Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) plans to introduce strong belt buckle legislation to prevent a “takeover” of the Internet as we know it by the weak and corrupt United Nations or even another less friendly government regime. Speaking at Google’s office in Washington, the possible presidential contender said he will introduce legislation to codify U.S. support of an open Internet as other countries attempt to control its growth.
“Since the Web is worldwideand since it has proven such an effective catalyst for pro-democratic revolutionit has become a battleground that many fight to control,” he said. Rubio pointed to 42 countries that limit the Internet within their borders and “now wish to take this further by exerting control over the way the Internet is governed and regulated internationally.”
“Many governments are lobbying for regulatory control by the United Nations or a governmental regime,” he said, and “opposing this takeover and preserving Internet freedom must be a top national priority.”
In a wide-ranging speech that touched on a broad array of economic topics, Rubio called for “new policies that encourage bold innovation.” He vowed to introduce legislation to reallocate federal government spectrum to the airwave-hungry wireless companies, who are looking to appeal to subscribers increasingly relying on their smartphone and other mobile devices. More broadly, Rubio called for an end to government involvement that impedes innovation and growth.
The U.S. can spend another century leading innovation, “but achieving this will require us to replace the antiquated policies and institutions of the last century with ones built for this new era,” he said. Rubio called for an overhaul to the tax system that would allow U.S. companies to avoid paying domestic taxes on revenue made and taxed abroad, and to take immediate deductions for investments. The Florida Senator is working on legislation with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) that would make those changes.
Premise: Obama administration is a troop of gangsters, needs to be investigated to the hilt, and held accountable just like every other administration that has come before. The Obama administration is not entitled to its own dictatorship in the United States of America, no matter who he thinks he is.
Charmer #1: If you can't see that both sides of this political circus act are corrupt and no matter which side gets into the Oval Office at any given time we will get the same result because we allowed the elite bankers to hijack the country via the federal reserve bank of which they are major shareholders.
Charmer #2: I can see one side refused to participate in a program forcing everyone in the nation to eventually change insurance plans, enumerating everyone under the same system, thus ruining healthcare and one-sixth of the US economy; I can see that one side sent guns into Mexico illegally and 300 people were killed including an American border patrol agent; I can see that one side used the IRS illegally to stymie conservative political organizations; I can see that one side lied about a tape being the cause of the Benghazi tragedy, and has refused to allow survivors to testify before Congress; I can see that one side spent $800,000,000,000 that was earmarked for shovel ready projects (infrastructure) and is now calling for $400,000,000,000 for infrastructure because they used to the $800 billion to bankroll Obama-friendly green energy companies that failed rather than spend it on traditional infrastructure; and I can see one side gave organizations billions of that money to support Obamacare so it would pass the Congress with one side's votes. The more I look at both sides the more I see corruption in this administration that the other side had nothing to do with. Since you claim to be sitting at the head of the class, can you see a problem with the people in office now? If so let's deal with it first rather than give them a pass since they are the problem at the moment.
We all enjoy a good story, although I prefer the charms of reality to fantasy (what the Left apotheosizes). As the debt continues to stack up the Left squawks with ass-cracking pitch in redirecting blame for the shutdown away from Harry Reid and the Obama administration's jump ball routine onto Ted Cruz, the Tea Party and the rest of the impotent backwater Republicans. Details being what they are, I suggest we prepare a brief timeline for our convenience, shall we...
Sept 20th: The GOP-led House votes to keep government funded through Dec 15th, but only if the president agrees to defund Obamacare.
Sept 24/25: Ted Cruz makes his 21 hour long filibuster, railing against ObamaCae and advocating a shutdown unless the Democrates make the outlined compromises on the health care law.
Sept 27th: The Democratic-led Senate rejects and removes the House-passed defunding of ObamaCare, sends bill back to the House.
Sept 29th: GOP-led House changes its demands from defunding ObamaCare to delaying the implementation of the law for one year and repealing its tax on medical devices.
Sept 30th: The Senate says NO to the reworked House proposal. Bill returned to the House, who once again rework their demands. This time, instead of the Sept 29th provision, the House GOP ask that the president delay for one year ObamaCares 'individual mandate' to buy insurance; and that the president require Congress and its staff to pay unsubsidized health insurance costs. The Senate rejects those provisions, and so…
Oct 1st: The partial shutdown begins and 800,000 government workers furloughed.
