lies (48)


By Mary Fanning and Alan Jones
Senior FBI and DOJ officials involved in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russian collusion investigation were also previously assigned to investigate whistleblower Dennis Montgomery’s claim that Obama administration officials John Brennan and James Clapper spied on Donald Trump.
Montgomery asserts that the FBI, under FBI Director Mueller, supplied the computers used to create a private, illegal, unconstitutional, super surveillance system that President Obama’s intelligence chiefs used to spy on Trump.
FBI Director James B. Comey, FBI General Counsel James A. Baker, and five of Mueller’s hand-picked recruits to his Russian collusion investigation team, including Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, were involved in the “buried” FBI investigation into CIA/DNI/NSA whistleblower Dennis L. Montgomery’s claims.
Montgomery specifically alleges that President Obama’s intelligence chiefs, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, with computers supplied by Robert Mueller, used their newly-created illegal surveillance system to spy on Trump, Trump’s associates, Supreme Court justices, and millions of innocent Americans.
“The proof of Donald Trump being wiretapped is in the documents that were handed over to the FBI” Montgomery’s attorney Larry Klayman told reporters Fanning and Jones.
Federal Judge Richard J. Leon on December 27, 2018 denied a request by the DOJ and Mueller’s Special Counsel Office to delay a court date for author Jerome Corsi’s $350 million lawsuit against Robert Mueller, the DOJ, CIA, FBI, and NSA.
Corsi is suing Mueller and those intelligence agencies for targeting him with “illegal and unconstitutional” surveillance and blackmail.
DOJ lawyers argued unsuccessfully that the January 3, 2019 3:00 pm court date should be delayed on the grounds that the federal government is partially shut down.
Corsi is represented in that case by attorney Larry E. Klayman.
In a separate case, whistleblower Montgomery and his attorney Klayman filed a joint lawsuit in 2017 against Barack Obama, Mueller, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA and other federal officials and agencies. Montgomery’s and Klayman’s lawsuit alleged that the defendants ignored and then covered up Montgomery’s whistleblower complaints of illegal domestic surveillance.
In 2015 Klayman helped Montgomery secure limited immunity agreements in exchange for turning over computer hard drives and other physical evidence of that illegal surveillance to FBI Director James Comey’s office.
Montgomery reportedly held a top secret security clearance as well as the rare “above top secret” SAP (Special Access Program) security clearance.
Strzok and Page exchanged text message about Montgomery and Klayman after a retired four star Air Force general discussed Montgomery and secret surveillance system known as “The Hammer” during radio show
Continue at link...

Read more…


The Republican Party is the party of racism? I think both Amber Randall and Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison need a history lesson. The Nazi party was a socialist party just like the American Democrat party. The word "Nazi" stands for National Socialism, yet left wingers call conservatives Nazis? How do they figure? Both the socialist communist party and the Nazi party are two wings of the same bird. Both are left wing. Republicans abhor both.


You won't find any Nazis among Republicans. Why do you think Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, dummy?
Democrat George Wallace was a racist
Hillary slams "KKK" Trump but her "friend and mentor" was KKK leader Robert Byrd
Sec. Clinton Nonsensically Compares Margaret Sanger to Thomas Jefferson
Minnesota Democrat Rep. Keith Ellison just proved once again that Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Hillary Clinton praised Margaret Sanger's vision and tenacity. What more proof do you need that it is the Democrat party that is the party of racism?

Hillary Clinton admires Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood

Hypocrite Clinton answers tough questions

about the Legacy of Margaret Sanger

Read more…

Mouthy Maxine Part 1

Does anyone that is not a full blown progressive/socialist believe that their Democratic Party does not have a deep and visceral hatred of anyone who disagrees with them? Can they be so self delusional to think that the American people want the President and indeed our government to be run by such people who can not prove any of their point, and incoherent in the message they spout, rambling on and on about situations that have no basis in fact? There is no way they will be able to destroy the patriots in this country.

Declaring your viewpoint the only viable one, and declaring those who hold an opposing view as deniers, racists, homophobes, and other demeaning terms do not make you right. It is always so simple to just spout your views and leave declaring victory without discussing it with those with opposing views is not the way this country should be run. You can’t limit those with opposing views , and if you feel an opposing view is too much of an attack on you and your safe space, get over it.

Since Trumps inauguration, there has been a blizzard of lies, distracting innuendo, and loud attacks on our President to resist the very policies that the American people are seeking. Jobs, Healthcare, Tax Reform are all more important to the American people that a supposed collusion attack against the President that has no basis in fact. After all these months of investigation, lies from such sources as the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the alphabet cable liberals have still found no evidence. The special council does nothing more than assure the Democrats, progressive/ socialist all, will have talking points still without any basis in fact for the 2018 elections. They are counting on this, along with the violence which they still call for along with the media to attempt to change the American outlook. Even some Republicans, most in name only, have started to back away from our President.

To understand what these progressive/socialists really intend let’s take a look at one who is being called a “rockstar” by the media. Congresswoman Maxine Waters. “Auntie Maxie” , as she is being called by the media and supposedly millennials (although I have yet to meet one who even knows who she is), is front and center in the resistance, she combats hate by hating those that disagree with her and is a main point in what she calls the “counterinsurgency” as shown to the American people by groups like antifa and BlackBloc.

Maxine Waters have served 37 years in office, and just what has she accomplished? Her promises for her constituents to improve South Central Los Angeles have basically ignored those same constituents  and as head of the Congressional Black Caucus ignored the unemployment and gang violence that runs rife in the district she purports to serve. She earned the respect of her constituents by declaring the Los Angeles of 25 years ago a “rebellion” and allowing Bloods, Crips and other gang members to be blameless because they were misunderstood and not able to express themselves in any other way. This was the flashpoint for the violence and damage we see being done now and still the supports of the progressive/socialists suck as Congresswoman Waters. Her  “Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center”, named of course after her was a money eating disaster which consumed tons of federal funded taxpayer funds.

 Perhaps this is how she can afford her mansion in Hancock Park, which is miles outside the district she supposedly represents. Or perhaps it was her meddling in the multiple ethics case of One United Bank, a minority owned bank in which her husband was invested. It was Waters who personally intervened and lobbied the Treasury Department to give One United Bank $12 million even though another government agency stated that the bank operated “without effective underwriting standards” and “speculative investment practices”.


Her husband even secured the ambassadorship to the Bahamas because he went there on vacation once.

Is it any wonder the Congressman Waters has been designated by a left wing organization, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington  “Most Corrupt member of Congress” in 2005,2006,2009,2011, and now 2017. According to the Investment Watch Blog, Maxine Waters has only passed three bills. One, a Haiti Relief Bill, the second, to rename a Post Office and the third a modification of the Flood Relief bill. None of these has done anything for her district. What has moved forward is the millions in revenue that her family has made from her government connections.

Maxine Waters is the shrieking point person for the progressive/socialists. She has stated proudly that Trump is not her President. She does not respect this President, she doesn’t trust this President, and claims Trump is not working for the interests of the American people. She started this rant after the inauguration, and refuse to answer how she can say the President isn’t working for the American people the day after he takes office.  And she has the audacity to call Trump a Liar?

This is the same woman who paid her own daughter a total of over $600,000 from the Waters campaign since 2006. I suppose Maxine wanted to be sure she has a good neighbor in Hancock Park.

But it not’s just Trump that Congresswoman Waters if attempting to smear,  Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz has come under her unintelligible ramblings. Her thinking is so convoluted that she now claims that Chaffetz announced his retirement and will not seek re-election in 2018 because of what Waters calls “improper links to the Russian government. At least, in this instance, Waters admitted she has no evidence to support this theory, but felt the lie was such a good story that she just had to offer it. She even attempted to tie it to Flynn, saying Chaffetz is talking about Flynn, so that it will raise him above the connections that Chaffetz has with the Kremlin. She stated we, need to keep an eye on him. Without any evidence, Waters spouts this out, and then follows it up by sayig , she doesn’t really know and can’t say, but Chaffetz is conducting himself in a way the Waters finds strange. This is what the progressive/socialist takes as evidence to demean those who disagree with the globalist socialist world government they are working toward.

Another step toward the government the progressive/socialists want is the imposition of Sharia Law. Congresswoman Waters has been a big proponent of the imposition of Sharia on the American government, going so far to state “people are exploiting fear and trying to convince state legislatures that the state adoption of Sharia tenents is a strategy that extremists are using to transform America.

Congresswoman Waters a long member of the communist radical Workers World Party describes herself as a “rabble-rouser”

Next, the ties between Maxine Waters, and her Russian linked investment.

Read more…
Letter To: Congress and Senate
As a Christian Patriot, Pilot and MSO I see your faith and patriotism is no better than the 911 Perpetrators and Traitors of America. See, my Blog 911 False Flag Attacks,
I know Lies when I see one. Thus, this 911 massive murder attacks in public is the biggest cover-up and fraud by our DOJ and CIA Shadow Government . You, Guys in Congress and The Senate are The Devil Demons in the flesh covered with marks of the beast that will desensitize and end your Spiritual Love of God.
The Official Conspiracy Theory(OCT) is nothing more than a Placebo/Fake and not the TRUTH. Burying, your heads to the facts and evidence you only cause more suspicion and distrust of government and its practices.
If you allow these Lies to grow with our children you are all party to the Crimes of Murder.
Therefore, You, pray to the wrong Gods and try to pull the wool over the People Eyes(redirecting and rebuffing the 911 Truth). But, God knows your Heart and Soul and your material and earthly desires. Keep pushing the Lies and Cover-up of corruption in the Congress and Senate you are all Murders In God Eyes.
What Mankind has started God will finish. JWS
Read more…

4064223449?profile=originalWhile supporting "The Donald" might be hard to stomach, the establishment has to be made aware of who they work for.

Our elected officials, once in office seem to change and become part of the problem.  When we won house and senate and still couldn't get the upper hand, voters decided enough is enough.

I think Trump, if he doesn't surround himself with the right people, will fail miserably. He does not command much respect if you ask me.

But.....I am glad he does not have a political past like this! Trump calls Cruz a liar.

