ObamaCare on Life Support

  
President Obama has been given his greatest setback yet, in ObamaCare and possibly his Presidency.  And, it came from his arrogance as much as it came from anything we Patriots have done - not including the Honorable Judge Vinson, himself.

But, is anyone surprised by this given the great gulf between Obama’s view of himself and the every day actions and ideologies of his administration?

          For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, 
          I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: 
          I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, 
          in the sides of the north:          

                                      Isaiah 14:13-16  

Through pure arrogance, Obama flicked Judge Vinson’s nose, at his earlier decision for 26 States (read that - “the majority of American States”).  In playing arrogant games, Judge Vinson shot back a brilliant, brutal, and nearly fatal shot through Obama’s dark heart in regards to ObamaCare.

In short, Judge Vinson angrily ruled against Obama, essentially saying you are contemptuously in contempt of court in your actions, so, I’ll give you want you want under these terms:

“To the extent that motion is construed as a motion to stay, it is also GRANTED, and the summary declaratory judgment entered in this case is STAYED pending appeal, conditioned upon the defendants filing their notice of appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review.
 (page 20)

1    Obama’s request of Stay is Granted     .... ONLY IF...

2     Within 7 days Obama files an Expedited Appeal to either
       the 11th Appellate Court, or the US Supreme Court.

Thus, because Obama, with great hubris, attempted to delay the case, so as to implement enough of ObamaCare to render Ruling moot, Judge Vinson parried back and drove the proverbial stake though Obama’s heart.

This case will NOW ONLY be heard on an Expedited basis so as to permanently kill ObamaCare as quickly as possible.

Here is a video of “The Great One”, Mark Levin discussing America’s huge legal win against Tyranny!



Levin: Obama admin lost big time in court

Now, Obama’s hubris reminds us of the hubris of God’s greatest created being, Lucifer who also had a fatal messiah complex.

Available Today at Amazon.com

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; 
I will be like the most High.

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, 
to the sides of the pit.

They that see thee shall narrowly 
look upon thee, [and] consider thee,  
[saying, Is] this the man that 
made the earth to tremble, 
that did shake kingdoms; 

                                     Isaiah 14:14-16   
 Blessings!

Kenya's Parliament Officially Claims Obama Born in Kenya

Apparently photo shopped Birther sign

Have I just become a BIRTHER?

Here is some interesting independent information regarding the birth of our current American President, Barack Hussein Obama.

I came across this information last April 16th (2010) from Kenya's Parliament public files of their March 25, 2010 Public Session and downloaded it, only to have that document vanish and be replaced by a new Summary Document, which both differed from all other documents in their Archives and did not have the below Parliamentary quote.

Now, today, I have found that this original Kenyan Parliamentary Session Minutes have been restored and are available for you to read.

HURRY BEFORE THEY ARE REMOVED AGAIN!

http://www.statehousekenya.go.ke/

Go to top menu - middle of page:

    CLICK ON         Government

Go to next to bottom of page:

    CLICK ON          NATIONAL ASSEMBLY


Go to bottom right hand side of page:
    
    Contact Information
  
    Parliament Buildings, Parliament Road,
    P. 0. Box 41842 - 00100, Nairobi
    Telephone: 221291
    Fax: 243694
    Telegrams: "BUNGE"
    Email: bunge@swiftkenya.com

    CLICK ON          Website: www.parliament.go.ke


brings you to:


http://www.parliament.go.ke/

Go to top menu - middle of page:

CLICK ON          HANSARD (middle of page)

CLICK ON          Hansard Plenary 2010

brings you to:

http://www.parliament.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=91&Itemid=84

        Hansard 25.03.10    (Actual Link)


What does this say?

Go to page 31:

"The other thing that we are addressing through devolution is exclusion. What has made us suffer as a nation is exclusion. Once people feel excluded, even when you want to employ a policeman or constable or you want to build a dispensary, it must come from the centre. In the colonial days, these things were being done on the ground and they could give bursaries and build roads. I commend devolution. Those who fear devolution are living in the past. They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. What has killed us here is exclusion;"  Hansard 25.03.10 

Ok, what do we make of this?

While the sign might be photo shopped, this is a real Kenyan Parliament Legal Document, recording Parliamentary discussions.

Either, the document and its statements are inaccurate, and Kenyan politicians are simply using this as a political device for their own benefits, Or, it is true and accurate, and the Kenyan government has reasonable information to believe it to be accurate.

There have been Hawaiian Election Officials who have declared Obama was not born in Hawaii.  And, others who have forwarded supposed Kenyan Birth Certificates trying to show he was born there.  But, none of this is proof.

So, perhaps others or even some Kenyans can help determine the validity of his birth there, or someone in Hawaii can finally find Obama's Birth Certificate.  After all, it is a very small island with only 370,000 people.

