by Thomas Sowell
"Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." We have heard that many times. What is also the price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections. If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether "change," "universal health care" or "social justice."
If we can be so easily stampeded by rhetoric that neither the public nor the Congress can be bothered to read, much less analyze, bills making massive changes in medical care, then do not be surprised when life and death decisions about you or your family are taken out of your hands-- and out of the hands of your doctor-- and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington.
Let's go back to square one. The universe was not made to our specifications. Nor were human beings. So there is nothing surprising in the fact that we are dissatisfied with many things at many times. The big question is whether we are prepared to follow any politician who claims to be able to "solve" our "problem."
If we are, then there will be a never ending series of "solutions," each causing new problems calling for still more "solutions." That way lies a never-ending quest, costing ever increasing amounts of the taxpayers' money and-- more important-- ever greater losses of your freedom to live your own life as you see fit, rather than as presumptuous elites dictate.
Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom.
Back in the 18th century, Edmund Burke said, "It is no inconsiderable part of wisdom, to know much of an evil ought to be tolerated" and "I must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes."
But today's crusading zealots are not about to tolerate evils or infirmities. If insurance companies are not behaving the way some people think they should, then their answer is to set up a government bureaucracy to either control insurance companies or replace them.
If doctors, hospitals or pharmaceutical companies charge more than some people feel like paying, then the answer is price control. The actual track record of politicians, government bureaucracies, or price control is of no interest to those who think this way.
Politicians are already one of the main reasons why medical insurance is so expensive. Insurance is designed to cover risks but politicians are in the business of distributing largesse. Nothing is easier for politicians than to mandate things that insurance companies must cover, without the slightest regard for how such additional coverage will raise the cost of insurance.
If insurance covered only those things that most people are most concerned about-- the high cost of a major medical expense-- the price would be much lower than it is today, with politicians piling on mandate after mandate.
Since insurance covers risks, there is no reason for it to cover annual checkups, because it is known in advance that annual checkups occur once a year. Automobile insurance does not cover oil changes, much less the purchase of gasoline, since these are regular recurrences, not risks.
But politicians in the business of distributing largesse-- especially with somebody else's money-- cannot resist the temptation to pass laws adding things to insurance coverage. Many of those who are pushing for more government involvement in medical care are already talking about extending insurance coverage to "mental health"-- which is to say, giving shrinks and hypochondriacs a blank check drawn on the federal treasury.
There are still some voices of sanity today, echoing what Edmund Burke said long ago. "The study of human institutions is always a search for the most tolerable imperfections," according to Prof. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago. If you cannot tolerate imperfections, be prepared to kiss your freedom goodbye.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Teeing Up the Middle Class
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Wall Street Journal
Few of President Obama’s 2008 campaign pledges were more definitive than his vow that anyone making less than $250,000 a year “will not see their taxes increase by a single dime” if he was elected. And he was right, very strictly speaking: It’s going to be many, many, many billions of dimes.
Asked about raising taxes on the middle class on Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” White House economist Larry Summers wouldn’t repeat Mr. Obama’s pre-election promise. “It is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what,” Mr. Summers said—except, apparently, when his boss is running for office. Meanwhile, on ABC’s “This Week,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also slid around Mr. Obama’s vow and said, “We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically. And that’s going to require some very hard choices.”
These aren’t even nondenial denials. The Obama advisers are laying the groundwork for taxing the middle class while claiming the deficit made them do it.
The liberal establishment is even further along in finally admitting that Mr. Obama wasn’t, er, telling the truth. A piece in the New York Times over the weekend declared in a headline that “the Rich Can’t Pay for Everything, Analysts Say.” And it quoted Leonard Burman, a veteran of the Clinton Treasury who now runs the Brookings Tax Policy Center, as saying that “This idea that everything new that government provides ought to be paid for by the top 5%, that’s a basically unstable way of governing.” They’re right, but where were they during the campaign?
In an editorial on February 26, “The 2% Illusion,” we wrote that the feds could take 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning more than $500,000 and still have raised only $1.3 trillion even in the boom year of 2006. The rich are fewer and less rich now, while the Obama budget is nearly $4 trillion.
Democrats already plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but that won’t raise enough money. So they’re proposing an income tax surcharge on “the wealthy,” but that won’t raise enough either. Democrats have no choice but to soak the middle class because only they have enough money to finance the liberal dream of yoking the middle class to cradle-to-grave government entitlements.
Democrats have already taxed the middle class by raising cigarette taxes to pay for the children’s health-care expansion. They’re also teeing up average earners with their cap-and-tax energy bill. Mr. Obama had hoped that cap-and-tax would raise some $646 billion over a decade, but Democrats in the House had to give most of that away in bribes to business to pass their bill. To finance ObamaCare, they’re also proposing another 10-percentage-point increase in the payroll tax on firms and individuals that don’t purchase health insurance. But this won’t raise enough money either.
