The Senate Healthcare Bill Is Unconstitutional

In effect, the onerous obligations under the Reid Bill would convert private health insurance companies into virtual public utilities. This action is not only a source of real anxiety but also a decision of constitutional proportions, for it systematically strips the regulated health-insurance issuers of their constitutional entitlement to earn a reasonable rate of return on the massive amounts of capital that they have already invested in building out their businesses.

Excerpt) Read more at pointoflaw.com ...

The Time Has Come

Below are excerpts from Mark Alexander's latest essay. You would do yourself a great dis-service if you do not go read the entire post.

Mark Alexander from the Patriot Post:

Ronald Reagan delivered an enduring challenge to conservatives entitled "A Time for Choosing": "You and I are told we must choose between a left or right," Reagan said, "but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism."

If Barack Obama has given us one thing of value, it is the opportunity to clearly discern between Left and Right, between rule of men and Rule of Law. He is the quintessential socialist, and his domestic and foreign policies present a contrast between tyranny and liberty that has rarely been so apparent. Many who have been hitherto reluctant to rise on behalf of liberty or have been too comfortable to be concerned by such conflict, are now making an ever-louder stand.

Obama is the personification of Leftist philosophy and dogma, and in a turn of irony, for the clarity he has provided to that end we owe him a debt of gratitude.

Despite the fact that the Leftists in media and academia have had a stranglehold on public opinion, seating one of their own as president, which they believe is a great prize, may well be their undoing.

The once noble Democrat Party is now led by those who have turned the wisdom of their iconic leaders upside down.

Today, Democrat Party Leftists deride the notion of individual rights. Instead, they advocate the supplanting of individual liberty with statism.

They promote the notion of a living constitution rather than the authentic Constitution our Founders established.

They despise free enterprise and advocate socialist redistribution of wealth, the ultimate goal of which is to render all people equally poor and dependent upon the state.

They loathe our military and our national sovereignty, and they propose to replace it with treaties that establish supranational governmental legal and policing authorities.

They detest traditional American values, and they support all manner of behavior resulting in social entropy.

Being debated right now is whether an additional 17 percent of the U.S. economy is going to be nationalized under ObamaCare, and whether the rest of the economy is going to be shackled by cap-and-trade taxes in addition to a plethora of other job-eliminating taxes on private sector employers.

Obama and his Democrat Congress have endowed future generations, unless soon reversed, not with liberty but with historically unprecedented levels of debt, which will enslave them to hyperinflation.

Conservatives and liberals can argue various policy points ad nauseam, but the question Americans are asking in greater numbers is this: Are we a nation governed by Rule of Law or the contemporaneous opinions of men?

History provides us with repeated evidence that the terminus of nations that are governed by men rather than laws is tyranny. In the last century alone, hundreds of millions have been enslaved under statist dictators such as Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Mao, Kruschev, Pol Pot, Ho Chi, Idi Amin, Castro, Hussein, Mugabe, Kim Jong-Il, Chavez, Hu Jintao and others.

Who might be next?

Baghdad Bob Gibbs Minister of Propaganda

Patriot Post on Liberty

"Can Washington Make You Buy Health Insurance?"

Yes, yes, says White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Congress has the power to make everyone buy health insurance.

'I don't believe there's a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity' of comments to the contrary.

Thank you, Mr. Justice Gibbs. We'll see about all that when -- if -- the matter of Congress' power over private commercial judgments of this nature gets to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile the knock-down, drag-out over health insurance 'reform' shouldn't be allowed to fuzz up another immensely vital question; to wit, how in James Madison's name have we reached the point that Congress can so much as contemplate telling you, and you, and you, and all of us that we'll buy health insurance, like it or not, Buster?

Why do we have to? Because the government says so, isn't that reason enough? For Mr. Justice Gibbs, and the people who employ him, it is. Just about anything Congress decides to do in the name of uplift seems to be constitutional: In other words, in accord with written stipulations as to what the national government may and may not do.

Several problems arise concerning this fine theory:

-- It's nonsense. It contravenes the whole constitutional concept of divided powers: particular functions reserved to particular branches of government. And other powers divided between states and the national government.

-- It threatens liberty. A government that knows no limits to its power can be counted on to step more and more heavily on citizens' rights and privileges. All for the 'general good' naturally!

-- It divides the citizens. On the one hand, those who want particular favors from government; on the other hand, those who deny that government has the right to dispense such favors.