Watch this from the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Read more…

The disillusion of black leaders

This goes to show you how disillusioned these so-called self-appointed black leaders are. Bill O'Reilly! has a better grasp at what is happening in the Afican American community. How can Russell Simmons represent the black voice when his head is buried deep in the dark crevasses of the liberal political agenda, that he cannot see what really affects his community?Is Russell Simmons really that ignorant of the facts that haunt the very communities that he claims to represent? Simmons wants to ignore the epidemic of violence and crime in the black neighborhoods and wants to focus on, RACIAL PROFILING, and the racist criminal-justice system.Mr. Simmons forget about the fact that, blacks are responsible for an astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes. According to the Washington Times, black arrest rate for most offenses, — including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes — is still typically two to three times their representation in the population.Black unemployment is double the real national average. Black teens use abortion as a form of contraception and 54 percent of African Americans do not have an education past high school. These are just some of the issues that are affecting the black communities.Russell Simmons needs to stop using racial animus and “the system,” as an excuse. He should take Mr. O'Reilly's advice and actually visit some of the black neighborhoods he claims to represent. Maybe then he will understand what is really happening in our communities and what's destroying our culture.
Read more…



While walking down the street one day a corrupt Senator was tragically hit by a car and died.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."
"No problem, just let me in," says the Senator.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from the higher ups. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"Really?, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the Senator.
"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. 
They played a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and the finest champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who is having a good time dancing and telling jokes.
They are all having such a good time that before the Senator realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him, "Now it's time to visit heaven...
So, 24 hours passed with the Senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."
The Senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell...
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulders.
"I don't understand," stammers the Senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?" 
The devil smiles at him and says,
"Yesterday we were campaigning, Today, you voted.."  
Vote wisely in November 2014
Read more…

A letter to every American Veteran

Folks, every one of us once fought for our Country and we are now Proud Veterans. If there IS such a thing as a "government hit list" - I can almost guarantee the majority (if not all) of us are on it... simply because we are Veterans.

We have all witnessed the acts and abuses of this administration... the seemingly endless lies.

Back when mr kerry attempted to run for President it was the Veterans who stood up and said NO - the "Swift Boater's"......

Today we have somewhat more difficult decisions and issues. Issues I have to ask myself;

If not us - who?

I urge everyone to write Speaker Boehner and give him your opinion about the lies, deceit and lack of transparency we have all witnessed - as well as the lack of Congressional actions when a civilian (or Veteran) so charged would quickly find themselves behind bars.

I urge you to write your outrage - be polite and respectful - but voice your opinion as loudly as possible while being polite and respectful. Plagiarize as much of what I have written as you choose - but please get it done.

As we once served our Nation as a Soldier for our own Honor - now we have Children and Grandchildren to think about as well as the Nation we once fought for.

Senator Cruz had it right when he said only overwhelming public opinion will move Congress to act.

BE the squeaky wheel!

The Speaker's email addy is:

Reince Priebus email addy is: (address it directly to him)


Reince Priebus, Speaker John Boehner,

Gentlemen - I praise your statements demanding an answer to this latest lie - but Gentlemen, this is a PATTERN....

You have had a "ring-side" seat to this pattern and cannot deny it exists.

Regardless if it is the thousands of lies he has told or the effectively Q class security of his and michelle's records and past - it IS a pattern of deception and secrecy unprecedented in our history.

This is categorically NOT "politics" - this is lying with an endgame agenda in play.

A "pattern" of deceit.

Speaker, everyone is quite aware of the Contempt charges against ms learner and mr holder; In a Civilian Civil or Criminal Court - those who are in Contempt of Court find themselves behind bars immediately, yet these two are in Contempt of Congress.... a somewhat more serious charge than a Civilian or Criminal Court of Law....... and they walk the streets free?

It is my - and millions of others - firm opinion that if Congress will arrest these two and others in this administration witness the arrests and criminal charges leveled against them - you will finally uncover all of the crime and corruption in this administration within a year - instead of within our Grandchildren's lifetimes........

Respectfully Sir, the very first words of the Constitution of the United States are "We the People". Millions of Americans have already weighed in on these issues and we want these people arrested for their crimes.

Read more…


new study published in the journal Science has astounded biologists: global warming is not harming biodiversity, but instead is increasing the range and diversity of species in various ecosystems.

Environmentalists have long warned that global warming could lead to mass extinctions as fragile ecosystems around the world are made unlivable as temperatures increase. But a team of biologists from the United States, United Kingdom and Japan found that global warming has not led to a decrease in biodiversity. Instead, biodiversity has increased in many areas on land and in the ocean.

POLL: Is Common Core indoctrination or education?

“Although the rate of species extinction has increased markedly as a result of human activity across the biosphere, conservation has focused on endangered species rather than on shifts in assemblages,” reads the editor’s abstract of the report.

The study says “species turnover” was “above expected but do not find evidence of systematic biodiversity loss.” The editor’s abstract adds that the result “could be caused by homogenization of species assemblages by invasive species, shifting distributions induced by climate change, and asynchronous change across the planet.”

Researchers reviewed 100 long-term species monitoring studies from around the world and found increasing biodiversity in 59 out of 100 studies and decreasing biodiversity in 41 studies. The rate of change in biodiversity was modest in all of the studies, biologists said.


Read more…

In this video, his last statement when asked if he thought the president lied to him; "I think so"...

WE KNOW MR OBAMA LIED..............

Gentlemen - I ask; how is it the man holding the highest office in our Nation can so glibly LIE to every American - and walk away a free man?

Why is he NOT behind bars this minute? Why is every person in Congress who repeated the same LIE free to walk the streets and continue the destruction of our Nation?

POLL: Has Obamacare affected your family?

This has affected hundreds of millions - people have already died because of it - and it continues to destroy the economy and health of millions, yet those who have CLEARLY violated federal law; 18 U.S. Code § 1001 - still walking around free.... and no charges filed?

Any American who lied and was the DIRECT cause of people dying would QUICKLY find themselves behind bars! FACT.

You folks who stand for the American people need to use what laws we have available and bring each and every person who has violated the law to justice. Your peers and mr obama himself. That will include mr biden - as he has repeated the very same lie.............
There are many ways to get things done, this particular one was handed to us on a platter all dressed up and billions of taxpayer dollars spent in it's making.

Please use what he gave us and bring these criminals to justice!

Congressman Bob GoodlatteCongressman Darrell E. Issa, Congressman Louie Gohmert, Congressman Trey GowdySenator Ted Cruz

Congressman Tim Huelskamp (KS-1)Congressman Steve StockmanNational Republican Congressional CommitteeSenator Rand PaulNational Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), Texas Attorney General Greg AbbottErick P. Wyatt

Read more…

Hillary for President? NOT!

OK..... let me see if I understand this.... Bill Clinton just released some presidential papers in which it came out that Hillary was talking about how she was pushing health care at that time - and she admits that she can't tell everyone that health care would be free - because she knew they couldn't deliver on that promise and everyone would know she lied..... fast forward to Obamacare, and she hears him telling the same lie, and SHE doesn't SAY ANYTHING!!!!

OH YEAH, she would make a GREAT president .....[[(((NOT)))]].

Read more…

Quick Rant: The Tea Party Misconception

I woke up angry this morning. Last night I had a discussion with a really good friend who is a closet democrat but on the fence.She labeled the tea party racist and equated them to the kkk. When I asked her to give me examples of how they are racist, she was unable to.I then talked to her about the history of the democrat party and she was in disbelief.What irked me the most is, that she is a very well educated woman, with unbelievable intellect.How is it, people are unaware that the party they support have openly been against their beliefs? Democrats/liberals are the most intolerant bigots in the United States.They preach equality, but their history and present are riddled with creating inequality. President Obama is the most extremist liberal, who has ever been in the White House.Since he became president, we have witnessed, class warfare, the war on women, extreme racism, and an explosion of intolerance, that has not been seen since the sixties.I am tired of hearing about racism becoming rampant because people disagree with a black man who was elected to office. The same black man, that was elected twice by white and black people alike.The same people who are accusing the tea party of being racist, are the same people who showed pictures of Mitt Romney's family and made fun of his black grandson.These liberal bigots, use the race card with every argument they lose. Liberals label others who don't agree with them, with every vile name possible. You want examples of liberal intolerance and bigotry?How about Melissa Harris Perry and her attack on the Romney family, or State Representative Alvin Holmes who said; " I don't like Clarence Thomas, because he is married to a white woman" or William Barber, the president of the North Carolina NAACP who said this about Senator Tim Scott, the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction; “a ventriloquist can always find a good dummy,” he continued by saying; “the extreme right wing down here finds a black guy to be senator and claims he’s the first black senator since Reconstruction and then he goes to Washington, D.C., and articulates the agenda of the Tea Party.”If a conservative from the Tea Party said or done any of this, imagine the outrage and the finger pointing. These statements would be used to validate their position that the Tea Party was racist.Who are the Tea Party and what is their agenda? The Tea Party has more diversity than the Democratic Party. We possess a strong belief in the foundational Judeo-Christian values embedded in our great founding documents. We believe the responsibility of our beloved nation is etched upon the hearts of true American Patriots from every race, religion, national origin, and walk of life sharing a common belief in the values which made and keep our beloved nation great. Our core beliefs are:1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.3. A strong military is essential.4. Special interests must be eliminated.5. Gun ownership is sacred.6. Government must be downsized.7. The national budget must be balanced.8. Deficit spending must end.9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.13. Intrusive government must be stopped.14. English as our core language is required.15. Traditional family values are encouraged.We believe in; Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.If you feel these values and our mission promote racism, then maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself; who is really the bigot?If you would like to learn more about the Tea Party, visit our webpages at:http://www.teaparty.orghttp://www.officialteapartyusa.comhttps://www.teapartycommunity.com
Read more…

Impeach and Convict Obama NOW

Impeach and Convict Obama


  • This is directed to Megyn Kelly, Jay Sekulow, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Mark Levin, Bill O’Reilly, the entire 113th Congress, and ALL other public figures who present themselves as Protectors and Champions of TRUTH.    

