Obama vs The Supreme Court

This story was posted by Newsmax. Watch the video at bottom of page.

The stunning sight of a Supreme Court justice and the president of the United States at odds during a State of the Union address, especially over a ruling made by the constitutionally independent judiciary, immediately set talking heads buzzing on cable television, and touched off a firestorm of commentary on the Internet.

The exchange came as Obama, with the Supreme Court justices in their formal robes seated just a few meters in front of him, lectured the court saying that their decision had opened the “floodgates” of special-interest political donations.

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," the president said.

"Well,” he continued, “I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

CNN’s John King reported that Justice Alito could be seen shaking his head and mouthing, and possibly speaking out loud, the words: “That is not true.”

The clash was startling given the traditionally subdued role of justices at state of the union speeches. It also brought to mind the breach of decorum during the president’s address to the joint session of Congress last year, when South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson blurted out in response: “You lie!”
The incident seemed oddly out of place in a speech the president used to renew his calls for post-partisan politics.

The president prefaced his remarks about the Court with the statement, “With all due deference to separation of powers …” But he then went on to take the U.S. Supreme Court to task in a way that left observers pondering whether there was any precedent for a president lecturing the high court on the fine points of law during a joint session of Congress.

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder reported that the president “directly rebuked” the justices “to their faces.”

He added that the administration is expecting to fill one, and possibly two Supreme Court vacancies this summer, presumably due to retirements.

TONIGHT'S OBAMA LIE LIST (A RUNNING TALLY)

1. "The worst of the storm has passed"
2. "Despite our hardships, our union is strong"
3. "We recovered most of the money we spent on the banks"
4. "We took steps to get our economy going again"
5. "We cut taxes for small businesses.
6. "2 million people working ...who would have been unemployed."
7. "Jobs ......must be our NO. 1 ....focus."
8. "China and India are making investments in clean energy"
9. "I'm not interested in punishing banks"
10. "It means opening new areas for offshore oil and gas development"
11. "Overwhelming evidence on climate change."
12. "We will double our exports over the next five years"
13. "It's because of the middle class that we need health insurance reform"
14. "I took on healthcare because of the stories I've heard."
16. "We will eliminate programs which won't work"
17. "I'm calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform"
18. "We can't wage a perpetual (political) campaign"
19. "I will not give up trying to change the tone of our politics."
20. "Let's do what it takes to defend our nation."
21. "Our troops can begin to come home from Afghanistan in 2011"
22. "All of our combat troops will be out of Iraq by the end of this August"
23. "We will secure all unsecured nuclear materials in four years."
24. "Iran will face growing consequences"
25. "We should continue to work to fix our broken immigration system"
26. "Blame,Blame,Blame,Blame,Blame,Blame,Blame,Blame,Blame,Blame,it's not my fault"

Why No One Invades Switzerland

The Shot Heard Round The World

This morning I just want to say to MSNBC's Ed Schultz: Your statement of "Do whatever it takes to keep the Bastards out" has fallen short and you and others like you will be trampled under the feet of patriots who refuse to sir come to your kind of socialist rhetoric and Satanist values. With God’s help we will rise up and fight against you and we will stand victorious in our fight to bring America back to God!! As Romney said last night: "This win in Massachusetts was a shot heard round the world" ........ and you had better believe it!!!

MSNBC Talk show host promoting cheating in Massachussettes elections????!!!!

January 18, 2010 10:53 AM EST
MSNBC television and syndicated radio host Ed Schultz declared that he would stuff the ballot box in Massachusetts if he could to prevent Republican Scott Brown from upsetting Democrat Martha Coakley in the race to fill the state's Senate seat formerly held by Edward M. Kennedy.

"Whatever it takes to keep the bastards out of power. I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times," said Schultz on his Friday radio show. "I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would cause that's exactly what they are."

To many times in politics it comes down to this, cheat so you can get what you want, lie so you can get what you want, tell people what they want to hear so you can get what you want, and then to have this kind of statement put out on a national radio talk show, totally supporting cheating, is down right wrong, and I don't care who you are or what party you belong to no one should ever condone this kind of behavior. Every election we are now faced with cheating, dead people voting, voting under other peoples names and illegals voting....it has happened in the past, it will happen again in the future until we take back our government and make it work by the Laws of our Constitution. I only have one thing to say to Ed Schultz.... cheating is wrong you pompass blowhard and everyone should immediately demand that MSNBC kick you off the airwaves. You can damn well believe that if one of the conservative talk show hosts made such a statement the liberals would be camping on the doorsteps of the broadcaster in droves, screaming and acting like a bunch of wild animals demanding his resignation, and you know that I am exactly right!

