Thursday, July 19, 2012

The Moral Imperative of Free Markets

Forbes ^ | 07/12/2012 | Bill Flax

President Obama’s campaign trumpets compassion while portraying Mitt Romney’s business acumen as immoral. Obama presumes righteous superiority, but how is exploiting the poor for political props presidential? Why must Romney justify success? How, two decades after communism collapsed, does antagonistic class rhetoric retain credibility?
Liberals paint free markets as morally lacking by bemoaning that capitalism plunders workers and pillages the environment. Progressives compare real world capitalism – distorted by fallen man and political intrusion as it inevitably exists – against theoretical ideals never attained anywhere, leastwise in socialist systems prone to oppression and ecological calamity.
Progressives exaggerate the excesses and failures of free enterprise while affording government moral approbation. Tellingly, those most bothered by greedy businessmen, (who generally profit by pleasing customers), appear unperturbed by greedy politicians even as government power derives from feasting on the wealth of others.
Businesses merely make offers which customers may accept, or depart peaceably. Government enforces demands. Washington mandates, err “taxes” us, bending citizens to the sinecure’s will under the shallow guise of “social justice.”
Economically, justice entails that transactions are entered freely and measured fairly. Funded by confiscatory taxation, government programs rarely achieve either. The Left’s beloved “social justice” is rooted in covetousness; an anti-social and unjust cancer vexing American culture.
Per the OECD, America has amongst the developed world’s most progressive income taxes, which fuel a federal behemoth primarily disposed toward paying people not to produce. As dependency surges Tim Geithner boasts about mailing 80 million checks a month.
Only wealth’s creation can elevate the lower rungs. Stunting high earners to attain equality lifts nobody. America’s working poor fare exceptionally well as our poverty line exceeds per capita income most anywhere else. Markets permit those born destitute to rise by merit, which explains why immigrants come.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...

Obama’s Fake Fairness Fairy

Townhall.com ^ | July 19, 2012 | John Ransom

Uh-oh. The Fake Fairness Fairy is on the loose again.

And that smell? That’s not pixie dust.

Obama wants you to know that your next promotion, the car you own, your house, your kids, you don’t deserve any of it. Someone else is mostly responsible for it.
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own,” Senate candidate and fake Indian, Elizabeth Warren explained to us months ago. “You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory.”
Warren- and Obama- explain that in return for not worrying about “marauding bands” taking everything we have, we should just allow a marauding government to take what they will, while we lay still and Think-of-England.
Apparently Warren isn’t familiar with the 2nd Amendment, which has always been a most effective way of preventing marauders, public, private, quasi-governmental and federally governmental, from plundering our private property.
Her own state, Massachusetts, provided a great example in 1775 at the Battles of Lexington and Concord of the 2nd Amendment in action.
Perhaps as one of the other great Law Givers and Professors in this country, Warren ought to borrow a history book or two from Sarah Palin.
And actually read them.
Oh, and, never mind that the factory owner Warren and Obama take for granted already pays taxes for all those services Warren lists- just like the rest of us do. In fact, the factory owner probably pays more in taxes, plus pays for infrastructure improvements required under local zoning rules, improvements that likely make the locality more attractive economically.
But, who cares about facts when you can whip out the Fake Fairness Fairy.
More and more, the Democrats have been turning out the Fake Fairness Fairy.
War on Women? The Fake Fairness Fairy.
The War of Catholics? The Fake Fairness Fairy.
Deporting some illegal immigrants, while allowing others to stay here illegally? The Fake Fairness Fairy.
Tax hike on the evil millionaires and billionaires? The Fake Fairness Fairy.
Solyndra, Fast and Furious, voter intimidation, Trayvon Martin, the war on energy- all brought to us by the Fake Fairness Fairy.
Look, I don’t object to Obama turning the novelty of his “blackness” into the one-way mirror into which he never tires of looking. And I don’t object when he then writes books about it and makes a fortune.
Good for him.
But let me be clear.
He’s done it on the back of the Fake Fairness Fairy that the rest of us pay for.
We paid for it with a great civil war, testing whether our republic or any republic can long endure.
We paid for it by separate, but equal laws that took its toll on white society as well as black.
We paid for it in the great civil rights struggle, which has rewritten our constitution to give equal protection under the law to all, although the Fake Fairness Fairy says that some laws are more equal than others.
So, now the content of character no longer determines our outcome.
Instead the Fake Fairness Fairy cares only about our race, gender, income or religion- as long as it’s not Christian.
This, in part, explains our fake president’s obsession with taking from some and giving to others in his quest for fake fairness.
After all, it wasn’t fair he was born in Indonesia ;-).
It wasn’t fair that he’s parlayed a resume as thin as his body into fame, riches, a real estate deal with a convicted influence-peddler and notorious slumlord that included, a massively unfair mansion.
Was the Nobel Peace prize he was awarded fair? Was his Harvard degree fair? Was it fair when he unsealed the divorce records of his Republican opponent in the race for the US Senate in Illinois that set Obama up to be president?
I can understand why Obama might have some mixed feeling about whether he has actually earned his way in the game of life.
Because in truth, he hasn’t.
Not in the way you and I and everyone else have to.
We don’t get to appeal to the Fake Fairness Fairy when the coal mine shuts down. We don’t get to appeal to the Fake Fairness Fairy when we miss a mortgage payment so we can make payroll for our employees. We don’t get to appeal to the Fake Fairness Fairy, because there is no magic fairy that makes everything fair.
What you do with what God gives you is the only fairness that exists, to paraphrase Forrest Gump.
And come November Obama will discover the painful lesson that the rest of us knew a long time ago.
That Fairness Fairy? She’s fake.