The Obama administration, which desperately wants health care to pass, brushes off such concerns as cranky and relevant mainly to wild-eyed Limbaugh and Palin fans, when in fact concerns about the rightful exercise of government power should inform every legislative debate. Those it doesn't inform are likely to end badly. Majority support of this or that initiative doesn't legitimize the initiative."

--William Murchison, senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation

NY-23 Is the "Tipping Point"

I'm not shilling for the NRT. This is not a request for contributions. It's information to reinforce the mind-set that conservative principles and values are making a comeback.

Since Scozzafava has dropped out, the outcome of the Special Election in NY-23 seems pretty obvious. Barring interference from outside agitators like ACORN or SEIU, Doug Hoffman will be the new representative for the 23rd District of New York.

In the past 9 months, we have seen some of the most blatant attempts to sabotage and circumvent the Constitution that have ever been tried. Some are succeeding. We will need to overturn these successes in the next session of Congress, and to do that, we will need true Constitutional Conservatives.

Doug Hoffman is the beginning of the conservative movement's efforts to take Congress back to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. The "Republican" leadership in the House will be measured by how well they adapt to the new/old ideas of governing.

Its time for the conservatives in Congress to put a stop to the socialist ideas being pushed down the throats of American citizens. Its time to recognize that the Constitution tells Congress what they can and cannot do.

The Constitution is the Law.
Everything else is a regulation.

The National Republican Trust identified this race months ago as critical to conservatives and has worked tirelessly since to rally other conservatives to this righteous cause. NOW ALL EYES ARE ON THIS ELECTION!

National conservatives from across the country continue to answer the call to action by endorsing and fighting to elect Hoffman. The list includes Sarah Palin, Rush
Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tim Pawlenty, George Pataki, Michele Malkin, Fred Thompson, Rick Santorum, Steve Forbes, Dick Armey, Michele Bachmann, The New York Post, American Conservative Union, Club for Growth and many more.

We may be the underdogs but we are positioned to deliver a stunning upset to the
liberal media, radical Democrats and unprincipled GOP insiders. A win for either of the liberal establishment candidates is a win for Obama, Pelosi and their liberal allies.
A conservative victory over two liberal major party candidates will rock the political establishment and become the springboard for taking back the Republican Party and our Country from the far left and squishy Republican appeasers that kowtow to every radical, media driven whim.

A victory in NY-23 will be a victory of principle over party, and will set the tone for the remainder of the legislative cycle. Congressional members will have to think twice, and then a third time, before casting their values aside to gain short-term political favors.

An upset victory by Doug Hoffman will kick-off the conservative resurgence in 2010 and A RETURN TO THE PRINCIPLES OF RONALD REAGAN.

Today Is Constitution Day

"I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state; up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better to have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake."—Thomas Paine, 1776

Federal law mandates that all high schools, colleges and universities across the country that receive federal funds host educational events about the Constitution on Constitution Day, September 17. Yet as John W. Whitehead points out in his latest commentary, the best way to celebrate the Constitution is by knowing and exercising your rights.

Formally adopted on September 17, 1787, the Constitution has long served as the bulwark of American freedom and as an example for struggling nations worldwide. Unfortunately, the rights enshrined in this vitally important document are under constant attack. And this month's Faith and Freedom newsletter shines a spotlight on three vitally important religious freedom cases being litigated by The Rutherford Institute before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Busch v. Marple Newtown School District, Institute attorneys are fighting for Donna Busch's right to read a few verses from Psalms as part of an "All About Me" kindergarten classroom program intended to spotlight her son Wesley and his favorite book, the Bible. School officials actually told Mrs. Busch that the Bible is illegal in public schools. Incredibly enough, school officials then suggested that a book on Halloween might be an appropriate substitute!

In McComb v. Crehan, Institute attorneys are fighting for high school valedictorian Brittany McComb's right to give God credit in her graduation speech as the reason for her success in school. School officials actually unplugged Brittany's microphone just as began speaking about her Christian faith.

And in Nurre v. Whitehead, Institute attorneys are fighting for Kathryn Nurre's right, as part of a school woodwind ensemble, to be able to perform an instrumental arrangement of Franz Biebl's "Ave Maria" at graduation. Mind you, no words were to be sung—just an instrumental piece was to be played! School officials actually defended the ban as necessary in order to avoid offending someone in the audience.

We hope you'll take a moment to read about these and other critical cases and issues affecting your rights. Thank you, and God bless you, for continuing to stand with The Rutherford Institute as we strive for liberty and justice for all.