Why is the SEIU boss the White House’s most frequent visitor?

This is a bit long, but well worth your time to read!

By: STEPHEN SPRUIELL

The Friday before Halloween, in response to requests from the public, the White House released records of the visitors it had received between January and July. George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, and Serena Williams were among the famous names on the list. But the man who appeared most frequently is less well-known. His name is Andrew Stern, and during the first six months of Obama’s tenure, he visited the White House 21 times — about three times per month. Most of these visits included an intimate meeting with the president or other senior officials. Among outsiders, Stern enjoys unrivaled access to the White House. And the more you know about him, the spookier that sounds.

Stern is president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a federation of health-care, public-sector, and custodial workers that claims approximately 2 million members. Stern replaced former president John Sweeney in 1996, the year after Sweeney won a bitterly fought battle for control of the AFL-CIO. At the time, Sweeney’s win was viewed as a victory for the left wing of the labor movement. Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in these pages: “Many of the people in [Sweeney’s] camp have backgrounds in the New Left.” Andrew Stern certainly fits that description.

Stern lacks the traditional blue-collar pedigree of a union boss. In a profile of him for The New Republic, Bradford Plumer wrote, “Stern was part of a generation of idealistic union leaders who came to organized labor from college, not the factory floor.” He started at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton business school in the late ’60s, dabbled in student radicalism, changed his major, bummed around Europe, came back to the States, and went to work as a welfare case officer in Pennsylvania. SEIU had just organized his shop, and he got active in the union. He ended up as one of Sweeney’s protégés, his successor, and, eventually, his bête noire.

In the 1950s, the percentage of American workers who belonged to a union peaked at around 34 percent. Today, that number is closer to 12 percent — 7.6 if you’re counting only private-sector jobs. Against this backdrop of declining union membership, Stern managed to double the size of SEIU in his first ten years as president. Other labor leaders stood in awe. In 2005, Stern engineered a break with the AFL-CIO over frustrations with Sweeney’s leadership. Six other unions, including the Teamsters, followed Stern. The breakaways formed their own federation called Change to Win and adopted SEIU’s one-two punch: intimidate businesses and, if that doesn’t work, exploit their soft spot for corporate welfare.

On the intimidation front, SEIU has worked with the radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The group once served as a valuable ally, but its reputation now lies in tatters thanks to a pair of amateur journalists who, costumed as pimp and hooker, filmed themselves obtaining advice from ACORN staffers on how best to shelter the proceeds of a child-prostitution ring from taxation.

SEIU did not sustain much damage from the scandal, even though, as a colleague of mine quipped, ACORN often acts as its paramilitary wing. SEIU’s former political director, Patrick Gaspard, remains comfortably ensconced at the White House as political director — Obama’s Karl Rove — and the connection does not appear to have hurt him.

The SEIU-ACORN link is deep and longstanding. At least one SEIU local, Chicago’s Local 880, was organized by ACORN and run by it for 20 years. An SEIU official recently testified that the local had severed its ACORN ties, but Chris Berg, a former special assistant at the Office of Labor Management Standards, says, “I’m very skeptical.” Keith Kelleher, who spent many years running ACORN in Chicago, is still the local’s head organizer. “They’ve been wed together for so long, I don’t think they can divorce,” says Berg.

The local, which represents home health-care and child-care workers, attracted scrutiny when former governor Rod Blagojevich helped it secure a lucrative collective-bargaining agreement with the State of Illinois. Many cried foul, pointing to the $1.8 million that SEIU and ACORN had donated to Blagojevich’s campaigns. This story surfaced again when Blagojevich concocted a scheme whereby he would appoint someone of Obama’s choosing to Obama’s old Senate seat in exchange for a six-figure sinecure at Change to Win. Obama and Stern are so close that Blagojevich thought a favor to one would be repaid by the other.

SEIU has given ACORN nearly $6 million since 2006 — including $250,000 this year — according to U.S. Department of Labor disclosures and the union’s own statements. Some of this money took the form of grants, but ACORN also received significant sums for doing the SEIU’s dirty work. In 2007, the SEIU paid ACORN $140,000 to harass a shopping-mall operator called General Growth Properties that would not let the union use the card-check process to organize the company’s janitors (more on card check later). According to the company, ACORN’s tactics included “making allegations and filing unsubstantiated claims with government agencies, then implying in handbills and press releases that the claims — before they are even investigated, let alone proved — are fact.”

