Only if the Supreme Court held that the election was void because of Obama's ineligibility. In that case, Biden would not be legally the VP. In the meantime Pelosi would take over while the Senate and House would have to go over the election results and figure out how to certify a winner. McCain's and Palin's electors should stand, but who knows how the Dems will do with the others.
Believing that SCOTUS would throw out the entire election based on Obama's ineligibility is putting a lot of faith on a slow horse. It's far more likely they'd void his office, allowing Biden to assume the role of president.
Enough Is Enough
Tyranny has sprung up from amongst us. Obama has waged a blitzkrieg on American liberty, and, in only a short time, undercut the Constitution of the United States with a brazen arrogance that should shock Americans into action.
Obama’s unconstitutional salvo exceeds even the most intolerable indulgences of the Bush Administration. President Bush was often brash and improper in his use of certain mechanisms, but Obama has moved quickly far beyond the realm of comparatively benign Presidential Signing Statements. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf When Obama can appoint “Czars” to rule entire sections of American life without electoral accountability or even Congressional confirmation, we have entered the unholy realm of Dictatorship.
Obama have made special “czar” appointments in the past, to aid in addressing key social or policy issues. But Obama has turned this capability into direct seizures of power, brazen and unchecked. Obama’s czars have usurped the roles of elected officials, http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE54S5U120090529 with power over an ever-increasing scope of society.Pay is decided by a Czar. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/business/11pay.html
What can or can’t be said on the internet is decided by a Czar. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/cyber_privacy/ And the power of regulating all aspects of American private life has been transferred from multiple congressionally audited regulatory agencies to the new Regulatory Czar http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123138051682263203.html Cass Sunstein. The environment, healthcare, finance, and the economy will all fall under the control of this Regulatory Czar, a man who has stated, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96301
A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government... Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name
There’s even a “faith-based” Czar to handle church issues. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/joshua-dubois-obama-faith_... Separation of church and state appears to be somewhat more flexible as long as Obama is in power. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/obama.faith.based/ But for a true outrage, consider new Czar of Science, John P. Holdren, who, in a stunning display of unabashed evil, has actively advocated “compulsory abortion”: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103707
There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated...It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
If that doesn’t send a chill down your spine, consider his words, “All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons.” Let that sink in: an American official supports forced abortion and the death of “grown persons.” We know what that looks like. It has been official policy for years in Communist China.
Holdren defends his radical proposals with archaic scientific arguments revolving around the idea that too many people equal global poverty and hunger. But do not be fooled by the alleged “science” in support of “compulsory abortion.” The issue is not whether the world population is exploding (an argument that has been completely discredited due to the fact that most western populations are shrinking.) http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2002/WPP2002-HIGHL... .) The issue is whether or not government can force American women to kill their children.
Even pro-choice advocates should be outraged at the idea of bureaucrats ordering American women to turn their babies over to state butchers. And, despite Holdren’s own personal belief that this wholesale slaughter can be justified “under the existing Constitution,” the words, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process” make such a hollow justification meaningless.
All totalitarian regimes in history have one thing in common: population control. By controlling who conceives, government can mitigate the growth of ideas dangerous to their seizures of power. Families that teach American ideals can be gradually subdued until all Americans bow before the collective “we.” How strange that liberty should end by the hands of a doctor with a vacuum and a scalpel. If this is not enough to wake the sleeping giant and arouse the fires of freedom, then we will surely perish as a nation.
Power is what Holdren and his pseudo-science is really all about. Holdren has long been a vocal supporter of a “planetary regime” to govern the affairs of the world. In his book, Ecoscience, Holdren wrote the words:
Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable...The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world...]
Holdren has elsewhere stated his goal of “de-developing” America. Obama’s appointment of this Marxist militant says much about his true agenda. Obama’s Biggest Radical
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198
Obama has done more to hasten America’s demise than our enemies could have dreamed of doing. He must wake up every day with the words, “I can’t believe I’m getting away with this” on his lips. His “change” is nothing less than the destruction of America as a free country. And there is nowhere to escape. America is the last stop in western civilization. Europe is in a state of economic decay, and has retreated into gated communities as an influx of Muslim colonials overspreads the European continent. France has 750 semi-sovereign Islamic kingdoms within its jurisdiction. http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/the-751-no-go-zones-of-france If we lose freedom here, there will be nowhere left for the “tired, huddled masses, yearning to breathe free” to lay their heads.
Wake up America. Now is not the time to pat ourselves on the back for our racial sensitivity. We have proven that we are not a racist country, several times over. Now is the time to rise up against tyranny, before it consumes what is still left of the America we all know and love. Conservative, Liberal, black, and white must join hands against the despot that holds the freedom of generations in such contempt.
Every last man, woman, and child must take to the streets, or the last best hope of mankind will vanish for all time
Comments
This is because at the end of the day we have an Israeli army that is trained to beat back the likes of the Iranian Hitler, or any other dictator who threatens us. However, despite massive US military power, the danger for Americans is coming from deep within the bowels of the US administration. The people will be rendered helpless unless they are ready to take on their leaders.
This is not simply hyperbole, this entails a call to action, not unlike revolutions world over. The best case scenario would be an Orange revolution similar to the Ukrainian one a few years ago. IF that does not work, then a more bold one is in order.
By the way, the shrill call to strip law abiding citizens of their arms is by far the most dangerous aspect of the Obama regime.They know that an unarmed citizen is literally a sitting duck.
Therefore, by NO means allow them to disarm you, otherwise, people will be shot in the streets, under the guise of law and order.
Hmm.
Someone. Somewhere. Somehow has to come up with a large-scale plan to combat the bias.