Got Birth Certificate?

Got Birth Certificate?

To the members of the Virginia Congressional Delegation,

I want to know why our elected representatives, specifically YOU, are remaining silent regarding the question of our present Pretender to the Presidency, Barrack Hussein Obama’s eligibility under Article II, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution. Surely you have heard about it! Seen the billboards? Maybe even received a letter or two from your constituents?

I understand why the main stream media is silent. They are bought and paid for by the far left and the Obama administration. But why you? I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you don’t have your hands in the same pockets as the media. So what is it? Are you afraid? If so, of whom are you afraid? Obama? If you are afraid of anybody, it should be the people who elected you, the people you swore to represent at the same time you swore to uphold the Constitution, the people who have the power to remove you from your office in the next election.

WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE? And don’t tell me it was published on the Internet. That IS NOT a Birth Certificate. That is a “Certificate of Live Birth”, (And it reported to be a forgery anyway.), and is a totally different document. Anybody, from anywhere in the world, can go to a court house in Hawaii with a live child in tow, born ANYWHERE in the world, and obtain such a certificate.

All a Certificate of Live Birth documents is that the child was born alive. It DOES NOT say where, at what hospital, who the delivering physician was or anything else that would establish that child as a “Natural Born Citizen of The United States of America”. WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

Why has Obama spent over a million dollars fighting the release of his Birth certificate, along with his college records, (which I have strong reason to believe would show that he received financial aid as a “FOREIGN STUDENT”.), as well as his passport used to travel “back home” to Africa while attending school here in America?

Why did the U. S. Army back down and “revoke” the orders of U. S. Army Colonel Stefan Frederick Cook instead of deploying him to Afghanistan after he challenged the legitimacy of the orders due to the questionable status of the present Pretender to the Presidency, Barrack Hussein Obama? If Obama has nothing to hide, then why is he hiding that document? WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

Have you not seen the petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of Americans asking “WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE”? How dare you and the other so-called “representatives of the people” ignore our demands? And get this right. It is not a “request”. It is a “DEMAND”. We want this question put to rest once and for all.

If in fact, as I have come to believe because of the continued fight by Obama to keep these records secret, he is NOT ELIGIBLE TO HOLD THE OFFICE OF POTUS, then the longer this charade continues, the worse the situation becomes. Every Bill he signs, every Executive Order he drafts and ever Czar he appoints, becomes INVALID! The mess he is creating, if ineligible to hold the office, becomes worse with every passing day. Untangling this mess becomes a bigger and bigger problem the longer it is allowed to grow. “We The People” DEMAND an answer to the question of his eligibility to hold the office. WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

As my representatives, I demand that you raise your voice in this matter. I demand that both Republicans and Democrats “represent” the people who elected them, and DEMAND on our behalf that Obama produce the document needed to settle this question. What are you all afraid of? The truth? Do you not realize that “The Truth” and ONLY “The Truth” is all that “We The People” want? It is all that we will accept.

If you or Obama think this will just go away, you are sadly mistaken. If we can not get our elected “representatives” to REPRESENT US, then we will continue though the courts. We will exercise our right to assembly, our right to petition the government, our right to free speech. We will use the same tactics as the far left groups use, and march in the streets of Washington, and protest the fact that our questions are not being answered.

You and all the rest “on the hill” would do well to remember these words. “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, that whenever any Form of Government becomes DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS, it is the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, and to institute new Government..."

One way or the other, we will have that which we DEMAND. The Truth! We will have a POTUS who has proven that he or she is eligible to hold the office. We will have “Representatives” who actually REPRESENT us.

I suggest that you align yourself with “The People”, and do that which we have asked.

Again, all we want to know is WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

We're Not Letting Up On This

More questions, and this time some good questions.

What passport did The Chosen One (may peace be upon him) use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

How did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

Once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.

Conclusion:
When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport. If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.

If he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America , as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

If you don't care that your President is not a natural born Citizen and in violation of the Constitution, thats your problem and you are free to leave the country or start your own blog
and post your opinions.

DHS Update

HOMELAND SECURITY AND US ARMY PLAN INVASION OF STATES

The Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security recently hosted a teleconference for law enforcement agencies and associations such as the National Association of Chiefs of Police to discuss the Obama Administration's interest in using the military during "emergencies."
Fortunately, NewsWithViews.com had exclusive access to the discussion and the explanations by Homeland Security and Defense Departments officials.