Second, if Obama was born in Kenya, and not the United States, the real question is "does this disqualify him from the POTUS (President of the United States)?" That is also a hazy question and answer, and has been asked once before of an American President. Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada.10, 11

And, "Barry Goldwater (1909–1998) was born in Phoenix, in what was then the incorporated Arizona Territory of the United States. During his presidential campaign in 1964, there was a minor controversy over Goldwater's having been born in Arizona when it was not yet a state" 10

If we read  Jus Sanguinis, America, like many nations, allows its citizens to bear children in other countries, and those children still qualify as American citizens.


From Wikipedia:

Statute, by parentage

Under certain circumstances, U.S. citizenship can be acquired from one's parents. The following conditions affect children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see below):^[5]

• If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen if either of the parents has ever lived in the U.S. prior to the child's birth
• If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child's birth
• If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if
  • the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"^[6] in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and
  • at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday. 

My discussion:  We know Obama's father was still married back in Kenya after Obama's birth.  Obama's father had told Ann that he was previously married, and told her that he had fully divorced his previous wife.  But, later she would find out that he had lied to her about this.  So, it was not until President Obama was much older that his mother learned he was legally born out of wedlock. 

Wikipedia continued: 

Children born overseas out of wedlock

There is an asymmetry in the way citizenship status of children born overseas to unmarried parents, only one of whom is a U.S. citizen, is handled.

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (c) provides that children born abroad after December 24, 1952 to unmarried American mothers are U.S. citizens, as long as the mother has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year at any time prior to the birth.

8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (a) provides that children born to American fathers unmarried to the children's non-American mothers are considered U.S. citizens only if the father meets the "physical presence" conditions described above, and the father takes several actions:

• Unless deceased, has agreed to provide financial support to the child until he reaches 18,
• Establish paternity by clear and convincing evidence and, while the person is under the age of 18 years
  • the person is legitimated under the law of the person’s residence or domicile,
  • the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
  • the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
    • 8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (a) provides that acknowledgement of paternity can be shown by acknowledging paternity under oath and in writing; having the issue adjudicated by a court; or having the child otherwise "legitimated" by law.

Because of this rule, unusual cases have arisen whereby children have been fathered by American men overseas from non-American women, brought back to the United States as babies without the mother, raised by the American father in the United States, and later held to be deportable as non-citizens in their 20s.^[7][8] The final element has taken an especially significant importance in these circumstances, as once the child has reached 18, the father is forever unable to establish paternity to deem his child a natural-born citizen.^[9]

This distinction between unwed American fathers and American mothers was constructed and reaffirmed by Congress out of concern that a flood of illegitimate Korean and Vietnamese children would later claim American citizenship as a result of their parentage by American servicemen overseas fighting wars in their countries.^{[citation needed]} In many cases, American servicemen passing through in wartime may not have even learned they had fathered a child.^{[citation needed]} In 2001, the Supreme Court, by 5-4 majority in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, first established the constitutionality of this gender distinction.^[7][8]

Eligibility for office of President

According to the Constitution of the United States only natural born citizens are eligible to serve as President of the United States or as Vice President. The text of the Constitution does not define what is meant by natural born: in particular it does not specify whether there is any distinction to be made between persons whose citizenship is based on jus sanguinis (parentage) and those whose citizenship is based on jus soli (birthplace)

As a result, controversies have erupted over the eligibility of a number of candidates for the office. These questions arise particularly when a candidate is an American citizen by jus sanguinis birthright, but was born outside of the territory of the United States.^{[citation needed]}

~ ~ ~Democratic National Party Conspiracy ~ ~ ~ Democratic National Party Conspiracy ~ ~ ~

It may be too late to do anything about Obama's presidency, even if this is found to be true and of issue.  Democrats control the Senate where Impeachment has to Approved and the Impeachment Trial must take place.  There is little chance 51 Democrats will ever allow that to occur.  Fortunately, many states are initiating State Laws requiring Proof of Citizenship prior to a Candidate being placed on a Ballet.

But, we do know that the National Democratic Party and Nancy Pelosi knew that Obama had legal issues surrounding his parentage and birth and thus in conspiracy modified Constitutionally mandated Electoral College documentation in order to hide this information.

So, what do we know?

1   We do NOT know where Barack Hussein Obama was born.  And, possibly not even when he was born.
2   We do know that he was born out of wedlock to an American mother.
3   We do know that this should still make him an American Citizen.
4   We do NOT know if this confers eligibility to POTUS, or not depending the Constitutional interpretation of accepting jus sanguini, or not.
5   We do know that the Democratic National Party knew about this information, and possibly much more, and then conspired to keep this Constitutionally Mandated Qualification information from the public by subtly altering documentation for the purpose of deceiving the public.


So, you be the Judge, because Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic Party won't let the American Legal system do its job to uphold and protect the Constitution and allow the American People be the judge!


God Bless America!