America NEEDS you NOW.

  • He has committed numerous offenses against our Constitution and our Citizens; all requiring Impeachment and Conviction
  • It is the Duty and Responsibility of the 113th Congress to Impeach and Convict
  • As Officers of our Courts, ALL Lawyers are “Oathed” to    “….support the Constitution of  the United States….”               Admission to the Bar              Michigan Oath
  • IF you , each or collectively, fail in your duty to Impeach and Convict or to support Impeachment and Conviction the only remaining remedy will be the Citizens.


Below are sections that deal with

  • His Impeachable Offenses… the Charges….
    • They are not detailed but they are documented.
    • His Motives and Means.
    • His Duties and Responsibilities
    • What YOU must DO

The Charges

By virtue of his Oath Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Impeachable under our Constitution. Some of his offenses may also qualify as Criminal. I am not a Lawyer so cannot make those judgments.

Here is a partial list of events that surround the charges

  • Failure to prosecute Black Panthers for Voter Intimidation
  • Fast and Furious and the death of Brian Terry
  • Politically arranged firing of Government Whistleblowers  - Gerald Walpin
  • The Benghazi Tragedy
  • IRS abuse of our constitution… and hiding behind the 5th to avoid revealing criminal activity
  • NSA spying
  • Illegal tapping of Reporters telephones
  • BRIBERY (political pork BRIBERY) to buy Congressional votes to pass obamacare.
  • LYING to America….”If you like…………… can keep…………. PERIOD. Reference
  • Covering his lie with an illegal, unconstitutional swindle that directs Insurance Cos to break the law.

I have not detailed the charges. Congressional staffers can do their part by developing the details. In case they can’t find a way to get started, here are some “Starter Links”.

The bottom line is that there are more than plenty of documentable, Unconstitutional , Illegal, actions by BHO that demand Impeachment.

I call on the 113th Congress to do their duty or become accessories, accomplices, aiders, and abettors of these many illegal, Impeachable offenses.

Motives and Means

The MEANS are easiest to describe;

  • He has illegally managed to gain control of our Presidency. From that vantage point his
    • Illegal Executive Orders
    • Illegal proclamations that overrun Congress ( with little or no pushback)
    • His bully blamecalling
    • Installation of communist partners into high level government positions

provide THE MEANS.

His motives are deep and complex. All of these have established BHO as one who believes America is unfair and needs to be Socialized then taken to full Communism.

  • His entire youth was spent being indoctrinated, brainwashed, into Communist ideology.
  • His reported education was at America’s dens of Socialism.. Columbia;  Cloward-Piven
  • His 20 years as a congregant of J Wright’s Black Theology Church. He lied when he said nothing rubbed off, or.... he is too intellectually challenged to be President.
  • His Chicago affiliation with terrorists(Ayres) and political thugs(Alinsky) have “refined” his hatred of America

Duties and Responsibilities

Detailed arguments about his duties and responsibilities are in Appendix A.

In summary, the BUCK stops at BHO. He IS responsible for his own lies and illegal actions. But he is also responsible and accountable for all his subordinates and their illegal acts.

(Holder, Sebellius, Reid, Pelosi, etc)

Beyond the illegal acts are his FAILURES TO ACT.

Can anyone provide a reference to BHO publicly or privately DEMANDING that those responsible for Fast & Furious or Benghazi-gate or the IRS scandal etc.,  be identified, prosecuted, fired and jailed?

YOUR Responsibilities

This section is simple.  To the 113th congress, your Oath to Support our Constitution demands that you support and move on Impeachment and Conviction of BHO.

To Megyn and all other officers of our Courts, we need you to help America NOW. My prior pleas to GOP leaders in the House and Senate have fallen on deaf ears. I did not even get a courtesy reply to my Faxes.

If you fail, as is true so far, then YOU TOO ARE GUILTY and need to be removed from Office.


Appendix A – The BUCK STOPS at BHO

This is long but instructive…………from succinct language in our Constitution to exploring the meaning and bounds of High Crimes and Misdeanors.




The legal term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is found in Article II § 4 of the U. S. Constitution; quoting the section in its entirety:

"The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors."

This section constitutionally secures a provision for the involuntary removal from office of the President, Vice-President, Cabinet Secretaries, other executive officers, as well as federal judges.  The reason for this provision is the observation at the Constitutional Convention by Benjamin Franklin that the removal of "obnoxious" chief executives had, historically, been accomplished by assassination, and his recommendation that a proceduralized mechanism for removal would be preferable.

Treason and bribery are well understood crimes, and don't need much explanation here.  (Treason is even specifically defined in Article III § 3.)  But high crimes and misdemeanors . . . hmm, what's that?  Jerry Ford once famously asserted, "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."  To the extent that the U. S. House of Representatives is the sole and final arbiter of what constitutes grounds for impeachment of a federal official, he's right; but to the extent that this is even a remotely accurate description of the scope of high crimes and misdemeanors, it's not even close.

At the Constitutional Convention, treason and bribery were readily adopted as grounds for impeachment, but two other proposals, corruption and maladministration, were rejected as being overbroad and too vague.  Instead, George Mason proposed the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors against the state," which was shortened to "high crimes and misdemeanors" and then adopted with little discussion.  The reason for the ready adoption is that the Founding Fathers were well acquainted with the concept, because it had about four centuries of precedent (since 1386) in English parliamentary use.  Explaining the grounds for impeachment in Federalist Paper # 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote (emphasis in source):

"The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.  They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

This concept survives today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which  recognizes as punishable offenses such things as refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming.  These would not be prosecutable offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but in the military they are offenses which bear on the accused's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.  Thus, the emphasis in the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is the word high, because we're referring to offenses that an ordinary person, who is not serving as an elected or appointed-and-confirmed federal executive (or as a duly seated federal judge) is incapable of committing.  As an example, an ordinary person isn't going to have any official powers to misuse or abuse, but an elected executive (or one who has been appointed and duly confirmed) could face impeachment for precisely that reason.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the concept of "executive accountability" (a concept also well understood by anyone who's served in the military), which means that an executive is legally responsible, and accountable, for all of his subordinates, as well as their agents and contractors (most certainly not limited to only those over whom he has direct supervision).  The legal concept is a form of vicarious liability, and the standard of proof is "preponderance of evidence."

Keep in mind that that which can be "lain at the feet" of the official in question and "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" is way too narrow an interpretation of the accountability threshold.  The executive in question is expected to be aware, at all times, of what every single one of his subordinates (and their agents and contractors) is doing - or is supposed to be doing - and must thoroughly remedy any misconduct committed by any of them as soon as he becomes aware of it.  Nor is it necessary to show that such violations occurred at the executive's instigation or with his foreknowledge, but only that, based upon the preponderance of the evidence, the executive was, or reasonably should have been, aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates.  "Plausible deniability" is void ab initio as a defense, because the executive doesn't have the luxury of ignorance.

That executive accountability would be grounds for impeachment recognizes that holding an executive or judicial office of public trust is not a right, but a privilege, and that violating the trust invested in the office forfeits the privilege of holding it.  Nor is it just presidents and federal judges who are liable under Article II § 4; there is precedent for impeaching a cabinet secretary (see: Secretary of War, William W. Belknap, impeached on March 2, 1876, and Treasury Secretary, Andrew W. Mellon, who resigned on February 12, 1932, with impeachment proceedings in progress).  And it stands to reason that executive agency/bureau directors, especially those who hold a de facto cabinet rank (such as the Director of the EPA), should count as "civil officers" for impeachment purposes.

 = = = = = = =

More from above…………..

After test-marketing the excuse that the IRS selectively slow-walking non-profit applications was due to the Citizens United v. FEC decision, the Obama Administration has started floating the umbrella defense that systemic incompetence isn't the same thing as corruption, and now that they're aware of the problems, we can trust that they will exercise all due competence at getting to the bottom of this.  Someone needs to get the memo to Jay Carney that even the typically disinterested voters aren't buying the cockalayne that BHO learned about these things in the same place we did, the newspapers, and that outraged cluelessness isn't inspiring a whole lot of confidence in America's chief executive.

That a cabinet secretary (let alone the president) would have left key policy decisions to management-level subordinates, without so much as reviewing them, is a critical point of their culpability.  Quite frankly, it boggles my mind that blatant acts of malfeasance would have heretofore escaped executive scrutiny.  Specifically:

  • Who ordered the political witch hunt by the IRS against Tea Party, Pro-Israel, Pro-Life, Conservative, and Christian organizations?
  • Who ordered a stand down to the military response in Benghazi?  (General Carter Ham and Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette should know the answer to this one.)
  • Further, who ordered the coverup of what really happened in Benghazi?  (12 major revisions to the "talking points" . . . seriously.)
  • Who ordered that at least 20 phone lines used by Associated Press reporters be tapped?
  • Who ordered the EPA to provide fee waivers to green-leaning groups but deny them to conservative groups?

We already know that these weren't the actions of rouge operatives who'd decided to frolic outside the scope of their duties as employees of the federal government.  More than one person is already on record that the orders came from much further up the management food chain than some random field office.  The record is already beginning to show that executive-level officers had been briefed on some of these matters as far back as two years ago.  At some point, the question must be officially asked, "What did the President know and when did he know it?"  Throwing an "acting director" - who's gone in a month anyway - under the bus isn't going to cut it.

The connect-the-dots on Benghazi is enough alone to warrant the establishment of a select committee (or perhaps the appointment of a special prosecutor) to investigate what Rand Paul has labeled "staggering abuses of power" . . . maybe another marathon filibuster is in order.

I suspect that the reason that there isn't more public outcry is, in my opinion, twofold: (1) the co-opted media is having a helluva time getting past their pro-commie bias; and (2) the "bread and circuses" American culture is more interested in what's going on with the Kardashians (or the latest "teen mom" story) than what's going on in Washington.  It's uncertain at this point whether the wiretapping scandal is going to arouse the media from their kool-aid-induced stupor, but Mr. Carney's job doesn't seem to be getting any easier.  As for the hoi polloi . . . well, judging by the "magazine" covers that I see in the grocery store checkout aisle, until either the people's house or the fourth estate start doing their jobs, don't expect the typical disinterested voter (~68.26% of the electorate) to give a damn, and more's the pity because of it.