USDA Partnering With Mexico to Boost Food Stamp Participation!


The Daily Caller ^ | 07/19/2012 | By Caroline May

The Mexican government has been working with the United States Department of Agriculture to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.
USDA has an agreement with Mexico to promote American food assistance programs, including food stamps, among Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals and migrant communities in America.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda-partnering-with-mexico-to-boost-food-stamp-participation/#ixzz216eEQ2WL

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

Hey, Obama: We Built That Stuff Too!


Townhall.com ^ | July 19, 2012 | Neal Boortz

Dear Ruler:

First, let me say how thrilled I am that you went off-teleprompter last week. This “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen” thing was just wonderful. Now I know how Chris Matthews felt.


Oh .. I know. Your handlers weren’t all that thrilled with your amazing screw-up, and, frankly, they have been worried this day was coming for a long time. They know how you feel about the private sector. They know of your antipathy toward free enterprise and those evil small-business men out there who are not likely to support your move to a centrally-controlled economy. They had hoped to keep your true feelings in check with those teleprompters … but nooooooooo … you just had to improvise, didn’t you? You just had to wander off the tightly-controlled, rhetorical reservation. Well, thank you. You certainly didn’t gain any significant voter support with that asinine utterance, but you most certainly did lose some.

Now we’re having fun watching and listening to your sycophants trying to defend your “somebody else made that happen” line. Somehow they have to make your blunder sound marginally reasonable. Apparently they’ve had a meeting somewhere, because they’re all running with pretty much the same message. It was the government that built the roads those trucks travel on to bring stuff to your business for you to sell. It was the government that built those utility systems that keep your offices cool and the water clean. They really love that quote from Henry Ford about not being able to build his cars if the government had not built those roads.

Well guess what, Dear Ruler? We built that stuff too. Not government, but the private sector: America’s evil private businesses.

Get in Marine One, Obama, and fly off to visit a road construction project. Look at those graders, rollers and the machines that lay the asphalt. See those logos on the doors? Those logos are for private construction firms. Those workers in yellow vests? Their paychecks and benefits are coming from private businesses – many of them the very small businesses you want to hit with tax increases.

Next, you can fly off to take a look at a utility project somewhere. Maybe you can find a sewer line being laid, or some electrical transmission lines being strung. Again – those are private companies doing that work with private sector workers.

You see, there’s a document out there that, frankly, I doubt you have ever read. It’s called The Declaration of Independence. I’m sure there’s a copy around your office somewhere. But I do want to save you a bit of trouble here, (knowing you busy you are fundamentally transforming American and all), so I’ll provide you with a little excerpt from that document:


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

There! Do you see that? That government you’re so enamored with … that government you credit with Americas greatness … well, to paraphrase one of our presidents, “You didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” That’s right, Dear Ruler, somebody else made that government happen. and that somebody else is US. The government is OURS. We built it. We hire the people to run it. We have regular meetings every two years or so to decide whether we want to keep those managers or get rid of them to find better talent. Those roads .. our national infrastructure? We HIRED the government to build those things for us, just as we hire contractors to build our business locations and to design and manufacture the equipment we will use in the course of our businesses. We created this government – the government did not create us – and we contract with this government to do things for us on a grand scale because we recognize the inefficiencies of trying to do those things for ourselves. Government is just another contractor we hire to get our private business done.