We need a strategy and Michael “Yeah Baby” Steele isn’t cutting it. I had hopes for the guy and admire him.
He was supposed to be a master GURU, a communications expert——we have seen zero of it.
TARGET specific nets and anchors-—run ads on cable targeting the broadcast cheerleaders!! Cable hates broadcast and vice-a versa. Cable would gladly take the ads if it hurts the competition.
All three nets had glowing, positive reviews of his healthscare plan——while most of Americans DON’t want it. I’m sure there are tons of people who would also be opposed IF they knew the truth. The nets will never, ever tell the truth.
Let’s put up billboards with the anchors (Charlie, Katie, Brian, Harry et al) face with BIASED or IN THE TANK across the boards.
Heck, if Joes’ Painting can put up a billboard on a major highway here with 300-400k people per day seeing it, why can’t the RNC? For a week?
This will get people who don’t ordinarily pay attention—— TO PAY ATTENTION!
Obama is NOT an america born.
Massachusetts in Suit Over Cost of Universal Care
This is the pride of joy of Romney... that his state, under him as Gov, was
the first with universal healthcare. One reason of many I do NOT LIKE that
man. This is also a good picture of what would lie ahead for hospitals
if Obamacare passes:
Massachusetts in Suit Over Cost of Universal Care
BOSTON — A hospital that serves thousands of indigent Massachusetts residents sued the state on Wednesday, charging that its costly universal health care law is forcing the hospital to cover too much of the expense of caring for the poor.
The hospital, Boston Medical Center, faces a $38 million deficit for the fiscal year ending in September, its first loss in five years. The suit says the hospital will lose more than $100 million next year because the state has lowered Medicaid reimbursement rates and stopped paying Boston Medical “reasonable costs” for treating other poor patients.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandheal...
“We filed this suit more in sorrow than in anger,” said Elaine Ullian, the hospital’s chief executive. “We believe in health care reform to the bottom of our toes, but it was never, ever supposed to be financed on the backs of the poor, and that’s what has happened in Massachusetts.”
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandheal...
The central charge in the suit is that the state has siphoned money away from Boston Medical to help pay the considerable cost of insuring all but a small percentage of residents. Three years after the law’s passage, Massachusetts has the country’s lowest percentage of uninsured residents: 2.6 percent, compared with a national average of 15 percent.
Low-income residents, who have benefited most from expanded access to health care, receive state-subsidized insurance, one of the most expensive aspects of the state plan. But rapidly rising costs and the battered economy have caused more problems than the state and supporters of the 2006 law — including Boston Medical — anticipated.
According to the suit, Massachusetts is now reimbursing Boston Medical only 64 cents for every dollar it spends treating the poor. About 10 percent of the hospital’s patients are uninsured — down from about 20 percent before the law’s passage in 2006. But many more are on Medicaid or Commonwealth Care, the state-subsidized insurance program for low-income residents.
One of the state’s reimbursement rates to Boston Medical, dropped from $12, 476 in 2008 to $9,323 by 2009, the suit says.
Wendy E. Parmet, a professor at the Northeastern University School of Law, said the suit was “a step in a wider minuet” as state lawmakers, health care providers and other stakeholders try to figure out how to make the new law work in the long term.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n...
“I think it’s going to be a very hard lawsuit for them to prevail on,” Professor Parmet said of the hospital. “I think they’re trying to bring another weapon into what is essentially, in many ways, a political and economic battle going on in the state about how to pay for health care, and making sure their voice gets heard.”
The suit comes as Congress looks to Massachusetts as a potential model for overhauling the nation’s health care system. Even before the suit, the state’s fiscal crisis had cast doubts on the law’s sustainability.
To help close a growing deficit, the Democratic-controlled Legislature eliminated coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants in the new state budget. Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, is seeking to restore about half of the $130 million cut, but lawmakers have expressed reluctance, saying that doing so would require cuts to other important programs.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/deval_...
State officials expressed surprise at the lawsuit, saying that Boston Medical received $1.5 billion in state funds in the past year and should not be seeking more in the midst of a fiscal crisis.
“At a time when everyone funded and served by state government is being asked to do more with less, B.M.C. has been treated no differently,” said Dr. JudyAnn Bigby, the state secretary of health and human services, in a prepared statement. “We are confident that the administration’s actions in this area comply with all applicable law and will be upheld.”
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tour...
State officials have suggested that Boston Medical could reduce costs by operating more efficiently. The state has also pointed out that the hospital has reserves of about $190 million, but Tom Traylor, the hospital’s vice president of federal and state programs, said the reserves could only sustain the hospital for about a year.
“The magnitude of the loss here can’t be solved on the program-cutting or expense-cutting side,” Mr. Traylor said. Professor Parmet said the hospital’s dissatisfaction with the new law should be a warning to Congress that “insurance alone doesn’t solve the problems” of the health care system. In fact, she said, it might exacerbate the financial problems of safety-net hospitals in the short term.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandheal...
This isn’t new, but it bears repeating!
I sure do miss one of the greatest man r.i.p Ronald Reagan.
‘Here’s my strategy on the Cold War:
We win, they lose.’- Ronald Reagan
‘The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’-Ronald Reagan
‘The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.’ Ronald Reagan
‘Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. Was too strong.’- Ronald Reagan
‘I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S.Congress.’ - Ronald Reagan
‘The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.’ - Ronald Reagan
‘Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.’ - Ronald Reagan
‘The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.’ Ronald Reagan
‘It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.’ - Ronald Reagan
‘Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it’ - Ronald Reagan
‘Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.’ - Ronald Reagan
‘No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.’- Ronald Reagan
‘If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.’- Ronald Reagan