So waiting in the wings is the biggest middle-class tax increase of them all: a European-style value added tax, or VAT. This tax would apply to every level of production or service, and it is beloved by politicians in Europe because it raises so much money so easily without voters noticing. Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House aide and brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has advocated a 10% VAT to finance national health care. Look for a VAT to be one of the prominent options when Mr. Obama’s tax reform commission issues its report later this year.
The undeniable reality is that you can’t run a European-style welfare-entitlement state without European-style levels of taxation on the middle class (and eventually without low European-style growth and high jobless rates). It’s looking more and more like Mr. Obama’s no-middle-class-tax pledge was one of the greatest confidence tricks in American political history.
The Wall Street Journal
Few of President Obama’s 2008 campaign pledges were more definitive than his vow that anyone making less than $250,000 a year “will not see their taxes increase by a single dime” if he was elected. And he was right, very strictly speaking: It’s going to be many, many, many billions of dimes.
Asked about raising taxes on the middle class on Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” White House economist Larry Summers wouldn’t repeat Mr. Obama’s pre-election promise. “It is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what,” Mr. Summers said—except, apparently, when his boss is running for office. Meanwhile, on ABC’s “This Week,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also slid around Mr. Obama’s vow and said, “We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically. And that’s going to require some very hard choices.”
These aren’t even nondenial denials. The Obama advisers are laying the groundwork for taxing the middle class while claiming the deficit made them do it.
The liberal establishment is even further along in finally admitting that Mr. Obama wasn’t, er, telling the truth. A piece in the New York Times over the weekend declared in a headline that “the Rich Can’t Pay for Everything, Analysts Say.” And it quoted Leonard Burman, a veteran of the Clinton Treasury who now runs the Brookings Tax Policy Center, as saying that “This idea that everything new that government provides ought to be paid for by the top 5%, that’s a basically unstable way of governing.” They’re right, but where were they during the campaign?
In an editorial on February 26, “The 2% Illusion,” we wrote that the feds could take 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning more than $500,000 and still have raised only $1.3 trillion even in the boom year of 2006. The rich are fewer and less rich now, while the Obama budget is nearly $4 trillion.
Democrats already plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but that won’t raise enough money. So they’re proposing an income tax surcharge on “the wealthy,” but that won’t raise enough either. Democrats have no choice but to soak the middle class because only they have enough money to finance the liberal dream of yoking the middle class to cradle-to-grave government entitlements.
Democrats have already taxed the middle class by raising cigarette taxes to pay for the children’s health-care expansion. They’re also teeing up average earners with their cap-and-tax energy bill. Mr. Obama had hoped that cap-and-tax would raise some $646 billion over a decade, but Democrats in the House had to give most of that away in bribes to business to pass their bill. To finance ObamaCare, they’re also proposing another 10-percentage-point increase in the payroll tax on firms and individuals that don’t purchase health insurance. But this won’t raise enough money either.
So waiting in the wings is the biggest middle-class tax increase of them all: a European-style value added tax, or VAT. This tax would apply to every level of production or service, and it is beloved by politicians in Europe because it raises so much money so easily without voters noticing. Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House aide and brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has advocated a 10% VAT to finance national health care. Look for a VAT to be one of the prominent options when Mr. Obama’s tax reform commission issues its report later this year.
The undeniable reality is that you can’t run a European-style welfare-entitlement state without European-style levels of taxation on the middle class (and eventually without low European-style growth and high jobless rates). It’s looking more and more like Mr. Obama’s no-middle-class-tax pledge was one of the greatest confidence tricks in American political history.
7 Lies of The Obama Administration
by John Hawkins
To liberals, actually pointing out when they're lying through their teeth is considered to be dirty politics and, in the case of the Obama Administration, perhaps racist, too. Still, despite the risk of infuriating Barack Obama's dwindling number of supporters, someone needs to point out that he may already be able to challenge Bill Clinton for the title of the biggest liar ever to occupy the White House.
Of course, since I'm a partisan conservative, I don't expect everyone to just take my word for it. So, what I'm going to do is show you some quotations so that you can make your own decision about whether the Obama Administration has been truthful or not. Just read through these quotes, which only represent a small portion of the ones I could have selected, and ask yourself if the American people can take our President at his word.
1) "One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House." -- Barack Obama, November 3, 2007
"President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House."
So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration, according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico." -- Politico, January 29, 2009
2) "If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, nothing," Obama said last week. "Because the last thing we should do in this economy is raise taxes on the middle class." -- CNN, November 3, 2008
"One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.
The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.
This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich." -- Breitbart, April 1, 2009
"Wavering on an emphatic promise he made in the spring, top White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers would not rule out middle-class tax increases Sunday as a way for the Obama administration to pay for a sweeping health care plan.
The statement, which was echoed by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner on Sunday's talk shows, pries open a door to the kinds of broad tax increases that Mr. Obama opposed in his campaign and that he and his advisers have ruled out since taking office in January." -- Washington Times, August 3, 2009
3) "As Justice Louis Brandeis once said, sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. The more people know about how federal laws, rules and regulations are made, and who's making them, the less likely it is that critical decisions will be hijacked by lobbyists and special interests.