Because, quite frankly, and for whatever my opinion is worth, not only should Barack Obama and Eric Holder be staring down the business end of impeachment charges, but so also should Hillary Clinton, Tim Geithner, Leon Panetta, and Lisa Jackson.  The abuse of power is just that egregious, and the example that needs to be set is just that severe.  I have no idea what the precedent is for impeaching a federal executive who's no longer in office, but a hypothetical conviction could, theoretically, bring about the punishment specified in U. S. Constitution Article I § 3, Clause 7 (specifically, permanent disqualification from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit in the federal government going forward).  That'll throw a wrench into Hillary 2016.

(And if there's any truth to the scuttlebutt that Kathleen Sebelius is using the authority of her office to conduct a shakedown of the healthcare industry in order to raise funds for the federal exchanges, then throw her in with the rest of the lot.)


= = = = = =

From Washington post

Contemporaneous comments on the scope of impeachment are persuasive as to the intention of the framers. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as

those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.59

Comments in the state ratifying conventions also suggest that those who adopted the Constitution viewed impeachment as a remedy for usurpation or abuse of power or serious breach of trust. Thus, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina stated that the impeachment power of the House reaches "those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust."60 Edmund Randolph said in the Virgina convention that the President may be impeached if he "misbehaves."61 He later cited the example of the President's receipt of presents or emoluments from a foreign power in violation of the constitutional prohibition of Article I, section 9. 62 In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...63

Washington Post









Read more…

Obama – The Bald Faced Liar

When the guarantee of the President is a lie that turns America into the laughing stock of the World and actual, real, provable, damage has been done, he has gone beyond High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The perpetual campaigner who blistered America with …..”words have meaning” certainly should know the full and true meaning of PERIOD…. No ifs, ands or buts. No later rescission with more lies.

This blog is to directly address Impeachment Articles based on his ACA lies plus other transgressions.


However, others have discussed Articles based on many other abuses, and both acts of commission and omission Reference2

Special note should be made that Rep Steve Stockman (R-TX) had a book distributed to all 435 members of the House. The book was written by A Klein+...” Impeachable Offenses...” The Book

So... will Rep Bachmann's articles proceed?

Will others who have uttered Impeachment join with Bachmann and Stockman?

Have YOU received YOUR /Insurance Cancellation Notice?

Have you wondered about………. What YOU will do?

Not only did he make a PUBLIC PROMISE to every American, he also bound the Insurance Companies, and Doctors which in typical Obama style is completely beyond his legal authority…." If you like ………PERIOD!"

.…but, he lied…in the face of numerous Government reports and warnings that his promise must be a lie… and for that, he MUST be removed from our Whitehouse.

What will the House Republican “leaders” do …with a book full of transgressions?

Will they read it…?

What will your Rep do?

What will you do?

I am sending this via FAX to the House Repub Leaders, The Senate Repub Leaders and my Senators and Congressman.

Please join me in getting the Bald Faced Lying FRAUD out of OUR White House.

Now he comes out with another lie as a fake apology.


He says…. The buck stops here. I’m responsible, and I have to fix it. Well, just making another false lie promise to fix it doesn’t cut it.

He is so into …. “It’s the law, get used to It”……..that he won’t admit that he can’t fix it.

If he tries to do so by personal dictate , he will be breaking the law! And, today, he did…..break the law……..

Any law abiding citizen operating in Business would be out of Business and IN JAIL long ago.

Regardless of his omnipotent self-image, he cannot wave his hand (illegally) and undo the damage his reckless bribes ( getting ACA votes), lies(…keep your plan. PERIOD….), abuse of authority( Numerous illegal/immoral Executive Orders), and failures to act ( Black Panthers, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, NSA…) have inflicted on America.

He cannot , with an illegal wave of his hand change “settled law” nor undo the thousands of man-years expended by Insurance Companies to comply with his ILLEGAL ACA. He cannot restore the lives of thousands laid off or placed on reduced work hours to comply with his ILLEGAL ACA . He cannot blame Businesses for actions precipitated by his signature claim to infamy.

Today was just another BALD FACED LIE. It had NOTHING to do with providing relief to the millions he has injured. It has everything to do with simply taking the heat off Democrats until after the 2014 elections.

IF he felt the pain, sorrow and regret that he read from his prompter, why did it take a rebellion in his own party to get him to say something? WHY? Think about it.

What he said today amounted to….. After the 2014 Elections we will be right back where we are today, except my fellow democrats had a better chance at re-election. That is the essence of his proclamation.

In the Court of Public Opinion he is as guilty as Satan himself.

To Obama I say………Resign or get IMPEACHED!

What will you say, Mr Politician?

What will you DO?

Will you join Bachmann and Stockman to rid America of Our Enemy Within?

Whatever you choose to say and do, PLEASE do not aid and abet his criminal behavior by supporting “FIXES”.

Just before the shutdown we were admonished to leave it alone; to let it implode and collapse; to realize that it is the law.

Well, NOW PLEASE just get out of the way and let the ACA expose itself with no help from you.

Remember this…. The ACA skated in on a few bribed votes.

With NO fixes by you, those who valiantly voted against it will be joined by some (enough) who voted for it to finally repeal this illegal act of Communism.

...and make Impeachment REAL!

Read more…

(Before It's News)

On Sunday, October 20, 2013 3:22 PM
I of all people am for independent thinking and action on the part of people, but we have been sooo brainwashed by the government and U.S. press most people don’t have a clue as to what is happening.

You should certainly do what you want, but I HIGHLY suggest you DO NOT sign up for Obamacare until you read this CAREFULLY.  Chief Justice Roberts carefully worded his ruling and left out any requirement to participate for 95% of Americans.

One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
“So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand, he struck down the Philistine and killed him.” – 1 Samuel 17:50

Many people are very angry at Chief Justice John Roberts for his ruling that Obamacare is Constitutional as a tax. They are outraged at what they see as his validation of the complete usurpation of Constitutional protections, and terrified that America has been effectively destroyed. Some of them are even talking “revolution,” and asking each other in person, and in print, “what are you prepared to do”?
Well this analysis of the Roberts ruling asks the same thing, but in a different context. What are you prepared to do? Are you, for example, prepared to read? Are you prepared to learn? Are you prepared to entertain the concept that you might be wrong about Roberts – about what he actually ruled, about what he actually meant, about what he actually did, and why the rest of the Court would not stand with him?
Because if you aren’t, then don’t bother reading any further. Beware: this analysis pops bubbles - hard. Here’s a taste of what I mean:
You know all the yowling and screaming about how Roberts changed a penalty into a tax? In his ruling, Roberts quoted Obamacare itself, at Title 26, § 5000A (g) (1), which reads:
The penalty provided by this section … shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.
Then Roberts did this amazing, totally judicial thing that no one else can possibly do except someone with his vast power at their fingertips – he actually looked up the law that Obamacare quoted. And when he did, he found that subchapter B of chapter 68, specifically at § 6671 (a), says:
The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter shall be … assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. …any reference in this title to “tax” imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.
Then, after reading these actual laws cited by Obamacare itself, Roberts made this blockbuster observation: “The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which-as we previously explained-must assess and collect it “in the same manner as taxes.”
Let’s see, Roberts said the penalty must be assessed and collected “in the same manner as taxes” after reading that Obamacare itself invokes § 6671 (a) – which literally and specifically states the penalty must be assessed and collected “in the same manner as taxes.”
Wow, that’s a radical ruling.
And what exactly is § 6671 (a)? It a part of the Internal Revenue Code that was there before Obamacare was even created! All Obamacare did was point to it, and say “use that.”
So why weren’t Americans enraged about how § 6671 (a) equates the treatment of penalties as taxes before Obamacare?
People can disagree with him if they want, but how the hell can anyone say Roberts is “legislating from the bench” when he simply repeats back pre-existingtax law that Obamacare references for itself? Of course, the answer to that question is simple – no one actually looked up the laws before they decided that their country had been “destroyed.” Yet they’re ready to fight a “revolution” over it!
A revolution for what - to make new laws that they still won’t read?
If you want to get angry, get angry about how the other eight Justices didn’t point out this simple fact about penalties already being treated as taxes. After all, that’s what judges are supposed to do - right? Point out what the law is, rather than what anyone wants it to be? Right? And isn’t that exactly what the Chief Justice did here?
Maybe that’s why he’s Chief Justice – he gets to read the actual laws. Maybe all the other Justices have to listen to the media to find out how they should rule.
So you’re warned: this analysis is not for the squeamish. But if you really want to learn what Roberts did, and why he did it, and what the Obamacare tax lawsactually mean (as opposed to what you thought they meant), read on.
And you can start by understanding this:
• Chief Justice Roberts limited the Constitutionality of Obamacare to ONLY those statutorily-defined “persons” upon whom the income tax is imposed.
• 95% of the American population are NOT those statutorily-defined “persons.”
• Therefore, Obamacare does NOT apply to 95% of the American population.
Don’t believe me? Then like I said, read on.

