Monday, February 6, 2012

Obama on Georgia ballot; Doctors to be given immunity from lawsuits; Playing with the numbers; Soros predicts government crack down; EPA gives exemption to GE -using company; Muslim who honored Islamic extremist now on our Homeland Security Adviosory Group; Justice Ginsburg shows contempt for US Constitution; CPAC should prepare for AFL-CIO violence; 58% of Americans are pro-life; Internet cafes and computer screens; Building the Obama Climate Legacy; Army Chaplain forbids reading of letter to Catholics; Terrorism is now "ordinary crime"

Obama Wins Georgia Ballot Challenge

American Thinker writes: In his sweeping denial of the Plaintiff's challenges, however, Judge Malihi did not mention the principle, and instead relied on the 2009 case of Ankeny v Governor, stating that "[t]he Indiana Court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth."

And the fact that Judge Malihi took note of and relied upon on the established rule of statutory construction in his earlier order, but then made assertions contrary to that principle in his final decision, should not go unnoticed by those versed in constitutional law
Opponents of the controversial birthright citizenship practice should also take note, since Judge Malihi's opinion further entrenches the notion that every baby born on U.S. soil, regardless of the citizenship or domicile of its parents (presumably even an "anchor baby" or "birth tourist" baby) is a "natural born" citizen.  So would have been Anwar al-Awlaki.
Whatever one's opinions on the constitutional definition of "natural born citizen," the arrogance exhibited by this president and his defense attorney to the judiciary of a state, and the abject lack of reporting by the major networks and mainstream media, should trouble every citizen in the nation.

