Community Organizing At Its Ugly Worst - Who LIED? - Latest Commie Czar Sustein Says Obama Not Courts Should Interpret Laws - Obama's Twisted ACORN Roots - Poles: We've Been Sold To The Russians - Hypocrats - Genuine Catholic Concern That USCCB Will Be Conned Re Death Care Bill




[LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH] Community Organizing at its Ugly Worst! President Ob...‏


 Mary Ann Kreitzer (


Sat 9/19/09 9:57 AM



border=0 v:shapes="EC_EC_BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5383176225852573874"> The Washington Times has an interesting article this morning, Health reformers targeting 'enemies.' The very first paragraph reads: "The plan for a series of grass-roots demonstrations Tuesday to promote President Obama's health care agenda calls for tightly scripted events and an 'escalation' of efforts against 'enemies' of reform."

Note the tactics straight out of the Alinsky playbook: 1) identify an enemy, 2) freeze him, 3) choose a tactic your mob [okay, Alinsky doesn't call his lackeys a mob] will enjoy. [Union thugs enjoy "escalating" against their opponents, especially if they can do it with steel-tipped boots and brass knuckles.]

The article goes on, "The document, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, details specific talking points, tactics, props and strategies to stage the protests. It lists goals that include action that 'mobilizes our base by animating existing anger about private insurers.' The HCAN field plan dictates that each protest will include a minimum of 30 participants, target only health care insurers CIGNA, WellPoint and United Health Care and showcase what it calls 'victims,' or people who have either lost insurance, can't afford it or were denied coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions....The field plan says the protests should attract media coverage that 'creates villains or enemies that serve as a contrast with our side; validates the need for affordability and the public health insurance option; [and] forces the other side to respond.'"

The organizers are getting more and more transparent and their tactics are no longer a mystery. Honest liberals need to wake up to the fact that they are nothing but pawns on a chessboard being used by unscrupulous politicians for their own purpose. The immoral men and women of both parties do it, liberals just do it more effectively. One big difference -- the mainstream media goes after Republicans, remember Richard Nixon and his "enemies" list? You won't read about this in the New York Times. They stopped being journalists years ago and are nothing but shills for liberal politicians.


One other thought - When you consider that Obama promised "hope" and "change," this escalation of ugly mafia-style tactics is shocking. America, you voted to put a community-organizer-in-chief in the White House. He's running his administration according to Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and turning the country into a banana republic. Push back with prayer, letters to the editor, support for real conservatives, and join the tea party movement.

Don't let the organizers win by default. As Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough good men to do nothing."

Posted By Mary Ann Kreitzer to LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH at 9/19/2009 08:18:00 AM







[LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH] Virtual Reality on Obama's Health Plan: A 50 day wai...‏


 Mary Ann Kreitzer (


Fri 9/18/09 11:02 PM



Posted By Mary Ann Kreitzer to LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH at 9/18/2009 10:58:00 PM



Who LIED? - Latest Commie Czar Sustein says Obama not courts should interpret laws - Obama's twisted ACORN roots - Poles: We've been sold to the Russians - Hypocrats - Genuine Catholic concern that USCCB will be conned re death care bill -‏




Who Lied?

by Phyllis Schlafly

September 18, 2009


The sanctimonious shock at Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-SC) calling out "You lie" when Barack Obama said the health care bill will not insure illegal aliens reminds me of the Casablanca police chief saying he was "shocked, shocked" to learn that gambling was taking place in the saloon. Barack Obama's congressional pals had defeated the Republican amendment to require proof of legal residency in order to be covered by the health care bill, and the American people know that illegals are now getting free health care at emergency rooms. The surprise was that nobody cried "You lie" when Obama said "Under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." Anyone who follows this issue knows that all Democratic sponsored bills cover abortion funding, and that the Hyde Amendment does not apply to the health care bill because it only prohibits federal taxpayer funding of abortions financed through Medicaid.


Obama promised Planned Parenthood that "In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, and so it is at the center, and at the heart of the plan that I propose."

Obama also stated, "We're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It'll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services." Nobody disputes the fact that "reproductive services" includes elective abortions.

Obviously, the feminists in Obama's audience knew he was lying when he said that no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions. If they hadn't believed Obama was lying, the feminists from Nancy Pelosi to Barbara Boxer to Barbara Mikulski would have erupted in audible protest.

No way will the feminists allow Obama's health care "reform" to exclude payment for abortions-on-demand. The feminists have already demonstrated their considerable clout in the Obama Administration, and abortion funding is central to their long-term and short-term goals.

Rush Limbaugh pointed out the media's hypocrisy about the use of the word lie: there was no outcry when the other Joe Wilson (Valerie Plame's husband) accused President George W. Bush of lying in his State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress. Liberal etiquette decrees that it's okay to call Bush a liar, but not Obama, with whom the media, as Bernard Goldberg detailed in his most recent book border=0 v:shapes="_x0000_i1027"> , have "a slobbering love affair."

Obama told another lie when he claimed that the Democrats' health care plan does not set up "panels of bureaucrats" with the authority to withhold life sustaining treatment from elderly patients. He compounded his lie by accusing anybody who talks about such death panels of "a lie, plain and simple" (and everybody recognized as a not-so-subtle reference to Sarah Palin).

Another lie in Obama's speech was saying that the plan does not jeopardize Medicare benefits which seniors currently receive. He plans to cut $500 Billion out of Medicare "waste and inefficiency" which can't be done without reducing benefits.

Other lies in Obama's speech included his claim that the health care plan will not add to the deficit, that anyone who is satisfied with his current health plan can keep it, and that his plan will not require raising taxes on people earning less than $250,000 a year.

The fundamental lie in all the Democrats' plans is the pretense that they can insure an additional 50 million people without increasing costs and/or without reducing benefits for the other 250 million people who are basically satisfied with their current health care. People are protesting at Tea Parties and Town Meetings because they realize this is not possible no matter how many passionate speeches Obama gives.

The Tea Party march down on Pennsylvania Avenue on September 12 was not only impressive in its size but also because of the messages on the hand-made signs they carried. They proved the marchers were authentic grass roots, not astroturf.

Here are some samples of the home-made signs that show the rising activism of We The People: "The change I hoped for was freedom." "Recycle Congress." "1 Czar down, 43 to go." "Don't Tread On Me." "You are not entitled to what I have earned." "I love my country but I'm scared of my government." "Investigate ACORN." "Your fair share is NOT in my wallet." "Obamacare makes me sick." "I'm not your ATM." "Nurses Against Obamacare." "Abortion is not health care." "Undocumented worker" (under picture of Obama). "Congress pack your bags; you're going home in 2010." "If you're not outraged, you're not paying taxes." "Read the bill." "Bolsheviks promised change too." Quotes from John Adams. And a sign carried by a two-year-old child: "I owe $38,000."

Some signs were carried by immigrants: "Latinos are conservative too." "I had enough Socialism in the USSR."
Haley Barbour on Tort Reform Newscom

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour speaks at Heritage on Friday about implementing tort reform and restoring fairness in the civil justice system.

Watch Live at 11 a.m. Friday The Trial Lawyers' Earmark


August 28, 2009

The Trial Lawyers' Earmark: Using Medicare to Finance the Lifestyles of the Rich and Infamous

by Edwin Meese III and Hans A. von Spakovsky

Legal Memorandum #47

In one of the starkest examples of how plaintiffs' lawyers want to use Congress to get rich at the expense of the American taxpayer, an amendment that would have generated abusive Medicare litigation on a massive scale--along with the usual huge attorneys' fees--was recently added to the health care reform bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.[1] The current Medicare statute simply ensures that Medicare is reimbursed for the medical benefits it pays when a third party is legally responsible for a Medicare beneficiary's injuries or medical costs. However, the tort lawyer amendment would:


·                  Allow new types of lawsuits against the makers of consumer products (including food) for supposed injuries to Medicare beneficiaries based on questionable statistical speculation;

·                  Flood the federal courts with lawsuits that circumvent state tort law and federal requirements for class action lawsuits, diversity jurisdiction, or amount in controversy;

·                  Violate the privacy of Medicare beneficiaries by making their medical records available to tort lawyers without their permission (or that of the government);

·                  Interfere with the rights of beneficiaries against third parties responsible for their medical costs; and

·                  Improperly and unwisely turn the Medicare reimbursement provision into a qui tam statute that would allow plaintiffs' lawyers to pursue claims that Medicare does not think are valid or proper, reducing the availability of medical treatment for Medicare beneficiaries.


Although the amendment would be unconstitutional, it might take years for the courts to make that determination. Fortunately, the amendment-- Section 1620--was removed before the approval of the health care bill in the House Ways and Means Committee on July 17, 2009, but there is nothing that precludes it from being added in the Senate or in conference if the Senate and House pass different versions of the proposed government health care system. Unconstitutional and counterproductive amendments designed to further the interest of plaintiffs' lawyers at taxpayers' expense need to be changed or removed from all bills considered by Congress.

Current Law

The proposed amendment would convert a relatively innocuous reimbursement requirement into a revolutionary new federal liability provision that could easily overshadow most state tort laws and vastly increase lawsuit abuse in America--already the most litigious nation on earth. To understand the radical and sweeping nature of the proposed takeover of tort law, it is necessary to explain the existing Medicare law and its roots in traditional legal principles.

"Subrogation" is the legal doctrine under which one party, such as an insurer, assumes the rights of an injured party to seek compensation from the individual responsible for the injuries. In a typical example, a drunk driver might injure a victim, and the victim's automobile insurer might pay the victim's initial health bills. The victim's automobile insurer can then assert a claim against the drunk driver for the benefits the automobile insurer has paid (with other payments going to the victim for pain and suffering). Based on the theory of unjust enrichment, subrogation ensures that victims do not recover the same benefits twice from their insurance companies and the wrongdoers.

In 1980, Congress enacted the Medicare Secondary Payer statute (MSP) to implement such a subrogation right, thereby preventing Medicare beneficiaries from potentially being paid twice for the same expenses. In doing so, the MSP also helps to reduce federal health care costs. Pursuant to the MSP, Medicare is entitled to reimbursement (as the "secondary payer") for medical services provided to Medicare patients whenever payment is available from another source: a primary payer such as "a group health plan" or "an automobile or liability insurance policy or plan (including a self-insured plan) or [] no fault insurance."[2] Payment by Medicare of benefits is "conditioned on reimbursement" from the primary plan.

Congress also amended the MSP in 2003 to provide that the requirement to reimburse Medicare for payments it has made is triggered by a legal judgment or an actual payment by a primary plan to the Medicare beneficiary conditioned upon the Medicare beneficiary's compromise, waiver, or release of a claim against the primary plan.[3] It is important to note, however, that the beneficiary's right to receive payment from these other sources is dependent on underlying state law.

To encourage beneficiaries to help Medicare collect these reimbursements, beneficiaries are permitted to sue and collect double damages from a "primary plan which fails to provide for primary payment (or appropriate reimbursement)."[4] If successful, the beneficiary reimburses Medicare (which is subrogated to the extent of payment made) and keeps the other half of the double damages. However, the federal courts have correctly determined that no right to sue under the MSP arises against a party "whose responsibility to pay medical costs has not yet been established."[5]

Thus, "it is necessary to establish tort liability by a [legal] judgment or settlement before a private right of action arises under the MSP statute."[6] This requirement makes perfect sense, because only the clarity and finality of such judgment or settlement makes it fair to subject a "primary payer" to damages, especially double damages, for not reimbursing Medicare.

Unscrupulous plaintiffs' lawyers have chafed under the requirement that actual responsibility be established before an MSP suit can be filed because they see the double damages provided by the statute as a potential hen that lays golden eggs. Their attempts to pursue such MSP suits against tobacco companies for supposed injuries to Medicare recipients before any liability had even been established were rebuffed in the courts, as were a series of frivolous cases filed against hospitals.