I think the current administration knows that, too, which is why it's been the most defiantly secretive government in modern times.
It's time to change that.
When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it." -- Barack Obama, June 22, 2007
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised that once a bill was passed by Congress, the White House would post it online for five days before he signed it.
...When he took office in January, his team added that in posting nonemergency bills, it would “allow the public to review and comment” before Mr. Obama signed them.
Five months into his administration, Mr. Obama has signed two dozen bills, but he has almost never waited five days. On the recent credit card legislation, which included a controversial measure to allow guns in national parks, he waited just two. -- New York Times, June 22, 2009
4) "During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama said several times that he intended to negotiate health care reform publicly. In fact, he said, he'd televise the negotiations on C-SPAN, with all the parties sitting at a big table. That way, Americans would be more engaged in the process and insist on real change.
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process," Obama said at a debate in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008." -- Politifact, Updated July 10, 2009
"The notion of televising negotiations behind a health care revamp was so central to Obama's campaign promises of change and openness, however, that it became part of his stump speech as he traveled the country in 2007 and 2008.
He'd describe how televised deliberations would take place around a big table, with seats filled by doctors, nurses, insurers and other interested parties. As president, he'd joke, he'd get the biggest chair.
"Not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN," Obama explained in a Democratic debate in Los Angeles in January 2008, in language similar to many of his campaign stops.
However, the two biggest deals so far — industry agreements to cut drug and hospital costs — were reached in secret." -- McClatchy, July 9, 2010
5) "President Barack Obama Saturday proposed an additional $313 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other programs to pay for health care reforms expected to cost about $1 trillion over the next decade.
...About $110 billion of the new cuts would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments. That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.
...Altogether, the Obama administration is now asking Congress to trim spending on Medicare and Medicaid by more than $600 billion over the next decade, which is more than some Democrats are willing to swallow." -- CNN, June 13, 2009
"Let me also address I think a misperception that’s been out there that somehow there is any discussion on Capitol Hill about reducing Medicare benefits. Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits. Medicare benefits are there because people contributed into a system. It works. We don’t want to change it." -- Barack Obama, July 28, 2009
6) "That's why we submitted the robust budget we submitted. And, of course, we also came forward with what we're going to talk about today, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, an initial big jolt to give the economy a real head start." -- Joe Biden, June 2, 2009
"The care with which we are carrying out the provisions of the Recovery Act has led some people to ask whether we are moving too slowly. But the act was intended to provide steady support for our economy over an extended period — not a jolt that would last only a few months." -- Joe Biden, July 26, 2009
7) By a vote of 244-188 Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed an $819 billion bill aimed at stimulating the economy and tempering a spate of layoffs across the country.
Says President Obama, the bill's lobbyist-in-chief: "Most of the money we're investing as part of this plan will get out the door immediately and go directly to job-creation, generating or saving 3 to 4 million new jobs." -- Forbes, January 28, 2009
In Saturday’s address, Obama also responds to critics who believe the $787 billion bill is not sufficient to turn around the economy and who are, therefore, pushing for another stimulus package.
“[A]s I made clear at the time it was passed, the Recovery Act was not designed to work in four months – it was designed to work over two years." -- CNN, July 11, 2009
To liberals, actually pointing out when they're lying through their teeth is considered to be dirty politics and, in the case of the Obama Administration, perhaps racist, too. Still, despite the risk of infuriating Barack Obama's dwindling number of supporters, someone needs to point out that he may already be able to challenge Bill Clinton for the title of the biggest liar ever to occupy the White House.
Of course, since I'm a partisan conservative, I don't expect everyone to just take my word for it. So, what I'm going to do is show you some quotations so that you can make your own decision about whether the Obama Administration has been truthful or not. Just read through these quotes, which only represent a small portion of the ones I could have selected, and ask yourself if the American people can take our President at his word.
1) "One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House." -- Barack Obama, November 3, 2007
"President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House."
So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration, according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico." -- Politico, January 29, 2009
2) "If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, nothing," Obama said last week. "Because the last thing we should do in this economy is raise taxes on the middle class." -- CNN, November 3, 2008
"One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.
The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.
This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich." -- Breitbart, April 1, 2009
"Wavering on an emphatic promise he made in the spring, top White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers would not rule out middle-class tax increases Sunday as a way for the Obama administration to pay for a sweeping health care plan.
The statement, which was echoed by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner on Sunday's talk shows, pries open a door to the kinds of broad tax increases that Mr. Obama opposed in his campaign and that he and his advisers have ruled out since taking office in January." -- Washington Times, August 3, 2009
3) "As Justice Louis Brandeis once said, sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. The more people know about how federal laws, rules and regulations are made, and who's making them, the less likely it is that critical decisions will be hijacked by lobbyists and special interests.