Obama may have won the Georgia ballot challenge, but the rule of law and the Constitution suffered a crippling blow.
Read more:
Townhall reports: During the debate over ObamaCare, more than one critic charged that government panels would make life and death decisions affecting patient care.
Now it seems the Obama administration is contemplating something that is even scarier: doctors would be given immunity from malpractice lawsuits, but only if they practice medicine according to government guidelines. The pressure would be enormous. Have you ever met a doctor who wanted to be sued?
The original "death panel" charges were not entirely baseless. Former Senator Tom Daschle, who wrote the blueprint for health reform, advocated a "comparative effectiveness" agency that would decide which medical procedures were worthwhile and which ones were not. As a model, Dashiell pointed to the National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness (NICE) in Britain. How are patients faring under that regime? According to the World Health Organization, about 25,000 British patients die prematurely every year because they do not have access to cancer drugs that are routinely available in the United States and continental Europe.
Those who comply on up to 194 different metrics — including adopting electronic medical records — will get higher fees. Those who resist will get lower ones.
These are examples of a much larger trend: Washington telling the medical community how to practice medicine. Even though a recent study finds little relationship between the inputs Medicare wants to pay for and such outputs as patient survival, and even though the latest pilot programs show that paying doctors and hospitals for performance doesn’t improve quality, we are about to usher in the era of big brother medical care.
Remember these words: "evidence-based care."[This is one article which every one of you should open.  Learn the future under Obamacare as it will pertain to you.].
If that’s not incentive enough, the Obama administration has a medical malpractice carrot and stick it wants to try out. If doctors follow protocols and guidelines developed by committees of experts, they will be immune from lawsuits. If they don’t, they will have to take their chances.
NY Post reveals: Everyone, of course, would be thrilled if 243,000 jobs were actually created in the month of January. Hallelujah!
[Proving the old adage: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics]: Those 243,000 jobs are the total after seasonal adjustments.
The question you should be asking is, what’s the un-tampered-with number before the adjustment?
Glad you asked. The Labor Department reported a loss of 2,689,000 jobs in January.
Seasonal adjustments are intended to smooth out holiday bumps like that. But because of the depth and unusual nature of the nation’s Great Recession, those seasonal adjustments are being skewed.
Here’s how it works: In January 2010, as I said, there was an actual, unadjusted job loss of 2,858,000 jobs.
To make it simple, the government computers were expecting a bigger unadjusted loss than the 2,689,000 jobs because last January’s decline was 2,858,000.
Why weren’t there as many job losses this January? Very likely because the weather throughout the country is a lot milder this year than during the past two Januarys.
A loss of jobs that isn’t as bad as expected turns into a job gain. Does that mean there really are 243,000 new jobs out there? Absolutely not.
Read more:
The Nation reports: Demonstrations and riots on the streets of American cities, manifested by the leaderless, grassroots Occupy Wall Street movement, are growing. Chronic unemployment is here to stay. The official response to the street demonstrations will be even more draconian.
"Yes, yes, yes," Soros said, almost gleefully. "It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States."
The passage of the National Defence Authorisation Act last year, signed into law by President Obama, signalled an overture to a "war on terror", not only abroad but also at home. For this law allows the authorities to hold any citizen in custody without any warrant or trial. Last week, dozens of prominent websites from Wikipedia, Reddit to Craigslist staged a voluntary blackout in protest against two other bills - SOPA and PIPA. The two bills are designed to combat Internet piracy, but would also help the US government fight a "war on terror".
Last year more than 10,800,000 guns were sold in the United States alone. Obviously, the Americans know what is about to happen as the economy continues its spiral downward. They have to arm themselves to protect their families.
Washington Examiner reports: Last month, the Obama EPA began enforcing new rules regulating the greenhouse gas emissions from any new or expanded power plants.
This week, the EPA issued its first exemption, Environment & Energy News reports:
The Obama administration will spare a stalled power plant project in California from the newest federal limits on greenhouse gases and conventional air pollution, U.S. EPA says in a new court filing that marks a policy shift in the face of industry groups and Republicans accusing the agency of holding up construction of large industrial facilities.
According to a declaration by air chief Gina McCarthy, officials reviewed EPA policies and decided it was appropriate to "grandfather" projects such as the Avenal Power Center, a proposed 600-megawatt power plant in the San Joaquin Valley, so they are exempted from rules such as new air quality standards for smog-forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
There's something interesting about the Avenal Power Center:
The proposed Avenal Energy project will be a combined-cycle generating plant consisting of two natural gas-fired General Electric 7FA Gas Turbines with Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG) and one General Electric Steam Turbine.
Maybe GE CEO Jeff Immelt's closeness to President Obama, and his broad support for Obama's agenda, had nothing to do with this exemption. But we have no way of knowing that, and given the administration's record of regularly misleading Americans regarding lobbyists, frankly, I wouldn't trust the White House if they told me there was no connection.
American Defense League writes: It is no wonder that our very lives are at stake in America when the Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano swears in a man on the Homeland Security Advisory Group, promoted by her, to counter violent extremism (you can’t say Islamic in her Homeland Security because heaven forbid  it’s not politically correct) by the name of Mohamed Elibihary who has honored, of all people, the ruthless leader of Iran, Ayatolla Khomeini.  In other words, a supporter of terrorism is hired by Janet Napolitano to counter terrorism!  And he’s sworn in and has access to the SLIC top security data base to boot!  That’s like hiring a drug addict to counter drugs and providing him with the money to buy them.