1. ^ See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(36) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(38) Providing the term “State” and "United States" definitions on the U.S. Federal Code, Immigration and Nationality Act 8 U.S.C. § 1101a.
2. ^ Weiner 1998, p. 238.
3. ^ ^{a b} Meese 2005, p. 35
4. ^ INA: ACT 302 - PERSONS BORN IN PUERTO RICO , U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
5. ^ 8 U.S.C. § 1401
6. ^ including, in some circumstances, time spent overseas when a parent who is a U.S. government employee is posted overseas
7. ^ ^{a b} Findlaw.com: Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)
8. ^ ^{a b} Cornell University Law School: Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001).
9. ^ Under a fact situation similar to Nguyen, the effect might be different today if the child's 18th birthday were after February 27, 2001, as per the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, the child might automatically become a U.S. citizen upon admission to the country as a lawful permanent resident. This type of citizenship, however, is not considered "birthright" or natural, and the subject would most likely be construed as a "naturalized" citizen. See the U.S. Department of State's page on the Child Citizenship Act of 2000.

 10.^ ^{a b} “Who Can Be President?”, Voice of America News (2008-07-29).

11 ^ It should be noted that his mother, Malvina Stone Arthur, while a native of Berkshire, Vermont, moved with her family to Quebec, where she met and married the future President's father, William Arthur, on 12 April 1821. After the family had settled in Fairfield, Vermont (see below), William Arthur traveled with his eldest daughter to East Stanbridge (Canada) in October 1830 and commuted to Fairfield on Sundays to preach. "It appears that he traveled regularly between the two villages, both of which were close to the Canadian border, for about eighteen months, holding two jobs" (cf. Thomas C. Reeves, "The Mystery of Chester Alan Arthur's Birthplace", Vermont History 38, Montpelier: Vermont Historical Society, p. 295), which may well explain the confusion about Arthur's place of birth, as perhaps did the fact that he was born in Franklin County, and thus literally within a day's walk of the Vermont-Quebec border (cf. William A. DeGregorio, The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents, Random House: 1993, pp. 307-08, ISBN 0-517-08244-6).

What Happened to America and Its Constitution?

100 year old Soledad Veterans Memorial

We cannot resolve our current national problems without understanding where we came from and how we got here.  This series of Commentaries will explain the conundrum of how America's founding political-religious history arrived to its current anti-Christian political environment.

Today we'll examine America's Educational System which drives intelligentsia public opinion.  To do this, we first need to meet two men, JohnDewey and Charles F. Potter who designed American entire educational system for a specific purpose.

Dewey re-invented the US educational system to "destroy Christianity" in America - the Christian faith that was intrinsic to America's founding, its People, government, laws and cultures.  In short, Dewey hated faith and attacked faith and God throughout his career.  Ironically, he did this while declaring every American should be free to choose their personal truths. Of course, this is the fundamental irony of "liberal tolerance" throughout history.  In this case, Humanists mandate everyone must follow one single faith, in order for everyone to have freedom of choice. This is what Dewey and Potter sought to achieve.

Dewey's strategy for accomplishing this unfathomable heretical task was to re-design the American educational system that forced all public schools to indoctrinate all students in his Humanist Religion as noted in his books including "A Common Faith" and  the “Humanist Manifesto I”. Dewey's system is designed to  malign Christianity in order to destroy its acceptance in America (see Humanist Manifesto I tenet #14, for example).

Dewey called this his "new religion of Humanism" and this religion is advocated today in our schools and all public arenas today. Humanism is a religion by all measures. In fact, The Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard (HCH) is a religious organization that was established and is dedicated to expanding the Humanist religion by educating and "nurturing" Humanists, atheists and agnostics, at Harvard and beyond.  Thus, Humanists are not destroying faith to create more freedoms of choice, but are only creating a new false religion to force on unwitting Americans, against their will.

"To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. 

It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation." 

Humanist Manifesto

These Humanist efforts are identical to those pursued in the Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany and other totalitarian empires which sought complete control of the population and the abolition of all faith in order to provide for the greater good.

"A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world." 

 Humanist Manifesto

In short, John Dewey designed and implemented our educational system for the sole purpose of destroying America's Founding Faith of Christianity, in order to bring about a Communist Utopia.

Hitler's "enlightened" book burning youth

These anti-Christian strategies, goals and assertions repeatedly were stated in many forums and media.  In fact, these assaults on the inherent faith of American's would be classified as a "hate crime" if it were planned by Christians against any other group, like for example Atheists, or homosexuals. If readers remain skeptical of these intents and their perniciousness, Dewey's closest working partner and protege, Charles F. Potter, wrote more clearly:

“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school's meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?" 

Charles F. Potter,
"Humanism, A New Religion" 1930 p.128

This statement details a very specific attack of one group upon another, for the purpose of defrauding the victims of their First Amendment Rights and is contrary to everything our Founding Fathers believed and designed. In fact, when arguing the wording of the First Amendment in the Congressional Debates of 1787, Congressman Ben Huntington protested an earlier version,  “The words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion.”  Then offered, “The amendment be made in such a way as to secure the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.”

Thus, upon unanimous acceptance of Huntington's issues, our Founding Fathers clearly showed the American Federal government was to be supportive of their Christian faith, while not becoming a church-state. (more on this in future Commentaries).