Oct 2-9th: The GOP-led House begins approving bills to restart popular government programs, including the national parks and museums, National Institute of Health medical research, FEMA, the FDA, and Head Start. The Democratic-led Senate ignores or reject these actions as 'piecemeal' governance and incentivizing the GOP to keep the shutdown going on longer.
Oct 10th: Boehner proposes a six-week debt limit extension with the compromise that Obama discuss spending cuts. The House leaders meet the president and no agreement.
Oct 11-14th: A bipartisan group of senators work on a bill to reopen government and avoid defat. Harry Reid and McConnell begin their talks to extend the debt limit and reopen the federal government.
Oct 15th: After much talk the House votes on a new bill to end the shutdown and extend the debt limit, that ultimately collapsed when Boehner asserted he did not have the votes. The deal required Congress to pay more for its own health insurance. Democrats said no, and the 'tea portion' of the GOP rejected the proposal because it didn't go far enough to fight ObamaCare.
Oct 16th: The Senate comes to a deal to temporarily halt the shutdown and extend the debt limit. It passes both the House and Senate shortly before midnight.
Oct 17th: The president signs the deal into law, shortly after midnight.
What was the ultimate result for the GOP? Seemingly nothing but further suspicion and distrust from the majority of citizens who don't follow every hiccup in the hoochie coochie sideshow that passes for political activity in this country these days. It is always good to remember that the House is charged with originating all spending bills. If you check the Congressional Record you will find that the GOP-controlled House voted all the money required to keep all government activities goingexcept for Obamacare. That is the salient point in finding fault for this terrible waste of time and taxpayer money.
ALMOST FULLY GROUNDED AGAIN AFTER ALL the zetetic excitement yesterday, I say we take a more serious and sober look at what transpired yesterday, and then again, this morning as Chief Justice John Roberts read for the majority, and we boomeranged all around the Internet seeking solace in our hour of disenchantment. Of all that I have read and seen in video, TV, and slapshot Internet reporting, here is a most convincing snippet from commentator Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard. Cost seems to put the onus on the current administration to act quickly in this snatch and grab of power and policy if they want to salvage the so-called Affordable Health Care Act because a not so shabby portion of it is unconstitutional, and a greater part is vigorously disliked by the citizenry, despite its many wonderful features that heal the sick and raise the dead, or so you would be led to believe by its proponents:
[I]f you were more concerned about the qualitative expansion in the power of the government that the bill represented, it was definitely a win.
First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power.
Second, the Roberts Court also threw out a portion of the Medicaid expansion. States have the option of withdrawing from the program without risk of losing their funds. This is another major victory for conservatives who cherish our system of dual sovereignty. This was also a big policy win for conservatives; the Medicaid expansion was a major way the Democrats hid the true cost of the bill, by shifting costs to the states, but they no longer can do this.
Politically, Obama will probably get a short-term boost from this, as the media will not be able to read between the lines and will declare him the winner. But the victory will be short-lived. The Democrats were at pains not to call this a tax because it is inherently regressive: the wealthy overwhelmingly have health insurance so have no fear of the mandate. But now that it is legally a tax, Republicans can and will declare that Obama has slapped the single biggest tax on the middle class in history, after promising not to do that.
Conservatives have a shot at getting the best of both worlds: having the Supreme Court use Obamacare as a way to limit federal power while also using the democratic process to overturn the law. I didn't think we could have one without the other, but now maybe we can.
If Obama loses in November, that is...
We have gotten into a bit of editorial trouble on Facebook this morning by reposting what turned out to be one of those overwrought but probably closer to the mark than the original bill's hidden intent has tried to hide, so we will just have to watch for the fall out over the next several months, but chances are Obama and his buddies in Congress are too busy running for re-election to spend too much time on an old toxic bill like this one, but will quietly work behind the scenes implementing all the necessary changes to the health care industry it deems choice and tasty while leaving the iffy parts of the bill to gather dust and excuses. Fundraising and speechifying, yep, he'll be there. And let this health bill interfere with his golf outings? God forbid. We have an absentee president, although I am sure I'm not the first one to notice this.