SEIU isn’t above these tactics, but it reserves its full attention for bigger targets, such as Bank of America. It has repeatedly tried to unionize Bank of America’s workforce, to no avail. The government bailouts, however, offered the perfect opportunity for SEIU to launch what’s known as a “corporate campaign” against the bank. Paul Levy, the CEO of a Boston hospital that has been on the receiving end of an SEIU corporate campaign, has written that the tactic “consists of publicly denigrating the reputation of the targeted [company], its senior management, and its board of trustees in an attempt to put pressure on the [company] to agree to certain concessions in the union certification process.”

Over the past year, SEIU has helped organize dozens of protests over the size of executive bonuses at Bank of America. Stern’s was one of the loudest voices calling for the ouster of CEO Ken Lewis for the bank’s role in the financial crisis, even though its acquisition of troubled firms Countrywide and Merrill Lynch probably prevented the crisis from deepening. After Lewis was ousted following an SEIU campaign to deluge shareholders with inflammatory talking points, the union sent a letter to executive-pay czar Kenneth Feinberg asking him to seize Lewis’s pension. “I’m not a cheerleader for B of A,” University of North Carolina–Charlotte finance professor Tony Plath told the Charlotte Business Journal at the time. “But let’s be objective about this: These attacks are all about card check.”

SEIU’s corporate campaigns, however effective, are nothing new. Stern’s real breakthrough came when he realized that labor could offer a carrot as well as a stick Around 50 percent of SEIU’s members work in the health-care industry as nurses, hospital attendants, and lab techs. The facilities that employ such workers benefit from a number of government programs. SEIU’s pitch was simple: Let us organize your workforce, and we’ll use our lobbying power to push for increased government spending on health care.

It worked. Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo recently observed in The Weekly Standard that, “under the brilliant leadership of Dennis Rivera, [SEIU Local] 1199 built a top-notch political operation, and with the hospitals, which were barred from political activity, formed a partnership to maximize the flow of government revenue.” The alliance has been so successful, they wrote, that New York now spends as much on Medicaid as California and Texas combined. Rivera now serves as the SEIU’s point man on national health-care-reform legislation, with over 400 union staff members working full time at his disposal. Sen. Chuck Schumer called him “one of the few key players” shaping the final bill.

In pursuit of his vision, Stern has turned the SEIU into a massive grassroots army that can mobilize in behalf of candidates and legislation. The scope of its activities in 2008 was epic. Stern bragged that “we spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million, to be exact — and we’re proud of it.” Ironically, SEIU spent so much in 2008 that it had to take out massive loans to keep operating, including $10 million from — you guessed it — Bank of America. The cash crunch also forced SEIU to implement a round of layoffs, leading to a surreal hall-of-mirrors moment when the Union of Union Representatives filed a complaint against SEIU with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Undaunted, SEIU has set aside $85 million to spend over the next two years on political advocacy. The union started the year with three major objectives: a union-friendly stimulus, a union-friendly health-care bill, and a bill that would make it easier to organize workers into unions. It has brought its influence to bear on all three of these debates, with varying degrees of success.

Union-friendly stimulus: The stimulus bill was a top priority for SEIU because it contained massive bailouts for state governments and Medicaid. As mentioned above, states such as California, New York, and New Jersey have expanded their social-welfare systems beyond what they can afford, in response to pressures from SEIU and other public-sector unions. At the same time, their progressive income-tax structures have made them especially vulnerable to boom-and-bust cycles. When the credit bubble burst, these states were looking at massive deficits, layoffs, furloughs, and budget cuts. The stimulus bill included a $50 billion slush fund for state governments and $90 billion in Medicaid expansions, helping the states avoid a necessary round of belt-tightening and tax reform.



SEIU president Andrew Stern
Nam Y. Huh/AP

The most illustrative example of SEIU’s clout during this process came when the Obama administration threatened to withhold stimulus funds from the state of California if it went ahead with a planned reduction in payments to home health-care workers. The administration set up a conference call with state officials to discuss whether the cuts violated the terms of the stimulus, and state officials were surprised to learn that the administration had invited SEIU representatives to join the call. “This was really atypical and outside any norm I am familiar with,” California secretary of health and human services Kim Belshe told the Los Angeles Times. The administration backed down from the threat, but only after the story had leaked and caused significant blowback.

