IF THEY WON’T – WHO WILL?

I don’t know if Obama is a U.S. citizen, qualified under the Constitution, to be president or not. Here are 12 things I have learned from the press, if they are to be believed, and from the Obama campaign web site:

1. The Obama birth certificate, posted on the Obama campaign site, is redacted but genuine;
2. The state of Hawaii has statutes that enable someone born outside of the state or country to get a legitimate birth certificate and not allow it to be disclosed (Hawaii Revised Statutes §§ 338 -0017 et seq.). All the parents or guardians have to do is provide “proof” (i.e., an affidavit) that they declared Hawaii to be their place of residency one year before the child was born or adopted;
3. Obama went to visit his ailing grandmother in Hawaii and spent less that an hour with her over three days. He spent more time with state officials. When Obama left Hawaii, the Governor of Hawaii ordered Obama’s birth certificate records sealed;
4. Obama has never made public his entire birth certificate records (among many others);
5. The birth certificate Obama posted and made public was redacted and did not disclose such fundamental facts as weight, length, hospital name, etc.;
6. I’ve never seen a birth certificate with out basic birth information – what is the point of a birth certificate with out birth information?
7. The press hounded George Bush and the National Guard incessantly to get his military records (that have nothing to do with whether he is constitutionally qualified), and John McCain’s birth records, but they will not take any legal action to get the most basic, fundamental record to prove candidate Obama is constitutionally qualified;
8. Obama has never offered a reasonable or logical reason for keeping a document that is fundamental to proving he is qualified sealed;
9. I know of no good reason for Obama to keep his birth records sealed from the citizens he wants to represent;
10. Until he makes all his birth records public he has not earned my trust, and by living a life with his records in the shadows, doesn’t deserve the public trust – that is not the conduct of an honest man, maybe a politician, but not an honest man;
11. Articles like the recent January 15, 2010 article in the Arizona Republic, proclaiming that it is beyond dispute that Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president demonstrate why the people have such little respect for the profession – its lack of professionalism and desire to find the facts for the public, no matter what. Bluntly put, the reporters don’t know, can’t find out, and it appears - don’t want to know the facts; and last but most important to me;
12. The federal courts have declined to hear the challenge to Obama’s constitutional qualifications on the basis that they don’t have the authority or jurisdiction to review the claim. If we can’t look to the federal courts, and specifically the U.S. Supreme Court to determine what is constitutional – i.e., if a federal official (in this case the highest federal official) is acting outside the bounds of the Constitution, who can we look to, to enforce the separation and balance of powers doctrine that our Constitution is based on? Will the Supreme Court abdicate its most solemn responsibility?

I don’t know if Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president, but in my view he is not morally qualified and he can’t be until he comes clean with us. If the Supreme Court fails to take jurisdiction and require Obama to open all his birth records, our country is indeed broken. That is their sacred job under the oath they took – to protect and defend the Constitution. I believe John Marshall, who wrote Marbury v. Madison to secure this constitutional right for the court, would raise holy hell. We need him now.

© 2010 pTVr.net, all rights reserved

OBAMA TO TAX MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR

Obama’s newly proposed taxes on banks, euphemistically referred to as “fees”, will cost the middle class and poor billions of dollars. His slight of hand by pretending to punish the banks for activities that Congress enabled and encouraged (he was a member of that Congress), will only result in higher banking fees for us. Banks didn’t make a lot of money by being stupid. They know that taxes are a cost of doing business and they will pass that cost on to customers, if they want to stay in business and survive. They have that fiduciary duty to their shareholders. Obama knows this, but the bigger vice he puts us in the more people will need his help to survive. That is the classic patronage - servant government structure our forefathers freed us from.

I wish Obama had the same respect for his fiduciary duty to us, his shareholders – U.S. citizens. The assets the Constitution requires him to protect for us- his voting investors - is to protect are our constitutional rights to preserve our freedoms. He is crushing them instead of upholding them. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes him to engage in the domestic policy programs he and his more recent predecessors have engaged in. They have now brought us to the brink of socialism if not bordering on communism that will eviscerate our human rights preserved that the Constitution was written to preserve: All in the name of being the protector and provider. Why it doesn’t get said by the media that he is taking from us so he can pretend to be king is beyond me. It’s as though the government was placing a word tax on the press to confiscate 50% of the words they want to print. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Our money!

www.ptvr.net
(C) 2010 ptvr.net all rights reserved

OPEN LETTER TO GOVENOR BREWER

I write this open letter because experience has taught me there is little to gain with simple direct personal appeals to most of my representatives, past governors’ offices and state agencies. Thank God there are a few exceptions – but very few.