In the hospital cases, plaintiffs alleged that hospitals had violated the MSP statute by failing to reimburse Medicare for expenses to treat unspecified medical errors with regard to unspecified Medicare beneficiaries at unspecified health care facilities owned by the defendants.[7] The plaintiffs' lawyers wanted the court to recognize the MSP as a qui tam[8] statute granting them standing to sue as private attorneys general even though the plaintiffs were not Medicare beneficiaries who had been specifically injured. However, the MSP is not a qui tam statute that allows a plaintiff to sue on behalf of the United States, and the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue--they were acting as "self-appointed bounty hunter[s]" whose goal was to profit at the expense of the hospitals.[9] Consequently, their claims were dismissed as "utterly frivolous."

The Trial Lawyers' Get-Rich-Quick Amendment

When the health care reform bill was brought before the House Ways and Means Committee on July 16, it included a provision that would provide trial lawyers with everything they had been denied in the courts under the MSP, and more. Section 1620, "Enforcement of Medicare Secondary Payer Provisions," would rewrite the MSP to allow "[a]ny person" to bring an action under the MSP "to establish the responsibility of an entity to make payment for all items and services furnished to all individuals for which that entity is alleged to be the primary plan."[10]

In other words, any lawyer, even without the permission of the government or the supposed Medicare beneficiaries on whose behalf he is suing, could sue anyone who allegedly caused a Medicare beneficiary harm. The race to the courthouse by self-appointed bounty hunters "would be fierce as no other freelance lawyers could oust the first-to-file lawyer. This MSP action would be on top of any claims between the Medicare beneficiary and that defendant, and could be pursued even if the defendant is absolved of wrongfully injuring that beneficiary."[11]

But it gets worse--much worse. Trial lawyers were frustrated by the fact that MSP liability is not triggered unless there is an actual judgment showing that a primary plan is liable or the primary plan makes a payment to a beneficiary and then fails to reimburse Medicare. The proposed amendment changes this requirement, allowing an MSP case to be based on "a judgment, opinion, or other adjudication finding facts that establish a primary plan's responsibility for any such payment (whether or not such finding has been appealed), by any relevant evidence, including but not limited to relevant statistical or epidemiological evidence or by other similarly reliable means."[12] The amendment also stated that a single action could be brought against a company to establish its responsibility for all individuals for whom the company is alleged to be the "primary plan," thereby circumventing class action requirements.[13]

Accordingly, the supposed factual finding could be established in a federal court under this novel statistical theory of liability--without securing a prior judgment under a traditional theory of law. The amendment would convert the MSP from a traditional reimbursement mechanism into a vehicle for bringing mass tort suits for "statistical" health care injuries, such as producing high-calorie foods, many of which the beneficiaries could avoid by modifying their behavior.[14] Lawyers and activists could sue virtually any company that provides a product that studies say is "bad for your health," regardless of whether any injuries actually--instead of statistically--occurred or, in cases where there are injuries, whether the patients or their doctors believe the product caused the particular harms. And all of this can be done by lawyers who do not even have a client, allowing a true rush-to-judgment bonanza.

In a prior MSP case that trial lawyers brought (arguing for similar legal theories), the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals explained the potential scope of litigation:


First, Plaintiffs' proposed interpretation of [the MSP] would drastically expand federal court jurisdiction by creating a federal forum to litigate any state tort claim in which a business entity allegedly injured a Medicare beneficiary, without regard to diversity of citizenship or amount in controversy. alleged tortfeasor that is sued under the MSP (instead of under state tort law) could not contest liability without risking the penalty of double damages: defendants would have no opportunity to reimburse Medicare after responsibility was established but before the penalty attached. Third...[it] would allow individuals acting as private attorneys general to litigate the state tort liability of a defendant towards thousands of Medicare beneficiaries--as a predicate to showing MSP liability--without complying with class action requirements.[15]


The intent of the proposed amendment is to override this common-sense ruling (and the rulings of the four other circuit courts that have heard similar claims and rejected them), to expand federal jurisdiction, to remove traditional tort law barriers to these claims, and even to circumvent the class action restrictions that would otherwise be applicable.

Unconstitutional Standing Problems

The proposed amendment raises a host of serious legal concerns, the most severe of which is that allowing any random individual to sue for damages that he alleges the federal government suffered very likely violates constitutional standing requirements.

Article III of the Constitution defines the power of the federal courts and authorizes them to hear only "cases" or "controversies." In determining whether a dispute brought before the court is an actual case or controversy, a fundamental dividing line is standing--that is, whether an individual has "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf."[16]

Under the Supreme Court's well-established jurisprudence, to demonstrate constitutional standing, the plaintiff must satisfy a three-prong test:


First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"--an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of--the injury has to be fairly...trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.[17]


While the MSP amendment purports to permit "any person" into court to establish the liability of any entity, it is extremely questionable whether "any person" would satisfy the constitutional requirements for standing. The amendment is designed to permit speculative, conjectural, or hypothetical suits--the very type of claims that the standing doctrine prohibits.

But it is not enough that Congress has granted these would-be bounty hunters a right to sue: The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that "[i]t is settled that Congress cannot erase Article III's standing requirements by statutorily granting the right to sue to a plaintiff who would not otherwise have standing."[18] Indeed, the Court has made clear that "[i]n no event...may Congress abrogate the Art. III minimum: A plaintiff must always have suffered a distinct and palpable injury to himself that is likely to be redressed if the requested relief is granted."[19]

While Congress's act of granting the litigants a bounty to bring these lawsuits might be enough to give the party a concrete private interest in the outcome of the litigation, it is, on its own, insufficient to establish standing. Bounties, like statutory authorization of attorneys' fees, or even wagering on the outcome of a case, are not alone sufficient to confer standing because they are interests "unrelated to injury in fact[.]"[20]

In the context of the False Claims Act (FCA), which protects the government against paying fraudulent claims, the Supreme Court previously found that plaintiffs in qui tam cases have standing to assert the injury in fact suffered by the government.[21] However, the putative qui tam provisions at issue here are significantly different from those in the FCA in ways that raise serious questions as to whether a plaintiff would likewise meet the standing threshold.

First and foremost, the court found that standing existed in the context of the FCA because the party bringing the suit--the qui tam relator--acted as an assignee of the government, who had a right to sue because of a genuine injury in fact.[22] But the MSP amendment is not a case of a company submitting an actual false claim to the government for payment which, in turn, creates an "actual" injury in fact. Here, statistical evidence may be used to establish liability without any evidence of actual harm.

Indeed, the reason that the government has not pursued these injuries on its own is because they most likely do not constitute concrete, particularized injuries. The amendment would be an invitation for avaricious trial lawyers to manufacture conjecture in the hopes of creating an injury. Such claims can hardly be considered injury in fact and would likely fail as being "conjectural or hypothetical."[23]

Second, in declaring that FCA qui tam relators have standing, the Supreme Court found the history of qui tam suits "well nigh conclusive."[24] That history demonstrates that there was no evidence in America of common-law qui tam actions.[25] There were statutes permitting qui tam actions of two kinds: those that permitted informers who may not have suffered injury themselves to bring suit and those that permitted an injured party to sue for damages both on his own and on the United States' behalf.[26]

In the case of the MSP amendment, however, not only does the party not have an injury, but he also does not have any insider information of the kind ordinarily associated with informer statutes. While the absence of such insider information would not necessarily prohibit the federal government from assigning its rights arising from an actual injury (if such an injury exists), this break with the historical precedent of qui tam--which is itself seen as an exceptional case of standing--would likely make the courts skeptical at best regarding the constitutional standing of would-be bounty hunters to sue on the government's behalf.[27]

Given the lack of a concrete or particularized injury to assign and the break from historical precedent in the assignment of such claims, the MSP amendment raises grave questions as to whether those who would bring suit have the requisite standing to proceed. In the authors' opinion, the MSP's purported grant of standing to "any person" would be unconstitutional.

Other Policy Dangers

Apart from the proposed amendment's obvious constitutional problems,[28] other legal and policy implications are equally alarming. For example, the federal government would be forced to provide these "bounty hunters" with all medical records held by the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services "containing encounter-level information with regard to diagnoses, treatments, and costs...and any other relevant information."[29] Thus, the private medical records of Medicare beneficiaries would be provided to such bounty hunters without the permission of the beneficiaries and even if the beneficiaries (or the federal government) specifically objected.

The statistical theory of liability would bring its own nightmares. Since it would be so much easier to prove theoretical injuries in federal court than it would be to prove real ones, the traditional safeguards of state tort laws (developed over hundreds of years) would be abandoned. This is because MSP lawsuits could be based on what essentially amounts to a disparate impact theory. As one commentator has said, this theory would allow claims against defendants "who might not be found liable in an individual case but are responsible in a 'statistical sense.'"[30]

Who are the defendants that trial lawyers want to target for "society-wide patterns of illness or injury?"[31] Every company that supplies "bad" products ranging from fast food to alcohol to soda to guns would be the targets of lawsuits.

In other words, this is a legal recipe for mass class action lawsuits that will not require actual evidence of causation and that will virtually eliminate affirmative defenses such as assumption of risk or contribution to harm. Companies could end up paying huge settlements for MSP cases based purely on nonscientific studies produced by activist groups and questionable statistical findings even though they could not be found liable for the actual injuries of individual Medicare beneficiaries under traditional legal theories. This amendment changes the entire nature of the MSP statute from one that simply reimburses the government for existing liabilities to one that creates entirely new theories of liability.

And what good is a lawyer's earmark if it does not increase his bounty? Section 1620 adds a provision (on top of the already existing double damages) that provides the bounty hunter with a 30 percent bonus plus "the actual costs that person incurred to prosecute the action."[32] Even if the government intervenes, the bounty hunter will receive at least an additional 20 percent plus expenses.[33] The double damages provision is expanded to apply not just in the cases where a primary plan does not make a reimbursement as required, but in all cases where the primary payer (under the almost nonexistent evidentiary standard implemented by the amendment) engaged in "an intentional tort or other intentional wrongdoing."[34] Bounty hunter lawyers could even settle a case supposedly filed on behalf of the United States "notwithstanding the objections of the United States" if the court approves the settlement.[35]

Finally, this provision would have the perverse effect of making health care in this country worse. There are many drugs and medical devices whose overall benefits to a large population of patients override the adverse reactions or side effects of a small number of users. This amendment would allow tort lawsuits to be filed on behalf of Medicare even if Medicare knowingly pays for prescription drugs or medical devices with "inherent risks [and side effects and complications] which are an accepted part of the health care system." [36] This could have a devastating effect on the availability of a vast array of treatments for Medicare beneficiaries.


Fortunately, before Section 1620 could be approved by the Ways and Means Committee as part of the overall health care bill, it was removed,[37] but there is little doubt that this amendment will surface again, perhaps as soon as the Senate begins its deliberations on the health care bill.[38]

All of these proposed changes in the MSP would stand the "statute on its head."[39] In fact, the financial bonanza represented by such provisions is exactly the type of temptation that led to the imprisonment of leading members of the trial bar like William Lerach and Dickie Scruggs for paying bribes to plaintiffs and judges in lucrative mass litigation cases.[40] It seems unwise--and contrary to the purpose of the original statute--to base legislation on such provisions. Furthermore, faced with the potential of such damages, many companies would be forced to settle even frivolous cases to avoid the potential of huge damage awards whose costs would be passed on to consumers.

The proposed amendment--Section 1620--is bad public policy that would increase health care costs and endanger the health and privacy of Medicare beneficiaries. It should not be revived either in the U.S. Senate or in committee.

Edwin Meese III is Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy in and Chairman of, and Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow in, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, H.R. 3200, 111th Cong. (2009).

[2]42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(A); See also Cochran v. United State Health Care Fin. Admin., 291 F.3d 775 (11th Cir. 2002).

[3]42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(ii).

[4]Id.§ 1395y(b)(3).

[5]Glover v. Liggett Group, Inc., 459 F.3d 1304, 1306 (11th Cir. 2006).

[6]Graham v. Farm Bureau Insurance Co., 2007 WL 891895 (W.D.Mich 2007) (citations omitted).

[7]See e.g., Stalley v. Methodist Healthcare, 517 F.3d 911 (6th Cir. 2008).