I think the current administration knows that, too, which is why it's been the most defiantly secretive government in modern times.
It's time to change that.
When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it." -- Barack Obama, June 22, 2007
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised that once a bill was passed by Congress, the White House would post it online for five days before he signed it.
...When he took office in January, his team added that in posting nonemergency bills, it would “allow the public to review and comment” before Mr. Obama signed them.
Five months into his administration, Mr. Obama has signed two dozen bills, but he has almost never waited five days. On the recent credit card legislation, which included a controversial measure to allow guns in national parks, he waited just two. -- New York Times, June 22, 2009
4) "During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama said several times that he intended to negotiate health care reform publicly. In fact, he said, he'd televise the negotiations on C-SPAN, with all the parties sitting at a big table. That way, Americans would be more engaged in the process and insist on real change.
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process," Obama said at a debate in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008." -- Politifact, Updated July 10, 2009
"The notion of televising negotiations behind a health care revamp was so central to Obama's campaign promises of change and openness, however, that it became part of his stump speech as he traveled the country in 2007 and 2008.
He'd describe how televised deliberations would take place around a big table, with seats filled by doctors, nurses, insurers and other interested parties. As president, he'd joke, he'd get the biggest chair.
"Not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN," Obama explained in a Democratic debate in Los Angeles in January 2008, in language similar to many of his campaign stops.
However, the two biggest deals so far — industry agreements to cut drug and hospital costs — were reached in secret." -- McClatchy, July 9, 2010
5) "President Barack Obama Saturday proposed an additional $313 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other programs to pay for health care reforms expected to cost about $1 trillion over the next decade.
...About $110 billion of the new cuts would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments. That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.
...Altogether, the Obama administration is now asking Congress to trim spending on Medicare and Medicaid by more than $600 billion over the next decade, which is more than some Democrats are willing to swallow." -- CNN, June 13, 2009
"Let me also address I think a misperception that’s been out there that somehow there is any discussion on Capitol Hill about reducing Medicare benefits. Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits. Medicare benefits are there because people contributed into a system. It works. We don’t want to change it." -- Barack Obama, July 28, 2009
6) "That's why we submitted the robust budget we submitted. And, of course, we also came forward with what we're going to talk about today, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, an initial big jolt to give the economy a real head start." -- Joe Biden, June 2, 2009
"The care with which we are carrying out the provisions of the Recovery Act has led some people to ask whether we are moving too slowly. But the act was intended to provide steady support for our economy over an extended period — not a jolt that would last only a few months." -- Joe Biden, July 26, 2009
7) By a vote of 244-188 Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed an $819 billion bill aimed at stimulating the economy and tempering a spate of layoffs across the country.
Says President Obama, the bill's lobbyist-in-chief: "Most of the money we're investing as part of this plan will get out the door immediately and go directly to job-creation, generating or saving 3 to 4 million new jobs." -- Forbes, January 28, 2009
In Saturday’s address, Obama also responds to critics who believe the $787 billion bill is not sufficient to turn around the economy and who are, therefore, pushing for another stimulus package.
“[A]s I made clear at the time it was passed, the Recovery Act was not designed to work in four months – it was designed to work over two years." -- CNN, July 11, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?
WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA?
Attorney files motion for authentication of alleged 1960s certificate from Africa
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – California attorney Orly Taitz, who has filed a number of lawsuits demanding proof of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, has released a copy of what purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth and has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court for its authentication.
This document purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth for Barack Obama, allegedly born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961
The document lists Obama's parents as Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Obama, formerly Stanley Ann Dunham, the birth date as Aug. 4, 1961, and the hospital of birth as Coast General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
Document enlarged to show detail alleges Barack Obama was born at Coast General Hospital in Mombasa on Aug. 4, 1961
No doctor is listed. But the alleged certificate bears the signature of the deputy registrar of Coast Province, Joshua Simon Oduya. It was allegedly issued as a certified copy of the original in February 1964.
WND was able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical.
An enlarged view of the bottom of the document
Last week, a counterfeit document purporting to be Obama's Kenyan birth certificate made the rounds of the Internet, but was quickly determined to be fraudulent. The new document released by Taitz bears none of the obvious traits of a hoax.
One of the issues Taitz must deal with will be the authentication of the document. Critics immediately jumped on the Feb. 17, 1964, date for the document, explaining that the "republic" of Kenya wasn't assembled until in December of that year.
Media Matters wrote, "Sorry, WorldNetDaily: Kenya wasn't a republic until Dec. 1964."
But Kenya's official independence was in 1963, and any number of labels could have been applied to government documents during that time period.
At Ameriborn Constitution News, the researcher noted that the independence process for the nation actually started taking as early as 1957, when there were the first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council.
"Kenya became an Independent Republic, December 12, 1963, which gives more [credibility] that this is a true document," the website stated.
The 1963 independence is corroborated by several other information sources, including the online African History.
Even the People Daily news agency cited, on Dec. 12, 2005, the "42nd independence anniversary" in Nairobi. "The country gained independence from Britain on Dec. 12, 1963," the report said.