Governor Brewer made an appeal to hear any “good” ideas to help balance the budget. This is my response. I have tried to no avail to get the legislature to consider and hopefully adopt this idea for a number of years, including when the Governor was in the Legislature. I’ll fame it as a question.

Why doesn’t the Governor require her agencies to adopt the same accounting principles and practices her agencies require of us? Agencies require a unit cost accounting standard of us in order to be able to hold us accountable for our costs. Agencies require contractors (and most tax payers) to use a complete unit cost accounting system so they can discern each of our costs for the goods and services (and often taxes) we are providing. This system is necessary for competitive bidding so they can evaluate the lowest cost and best provider of services. On the other hand, state agencies use the government “budget” system. This system does not require the same level or degree of fiscal accountability. So it’s no surprise they want a double standard for accounting. Those same agencies fought against the introduction and passage of numerous bills (over 6 years) that would require the same standards of accountability of them. Their rational is that this is the standard practice used by other governments. Wonder why?

Without the agencies using a complete unit cost accounting standard, the Legislature can not find out how much each agency service costs! They can’t find out where money can be saved. Neither can the Governor. I doubt it will make up the entire budget deficit, but if Governor Brewer can find the courage to require her agencies to use the same accounting policies and procedures her agencies require of us, it may save us millions of dollars and make her agencies more efficient. It will take courage and fortitude because the agencies will come up with more ideas than you can shake a stick at to talk her out of it. Until the Legislature and us (it should be public information) can find out these costs, no-one will know where budget cuts can be made with the least loss of services or if we are getting the best value for our tax dollar. We know how much we spend under the “budget” process but we don’t know the costs (complete detailed costs) for each service we spend it on. It’s time we know!

Thank you for your time and consideration Governor Brewer. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,
Bill Sandry
Mesa, Arizona

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT – WHY ARE THEY DIFFERENT?
Who is Obama Protecting?

Obama changed the rules of engagement for our troops in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops can no longer return fire unless they are “absolutely sure no civilians will be injured.” Obama has not implemented the same rules of engagement for the FBI or police. When the FBI had a shoot out with Luqman Ameen Abdullah (a self declared jihadist) in urban Detroit in October 2009, why didn’t the FBI have to break off contact if they were not “absolutely sure” no American civilians would be injured? Why is there a White House policy promulgating two different standards for confronting terrorists? Our troops, engaged in combat should have as much latitude in combat as U.S. domestic law enforcement authorities. Are Muslim civilians, according to Obama’s rules of engagement, more valuable than American citizens, or are American troops more expendable since they can’t properly engage the enemy?

The good guys should be able to take out the bad guys regardless of whether the civilians are in a predominately Christian or Muslim country.

Why are Obama’s Muslim rules of engagement not employed to protect American civilians? Under Obama’s American rules of engagement we have local police officers (not in combat) firing shots in crowed downtown areas of New York with out guaranteeing no American civilians will be injured. Such an incident recently happened. This was reported in a piece by CBS’s New York channel two “Gunman Killed in Chase Through Times Square Hotel” at: http://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/times.square.shooting.2.1361937.html

Our troops should be granted at least the same ability to defeat the enemy as the police and FBI.

A fact has been made clear in the debate on the health care legislation. The news services and many reporters are not trust worthy. News reports have made it plain that either; (1) reporters have not read the legislation that is the subject of their reports, (2) they failed in reading comprehension, or (3) that they are intentionally misleading us. Thanks to the internet, we are able to read the legislation and, despite the extensive use of euphemisms and legalese, we are able to discern what the bills will enable and what rights they will take or restrict. A recent example is the health care (AKA “health scare”) legislation. In HB 3200 we can read how legislators (through the government (”Comparative Effectiveness Research Committee”) will ultimately enable unfettered control and power over us via government central planning. President Obama made the true intent of the legislation clear in his 2007 campaign speech when he said it was to lay the foundation for and enable the “transition period” of 10, 15 or 20 years to convert us to the government run “single public payer” system.