Pat attention Here:::
However, many law enforcement executives and organizations went on the record saying they did not appreciate the prospect of federal troops usurping the authority of local and state law enforcement agencies or the role of the National Guard unit currently under the control of governors.

"My initial reaction is: why are we allowing federal troops to basically invade the sovereignty of individual states when each state has its own law enforcement agencies and each state possesses an armed and trained National Guard and, in the case of some states such as New York, a trained militia?" according to New York police officer Edna Aquino.

/snip

Political strategist Mike Baker is disturbed over this latest "emergency plan" designed to allow federal troops to operate freely within US borders.

"This is a constitutionally unsound development for our nation. While President Barack Obama and his ilk worry about how America's military is perceived by other nations and are concerned with how we treat enemies, they seem to be willing to use extreme measures against their own citizens. Will we witness another Branch Davidian massacre in the name of 'emergency response' or other rationale? It's not a positive development for this nation," said Baker.

A Bill of Federalism

Click here for an explanation of each amendment

Commentary
A Bill Of Federalism
Randy E. Barnett,
05.20.09, 04:11 PM EDT
A detailed proposal to redress the imbalance between state and federal power.

Resolution for Congress to Convene a Convention to Propose Amendments Constituting a Bill of Federalism

Whereas Article I of the Constitution of the United States begins "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"; and

Whereas the Congress of the United States has exceeded the legislative powers granted in the Constitution thereby usurping the powers that are “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” as the 10th Amendment affirms and the rights “retained by the people” to which the Ninth Amendment refers; and

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has ignored or misinterpreted the meaning of the Constitution by upholding this usurpation;

To restore a proper balance between the powers of Congress and those of the several States, and to prevent the denial or disparagement of the rights retained by the people, the legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia hereby resolves:

First, that Congress shall call a convention, consisting of delegates from the several States selected by procedures established by their respective legislatures, for the purpose of proposing the following articles be added as separate amendments to the Constitution of the United States, each of which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when separately ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States; and

Second, that any previous memorial for a convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States by this legislature is hereby repealed and without effect; and

Third, that copies of this memorial shall be sent to the secretary of state and presiding officers of both houses of the legislatures of each of the several states in the union, the clerk of the United States house of representatives, the secretary of the United States senate, and to each member of the Virginia congressional delegation; and

Fourth, that this memorial for a convention is conditioned on the memorials of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states proposing the exact same language contained in some or all of the following articles, and is to remain in effect unless repealed by resolution of this legislature prior to the memorials of two-thirds of the states being reported to Congress:

Article [of Amendment 1] -- [Restrictions on Tax Powers of Congress]
Section 1. Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods or services.

Section 2. Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the president of the United States.

Section 3. This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the 16th Article of amendment is repealed.

Article [of Amendment 2] -- [Limits of Commerce Power]
The power of Congress to make all laws which are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to regulate harmful emissions between one state and another, and to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

Article [of Amendment 3] -- [Unfunded Mandates and Conditions on Spending]
Congress shall not impose upon a State, or political subdivision thereof, any obligation or duty to make expenditures unless such expenditures shall be fully reimbursed by the United States; nor shall Congress place any condition on the expenditure or receipt of appropriated funds requiring a State, or political subdivision thereof, to enact a law or regulation restricting the liberties of its citizens.

Article [of Amendment 4] -- [No Abuse of the Treaty Power]
No treaty or other international agreement may enlarge the legislative power of Congress granted by this Constitution, nor govern except by legislation any activity that is confined within the United States.

Article [of Amendment 5] -- [Freedom of Political Speech and Press]
The freedom of speech and press includes any contribution to political campaigns or to candidates for public office; and shall be construed to extend equally to any medium of communication however scarce.

Article [of Amendment 6] -- [Power of States to Check Federal Power]
Upon the identically worded resolutions of the legislatures of three quarters of the states, any law or regulation of the United States, identified with specificity, is thereby rescinded.

Article [of Amendment 7] -- [Term Limits for Congress]
No person who has served as a Senator for more than nine years, or as a Representative for more than eleven years, shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate or the House of Representatives respectively, excluding any time served prior to the enactment of this Article.

Article [of Amendment 8] -- [Balanced Budget Line Item Veto]
Section 1. The budget of the United States shall be deemed unbalanced whenever the total amount of the public debt of the United States at the close of any fiscal year is greater than the total amount of such debt at the close of the preceding fiscal year.