But hold on a minute, Ruler Obama. There’s something else I want you to read before you put this letter down. You see, I didn’t include the whole quote from The Declaration of Independence above. I left something off … and here it is …


"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m of the opinion that when our elected leaders become so enamored with themselves, and of the government we have hired them to manage, they become a grave danger to those unalienable rights set forth in The Declaration – you know, the rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Declaration says we may “pursue” happiness. It does not guarantee it. You and the party you represent seem to think that happiness is a right, and have created a government that has now become destructive of the very ends it was designed to support.

There’s more than one way to alter or abolish at government, Ruler Obama. We’ll give one of them a good old college try in November.


Again .. thanks for your incursion into extemporaneous speech. We’ve learned a lot from and about you in the last week.


With all DUE Respect.

Neal Boortz.

OBAMA’S KENYAN BIRTH RECORDS DISCOVERED IN BRITISH NATIONAL ARCHIVES


From Conception...To Election

"Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains Natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution..." Pen Johannson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012


WHERE LIES GO TO DIE – Evidence discovered shows British Protectorate of East Africa recorded Obama’s birth records before 1963 and sent returns of those events to Britain’s Public Records Office and the Kew branch of British National Archives.

(Editors note: The records alluded to in this story were discovered through a May, 2012 search through BMD Registers, a BNA partner site, using the search term "Obama". Corroborating evidence through public sources only implicates the identity of those involved but does not explicitly prove their identity in the absence of the availability of original documents.)
By Dan Crosby
of The Daily Pen
KEW, SURREY, GB – The last place anyone would think to look for a birth record of someone claiming to be a “natural born” U.S. citizen is Great Britain. The very inclusion of the Article II eligibility mandate in the U.S. Constitution was explicitly intended by the founding fathers of America to prevent a then British-born enemy usurper from attaining the office of the U.S. presidency and thereby undermining the sovereignty of the newly formed nation.
In the absence of honor, courage and justice on the part of those serving in the U.S. Congress and Federal Judiciary, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case investigative group has concluded the only law enforcement analysis of the image of Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” posted to a government website in April, 2011 and found it to be the product of criminal fraud and document forgery.
The seeming endless evidence against Obama has now taken investigators to the foreign archives of Great Britain wherein it has been discovered that vital events occurring under the jurisdiction of the British Colony in the Protectorate of East Africa prior to 1965 were recorded and held in the main office of the British Registrar in England until 1995 before being archived in the BNA.
It now appears the worst fears of the U.S. Constitution’s framers were well founded as investigators working on behalf of the ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama have found yet another lead in a growing mountain of evidence within the public records section of the British National Archives indicating the occurrence of at least four vital events registered to the name of Barack Obama, taking place in the British Protectorate of East Africa (Kenya) between 1953 and 1963, including the birth of two sons before 1963.
Recall, investigative journalists working for Breitbart.com have already discovered biographical information published by Barack Obama’s literary agent in which he claimed he was born in Kenya. Prior to Obama’s ensconcement to the White House, many international stories also stated that Obama was Kenyan-born as did members of Kenya’s legislative assembly. Since then information on Obama’s ties has been curtailed by government officials as the Obama administration has coincidently paid nearly $4 billion dollars for capital projects in Kenya.
Also, the presence of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, cannot be accounted for from February, 1961, the alleged month of her marriage to Obama, until three weeks after the birth of Obama II in August, 1961 when she allegedly applied for college courses at the University of Washington. Theories about her whereabouts have included that she participated in the Air Lift America project as an exchange student and traveled to Nairobi as one of many recent highschool graduates (see AASF Report 1959-1961).
The record of birth of a second son prior to Kenyan independence is significant because biographical information about Obama’s family indicates Obama Sr. fathered only one other son prior to Obama II’s birth.
The books containing hand written line records of vital events attributed to Obama are contained in Series RG36 of the Family Records section in the Kew branch of the BNA. The hand written line records first discovered in 2009, indicate several events were registered to the name Barack Obama (appears to be handwritten and spelled “Burack” and “Biraq”) beginning in 1953 and include two births recorded in 1958 and 1960, a marriage license registration in 1954 and a birth in 1961. Barack Obama is said to have died in 1982 and had married at least once more in Kenya and had at least one more child in 1968, but no record of these were found in the BNA because, according to the Archives’ desk reference, the events occurred after Kenya achieved independence from British colonial rule in 1963.