Point #1: Imposed Means Enforced – Part 1
Taxes, whether “voluntary” or not, are subject to enforcement. If a tax can’t be enforced, it’s not a tax.
That’s why the income tax law, Title 26, Chapter 1, Section 1, starts out with: ”There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual…”
And the Obamacare law, Title 26, § 5000A, (b) (1) starts out with: “…there is hereby imposed on the taxpayer who is an applicable individual a penalty…”
Notice the mutual use of the word “imposed”? It means enforced by the government.
Point #2: Obamacare is Part of the Income Tax Laws
Obamacare, at Title 26, § 5000A, (b) (2) states: “Any penalty imposed by this section … shall be included with a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1…”
Chapter 1 of Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) is where the income tax is imposed. Title 26 is also where Obamacare is found. So when Obamacare penalties (which enable it to be imposed and therefore enforced) are specified within Obamacare itself to be part of the income tax return, they are also thereby making those penalties subject to the income tax enforcement laws of Title 26.
Point #3: Obamacare is Written to Deceive
In his ruling, Roberts observed that Obamacare specified that it’s penalty “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68,” which in turn specifies that those penalties “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes.” Then he notes that the authority for those acts are found in “§6201 (assessment authority); §6301 (collection authority),” which are the same authorities used for assessing and collecting income taxes.
Then Roberts says something very curious. He says: “That interpretation is consistent with the remainder of §5000A(g), which instructs the Secretary on the tools he may use to collect the penalty. See §5000A(g)(2)(A) (barring criminal prosecutions); §5000A(g)(2)(B) (prohibiting the Secretary from using notices of lien and levies).”
Look what stands out – what Roberts is saying are “tools that may be used to collect the penalty” are actually, if you look at his parenthetical descriptions,denials of the tools necessary to collect the penalty. The first refers to “barring criminal prosecutions,” and the second refers to prohibiting the Secretary from using notices of lien and levies.”
So how are they “tools that may be used to collect the penalty”? And besides, just how is the Obamacare tax penalty going to be collected, if both criminal prosecutions and liens and levies cannot be used to go get it?
Roberts is drawing our attention to these statutes. Let’s look at them.
Title 26, § 5000A (g) (2) says:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law-
(A) In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) The Secretary shall not (i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or (ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.
Section (A) has to do with “barring criminal prosecutions.” Sounds nice – but what does it apply to? A failure to “timely pay” a penalty.
Guess what? Failure to timely pay a penalty is NOT a criminal act. Usually, it invokes further penalties and interest. Only if you fail to pay altogether could the situation reach criminal status, and even then, it would have to be willful. Otherwise, the penalties and interest would just continue to pile up. “Willful failure to pay” is not ”failure to timely pay.” So since the ONLY criminal charge that § 5000A (g) (2) (A) protects a taxpayer from doesn’t exist, the entire statute is a fraud. It’s meant to make people think Obamacare is harmless, and that deliberately putting off paying its penalty won’t make anyone subject to criminal charges. But this isn’t true.
How about Section (B)? Well, a levy is a seizure of property. For that to happen, a lien has to be filed first, specifying what property is to be seized, and that due process has been followed. After the lien has been filed, but before the levy is made upon the property, a notice of lien is sent to the taxpayer who owns the property the government intends to seize through levy, to let them know that the lien has been filed against them.
Now what does (B)(i) say? That a “notice of lien” shall not be filed. Well, notices of lien aren’t filed, except as copies of the mailing that was made to the taxpayer. Liens are filed - that’s the functional act. Not “notices of lien.” Filing a “notice of lien” is NOT the same thing as filing a “lien,” because it does NOT legally enable a levy. It’s literally just a “notice” that an actual ”lien” has been filed. And it’s supposed to be mailed, not “filed.” So when (B)(i) forbids it to be filed, well good – because it’s not supposed to be anyway! Yet this was obviously written to make you to think it’s talking about actual liens, when it says “notices of lien” – when it’s not.
How about (B)(ii), where it is specified that no “levy on any such property” shall be made. Well, what ”such” property? None other than the property in (B)(i) of course, that was specified in the “notice of lien.” But wait a second – you can’t legally levy property from just a “notice of lien” anyway! You need a real lien to levy property! So this section, once again, is saying that something illegal will not be done by the government – specifically, that no property will seized with just a “notice of lien” to back up the levy. Hey, thanks a lot.
So what are we left with here? What did Roberts draw our attention to, when he specified laws in Obamacare that he said are tools to collect the penalty, when they seemed to be tools to prevent the collection of the penalty? He did nothing less than to indicate that these prevention tools are no such thing – that they block nothing, and that the only actual tools that are indicated enable the full collection powers of Title 26 tax laws to be used (i.e., it’s a fully functional Death Star). And not just those directed by “subchapter B of chapter 68,” but also criminal penalties, and lien and levy powers. Even worse, both of these were cited by Obamacare not only to mislead the public, but also to establish a judicially noticeable reference to legitimize their usage against the public.
Roberts deliberately drew attention to this. And in doing so, he effectively said, “watch out – read carefully, this ruling is dealing with a law that was written to deceive. You have to be very careful in your reading of both it and my ruling if you want to understand what everything means.”
Then, concerning enforcement, he showed that nothing in Obamacare blocks the usage of Subchapter B of Chapter 68, Criminal, or Lien & Levy powers against taxpayers to collect Obamacare penalties.
And most importantly, Obamacare is written to deceive.
Point #4: “Person” has Different Legal Definitions for Different Purposes
So what else is Obamacare being deceptive about?
Well, when Chief Justice Roberts referenced Obamacare’s use of “subchapter B of chapter 68,” he cited a statute from within that subchapter to support his interpretation of its usage – specifically, he cited §6671(a).
If you look up §6671(a), you’ll find that it does, indeed, support Robert’s interpretation.
You also find, underneath it, §6671(b) – right where the Chief Justice wanted you to find it.
Title 26, Chapter 68, Subchapter B, § 6671 (b) states:
• The term “person”, as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
That’s a very important definition of “person.” But before we get into that subject – remember those other two enforcement tools that were supposedly banned from use, but actually were not, discussed above in Point #3? The first was criminal enforcement. The second was lien and levy powers.
Criminal enforcement is found in Chapter 75 of Title 26. Thus, the definition of “person” for the purposes of criminal enforcement is found in that chapter. Specifically, it is found in Title 26, Chapter 75, § 7343, which reads:
• The term ‘”person”‘ as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
Finally, lien and levy powers are found in the chapters 63 and 64 specified by Chief Justice Roberts in his ruling, where he references them as the “assessment § 6201 (a)” and “collection § 6301″ chapters, respectively. Now, liens are only useful to enable levies, so definitions for levy powers also reference lien powers. And in the levy chapter (64), at § 6332 (f), we find the following definition of “person”:
• The term “person,” as used in subsection (a), includes an officer or employee of a corporation or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to surrender the property or rights to property, or to discharge the obligation.
Take a moment at this point, to compare the three definitions of “person” cited from references from Robert’s ruling listed above, that are found in three different enforcement sections of Title 26.
They are identical.
Yet, if you look up the general Title 26 definition of “person” in § 7701 (a) (1), you’ll find:
“The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”
Notice that generally speaking, for the entirety of Title 26, the term “person” also means the term ‘individual.’ That’s why when the income tax laws and Obamacare laws address ‘individuals’ and ‘persons,’ they have identical meanings.
But compare: the general definition of “person” in § 7701 (a) (1) above says it’s just “an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.” That’s it – no fine print.
But the definition of “person” for enforcement purposes in the above cited §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) are way, way, way more narrow. To be that ‘person,’ you have to be:
1) An officer or employee of a listed type of corporation; AND 2) Under a duty to perform an act; AND 3) In respect of said act, a violation occurs.
That’s a lot more specific than just being an “individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”
So what does this difference in the definitions of the term “person” mean? It means that the definition of “person” the government can punish for tax violations, is NOT the same definition of “person” that is used in the rest of Title 26.
More specifically, it means that the only ”persons” the government can impose tax violation enforcements against, are officers or employees of a corporation, who have a duty to act in some way regarding tax laws on behalf of their corporation, and who violate those tax laws on behalf of the corporation they officially represent.
Do you represent a corporation in an official capacity to the government, on behalf of that corporation’s tax obligations? If not, then you are not a §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) “person” who can be liable for violating the tax enforcement laws.
And by direct reference through Obamacare itself, the enforcement laws that the government would use to go after “persons” it claims are violating Obamacare taxes OR penalties OR fines are also found in §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f).
So if you are not that definition of “person,” (which is repeated three different times in Title 26 to make absolutely clear exactly who it is talking about), then you are NOT liable for any other taxes which make use of the enforcement provisions linked to that definition, including income tax OR Obamacare.
And in his ruling, Chief Justice Roberts deliberately cited a law which, if you actually look it up, is right next to the enforcement definition of “person” for Chapter 68, Subchapter B, and he also indicated that further enforcement definitions should be sought for the fully applicable criminal, and lien and levy, chapters of Title 26 – all of which turned out to be identical enforcement definitions for the term “person.”
That extraordinary sequence of events is no accident – it is a communication.
Point #5: Taxpayers are Individuals are Persons
So if the definition of “person” is so important, why do both the income tax laws and Obamacare laws refer to individuals?
To confuse you, of course!
And in any event, they both refer to taxpayers.
Think of it this way – persons or individuals may be subject to the enforcement of a particular tax, depending on a lot of things. Taxpayers, however, are persons or individuals who are subject to the enforcement of a particular tax.
That’s why Title 26, § 7701 (a) states: The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
So it’s clear that both individuals and persons may be subject to tax, depending on what definitions of those terms apply to them.
IF they are liable, THEN they are referred to as “taxpayers.”
That’s why both the income tax statutes and the Obamacare statutes make so much use of the term “taxpayers.” When they are talking about someone whomight be subject to the tax, then they use the terms “person” or “individual.” But when they are talking about someone who absolutely is subject to the tax, then they use the term “taxpayer.”
Point #6: Imposed Means Enforced – Part 2
Both the income tax, and Obamacare, start out by saying “a tax is imposed.” Not “a tax is made,” or a “tax exists,” or just “a tax.”
And imposed means enforced: If it can’t be enforced, it can’t be imposed.
So if it can’t be enforced against your definition of “person,” it can’t be imposed on you.
Even (and especially), if you fit the general definition of “person” or “individual,” but not the enforcement definition of “person.”
And if it can’t be imposed on you, you can’t be a taxpayer for it.
And if you’re not a taxpayer for it…
… it doesn’t apply to you.
Point #7: News Flash – The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Knows All of This
But if he knows it, then why didn’t he say it?
Well, he did say it. Specifically, Roberts wrote: “The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”
Did you catch it?
This is the paragraph that drives everyone crazy. This is the paragraph that makes everyone scream that Roberts is crazy. But apply what has been explained above, to what Roberts wrote. He’s talking about what “The Federal Government” has “the power” to do. And as has been explained, you have to ask yourself: do what, to whom?
He says: “the power to order people to buy” Then he says: “the power to impose a tax on those”
He’s differentiating! “People” are not the same as “those!”
Order people - the government does NOT have the power to “order” a free people.
Impose tax on those - the government DOES have the power to “impose” on “those,” because: “THOSE” are TAXPAYERS!
Taxpayers are – literally by triple definition - imposed persons subject to enforcement via the detailed descriptions provided in §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) of Title 26, specifically: 1) An officer or employee of a listed type of corporation; AND 2) Under a duty to perform an act; AND 3) In respect of said act, a violation occurs.
And, regarding “those ‘persons,’” – and ONLY “those ‘persons,’” – Chief Justice Roberts ruled that Obamacare IS Constitutional:
“The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.”
HOWEVER, he also specifically ruled that against the people (as in We The People), Obamacare is NOT constitutional:
“The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance.”
Roberts specifically protected the constitutional freedom of the American People, right in front of their eyes, according to the actual meaning of the actual tax laws…
…after ruling against any other constitutional clause that could serve to confuse the tax issues.
And THAT is why no other Justice would support him -
Because in Doing So, He Isolated and Exposed The Secret of LIMITED Tax Liability!
Point #8: The Two Powers
If you’ve come this far, and didn’t know this material beforehand, you might be in a bit of a shock at this point. Basically, the reason that Obamacare doesn’t apply to 95% of Americans is because it can only be enforced against people responsible for running corporations – not normal people simply working and living on their own personal behalf. And more, those limitations on the enforcement laws don’t come out of Obamacare. Rather, they’re a part of the income tax laws that have been there all along, and that Obamacare has attached itself to, in order to make use of them.
Can this really be possible? It would mean that there are two separate enforcement powers held by the Federal government – one for corporation “persons,” and one for non-corporate, regular human-being-type, natural persons. And that a giant scam has taken place by the government using legally defined terms such as “person,” and “individual,” and “taxpayer,” in order to confuse these identities, and especially to hide the two different powers of government.
Well, let’s look at Chief Justice Roberts again, and see what he said about this subject. In his ruling, Roberts wrote:
“This case concerns two powers that the Constitution does grant the Federal Government, but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power.”
Now that’s a hell of a thing to say, isn’t it? “This case concerns two powers.” If you disregard the analysis presented above, then ask yourself - what two powers?
After all, isn’t that why the country has been ripping itself to shreds over Robert’s ruling, because it’s only taking into account a single power – that of the Federal government? You might say, well, there’s the powers of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause that Roberts threw out, when he kept the taxing power in. But that’s three powers total, not two. So what’s the difference between them? How do you turn three powers into two? And for that matter, why should there be multiple powers in the first place? Don’t we have only one government?
No, we don’t. We have two “governments,” in fact. Two completely separate ”governments,” under one Constitution.
The first ”government” is the original one. It deals with human beings acting as human beings and nothing else. That government has to deal with a position derived from those human beings. And those human beings are acknowledged as possessing God-given natural rights, that existed before the “government” was created, and which cannot be removed by that “government,” because it simply does not have the authority.
The second ”government,” however, is exactly the opposite of the first one. The second “government” creates, controls and runs corporations. The very word “incorporate” means “give body to,” or “bring into existence.” And because that “government” creates corporations, it owns those corporation completely -because of the fact that it is their creator.
Thus legally, corporations are slaves to the “government” that created them, by definition. They are created, live in obedience to, and die at the command of that “government” – including paying taxes to that “government.” And the rules that that “government” can make for those corporations are literally unlimited,because those corporations have no rights. They only have privileges that are granted to them by their creator “government,” privileges which can be changed or terminated at any time, solely at the pleasure of that “government.”
Functionally, those are the two “governments” which comprise the two main Federal jurisdictional powers of our one constitutional Republic. And thus, they are the “two powers” to which Roberts is referring. And he acknowledges them both as constitutionally legitimate.
But he also warns that it is extremely dangerous to mix them up. In fact, he points out that if you mix them up, you can end up with what he calls ” a general federal authority akin to the police power.”
But isn’t that exactly what everyone is afraid Roberts has actually done with his ruling?
Yet here he is specifically warning everyone against making that interpretation of his ruling, and teaching that the way to avoid that terrible mistake is to “read carefully.”
So that’s what this analysis is – a very, very careful reading. It is not my interpretation of Roberts. It is my careful reading of what Roberts actually said, per his specific instructions.
Two governmental powers exist. Roberts said so, and warned against confusing them. For the Chief Justice said that if we mix them up, WE will create – by our very ignorance - “a general federal authority akin to the police power.”
So what does that mean? It means enabling the Federal government, through Obamacare, to start treating We The People of inalienable human rights, like wholly-owned government-privileged corporations, for everything.
Point #9: Bait and Switch and Presumption
But wait a second, (I imagine you say again). What about forcing everyone to pay income tax already? If Obamacare doesn’t apply to 95% of Americans because it is imposed by corporate income tax enforcement laws, then how the hell does the government get away with applying those same corporate income tax enforcement laws to non-corporate, regular human people-persons for the income tax?
Answer: You volunteer to be treated as a corporation.
Remember in his ruling that Roberts said that “without a careful reading” you can create “a general federal authority akin to the police power” concerning Obamacare?
Well concerning the income tax, most Americans have NOT made a “careful reading” of the tax laws, and therefore HAVE created a specific ”federal authority akin to the police power” concerning the subject of income taxes.
You see, as free human beings, we have the right to make contracts. And there is such a thing as a presumed contract. What the government has done is argued to the courts – and the courts have agreed – that the government is not responsible for people’s legal ignorance, and that if they act in such a way as to functionally volunteer to be treated as a corporation, then the government gets to treat them like a corporation.
Even worse, courts have agreed that neither they, nor other government officials, have to tell you you’re being treated as a corporation, under the interpretation that you don’t need to be told, since you volunteered in the first place.
And then, to top it off, the government has created rules to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for you to not be treated like a corporation anymore, by presuming that until you have proven you’re not a corporation, they get to pound down on you just as if you were a corporation that was faking being a human being. As a result, you can actually be convicted for fraud, and go to jail, for demanding you not be treated as if you were a corporation!
That’s the way it is.
So the technical answer is no, 95% of Americans don’t have to pay the income tax, because it’s enforcement mechanisms specify that only corporations, or people responsible for corporations, are subject to income tax enforcement.
The practical answer, however, is that without a lot of money and legal representation, the government will use the presumption that you are a corporation against you to seize your money and property, and throw you in jail, long before you can get through all the court hearings necessary for them to admit that you are a non-corporate human being-type person. Or they will simply show you that that’s what they are going to do to you, unless you sign a document agreeing that you are, in fact, a corporation, and agree that you’ve been a very, very bad corporation, and that you deserve to pay all sorts of fines in order to stay out of jail.
That’s the way it is.
So DO NOT THINK you can use the information in this analysis – even by quoting Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court – to stop paying income taxes.
It. Won’t. Work.
The IRS will simply STOMP you into oblivion, because legally, they get to treat you under the presumption that you are a corporation - and they don’t have to acknowledge any “presumed corporations” that try to claim they are not corporations.
In fact, the technical legal name for that particular argument is “frivolous.”
That’s right, according to tax laws, interpretations and rulings, pointing out that you are a human being who does not fit the specifications of the actual income tax enforcement laws, is frivolous.
Not “funny-frivolous.”
But rather, “go-to-jail-frivolous.”
Read carefully: you’re warned.
Point #10: Generalization – A Bridge Too Far
Contrary to what most people think, judges can’t just go rule on something if they think it is wrong. They have to wait for an appropriate case to come to them, and sometimes it never does. Also, cases themselves have all sorts of issues and parts to them. Sometimes a case will seem to be about one thing, but it’s actually about another. So for the purposes of what it seems to be about, it’s useless. And if political operatives have decided that certain types of cases will be ruled against their interests by certain judges, every effort will be made by those operatives to keep those cases out of those courts. Thus a judge can wait a whole career, and never rule on what he or she wants to rule on.
The opposite is also true. Sometimes a case shows up, and a judge realizes – this is it, now or never. Another opportunity may never come, or come too late to matter. So they act.
That, I believe, is what Chief Justice Roberts has done with his Obamacare ruling. If he waited longer to make this ruling, Obamacare would be in another form, and perhaps not so amenable to exposure for what it really is. Or, such a vast bureaucracy will have been formed by the time he got to rule on it, that enormous damage to the country would have been done in the mean time. Or he simply might not have gotten to be the swing vote, and would have been out-voted no matter what his position was.
So he chose this, and he chose now.
But what did he actually do?
Simply put, he raised the alarm about something that goes far, far beyond Obamacare. In fact, it goes straight to the heart of why everyone is so upset. Roberts not only drew attention to the fact that, by simply positioning anything they want as a tax, the government can force anyone to do anything at any time – he certified that concept as constitutional. And by doing that, he made sure the vulnerability of the country to totally legal tyranny would not go away. For even if Obamacare was repealed, his ruling would still stand, and Congress could just try again with something else.
But why would Roberts do such a thing? After all, he actually warned against the creation of “a general federal authority akin to the police power.” And he also said elsewhere in his ruling, “our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed.” Yet after saying these things, he then went and enabled them!
Except he didn’t. Because he pointed out – subtly, but clearly, for those who follow his hints as I have here – that these powers Congress is trying to use against the People do not, in fact, apply to them, but only to corporations.
But the man is a Federal judge – the TOP Federal judge. Do you think, even for a moment, Roberts isn’t fully aware of what the IRS “legally” does to people who try to use Roberts own argument against them?
Of course he does.
That’s why he wrote the argument. Because now HE wrote this argument – not YOU.

