Dedicated to Preserving the U.S.A. Constitutional Republic Form of Limited Government

A dynamic alert and dialogue on preserving the U.S.A. Constitutional Republic form of limited government, free enterprise systems and responsible individual self-rule, as in... We the people, for the people, and by the people. A free flow of ideas, comments and opinions about individual challenges and/or opportunities and their solutions - congruent with the Judeo-Christian core values on which the U.S.A. was created, developed and formed.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Boston Globe reporter withholds Obama file

CERTIFIGATE

Boston Globe reporter withholds Obama file

President's official birth narrative doesn't match up with INS reports

By Jerome R. Corsi

A Boston Globe reporter sympathetic to Barack Obama apparently received favored access to the immigration file of the president's father.

In writing her biography of Barack Obama's father, Boston Globe reporter Sally H. Jacobs had access to what appears to be the father's unredacted Immigration and Naturalization Service file. The documents cover the time Barack Obama Sr. arrived in Honolulu in 1959 until he was forced to leave the United States in 1964.

However, the redacted file the Department of Homeland Security provided in an Freedom of Information Act request to independent reporter Heather Smathers whited-out key facts about the president's birth narrative, judging from the one unredacted page WND has obtained.

Get the inside details on what could be the most serious constitutional crisis in the nation's history in "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama is Not Eligible to be President."

Jacobs, in a telephone interview with WND, said she got a "less redacted" file than Smathers appears to have received.

Jacobs refused to share with WND the less-redacted file or to post it on the Internet as Smathers has done with her file.

"Why would I do that?" Jacobs asked.

WND suggested it would be in the public interest to have available for study the additional information her less-redacted file might contain.

Jacobs suggested WND needed to make that request in a FOIA to DHS.

"I'm sure they will give you what they gave me," she said.

WND's own FOIA request is in process.

Jacob's refusal to make the file public is reminiscent of Sen. John Kerry's decision in 2005 to sign Standard Form 180, releasing his Navy Records only to the Boston Globe, known to be a newspaper favorable to Kerry, not to the U.S. public at large.

As WND reported, Kerry's Navy records became an issue in the 2004 presidential campaign after more than 260 Vietnam veterans who served in his swift boat section launched an effort to counter many of the senator's claims about his war service.

Put up for adoption?

Close examination of the unredacted page obtained by WND, which Jacobs obviously used to write her biography, shows it contained key information relevant to the Obama nativity story that was whited out in the copy sent to Smathers.

On page 122 of her biography, "The Other Barack: The Bold and Reckless Life of President Obama's Father," Jacobs revealed that Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham had considered giving up their son for adoption:

According to the INS memo concerning her April conversation with Dahling, the INS administrator, 'Subject [Obama] got his USC [United Sates citizen] wife 'Hapai' [pidgin for pregnant] and although they were married they do not live together and Miss Dunham is making arrangements with the Salvation Army to give the baby away.

Exhibit 1 shows the unredacted INS file from which Jacobs worked to obtain the information.

Exhibit 1: Unredacted memo from INS file provided to reporter Sally Jacobs

Exhibit 2 shows the same memo in the redacted state that DHS released to Smathers.

Exhibit 2: Redacted memo from INS file provided to reporter Heather Smathers

Clearly, the redaction was designed to eliminate the information that Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham considered putting baby Barack Obama Jr. up for adoption with the Salvation Army.

Furthermore, the unredacted version of the memo documents that the INS was aware of the adoption possibility as early as April 10, 1961, four months before the baby was born.

A familiar face or MIA?

The information in Jacobs' version of the document is consistent with other documentation that contradicts President Obama's narrative of his early life. He has claimed that Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham lived together with him as a family in Hawaii until September 1962, when Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii to go to Harvard University to begin graduate studies in economics.

As recently as April 20, only a week before Obama released from the White House what he claimed was a scan of his original long-form 1961 birth certificate, Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie was insisting to Fox News that he was in Hawaii when Obama was born.

Abercrombie personal testimony was an attempt to verify that Honolulu was the place of Obama's birth, even though under questioning he admitted he was not literally at the hospital to witness the birth.

Abercrombie's revised story was that he "first laid eyes on baby Obama a few days after he was born," supposedly when Obama's parents introduced the newborn to friends at the University of Hawaii, where Abercrombie and Obama Sr. were students.