Union-friendly health-care reform: During the month of August, when tea-party protesters showed up at town-hall meetings in droves to express their opposition to the Democrats’ health-care plan, liberal commentators and members of Congress tried to portray the movement as “astroturf” (which, in political parlance, means fake grassroots). Democratic senator Barbara Boxer famously said that the protesters were too well-dressed to be anything other than corporate stooges. But, contra Boxer, the most visible trend by far in protest-wear at the town halls this summer was the purple SEIU T-shirt.

SEIU has poured millions into a group called Health Care for America Now, which has dispatched envoys to deliver portable pavilions, professionally printed placards, and uniform attire at almost every major health-care protest this year. Dennis Rivera sent hundreds of union activists to meetings this summer in an attempt to counteract opposition to the Democrats’ bill. “We’re running this campaign like this was a presidential campaign, and our candidate is health-care reform,” Rivera told the New York Times. Why does SEIU care so much about health-care reform? The subsidies and mandates in Democrats’ legislation would drive up demand for health-care services, meaning more revenue for hospitals, more health-care workers, and more members for SEIU.

The creation of a government-run insurance plan is an especially important priority for the SEIU. “The nexus between government and private industry would give SEIU a toehold to organize more workers,” explains J. Justin Wilson, managing director of the Center for Union Facts. Once the public option is in place, SEIU can pressure the bureaucracy to implement union-friendly policies. For example, the public option “might only reimburse hospitals that are unionized or have a neutrality position toward unions,” Wilson says.

So far, SEIU has been successful at getting most of its priorities included in the health-care bill. Democrats have renewed their commitment to the public option, which once looked dead on arrival. The only problem for organized labor concerns the excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans — plans that cost more than $8,000 per year for single coverage or $21,000 for family coverage — contained in the Senate Finance Committee’s version of the legislation. The proposed tax evolved from Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus’s earlier plan to raise revenue by taxing all employer-provided health benefits. Unions objected to that idea because many of them have negotiated generous benefit plans for their workers. Employers could be expected to scale back these plans to avoid the tax.

As a compromise, Sen. John Kerry proposed taxing only the most expensive plans, and the White House embraced this tax on “gold-plated Cadillac” plans because it sounded like the kind of tax-the-rich scheme that plays well with the Democrats’ base. But a number of unions still objected, leading Democrats to propose an exemption from the tax for all benefits granted through collective bargaining. This obvious sop to organized labor was immediately ridiculed and never actually made it into the legislation. Soon after the Senate Finance Committee approved the tax on “Cadillac” plans, a group of 27 unions ran an ad criticizing it. Notably, SEIU was not among them. “We don’t have a substantial disagreement with their point of view but we chose to communicate our views privately,” Rivera told The Hill newspaper.

“I found it interesting that they weren’t willing to sign on,” says Berg, the former Department of Labor official. “The United Auto Workers union is the one that you think of being impacted by this, because they had negotiated these kinds of plans with the automakers. SEIU has become a bigger player because they’ve been rapidly expanding, but they’ve been organizing a lot of lower-income workers.” Because the tax doesn’t affect that many of its members, SEIU is thought to have quietly signaled that it would not oppose the tax too loudly if it proved necessary to the bill’s passage.

Card-check legislation: As important as the Democrats’ health-care plan is to SEIU, the union’s top priority remains the Employee Free Choice Act, otherwise known as the card-check bill. Under SEIU’s preferred version of the bill, employers would have to recognize a union once a majority of its employees had signed petition cards. This process would allow union organizers to identify holdouts and pressure them into signing up. The bill would also require business owners to allow union organizers to hold meetings with employees on the business’s property, while forbidding the owners to hold mandatory meetings to discuss unionization.

Finally, the bill includes a binding-arbitration provision that would allow the NLRB to impose a union contract on a business if negotiations with its union broke down. SEIU loves this provision, because Obama just named one of its lawyers, Craig Becker, to the NLRB. Businesses negotiating with the SEIU would have two choices: accept SEIU’s demands voluntarily or have the SEIU-friendly NLRB accept them for you.

These three goals have one thing in common: All are meant to raise the percentage of workers who belong to a union. State by state, unions are ensuring that the only employers eligible for stimulus money are those with union workforces. On health care, the Democrats’ bill is designed to shift a mind-boggling amount of money into the health-care sector while increasing the government’s administrative control over it — and anyone who believes the Democrats’ rhetoric about cutting costs is encouraged to look at what Dennis Rivera accomplished in New York. Meanwhile, card-check legislation would throw open the doors of private businesses to union organizers and tie their hands when they try to resist.