The work of Dewey in the Humanist Manifesto and  Potter and his "Humanism, A New Religion" book are the foundations of 20th Century Humanism.  In his book, Potter declared Humanism as a New Religion claiming, that establishing this "religion is a major necessity of the present."  Potter then presented all 15 Humanist Manifesto theses as foundational principles for this new religion.

"Humanism is not the abolition of religion, 

but the beginning of real religion."

"Charles Potter, Clergyman Dead"
(1962) New York Times Obituary

Loving, tolerant Liberals

Surely, this cannot be today's goal of the American educational system, can it?

"The battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith... (that will replace) the rotting corpse of Christianity."

John J. Dunphy
The Humanist, Jan. 1983 p.26 

Using one of the most cunning strategies of all time, they asked a misleading question, second in injury and malice only to Lucifer's question to Eve in the Garden of Eden:

"Surely, does not freedom of religion mean

there can be no religion anywhere?"

This was intended in plant the seed of resentment in the naive minds of young Americans so they would  question the intent of their Founding Fathers (this will be covered in depth in later postings) and thus obliterate America's Founding Faith.  Dewey and Potter accomplished this by having the American Educational System remove part of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law 
respecting an establishment of religion, 
or, prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; 

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, 

and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yet, today, we all "know" the First Amendment now is only:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion!"

Obama covered Christ at Georgetown Univ.

And, it stops there! Every court case against Christianity begins with this (Dr. Newdow vs Elk Grove Unified School District), every attack against Christians in public is based on this (removal of generations old Nativity Scenes) and the destruction of every historical monument, tradition and inherent national faith (recent removal of the 100 year old Soledad Veterans Memorial) is based on this knowingly false manufactured assertion.

Dewey and Potter closely collaborated in writing and signing the Humanist Manifesto, as well as many other humanist societies and books, to support their re-designing our school system and science programs for their religious goals.

Humanist "scientific" quests included clairvoyance, ESP, pre-cognition, psycho-kinesis and psychology, none qualifying as “scientific”.  Ironically, the psychologist Dewey’s arguments against Christianity were based on his interpretations of science.   The hallmarks of the American educational system’s Humanist sciences are theories pursued for purely political reasons, based on limited superficial data and thus public debate evokes only outrage and disdain from Humanists.

Today, Humanist sciences politically push disproved scientific dogmas such as Global Warming or Evolution while fearfully refusing debate.  These issues are also embedded in the American medical system which has declined due to increasingly undebatable Humanist sciences.  Try discussing the link between vaccinations and autism, pharmaceuticals verses supplements, or personal health care choices verses expert/bureaucratic coerced medicine.

Dewey and Potter also co-founded the "First Humanist Society of New York" and the "Euthanasia Society of America".  As we read books and speeches by John Holgren, Obama Administration Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (one of dozens of new unaccountable Czars) we more clearly see the underlying efforts of Humanists to cull the herd of undesirable and unprofitable sub-human beings, who are the disabled, infirmed and elderly, as well as those who do not accept their religious dogma. Humanism and Naziism share these same fundamental missions for the purpose of perfecting mankind - becoming like Gods.

Hitler achieved this Humanistic goal best, established his Euthanisia program (publicly called T-4 to avoid suspicion) by providing all physically handicapped, mentally retarded, or ill Germans improved medical care which also gave Nazi's full control of their lives.  First, Hitler gave disabled Germans improved institutional homes which supposedly gave them more effective access to better medical care.  These institutions were far from home, so these patients quickly became untrackable.  Then, only months later Hitler exterminated every single disabled person (over 200,000) to fulfill the Nazi-Humanist goal of "reducing medical costs".

The unelected Science Czar (who is therefore above control, or questioning) Holdren's philosophical addition to ObamaCare was very similar to Hitler's.  ObamacCare language suggests it is designed to provide better access to medical care, improved care and to provide care to more Americans, especially, the disabled, elderly and infirmed.

Like the T-4 system, ObamaCare actually does the exact opposite. ObamaCare establishes a brutal wholly government bureaucratic controlled medical system that targets the infirmed and disabled in order to specifically deny them medical care and specifically life saving care. Humanist ObamaCare does this by denying all Americans the Right to free choice of care and outright deny them life saving medical care. But, I digress.

Both Dewey and Potter were also Honorary "National Educational Association" (NEA) Presidents and both worked with closely Frederick Gates, who declared:  

"In our dream, we have limitless resources and 

the people yield themselves with perfect docility 

to our molding hand…...

We shall NOT try to make these people 

 or any of their children into philosophers 

or men of learning or science."

That is, their vision of the American Educational system has nothing to do with teaching and training individuals, but creating docile, unquestioning followers who will blindly accept their New Religion.  This fact speaks volumes about their confidence in the foundations of their New Religion.

But, how does this affect America's scientific pursuits, its competitive world standing and its current political morass? First, we have to perceive the political goals, of creating a unified world government:

A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established 

to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. 

Humanist Manifesto tenet #14 

 Thus, Global Warming has to be pursued at all costs to rob the rich nations of the northern hemisphere and transfer wealth to nations in the southern hemisphere. This effort began in the early 1970's and could not take hold until superficial data supporting Global Warming was found.