"We not only saw him and were with them, but were introduced to him of course at our gatherings, our student gatherings," Abercrombie said on April 20. "And of course over the years then as he was raised by his mother and his grandparents we of course saw him frequently because he was with his grandfather all the time."

By these statements, Abercrombie claimed to know the Obama family quite well.

Abercrombie's point apparently was to affirm Barack Obama Sr., Ann Dunham and the baby were seen and introduced commonly at the University of Hawaii.

But the document cited in Jacobs' biography published some three months later, in July, contradict Abercrombie's claims about the Obama family.

Jacobs wrote on page 118 that Obama Sr. "said nothing of his new girl friend [Stanley Ann Dunham] to most of his friends on campus."

Still, on the same page, Jacobs quotes Abercrombie, who insists Obama Sr. brought Dunham with him to parties at the university.

But, as if to explain why university students didn't consider them to be married, Jacobs quotes Abercrombie as saying that Dunham tended to sit quietly beside Obama Sr., as she spoke little and "instead listened closely as the men – and it was mostly men at their gatherings – argued and laughed."

Jacobs documents no incident in which Dunham brought baby Obama to the university to engage in social events with her husband and the baby's father.

WND has separately documented that Dunham left Hawaii within a few weeks of the baby's birth to attend on-campus evening classes at the University of Washington in Seattle. She did not return to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. left the islands in September 1962.

Jacobs first revealed that Obama Sr. and Dunham had considered putting the baby up for adoption with the Salvation Army when she wrote an article in the Boston Globe titled "Father spoke of having Obama adopted," published July 7.

Jacob recounts in her book how she found the INS file for Obama, Sr.: "In a storage facility in Lee's Summit, Missouri, where the paper records of what was once called the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service are stored, there is a folder bearing the name Barack H. Obama, alien registration number A11938537, which contained memos stretching from the time he arrived in Honolulu in 1959 until he was forced to leave Cambridge, Massachusetts, against his will in 1964."

Friday, October 21, 2011

George Soros Funds Occupy Wall Street

by Matthew Vadum

Radical anti-American billionaire George Soros is a major backer of a left-wing group that is funneling money to the Occupy Wall Street movement.

The nonprofit organization at the receiving end of Soros’ largesse, Alliance for Global Justice, is managing donations benefiting the communists, socialists, anarchists and hippies now occupying Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan. As of Oct. 19, OWS had taken in a grand total of $435,000 from all sources, including donations made by individuals online and in person, according to reports.

It should surprise no one that Soros (net worth: $22 billion), the ultimate Wall Street insider and preeminent funder of the activist Left today, embraces Occupy Wall Street.

As I note in my new book Subversion Inc., this Communist sympathizer co-founded the ultra-secretive Democracy Alliance, a billionaires’ club that wants to radically transform America. He has said that European-style socialism “is exactly what we need now” and favors American decline. Soros, a currency manipulator with an insider-trading conviction, praises Red China effusively, saying the totalitarian nation has “a better-functioning government than the United States.”

The Alliance for Global Justice has received grants from George Soros’ philanthropy, the Open Society Institute ($100,000 since 2004), and from the left-wing, money launderers of the Tides Foundation ($60,000 since 2004) that allows high-profile donors to give secretly to radical causes.

Much of the money received by the Tides network of philanthropies has come from Soros’ charity, according to philanthropy databases.

The Open Society Institute has given $24,599,553 to the Tides network of philanthropies since 1999. Of that total, $18,154,270 went to the Tides Foundation and the remaining $6,445,283 went to the Tides Center, which like the Alliance for Global Justice, serves as a fiscal sponsor for small or new activist groups.

A hotbed of anti-American activity, the Alliance takes money from the most extreme left-wing philanthropies operating in America today. The Alliance has accepted grants from the (pro-Fidel Castro) Arca Foundation ($185,000 since 2001), General Service Foundation ($165,000 since 2001), and Foundation for DeepaEcology ($30,000 since 2000), an anti-science environmentalist group that regards human beings as a cancer on the earth.