And that matters. Because by definition, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is not frivolous. Even by the interpretations of the IRS.
You see, Roberts jammed the machine. And scared the shit out of the entire Federal government by doing it. That’s why no other Justice would join him – heterrified them.
And he did it because it was the only way he could find to halt the unstoppable expansion of a process that was originally promised by Congress to be limitedonly to the income tax – but technically could be applied to anything.
What was that process?
• The ability of the Federal government, to presume that natural human person Americans had volunteered to be treated as corporations under the law;
• The ability of the Federal government to do this without telling them that such a presumption had been made against them;
• The ability of the Federal government to use this presumption to deny Americans their inalienable constitutional rights by replacing them with government-controlled corporate privileges;
• And finally, the ability of the Federal government to not tell Americans how to get out of that presumption without being harmed by trying to do so.
When Obamacare came up as a tax law, Roberts – and all the Justices – knew what this meant. It meant Congress had gone back on their promise to presume this terrible corporate tax power upon people only for the purpose of the income tax, and use it for everything. Because Obamacare was the generalization of this principle that opened the door to its infinite use. As long as the only application of these tax laws were for income taxes, that single application stood as a kind of protection. But with a second application, the principle became generalized, and with that, the door swung open.
But the real problem was that it was legal. Yet Roberts did not make it legal – it was made legal before Roberts was even born. People have a constitutional right to contract. Contracts can be presumed by behavior. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It’s all there – but in its application to tax laws, and now Obamacare (and with that literally everything else), it has become diabolical.
So what was Roberts to do? Throw it out? If he did that, it would come back. Congress is obviously licking it’s chops over expanding this principle of empowerment through tax enforcement. Obamacare, or something like it, or something else, would come back again, and again, and again – and each time it would be, technically, constitutional.
So Roberts decided to make a stand. Like John Hancock signing his name big enough on the Declaration of Independence to make sure the King saw it, Chief Justice Roberts ensured with the signing of his Obamacare ruling that unless everyone works together, no one is ever going home to freedom again. Because the only way out of this problem is for Americans to know about it, understand it, and craft a constitutional protection against it.
Not against corporations.
But against people being treated as corporations, and losing their rights, through presumption.
Remember Pelosi gloating that you’d have to pass Obamacare to see what was in it? She was telling you the truth about the government’s use of presumption.The government presumes that you’ve voluntarily surrendered your humanity for corporate status, and then passes bills without telling you what’s in them, because you have no right to know what your corporate masters are doing until they want to tell you. Even then, they don’t have to tell you – Pelosi didn’t say she’d explain it, just that you could read it, if it was passed.
That’s what happens if you fight the IRS, too – they are allowed to presume the corporate laws apply to you, and that you therefore have to pay the tax before you can challenge the tax in court. But then, if you pay and fight, the government doesn’t have to tell you you’re being treated as a volunteer corporation. Instead, they rule that your claims of humanity are frivolous because you’re obeying corporate laws and standing in a corporate administrative court. This secret presumption been repeatedly ruled as Constitutional. You just don’t know about it.
So you can see why those who would convert the entirety of the Constitution into tax laws, are drunk on the mechanism of presumption. That’s why Pelosi replied, when asked if Obamacare was Constitutional, “Are you serious!? Are you serious!?” Look at her reply legally: she mocked the question as frivolous,because in doing so she limited her response to only incorporated ”persons”!
And remember, she was saying this as Speaker of the House of Representatives. In other words, she wasn’t without authority when she said it. She specifically invoked the power of secret presumption by using contempt, in order to hide behind it’s legal protections. Government employees use this indemnification technique all the time, because the people don’t know it’s a legal statement!
Before Obamacare, secret presumption meant income tax. Now, it means people forced to face death panels and perform abortions against their religious beliefs – when they don’t actually have to!
That’s why SECRET PRESUMPTION is the monumental problem Roberts has chosen to expose with his courageous ruling. And he did it now because our country is poised on the edge of a precipice - right now. Compared to the absolute catastrophe of generalizing the secret taxing authority presumption, all the hell of Obamacare is merely one example, with an infinite number of the same kinds of tax laws right behind it, waiting only for Congress to vote.
But Roberts also showed the SOLUTION to the problem, when he wrote, “The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.
Only the People can put a Constitutional Stop to the government’s currently LEGAL use of the secret presumption of corporate status against human beings. Robert’s can’t do that himself. But in a single astonishing ruling, Chief Justice Roberts has warned the American People of what is being done to them, how it is being done, and the immanent danger of its expansion of use.
What the American People will now do about this problem remains to be seen. One thing is sure, though – the more people who know about it, the better. Peaceful change can only come from knowledge. So pass the word.