To date, Barack Obama II is the only known alleged son of Obama Sr. born after 1960 and before the independence of Kenya became official in 1963.
A request for information from the BNA on the specification of birth information contained in the series of thousands of logs indicates that only vital events registered in Kenya’s Ministry of Health offices were recorded in the registration returns and were placed in the National Archives care before they reached 30 years old (the law was amended to 20 years after creation in 2010).
The line records do not specify the identity or names of the children, only gender. However, the line records are associated with index numbers of actual microfilm copies of certificates, licenses and registration applications filed in the archives. According to researchers, Obama’s line records were discovered in Series RG36, reference books. Not surprisingly, when researchers specifically requested access to the relevant microfilm for the Obama birth registrations, they were told that the records were currently held under an outdated “privileged access” status, meaning researchers were denied access under Chapter 52, Sections 3 and 5 of the British Public Records Act of 1958.
However, evidence shows these records were available for public access before August of 2009, the approximate date of arrival of Hillary Clinton in Great Britain during her trip to Africa that year.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/access-to-public-records.pdf
Several sources show that Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton made a sudden visit to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British agency which oversees Public Records Archives from colonial protectorates, to speak with the Chief Executive of the Archives in early August of 2009. African news agency expressed surprise at Clintons arrival since she did not announce her intentions of stopping in Great Britain before embarking on her two week trip to Africa.
OBAMA’S FATHER FAILED TO INCLUDE BIRTH OF “SON” ON INS APPLICATION
For someone who wanted to remain in America, it’s difficult to imagine any reason why Barack Obama’s alleged father, Barack the elder, would omit the birth of an “anchor baby” son on an application to extend his visa, just days after the birth occurred, unless…
The American people were told by Barack Obama, unequivocally, that his father was a former goat herder from Kenya. However, INS documents filed in the very same month after Obama’s birth suggest the goat herding elder Obama didn’t “get the memo” that he was a daddy.
On August 31st, 1961, just weeks after Obama’s birth was allegedly registered in a regional office of the Hawaiian Health Department, Obama the elder neglected to name is newborn son on an application for extension of his temporary visa to stay in the U.S.
Obama’s omission of the birth is astonishing and illogical given the fact that the acknowledgement of the birth would have fortified Obama’s application for an extension. The INS has long been more willing to extend the visa of a foreign parent of children born in the U.S., especially when the other parent is an American citizen.
Despite the recent release of a documentary film “Dreams From My Real Father” presenting evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is not the biological father of the younger Obama, the elder Obama is the man named as the father on the digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” which was posted to the internet by the administration in April of 2011. The document image has since been forensically examined by law enforcement investigators and determined to be a digitally fabricated forgery using Adobe software.
THE UGLY TRUTH
However, the sad and pathetic truth about Obama’s covert natal history and his illegitimacy lies at the bottom of a sordid pit of lies surrounding the paternity of his birth. Doubts about his identity, his eligibility, his intentions, his honesty and his honorability as a man stem from what appears to be an ugly truth about his mother’s probable sexual involvement with multiple men associated with the radical socialist movement in 1960’s Hawaii.
Obama and his horde of abettors defend an improbable narrative about his identity. The veracity of this narrative has been damaged under the weight of a steady stream of crushing evidence demonstrating more than 180 disparities and contradictions to Obama’s claims of natal legitimacy as president.
If Obama’s cause as a usurper of power is to avenge his father’s culture, he made the worst possible error in lying about who he is. Vintage America is on to him. Their instincts are slowly turning Obama’s fantasy of a socialist utopia for those he believes are humanity’s offended into a laughingstock. By building his vision for America on clay feet of lies about his who he is, he has undermined any intention of doing something good and right. He is not to be trusted.
Moreover, Obama is learning the painful lesson that a message of “Hope and Change” means something vastly different to vintage America, the most powerful and affluent culture in human history, when that message has been proven to come from someone as audaciously dishonest and deceptively calculating as this son of otherness.
Recall, in 2011, it was reported by The Daily Pen after an investigation of the State of Hawaii’s birth statistics collection protocols and vital records history that birth certificates are often amended after the birth while the original paper document is sealed under strict confidentiality rules when the identity of the father is either determined after birth or when the father named on the new version of the certificate has adopted or assumed paternal responsibility for the child.