Alliance for Global Justice is a “fiscal sponsor,” which means that it serves as a financial clearinghouse for radical causes that haven’t filed papers to incorporate themselves as nonprofit organizations. Donors give money to the Alliance and are then able to deduct the donations from their income tax even though the cause they are funding isn’t recognized as tax-exempt by the IRS. Fiscal sponsors take a percentage of donations as management fees, and then pass on the rest to the cause favored by the donor.

Founded in 1998, the Alliance, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C., has a long history of anti-American activism. The Alliance and its resident, Katherine Hoyt, are longtime supporters of the Sandinista (Communist) movement in Nicaragua and the Zapatistas, a Marxist-Leninist guerrilla movement in Mexico.

When a credit card-processing glitch caused the Alliance’s website to reject $144,000 in donations for Occupy Wall Street, Hoyt claimed that an evil capitalist conspiracy was afoot. “I can’t help but believe that politics must be involved somewhere,” Hoyt said in a statement on the Alliance’s website.

It turns out the donations were rejected because of the Alliance’s own technological blundering, so Hoyt’s comment was scrubbed from the website. Alliance leader Chuck Kaufman blamed technology for the banking error.

“Our group normally processes a dozen donations a week, so all of a sudden Occupy Wall Street took off and it was 400 per day,” Kaufman said. “We just didn’t understand the banking architecture.”

Other causes supported by the Alliance include the antiwar group World Can’t Wait (a spinoff of the Revolutionary Communist Party), and Courage to Resist, which encourages U.S. soldiers to desert and supports accused traitor Bradley Manning of WikiLeaks infamy. Its leaders also have an abiding hatred of Israel. The Alliance has funded anti-Israel groups including Israeli Anarchists Against the War and Bil’in Center for Joint Struggle.

The Alliance for Global Justice’s antipathy toward things that Americans revere makes it a perfect business partner for George Soros.

Matthew Vadum is Senior Editor at Capital Research Center, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and author of Subversion Inc.: How Obama's ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off Taxpayers, (WND Books, 2011).

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Wingless, Bloodsucking and Parasitic - Meet the Flea Party

by Ann Coulter

10/12/2011

So far, the only major accomplishment of the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters is that it has finally put an end to their previous initiative, "Occupy Our Mothers' Basements."

Oddly enough for such a respectable-looking group -- a mixture of adolescents looking for a cause, public sector union members, drug dealers, criminals, teenage runaways, people who have been at every protest since the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, people 95 percent of whose hair is concentrated in their ponytails, Andrea Dworkin look-alikes and other average Democrats -- they can't even explain what they're protesting.

The protesters either treat inquiries about their purpose as a trick question, or -- worse -- instantly rattle off a series of insane causes: "No. 1, abolish capitalism; No. 2, because 9/11 was an inside job; No. 3, because Mumia is innocent ..."

Curiously, the only point universally agreed upon by the protesters and their admirers in the Democratic Party and the mainstream media is that "Occupy Wall Street" should be compared to the tea party. Yes, that would be the same tea party that has been denounced and slandered by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media for the last three years.

As a refresher: The Democratic National Committee called the tea partiers "angry mobs" and "rabid right-wing extremists." ABC said they were a "mob." CNN accused them of "rabble rousing." Harry Reid called them "evil mongers." Nancy Pelosi said they were "un-American." CNN's Anderson Cooper and every single host on MSNBC called the tea partiers a name that referred to an obscure gay sex act.

But apparently liberals couldn't even convince themselves that tea partiers were an extremist group unworthy of emulation.

At least they're embarrassed about what the OWS protesters really are: wingless, bloodsucking and parasitic. This is the flea party, not the tea party.

Contrary to all the blather you always hear about how lawless street protests and civil disobedience are part of the American tradition -- "what our troops are fighting for!" -- they are not. We are an orderly people with democratic channels at our disposal to change our government.

The very reason we have a constitutional republic is because of a mob uprising. Soon after the American Revolution, Shays' Rebellion so terrified and angered Americans that they demanded a federal government capable of crushing such mobs.

For nearly 200 years, Americans understood that they lived in a country capable of producing bad politicians and bad policies, but that it was subject to change through peaceful, democratic means. There was no need to riot or storm buildings because we didn't have a king. We had a representative government.

Even when injustice existed, there were constitutional mechanisms to right wrongs.