God Bless America. 

Copyright July 4th, 2012. All rights reserved. Permission given for non-profit distribution only.


THAT’S WHY THE BRILLIANT AUTHOR ABOVE IS NOT EXACTLY RIGHT WHEN SAYING: “Peaceful change can only come from knowledge“.


Source:  Before It's News

Read more…

He Promised..... Hold him to it

Time to call him out.

We have had so much bullying from Obama that it is time to push back.

Here is one example. It should appeal to a lot of people.

Obama needs to dragged into court and mad to live up to his promise.

There has already been actual damage.

This is not a case of proving some hidden secret. His statements were public..

He did not say “some”. He said “you”.

Hopefully his evil intent will have sunshine brightly splashed on it.

At worst he will weasel out with some legalese… but his snake-oil-salesmanship will be on display.


 = = = = =


Not only did he say that but……….

He preceded it with

we will keep this promise……….

After he said simply …PERIOD

Check me out

Sure impeachment should be started… but more……

He should be challenged in court to keep his promise!



Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:05 PM

Subject: Fwd: ObamaCare insures the uninsurable at a much higher price


Fwd: ObamaCare insures the uninsurable at a much higher price


The White House occupant stated: " You Will Be Able to Keep Your Present Health Care Insurance!". But as hundreds of thousands of citizens are finding they not only cannot keep their present Insurance but they will not be able to keep their present Doctors or Hospitals. "HE LIED" AGAIN !!!!  NO SURPRISE, everyone has heard so many lies from this imposter they no longer even notice it !!! It is just him and his Teleprompter on the campaign trail !!!  It is Time for the People to Tell their Congressmen both Democrat and Republicans alike, that we Want this Imposter IMPEACHED !!!   FORWARD TO ALL ON YOUR ADDRESS BOOK !   TIM


Thousands Of Americans See Their Health Plans Canceled

Kaiser Health News  |  By Anna Gorman and Julie Appleby Posted: 10/21/2013 5:07 pm EDT  |  Updated: 10/22/2013 12:06 pm EDT


 Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage, frustrating some consumers who want to keep what they have and forcing others to buy more costly policies.

The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1. Most are ending policies sold after the law passed in March 2010. At least a few are cancelling plans sold to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

By all accounts, the new policies will offer consumers better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost -- especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify. The law requires policies sold in the individual market to cover 10 “essential” benefits, such as prescription drugs, mental health treatment and maternity care. In addition, insurers cannot reject people with medical problems or charge them higher prices. The policies must also cap consumers’ annual expenses at levels lower than many plans sold before the new rules.

But the cancellation notices, which began arriving in August, have shocked many consumers in light of President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their plans if they liked them.

“I don’t feel like I need to change, but I have to,” said Jeff Learned, a television editor in Los Angeles, who must find a new plan for his teenage daughter, who has a health condition that has required multiple surgeries.

An estimated 14 million people purchase their own coverage because they don’t get it through their jobs. Calls to insurers in several states showed that many have sent notices.

Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people – about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent.

Some Policies Targeted

Both Independence and Highmark are cancelling so-called “guaranteed issue” policies, which had been sold to customers who had pre-existing medical conditions when they signed up. Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year.

Consumer advocates say such cancellations raise concerns that companies may be targeting their most costly enrollees.

They may be “doing this as an opportunity to push their populations into the exchange and purge their systems” of policyholders they no longer want, said Jerry Flanagan, an attorney with the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog in California.

Insurers deny that, saying they are encouraging existing customers to re-enroll in their new plans.

“We continue to cover people with all types of health conditions,” said Highmark spokeswoman Kristin Ash.

She said some policyholders who may have faced limited coverage for their medical conditions will get new plans with “richer benefits” and the policies “in most cases, will be at a lower rate.”

Paula Sunshine, vice president of marketing with Independence, said the insurer hopes the cancelled policyholders will “choose Blue when they decide on a new plan.”

Higher Costs?

Some receiving cancellations say it looks like their costs will go up, despite studies projecting that about half of all enrollees will get income-based subsidies.

Kris Malean, 56, lives outside Seattle, and has a health policy that costs $390 a month with a $2,500 deductible and a $10,000 in potential out-of-pocket costs for such things as doctor visits, drug costs or hospital care.

As a replacement, Regence BlueShield is offering her a plan for $79 more a month with a deductible twice as large as what she pays now, but which limits her potential out-of-pocket costs to $6,250 a year, including the deductible.

“My impression was …there would be a lot more choice, driving some of the rates down,” said Malean, who does not believe she is eligible for a subsidy.

Regence spokeswoman Rachelle Cunningham said the new plans offer consumers broader benefits, which “in many cases translate into higher costs.”

“The arithmetic is inescapable,” said Patrick Johnston, chief executive officer of the California Association of Health Plans. Costs must be spread, so while some consumers will see their premiums drop, others will pay more -- “no matter what people in Washington say.”

Health insurance experts say new prices will vary and much depends on where a person lives, their age and the type of policy they decide to buy. Some, including young people and those with skimpy or high-deductible plans, may see an increase. Others, including those with health problems or who buy coverage with higher deductibles than they have now, may see lower premiums.

Blue Shield of California sent roughly 119,000 cancellation notices out in mid-September, about 60 percent of its individual business. About two-thirds of those policyholders will see rate increases in their new policies, said spokesman Steve Shivinsky.

Like other insurers, the Blue Shield letters let customers know they have to make a decision by Dec. 31 or they will automatically be enrolled in a recommended plan.

“There is going to be a certain amount of churn in the marketplace as people have to make their decisions,” Shivinsky said.

Jay Hancock contributed.


Read more…

Herr Obama Has Spoken.

  Of course only das fuehrer knows what's right for this country again. Opening his tirade against Republicans "Obummer" repeated accusations of them, they, Republicans were totally at fault for the government shutdown. While stating that its Congress' job to come up with a budget. Why then when they do, Mr. do-nothing, you have your lackeys refuse to implement such  budgets.