An online copy of the Kenya Constitution, "adopted in 1963, amended in 1999," states: "CHAPTER I - THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA, Article 1, Kenya is a sovereign Republic. Article 1A, The Republic of Kenya shall be a multiparty democratic state…"
It was in November 1964 when the region voluntarily became a one-party state, according to an online source.
The region including Mombasa originally was dealt with as a separate independence movement, but it almost immediately became part of Kenya when the sultan of Zanzibar ceded the "coastal strip" to Kenya, according to sources.
Taitz told WND that the document came from an anonymous source who doesn't want his name known because "he's afraid for his life."
Taitz's motion, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, requests the purported evidence of Obama's birth – both the alleged birth certificate and foreign records not yet obtained – be preserved from destruction, asks for permission to legally request documents from Kenya and seeks a subpoena for deposition from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
"I filed the motion with the court asking for expedited discovery, which would allow me to start subpoenas and depositions even before Obama and the government responds," Taitz told WND. "I am asking the judge to give me the power to subpoena the documents from the Kenyan embassy and to require a deposition from Hillary Clinton so they will be forced to authenticate [the birth certificate].
"I'm forcing the issue, where Obama will have to respond," she said.
"Before, they said, 'You don't have anything backing your claims,'" Taitz explained. "Now I have something. In fact, I have posted on the Internet more than Obama has. My birth certificate actually has signatures."
Join the petition campaign to demand President Obama resolve the question by revealing his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!
Taitz's most celebrated case involved a military officer, Maj. Stefan Cook, whose order to deploy to Afghanistan was revoked when he challenged Obama's eligibility to hold office. That case has now been refiled in federal court in Florida, raising the specter of a class-action claim among members of the military that their orders aren't valid because of questions surrounding Obama's constitutional eligibility.
Taitz told WND she plans to file additional paperwork with the Florida court tomorrow, adding the alleged Kenyan birth certificate to Maj. Cook's case.
The suit seeks damages and a declaratory judgment. Named as defendants are Simtech, Cook's former civilian employer, and several officials, including Col. Louis B. Wingate and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
WND previously reported a judge in Georgia dismissed Cook's case when the government suddenly revoked his orders to report to Fort Benning for deployment to Afghanistan.
WND reported when the case originally was filed that Cook's concern was that without proof that there is a legitimate commander in chief, the entire U.S. Army becomes "merely a corps of chattel slaves under the illegitimate control of a private citizen."
Cook told WND: "As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander in chief."
The new complaint says it seeks Cook's reinstatement with his civilian employer, Simtech Inc., as well as protection from the Department of Defense and president "from further retaliation for plaintiff's challenge to the president's constitutional authority."
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Developing ...
Note: Members of the news media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi, Drew Zahn, Joe Kovacs, Chelsea Schilling, Les Kinsolving or Bob Unruh on this issue, please contact WND.
Attorney files motion for authentication of alleged 1960s certificate from Africa
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – California attorney Orly Taitz, who has filed a number of lawsuits demanding proof of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, has released a copy of what purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth and has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court for its authentication.
This document purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth for Barack Obama, allegedly born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961
The document lists Obama's parents as Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Obama, formerly Stanley Ann Dunham, the birth date as Aug. 4, 1961, and the hospital of birth as Coast General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
Document enlarged to show detail alleges Barack Obama was born at Coast General Hospital in Mombasa on Aug. 4, 1961
No doctor is listed. But the alleged certificate bears the signature of the deputy registrar of Coast Province, Joshua Simon Oduya. It was allegedly issued as a certified copy of the original in February 1964.
WND was able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical.
An enlarged view of the bottom of the document
Last week, a counterfeit document purporting to be Obama's Kenyan birth certificate made the rounds of the Internet, but was quickly determined to be fraudulent. The new document released by Taitz bears none of the obvious traits of a hoax.
One of the issues Taitz must deal with will be the authentication of the document. Critics immediately jumped on the Feb. 17, 1964, date for the document, explaining that the "republic" of Kenya wasn't assembled until in December of that year.
Media Matters wrote, "Sorry, WorldNetDaily: Kenya wasn't a republic until Dec. 1964."
But Kenya's official independence was in 1963, and any number of labels could have been applied to government documents during that time period.
At Ameriborn Constitution News, the researcher noted that the independence process for the nation actually started taking as early as 1957, when there were the first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council.
"Kenya became an Independent Republic, December 12, 1963, which gives more [credibility] that this is a true document," the website stated.
The 1963 independence is corroborated by several other information sources, including the online African History.
Even the People Daily news agency cited, on Dec. 12, 2005, the "42nd independence anniversary" in Nairobi. "The country gained independence from Britain on Dec. 12, 1963," the report said.
