]

DC Office Number: 202-225-5311, DC Fax Number: 202-225-0254
Local Office Number: (410) 420-8822, Local Fax Number: (443) 262 – 9713
Chief of Staff: Tim McCann email: tim.mccann@mail.house.gov
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, Maryland, 2nd

[link to dutch.house.gov]

DC Office Number: 202-225-3061, DC Fax Number: 202-225-3094
Local Office Number: 410-628-2701, Local Fax Number: 410-628-2708

MASSACHUSETTS

Rep. Ed Markey, Massachusetts, 7th

[link to markey.house.gov]

DC Office Number: 202-225-2836
Local Office Number: 781-396-2900

Rep. Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts, 9th

[link to http://www.house.gov]

DC Office Number: 202-225-8273, DC Fax Number: 202-225-3984
Local Office Number: 617-428-2000, Local Office Fax: 617-428-2011

MICHIGAN

Rep. Bart Stupak, Michigan 1st

[link to http://www.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4735, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-4744
Local Office Number: (906) 786-4504, Local Fax Number: (906) 786-4534
Voted Yes on Stupak, Voted Yes on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

Rep. Mark Schauer Michigan 7th

[link to schauer.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6276, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-6281
Local Office Number: (517) 780-9075, Local Fax Number: (517) 780-9081
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided

Rep. Gary Peters, Michigan, 9th

[link to peters.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-5802, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-2356
Local Office Number: (248) 273-4227, Local Fax Number: (248) 273-4704

MINNESOTA

Rep. Collin C. Peterson, Minnesota 7th

[link to collinpeterson.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2165, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-1593
Local Office Number: (218) 847-5056
Voted Yes on Stupak, Voted No on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

MISSISSIPPI

Rep. Travis Childers, Mississippi 1st

[link to childers.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4306, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-3549
Local Office Number: (662) 841-8808, Local Fax Number: (662) 841-8845
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Gene Taylor, Mississippi 4th

[link to http://www.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-5772, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-7074
Local Office Number: (228) 864-7670, Local Fax Number: (228) 864-3099
Voted Yes on Stupak, Voted No on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

MISSOURI

Rep. Ike Skelton, Missouri 4th

[link to http://www.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2876
Local Office Number: (816) 228-4242
Voted Yes on Stupak, Voted No on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

NEW JERSEY

Rep. John Adler, New Jersey 3rd

[link to adler.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4765, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-0778
Local Office Number: (732) 608-7235, Local Fax Number: (732) 608-7268
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote high priority

NEW MEXICO

Rep. Martin Heinrich, New Mexico 1st

[link to heinrich.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6316, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-4975
Local Office Number: (505) 346-6781, Local Fax Number: (505) 346-6723
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided

Rep. Harry Teague, New Mexico 2nd

[link to teague.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2365, DC Fax Number:
Local Office Number: (575) 393-0510, Local Fax Number:
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

NEW YORK

Rep. Tim Bishop, New York 1st

[link to timbishop.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3826, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-3143
Local Office Number: (631) 696-6500, Local Fax Number: (631) 696-4520
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided

Rep. Michael E. McMahon, New York 13th

[link to mcmahon.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3371, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-1272
Local Office Number: (718) 351-1062, Local Fax Number: (718) 980-0768
Voted Yes on Stupak, Voted No on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

Rep. Scott Murphy, New York 20th

[link to scottmurphy.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-5614, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-1168
Local Office Number: (518) 828-3109, Local Fax Number: (518) 828-3985
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

Rep. Bill Owens, New York 23rd

https://owens.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4611, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-0621
Local Office Number: (315) 782-3150, Local Fax Number: (315) 782-1291
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

Rep. Michael Arcuri, New York 24th

[link to arcuri.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3665, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-1891
Local Office Number: (315) 252-2777/2778, Local Fax Number: (315) 252-2779
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently No Vote on Health Care
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Daniel B. Maffei, New York, 25th

[link to maffei.house.gov]

DC Fax Number: (202) 225-3701, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-4042
Local Office Number: (315) 423-5657, Local Fax Number: (315) 423-5669

NEVADA

Rep. Dina Titus, Nevada 3rd

[link to titus.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3252, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-2185
Local Office Number: (702) 387-4941, Local Fax Number: (702) 837-0728
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rep. Paul W. Hodes, New Hampshire, 2nd

[link to hodes.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-5206, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-2946
Local Office Phone: (603) 223-9814, Local Fax Number: (603) 223-9819