[8]Qui tam is from a Latin phrase meaning "he who brings a case on behalf of our lord the King, as well as for himself." See Memorandum from the U.S. Department of Justice on False Claims Act Cases: Government Intervention in Qui Tam (Whistleblower) Suits, available at
; see also Hans A. von Spakovsky and Brian W. Walsh, Correcting False Claims About the New False Claims Act Legislation, Heritage FoundationLegal Memorandum No. 42, July 2, 2009, available at

[9]Stalley, 517 F.3d at 919.

[10]America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, Chairman's Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3200 § 1620(1)(E) July 16, 2009 (as offered by Mr. Rangel of New York), available at

[11]Phil Goldberg, Kudos to Congress for Saying "No" to Renewed Attempts to Turn MSP Act Into New Vehicle for Litigation Abuse, inBNA's Medicare Report (July 24, 2009).

[12]America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, Chairman's Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3200 § 1620(1)(D) (emphasis added).

[13]Id. § 1620(1)(E).

[14]If such claims were brought by the beneficiaries under state law, they normally would be barred under traditional state law by defenses such as "contributory negligence" and "assumption of risk."

[15]Glover, 459 F.3d at 1309.

[16]Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498-99 (1975) (internal quotation omitted).

[17]Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (internal quotations omitted).

[18] Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 820 n.3 (1997) (citing Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100 (1979)).

[19]Gladstone Realtors, 441 U.S. at 100 (1979) (internal quotation omitted).

[20]Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 772 (2000).

[21]Id. at 773.


[23]See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.

[24]Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 529 U.S. at 777.


[26] 776-77.

[27]In addition to these constitutionally relevant distinctions, there are policy distinctions suggesting that qui tam may be appropriate in whistleblower cases, which provide a remedy for individuals working for corrupt bosses or for being asked to participate in corrupt practices, but inappropriate here, where the lawyers bringing the actions have no such claim.

[28]Beyond the Art. III standing problems, the MSP amendment raises substantial Art. II and constitutional federal concerns.

[29]America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, Chairman's Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3200 § 1620(3)(A)(iv).

[30]Walter Olson, Chronicling the High Cost of Our Legal System--Medicare Qui Tam: a Health Care Bill Surprise, July 17, 2009, available at


[32] America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, Chairman's Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3200 § 1620(3)(A)(iii).

[33]Id. § 1620(3)(A)(v).

[34]Id. § 1620(2).

[35]Id. § 1620(3)(A)(v).

[36]Phil Goldberg, supra note 11.

[37]This was apparently due to the efforts of Reps. Dave Camp (R-MI) and Eric Cantor (R-VA). James K. Glassman, Trial Lawyer Medicare Bonanza Averted--For Now, The American, August 5, 2009, available at http://www.

[38]A similar effort was tried in the Senate Finance Committee in 2007. See Phil Goldberg, supra note 11.

[39]Graham, 2007 WL 891895.

[40]Quin Hillyer, How the Mighty Lerach Has Fallen: Power Lawyer to Prisoner, Washington Examiner, August 17, 2008; Jack Elliott, Jr., Year in Review: Top Tort Lawyer Jailed for Bribery, Associated Press, Dec. 29, 2008.

ACORN's impact on the poor

Posted: September 18, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Mike Lester
© 2009 

ACORN's impact on the poor

Obama offends patriots – are veterans next?
Exclusive: Rees Lloyd takes prez to task for tweaking with 9/11 remembrance

Obama offends patriots – are veterans next?

Posted: September 18, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Rees Lloyd
© 2009 


Sept. 11 has been annually observed since 2001 as Patriot Day – that is, until Sept. 11, 2009, when President Barack Hussein Obama proclaimed it "Patriot Day and National Day of Service and Remembrance." Why would the Obama regime redefine Patriot Day into a community-organizing slogan?

Patriot Day is not a day to gayly attend a community-organizing meeting of ACORN, whose organizers Obama trained, whose lawyer Obama was, and to whose corrupt leaders Obama has conduited millions of taxpayer dollars.

Today, the third Friday of September, is annual National POW/MIA Recognition Day, dedicated to honoring and remembering all those who suffered as prisoners of war and all the thousands still missing in action. Rear Adm. Jeremiah Denton (USN, retired), former U.S. senator (R-Ala.), a Vietnam prisoner of war for seven years, seven months, who detailed the torture and suffering of American POWs in his powerful book, "When Hell Was In Session" (a new edition of which will be released by WND Books on Veterans Day), will be the keynote speaker at national ceremonies at the Pentagon. Will the original purpose of POW/MIA Recognition Day be the next changed by Obama?

Patriot Day is a day of solemn remembrance of the horror of 9/11/2001 and the need to stand united against the Islamist terrorism that caused the death of almost 3,000 innocent people, including over 400 fire, police and other emergency personnel who died in valiant attempts to rescue those victims.

Instead, Obama, a Saul Alinsky-indoctrinated former "community organizer" cum president, diminishes the "Patriot" essence of Patriot Day to proclaim: "I call upon the people of the United States to participate in community service" as his first priority of 9/11 observances. The media almost universally reported Sept. 11, 2009, as "the first National Service Day."

Thus, Obama and his regime have shamefully degraded Patriot Day by an act further evidencing his apparently unrestrained narcissistic self-worship. He apparently is so self-absorbed that he is unable to recognize that Patriot Day is not about him and his community-organizer agenda or his personality cult.

Patriot Day is about those innocents who died and those heroes who died trying to save those innocents. It is about remembering and honoring the ordinary Americans on Flight 93, who, knowing that they would die, rose up and fought the Islamist terrorists who had hijacked the plane in order to fly it into the Capitol. That patriotic spirit is what is needed if we are to defend American freedom from Islamist jihadist terrorism.

Remarkably, Obama issued a proclamation that speaks of thousands who were killed, but never identifies who or what killed them. How is it that Barack Hussein Obama never identifies the attack as terrorism, or the perpetrators as terrorists, or identifies them as Muslim fanatics, almost all 19 of whom were Saudi Arabian members of al-Qaida. Why?

Patriot Day was established as a result of the action of the U.S. House of Representatives, by a vote of 407 to 0, on Oct. 25, 2001, to adopt Joint Resolution 71, which requested the president to designate Sept. 11 each year as "Patriot Day" in remembrance of all those who died as a result of the 9/11 attack on America. Then-President George Bush, on Dec. 18, 2001, signed Joint Resolution 71 into law, establishing Sept. 11 as Patriot Day.

Since then, Patriot Day has become an American tradition – a day of nationwide solemn observances, especially among veterans, remembering the horror of 9/11, remembering terrorism's victims, remembering the heroes, and remembering the reasons why we must be prepared to stand and fight terrorism and the terrorists if we are to preserve freedom, just as we do on POW/MIA Day, Veterans Day, Pearl Harbor Day, Four Chaplains Day, Memorial Day or D-Day.

In his proclamation, Obama said he was changing Patriot Day because the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, adopted April 21, 2009, which reauthorized and re-formed many federal national service laws, "recognizes September 11 as a National Day of Service." Why would the Obama regime use this massive statute to set a new National Service Day on the already-existing Patriot Day? That is not explained, but is apparent: It is naught but cover for Obama to pursue his community organizer's agenda, so clearly set out in his mentor Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals."

I, with other veterans, observed Patriot Day as Patriot Day, notwithstanding Obama's purporting to change a day of patriotic purpose into a community organizer's opportunity to change patriots into statist subjects or serfs kowtowing to government.

The nation should repudiate Obama's tortured redefining of Patriot Day. Congress should act to restore Patriot Day. And neither Obama nor any other self-obsessed, narcissistic politician should ever again attempt to pervert Patriot Day – or POW/MIA Day, Veterans Day, Pearl Harbor Day, Four Chaplains Day, Memorial Day or D-Day – from a day remembering and honoring those who lost their lives by acts of war, as 9/11 was, into an opportunity to advance that politician's personal political agenda or personality cult.



Dismay in Eastern Europe as USA ditches missile defense...






WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Beware: Baucus pulling Obama's Trojan horse 
Analyst warns: 'This president has to get something through'


WorldNetDaily Exclusive

'Lone ranger' Baucus riding into sunset? 
Human Events editor unloads on Joe Wilson critics, Carter, ACORN


WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Moderate Democrats warm to GOP plans 
Congressman touts 'patient-centered control that doesn't expand government'


WorldNetDaily Exclusive

'Cowardly' betrayal threatens 'human freedom'
GOP's Franks: Nuclear Iran will profoundly alter 'entire paradigm of world security'


WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Obama's 'terrible decision' endangers America
Analyst: 'This is about trying to reverse the end of the Cold War'



WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Amnesty agenda linked to health-care overhaul
Terry Jeffrey: 'Obama has no interest in stemming the flow of illegal aliens into the U.S.'




Sunstein: Obama, not courts, should interpret law

--WND Exclusive--



Sunstein: Obama, not courts, should interpret law
'Beliefs and commitments' of nation's leader should supersede judges

Posted: September 18, 2009
12:10 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Cass Sunstein

JERUSALEMThe interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

"There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein.

This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein's 2006 Yale Law School paper, "Beyond Marbury: The Executive's Power to Say What the Law Is." The paper, in which he argues the president and his advisers should be the ones to interpret federal laws, was obtained and reviewed by WND.

Sunstein debated the precedent-setting 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, which determined it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

He lamented multiple recent examples of U.S. presidents interpreting law only to have their interpretations overturned by the Supreme Court.

"Why is the executive not permitted to construe constitutional ambiguities as it sees fit?" asks Sunstein. "The simplest answer is that foxes are not permitted to guard henhouses ... but who is the fox?"

He concludes "the executive should usually be permitted to interpret (law) as it reasonably sees fit."

"The allocation of law-interpreting power to the executive fits admirably well with the twentieth-century shift from common law courts to regulatory administration if the governing statute is ambiguous," he writes.

Sunstein is not shy about expressing his radical beliefs in papers and books, although many of his controversial arguments have received little to no news media attention or public scrutiny.

Earlier this week, WND first reported Sunstein drew up in an academic book a "First Amendment New Deal" – a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.

WND also reported Sunstein proposed a radical new "bill of rights" in a 2004 book, "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever," in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state.

WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.

Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.

Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."

In his book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Rights:

Among his mandates are:

·                  The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

·                  The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

·                  The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

·                  The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

·                  The right of every family to a decent home;

·                  The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

·                  The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

·                  The right to a good education.


On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."

Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments."



WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Unearthed! Obama's
twisted ACORN roots

Track timeline of president's ties
to group immersed in scandals



Unearthed! Obama's twisted ACORN roots
Track timeline of president's ties to group immersed in scandals

Posted: September 18, 2009
12:10 am Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

ACORN (photo: Dickinson College)

While ACORN remains riddled in scandal, lawmakers have voted to cut off federal funding to the group, the U.S. Census Bureau has severed ties to the organization – and the White House has blasted its behavior as "unnacceptable."
But just how extensive are President Obama's personal ties to ACORN?

The following is a timeline outlining some of the purported connections between the president and ACORN through the years:

1990s: Obama meets ACORN

ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, first noticed Obama when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the Developing Communities Project. A March 2, 2008, Los Angeles Times article by Letta Tayler and Keith Herbert, titled "Obama Forged Path As Chicago Community Organizer," explored Obama's pre-law school days as a community organizer in Chicago and his efforts to build a partnership with Chicago's "Friends of the Parks."

"Obama's task was to help far South Side residents press for improvement," the Times article explained.

National Review Online noted, "Part of Obama's work, it would appear, was to organize demonstrations, much in the mold of radical groups like ACORN."

The Times article reveals that Madeleine Talbot, who at the time was a leader at Chicago ACORN, was thoroughly impressed with Obama because "he got people to vote with their feet."

"At the time, Talbot worked at the social action group ACORN and initially considered Obama a competitor," the article stated. "But she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff."

Talbott personally led Chicago ACORN's campaign to intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to low-credit customers, Stanley Kurtz reported.

"Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in 'direct action' – organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption," Kurtz writes. "Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a 'living wage' law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans."

Learn more about Barack Obama's early involvement as an ACORN organizer and attorney

1992: Project Vote! and training green ACORNs

As WND reported, in 1992, while he was working as a community organizer in Chicago, Obama headed the Chicago operations of Project Vote!, an ACORN effort to register voters nationally. In Chicago, Obama had his biggest impact registering African-American voters on the city's South Side. However, Obama's "Fight the Smears" website disputes this, saying Obama "never organized with ACORN."

After completing his legal education at Harvard in 1991, Obama returned to Chicago to work on the voting project that developed directly out of a radical revolutionary strategy developed by two Columbia University sociologists in the 1960s. In what became known as the Cloward-Piven strategy, the tactic advocated a revolutionary approach to mobilizing the poor in the form of class warfare against capitalist forces viewed as exploiting labor and oppressing the poor. The Cloward-Piven strategy sought to apply the tactics of the revolutionary civil rights movement, including urban riots, to the poor as a whole, transcending interest-group politics defined by race to involve interest-group politics defined by class.

Kurtz wrote, Obama also "conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks."


Obama's FIght the Smears website claims Obama "never organized with ACORN"

1993: Woods Foundation

In 1993, Obama joined the board of the Woods Foundation, a non-profit foundation which declares its goal to "increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities by giving money primarily to not-for-profit groups involved in housing, the arts and other areas." Obama served along with Bill Ayers and remained on the board until 2002.

Pajamas Media reports that during Obama's time there, ACORN received grants of $45,000 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002) and $40,000 (2002) from the Woods Fund.

1994: Buycks-Robinson v. Citibank

As WND reported, in 1994, Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School then fresh from his Project Vote! experience, represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal Savings Bank case, in which ACORN pressed for Citibank to make more loans to marginally qualified African-American applicants "in a race neutral way."

After obtaining a settlement in the Citibank litigation, ACORN used its subsidiary organization ACORN Housing, a nationwide organization with offices in more than 30 U.S. cities, to push the group's radical agenda to get subprime home buyers mortgages under the most favorable terms possible.

1995: ACORN attorney in Illinois lawsuit

In 1995, Obama was hired as a lawyer for ACORN in a major lawsuit. As a lawyer with civil-rights law firm Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, he sued the state of Illinois on behalf of ACORN to implement the federal "motor voter" law.

Also in 1995, as WND's Jerome Corsi reported, Bill Ayers co-founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with a $50 million grant program for the Chicago public schools. Ayers selected Obama to be the first chairman of the board of the Annenberg Challenge, a position Obama held for eight years, until 2003, a period during which Ayers remained active with the Challenge.

In his Wall Street Journal article, Stanley Kurtz wrote that the Annenberg project funneled money to through various far-left community organizers, including ACORN.




1996: New Party ties

As WND reported, newspaper evidence shows Obama was a member of the New Party, which sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda. While running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the New Party, according to confirmed reports during last year's presidential campaign.


Barack Obama pictured in New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog)

According to Democratic Socialists of America documents, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates.

In 1995, the DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.

"Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag," the newsletter said. "One one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics – until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party."

1997-2004: Illinois state senator


Obama meeting with ACORN leaders as an Illinois Senate candidate

In 1997, Obama became an Illinois state senator. ACORN national board member Toni Foulkes bragged of ACORN's long-standing relationship with Obama prior to his election in the 2003-2004 issue of Social Policy.

Foulkes wrote in "Case Study: Chicago – The Barack Obama Campaign":

ACORN noticed [Obama] when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the Developing Communities Project. He was a very good organizer. When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois' refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act, also known as motor voter. .. Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar (the name of the Republican governor at the time) and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them). Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus, it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for Senate, we were old friends.


2005: U.S. senator

In 2005, Obama became a U.S. senator.

2007: From Obama's own mouth ...

On Obama's Organizing for America blog, Sam Graham-Felsen, a paid blogger, wrote about Obama's November 2007 speech to ACORN leaders:


When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer, a nonprofit focused on voter rights and education. Senator Obama said, "I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That's what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That's the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."


Again, on Dec. 1, 2007, Obama spoke at the Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum, a meeting for community organizing groups including ACORN. Obama received wild applause from the crowd as he promised that community organizing groups such as ACORN would help shape the agenda for his presidency.

Naked Emperor News posted the following video of his pledge:

He was asked, "If elected president of the Unites States, would you agree, in your first 100 days, to meet with the delegation of representatives from these various community organizations that campaigned for community values? Could they count on you in your first 100 days to sit down with them?"

Obama responded, "Yes. But let me even say before I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We're going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America."

2008: ACORN endorses Obama

On Feb. 21, 2008, the Acorn Political Action Committee endorsed Obama over Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries.

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, insisted they had nothing to do with ACORN after the inner-city advocacy group became engulfed in controversy over voter-registration fraud.

But in August 2008, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported that the Obama campaign paid $832,598.29 to ACORN "offshoot" Citizens Services Inc. for "get out the vote" projects from Feb. 25 to May 17.

The newspaper revealed that Obama's payments to CSI for services were unusual: "For example, CSI received payments of $63,000 and $75,000 for advance work. Excluding the large payments to CSI, the average amount the Obama campaign spent with other organizations was $558.82 per check on more than 1,200 entries classified as advance work."

Anita Moncrief, former ACORN insider

According to the report, Citizens Services Inc. is headquartered at the same address as ACORN's national headquarters in New Orleans. A 2006 ACORN publication describes Citizen Services Inc. as "ACORN's campaign services entity."

In 2008, Anita MonCrief, a woman who worked in the Strategic Writing and Research Department of ACORN Political Operations and its affiliate Project Vote from 2005 through January 2008, said ACORN acted as an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party during the election and used cash operations to keep some financial transactions under wraps.

"It has always been a Democrat operation," she recently told WND. "They've never made any secrets about who they support. Their political action committees are usually set up to support these Democratic candidates."

She said political action committees support Democrat candidates, and the at the same time voter registration drives were being conducted, the group was putting out propaganda in communities telling people not to vote for Republicans.

According to a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review report, she further told a Pennsylvania court before the election that the Obama camp provided ACORN with a "donor list" that enabled Project Vote to solicit contributions from Obama supporters who had "maxed out" under federal contribution limits but who could surreptitiously give more to Obama's cause by donating to ACORN and its affiliates.

As WND reported, Project Vote, an affiliate of ACORN, is now suing MonCrief to the tune of $5 million.

2009: Criminal case against ACORN

According to the results of a congressional investigation done in July, ACORN was found to be rife with criminal activity.

A report from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform states that ACORN "has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in systemic fraud. Both structurally and operationally, ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate."

Since 1994, ACORN has received more than $53 million in federal funds, according to the report.

"Under the Obama administration, ACORN stands to receive a whopping $8.5 billion in available stimulus funds. Operationally, ACORN is a shell game played in 120 cities, 43 states and the District of Columbia through a complex structure designed to conceal illegal activities, to use taxpayer and tax-exempt dollars for partisan political purposes, and to distract investigators. Structurally, ACORN is a chess game in which senior management is shielded from accountability by multiple layers of volunteers and compensated employees who serve as pawns to take the fall for every bad act," the report said.

The report continued, "Lobbying is a substantial part of what ACORN does. It has endorsed Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Representative Albert Wynn (D-MD), and Representative Donna Edwards (D-MD). ACORN keeps donor records from the Clinton, Kerry and Obama campaigns with the intent to engage in prohibited communications. ACORN receives federal funding yet engages in improper lobbying. ACORN and its nonprofit affiliates do not have separate accounts. Neither ACORN nor any of its affiliates have properly reported their political activities to the IRS. These harms fly under the legal radar because the IRS rarely checks for compliance. The 'no substantial part' test is rarely enforced and the accounts of ACORN and its affiliates are illegally commingled."

ACORN became a hot topic during the 2008 presidential race because of Obama's ties to the group as well as its own admission that more than 400,000 of the 1.3 million voter registrations it claimed to have collected were not valid. ACORN registered 1.3 million new voters last year, and it is now under investigation in numerous states and faces voter fraud charges in nearly two dozen states.

The Obama administration selected ACORN to recruit counters for the 2010 Census, but the Census Bureau severed its ties with ACORN on Sept. 11.The Internal Revenue Service has also indicated that it is conducting a "thorough review" of its agreements with ACORN. According to Bloomberg, ACORN has has helped prepare about 150,000 free tax returns since 2004 for low-income families. Those returns have generated $190 million in tax refunds.

Cutting ties with ACORN?

Obama has tried to publicly disassociate himself from the group.

"The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs," Obama declared in one of the presidential debates.

"Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names," Obama said.

"It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved," he declared.

Today, the House voted 345-75 to eliminate federal funding of ACORN after undercover videos showed counselors giving advice on tax evasion to a undercover reporters posing as a pimp and prostitute.

According to Fox News, the Defund ACORN Act prohibits any "federal contract grant, cooperative agreement or any other form of agreement (including a memorandum of understanding)" from being awarded to or entered into with ACORN. It also prohibits federal funds "in any other form" from being granted to ACORN.

The decision followed a Sept. 14 Senate vote to strip millions of dollars in federal housing funds for ACORN.

House Minority Leader John Boehner has called on President Obama to indicate whether he would sign a bill forbidding ACORN from receiving federal funding, the New York Times reported. The White House is now distancing itself from ACORN and its scandals.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs referenced the video that revealed ACORN employees giving illegal tax advice to a man and woman disguised as a pimp and prostitute.

"Obviously, the conduct that you see on those tapes is completely unacceptable. I think everyone would agree to that," Gibbs said. "The administration takes accountability extremely seriously."

Gibbs said he does not know whether Obama will ask Democrats to sever ties with ACORN.
"I don't know that I've had any discussion with him about that," he said.



Jimmy Carter's new twist on Old South race baiting
Exclusive: Alan Keyes on why 'Obama's skin color doesn't make him a black American'
Alan KeyesAlan Keyes

Jimmy Carter's new twist on Old South race baiting

Posted: September 18, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

As it has in so many other ways, Barack Obama's political victory in 2008 has proven false to the hope that the election of someone of African heritage would help carry the American people beyond the tragic legacy of guilt, mutual ignorance and resentful fear left by past sins of slavery and racial discrimination. Instead, the racial divide seems every day exacerbated by another instance in which someone salts the ancient racial wound with some new attempt to portray as racist all reactions against Obama's push to establish his alien neo-totalitarian ideas in place of the constitutional liberty Americans have enjoyed.

The latest such exploitative slander comes from former President Jimmy Carter. In his AP story, correspondent Greg Bluestein reports: "Responding to an audience question at a town hall at his presidential center in Atlanta Carter said Tuesday that [Rep. Joe] Wilson's outburst was also rooted in fears of a black president. "I think it's based on racism," Carter said. "There is an inherent feeling among many that an African-American should not be president."

So, let's see. Anyone not willing to swallow the radical, un-American national socialist proposals of a communist-leaning Saul Alinsky protégé, enamored of radical Marxist teachers and ideas, is a racist who believes, according to Carter, "that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country." True to his "bigoted liberal" roots, Carter has invented a new racial stereotype. All blacks are communist-leaning proponents of national socialism. That's the only premise on which opposition to Obama's policies can be offered as prima facie evidence of anti-black racial bigotry.

As I recall it was quite common for hard-line segregationist opponents of the civil-rights movement to characterize blacks as communist agitators. It seems to me that the Southerner who's harking back to those old stereotypes isn't Joe Wilson. It's Jimmy (smile-when-you-say that) Carter. Of course, he's not alone. For years white liberals and their fawning black Quimbos (the wicked slaveholder Simon Legree's sadistic black overseers in Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin") have made it clear that only those who buy into their irrational leftist bunk will be accepted as genuine black people. Perhaps this is their recipe for getting beyond race. It worked so well for them that, after his sexual escapades in the Oval Office, they proclaimed Bill Clinton to be the first black president. (Apparently, accepting leftist bunk means rejecting traditional sexual morality. Thus, as it was for the old Southern segregationists, so too for these leftists – uncontrollable fornication becomes a sine qua non of the black identity.)