An online copy of the Kenya Constitution, "adopted in 1963, amended in 1999," states: "CHAPTER I - THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA, Article 1, Kenya is a sovereign Republic. Article 1A, The Republic of Kenya shall be a multiparty democratic state…"
It was in November 1964 when the region voluntarily became a one-party state, according to an online source.
The region including Mombasa originally was dealt with as a separate independence movement, but it almost immediately became part of Kenya when the sultan of Zanzibar ceded the "coastal strip" to Kenya, according to sources.
Taitz told WND that the document came from an anonymous source who doesn't want his name known because "he's afraid for his life."
Taitz's motion, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, requests the purported evidence of Obama's birth – both the alleged birth certificate and foreign records not yet obtained – be preserved from destruction, asks for permission to legally request documents from Kenya and seeks a subpoena for deposition from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
"I filed the motion with the court asking for expedited discovery, which would allow me to start subpoenas and depositions even before Obama and the government responds," Taitz told WND. "I am asking the judge to give me the power to subpoena the documents from the Kenyan embassy and to require a deposition from Hillary Clinton so they will be forced to authenticate [the birth certificate].
"I'm forcing the issue, where Obama will have to respond," she said.
"Before, they said, 'You don't have anything backing your claims,'" Taitz explained. "Now I have something. In fact, I have posted on the Internet more than Obama has. My birth certificate actually has signatures."
Join the petition campaign to demand President Obama resolve the question by revealing his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!
Taitz's most celebrated case involved a military officer, Maj. Stefan Cook, whose order to deploy to Afghanistan was revoked when he challenged Obama's eligibility to hold office. That case has now been refiled in federal court in Florida, raising the specter of a class-action claim among members of the military that their orders aren't valid because of questions surrounding Obama's constitutional eligibility.
Taitz told WND she plans to file additional paperwork with the Florida court tomorrow, adding the alleged Kenyan birth certificate to Maj. Cook's case.
The suit seeks damages and a declaratory judgment. Named as defendants are Simtech, Cook's former civilian employer, and several officials, including Col. Louis B. Wingate and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
WND previously reported a judge in Georgia dismissed Cook's case when the government suddenly revoked his orders to report to Fort Benning for deployment to Afghanistan.
WND reported when the case originally was filed that Cook's concern was that without proof that there is a legitimate commander in chief, the entire U.S. Army becomes "merely a corps of chattel slaves under the illegitimate control of a private citizen."
Cook told WND: "As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander in chief."
The new complaint says it seeks Cook's reinstatement with his civilian employer, Simtech Inc., as well as protection from the Department of Defense and president "from further retaliation for plaintiff's challenge to the president's constitutional authority."
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Developing ...
Note: Members of the news media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi, Drew Zahn, Joe Kovacs, Chelsea Schilling, Les Kinsolving or Bob Unruh on this issue, please contact WND.
Democrats Show Strain of Heated Battles
By NAFTALI BENDAVID and JONATHAN WEISMAN
WASHINGTON -- A bruising session marked by politically volatile legislation strained relations between congressional Democrats and the White House and spawned cracks in the party's coalition.
Since Mr. Obama's inauguration, Congress has enacted a stream of significant legislation. The gamut runs from an economic-stimulus package, children's health care, pay parity for women, tobacco regulation, consumer credit-card protections, public service and land conservation, in addition to key budget bills.
But on some marquee issues, White House officials and Democratic congressional leaders concede the schedule has slipped -- while noting that nothing major has failed. In addition, some Democrats say their colleagues misunderstand the White House role, which is to shape public discourse and resolve party disputes, not dictate policy specifics.
Many of the Democrats' internal disputes stem from growing friction between the party's conservative and liberal wings. Several years ago, then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D., Ill.), in an all-out push to retake Congress, aggressively recruited conservative Democratic candidates.
Now Mr. Emanuel, as White House chief of staff, finds the very lawmakers he courted slowing the more-progressive president's agenda. Some liberals complain Mr. Obama is overly protective of those newly elected Democrats and too willing to cut deals.
"The chickens are coming home to roost," said Rep. Maxine Waters, an outspoken liberal Democrat from California.
Conservatives Democrats have their own complaints. Mr. Obama and his top aides have worked diligently to show they are heeding conservatives' concerns about a health-care overhaul's costs. But the president's political operatives -- at the Democratic National Committee and the grassroots group Organizing for America -- haven't been so solicitous.
Television ads running in some moderates' districts urging support for Mr. Obama's health initiative left them feeling bullied and betrayed. "Those ads really created problems," one House leadership aide said.
Other Democrats complain that by not providing enough clarity on where the health-care overhaul is headed, the White House has left them exposed politically as they face constituents' scrutiny -- and rivals' attacks -- during the August recess.
"Specificity is what is needed," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein. "What's most helpful now is: 'This will reduce costs, and here is precisely how.' " Asked if the White House had provided this specificity, the California Democrat said, "No."
Republicans are seizing on the tensions to bolster their criticism of the Democratic agenda. "Many within the president's own party are now standing up and telling the administration to slow down and reassess," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said this week.