NORTH CAROLINA

Rep. Bob Etheridge, North Carolina, 2nd

[link to etheridge.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4531
Local Office Number: (919) 829-9122

Rep. Mike McIntyre, North Carolina 7th

[link to http://www.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2731, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-5773
Local Office Number: (910) 323-0260, Local Fax Number: (910) 323-0069
Chief of Staff: Dean Mitchell email: dean.mitchell@mail.house.gov
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

Rep. Larry Kissell, North Carolina 8th

[link to kissell.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3715, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-4036
Local Office Number: (704) 786-1612, Local Fax Number: (704) 782-1004
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently No on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

Rep. Heath Shuler, North Carolina 11th

[link to shuler.house.gov]

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6401, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-6422
Local Office Number: (828) 252-1651, Local Fax Number: (828) 252-8734
Chief of Staff: Hayden Rogers email: hayden.rogers@mail.house.gov
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

Pelosi: 'Once we kick through this door,' more reform will follow
Quote

If you have any doubt that the Democratic leadership of the House views passing the current health care reform bill as the beginning, not the end, of the process of creating a national government health care system, just note what Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a group of bloggers on Monday. "My biggest fight has been between those who wanted to do something incremental and those who wanted to do something comprehensive," Pelosi said, according to an account by Washington Post reform advocate Ezra Klein. "We won that fight, and once we kick through this door, there'll be more legislation to follow."

But since the current bill is unpopular, and Pelosi at the moment does not have enough Democratic, much less Republican, votes to pass it, the door she will be kicking through is the back door. Pelosi told the bloggers she favors using the "self-executing rule" strategy in which the House would pass the Senate health care bill without going on the record as specifically voting for it. "I like it," Pelosi said of the scheme, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill." The strategy of passing the Senate bill while avoiding a direct vote, writes Klein, "is all about plausible deniability for House members who don't want to vote for the Senate bill."

In a particularly Alice-in-Wonderland moment, Pelosi argued that the debate over health care reform can begin after the bill is passed. "Pelosi said passing the bill would allow Dems to undertake a 'debate' with Republicans over 'what is the balanced role that government should have,'" writes another pro-reform blogger at the Post, Greg Sargent. According to Sargent, Pelosi explained, "We have to take it to the American people, to say, this is the choice that you have. This is the vision that they have for your health and well being, and this is the vision that we have." Again, in Pelosi's scenario, that debate would occur after the bill is passed.

Finally, Pelosi downplayed statements from her own team that she does not yet have the votes to pass the national health care measure. On "Meet the Press" Sunday, Democratic Whip Rep. James Clyburn said, "No, we don't have them as of this morning." Meeting with the bloggers, Pelosi said, "The reason [Clyburn] said that is we don’t have a bill yet." In the end, the Speaker declared, "I have no intention of not passing this bill."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: [link to www.washingtonexaminer.com]

SURVEY (posted in New Eng Med Joural) reveals 46% of Dr will quit with Obama Care

debate (fair and balanced ?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMZMEoGE7Cc

Court told 'citizen' Obama actually may be alien

Posted: March 25, 2010
12:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Forget the dispute over the "natural born citizen" requirement of the U.S. Constitution for presidents, Barack Obama may not even be a "citizen," according to a new filing in a long-running legal challenge to his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

"Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born," says a new filing in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Kerchner v. Obama.

"We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that he is at least a 'citizen of the United States' under the Fourteenth Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii."

The submission comes from attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the case. His brief argues against the earlier document from Obama's attorneys demanding that the case be dismissed.

WND reported earlier when the lawyer argued that the most common reason judges have used to dismiss cases against Obama – a lack of "standing" – is just wrong.

Obama's arguments in this case, in fact, rely almost exclusively on that issue to suggest the case by Apuzzo should be dismissed.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!





"How can you deny he's affecting me?" Apuzzo said recently during an interview with WND. "He wants to have terror trials in New York. He published the CIA interrogation techniques. On and on. He goes around bowing and doing all these different things. His statements we're not a Christian nation; we're one of the largest Muslim nations. It's all there."

The case was brought by Apuzzo in January 2009 on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.

Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

The complaint also asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same." The case contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," excluded dual citizens.

In a statement on his blog, Apuzzo said the next step in his case is a decision from the court.

"We will now wait and see if the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals grants my request for oral argument and if so when the oral argument will be," he said.

His latest filing also has been posted online.