In the latter case, the original birth record may not contain the biological father’s name because the mother does not provide it, or it may list paternity as “unknown”, but this version is kept confidential under HRS 571. In some cases, the biological father may not even know he is the father if the mother has had more than one sexual partner prior to the pregnancy. There was no DNA test in 1961, however the 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report shows there were more than 1000 such “illegitimate” births reported in the state of Hawaii during that year, about 1 in 17.
Therefore, the paternity of the child at the actual time of the birth is not disclosed while the new amended certificate is upheld as the original version displaying the name of the newly identified or adoptive father as indistinguishable if different from the biological father. This law is meant to protect the child from stigmas resulting from illegitimacy, rape, incest or adultery. Under these circumstances it is not possible to know the paternal status of a child at birth unless the original birth record is made accessible by authorized persons under Hawaiian law.
However, notations indicating that a certificate contains updated paternal information would be typed or printed in the lower margin of the new certificate, below the signature section. This lower margin of the image of Obama’s certificate has been shown by computer experts to be concealed by forgers using a “clipping mask”. A clipping mask is a feature available in Adobe software which limits the viewable area on a document image through which only selected information can be seen. In the case of Obama’s forged certificate, the information we have been allowed to see within the frame of the clipping mask may merely reflect an amended birth record while concealing notations of the amendments which exists in the lower margin outside the frame of the clipping mask.
Regardless of any level of truth about any individual piece of information in the image, overall, the final image is the product of criminals and liars.
If Obama is not the biological father, or if paternal information is listed on the original certificate as “unknown”, the state of Hawaii keeps this information secret until a court orders the documents to be released for discovery purposes in determining Obama’s eligibility. Thus far, courts have lacked courage to uphold the Constitution thereby propagating the greatest political fraud in American history. Judges are simply washing their hands of the issue by refusing to even consider actual evidence against Obama, denying citizens of justice and their Constitutional right to a redress of grievances, because they simply do not have the courage to face the legal crisis such a revelation would cause.
Cowardly judges refuse to allow any exposure Obama’s actual natural born identity and, in their dereliction, have conjured a legal fantasy filled with pressurizing wrath in which a candidate’s eligibility for president is not only declared legally uncontestable but is also automatically preeminent. In allowing this, judges have allowed a dangerous precedent in which any foreign invader can covertly usurp the power of the U.S. government simply by lying about their citizenship status and hiding documentation with the help of the American media and a complicit legal system.
THE MARRIAGE SHAM
On his application, when asked the name and address of his spouse, it appears Obama may have first written the name of his actual wife in Kenya before blacking it out and writing “Ann S. Dunham”.
Despite evidence indicating that Obama was simultaneously married to a woman in Kenya, it is suspected that he claimed to be married to Dunham in order to use the marriage as leverage to remain in the U.S. There is no evidence or testimony that Obama ever loved Dunham or that the two had ever been engaged. The two did not live together before or after being married and there were no letters, no ring, no announcement or, most importantly, no legal marriage registration with the State of Hawaii.
Despite a complete void of documented proof of the marriage, it appears Dunham was granted a statutory divorce from Obama in 1964. However, images posted of the court documents from the decree contain no original documented proof of a marriage or legal documents showing that Obama was the father of Dunham’s child. A review of the court documents shows that at least one document, perhaps an original birth certificate for baby Obama, was missing from the numbering sequence.
THE INS’ PERSPECTIVE
Being legitimately married to a U.S. citizen would be a benefit toward allowing a foreign spouse to remain the U.S. However, no marriage license application or public announcement has ever been found to indicate that Obama and Dunham were ever married or that Obama had even divorced his Kenyan wife prior to an alleged wedding with Dunham. This fact supports the contents of memos from college and INS officials who expressed doubts about the legitimacy of Obama’s relationship with Dunham, even questioning the motive of such a union between a teenage woman and a foreign student facing visa expiration just days after the birth of her child.
From the perspective of an INS agent, the circumstances surrounding Obama’s relationship with Dunham would have raised suspicions. Immigration fraud was rampant during Hawaii’s foreign birth accommodation era in the 1960’s.
Since Obama was a foreigner wanting to extend his temporary visa, the INS certainly understood that by claiming a marriage to Dunham, it would promote INS approval of an extension, but in Dunham’s case there was an added risk to the relationship for Obama…she was pregnant.