Unfortunately we have become accustomed to politicians that don’t read and don’t know, much less understand, what is in the often mislabeled legislation they are voting on. They unashamedly tell us falsehoods, half-truths, and misleading statements. Now, after a slow but increasing rate of media ethical degeneration over 40 some years, the media has finally shed its pretense of nonpartisanship and is using the same in-your-face bias rhetoric usually only seen from politicians. Just as with politicians the media use this language to support and persuade us of the righteousness of their political belief system. They have embarked on a type of mass group thinking utilizing separately directed campaigns (but operating in concert) to report to us with straight faces things that are not true. We have read the bills. We know what they’re reporting is not true. This news media collaboration is destroying what little integrity, legitimacy and credibility news institutions had left. As Mark Twain said, “If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.”

Let’s follow how this collaborative media group think effort developed. The news services began loosing their post WWII public credibility with the development of the broadcast “news anchor.” It was nationally manifested when Water Cronkite began telling us untruths about the Viet Nam war, as he has now admitted, to achieve the political outcome he desired. His progeny, such as Dan Rather, continued and expanded this growing media practice of deceiving the public to sway and influence the public to form public opinions and beliefs the reporters wanted to form. Remember Rather’s ginned up National Guard documents? I can’t even get the Cronkite School of Journalism to answer an ethics question about media reporting.

Misleading the public is very often done by not reporting a story or only reporting the part of the story that will most likely influence us to believe what the media want us to believe. For example, the traditional media did not report to us that 32 of the largest news organizations in the USA filed an amicus brief in Federal Court in the Judith Miller case. We found out in the Drudge Report that these media organizations swore to the court, under risk of perjury, that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent and that no crime was committed in the matter. Notwithstanding this, these news organizations were repeatedly reporting that the Bush administration intentionally outed Valerie Plame, who they reported as a covert agent, for political reasons. It was also repeatedly reported that criminal conduct was or had to be involved. But, for public consumption, it was continually reported that it was just a matter of finding out who in the Bush Administration made the name of the alleged “covert” agent Plame public.

The coverage of the health care legislation and public protests simply reaches a new pinnacle of bias for the press in its abuse of its position of public trust to politically direct our thinking and create the result they want. Reporters are doing this at the cost of surrendering their integrity and public credibility. Print media such as the New York Times, McClatchy News, and the AP Services coupled with reporters on shows such as Meet the Press, PBS’s News Hour, ABC’s This Week, ABC’s World News Now, and many more have nationally stated that provisions we have read in the legislation are not there because the exact term they quote, such as “death panels,” isn’t cited in the legislation. The news story is whether the term accurately reflects what the effect and result of the bill will be. They’re playing word games (”legal lying” with a straight face) to exercise their political power for the purpose of misleading us. Politicians have done this to us for years. Attorney-politicians are particularly adept at it. For example, when asked about Reverend Wright’s racist hate sermons and what attorney Obama thought about them when he heard them over the course of 20 years of regular attendance, Obama replied that he ” I never heard them from my pew.” [Emphasis added] Obama did not deny he heard them! He just didn’t hear them “from my pew.” Who knows where that pew was located in the church? Thus he technically didn’t lie – but he sure as hell intentionally tried to deceive and mislead us by misrepresenting the facts = legal lying! Where was the reporter with enough courage to ask him; “Well then where were you when you heard them?” The reporters were, and still are, AOL.

Saying we can keep our private insurer is a legal lie. Obama omits to say that that option to stay with our private insurer is only temporary and would apply only to government defined “qualified programs.” Each of the current forms of proposed legislation provide measured steps, triggered by inevitable changes in life’s circumstances, to systematically remove our right to keep our personal doctor, private insurer, and hospital of choice. Will you ever change jobs or insurance coverage? Are you self insured? Do you have a high deductible? These are just some of the legislative mechanisms that will force you into the government controlled “comparative effectiveness” program (that uses your age) for determining your health care. The Brits call it QALYS (quality adjusted life years). The news media, the President, Democrats and Republicans conveniently omit facts about legislation. Although, history indicates that when Republicans try to omit facts the media are quick to point them out – but not so in the case of this Democrat legislation.

Omission is another legal lie. The news media doesn’t report that many of our citizen neighbors protesting the health care bill are Democrats. Why not? Because that fact would completely undermine the media allegations of citizens being a well organized Republican backed “mob.” Intentionally mischaracterizing our neighbors as a “mob” further demonstrates the politically motivated news media bias. As far as I can tell, these are honest, taxpaying citizens that are tired of being ignored by elected members of Congress. We know these neighbors and we know a legal lie when we see it. One last note: Age is a pre-existing condition.