Are we headed for a Nazi-style totalitarian abyss? Find out in "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America"

Carter is clearly working with the same logic. You can't tell a black by his cover. You have to look at his ideology. There's actually a serious truth hidden in that self-serving logic. Pigmentation may determine race, but it is not a proper basis for human communities. In this respect, though, it's impossible to see why Carter and the other Obama faction apologists keep insisting that Barack Obama has anything to do with the black American heritage. His "black" background is that of a biologically African Muslim, with a strong element of Indonesian upbringing early on. His personal history in no way leads back to the experiences that forged the black American identity. His ethnic tie to America comes through a white American, his leftist radical mother. So when Carter claims that opposing him smacks of anti-black racism, he risks becoming the object of another truth serum outburst from the Joe Wilsons of the world. If the opposition comes from racism of any kind, it must be on account of his white American heritage.

We can be thankful that, unlike Jimmy Carter, we're not trying to exploit the racist epithet for political gain. Therefore, we can discard these sophistical mental contortions and simply admit that racism has nothing to do with it. There's a rising tide of opposition to Obama because he's a communist-leaning national socialist. A majority of Americans don't want to live in a society governed by a communist-leaning national socialist regime. Therefore, they will oppose Obama once they understand what he's up to.

What's more, once they realize how thoroughly he rejects the basic premises of American liberty and justice, they will realize that, whatever his skin color, he has little or nothing in him that respects the black American identity. Forged in the struggle to survive slavery and racial injustice, the identity of black Americans has at its heart the moral premise that also informs their identity as Americans – the self-evident truth that we are all created equal, and endowed by our creator with unalienable rights. Obama is the fervent, dedicated leader of a cult of death that rejects this confirmation of the intrinsic God-ordained worth of every human life. He rejects the soul of black folk.

America will truly transcend racism when we accept the fact that, bereft of this soul of principle, Obama's skin color doesn't make him a black American. It has no significance, except as an excuse for leftist guilt-mongering. But all Americans, whatever our color, background or creed, who admit and refuse to surrender the American soul (that is in a special sense also the soul of the black American identity) – we form one people, one nation, one altogether human race. Far from being racist or divisive, our unanimous rejection of Obama's soulless socialism could revive the hope for moral justice first kindled when the USA was founded.
Dowd, Carter guilty of that which they decry
David Limbaugh: Obama supporters are manufacturing phony charges of racism
David LimbaughDavid Limbaugh

Dowd, Carter guilty of that which they decry

Posted: September 18, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

I'm sure New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and former President Jimmy Carter derive a great deal of self-satisfaction slandering other people with false charges of racism, but the damage they're doing to race relations is worse than any bona fide racist could dream of doing.

I ask you: Who is more likely racist, the person who sees race every time she turns around or the person who aspires toward colorblindness? Could those always pointing the accusatory finger be projecting their own discomfort with race?

Listen to how Maureen begins her snarky Sept. 12 column, in which she posited that Rep. Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst was driven by racism. She writes: "Surrounded by middle-aged white guys – a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men's club – Joe Wilson yelled 'You lie!' at a president who didn't. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"

I don't know whether "middle-aged white guys" and "their own men's club" flow more from some bitter feminist strain Dowd seems to possess or her liberal obsession with the superficial aspects of people's differences in pigment, but it is nonetheless bizarre.

Why is it that Dowd sees race in the politicians sitting beside Joe Wilson? And why is she compelled to make "white guys" a pejorative? In her world, to be white and male is to be guilty. Well, I reject the charge, thank you, and would appreciate a little due process before condemnation by such self-proclaimed open-minded liberals as Dowd.

One of the main sins of racism is its devaluation of the individual worth of a member of a racial group based on membership in that group. How ironic that in her thinking and writings Dowd commits the very sin she decries: condemning "middle-aged white guys" by virtue of their skin color and age.

Moving on from Dowd's indictment of Wilson's hapless, pasty colleagues flanking him in the House chamber, Dowd explains that she has "been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer ... had much to do with race. ... But Wilson's shocking disrespect for the office of the president ... convinced me: Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it."

Oh? I wasn't aware that former President George W. Bush is black. For Dowd didn't have the same sensitivities toward the Democrats' "shocking disrespect for the office of the president" in their choral booing of President Bush in the House chamber. Perhaps that's because the left had already so demeaned President Bush through their daily slandering that there was no way to further disrespect him, House chamber or not. What would have been noteworthy is if they'd showed him or the office a modicum of respect.

As for Dowd's divination that "some people ... will never accept" a black president, we'll just have to assume she's projecting or engaging in wishful thinking – the kind of thinking that leftists engage in about conservatives.

Indeed, many liberals like Dowd believe (I'm not assuming; they've told me) that conservatives – based solely on conservatives' ideology – are racists. That's how Dowd can freely jump to such an obscene conclusion about Wilson. Ultimately, it's his conservatism, not his "you lie" utterance, that convinces her. Again, with such categorical thinking to condemn a member (Wilson) of a group (conservatives), Dowd commits the very sin she decries.

Then there's the perennial sermonizer Jimmy Carter out on the stump affirming Dowd's clairvoyance with his own: "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

What entitles Carter to make that leap? Oh, simple, it's when people "begin to attack" Obama "as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler." I wonder, then, why so many leftists depicted President Bush as Hitler.

I also wonder how Maureen Dowd, absent some strain of perversion in her thinking, can hear "You lie, boy!" in Rep. Wilson's statement. I'm not denying that some white-on-black racism still exists, but Dowd and Carter are obviously manufacturing it here both to validate their own prejudices against conservatives and as a weapon to advance their policy preferences.

Most conservatives – and increasing numbers of independents and even some Democrats – strongly disapprove of Barack Obama's policies and what we believe are his deceitful tactics in trying to implement them. He has earned this stunning reversal of support from taking office with 70 percent approval ratings.

But just as when Democrats blithely and recklessly accused President Bush of being racist because of deficiencies in the federal government's

reaction to Hurricane Katrina, Dowd and Carter are doing great damage to race relations in this nation by attributing base racial motives to people where none exists, thereby legitimizing the worst fears of some that racism is thriving in places it is not. I'm sorry, but that is contemptible behavior.



Who's calling whom 'loud and shrill'?
Exclusive: Robert Ringer says 'I told you so' over 'The Obama Socialist Express'

Who's calling whom 'loud and shrill'?

Posted: September 18, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

Democrats are famous for finding a way to shoot themselves in the foot once they gain power. Since a majority of Americans perceived Bill Clinton's presidency to be successful, it took a bit of sexual pervasion and blatant lying to destroy his own presidential legacy.

Now, the new progressive power holders in Washington, including and especially those in BHO's inner circle of mischief, continue to increase their determination to provide freedom-loving Americans with more and better ammunition than they could ever come up with on their own. BHO's strategy to overwhelm the system with one (illegal) socialist proposal after another has turned out to be an embarrassing, self-destructive strategy.

Having said this, fairness compels me to admit that had BHO enacted his agenda slowly, it would have given people more time to catch on and fight back against his implementation of socialism. From day one, BHO's plan has been to push as much "stuff" through – legally or illegally – before the Nov. 2, 2010, elections – at which time a whole lot of Democrats are going to feel like Marie Antoinette on her worst (and last) day.

Which brings us to the Dems' latest foot-shooting episode. Last Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," presidential senior adviser David Axelrod said of the rally in D.C., "I don't think it's indicative of the nation's mood." Say what? It was yet another 180-degree
switcheroo by the panicked administration. Whatever you do that's bad, accuse the other side of doing it. Whatever the other side does that's good, just claim it's bad – or that it didn't happen.

Read the guidebook that's influencing Barack Obama's political warfare, Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"

But even better than Axelrod's self-delusive remarks was what Obama said in yet another "60 Minutes" interview: "The loudest, shrillest voices get the most attention." Again, projection – flip what progressives say and do and claim that the right is guilty of it.

I was at the D.C. rally, and I can tell you that the voices were not shrill, though some of them were at times loud – as well they should have been. But take a cue from Che Prez, because he comes from the ranks of the enemy – the enemy who invented loud and shrill.

You may not be old enough to remember the antics of the hippies in the '60s, but they mastered the art of loud and shrill to move the country irreversibly to the left. Loud and shrill ended the Vietnam War. Loud and shrill kicked the deadly "green movement" into high gear. Loud and shrill reduced God's role to that of a bench player. And loud and shrill brought Barack Hussein Obama out of the manger and into your wallet.

I'm not sure what Saul, King of Radicals would say about how badly the progressives have botched things up since BHO left the Chicago mob for greener pastures in Washington, but my guess is that he'd be furious at their ineptitude. Alinsky had little patience for radicals who acted like fools. I don't for a second believe that David Axelrod believes anything he said in his "Face the Nation" interview, and neither would brother Saul.

BHO and his partners in crime should reread "Rules for Radicals." It's not cool to high-tail it out of town and speak to your own followers while hundreds of thousands of voters are protesting in the town where you live and work (well, leave it at live … BHO is not known for doing a lot of heavy lifting). It's not cool to dismiss folks who are furious about your policies. It's not cool to wave aside dissenters as not representing the mainstream view when clearly they do. And it's certainly not cool to threaten them (as well as congressmen and women) for challenging you on the facts.


My writings about what would happen if a born-and-bred communist became president go back at least a year and a half, and they easily could have been written today. Though I wish I had been wrong, it's at least a small consolation to be able to say, "I told you so." Nor was I alone. A significant number of columnists and radio and TV commentators saw The Obama Socialist Express coming almost from the day he announced his candidacy.

What's puzzling to me are those remaining "conservatives" on TV who still don't see it! (You know, "I don't doubt for a second that Barack Obama has good intentions for America. I just believe that the man is inexperienced.") For crying out loud, read his books! Watch his video clips! Listen to his speeches! It's all there – the promise to fundamentally change America, telling ACORN and SEIU that they will help shape White House
policy with him, czars that want to sterilize you and give your dog the right to sue you, and other assorted chutzpah that would have bought about the wrath of Saul, King of Radicals, for it's lack of subtlety.

BHO is right: Loud and shrill get the most attention. Those who are not members of that shrinking progressive minority that still wants to "fundamentally change America" should take his advice. It's time to ramp it up and make the new fringe media (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) apoplectic.
From red, white and blue to just plain red
Exclusive: Burt Prelutsky asserts O's commie connections haven't changed, just widened

From red, white and blue to just plain red

Posted: September 18, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

Editor's note: Longtime WorldNetDailiy exclusive colummnist Burt Prelutsky, beginning today, will be featured each week on Friday on WND's commentary page.

Before last year's election, I heard a lot of people claim they didn't feel they knew who Obama really was. For my part, I felt I knew him all too well – which was why I didn't like him and wouldn't have voted for him even if he'd run unopposed, which, now that I think about McCain's campaign, was pretty much the way it was.

Boneheads would have you believe my opposition to Obama is based on racism. I, on the other hand, would insist that when a presidential candidate announces that once his energy plan is in place, our energy costs will soar; that he will bury you if you have the temerity to own a coal company; and that he believes, as he told Joe the Plumber, that it is government's job to redistribute wealth, what does race have to do with it? I hated all that stuff back when it was being promoted by such white con artists as Karl Marx, Josef Stalin and Saul Alinsky.

Furthermore, the way that blacks and other liberals label everyone they're against as racists, I think conservatives should start suing these punks for slander. Make them either prove it in court or pay through the nose.

Obama would have you believe that anyone who doesn't buy into his squandering trillions of dollars on pork, his cap-and-trade insanity or his attempt to turn America's health care over to such left-wing loonies as Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers and Henry Waxman, is a racist. It's the-one-size-fits-all insult.

When people insisted that Obama was an enigma, I assumed they just hadn't been paying attention. In his own words, he described his coming of age politically in college when he'd begun seeking out Marxist professors for instruction and radicals, Communists and Third World activists for companionship.