For nearly a century after the Civil War, congressional Republicans kept introducing bills that implemented the civil rights amendments -- only to be blocked by segregationist Democrats. But then, attorney Thurgood Marshall came along and began winning cases before the Supreme Court, redeeming black Americans' constitutional rights through the judiciary.

As long as a Republican sat in the White House, those victories were enforced. In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Ark., to walk black children to school in defiance of the segregationist, Democratic governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus -- Bill Clinton's friend.

This is what our Constitution was designed for: to use the force of the federal government to uphold the law when the states couldn't (Shays' Rebellion) or wouldn't (segregationist Democrats).

If Richard Nixon had won the 1960 election instead of John F. Kennedy -- as some say he did -- there never would have been a need for Rosa Parks, the Freedom Rides and the rest of the civil disobedience of the civil rights movement.

But as soon as the Democrats got control of the White House, enforcement of the Supreme Court's civil rights rulings came to a crashing halt. Elected Democrats in the states were free to violate legitimate constitutional rulings without interference from Democratic presidents.

The ingenious system given to us by our founding fathers faltered on the morally corrupt obstructionism of elected Democrats. They simply refused to abide by the rules -- with glee at the state level, and at the federal level, cowardice.

Here, finally, was an appropriate case for nonviolent protest. There hasn't been another justification for civil disobedience in this country until the Supreme Court invented a "right" to abortion in Roe v. Wade -- another act of lawlessness by liberals.

(All this and more is detailed in the smash best-seller, "Demonic: How the Liberal Mobs Are Endangering America"!)

Now liberals compare their every riot, every traffic blockage, every Starbucks-window-smashing street protest to the civil rights movement –- which was only necessary because of them. These "Occupy Wall Street" ignoramuses seem to imagine they are blacks living in 1963 Alabama under Democratic governor George Wallace.

To the contrary, the Wall Street protesters have no specific objections and no serious policy proposals in a country that is governed, as Abraham Lincoln put it, "by the people." They protest because they enjoy creating mayhem, not because the law is being ignored or their rights violated without penalty by government officials.

They are not in the tradition of the tea partiers, much less our founding fathers. They are not in the tradition of the civil rights movement or Operation Rescue. They are in the tradition of Shays' Rebellion, the Weathermen and Charles Manson.

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Slander, Treason, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Godless, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America, and the forthcoming Demonic: How The Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.

Mormon bishop's daughter spills Romney's 'secrets' ...

ELECTION 2012

'Would you trust the judgment of a man if he truly believes he's gonna be a god?'

The daughter of a Mormon bishop who has abandoned her family's faith claims in a new book the election of Mitt Romney to the presidency would put the U.S. in danger due to what she calls the Republican's "outrageous," "horrific" and "mind-controlling" beliefs.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann

"While he attempts to portray Mormonism as just another Christian religion, Mitt Romney counts on his skills to shift our attention away from what he truly believes," says Tricia Erickson, author of "Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters? The Mormon Church Versus the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America."

"If the American people knew what he truly believed, they would surely not place him in the highest office in the land."

Yet others, such as professor Richard Bushman, a Mormon and previous missionary himself who has taught at Harvard, Columbia and Brown Universities, are defending the faith. He calls Erickson "disillusioned" and someone who "instead of walking away felt an obligation to discredit [her] former faith."

Find out what's really in the Bible and what's not, and learn your spectacular destiny that's rarely ever discussed in church in this autographed No. 1 best-seller!

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the official name for Mormonism, has rocketed into the national consciousness this month since Rev. Robert Jeffress, a Rick Perry supporter who pastors the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, said Romney was "not a Christian" and that Mormonism is a "cult."

"Part of a pastor's job is to warn his people and others about false religions," Jeffress said Sunday, standing by his controversial remarks. "Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Mormonism are all false religions."

In her book, Erickson paints an unflattering picture of the Mormon faith, which counts not only the former Massachusetts governor as a member, but also fellow GOP presidential contender Jon Huntsman, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., radio talk-show host Glenn Beck, singer Gladys Knight, actresses Amy Adams and Katherine Heigl, "Napoleon Dynamite" actor Jon Heder, entertainers Donny and Marie Osmond, and sports stars including the NFL's Steve Young, Danny White and Merlin Olsen.