It appears, from the contents of documents in Obama’s INS file, when pressed by INS agents and school officials on the actual validity of his relationship to Dunham and baby Obama, having certainly been advised of legal ramifications for lying, he refused to name Obama as his child but maintained that he was married to Dunham. This indicates that Obama was either not certain if he was the biological father, or that he knew he wasn’t.
Under child protection laws in many states, including Hawaii, when the biological father is deceased or unidentified by the mother, the man who is married to the mother at the time she gives birth automatically becomes the father named on the official birth certificate until it is proven in court that he is not the biological father. “Mandatory Legitimacy” applies even if the birth is the result of adultery, when the mother is married at the time of birth, until paternity is successfully contested. Today, DNA testing allows for conclusive determinations about paternity, but in 1961, it was more difficult to determine paternity. Hawaii’s child welfare statutes indicate the “statutory” father’s name on the certificate may be removed by court order, if paternity is successfully contested, after a judge has decided the case in the interest of the child’s welfare. This law is intended to protect the child if the mother dies.
DELUSIONS OF LEGITIMACY
Government officials in Hawaii, including Governor Neil Abercrombie, Lt. Governor Brian Schatz and former Hawaiian elections official, Tim Adams have all indicated that they could find no original record of Obama’s alleged birth in any hospital in Hawaii in the course of their duties to verify his eligibility. The absence of verifiable birth documentation was so apparent that Schatz, serving as the chairman of the Democrat Party of Hawaii in 2008, refused to certify that Obama was indeed constitutionally eligible to hold the office of president when he submitted the Official Certification of Nomination of Obama. Schatz deferred the responsibility to Nancy Pelosi and DNC, and then Chair of the Hawaiian Elections Commission, Kevin Cronin. Cronin resigned suddenly after controversy surrounding his decision began to strain his relationship with the commission.
Ignorance, lies and lack of understanding about the difference between a medically verified birth and a legal registration of birth has confused the public about Obama’s natal history and eligibility.
Liars and abettors in media and government, drudging on behalf of the Obama administration, have anchored their Alinsky-style ridicule of those questioning Obama’s eligibility in a delusion that he must be legitimate because his birth was announced in two Hawaiian newspapers.
The elder Obama’s name appears as the father of a newborn son in images of two birth announcements appearing in two Honolulu newspapers on August 13th and 14th, 1961. Birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 were published automatically from a birth registration list provided directly to the papers by the Hawaiian Department of Health. The notifications of births provided to the Health Department, however, were not only the product of information provided by hospitals and doctors, alone.
The distinction between the information used by the hospital to create a “Certificate of Live Birth” and the information used by the Department of Health to create a birth registration is that information used to create birth registrations were allowed to be submitted from anyone possessing credible information about the birth, including family members, witnesses or attendants, regardless of the actual location of the birth. Contrarily, the information on a “Live Birth” record must be verified and attested by a licensed medical doctor qualified to determine the characteristics of a live birth event. This is important in cases when a distinction was needed between a “still birth” and a baby that may have been born alive but then died upon delivery. In the latter case, both a birth certificate and a death certificate are required while a still birth requires only a death certificate because of the definition of a live birth under HRS 338-1.
Hawaii has a long history of allocating foreign births to the mother’s claimed Hawaiian residence regardless of the actual location of the birth, which was in compliance with guidelines established by the National Center for Health Statistics in order to accurately attribute data from births with decadal Census figures. Unfortunately, these vital statistics reporting guidelines are not conducive with determining the natural born status of the child.
For example, the Bureau of Census in 1961 counted all residents by county regardless of their temporary absence at the time of the Census when the Census worker was able to identify residents of a county through the information provided by others. This applies even today.
Therefore, beginning in as early as 1933, it was determined that births must be accounted the same way for all usual residents regardless of the mother’s location at the time of the event when that resident mother intended to return to that county. In Hawaii, if a child did not have an official certificate prior to the mother’s return, the local Health Department was obligated to provide one under the Model State Vital Statistics Act of 1942, Section 8 of Hawaii’s Public Health Regulations and HRS 338.
The impact of population figures on the Hawaii’s economy and agency resources was very significant in 1961. The accuracy of the Census takes precedence over the accuracy and veracity of vital statistics in the U.S. Vital statistics are reported annually, but the Census only occurs every ten years which means there is large volume of population which goes untracked between Census years. If births and deaths were not allocated to the residents of each county, regardless of the location of the vital event, the results would cause large disparities when compared with the Census data.