Similar unhappiness surrounds the president's energy initiative, which was meant to reduce carbon emissions in the hope of slowing global warming. Mr. Obama chose not to spend political capital stumping for the House measure, while Republicans have been savaging moderate Democrats for supporting what they call a "cap-and-tax" bill.
Some argue that Mr. Obama's relations with his party are good, by historical standards. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton alienated fellow Democrats almost immediately with their perceived disdain for Congress.
Mr. Obama, a former U.S. senator, has been solicitous of lawmakers and put Capitol Hill veterans in key positions, from Mr. Emanuel to Budget Director Peter Orszag, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office.
When Mr. Obama took office in January, Democratic leaders set high expectations that they would accomplish almost as much as the New Deal Democrats of the 1930s.
Then, in May, Mr. Obama demanded that Congress provide money to close the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but declined to specify what would happen to its inmates. Afraid of being accused of releasing terrorists into their districts, Democrats rebelled and refused to allocate the funds.
One unexpected problem was a breakdown in the White House's legislative game plan. The Senate was supposed to move before the House on health care, officials say, giving skittish House members assurance before they moved forward on the difficult issue.
Instead, the House kept its end of the bargain, pushing through a climate bill only to find the Senate stuck on health care and doing nothing on energy.
On health care, "I just think that they are giving out a very poor message," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, a liberal Vermont independent who caucuses with the Democrats. "At the end of the day, if they think everyone will be so excited because they passed something, I think that is wrong both from a public-policy and a political perspective."
Minnesota Rep. James Oberstar and other Democrats, meanwhile, have sharply criticized an administration move to postpone a roughly $500 billion transportation bill.
Looking ahead to the fall session, dissatisfaction is growing as campaign promises give way to the nitty-gritty of legislating. "Our fear, or concern, is that the legislative branch not become a cheerleader for the executive branch," said Democratic Rep. John Tanner of Tennessee.
Write to Naftali Bendavid at naftali.bendavid@wsj.com and Jonathan Weisman at jonathan.weisman@wsj.com
WASHINGTON -- A bruising session marked by politically volatile legislation strained relations between congressional Democrats and the White House and spawned cracks in the party's coalition.
Since Mr. Obama's inauguration, Congress has enacted a stream of significant legislation. The gamut runs from an economic-stimulus package, children's health care, pay parity for women, tobacco regulation, consumer credit-card protections, public service and land conservation, in addition to key budget bills.
But on some marquee issues, White House officials and Democratic congressional leaders concede the schedule has slipped -- while noting that nothing major has failed. In addition, some Democrats say their colleagues misunderstand the White House role, which is to shape public discourse and resolve party disputes, not dictate policy specifics.
Many of the Democrats' internal disputes stem from growing friction between the party's conservative and liberal wings. Several years ago, then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D., Ill.), in an all-out push to retake Congress, aggressively recruited conservative Democratic candidates.
Now Mr. Emanuel, as White House chief of staff, finds the very lawmakers he courted slowing the more-progressive president's agenda. Some liberals complain Mr. Obama is overly protective of those newly elected Democrats and too willing to cut deals.
"The chickens are coming home to roost," said Rep. Maxine Waters, an outspoken liberal Democrat from California.
Conservatives Democrats have their own complaints. Mr. Obama and his top aides have worked diligently to show they are heeding conservatives' concerns about a health-care overhaul's costs. But the president's political operatives -- at the Democratic National Committee and the grassroots group Organizing for America -- haven't been so solicitous.
Television ads running in some moderates' districts urging support for Mr. Obama's health initiative left them feeling bullied and betrayed. "Those ads really created problems," one House leadership aide said.
Other Democrats complain that by not providing enough clarity on where the health-care overhaul is headed, the White House has left them exposed politically as they face constituents' scrutiny -- and rivals' attacks -- during the August recess.
"Specificity is what is needed," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein. "What's most helpful now is: 'This will reduce costs, and here is precisely how.' " Asked if the White House had provided this specificity, the California Democrat said, "No."
Republicans are seizing on the tensions to bolster their criticism of the Democratic agenda. "Many within the president's own party are now standing up and telling the administration to slow down and reassess," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said this week.
Similar unhappiness surrounds the president's energy initiative, which was meant to reduce carbon emissions in the hope of slowing global warming. Mr. Obama chose not to spend political capital stumping for the House measure, while Republicans have been savaging moderate Democrats for supporting what they call a "cap-and-tax" bill.
Some argue that Mr. Obama's relations with his party are good, by historical standards. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton alienated fellow Democrats almost immediately with their perceived disdain for Congress.
Mr. Obama, a former U.S. senator, has been solicitous of lawmakers and put Capitol Hill veterans in key positions, from Mr. Emanuel to Budget Director Peter Orszag, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office.
When Mr. Obama took office in January, Democratic leaders set high expectations that they would accomplish almost as much as the New Deal Democrats of the 1930s.