It's funny how years ago, everybody laughed when Bill Clinton said he'd smoked marijuana, but he hadn't inhaled. But when Obama told a much bigger whopper, one that came with cheese and fries, about sitting in a church for 20 years without ever hearing Rev. Wright utter a single unseemly remark about America or white people, I seemed to be one of the few people who found it amusing.

Even the fact that Obama chose to marry a woman who, in her college thesis, wrote that Princeton served as a perfect microcosm of racist America, tells you something about the man.

When Obama, a veteran of Chicago's gutter politics, dismissed any connection to the likes of Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, I could hardly stop laughing. Those on the left predictably started flapping their gums about McCarthyism, insisting that whenever conservatives bring up guilt by association, it's a sure sign the accused is as pure as the driven snow. Which is a lot of hooey. If it's a sure sign of anything, it's that the accused is an unrepentant Red who longs for the days of gulags and the KGB. Guilt by association happens to be one of the surest signs of guilt there is. There is, after all, a reason that felons on parole aren't allowed to hang out with other felons. There is a reason that your granny was likely to point out that if you lie down with dogs, you were very likely to rise up with fleas.

There are conservatives who see FDR when they look at Obama, but I'm not one of them. There's no doubt that Obama shares FDR's dream of centralizing all power and wealth in the hands of the federal government, and whereas FDR liked and admired Josef Stalin, Obama has fond feelings for Castro and Chavez. (Chavez, by the way, suggested to Castro, after Obama took control of GM, that there was a very real possibility that the two of them would eventually wind up to the right of the president. He may have meant it as a joke, but I don't think so.) The major difference I see between Roosevelt and Obama is that I believe FDR, for all his faults, loved this country and regarded it as a special place based on a very special set of principles, whereas Obama believes it's an arrogant country run solely by and for rich white people.

But, of course, by this time, even lunkheads who managed to sleep all the way through 2008 should be able to figure out that, as president, Obama hasn't changed his colors, but only his address. His circle of acquaintances has certainly widened, but it hasn't improved. All you have to do is look at the thugs in ACORN and the SEIU, at people like self-proclaimed Communist Van Jones, who served as one of Obama's czars, and Jeff Jones, another close adviser, who joined with Bill Ayers in creating the terrorist group known as the Weathermen.

And, lest we forget, Attorney General Eric Holder, who has now decided to prosecute members of the CIA whose gravest sin was doing what needed to be done to protect America from a recurrence of 9/11, but decided to drop all charges against the Black Panther pluguglies who disenfranchised white voters by scaring them away from the polls. For anyone who knows the history of the anti-slavery movement in America, it's certainly ironic that these days blacks are in the business of intimidating Republicans on behalf of their Democratic masters. Ironic and more than a little bit disgusting.

By now, I'm sure you're aware that there's a concerted effort to get Glenn Beck knocked off Fox by scaring off his sponsors. Even though I'm a fan of his and even though I believe in free speech, I have no problem with Americans trying to generate boycotts of goods and services. For instance, I happen to be all in favor of boycotting Scotland for sending Abdel Basset al-Megrahi back to a hero's welcome in Libya, so there will be no shillelaghs, tams or bagpipes on my Christmas shopping list this year.

Still, before we get too big for our moral britches, we should keep in mind that whereas one football player got two years for merely shooting himself in the leg, another served a scant 18 months for hanging, beating, drowning and electrocuting a large number of dogs. Therefore, I have no moral objection to ColorOfChange, a black activist group co-founded by that very same Van Jones, from threatening to boycott companies that dared to sponsor Beck's TV show.

But, I think it should be noted that the guy who currently runs ColorOfChange is James Rucker. Mr. Rucker formerly worked for, a left-wing propaganda organ financed largely by George Soros, yet another ex-con in Obama's inner circle. Soros is also the fellow who offered to help his own mother commit suicide. While it's true that she was a member of the Hemlock Society, it certainly helps explain why Soros thinks so highly of Obama's approach to revolutionizing health care for seniors in America.

If anyone questions my use of "left-wing propaganda organ" to describe, let me just say that when I paid a recent visit to their website, the first thing I saw was a picture of an old man holding a sign that read: "83 percent of Americans Favor Obamacare." God knows I rarely quibble with my elders – and hope that, impressed with my shining example, those people younger than 69 won't quibble with me – but unless there was very tiny print on the sign and what it actually said was "83 percent of Americans who belong to Favor Obamacare" or "83 percent of Americans Who Are in George Soros' Will Favor Obamacare," that's a bald-faced lie. Actually, if you reversed the eight and the three, you'd be far closer to the truth.

As I was saying, ColorOfChange has every right to try to persuade companies to withhold their advertising
dollars from Glenn Beck. In the same way, there's nothing to prevent all of you from withholding your own dollars from the likes of Proctor & Gamble, Sargento Cheese, S.C. Johnson, Men's Wearhouse,, GEICO and State Farm Insurance, and letting them know what you think of companies that allow themselves to be intimidated by a small group of nasty, self-righteous radicals. (I have been told by a reliable source that there are four or five other companies that have knuckled under, but I've been unable to identify them. It's telling, though, that ColorOfChange keeps insisting that they got over 30 companies to turn tail, even though most of those they've named never sponsored Beck's show or anything else on Fox.)

Finally, I could hardly believe my ears when Barney Frank told a woman at his town hall meeting that arguing with her would be like arguing with his dining room table. His usual arrogance and bad manners aside, I would actually pay good money to see Barney Frank debate his dining room table. What's more, I'd give odds and take the table.
The media's attack on the truth
Exclusive: Floyd and Mary Beth Brown rip L.A. Times over anti-WND story
The media's attack on the truth

Posted: September 18, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
© 2009 


David Frum is a conservative? That is shocking news to us. The L.A. Times quoted the "conservative" Frum, to attack news organizations that demand the truth about Obama's eligibility. Frum called these theories "wild accusations and the paranoid delusions coming from the fever swamps." He is worried that these groups will somehow diminish the credibility of the more mainline critiques of Obama's liberal agenda.

It is quite ironic that the L.A. Times quotes David Frum, and refers to him as a "conservative," when the former Bush speechwriter endorsed Obama over McCain in the last presidential election. So a former Republican operative who endorses a liberal Democrat and makes his living disparaging conservatives in the press is a "conservative"? Interesting. What is also interesting is that the L.A. Times hit piece that attacked WorldNetDaily did not bother to interview the news site's editor, Joseph Farah. Unlike the rest of the Obama-loving media, Farah and his crew at WorldNetDaily are pursuing the truth and reporting on and investigating the Obama eligibility story.

Rather than being fringe or unnecessary, the questions WorldNetDaily and others are reporting on remain very significant.

Call us crazy. Call us conspiracy theorists. We prefer to think of ourselves as inquisitive and investigative. If someone tells us to ignore the elephant in the room, we generally ignore the messenger. While the media and their favorite "mainstream" conservatives are willing to ignore the mounting questions and evidence, we prefer to dig deeper into yet unanswered questions. If the same people in the media who are disparaging those who ask these questions would have done some investigating in the past, perhaps the issue would be resolved.

President Obama has hidden and suppressed more information than any other president in recent history. While Obama campaigned on the promise of a "more open and transparent government," he has conveniently exempted his personal records from that promise. Obama has yet to release his long-form birth certificate, numerous university and college records, his medical records and a myriad of other documents. As a candidate for the highest office in the land, with a top-secret security clearance, shouldn't Obama be required to produce a document that the rest of us show to get a driver's license at 16? Doesn't Obama have a constitutional obligation to prove his eligibility?

We now know that Obama lied in his autobiography as well as in his recent speech to schoolchildren. Obama claimed his father left him and his mom behind when he headed to Harvard in 1962. In reality, his mom began attending class at the University of Washington 15 days after he was born, leaving the father behind in Hawaii. This sort of discrepancy is quite common in Obama's fairy tale story.

The media have never vetted Obama – all we know about him comes from two autobiographies that when stacked against the historical record do not add up. This has nothing to do with racism. If a president is caught lying, those lies should be investigated.

With the media constantly neglecting their duty to report objectively on Obama, it should surprise no one that they are ignoring the recent news that a federal judge has ordered a federal eligibility case to go to trial. You would think it would be slightly newsworthy that the president of the United States is facing a trial before a federal judge about whether he is eligible to be president. The only time the mainstream media even mentions the eligibility story is when they use it to denounce citizens or online journalists as being conspiracy theorists.

As was shown in the recent reporting on ACORN and the reporting on Obama Green Czar Van Jones, the mainstream media are powerless to censor the news. Persistent conservative media outlets and investigative journalists now have the ability to push the story to the forefront even when the mainstream media do their best to ignore it, or even worse, suppress it.

The conservative movement and, more importantly, the American people benefit from true journalists who pursue the truth without regard for what so-called "conservatives" like David Frum or the Los Angeles Times think about them. Rather than discrediting the movement as a whole, these people who put the truth first will ultimately lead our movement and our country back to prominence.



Van Jones: 'Nothing but love for Obama'
Posts letter to website urging supporters to 'spread the green jobs gospel'

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
War on homeschoolers spreading? 
Advocacy group challenges authorities to explain abduction of 7-year-old
Motion: Judge follows 'illegitimate chain of command' 
Document alleges evidence 'courts are subject to external control'

Motion: Judge follows 'illegitimate chain of command'
Document alleges evidence 'courts are subject to external control'

Posted: September 17, 2009
5:43 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The judge who dismissed a complaint by Capt. Connie Rhodes, the medical doctor and Army officer who wanted a restraining order to prevent her overseas deployment on the basis President Barack Obama has not demonstrated himself to be a natural-born citizen under the U.S. Constitution, has been accused of exhibiting "subservience" to that "same illegitimate chain of command."

Orly Taitz, the California attorney handling many of the lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility, filed a request today on behalf of Rhodes for reconsideration of the dismissal, even though she was threatened by the judge with sanctions.

"Plaintiff avers that there is increasing evidence that the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which plaintiff has previously protested in this case, except that the de facto president is not even nominally the commander-in-chief of the Article III Judiciary," the request said.

Military litigation team attending earlier emergency hearing on Sept. 14

WND reported yesterday when Judge Clay Land – the same judge who earlier dismissed a similar case filed by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook – rejected Rhodes request.

As WND reported, Rhodes filed suit in U.S. District Court in Columbus, Ga., earlier this month, requesting a restraining order preventing her deployment overseas on the basis that the top of the chain of command, President Barack Obama, has not demonstrated himself to be a natural-born citizen under the U.S. Constitution.

"After conducting a hearing on plaintiff's motion, the court finds that plaintiff's claims are frivolous," Land's ruling states. "Accordingly, her application for a temporary restraining order is denied, and her complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Furthermore, plaintiff's counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions."

Taitz, however, followed with today's emergency request for stay of deployment pending motions for rehearing.
"Plaintiff was denied her Fifth Amendment right to due process of law, in particular, by this court's violation of Local Rule 7 of the United States Middle District of Georgia," the motion said. That specifies that the plaintiff was entitled to respond to the government's motion to dismiss the case "not sooner than Thursday, October 1, 2009."

"The court should, upon this ground alone, vacate its September 16, 2009, order of dismissal and stay the deployment of plaintiff Connie Rhodes. Further, both plaintiff and her counsel were denied meaningful access to the courts by the very fact that this court entered its September 16, 2009, ruling without reference to any of the key issues actually raised in plaintiff's complaint or TRO. The fact that the court's 14 page order does not address any actual statements in plaintiff's complaint by page or paragraph number, or any page citation to her TRO, suggests to a reasonable and objective mind that the court either did not read these documents or was summarily instructed by that same illegitimate 'chain of command' alleged above not to address [the questions,]" the motion said.

The motion described the judge's decision as "manifestly unjust and incorrect."

"It is reasonably certain that the men who framed the Constitution did not anticipate the election of a man as a president who appears to have prevaricated about his place of birth and then ordered his loyal followers to ridicule all those who questioned the contradictions inherent in his own biography…" the motion said.

"Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of 'adhering' to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason," the motion says.

Land claimed in his ruling Rhodes had no credible evidence and didn't have factual allegations.

It is not the first time a judge and attorney have disagreed vehemently over a challenge to Obama's presidency.

James Robertson

WND reported earlier in another case when a federal judge who threw out a lawsuit by a retired military officer because the subject had been "blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged."

The judge, James Robertson, threatened the attorney, John D. Hemenway, 82, with sanctions.Hemenway responded by ripping the judge for using blog hearsay in his decision.

In his statement, Robertson ridiculed the complaint, which never had a court hearing, ruling that the eligibility issue had been "blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged."

His dismissal ordered the attorney to respond immediately and explain why there should not be financial sanctions. Hemenway complied, pointing out that the assumption of Obama's eligibility "assumes facts not in evidence."

Hemenway also suggested that if there were to be sanctions, court rules would allow him to require the release of Obama's birth information.

"If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past," he wrote to the judge.

"The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery," Hemenway said.

Robertson immediately backed off, issuing only a reprimand to Hemenway, which now is on appeal.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits over the dispute question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated at more than $1 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 450,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.


New report adds to evidence against Dohrn 
Ex-Weather Underground radical linked to 1970s death of cop

New report adds to evidence against Dohrn
Ex-Weather Underground radical linked to 1970s death of cop

Posted: September 18, 2009
12:10 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The evidence that alleges 1970s radical Bernardine Dohrn, who with her husband Bill Ayers helped launch Barack Obama's political career, was involved in the bombing death of a California cop is mounting, with new witnesses being cited in a report from writer Peter Jamison of Village Voice Media.

WND has documented in the past reports from the FBI that Dohrn actually built and planted the bomb that killed a San Francisco police officer in 1970.

The couple have come under scrutiny for their radical histories because of their integral part in the launch of Obama's political career. Ayers, a self-described unrepentant terrorist, served with Obama for years on two foundation boards, while Dohrn worked in a law firm with Michelle Obama. They also contributed financially to Obama's first campaign for political office.

Both are on Chicago university payrolls now.

San Francisco Police Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell was killed by shrapnel from an anti-personnel bomb built and planted by Bill Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn, according to an FBI report

It was on Feb. 16, 1970, Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell of the San Francisco Police Department was killed by shrapnel from an anti-personnel bomb planted on a window ledge at the force's Park Station. The pipe bomb was filled with heavy metal staples and lead bullet projectiles. Another officer, Robert Fogarty, received serious wounds to his face and legs, and was partially blinded in the attack.

WND reported just months ago when top law enforcement officers in San Francisco signed a letter accusing Ayers and Dorhn of being directly behind the bombing, but the Obama Justice Department then told them not to comment on the case.

At that press conference March 12, directed by activist Cliff Kincaid of America's Survival Inc, the leaders of the San Francisco Police Officers' Association made public a letter pointing a finger at Ayers and Dohrn that demanded those responsible for the bombing be brought to justice.

"There are irrefutable and compelling reasons to believe that Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn are largely responsible for the bombing of Park Police Station," the officers stated in the letter.

The letter called for the U.S. to bring "those responsible for the murder of Sgt. Brian McDonnell and the injuries to other officers to the justice they have so long eluded."

The San Francisco Chronicle then reported the police group members who signed the letter received calls from the Justice Department and a local police chief telling them to remain silent.

Now, additional details are being uncovered in a report by Jamison, who is based in San Francisco.
According to Kincaid, Jamison spent months working on the story and developed many different sources.

The evidence in the case, Kincaid found, "goes straight to Dohrn and other members of the Weathermen."
Jamison wrote that former FBI agents, speaking for the first time about the case, told his Village Voice Media that two credible eyewitnesses gave detailed statements to investigators in the 1970s "alleging that Dohrn and Howard Machtinger, another member of the group, were personally involved."

Jamison's report said authorities quietly have been devoting their attention to the Weather Underground, including a grand jury review in 2003 that targeted the Park Station attack.

"There's so much there," retired FBI Special Agent William Reagan said in the report. "If you've ever been in a courtroom, you know defense attorneys can create doubt about anything. But common sense tells you something. Who else could it be?"

The report said Reagan was working on dormant cases when he came across documents summarizing interviews about the case. He said they revealed Dohrn "seemed to be more or less the ringleader."

The report said Reagan's account was verified by another retired FBI agent, Max Noel, who said the witness statements found by Reagan were credible.

Authorities in San Francisco say they won't comment because of the ongoing investigation.

Also cited in the new report were statements uncovered by Reagan from Karen Latimer, another former Weather Underground member.

She had stated that she personally cased the station and could describe the package that exploded, according to Jamison's report.

However, he reported that a plan to obtain sworn testimony after a grant of immunity for Latimer fell apart.

William Ayers

No one has ever been charged in the bombing. Ayers has denied involvement. In a November interview with the New Yorker, Ayers said, "We killed no one and hurt no one."

But WND reported earlier that a former FBI informant who reportedly infiltrated the Weathermen in the 1970s says Ayers described to him at length how Dohrn personally placed a pipe bomb outside the San Francisco police department Feb. 16, 1970.

In his book, "Bringing Down America – An FBI Informer with the Weathermen," Larry Grathwohl describes a meeting in which Ayers allegedly revealed Dohrn's role in the bombing. Grathwohl also testified to that effect to the Senate in the 1980s.

Grathwohl quotes Ayers telling him, "Too many of you are relying on your leaders to do everything."

He said Ayers then mentioned the San Francisco bombing.

"It was a success," Grathwohl wrote, quoting Ayers. "But it's a shame when someone like Bernardine has to make all the plans, make the bomb and then place it herself. She should have to do only the planning."

While Obama has attempted to distance himself from Ayers and Dohrn, WND columnist Jack Cashill has made the case that the college professor and radical education activist may have even ghost-written Obama's book, "Dreams From My Father."

Obama has said variously that Ayers was just someone who lived in his neighborhood, that he didn't know he was the notorious Weather Underground leader during his long association and that he assumed he had been "rehabilitated." Ayers and Dohrn have never condemned their terrorism spree. In fact, Ayers was quoted in the New York Times Sept. 11, 2001, as saying he was sorry he hadn't done more. Ayers had previously described his reaction to being cleared of all charges due to a technicality this way: "Guilty as hell, free as a bird – America is a great country."






How much more does the average American, indeed the average decent Democrat, need to say: enough is enough! This is not the kind of change I voted for!

Joseph A. Gamero
You can see why I call the LIEberal/Marxist/Dems: Hypocrats.  They are probably one, if not the, most racist groups in the world, but they have mastered the “art” of calling their opponents the names that apply to them. On the other hand, the right has been very stupid in allowing that. Result: we get to be, in the perception of the average politically ignorant American, what the Hypocrats are.

Case in point. Joe Wilson is right, Barack Hussein lies. Did Joe Wilson do the right thing? No, he was in breach of decorum, but he promptly apologized to the Commander-in-Chief whom, by-the-way accepted the apology. That’s that!

Joe Wilson had a moment of outraged patriotism watching his president lye time after time, without the natural watchdog, the Media, doing its job. He was wrong; he should’ve waited until the end and then told him to his face.

Did you watch Nancy Pelosi’s face of disgust at that moment? Where were the outraged Hypocrats when President Bush was booed by his opponents?

Where were the outraged Hypocrats when Nancy Pelosi made a false statement that the Tea Party demonstrators were carrying Swastikas? That was a lie!

In a court of law, you have to prove an accusation is incorrect to get a verdict of libel. Apparently not in Congress, all you need is majority.

Do Americans realize that in these very troubled times, Congress must devote all of its time to the problems that are hindering the American economy and security? To spend one second on a vote of disapproval of Joe Wilson, is a dereliction of duty.

Another case in point; two courageous youngsters do what any responsible member of the media should have done long ago, when it was first noticed that ACORN isn’t was it claims to be.

These two American heroes are viciously maligned by the big media – that is- by the fraction of the media who even bothers reporting what it’s probably the most important news of the time. Thank God for WND and Fox News or we would be as ignorant as the New York Times et al, want us to be.

I fear for their lives as well as for Glenn Beck’s life. I know the forces that are operating out there.

No congressional investigation thus far, into the vitriol that is destroying America: corruption.  The people responsible for the disproportionate corruption that is prevalent in U. S. politics today should be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law. “If” it reaches the two houses and the executive branch, then, among other charges, treason must be considered. After all, they have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, haven’t they?

In stead, the powers that be in ACORN are denying the facts which are on tape, and are threatening the two heroes with prosecution. Talk about shooting the messenger!

In the last video (to date), an ACORN employee claims to have killed her abusive husband! This is the organization which surrounds the current president? That’s in addition to the facilitation of prostitution; the counselling of how to evade taxes; the tacit approval of children’s prostitution, etc.

How much more does the average American, indeed the average decent Democrat, need to say: enough is enough! This is not the kind of change I voted for!

America is going to hell in a hand basket and most people are not doing anything. Is this the country that you wish to leave to your descendents? Do you approve of the people who are surrounding this administration?

Remember the famous quote: “all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing”!
Wake-up my friends, before it is too late!

Joseph A. Gamero

Lead Story

ACORN’s illegal alien home loan racket

By Michelle Malkin  •  September 18, 2009 08:33 AM


My column today blasts ACORN Housing Corporation’s criminal-enabling home loan program for illegal aliens. To paraphrase Jon Stewart: Where the hell is everyone?

AHC is one of the endless non-profit arms of ACORN. Their response to the sting videos hasn’t received as much attention as the national ACORN flagship’s. You can read AHC’s CYA reaction here.

ACORN’s illegal alien home loan racket
by Michelle Malkin

Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

There’s one thing more shocking than the illegal alien smuggling advice that an ACORN official in San Diego gave undercover journalists James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles. It’s the illegal alien criminal racket that ACORN has already been operating with the full knowledge of the U.S. government.

On Wednesday, O’Keefe and Giles published the fifth in a series of sting videos. ACORN official Juan Carlos Vera coached the pimp-and-prostitute-posing pair on how best to pull off a border-busting smuggling operation. It would be “better from Tijuana,” he counseled on videotape. Carlos Vera then generously offered the investigative couple his Mexican “contacts” to bring 12 illegal alien girls into the country for prostitution.

GOP California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger now wants an investigation. But neither the Terminator nor any other California public officials raised a peep when the very same San Diego ACORN office publicly announced a partnership with Citibank to secure home loans for illegal aliens. In 2005, Citibank and ACORN Housing Corporation – which has received tens of millions of tax dollars under the Bush administration alone — began recruiting Mexican illegal aliens for a lucrative program offering loans with below-market interest rates, down-payment assistance and no mortgage insurance requirements. Instead of Social Security numbers required of law-abiding citizens, the program allows illegal alien applicants to supply loosely-monitored tax identification numbers issued by the IRS.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that “undocumented residents” comprise a vast market representing a potential sum of “$44 billion in mortgages.” Citibank enlarged its portfolio of subprime and other risky loans. ACORN enlarged its membership rolls. The program now operates in Miami; New York City; Jerse City, N.J.; Baltimore; Washington, D.C.; Chicago; Bridgeport, Conn., and at all of ACORN Housing’s 12 California offices. San Diego ACORN officials advised illegal alien recruits that their bank partners would take applicants who had little or no credit, or even “nontraditional records of credit, such as utility payments and documentation of private loan payments.”

The risk the banks bear is the price they pay to keep ACORN protesters and Hispanic lobbyists from the National Council of La Raza screaming about “predatory lending” off their backs. These professional grievance-mongers have turned the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act – which forced lenders to sacrifice underwriting standards for “diversity” – into lucrative “business” opportunities. Or rather, politically correct blackmail. As the Consumer Rights League noted in a 2008 report on the group’s successful shakedowns of financial institutions, “an agreement with Citibank, a significant ACORN donor and partner, showed that some activists become less active when deals are in place.”