This is good for unions, but it’s even better for liberals. The past three decades have seen unions embrace left-wing positions on everything from affirmative action to gay marriage to the war in Iraq. (Times have changed: Former AFL-CIO president George Meany refused to support George McGovern because McGovern opposed the war in Vietnam.) The bigger unions grow, the more power they have, as Andrew Stern will tell anyone who will listen. Stern’s obsession with size has embroiled the labor movement in some of the nastiest fights it has ever seen. Old-school union guys like Sal Roselli, a former Stern lieutenant whose National Union of Healthcare Workers split from SEIU earlier this year in a bitter divorce, told Bradford Plumer that “Stern’s drive for growth at all costs” had caused him to ignore what was in the best interest of his members. But Andrew Stern was a liberal before he was a union organizer, just as Obama was a liberal before he was a community organizer. Unions may have existed to serve workers’ interests at one time. These days, they exist to serve liberalism.

“The most important thing to note about what SEIU is doing is that it’s really become a lobbying arm for the president,” Berg says. “Much like Organizing for America [the community-organizing group run by the Democratic National Committee], they are trying to drive bodies nationwide to lobby their congressmen and senators to try to implement the president’s agenda.” Seen in that light, it is entirely unsurprising that Stern’s name should be the one that appears most frequently in White House visitor logs. Obama and Stern are working together to make America a more liberal place, and they want you to join them.

Modern Day Mafia

Below is an article about Democrat Senate candidate Marth Coakley, her refusal to answer questions and the goons she has surrounded herself with. The more I see this type of behavior the more I am totally convinced that we are dealing with the new mafia in America and if you are paying attention you will know that it is being controlled by the labor unions such as the likes of SEIU and Andrew Stern, who incidently visited the Whitehouse 21 times in the first 6 months of Obama as president. All the union bosses were at the white house just a day or so ago and the footage of them leaving was like watching a scene from the Godfather Movie. These bosses are tied in so tight with Obama that you can't tell where one starts and the next one ends. These people have Obama in their hip pocket, they bought and paid for him, it's 1920's Chicago all over again, but this time they have the big fish in their back pockets! I don't base this on here say, I make those statements on facts and figures of the money and jobs that have been doled out by the Obama administration since he took office in payback for the millions and millions of dollars that flooded his campaign coffers through the unions. The unions along with Obamas help are already on the path of taking over total control of America, look at how deeply they are involved with the health care bill they are trying to get passed. The corruption in Washington has got to be stopped in its tracks before it is virtually too late. Where is Elliot Ness when you need him!! Coakley is currently the Massachusetts Attorney General and is also up to her neck in the corruption and scandal of this administration, if not, she would not have continued to walk away from the situation behind her knowing full well what was going on. She is surrounded by thugs who do her bidding and act the part of those who used to terrorize American citizens and protect their crime bosses.

Someone with the Coakley campaign shoves WEEKLY STANDARD reporter outside of a Capitol Hill fundraiser.
BY John McCormack
January 12, 2010 8:59 PM

Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley attended a fundraiser at the Capitol Hill restaurant Sonoma tonight. After the event concluded, Coakley took two questions from the media but declined to say whether or not she stands by her statement at last night's debate that there aren't any terrorists in Afghanistan (and that they've all gone to Pakistan or Yemen).

After taking a question from a CNN reporter on the street outside the restaurant, I asked her:

TWS: Attorney General Coakley, you said last night that there are no terrorists in Afghanistan--that they're all in Yemen and Pakistan. Do you stand by that remark?

COAKLEY: I'm sorry, did someone else have a question?

GRIFF JENKINS, Fox News: I did. Why are you in Washington tonight?

COAKLEY: We planned an event after the primary that would be a unity event in Washington. We're also in the middle of a very intense campaign [...]

After Coakley finished her answer, she began walking away from the restaurant, and I walked behind her asking why health care industry lobbyists were supporting her at the fundraiser. She didn't reply.

As I walked down the street, a man who appeared to be associated with the Coakley campaign pushed me into a freestanding metal railing. I ended up on the sidewalk. I was fine. He helped me up from the ground, but kept pushing up against me, blocking my path toward Coakley down the street.

He asked if I was with the media, and I told him I work for THE WEEKLY STANDARD. When I asked him who he worked for he replied, "I work for me." He demanded to see my credentials, and even though it was a public street, I showed them to him.

I eventually got around him and met up with the attorney general halfway down the block.