Erickson says Romney believes:

He will become a "god" in the afterlife and be given his own planet

Satan is Jesus' literal brother

Jesus was not born of a virgin birth

He will be given his own afterlife kingdom where he will have sexual relations with his wife, Ann, to populate his kingdom with spirit children as God the Father Himself has a wife on His own planet.

Author and former Mormon Tricia Erickson

"Mormonism teaches we pre-existed on God the Father's planet as spirit children before we were planted in our mother's wombs," Erickson told WND. "And the reason why we're here according to Mormonism, is so that we can work out our own progression to godhood and our own planets themselves."

The author, who herself was married in a Mormon temple at age 19 but now considers herself a non-denominational Christian, says there's a secret agenda Mormon officials don't like to talk about publicly.

"A complete takeover of the government," she said. "They have more people in the CIA, the FBI. They have an employment office for Mormons in D.C. to be able to infiltrate them into the government."

"They've been trying since the beginning to get someone in the presidency, because they believe they have to establish their authority so when Jesus comes to Earth, the Mormon Church will take control of the government and the Mormons will be the government of God on Earth," she continued.

Erickson says her main concern is that the leader of the free world have the ability to discern fact from fiction.

"It may be crucial to our survival," she said. "If his beliefs are distorted, which they unequivocally are, why would it not be be critical to our existence to protect our country from being placed in the hands of such a person?"

When asked for specific rituals she considers bizarre, Erickson claims Romney and other Mormons take part in clandestine marriage ceremonies involving "outrageous" customs. Explaining her own Mormon wedding, she says she was forced to completely disrobe against her will.

"It was horrific," she told WND. "There I was standing naked. They brought this bowl of water, and started washing my body down and whispering prayers over my body. They stopped over the right and left breast, the navel and knees and prayed specific prayers."

To help ensure the general public did not learn details of the rituals, she says believers took a symbolic knife to feign their own murder if members spilled the beans of what really goes on behind closed doors.

"They actually had us slashing our guts open and our guts falling to the ground if we told people of the secret dogma of the ceremonies," Erickson said.

"Mitt is not a casual Mormon," she told online interviewer Thom Hartmann, noting Romney has reached the upper echelons of the faith. "There is no way that he will be able to not listen to the [Mormon] prophet. His eternal salvation depends on it. He has to put the church first over country."

When pressed about what some may consider the strange beliefs of other faiths, Erickson said of Romney, "I kind of believe, you know, that he should be completely sane and he should have discernment and good judgment. I mean if the man truly believes he's gonna become a god, would you trust the judgment of somebody like that?"

The Boston Globe reported in 2006 that Romney's political team quietly consulted with leaders of the Mormon Church to map out plans for a nationwide network of Mormon supporters to help Romney capture the presidency in 2008.

Officials with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints told WND they're well aware of Erickson's book, but were reluctant to respond to Erickson's assertions. Spokeswoman Jessica Moody says she encourages everyone to read the church's core beliefs as well as articles of faith posted online.

Regarding the plan of salvation, the LDS church states, "The mortal existence is seen in the context of a great sweep of history, from a pre-Earth life where the spirits of all mankind lived with Heavenly Father to a future life in His presence where continued growth, learning and improving will take place."

At the Values Voters Summit in the nation's capital over the weekend, Romney defended his beliefs, saying, "Almost all Americans live for a purpose greater than ourselves. Our heritage of religious faith and tolerance has importantly shaped who we have become as a people. We must continue to welcome faith into the public square and allow it to flourish. Our government should respect religious values, not silence them. We will always pledge our allegiance to a nation that is under God."

Bushman, meanwhile, says people need to remember that many faiths have doctrines and customs that other people find hard to fathom.

"To my way of thinking the idiosyncrasies of Mormon belief and practice are not the issue; Catholic belief in transubstantiation and Protestant belief in the resurrection [of Jesus] can be made to look silly, too," he told CNN in reaction to Erickson.

"The question is Mitt Romney's independence. Will he pursue the public good as he rationally understands it, or will he bow to the judgment of Church leaders? Does his religion force him to be a puppet? Here we can turn to history for an answer. Temple-attending, believing Mormons have held national office for over a century now. Is there a single instance where they have succumbed to church direction against their own consciences. I do not know of one myself."