Next, we see the immediate targets of the educational system for their New Religion. God's Creation must be destroyed if Humanists are to get rid of God. Thus, while evolution as developed by Darwin was established to pursue biological development scientifically it is never pursued as such today in our schools. Like all baseless Humanist tenets, Evolution is not allowed to be questioned, or debated, anywhere, at anytime, by anyone.

 "Humanists regard the Universe as self existing and not created." 

Humanist Manifesto I (1933) Tenet #1

Richard Bazarth wrote that Humanism cannot win this fight without evolution,

"...evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary.... If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!" 

G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,”
American Atheist 20 (Feb. 1978)

And, how is does these hateful rantings relate to the formal legal and mandated American Educational System?

"As a matter of fact, creationism should be discriminated against... no advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere or under any circumstances.  Moreover if they are now doing so they should be dismissed."

John Patterson,
Journal of the National Center
for Science Education, Fall, 1983 p.19

Despite Albert Einstein's bold claim, 

"Science without religion is lame, 

religion without science is blind.”
  

Thus, every child within the American School system is an unwitting pawn in a religious war, to be used, destroyed and disposed of at will for the "greater good" of Humanists goals of world domination

"Every child who enters school at the age of five is mentally ill, because he comes to school with allegiance toward our elected officials, founding fathers, institutions, government, patriotism, nationalism, sovereignty, ... All these prove the child is sick, because the well individual is one who has rejected all those things and is what I call the true international child of the future." 

 (meaning a humanistic communist)       

Dr. Pierce, Harvard University, 1973

George Washington at Valley Forge

IN SUMMARY, our current educational system was designed over 100 years ago for the "purpose of destroying Christianity", not to educate our children. And, it has done so, by surreptitiously defrauding every American of their true Constitutionally Inalienable Rights without public debate or vote.

To understand what those true Constitutional Inalienable Rights were, the next few blogs will provide the accurate history of where America came from by providing quotes from our founding fathers, our state and Federal Constitutions, Supreme Court Rulings.  We will read quotes from our founding fathers  explaining what they meant when they said these things, when they Founded America as a Christian Nation.

Blessings and remember, "In God We Trust"!

Bush's Presidency - a quick response to a Liberal's Myths

"W" wasn't the best, but clearly he's no Obama.... what everyone missed and forgets, is that America had just Officially entered its recession the day of his inauguration, that Clinton's stock market collapse the year before was one of the, worst in American history.  NASDQ dropped by 67%  and NASDQ was the engine of economic and very high salary growth for over15 years.

Also, thanks to Clinton our surveillance network worldwide was utterly gutted, and Clinton had just initiated in full force the Community reinvestment act which required UNDER CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE... banks to make very bad unsupportable loans.... requiring the development of the Sub-Prime mortgage investment bank system (more on this later).

W had the shortest presidential transition as well as the most unsupported transition in the past 50 years... entering the WH with keyboards ruined, having the least support from the leaving president (Clinton) who just could not realize that the job of the Presidency was not about him, but about America.

W also had the least number of key appointments accepted or implemented in recent history, esp in judicial and national security positions, and so, 7 months post entering office, the American government remained basically vacated in key positions, solely because of liberal partisanship.

It was at that moment that 9/11 occurred, thus stopping the American economy cold for 7 days, and stopping the world economy for over a year as secondary attacks occurred worldwide.

Just before 9/11 W made his first big push out of 5 to STOP SUB PRIME LENDING, only to be called an idiot, liar, bigot, racist and hateful class warrior by Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi.

He put that effort off for 2 years while he put the world back together again from the final attack on America in a string of attacks that started at the beginning of Clinton's presidency and continued unabated, and unopposed for 8 years.... because they were police issues... not national security, despite the fact that these were attacks by FOREIGN FORCES against our BORDERS... one of the very few things government is MANDATED to PROTECT Americans from...

W went back to congress 4 more times in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 to THE FEDERAL STOP SUBPRIME LOAN MANUFACTURING MACHINE, only to be rebuffed including a wholly illegal rebuff where Freddie Mac and its BoD (including Rahm Emanuel, who earned a reported $10 million bonus while driving Freddie Mac into bankruptcy) used Freddie Mac funds to implement POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS against republican incumbents who wanted to fix the LIBERAL PROBLEM of manufacturing sub-prime loans.

The rest is history.

The fact is, Bush came into a terrible economy, with jobs bleeding to China, and the NASDQ gutted, and the world on fire thanks to 8 years of Oval Office narcissistic sexual escapades.

W was not the best president by a long shot, but he will go down in history as a very good one, who did transform the ME and push hard for a CONTROLLED TRANSITION to democracy (unlike now), and was well supported by Arabs because of this effort.

He did support freedoms, and free markets, and transformed his own ideology (he was a stauch isolationist and wanted to pull most troops back into America) unlike the socialist ideological Benedict Arnold in office today.

W did push hard for REAL IMMIGRATION REFORM and if Liberals didn't have so much control, we would have solved that cancer of a problem.