Section 2. Whenever the budget of the United States is unbalanced, the President may, during the next annual session of Congress, separately approve, reduce or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the operation of the Congress and judiciary of the United States.

Section 3. Any legislation that the President approves with changes pursuant to the second section of this Article shall become law as modified. The President shall return with objections those portions of the legislation containing reduced or disapproved monetary amounts to the House where such legislation originated, which may then, in the manner prescribed in the seventh section of the first Article of this Constitution, separately reconsider each reduced or disapproved monetary amount.

Section 4. The Congress shall have power to implement this Article by appropriate legislation; and this Article shall take effect on the first day of the next annual session of Congress following its ratification.

Article [of Amendment 9] -- [The Rights Retained by the People]
Section 1. All persons are equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights which they retain when forming any government, amongst which are the enjoying, defending and preserving of their life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting real and personal property, making binding contracts of their choosing, and pursuing their happiness and safety.

Section 2. The due process of law shall be construed to provide the opportunity to introduce evidence or otherwise show that a law, regulation or order is an infringement of such rights of any citizen or legal resident of the United States, and the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order shall have the burden of establishing the basis in law and fact of its conformity with this Constitution.

Article [of Amendment 10] -- [Neither Foreign Law nor American Judges May Alter the Meaning of Constitution]
The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment, which meaning shall remain the same until changed pursuant to Article V; nor shall such meaning be altered by reference to the law of nations or the laws of other nations.

President Pantywaist

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution.. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley , Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.

"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them - or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.

So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers...President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America 's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans.

Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

The Time Is NOW!!!

It looks as though we are entering a new phase on the Obama citizenship issue. It appears that a rumor has surfaced from an FBI agent that a forgery of Obama's birth certificate is under way. This would explain the 120 days requested by Obama's legal team to address an issue regarding a birth certificate, an issue any lawyer worth his salt - let alone one worth millions, himself surrounded by million-dollar lawyers - would put to rest months ago in a heartbeat by simply producing the document and using the moment to belittle his detractors - a technique not at all beneath Obama as we have seen. Paper and ink can be chemically treated to fool dating analysis, but needs a little time to settle in. Inks and papers can be carefully reproduced. Does anyone believe that a man whose ambition is to be the most powerful person on earth would be above such tactics? Can we risk indulging in the happy thought that he would not?
We must assume that this is a new, clock-driven phase we're in. Any other assumption is terribly irresponsible. Time, if half these rumors are true, is against us.
ACTION STEPS:
NOW - is the time to stop posting on message boards in anything but a clear, concise organized attempt to draw large national attention to the Obama citizenship issue.
NOW - is the time to put contact numbers and e-mails HERE for immediate dispersion.
NOW - is the time to use those numbers and e-mails. If you are worried about being identified and having your life ruined by vindictive left-wing activists - a legit concern - use *67 when you call in, which will block your name and number to the radio show or congressional office.
NOW - is the time to call Hannity and wait for 3 hours to get on, using a false topic for clearance through the call-takers and then condemn him before millions for betraying his country by not bringing this issue up with so many guests available and such news-worthiness behind it. Let him know on-air you're calling for all his listeners to turn off their radios for the day in protest and as a sign of strength. That you'll contact his sponsors and threaten to boycott his program on the radio and Fox TV.
NOW - is the time to do the same to Rush.
NOW - is the time to do the same O'Reilly.AND Savage.AND Ingraham. And local conservative stations.