Then, in May, Mr. Obama demanded that Congress provide money to close the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but declined to specify what would happen to its inmates. Afraid of being accused of releasing terrorists into their districts, Democrats rebelled and refused to allocate the funds.
One unexpected problem was a breakdown in the White House's legislative game plan. The Senate was supposed to move before the House on health care, officials say, giving skittish House members assurance before they moved forward on the difficult issue.
Instead, the House kept its end of the bargain, pushing through a climate bill only to find the Senate stuck on health care and doing nothing on energy.
On health care, "I just think that they are giving out a very poor message," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, a liberal Vermont independent who caucuses with the Democrats. "At the end of the day, if they think everyone will be so excited because they passed something, I think that is wrong both from a public-policy and a political perspective."
Minnesota Rep. James Oberstar and other Democrats, meanwhile, have sharply criticized an administration move to postpone a roughly $500 billion transportation bill.
Looking ahead to the fall session, dissatisfaction is growing as campaign promises give way to the nitty-gritty of legislating. "Our fear, or concern, is that the legislative branch not become a cheerleader for the executive branch," said Democratic Rep. John Tanner of Tennessee.
Write to Naftali Bendavid at naftali.bendavid@wsj.com and Jonathan Weisman at jonathan.weisman@wsj.com
Charter school's use of Bible ignites public firestorm
WND BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Scripture in curriculum incites ACLU investigation, state review
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A new charter school planning to open this fall in Idaho has come under fire since it publicly announced one of the textbooks students will be using is the Bible.
Unlike a typical public school, the Nampa Classical Academy has the freedom under Idaho's Public Charter School Commission to develop its own curriculum. Students will be taught, for example, Latin and Western civilization, but it's the school's choice to use the Bible as a historical and literary text that has ignited a public firestorm.
At a meeting of the Public Charter School Commission, parents stood and argued for and against allowing the Bible to be used in the school.
The American Civil Liberties Union plans to launch an investigation.
"Our main concern is the separation of church and state and that the state is not funding or endorsing a specific religion," Monica Hopkins, director of the ACLU of Idaho told the Idaho Press-Tribune.
The Public Charter School Commission has directed staff to review the legality of using the Bible in charter schools.
Even Idaho's Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Swartz, according to the Press-Tribune, has raised concerns that the Bible – even if it used in a purely secular manner – may not be allowed in the classroom under the Idaho Constitution.
Discover the startling reality behind how much education in America has changed with "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools" from the WND SuperStore!
Academy founder Isaac Moffet, however, has repeatedly argued that the Bible will be used only as one of many religious texts – including the Quran and the writings of Confucius – to instruct students in history and literature and that there is no plan to indoctrinate children in any religious faith.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has held in many cases that public schools may teach about religion, including the Bible or other Scripture," Moffett told the Press-Tribune. "The Court has also held that public schools may use the Bible in the study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion or the like."
Furthermore, Moffet has said, the Commission stepping in to censor use of the Bible would violate the intent of creating charter schools in the first place.
"One of the aspects of a charter school is to be autonomous and make the decisions at the local level, such as the curriculum they use," Moffett said. "If a charter school cannot have its own curriculum, why have a charter school?"
Scripture in curriculum incites ACLU investigation, state review
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A new charter school planning to open this fall in Idaho has come under fire since it publicly announced one of the textbooks students will be using is the Bible.
Unlike a typical public school, the Nampa Classical Academy has the freedom under Idaho's Public Charter School Commission to develop its own curriculum. Students will be taught, for example, Latin and Western civilization, but it's the school's choice to use the Bible as a historical and literary text that has ignited a public firestorm.
At a meeting of the Public Charter School Commission, parents stood and argued for and against allowing the Bible to be used in the school.
The American Civil Liberties Union plans to launch an investigation.
"Our main concern is the separation of church and state and that the state is not funding or endorsing a specific religion," Monica Hopkins, director of the ACLU of Idaho told the Idaho Press-Tribune.
The Public Charter School Commission has directed staff to review the legality of using the Bible in charter schools.
Even Idaho's Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Swartz, according to the Press-Tribune, has raised concerns that the Bible – even if it used in a purely secular manner – may not be allowed in the classroom under the Idaho Constitution.
Discover the startling reality behind how much education in America has changed with "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools" from the WND SuperStore!
Academy founder Isaac Moffet, however, has repeatedly argued that the Bible will be used only as one of many religious texts – including the Quran and the writings of Confucius – to instruct students in history and literature and that there is no plan to indoctrinate children in any religious faith.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has held in many cases that public schools may teach about religion, including the Bible or other Scripture," Moffett told the Press-Tribune. "The Court has also held that public schools may use the Bible in the study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion or the like."
Furthermore, Moffet has said, the Commission stepping in to censor use of the Bible would violate the intent of creating charter schools in the first place.
"One of the aspects of a charter school is to be autonomous and make the decisions at the local level, such as the curriculum they use," Moffett said. "If a charter school cannot have its own curriculum, why have a charter school?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)