"W" was no Reagan, but he was absolutely no Clinton and 1,000,000% NOT an Obama.

I welcome all comments.

Blessings!

Digging Deeper on Cable News Partisanship

by Silence Dogood

A lot has been made of White House accusations about Fox News being the Voice of the Republican Party and Rush Limbaugh and worst.

But, what do Viewer numbers show?  Viewers directly vote with their time and viewership. The problem is we cannot find this information in Main Stream Media.  And, the question is, "Why hasn't the New York or LA Times, or NBC, or others looked at the actual real numbers and reported on them"?

Curiosity killed the cat.  So, being a dog lover, I dug it up.

I reviewed a recent poll on Channel Viewership and another on Channel Partisanship.   Combining a Pew Research Poll on Partisanship and Cable News Audiences (Oct. 30, 2009) Nielsen Media Research  Ratings (Oct. 10, 2009) and came up with some interesting numbers:

    Channel Viewership

	Viewers	Rep.	Dem.	Indep.
FOX	691,000	39%	33%	22%
CNN	151,000	23%	51%	18%
MSNBC	235,000	18%	45%	27%

   *   A25-54 demographic, prime time Thursday night

Viewership Hard Numbers *

	Rep.	Dem.	Indep.
FOX	269,490	228,030	152,020
CNN	34,730	77,010	27,180
MSNBC	42,300	105,750	63,450

   *   numbers do not add up due to rounding

What does this jumble mean in terms of absolute Partisan numbers?

First, Fox News rules the Cable Waves. FOX has 79% more (Prime Time) viewers than CNN and MSNBC COMBINED!

Second, we all know that Fox has more Republicans watching than other political persuasions, but the other voting persuasions combined are larger in population than Republicans.

Republicans are only 6% more than Democrats on FOX, while Democrates make up 51% of CNN and are 28% more than Republicans - making CNN a highly partisan station; similar to MSNBC which has an absolute 27% divide between Democrats over Republicans (45% minus 18%).

So, both MSNBC, and CNN  are Partisan extemists when compared to FOX.

Third, 215% MORE DEMOCRATS watch FOX than MSNBC; and almost 300% MORE DEMOCRATS watch FOX than CNN!

Fourth, FOX has 25% more Democrats and Independent viewers than BOTH CNN and MSNBC Combined!

So, when the White House voids FOX, they are losing the absolute majority of the Cable News Market viewed by their own supposed supporters!

Fifth, Fox has has almost 560% MORE INDEPENDENTS watching that CNN, and 240% than MSNBC!

This is the market that the White House has to connect with in order to get anything done!  The Independent swing vote is what creates or destroys all American Political Movements.

Sixth, even if we rid Cable of all Republican viewers (something Keith Olbermann would like to be made into Federal Law, for sure), FOX will still have 25% MORE DEMOCRAT viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined!

Thus, while the White House is accurate in attacking FOX for its large Republican viewership; it is also sadly mistaken because it is also labeling far more Democrats and Independents as radical "Right Wing Nuts" or "Teabaggers" when it does so.

And, that is a challenging thought, unless everyone who watches a specific news show is a Wing Nut, or Teabagger, which is challenging, at best.

Now my own highly prejudicial thoughts.

I try to watch all three channels; but after watching Doberman a few times, I set up some rules (I hate baseless pure ideological attacks).  When I turn on MSNBC, I will only watch it until he starts an ideological rant.  The longest I have watched Olbermann has been about 3 minutes, maybe.  Usually, its closer to 45 seconds, unless I hit a commercial.

CNN was ranked the lowest in these ratings, which was surprising and disappointing.  While CNN clearly leans left, they often have good honest news reports, and even when they get ideological, it is not the kind of "burn them at the stakes because I burned down my own house, therefore they're witches!" kind of rants that Doberman and sometimes Maddow rake out.

CNN's opinions are theirs, but they provide some facts, and are more dispassionate and more rational about their ideological positions. And, in fact, they have been frequently correct in their assessments.  Of course, this falls apart when considering Blitzer's protecting his Favorite Son, President Obama, after Saturday Night Live skewered him for "doing nothing". Never before as a News Show created a show simply to deflect the public's image of a President.

At least, I don't remember them coming forward when Liberals were burning Swastika's and Hitlerian images in their attacks on "W".

Perhaps that is why their ratings slumped. My image of CNN viewers is that they are sincere, serious American's who want unbiased news Reporting. So, maybe CNN lost big after that biased show.

A final Disclaimer:  I did not even try to review the huge Viewership shows of O'Reilly and Glen Beck.  Their shows each average multiples of Prime Time viewship of both CNN and MSNBC combined.  For example, O'Reilly has 3,765,000 viewers to Olbermann's 962,000 or about 4 times the viewership!

Perhaps I will do that review later. But, there doesn't seem to be a reason for that exercise right now.

Also, it has to be noted that the two polls were not on the same day, nor were they coordinated, so some aberrations could occur that we are unable to perceive.