It argues that the district court decision as well as Obama's arguments "are nothing more than presentations of general statements on the law of standing which do not address the specific factual and legal content of plaintiffs' claims. … The defendants in much of their brief basically tell the court that the Kerchner case should be dismissed because all other Obama cases have been dismissed."

He said it is "self-evident" under the Constitution that "anyone aspiring to be president has to conclusively prove that he or she is eligible to hold that office. Part of that burden is conclusively showing that one is a 'natural born citizen.' Hence, the citizenship status of Obama is critical to the question of whether plaintiffs having standing, for it is that very statute which is the basis of their injury in fact."

He noted the case was filed before Obama became president.

"At this time he was still a private individual who had the burden of proving that he satisified each and every element of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. That plaintiffs filed their action at this time is important for it not only sets the time by which we are to judge when their standing attached to their action against Obama, Congress and the other defendants … but also to show that Obama has the burden of proof to show that he is a 'natural born citizen' and satisfied the other requirements of Article II," Apuzzo wrote.

"At no time in these proceedings or in any other of the many cases that have been filed against him throughout the country has Obama produced a 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate from the state of Hawaii showing that he was born there … We must conclude for purposes of defendants' motion that since Obama is not a 14th Amendment 'Citizen of the United States' let alone an Article II 'natural born citizen,' he is not eligible to be president and commander in chief. Not being eligible to be president and commander in chief he is currently acting as such without constitutional authority. It is Obama's exercising the singular and great powers of the president and commander in chief without constitutional authority which is causing plaintiffs' injury in fact."

The argument cites warnings from both George Washington and John Jay about the "insidious wiles of foreign influence" in the White House.

WND reported earlier when the appeals court indicated it was listening to arguments in the case – granting special permission for an extra-long document to be filed.

The judges approved Apuzzo's request to submit arguments totaling 20,477 words, when the normal limit is 14,000 words.

He said the arguments are not complicated.

"We maintain that Obama is not an Article II 'natural born citizen' because he lacks unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth which is obtained when a child is born in the United States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens at the time of birth," he said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Demand the truth by joining the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. And still others contend he holds Indonesian citizenship from his childhood living there.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
[link to www.wnd.com]

"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 495,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Have a Nice World War, Folks

By John Pilger

March 25, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- Here is news of the Third World War. The United States has invaded Africa. US troops have entered Somalia, extending their war front from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Yemen and now the Horn of Africa. In preparation for an attack on Iran, American missiles have been placed in four Persian Gulf states, and “bunker-buster” bombs are said to be arriving at the US base on the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

In Gaza, the sick and abandoned population, mostly children, is being entombed behind underground American-supplied walls in order to reinforce a criminal siege. In Latin America, the Obama administration has secured seven bases in Colombia, from which to wage a war of attrition against the popular democracies in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay. Meanwhile, the secretary of “defense” Robert Gates complains that “the general [European] public and the political class” are so opposed to war they are an “impediment” to peace. Remember this is the month of the March Hare.

According to an American general, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is not so much a real war as a “war of perception”. Thus, the recent “liberation of the city of Marja” from the Taliban’s “command and control structure” was pure Hollywood. Marja is not a city; there was no Taliban command and control. The heroic liberators killed the usual civilians, poorest of the poor. Otherwise, it was fake. A war of perception is meant to provide fake news for the folks back home, to make a failed colonial adventure seem worthwhile and patriotic, as if The Hurt Locker were real and parades of flag-wrapped coffins through the Wiltshire town of Wooten Basset were not a cynical propaganda exercise.

“War is fun”, the helmets in Vietnam used to say with bleakest irony, meaning that if a war is revealed as having no purpose other than to justify voracious power in the cause of lucrative fanaticisms such as the weapons industry, the danger of truth beckons. This danger can be illustrated by the liberal perception of Tony Blair in 1997 as one “who wants to create a world [where] ideology has surrendered entirely to values” (Hugo Young, the Guardian) compared with today’s public reckoning of a liar and war criminal.

Western war-states such as the US and Britain are not threatened by the Taliban or any other introverted tribesmen in faraway places, but by the anti-war instincts of their own citizens. Consider the draconian sentences handed down in London to scores of young people who protested Israel’s assault on Gaza in January last year. Following demonstrations in which paramilitary police “kettled” (corralled) thousands, first-offenders have received two and a half years in prison for minor offenses that would not normally carry custodial sentences. On both sides of the Atlantic, serious dissent exposing illegal war has become a serious crime.