Obamagod


Townhall.com ^ | July 19, 2012 | Gina Loudon

This week, when Obama spoke about how entrepreneurs should be given no credit for their success in business because a government program was really at the heart of every American success, he clearly defined his vision for America. Those who understand freedom, understand that this was a defining moment, and a clarion call for those who believe in liberty and our Constitution to understand the mission before us.
An excerpt from Ladies and Gentlemen: Why the Survival of Our Republic Depends on the Revival of Honor, by Dr. Gina Loudon and Dr. Dathan Paterno.
What’s in a name? “That which we call a rose . . . By any other name would smell as sweet.” (Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)). That fits for liberals, or progressives, or agnostics—all of whom love to quibble over labels, all the while ascribing labels of their own to conservatives. I won’t bother with dictionary definitions of liberal, or progressive, or even conservative. Yes, the classic liberal was one who understood liberty—that seems self-evident—as all variations come from the Latin liber, meaning “free.” But the definition is irrelevant to the modern liberal; that definition has gone the way of the dinosaur.
The definition may not matter, but the history does. The history matters because at its very inception, modern liberalism sought to undermine, or at least ignore, God. John Locke, the “Father of Modern Liberalism,” wrote in his 1690 statement called “Two Treatises” that government derives its power from the governed and not from God or other supernatural beings. This idea dominated philosophy over the next century as the populace wrapped its counter-religion in a culture of intellectual orgy. The period of Enlightenment threw out tradition and ultimately sought to dismantle religion based upon its role in the monarchies that had become unpopular for their unlimited and unscrupulous power in the eighteenth century.
This idea of sovereignty and personal rights were the basis for the American colonization, and ultimately the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, among other foundational American documents.
In 1776 Adam Smith wrote “Wealth of Nations,” in which he applied classic liberalism to the field of economics, and pointed to the natural laws that a truly free market would offer. The laissez-faire economy took the world by storm and sparked a debate that would later be embraced by conservatives. This liberalism was changed once and for all when it was redefined by the British when they over- threw a monarchy in Ireland, and allowed voting by a secret ballot.
When the proletariat (working class) became concerned about food prices, liberals began to look to the government to provide for the poor via welfare, pensions, health care, and other things. Simply put, they wanted free stuff.
This basic demand for “free stuff” by the working class ran rampant in the twentieth century, and resulted (as it always does) in Communism. The Russian monarchy was lost in 1917 after three centuries of rule. The Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, took over, declaring war on capitalism, which had been the basis for the original concept of liberalism.
When the 1930s ushered in the same poverty and demand for “free stuff” in the US, Communists took advantage of the political landscape and spread their propaganda in the US. John Maynard Keynes argued that real freedom came not in the free market but in free disbursement of jobs, free access to social welfare, and full employment. President Roosevelt brought Keynesian economics to full fruition in his New Deal, which brought a level of security to a limping economy that had reached 23 percent unemployment. Massive government spending later resulted in massive debt (120 percent GDP).
The question ultimately becomes: “What is liberty?”
The classic liberal would be appalled at the modern application of the idea. To them, liberty was never “the freedom to have everything you need” but rather “the freedom to have the opportunity to achieve it.” Put simply, modern liberal Thomas Hill Green said, “If it were ever reasonable to wish that the usage of words had been other than it has been . . . one might be inclined to wish that the term ‘freedom’ had been confined to the . . . power to do what one wills.”
Modern Liberalism, as I see it, is based on a few simple ideas. First, that freedom means guaranteeing equality to all, and that, for the common good. It also must assume that all people are truly equal— not in terms of value or respectability, but economic outcome—and that the role of government is to ensure this equality. It cannot in any way account for varying levels of ability, competence, competition, or justice. Therefore, government has become more than “of the people” as originally defined by liberal ideology. It must be “of the power, over the people, in order to establish their equality.” Government must be the great equalizer, in order to provide freedom for everyone to have what everyone else has. Government, in other words, must oust God because it must be God.
We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
—Martin Luther King Jr.
There is no such thing as being non-political. Just by making a decision to stay out of politics you are making the decision to allow others to shape politics and exert power over you. And if you are alienated from the current political system, then just by staying out of it you do nothing to change it, you simply entrench it.
—Joan Kirner
Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies.
—Mother Teresa

The Ultimate Takedown of Obama’s ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Speech


PJ Media ^ | 7-18-2012 | Zombie

President Obama’s instantly infamous “You didn’t build that” speech is a major turning point of the 2012 election not because it was a gaffe but because it was an accurate and concise summary of core progressive fiscal dogma. It was also a political blunder of epic proportions because in his speech Obama unintentionally proved the conservatives’ case for limited government.

This essay will show you how.

When Obama implied at the Roanoke, Virginia rally that some businessmen refuse to pay for public works from which they benefit, he presented a thesis which, like a three-legged stool, relies on three assumptions that must all be true for the argument to remain standing:

1. That the public programs he mentioned in his speech constitute a significant portion of the federal budget; 
2. That business owners don’t already pay far more than their fair share of these expenses; and 
3. That these specific public benefits are a federal issue, rather than a local issue.

If any of these legs fails, then the whole argument collapses.
For good measure, we won’t just kick out one, we’ll kick out all three.
“Small Government” Is Not the Same as “No Government”
(snip) The Numbers Here is the federal government’s budgetary breakdown for a recent fiscal year: …….
Department of Defense 18.74%
Department of Transportation 2.05%
Department of Education 1.32%
Department of Homeland Security 1.21%
Department of Justice 0.67%
National Science Foundation 0.20%
TOTAL: 23.4%

So what Obama and Warren are really stating is this: Only one-fourth of your federal tax dollars go to projects and programs that benefit the general public and entrepreneurs; the other three-fourths are essentially a complete waste, or are at best optional. Which of course is exactly what fiscal conservatives have been arguing all along.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...