  Being an "Extreme part of the Party" member I am incensed that a Liar and Traitor to the American People would continue to be even opening his big mouth.

  Please step down you faker and let the people of this great country have the White House back.

  Using the Nazi methods of repeating lies until they are perceived to be truth does not make your LIES the Truth. Congress has done its duty by reigning in a wicked and perverse administration by asking for real measures needed to right the wrongs YOU have done to all Americans.

  Stop using the threats of Checks being cut off and looming default that ONLY YOU can cause to scare the people of this great land.

  If you have a Trust issue, take it up with me, or better yet the one true God.

Read more…

Black Soul Obama

I need to preface this with……

I never heard of Maureen Scott until her note arrived in my inbox.

I do, however, know Barack Hussein Obama.

My thoughts about him resonate with Maureen.

I have thought of Obama as the opposite of our prior inspirational Presidents, Kennedy and Reagan.

Obama is dull and divisive. He is the penultimate organizer to alinsky and the penultimate hater of America to bill maher.

My issue with Obama is NOT about his black skin. My problem with Obama is about his black soul.

Obama views everything , EVERYTHING, as subject to his Community Organizing creed; I suspect even his own family.

No matter what….. anything/everything, obama believes it is about him, ME!

Even the  large majority of Americans who voiced loud and clear that Obamacare needs to be dismantled were in his mind attacking him.


He is the first to point fingers but the last to accept responsibility/accountability.

WHO does he think he is stating that he WILL NOT NEGOTIATE with Congress over Obamacare. It IS his job to negotiate. He is NOT king Obama.


So, now it it time to read Maureen’s thoughts. Right on Maureen!; you nailed it!


Maureen Scott is an ardent American patriot who was born in Pittsburgh, PA, and retired to Richmond, VA, in 2000. Free from the nine-to-five grind of writing for employers and clients, she began writing political commentary to please herself and express her convictions, as do I. Our Pledge of Allegiance, a military band playing the National Anthem, and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, inspire her passion and views. Her life is guided by a firm belief that truth is the most important virtue, and that God knows what He is doing with her. She is my guest writer today, for I could have never said it better. Please take the time to read and listen to this good American woman. I believe you will be glad you did. I give you Maureen Scott.


Architect of Destruction

By Maureen Scott 

Barack Obama appears to be a tormented man filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others.  Perhaps, because, as a child, he grew up harboring an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. that was instilled in him by his family and mentors…it seems to have never left him.

It is not the color of his skin that is a problem in America .

Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding pride and love for this country.

Think: Have we ever heard Obama speak lovingly of the U.S. or its people, with deep appreciation and genuine respect for our history, our customs, our sufferings and our blessings?  Has he ever revealed that, like most patriotic Americans, he gets "goose bumps" when a band plays "The Star Spangled Banner," or sheds a tear when he hears a beautiful rendition of " America the Beautiful?"  Does his heart burst with pride when millions of American flags wave on a National holiday - or someone plays "taps" on a trumpet?  Has he ever shared the admiration of the military, as we as lovers of those who keep us free, feel when soldiers march by?  It is doubtful because Obama did not grow up sharing our experiences or our values.  He did not sit at the knee of a Grandfather or Uncle who showed us his medals and told us about the bravery of his fellow troops as they tramped through foreign lands to keep us free.  He didn't have grandparents who told stories of suffering and then coming to America , penniless, and the opportunities they had for building a business and life for their children.

Away from this country as a young child, Obama didn't delight in being part of America and its greatness.  He wasn't singing our patriotic songs in kindergarten, or standing on the roadside for a holiday parade and eating a hot dog, or lighting sparklers around a campfire on July 4th as fireworks exploded over head, or placing flags on the grave sites of fallen and beloved American heroes.

Rather he was separated from all of these experiences and doesn't really understand us and what it means to be an American.  He is void of the basic emotions that most feel regarding this country and insensitive to the instinctive pride we have in our national heritage. His opinions were formed by those who either envied us or wanted him to devalue the United States and the traditions and patriotism that unites us. 

He has never given a speech that is filled with calm, reassuring, complimentary, heartfelt statements about all the people in the U.S.  Or one that inspires us to be better and grateful and proud that in a short time our country became a leader, and a protector of many.  Quite the contrary, his speeches always degenerate into mocking, ridiculing tirades as he faults our achievements as well as any critics or opposition for the sake of a laugh, or to bolster his ego.  He uses his Office to threaten and create fear while demeaning and degrading any American who opposes his policies and actions.  A secure leader, who has noble self-esteem and not false confidence, refrains from showing such dread of critics and displaying a cocky, haughty attitude.

Mostly, his time seems to be spent causing dissension, unrest, and anxiety among the people of America , rather than uniting us (even though he was presented to us as the "Great Uniter").  He creates chaos for the sake of keeping people separated, envious, aggrieved and ready to argue. Under his leadership Americans have been kept on edge, rather than in a state of comfort and security. He incites people to be aggressive toward, and disrespectful of, those of differing opinions. And through such behavior, Obama has lowered the standards for self-control and mature restraint to the level of street-fighting gangs, when he should be raising the bar for people to strive toward becoming more considerate, tolerant, self-disciplined, self-sustaining, and self-assured.

Not a day goes by that he is not attempting to defy our laws, remove our rights, over-ride established procedures, install controversial appointees, enact divisive mandates, and assert a dictatorial form of power.


· Never has there been a leader of this great land who used such tactics to harm and hurt the people and this country.

· Never have we had a President who spoke with a caustic, evil tongue against the citizenry rather than present himself as a soothing, calming and trustworthy force.

· Never, in this country, have we experienced how much stress one man can cause a nation of people - on a daily basis!

Obama has promoted the degeneration of peace, civility, and quality of cooperation between us. He thrives on tearing us down, rather than building us up.  He is the Architect of the decline of America , and the epitome of a Demagogue.

© Maureen Scott

This about sums it up . . . not much more I can add to that . . .




Read more…

Anarchists and terrorists.........

So now anyone in the Tea Party is an "anarchist"..... And anyone who disbelieves what our government has told us about 9/11 is a "terrorist" (FBI said that yesterday, disseminated to all law enforcement nation-wide)

Does anyone see the parallels I am seeing?

In July 1996 TWA flight 800 "exploded" 12 minutes after takeoff killing all on-board off the NY coast. The WORLD was told it was a fuel tank explosion.... the shakedown was all aircraft manufacturers, owners and operators spent billions of dollars re-wiring all passenger and private aircraft to prevent this "tragedy" from happening again.....

Notable is the fact that there were a lot of eyewitness "bystanders" (200 of them) who all claimed they saw a streak of light (like a missile) arching from the ground to the plane, which then blew up...... The NTSB continued to claim (for 17 years) it was a fuel tank explosion....

In August of 2013 it FINALLY came out that a missile was the cause - not a fuel tank explosion and the eyewitnesses were right all along.... to date; no one has been charged with the murder of those passengers.... all 230 of them............

On September 11, 2001 we were told radical Islamist's flew planes into the Twin Towers in NYC. The world was told America had suffered a "terrorist" attack - this became the grounds and reason for the "war of terror" and the implementation of the "patriot act". More than 3,000 people died........

A "plane" also allegedly flew into the Pentagon as well, damaging it but not destroying it.... Notable is the fact that the day before 9/11; September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told the world there was $2.3 TRILLION dollars MISSING from the DOD budget..... The "aircraft" that hit the Pentagon "coincidentally" happened to strike the Pentagon at the EXACT location of the room that housed the computers and memory storage that the missing $2.3 trillion dollars might have been found (audit trail) - destroying all the computers and memory storage.... It is also notable that the hole found in the side of the Pentagon where this "aircraft" struck was a ROUND hole..... completely unlike the hole in a building one would expect to find from a passenger aircraft striking a building.... and the corresponding aircraft WINGS impacting the building...... and BTW; there was no engine or landing gear wreckage found..... (titanium and high carbon steel)

A group of 2,500 Architects, Engineers and Demolitions Experts have banded together and question the "findings" of the government about 9/11. (short version)

The essence of their proof lies with eyewitness testimony (Police, Firefighter's, civilians) and video's of the buildings themselves.... These folks demand an unbiased investigation.... there are a lot of points that the government explanation cannot explain.... JP8 (jet fuel) doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel - yet on the videos.... molten steel can clearly be seen pouring out of the sides of the buildings as they burn..... The building was designed and Engineered specifically with the thought in mind it might someday be hit by a jet aircraft - and it was designed to stand and remain in place should it ever be hit.... that didn't happen and they fell down....


The buildings fell in their own footprint - unlike the chaos that SHOULD have been the result of an uncontrolled fire in a building.... The buildings fell EXACTLY like you would expect them to fall - IN A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!

There have been incidents where the government has been somehow involved... and people died as a result. Quite possibly what people call a "false flag".

The aurora shooting; The shooter had no knowledge or history or the availability of knowledge to obtain and wear all the ballistic gear he was wearing or the bombs he booby-trapped his apartment with..... A second identical gas mask to the one the shooter was wearing was found in the far end of the parking lot - and later ignored by MSM and the Police..... the shooter entered the theater from the back door, which locks on closing.... who let him in?

In Sandy Hook - DHS was running an "exercise" about an "active shooter" less than two miles from the Sandy Hook elementary school.... For months, claims were made the shooter used an AR-15 rifle - and to this date, the Police reports are unavailable to anyone....

In the Boston Bombing - DHS was running an "right-wing radical bomber" exercise during and within the Boston Marathon.... muslims blew up a pressure-cooker bomb and allegedly killed people - yet there are also eye witness accounts and video accounts of ACTORS who had already suffered amputations in the past... playing as if they had been injured in the "bombing".....

Folks - I think our nation is in desperate need of a "reset" to bring us back to a Constitutional Republic - and get us away from the police state and a corrupt government we appear to be headed into.... I am coming to the conclusion we are being played - and have been lied to far longer than simply the obama years.... I am beginning to question just what our government has been up to the past 40-50 years....... and who all was involved. And why.

Read more…