Silence in other high places allows this moral travesty. Across the arts, literature, journalism and the law, liberal elites, having hurried away from the debris of Blair and now Obama, continue to fudge their indifference to the barbarism and aims of western state crimes by promoting retrospectively the evils of their convenient demons, like Saddam Hussein. With Harold Pinter gone, try compiling a list of famous writers, artists and advocates whose principles are not consumed by the “market” or neutered by their celebrity. Who among them have spoken out about the holocaust in Iraq during almost 20 years of lethal blockade and assault? And all of it has been deliberate. On 22 January 1991, the US Defence Intelligence Agency predicted in impressive detail how a blockade would systematically destroy Iraq’s clean water system and lead to “increased incidences, if not epidemics of disease”. So the US set about eliminating clean water for the Iraqi population: one of the causes, noted Unicef, of the deaths of half a million Iraqi infants under the age of five. But this extremism apparently has no name.

Norman Mailer once said he believed the United States, in its endless pursuit of war and domination, had entered a “pre-fascist era”. Mailer seemed tentative, as if trying to warn about something even he could not quite define. “Fascism” is not right, for it invokes lazy historical precedents, conjuring yet again the iconography of German and Italian repression. On the other hand, American authoritarianism, as the cultural critic Henry Giroux pointed out recently, is “more nuance, less theatrical, more cunning, less concerned with repressive modes of control than with manipulative modes of consent.”

This is Americanism, the only predatory ideology to deny that it is an ideology. The rise of tentacular corporations that are dictatorships in their own right and of a military that is now a state with the state, set behind the façade of the best democracy 35,000 Washington lobbyists can buy, and a popular culture programmed to divert and stultify, is without precedent. More nuanced perhaps, but the results are both unambiguous and familiar. Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, the senior United Nations officials in Iraq during the American and British-led blockade, are in no doubt they witnessed genocide. They saw no gas chambers. Insidious, undeclared, even presented wittily as enlightenment on the march, the Third World War and its genocide proceeded, human being by human being.

In the coming election campaign in Britain, the candidates will refer to this war only to laud “our boys”. The candidates are almost identical political mummies shrouded in the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes. As Blair demonstrated a mite too eagerly, the British elite loves America because America allows it to barrack and bomb the natives and call itself a “partner”. We should interrupt their fun.

www.johnpilger.com

Hows the American Health Transformation going?

well, there are coffins showing up on the lawns of senators, white powder in their mail and death threats being made to them over the phone, since they otherwise ignore the will of the people...

the people who go to tea parties, that were, up until recently, non partisan gatherings of concerned citizens, brain storming how to get congress to represent their will... are now being called terrorists and threatened with jail time for exercising their constitutional rights.

people are flipping out due to the constant threat of "change", and choosing to make their voice heard by crashing planes into IRS buildings and carrying weapons into the Pentagon ... others are killing their entire families because they can no longer support them ... still others are organizing "flash riots" where gangs beat-up and steal from tourists to make ends meet and to release their frustrations ... kids are killing their fellow students in their bleak assessment of the future, having been completely ignored by them and the system -they have become judge and jury of their peers which they believe have nothing to offer by living any longer (based upon their past experiences ), and there seems to be an inevitable (leaderless unplanned) revolution being suggested as a solution to change a system that has lost all touch with the average citizens reality (TVland) . Unemployment is the highest it has ever been, with no relief in sight and Obamacare threatens to take more food off our tables. States are going Bankrupt (7 now) or (illegally) declaring their sovereignty and people are living in tents... while five million houses now owned by the banks and China sit empty... and five million more are in foreclosure.

Me, I got a large supply of pop corn and am watching the show... my only involvement is to write e-mails and sign petitions that are never seen or counted, but it makes me feel like I have done my best without getting bloody. I don't go shopping when the devil is in the market, and I am prepared to not have to go shopping for months or years, if that is necessary

I have no plans to support Obama care, I don't think my situation is changed by it other than the requirement to go to "death counciling" meetings... which I don't plan on attending ... none of the changes will even go into effect for four years or more, (when all jobs become government jobs) and in the mean time we have WWIII , economic collapse, and the Galactic alignment ... which I intuit will change everything drastically, so I am not getting my panties in a bunch over something that may never materialize.

Obama didn't humilate Netnyahoo... the man reneged on a previous agreement and expected the US to just bend over ... for Once bama did the right thing.