Now, why hasn't main stream media reported these numbers?  Knee jerk conservatives (me sometimes?) can believe this is a "Vast Left Wing Conspiracy"  a la Hillary.  But, the truth I think lies in the more base human need to keep one's job.

If FOX is cleaning everyone's clock, like Doberman, then they have to attack FOX at their weakest points.  Since the middle ground of news reporting is taken, they have to attack FOX some other way.  And, what better way to attack FOX than to completely misrepresent FOX's position by misrepresenting smalls snippets of the truth.

More Republicans watch FOX in absolute numbers, and as a percentage as compared to the other lagging channels. So, why not portray it as a radical news channel?  It doesn't hurt their own ratings!

But, when the White House followed that strategy, it was showing itself to be as dumb as both Merkel and her opposition Party labeled them when Obama spoke to the German people in July, 2008.  It is disastrous for the White House to attack Democrats and Independents who are amenable to Obama and possibly his policies.

It is more like committing to a scorched earth policy by starting at your own headquarters.  Good luck with that one!

 Blessings!

Silence Dogood

Obama Cedes the Center

November 6, 2009

Obama Cedes the Center

By Michael Gerson
WASHINGTON -- During long campaign swings in Virginia's recent gubernatorial campaign, Bob McDonnell's staff would count the cars that sported both Obama and McDonnell bumper stickers. These ideologically confused motorists turned out to be an important demographic. On Election Day, according to exit polls, about one in 10 voters who supported Barack Obama in 2008 said they voted for McDonnell, the Republican.

Cable television debates offer a choice between extremes. Competitive statewide elections are a fight for the middle. This is the contest Republicans won on Tuesday.

Given the breadth of Obama's victory a year ago, Republicans had no choice but to seek the support of wavering Obama voters and independents. McDonnell, in particular, went after them with unflappable discipline -- speaking respectfully of Obama, while seizing the momentum of economic discontent. Obama won just under half of Virginia independent voters last year. On Tuesday, McDonnell carried 66 percent.

Both McDonnell and New Jersey's governor-elect, Chris Christie, were blessed with opponents who combined weakness and viciousness in equal measure. But the ideological atmosphere for the election was determined by Obama himself. When I interviewed McDonnell in September, he saw the first signs of an anti-Democratic backlash among Virginia businesspeople who were concerned about the "card check" bill (which would allow union organization without a majority vote). Then a broader resentment about the level of spending and new burdens imposed by cap-and-trade climate legislation. Then the summer of health care reform discontent.
 
The White House now dismisses Tuesday's losses as the reflection of "local issues" -- as though the Virginia outcome was determined by zoning disputes on the proposed site of a new 7-Eleven. When one of the primary concerns of the electorate is the direction of the economy, all politics is national.

By creating deficits unequaled as a percentage of the economy since World War II, by proposing to nearly triple the national debt in the next 10 years, by using the economic crisis as an excuse for the massive expansion of government authority over health care, Obama has become a polarizing figure. Of course, some Republicans thrive on ideological combat and would seek it even if unprovoked. But it is Obama's tax-and-spend ambitions that have united Republicans of every stripe in opposition, put fiscally conservative Democrats in an impossible bind, and ceded the economic center to Republican candidates in Virginia and New Jersey.

Advocates of purity politics on both left and right see Tuesday's lessons differently. "If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary 'bipartisanship,'" we read in the DailyKos, "you will lose votes." But what could this possibility mean in practice? Would Democrats have saved Virginia and New Jersey if they embraced a single-payer takeover of American health care? If they proposed another trillion dollars in new debt? Yes, Democratic turnout and enthusiasm were down in both states. But this is likely because Obamamania was an acute, not chronic, malady. And though Obama remains fairly popular, his liberal policies look considerably less appealing without his winning personality on the ticket.

Others make a similar argument with a different ideology: If only more conservatives were nominated, such as Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd Congressional District, the party might be pure enough to excite the base. Liberal Republicans who eventually endorse Democrats, such as Hoffman's opponent, should probably expect a conservative primary challenge. But this strategy is self-destructive when universalized. Would Republican appeal throughout the Northeast really be expanded by more ideological nominees? Though the Republican Party will remain the conservative party nationally, it is not possible for Republicans to win everywhere with an identical conservative message.

The Republican candidates who won on Tuesday were generally conservative, but not angry. They were supported by the Republican base, but spent most of their time reaching toward the middle. It was a center-right victory in a center-right country.

Politicians who have run for governor -- say, Bill Clinton -- had a good feel for the politics of the center. Obama has yet to demonstrate it. According to the White House, on election night he was "not watching returns" -- displaying a French monarch's indifference to America's shifting middle.

Now comes Obama's largest test, which will determine the ideological atmosphere for the 2010 election. If the president -- opposed by a majority of Americans, with almost no support from the other party -- imposes an ideologically divisive health reform, it will smack of radicalism, reinforce polarization, and may cede the ideological center to Republicans for years to come.

mgerson@globalengage.org

 (c) 2009, Washington Post Writers Group

Europe's Obama Fatigue

Bush was better for Europe. No, seriously.