It was subsequently revealed in this same questioning that this same Mohamed Elibihari has accessed the SLIC data base  from his home computer and got information off and has been shopping a story to national media on Islamophobia directed at the Governor of Texas and the security people there in Texas and apparently Janet Napolitano didn’t know anything about it!  Rep. Gohmert summarized by saying this: “So, this man, Mohamed Elibihari, who is on the Homeland Security Advisory Group countering violent extremism was a featured speaker at the tribute to the great Islamic visionary Ayatollah Khomeini on December 11, 2004, Janet Napolitano had him on the Homeland Security Group countering violent extremism and promoted him and swore him in, Elibihari has written glowingly of  Kotby on whom Osama bin Laden relied heavily for his barbarism justification, he has written against the trial and conviction of the Holy Land Foundation’s funding of terrorism, he has still remained in this Homeland Security Advisory Group and now he has accessed a week ago the State and Local Intelligence Community Data base, he took documents that said for Official Use Only and shopped them with national media and it appears that not only has our security been compromised, our secure system, but he’s using it to help his friend politically the President,” continued Rep. Gohmert.
The Right Scoop reports: Current US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg proved her contempt for the US Constitution when she told Egyptian Al-Hayat TV on January 30, 2012 that when Egypt drafts their own constitution they should not look at the US Constitution, but rather to that of South Africa or Canada that “embraces basic human rights”:
MEMRI – Ruth Bader Ginsburg: It is a very inspiring time – that you have overthrown a dictator, and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy. So I think people in the United States are hoping that this transition will work, and that there will genuinely be a government of, by, and for the people.
American Thinker opines: If it's anything like the "Occupy" protest of the Americans for Prosperity conference at the Washington Convention Center last fall, CPAC attendees better be prepared for violence.
According to the AFL-CIO's Washington DC Metro Council website, "Actions are currently being planned for noontime and after work on Friday, February 10."
Apparently, the unions plans to attempt to disrupt the conference with rats, puppets, and more: Read more:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The NY Times writes: IN the most recent Gallup poll on abortion, as many Americans described themselves as pro-life as called themselves pro-choice. A combined 58 percent of Americans stated that abortion should either be “illegal in all circumstances” or “legal in only a few circumstances.” These results do not vary appreciably by gender: in the first Gallup poll to show a slight pro-life majority, conducted in May 2009, half of American women described themselves as pro-life. -
Canada Free Press writes: A flyer designed by the FBI and the Department of Justice to promote suspicious activity reporting in internet cafes lists basic tools used for online privacy as potential signs of terrorist activity.  The use of encryption is also listed as a suspicious activity along with steganography, the practice of using “software to hide encrypted data in digital photos” or other media. In fact, the flyer recommends that anyone “overly concerned about privacy” or attempting to “shield the screen from view of others” should be considered suspicious and potentially engaged in terrorist activities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Net Daily reports: In a recent report called “Building the Obama Administration’s Climate Legacy,” the Presidential Climate Action Project, or PCAP, recommends reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine,” the old FCC rule that kept conservative talk radio off the airwaves until the ruling was struck down during the Reagan administration.
Human Events reports: All the bishops in the country sent out a letter to be read in their parishes promising that the Church "cannot-and will not-comply with this unjust law." Even Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains sent out the same letter.
But after he did, the Army's Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief.
Judicial Watch reports: A new Homeland Security report compares terrorism to “ordinary crime” in metropolitan U.S. cities and omits the radical Islamic factor, instead finding “significant variability in the ideologies motivating terrorist attacks across decades.”
This appears to be part of the Obama Administration’s Muslim outreach effort, which includes hiring a special Homeland Security adviser (Mohamed Elibiary) who supports a radical Islamist theologian and renowned jihadist ideologue. The Obama Justice Department also created a special Muslim Engagement Advisory Group to foster greater communication, collaboration and a new level of respect between law enforcement and Muslim and Arab-American communities.


  1. “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President...."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

    "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    “Concerning specifically the reading into the Constitution of a two-citizen- parent requirement for “natural born” citizenship status, it should be noted that there is, significantly, no historical nor controlling legal holding in American jurisprudence to support the argument that parental citizenship governs and controls the eligibility of a native born U.S citizen to be President. As indicated in the discussion of the history of the constitutional provision, there is also no justification for this unique theory, which would exclude an entire class of native born U.S. citizens from eligibility for the Presidency, in any of the statements or writings of the framers of the Constitution, or in the entire record of the ratification debates of the United States Constitution.”-- Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Jack Maskell, Congressional Research Service, November 2011.

    “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”--- Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)

    1. And there have been court rulings:

      Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

      “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

      Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

      “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

      Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

      “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”