At White House, Netanyahu humiliated by Obama
Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:33:39 GMT
Font size : [Increase] [Normal] [Decrease]
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
US President Barack Obama quit a recent meeting with Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu to have dinner in private after the latter failed to hand a written promise of concessions on Jewish settlements, reports say.

The Tuesday meeting was held amid an alleged dispute between the two allies over Tel Aviv's recent announcement that it would build a 1,600-unit settlement in the occupied East Jerusalem (al-Quds), Times Online reported on Thursday.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the announcement — which came during a visit by US Vice President Joe Biden, aimed at promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations — a "deeply negative signal."

The Israeli side was apparently expected to agree to halt its construction plans and settlement expansion ambitions in the occupied Palestinian territories, and extend a 10-month settlement freeze during the meeting.

Netanyahu, however, "thought he had resolved the crisis by apologizing to Biden… and by offering partial, noncommittal answers to the Americans' questions," wrote Israeli daily Ha'aretz.

Before leaving Netanyahu for dinner, Obama gave the Israeli premier time to consult with his advisers and change his mind. "Let me know if there is anything new," a US congressman who had spoken to the Israeli prime minister after the incident quoted Obama as saying to Netanyahu.

The Israeli team was consequently permitted to stay in the White House but left for the Israeli Embassy over fears of being eavesdropped on by Tel Aviv's closest ally.

“The prime minister leaves America disgraced, isolated and altogether weaker than when he came,” Ha'aretz wrote.

However, the reports on the purported confidence deficit in the bilateral ties are distrusted by analysts, who cite Clinton's recent impassioned pledge of allegiance to Tel Aviv after her condemnation of the Israeli settlement construction.

Addressing the annual conference of the major Israeli pressure group in the US, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the secretary of state reaffirmed Washington's strong ties with Tel Aviv and said "guaranteeing Israel's security is more than a policy position for me; it is a personal commitment that will never waver."

Opponents of the theory, however, say that the Obama administration did not press hard on Israel during the AIPAC meeting, to avoid losing support for the healthcare bill among congressmen.

Well, I don't wear panties(and I'm not a man), so there is nothing to bunch, and when all of this is seen from a very different if not natural perspective , 'No worries', from the multidimensional (plasmic) realm.

marmalade trees and jellyfish skys ... lucy in the sky with diamonds ... koo koo ka choo

well, as we all know, but some seem to deny, what goes on in public is the results of what goes on behind closed doors ... residents of the white house are selected, not elected, and haven't been since 1913 when the bansters took over (again) in the most current cycle of the HMS in the USA:

Money-Power Grid (MPG) – The reason for the Human Mind System to exist is for the Elite to exercise control over the Money-Power Grid. Money is the prime objective of the Elite because it imbues power to those who possess it. Money takes many forms, including assets of precious metals and petroleum, land or real estate, minerals, and products and services. Money is the “God” of the Elite and their banks are the religious institutions in which they can worship their God.

The corporate elite, government elite, underground elite, and banking elite constitute the MPG controllers. Those in positions of power, especially within the banking sector, are beholden to the MPG and will do everything possible to tighten their controls of the MPG and manipulate the human family to serve their agenda. A 2 PCI

...

The “brain” of the CS is the banking system. It operates on the First Point paradigm that life is money, and money is life. It is the origin of human existence that money is life, and in this single thought-form humanity has evolved, distilling its ancient memories in our present-day banking system.

The Collective System interacts with HMS and creates the primary “walls” within the HMS prison spoken of in question 4.

and the good news is ....

The Collective System body is failing, and it is failing because the new era of transparency and expansion is underway. These forces of CS and the era of transparency and expansion are colliding in our time, and for the Sovereign Integral consciousness to manifest in this physical field, the Collective System must change to accommodate it, as they are like oil and water and can not mix.

Thus, those who hold the reins of the Collective System have great fear that something is amiss. Something is happening in the world that portends great change, and change is not something they embrace. In the face of change, which to them is a lessening of power, they will undertake nefarious plans to keep the population distracted, uneasy, nervous, uncertain, ignorant, overburdened with technology, attentive to fear, and disempowered.

...

As each of us de-program ourselves and deactivate our HMS, there is a corollary access to the Sovereign Integral, and in this access, we create the best opportunity we have of defeating the dark agendas that exist on Earth, as well as easing the transition between the deteriorating Collective System body of today and the new one that will replace it. Answer 5 from James: PCI

I am doing my best to do my part Watcher... how about you?