In the wake of the sting videos, ACORN officials are making a great show of clamoring for “reform.” ACORN chief executive Bertha Lewis blamed the debacles across the country on the “indefensible action of a handful of our employees.” But the corruption is systemic. ACORN has long thrown rank-and-file operatives under the bus to cover for its management’s indefensible conduct. And ACORN’s highly-touted advisory watchdogs include inherently conflicted foxes guarding the henhouse:

ACORN advisory council member Henry Cisneros resigned from his post as Clinton HUD Secretary after lying to FBI agents about payments to a former mistress.

ACORN advisory council member Andy Stern is president of the SEIU, the Big Labor organization plagued by embezzlement scandals and inextricably linked to ACORN’s disgraced founder Wade Rathke.

And ACORN advisory council member Eric Eve of Citigroup is a champion of the ACORN/Citibank illegal alien loan program that openly undermines immigration laws and integrity in banking.

The truth is more sordid than any fictional scenarios caught on tape: ACORN is a criminal enterprise.


And another pipeline closed off: Jindal halts ACORN funds

September 17, 2009 08:51 PM by Michelle Malkin


And another pipeline closed off: Jindal halts ACORN funds

By Michelle Malkin  •  September 17, 2009 08:51 PM



Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal today cut off state funding for the community activist group ACORN.
Jindal has also blocked any state agency for entering into contracts with the organization.

The executive order also cuts off any future state funding of ACORN, on the heels of a series of embarrassing incidents for the organization.

The governor’s action follows a subpoena of documents from the group’s national headquarter office in New Orleans.

According to Jindal’s executive order, “ACORN’s actions make clear that financial involvement with ACORN is contrary to the public policy of the State of Louisiana and the best interests of its citizens.”

Better late than never.

It’s just the start.




Posted: Thursday September 17, 2009 at 8:53 am EST by Judie Brown


Just yesterday, Michael Hichborn, host of our ALL Report, got roped into the unbelievable task of reviewing the new Max Baucus version of the health care reform bill. Now, before I highlight some of the things Michael found, I have to share what he said to a member of our board of directors, Mildred F. Jefferson, M.D.:

The title of this act, “America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009,” is SO propagandistic, we should refer to it as “America’s Happy Puppies and Rainbows Act of 2009.”

If that doesn’t give you a flavor for what is patently wrong with this proposal, then there is nothing more to say. Take two aspirin and we’ll call you when this nightmare is over.

The following is excerpted from the actual piece of legislation, pages 25-27, which as you might recall, was not supposed to provide a single cent of taxpayer money for abortion:

Application of State and Federal Laws Regarding Abortion

Current Law

The performance of and payment for abortions is regulated by both state and Federal laws. State law, for example, sometimes prescribes parental notification, waiting periods and other procedural requirements before an abortion may be performed. Under Federal law, certain kinds of Federal funds may not be used to pay for abortions and certain recipients of Federal funds may not discriminate against specified health care entities that perform or refuse to perform, pay for, provide referrals for, or provide training for abortions.

Chairman’s Mark

This provision would ensure that state laws regarding the prohibition or requirement of coverage or funding for abortions, and state laws involving abortion-related procedural requirements are not preempted. The provision similarly provides that Federal conscience protections and abortion-related antidiscrimination laws would not be affected by the bill. The rights and obligations of employees and employers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would also not be affected by the bill. In addition, this bill does not affect state or Federal laws, including section 1867 of the Social Security Act (EMTALA), requiring health care providers to provide emergency services.

The above is a smooth, if not deceptive, way of agreeing to the status quo insofar as abortion services are concerned. When dealing with a “surgical procedure,” which is what abortion is called in some circles, there are certain things the federal law should not prohibit. In other words, killing the preborn child is still an option according to what you have just read.

To continue, the following is also found in the document:

Abortion Coverage Prohibited as Part of Minimum Benefits Package

Current Law

Currently, Federal funds may be used to pay for abortions only if a pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest, or where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed. However, many private insurance plans include coverage for abortion beyond these limited categories.

Chairman’s Mark

This provision provides that abortion cannot be a mandated benefit as part of a minimum benefits package except in those cases for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted. A qualified health plan would not be prohibited, however, from providing coverage for abortions beyond those for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted. Federal funds continue to be prohibited from being used to pay for abortions unless the pregnancy is due to rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.

Red alert, folks. Please read the current law again, just to make sure you get the gist of the statement in the Chairman’s Mark, which reads, “except in those cases for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted.” In other words, just as the USCCB had hoped, federal dollars can only be used for the killing of babies set aside by the watered-down, abortion-for-some Hyde Amendment from days gone by; or for that matter, any reason that an abortionist can justify based on his argument that continuing the pregnancy might result in the mother’s death.

Nowadays, the language — or at least a version of it — is more commonly referred to as the Stupak/Pitts amendment. Congressmen Stupak of Michigan and Pitts of Pennsylvania proposed an amendment which has already been defeated in previous attempts. It goes like this: 

No funds authorized under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.


It’s another way of giving an out to the abortionist. But after more than 20 years of playing Russian roulette with the lives of the preborn, some actually hail this language as pro-life. Not American Life League, thank you. We know that this is hogwash. We also know that when the government is involved, a whole lot of slop gets through the big cracks created by exceptions. Apparently this new proposal is no different.


Here’s another excerpt:

Rules Regarding Coverage of and Tax Credits for Specified Services

Current Law

No provision.

Chairman’s Mark

The Secretary would ensure that in each state exchange, at least one plan provides coverage of abortions beyond those for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted. The Secretary would also ensure that in each state exchange, at least one plan does not provide coverage of abortions beyond those for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted.

This can be interpreted to mean a number of things, I suppose. But the fact is, according to the proposal, there must be abortion coverage “beyond those for which federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted.”

This means that the federal government is placing itself in the role of marketing abortion and requiring abortion coverage beyond what the taxpayer has to actually pay for at a given moment. If this sounds a little bit like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, you’re onto something. Only in this case, it is the lives of babies that are being held in the balance, so that not a single abortion is left behind. And you thought President Obama meant it when he guaranteed the people of our nation that abortion would not be covered in health care reform.

Silly you!

The gist of this proposal is deadly. Deal Hudson, having analyzed the very same bill that we quote above, explained in his blog: 

Right now, the USCCB is hoping the Obama administration will honor its promise. That's fine and good, but are they willing to use their muscle? We will see.

Now is an excellent opportunity for the USCCB to take a leadership role in the debate instead of looking like it does now, like the only guys in town who don't get the joke.


My greatest fear is not only that the USCCB will be happy with the exceptions as noted in the Baucus proposal, but that they will once again surrender to political pragmatism and accept the killing of some. It is high time that Catholics and, for that matter, all pro-life Americans, stood up and made it perfectly clear that the emperor has no clothes. Exceptions have created gaping holes in his stockings, accommodations to evil have disintegrated his moral authority and decay, passed off as tolerable federal law, fills the pockets of his tunic.

To suggest that the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” must take a backseat to legislative garbage — allegedly supposed to make us all happy about our “healthy future” as we permit our tax dollars to be used to pay for child killing in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, or whatever — is disgusting. We’ve had enough.

Happy Puppies and Rainbows doesn’t save preborn children from murder by abortion, regardless of the excuse used to murder them; courage does!


Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care... - TRANSLATION: Legalize illegals to give them the vote ASAP to keep me in power in perpetuity!  Obama doesn't give a whit about social concerns which are a means to an end for Obama's lust for power! 

Krauthammer: President's persona cool, distant, imperial...

Does He Lie?

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 18, 2009


You lie? No. Barack Obama doesn't lie. He's too subtle for that. He . . . well, you judge.

Herewith three examples within a single speech -- the now-famous Obama-Wilson "you lie" address to Congress on health care -- of Obama's relationship with truth.

(1) "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future," he solemnly pledged. "I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future. Period."

Wonderful. The president seems serious, veto-ready, determined to hold the line. Until, notes Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, you get to Obama's very next sentence: "And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."

This apparent strengthening of the pledge brilliantly and deceptively undermines it. What Obama suggests is that his plan will require mandatory spending cuts if the current rosy projections prove false. But there's absolutely nothing automatic about such cuts. Every Congress is sovereign. Nothing enacted today will force a future Congress or a future president to make any cuts in any spending, mandatory or not.

Just look at the supposedly automatic Medicare cuts contained in the Sustainable Growth Rate formula enacted to constrain out-of-control Medicare spending. Every year since 2003, Congress has waived the cuts.

Mankiw puts the Obama bait-and-switch in plain language. "Translation: I promise to fix the problem. And if I do not fix the problem now, I will fix it later, or some future president will, after I am long gone. I promise he will. Absolutely, positively, I am committed to that future president fixing the problem. You can count on it. Would I lie to you?"

(2) And then there's the famous contretemps about health insurance for illegal immigrants. Obama said they would not be insured. Well, all four committee-passed bills in Congress allow illegal immigrants to take part in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange.

But more important, the problem is that laws are not self-enforcing. If they were, we'd have no illegal immigrants because, as I understand it, it's illegal to enter the United States illegally. We have laws against burglary, too. But we also provide for cops and jails on the assumption that most burglars don't voluntarily turn themselves in.

When Republicans proposed requiring proof of citizenship, the Democrats twice voted that down in committee. Indeed, after Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" shout-out, the Senate Finance Committee revisited the language of its bill to prevent illegal immigrants from getting any federal benefits. Why would the Finance Committee fix a nonexistent problem?

(3) Obama said he would largely solve the insoluble cost problem of Obamacare by eliminating "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" from Medicare.

That's not a lie. That's not even deception. That's just an insult to our intelligence. Waste, fraud and abuse -- Meg Greenfield once called this phrase "the dread big three" -- as the all-purpose piggy bank for budget savings has been a joke since Jimmy Carter first used it in 1977.

Moreover, if half a trillion is waiting to be squeezed painlessly out of Medicare, why wait for health-care reform? If, as Obama repeatedly insists, Medicare overspending is breaking the budget, why hasn't he gotten started on the painless billions in "waste and fraud" savings?

Obama doesn't lie. He merely elides, gliding from one dubious assertion to another. This has been the story throughout his whole health-care crusade. Its original premise was that our current financial crisis was rooted in neglect of three things -- energy, education and health care. That transparent attempt to exploit Emanuel's Law -- a crisis is a terrible thing to waste -- failed for health care because no one is stupid enough to believe that the 2008 financial collapse was caused by a lack of universal health care.

So on to the next gambit: selling health-care reform as a cure for the deficit. When that was exploded by the Congressional Budget Office's demonstration of staggering Obamacare deficits, Obama tried a new tack: selling his plan as revenue-neutral insurance reform -- until the revenue neutrality is exposed as phony future cuts and chimerical waste and fraud.

Obama doesn't lie. He implies, he misdirects, he misleads -- so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness.

Slickness wasn't fatal to "Slick Willie" Clinton because he possessed a winning, nearly irresistible charm. Obama's persona is more cool, distant, imperial. The charming scoundrel can get away with endless deception; the righteous redeemer cannot.
CONTROL: Fed 'to approve banking salaries'...
- Goodbye 'Land of the free'; hello 'Land of slaves to the state.'

MILBANK: First Lady market shopping leaves 'carbon footprint of several tons'... - Do as I say under force of law, not as I do!






September 17, 2009


On Thursday's Mark Levin Show: Why doesn't President Obama ever thank the doctors, nurses, and surgeons? Our healthcare program is one of our greatest successes - and the Democrats want to completely destroy it so that they can have more power and control. Do any of you actually believe that the government is competent and efficient? Former ESPN Analyst Stephen A. Smith calls in and talks with Mark about the race card, and why disagreeing with Obama doesn't mean your racist. Also, Andrew Breitbart of calls in and discusses the ongoing story regarding ACORN.



Mark Joins Hannity on Fox News (September 16, 2009)

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

Mark Joins Hannity on Fox News (September 16, 2009) Mark Talks Liberty & Tyranny, the Republican Party and Jimmy Carter Playing The Race Card