BY JAMES JOYNER | OCTOBER 29, 2009 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/

U.S. President Barack Obama is so beloved in Europe that he was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize (which he later won) just 12 days after taking office for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples." A Pew survey this summer found that 93 percent of Germans, 91 percent of French people, and 86 percent of Brits believed Obama "will do the right thing in world affairs," a stunning turnaround from their views on the last administration. Yet, this perception belies the reality that Obama has done much less for Europe than his predecessor.

Despite George W. Bush's defiant "you're with us or you're against us" public stance, he actively solicited advice and input from his NATO partners. Obama, by contrast, is saying all the right things in public about transatlantic relations and NATO but adopting a high-handed policy and paying little attention to Europe. And Europe is taking a hint.

The signs are telling, the most important but least reported of which are Obama's choice of staffing. To be sure, there are some very prominent Atlanticists in the administration. Gen. James Jones, the previous chairman of the Atlantic Council and former supreme allied commander, is national security advisor. And current Atlantic Council Chairman Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) has just been appointed as co-chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board. But many important working-level posts in both the State Department and the National Security Council (NSC) are unfilled. Most notably, the EU portfolio at the State Department has been treated as a political hot potato, currently being handled as an additional duty by the Balkans director.

With such a dreadfully weak human infrastructure at home, it's no wonder next week's U.S.-EU summit is expected to be a non-event. The preparations have thus far mostly focused on protocol rather than policy. The Europeans are particularly irritated that the luncheon will be hosted by Vice President Joseph Biden rather than the U.S. president himself. Under the previous administration, Bush regularly presided.

On Afghanistan, which all agree is the alliance's most critical mission, the Europeans are also feeling a bit lorded over. As Jackson Diehl put it, the region's leaders are "frustrated that they must watch and wait -- and wait and wait -- for the [U.S.] president to make up his mind." Mark Mardell, BBC's North America editor, reported "a growing sense of frustration" at the NATO defense ministers meeting in Slovakia last week over being held in limbo.

Even in Britain, where the public loves Obama, the government has been obsessed, after repeated slights -- the infamous CD set gifted to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, a press conference canceled due to light snow (or was it fatigue?), being denied a private meeting with Obama at the Pittsburgh summit, etc. -- with the notion that the two countries' "special relationship" is over. To be sure, some of this is overblown -- and hardly new -- but Obama has been less solicitous of his country's most natural ally than any U.S. president in memory.

America's relationship with France bounced back markedly after Nicolas Sarkozy was elected to replace Jacques Chirac. But there have been more than a few bumps since Obama took office. "Obama's policies are not the Atlanticism that Sarkozy was expecting," Macleans quotes Hall Gardner, a professor of international politics at the American University of Paris, as saying. "There've been several elements of disagreement between the two."

Some of this can surely be attributed to Sarkozy's personal pique over upstart Obama stealing some of his thunder -- what the press has dubbed his "Obama complex" -- as the U.S. president did by swooping in to take credit for China's concessions at the G-20, for example. But there is legitimate frustration over the handling of issues as well. Most famously, of course, Sarkozy complained at the United Nations that "President Obama dreams of a world without weapons but right in front of us two countries [Iran and North Korea] are doing the exact opposite." There are also sharp differences over troop levels and strategic objectives in Afghanistan, Turkey's candidacy for the European Union, and the future of the French nuclear arsenal.

But if Obama's ratings are slowly falling on the continent, one place where they are already low -- lower than Bush's, certainly -- is in the countries that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dubbed "New Europe." While Bush made Eastern and Central Europe a top priority -- as evidenced by the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic and the push for NATO expansion for Georgia and Ukraine -- his successor is clearly more concerned about relations with Russia, the very country whose influence New Europe is trying to avoid.

Obama's handling of the policy reversal on missile defense, in particular, has drawn sharp rebukes from the region, mostly on the execution rather than the policy itself. A Polish official was quoted by United Press International proclaiming that, "Waking Czech Prime Minister Fisher at midnight European time, and calling President Lech Kaczynski and Prime Minister Tusk -- who refused to take the call -- 70 years to the day that Russia invaded Poland -- is politically inept and very offensive." Another official added, "this simply confirms how unimportant Europe is to the U.S., despite President Obama's words to the contrary."

To be sure, this criticism is somewhat overstated. But, as Bush learned to his chagrin, perception can become reality.

And indeed, while most European heads of state dutifully congratulated Obama after the surprise announcement of his Nobel win, the European press was as stunned as their American counterparts. The Independent's Ian Birrell assessed that Obama was being "once again lauded for his symbolism and potential rather than his actual deeds." Peter Beaumont of The Guardian equally snarked, "The reality is that the prize appears to have been awarded to Barack Obama for what he is not. For not being George W. Bush. Or rather being less like the last president."

It would be ironic, indeed, if the Europeans started longing for the good old days of the Bush administration. But that nostalgia is closer than you might think.

 

STEPHANE DE SAKUTIN/AFP/Getty Images

 

James Joyner is managing editor of the Atlantic Council. These views are his own.