Earlier this week, WND posted a non-scientific, interactive poll in which readers were asked to sound off on Mormonism as a factor in the presidential race.

With more than 1,200 participants, the top response with 25 percent of the votes was, "Because it denies divinity of Jesus and salvation by faith alone, it is a cult, and a Mormon candidate should never be elected president."

In second place with 19 percent was, "If anyone doesn't appear to be a true Christian, it's the current occupant of the White House."

Thursday, September 29, 2011

ObamaCare Reaches the Supreme Court

It’s all or nothing in the court battle that had to happen.

by John Hayward

On Wednesday, the National Federation of Independent Business petitioned the Supreme Court to review a decision from the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding ObamaCare. The Obama Justice Department feels good about its general track record defending the law in appeals courts, and has also filed a petition with the Supremes.

The Administration could have kept things bottled up in the 11th Circuit for a while, but most observers agree it would go all the way to the highest court sooner or later... and if "later" meant after the 2012 elections, there might have been a very different Justice Department arguing the government's case, with decidedly less enthusiasm.

A Supreme Court battle fought during the height of the election would make the unpopular law into dinner-table conversation at a moment when the President doesn't want voters choking on all the things his signature legislation forces them to do. Victory now would give Obama some campaign talking points, while defeat at this early date would leave him with time to recover.

From a legal standpoint, this is the main event: the heavyweight title fight between Obama’s health care scheme and the nation that never wanted it.

The 11^th Circuit made two important points in its ruling. First, ObamaCare’s individual mandate is unconstitutional. Second, the court “severed” the mandate from the rest of ObamaCare, leaving the rest of the beast to shamble mindlessly forward after surgically removing its pulsating heart.

The individual mandate is the core rationale of ObamaCare, which socializes health insurance costs by requiring everyone to purchase insurance. In essence, insurance companies would be given a guaranteed income stream, in exchange for providing lavish mandatory benefits, enumerated in the thousands of pages of regulations that would re-shape the American economy to accommodate the President’s agenda.

Remember, at one point ObamaCare was going to require small businesses to fill out millions of 1099 tax forms, in an effort to capture a little previously uncollected tax revenue, and defray some of the immense cost of the program. Thus was a “health care” bill intended to change the way American small businesses paid for paper clips.

The “mandate” concept, ruled unconstitutional by the 11th Circuit Court, was introduced for a simple political reason: it allowed the architects of ObamaCare to pretend it was not being funded by a “tax.” The bill was already a tough sell when the public was bamboozled by wild claims of deficit neutrality, and hypnotized by thousands of rapidly spinning clauses and sub-clauses. The public mind would have been sharply focused if they had been told they were about to be hit with a new multi-trillion-dollar “tax.” Mandates are taxes the IRS doesn’t collect.

Without the individual mandate, both the funding mechanisms and basic logic vanish from a bureaucratic nightmare that was already poised to blow our stratospheric national debt into whatever comes after the stratosphere. (I looked it up. It’s the mesosphere. After that you’ve got the thermosphere, which America’s debt should pass through sometime around 2020. Then it’s out of the blue, and into the black.)

It’s highly unlikely that ObamaCare could have passed Congress without the individual mandate in place. It barely crawled off Capitol Hill as it was, leaving a grisly trail of kickbacks, payoffs, and backroom deals glimmering in the moonlight behind it.

Nevertheless, there’s not a chance that the white-knuckled statists of the Democrat Party would allow the rest of their health care takeover die after losing its heart. The only way to put this thing down for good is to nullify the “severability” ruling, and that’s what the National Federation of Independent Business is shooting for. As Heartland Institute Research Fellow Ben Domenech put it:

It is absolutely essential that the Supreme Court take up the matter of severability along with giving us its ruling on the individual mandate within President Obama’s health law. The Court must decide this as a whole issue, as soon as possible, to end the uncertainty that has continued to cloud economic decisions by thousands of American small businesses and firms.

States, firms, and citizens need to know what to expect, and legislators will soon learn if there is any limit to the power granted to the Congress via the Commerce Clause, or whether Washington can command anyone to purchase any product for the entirety of their life.