NEXT:Your congressmen care about only one thing: the next primaries.
NOW - is the time to contact them - anonymously if necessary (it's legal, use *67 or separate free Yahoo e-mail accounts created for the purpose) and politely tell them you'll campaign like hell against them in the next primary, never forgetting, to your last breath if need be, if they don’t confront this issue head -on NOW.
Tell them tomorrow is too late - for their re-election.
We don’t have months to organize a tea party on this matter.
The clock may very well be running out.
There is a reason why a million-dollar lawyer consulting with million-dollar lawyers won’t turn over a document you need for a passport or your kid needs to get his drivers license. The reason isn't for the fun of it.
NOW - is the time to take pen to paper, hand to keyboard, voice to phone, and make this go viral this week, the week of May 4, 2009. The week after next may simply be too late if even half of what we’re hearing turns out to be true(that 120-day stall request by Obama's lawyers probably has a very large safety zone built into the timetable as a contingency, just in case)
NOW - is the time to do all these things.
NOW. Not tomorrow. Not in 2 hours. Put off dinner. Forget the movie, or the game, or your favorite reality show. Dinner can stay warm. Your favorite shows will be waiting for you next week.
THE TIME TO LET THOSE WITH THE BULLY PULPIT TO MILLIONS KNOW THAT IF THEY FAIL THEY WILL BE DESPISED FOR THEIR COWARDICE FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES IS NOW.
Sound melodramatic? Sure, but melodrama is their trade. You're only speaking to them in the language they respect when you put it like that. Cut and paste this wherever you will. Add to it. Subtract from it. But get the word out.
If we're responsible, if we care and love this still-free country, if any of what he have heard is in fact true (there are many people still alive who remember Hitler's rein of terror - never confuse the unthinkable with the impossible), then we have no responsible choice but to err on the side of caution - and indignation, quite frankly - and assume the clock may very well be ticking, now. Time waits for no one, and don't expect an evermore-corrupt government to do you any favors.
There is no harm in doing all this if this rumor turns out to be untrue. Indeed, it simply clears up a very, very troubling, nagging issue all the faster. The question is: do you love your country enough to spend a little time on a gamble to save it in the event even half of it is in fact actually true?
Our Founding Fathers are watching you. What would you have them think?
DO IT.
NOW.
Keep this thread alive with contact info, reports on what you are doing, cut-and-paste it elsewhere and provide links here. It's time to get to the bottom of Obama's citizenship status once and for all - BEFORE he covers his tracks.
NOW

UCV Unlocked; Cargosquid's Post

UPDATE1:concretebob OK the blog has been unlocked, but it looks as if we're still having some problems with the text generator.

In addition to Governor Henry being a radical, modern day radicals who can be added to this list are Governor Rick Perry of Texas and Del Chris Peace from Hanover for their "State's Rights" legislation. Apparently, Patrick Henry was a terrorist. And a "rightwing" one at that!

Support of this document makes you seem to be a terrorist! Just ask the Department of Homeland Security. From the PDF: (empahsis mine)

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Do you like how principled opposition to the government is linked to racism?

"The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology"
"Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.”

(Actually the only accusations I've seen or heard are those by the Obama people.)

Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.

(Except doesn't this describe the GOP?) Then linked the above to racism:

Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action. In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded.

Again:

"Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties >as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion,inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage."

(What does white supremacy have to do with ANY of the above issues? Besides, Planned Parenthood was started by a white supremacist.)

"incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to attract recruits during times of
economic uncertainty."

They just described Obama, Dodd, Franks, Pelosi, etc.

High unemployment, however, has the potential to lead to alienation, thus increasing an individual’s susceptibility to extremist ideas. According to a 2007 study from the German Institute for Economic Research there appears to be a strong association between a parent’s unemployment status and the formation of rightwing extremist beliefs in their children—specifically xenophobia and antidemocratic ideals.

Yep. This describes the inner city, alright. All those right wing extremist clinging to their guns and God...."

(German Institute? Perhaps their experiences DON'T correlate to US results. Germans of all people should recognize extremism, huh?)

Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling,

"Sure are alot of rightwing liberals buying guns and ammo. "

During the 1990s, rightwing extremist hostility toward government was fueled by the implementation of restrictive gun laws—such as the Brady Law that established a 5-day waiting period prior to purchasing a handgun and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that limited the sale of various types of assault rifles—and federal law enforcement’s handling of the confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho

."Where do I start.....even the DHS is buying into the BS of the 1994 law banning "assault rifles." NO ASSAULT RIFLES WERE BANNED. Those rifles are already restricted. And who in their right minds (get the pun?) isn't concerned about how the BATFE acted at Waco and Ruby Ridge. In both cases, their Rules of Engagement led to loss of life and they conducted a cover up. What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard to understand?

"On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists."

Uh,..... Yeah...

"Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists—as well as law-abiding Americans—to make bulk purchases of ammunition. These shortages have increased the cost of ammunition, further exacerbating rightwing extremist paranoia and leading to further stockpiling activity. Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move at this time."

Apparently, if you are a conservative, you may be a racist, violent, terrorist; you are not a law-abiding American. Leftwing extremists exempted, of course. ALL AMERICANS SHOULD BE OFFENDED BY THE VIEWPOINT IN THIS DOCUMENT.

The Liberty Papers first reported this and Michelle Malkin confirms it.