Reagan Praised Entrepreneurs into Recovery - Why must Obama trash them into recession?

National Review ^ | 7-19-2012 | Larry Kudlow - Commentary

Larry Kudlow


President Ronald Reagan delivers a televised address about the economy in 1981.

Does anybody remember, back in the depths of the recession of 1981‒82, how President Ronald Reagan kept his chin up and exhorted American businesses to work hard and produce an economic recovery?
Reagan had a program of tax cuts, limited domestic spending, deregulation, and a strong defense aimed at overturning Soviet Communism. He argued in speech after speech that his domestic plan would produce higher economic growth and lower unemployment, and that prosperity would generate the resources to fund a strong national security.
Cynics proliferated. But Reagan stayed with it, praising free enterprise and entrepreneurs. And eventually, sunny skies replaced gloomy clouds. “Morning in America” appeared in 1983‒84.
But here’s the key point: When Reagan praised our capitalist system and the businesses inside it, he provided a psychological lift to accompany his fiscal program. That was leadership.
Now contrast President Reagan’s performance with President Obama’s recent attack on business. Instead of exhorting entrepreneurship, Obama demonized it. Here’s the money quote: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
That’s a put down to business recovery, not an exhortation. Reagan praised entrepreneurs into recovery. Why must Obama trash them into recession?
Great innovators like Thomas Alva Edison, Henry Ford, and Andrew Carnegie didn’t rely on government. There was hardly any of it in those days. More recently, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Larry Ellison used genius to put brand-new ideas into production.
And then you’ve got a whole smaller class of entrepreneurs: the electricians, bakers, clothing designers, and financial planners. They don’t depend on government. It’s always been a question of the American genius of entrepreneurship that makes the country run. And that’s optimism. It’s not name-calling or negativism. But it is the reliance on government under Obama that has undermined the morale of our economy.
In an interview this week with Tim Geithner, the treasury secretary said the problem with the economy is insufficient government spending. But I would argue that government spending is the problem.
A week earlier, I interviewed Alan Greenspan. I asked him about the impact of over $1 trillion in federal spending. He answered, “Well, actually, strangely as it may seem, the data are showing that it’s negative.” Greenspan said businesses — especially smaller businesses — are essentially on a capital strike. They see large-scale deficits and debt and assume that prohibitive tax rates cannot be far behind. Greenspan also said the U.S. government has borrowed so much money it has drained scarce capital from the private sector. Nobody wants to build long-term assets, like factories, buildings, and houses.
Obama does not understand that his government-centered model is doing vastly more harm than good. That’s why, three-and-a-half years in, he’s got slumping numbers on jobs, retail sales, manufacturing, and home sales, and a GDP rate that could be 1 percent or less. We may be on the front end of another recession without even going through a real recovery.
And the center of economic gravity has shifted in the wrong direction. Food stamps are soaring. Social Security disability benefits are rising faster than jobs. And roughly half of U.S. households are receiving federal-transfer-payment assistance. This is a European-style model, not an American one.
Then you have some of the dumbest fiscal ideas ever, like the new one from Senator Patty Murray. She wants all the Bush tax cuts to expire on December 31, 2012 — an event that will surely lead to recession — and then have Congress magically vote for middle-class tax cuts in 2013. This is incredibly foolish (and improbable).
But like Obama, Murray has it in for successful earners, investors, and small-business owners. In order to tax them she is more than willing to risk recession.
Raising the tax on the upper-two income brackets would slam the 3.5 percent of small-business owners who generate 53 percent of the small-business income, according to the Joint Tax Committee. And that’s where the jobs are. Ernst & Young estimates a job loss of 710,000 if those upper tax brackets are raised. And when you combine all that with scheduled new taxes from Obamacare, you’re looking at substantially higher tax rates than anything Bill Clinton ever had. And of course, Clinton cut the capital-gains tax. But today’s Democrats want to raise it (along with taxes on dividends and estates).
This whole assault on success by left-wing politicians is a staggering reversal from the spirit of Ronald Reagan. You can even go back to FDR: His big-government, tax-the-rich policies failed, but at least he preached that happy days were coming again.
Most Democrats today don’t understand or recall the history of American economic success. That’s why this country desperately needs change in the White House and the Senate if we’re to stop this American economic decline.
– Larry Kudlow, NRO’s economics editor, is host of CNBC’s The Kudlow Report and author of the daily web log, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.

Which Offends Most?