This case has implications beyond even ObamaCare, which might at least face political repeal someday, if it survives its rendezvous with the Supreme Court. As Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, a staunch ObamaCare critic who represents the NFIB, told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday:

We’re claiming that they’re making people engage in economic activity, not regulating or prohibiting them from doing so. And that’s something, the government’s doing something here they’ve never done before. In fact, all the courts who have heard this case, Hugh, whether they’ve upheld the mandate, struck it down, or said we can’t decide because of jurisdictional issues, they’ve all agreed nothing like this has ever happened before. There is no Supreme Court precedent that allows Congress to do this. And now, the Supreme Court is going to have to decide if they want to allow Congress this additional new power they’ve never had before, the power to make every man, woman and child in the country buy, do business with a private company, and do so for the rest of their lives.

(Emphasis mine.) ObamaCare was so badly written and hastily cobbled together that even today, we’re still discovering billion-dollar glitches. The National Bureau of Economic Research just released a study that shows "official budget forecasts ignored the cost of insuring many employee’s spouses and children,” because the Congressional Budget Office was “expressly told to do their modeling on single coverage” when analyzing ObamaCare.

How big was this little goof? Oh, a mere $50 billion per year. It’s going to throw off the formula used to determine which families are eligible to join the budget-blasting “federal exchanges.” That just happens to be another core concept of ObamaCare. Some of the valves in this monster’s heart have already clogged up.

The case before the Supreme Court is our last line of legal defense against a fundamental reconstitution of the relationship between American citizens and their government. ObamaCare will make them forever wards of the State, who can be compelled to do whatever the State thinks is good for them… even when that involves making formerly voluntary transactions with private corporations into compulsory requirements of citizenship. May the Supreme Court put an end to this abomination now, and may the people who unleashed it upon us be held accountable at the ballot box.

John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub.com.

See what Obama promises Arabs after 2012 election

Democrats fear treatment of Israel is voting liability

By Aaron Klein

President Obama

The Obama administration told the Palestinian Authority it cannot significantly help advance a Palestinian state until after the 2012 presidential elections, a top PA official told WND.

The official, however, said the U.S. will press for a Palestinian state quickly if President Obama is re-elected.

"The main message we received from the U.S. is that nothing will happen in a serious way before the 2012 elections," said the official.

Learn Islam's global agenda to secure all nations under its only religious law: Get "Islam Rising" on DVD

The PA official said Obama "will not accept the Palestinian request of a state at the (U.N.) Security Council and cannot help on the ground for now."

"We were told to wait for Obama's reelection, and that before then nothing serious will happen for a state," the official continued. "But after the reelection, the U.S. said the schedule will be short to reach a Palestinian state."

Obama's policies toward Israel have been highlighted in local and national campaigns, with many Democrats fearing voters will oppose them due to the perception the president is anti-Israel.

Obama's treatment of Israel was a significant issue in the recent election of Republican Bob Turner to former Rep. Anthony Weiner's seat in a district that had not elected a GOP candidate since 1923.

Also, presidential contenders such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., have been strongly criticizing Obama on Israel.

Sponsored Link: Pulled from TV! A major TV network and cable provider pulled the plug on a new ad. Is this subject matter too controversial... or should it be seen by every American? Judge for yourself here...

Learn Islam's global agenda to secure all nations under its only religious law: Get "Islam Rising" on DVD

"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades"

Previous stories

Palestinian factions reject U.N. statehood bid

Palestinians secretly set up exile government

Partition rejected by Arabs to be basis for future state?

Turkey, Saudis to replace U.S aid to Palestinians?

Wave of terror to compliment U.N. vote?

Prominent Democrat threatens to dump Obama over Israel

Obama trying to unseat Israeli leader?

Obama demands Israel apologize for defending itself

Obama's betrayal of Israel even worse that you thought

Aaron Klein is WorldNetDaily's senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on New York's WABC Radio. His latest book is the N.Y. Times best-selling, "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists." Follow Klein on Twitter. Follow Klein on Facebook.

	E-mail to a Friend	Printer-friendly version
EMAIL AARON KLEIN \| GO TO AARON KLEIN ARCHIVE

\| Page 1 \| Page 2 \| Commentary \| WND Money \| WND TV/Radio \| Diversions \| G2 Bulletin \| About Us \| Terms of Use \| Privacy \| Contact Us \|
	Copyright 1997-2011 All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.