"Attorney General, could I ask you a question please?" I said. "We're done, thanks," Coakley replied. She walked back toward the restaurant, apparently searching for her car. She remained silent as I (politely) repeated my question.

Coakley staffers told me they didn't know who the man was who pushed me, though by every indication he was somehow connected to the campaign.

Watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8CdfQGlgVw

Update: Someone owes me a new pair of pants. I just noticed there's a large tear in the back of my suit pants.

Update II: The man who owes me a new suit may be the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's Michael Meehan.

The Nuts & Bolts of the Pelosi ObamaCare Bill

Please read this, especially the reference to pages 58 & 59, my particular favorite!
An excellent article in a local paper, the River Cities Tribune, published in Marble Falls, TX on the 17th of August 2009. It was written by their former county judge, David Kithil. He voiced his opposition to HB 3200, and gave EXACT SPECIFICS, to include page and paragraph in the bill on why this Health Bill is BAD.

Thomas Edwards, editor of The River Cities Tribune, was contacted to get legal permission to quote David Kithil's comments from an article he wrote on August 17th 2009. Permission was granted, so here are excerpts from the article, giving EXACT pages and paragraphs in the bill and why it is so bad. I think Judge Kithil hits things right on the head, and the opposition you may encounter cannot argue over these points:

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

"I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements."

"We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program?"

"Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs."

"I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders,
fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there."

NOW, here comes the good stuff. JUDGE KITHIL continued: "Other problems I have with this bill include:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individuals bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ( ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patients age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years.

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:

"Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they
would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for the future."

Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls , Texas

How many times in those few short lines did you see "the government will" or "mandates?" If you have any questions as to where Obamas loyalties lie, pick up Michelle Malkins book Culture of Corruption and read it, it will give it to you in black and white and I assure you that it will make you see exactly how corrupt this administration is if you have any doubt in your mind that it is not. I've read the book, it will really open your eyes!

Cyber Spy's

For those of you who don't believe that you are being watched using Facebook you better think again. These kids may have been only talking among themselves making off the cuff comments that were never intended to take shape, but they soon found out that cyber spy's are all around you just looking for an excuse to take you down. Be careful what you write, and be prepared for the consequences that could come knocking at your door for what you did write!

Obama Executive Order Stokes Martial Law Fears

Obama Executive Order Stokes Martial Law Fears


Some warn expansion of military involvement in domestic security could lead to “end of United States as a Republic”


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, January 12, 2010


An Obama executive order that creates a council of state governors who will work with the feds to expand military involvement in domestic security has stoked fears that the administration is stepping up preparations for martial law.


The order, which is entitled Establishment of the Council of Governors (PDF), creates a body of ten state governors directly appointed by Obama who will work with the federal government to help advance the “synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States”.


The governors will liaise with officials from Northcom, Homeland Security, the National Guard as well as DoD officials from the Pentagon “in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments,” according to the executive order.


In October 2008, Northcom, a Unified Combatant Command of the United States military based out of Peterson AFB, Colorado Springs, was assigned the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team returning from Iraq. An alarming September 8 Army Times report which was later denied after it sparked controversy stated that the troops would be used by Northcom to deal with “civil unrest and crowd control” in the aftermath of a national emergency.


The Obama executive order states that governors will help advise the feds on National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.


The fact that the order further blurs the lines between state and federal power, as well as greasing the skids for more military involvement in domestic affairs has stoked fears that Obama may be laying the groundwork for his promised “national civilian security force”.


Conservatives and libertarians responded to the announcement by expressing their suspicion that Obama is preparing to give governors their marching orders in targeting “anti-government” types that have long been characterized as a terrorist threat by the feds in numerous reports stretching back over a decade.


“There is a definite purpose to this,” wrote one commenter on the popular Free Republic website, “The initial steps toward a domestic “Civilian Security Force” in each state, as called for by the fascisti during the campaign. It will be coordinated at the state level, under the authority of DHS and DoD and assorted agencies. The provision will be made for it to be “federalized” in an emergency, as is the National Guard.”


“This is a concrete step toward eliminating the independent authority and dissolving the sovereignty of the several States. It lays the groundwork for the end of the United States as a Republic,” she adds.


Others warn that Obama could be preparing to cancel elections under the justification of a national emergency, a fear that was often expressed when Bush was in office but one that never materialized.


However, the executive order clearly represents another assault on Posse Comitatus, the 1878 law that bars the military from exercising domestic police powers, which was temporarily annulled by the 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act before parts of it were later repealed