WORD IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL eligibility of one Barack Hussein Obama to hold the highest office in our land is being raised in Town Hall meetings all across the country. This should prove interesting. We have no final answers here. We can only read what we read, distill the 2nd and 3rd hand information, only to speculate wildly about what we think is true and what we think is not. However, we're not stupid (apologies to Judge Scalia), and we are not cowed enough to believe that candidate and now President Obama has been in teh least bit properly vetted, despite the useless flow of air issuing from the grit-filled mouths of many our finest men and women who were sent to Washington to represent its citizens in what is, or once was a strong constitutional nation. Among the statements from members of Congress:
U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock: “The Constitution is the starting point for determining eligibility to serve as president. The Constitution requires that to be eligible to serve as president an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least 14 years.” He said candidates are vetted both inside the government and out, and Obama has passed all of the hurdles.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said, “In the run-up to the 2008 federal election and in its aftermath, many Texans have written to express their thoughts and concerns about the electoral process. Some have even raised concerns about the eligibility of candidates to serve in elected office under the Constitution. The courts and the Federal Elections Commission play a central role in determining the eligibility of candidates to serve in the offices they seek. You can be certain that I will continue to be vigilant in making sure that these institutions perform their critical role in overseeing fair and transparent elections.”
Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., The “Constitution of our nation requires natural born citizenship in order to serve as President of the United States of America.” But then she explains that the “Office of Vital Records within the Hawaiian Department of Health has confirmed the birth and citizenship of President Obama.” Nowhere in the letter to her constituent does she explain why the confirmation of “citizenship” equates to meeting the requirement for “natural-born citizenship.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., “I believe that President Obama has met all the requirements of citizenship as set forth by the U.S. State Department, and therefore is eligible for the office of the presidency.”
Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J., said concerned citizens need to go to court over Obama’s eligibility, even though courts ranging up to the U.S. Supreme Court have refused in dozens of cases already to hear arguments on the merits of the dispute:
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: “Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors.”
Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.: “Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president.”
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: “President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate.”
U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla.: “The claim that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the U.S. is false. This rumor is simply election year politics.” She referred questioners to Snopes for documentation.
Based on these documents, most members of Congress from both parties appear satisfied that the president is a U.S. citizen. That would preclude any effort to remove him through the impeachment process, which requires a majority in the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, on the basis of his constitutional eligibility for office. -Lamar Alexander
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: “The courts have held that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Moreover, in December 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, concurring with three other federal courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington. The courts have confirmed the determination of state officials in Hawaii that health department records prove that Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu.”
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: “President Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”
Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa.: “I am confident that Mr. Obama meets all the constitutional requirements to be our 44th president. Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website and submitted an additional copy to the independent website FactCheck.org. The birth certificate demonstrates that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, thereby making him a natural-born citizen eligible to be president.”
U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.: “As you know, some questions were raised about whether President Obama is a natural born citizen. There was a recent lawsuit arguing that he is not eligible for the Presidency for this reason. I understand that the Supreme Court considered hearing this lawsuit, but it ultimately turned down the request to have the case considered before the full court. I further understand that the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health recently confirmed that President Obama was born in Honolulu and has personally verified that her agency has his original birth certificate on record. As you know, the U.S. Congress certified his election on January 8, and he was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. While I may disagree with President Obama on a multitude of issues, he has been elected as President of the United States through a fair process and has shown sufficient documentation, via a state birth certificate, that has been verified as being authentic. In short, therefore, I do not believe sufficient evidence was brought to light to conclude that President Obama was ineligible for the office.”
U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H.: “President Obama publicly posted his birth certificate on his campaign website which confirms that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This birth certificate confirms that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, above the age of 35, and is therefore qualified to be President of the United States of America. If you would like to view President Obama’s birth certificate, I encourage you to go to the Fight The Smears website .”
We learned from Clinton that lying, even under oath, probably doesn’t rise to those standards … so I’m looking for the crime. Perhaps his violation of the war powers act? It’s something my colleagues and I are considering. - Blake Farenthold
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, “The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States. In President Obama’s case, some individuals have filed lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging that he has not proven that he is an American citizen, but each of those lawsuits have been dismissed. This includes a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to not review an “application for emergency stay” filed by a New Jersey resident claiming that the President is not a natural born citizen because his father was born in Kenya. Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health and the state’s Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency. If contrary documentation is produced and verified, this matter will necessarily be resolved by the judicial branch of our government under the Constitution.”
Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa.: “On June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate after numerous claims were made about his eligibility to hold the office of President. The released copy created additional questions, because it contained a blacked out department file number and was apparently missing a seal, and it was impossible to detect raised text, a common characteristic of official documents. There were satisfactory answers to such questions, however: the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department’s system, and the State places the seal on the back of the certificate. The website Factcheck.org investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles that revealed the raised text and the seal on the back of the document. … Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States.”
U.S. Rep Vic Snyder, D-Ark.: “According to State of Hawai’i officials, the Hawai’i State Department of Health has President-elect Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with that state’s policies and procedures.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.: “The U.S. Constitution is our nation’s supreme law and cannot be circumvented for any reason. It is my understanding that state officials in Hawaii have attested to the validity of President Obama’s birth certificate showing that he was born in that state, which would make him a U.S. citizen. I also have read that both of Hawaii’s major newspapers ran birth announcements in August 1961 documenting President Obama’s birth in Honolulu. Based on these documents, most members of Congress from both parties appear satisfied that the president is a U.S. citizen. That would preclude any effort to remove him through the impeachment process, which requires a majority in the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, on the basis of his constitutional eligibility for office.”
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., “As a senator representing Colorado, I want to speak very clearly on this issue. President Barack Obama is a ‘natural born’ citizen of America, and he is eligible to be our nation’s Commander in Chief. The legality of his birth certificate has been verified by numerous federal agencies, third party investigative groups, national media outlets, and primary source documentation. The United States Department of State and the Hawaii Department of Health have both verified the legality of the ‘Certification of Birth’ document provided by President Obama. In addition, highly regarded ‘fact check’ websites such as factcheck.org, snopes.com, and politifact.com support the findings of the federal agencies through their own independent investigations.”
Sen. Mark. R. Warner, D-Va., “The facts have consistently shown that President Obama was born in the United States. As a natural-born American citizen, he is fully eligible to serve as president of our country.”
Tim Walberg said he’s taken on many other urgent issues and then suggested a repair of the Obama presidency is coming soon, in the 2012 election.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., “Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies the qualifications for this executive office. It states that no person except for a natural born American citizen is eligible to run for President of the United States. Also, the candidate must be at least thirty-five years of age and have resided in the United States for at least fourteen years. President Obama meets these constitutional requirements. If you were not already aware, on April 27, 2011 the White House released a copy of President Obama’s long form birth certificate. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in the United States are considered citizens of the United States. Under these criteria, President Obama, a 47-year old U.S. citizen, who has resided in the United States for longer than fourteen years, is eligible to be President.
Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., “Independent and official investigations as well as legal proceedings have validated President Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. The Health Director and Head of Vital Statistics for the state of Hawaii (an official source) has also examined and declared the authenticity of the birth certificate and most recently President Obama released his full birth certificate. If change is to take place it’s likely to come in the form of an election. This is part of the reason everyone needs to make sure we vote for the people who will represent our views correctly. This is also why we must continue to talk to our friends and relatives in other states about their own elected officials and encourage them to let their voices be heard.”
There have been a few who have expressed concern over the situation:
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., in a posting on Canada Free Press by Dean Haskins, “I believe that there should be a more formal process of review and validation as a matter of routine certification of candidates. The office of the presidency is undermined if Americans don’t have confidence that the candidates for the highest office in the land are qualified for the position as required by the Constitution.…“
Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., did not tell a questioner the issue of Obama’s eligibility was settled by the April release of the “Certificate of Live Birth” image by the White House. “Regardless of whether the license that he showed is true or fake, I’ve not seen it other than what was portrayed in the news,” Walberg said. But he said he’s taken on many other urgent issues and then suggested a repair of the Obama presidency is coming soon, in the 2012 election.
Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, “Many of the issues, like the birth certificate, are within the jurisdiction of the courts, not Congress. Our power over the president is impeachment for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ We learned from Clinton that lying, even under oath, probably doesn’t rise to those standards … so I’m looking for the crime. Perhaps his violation of the war powers act? It’s something my colleagues and I are considering.”
MORE FROM TODAY'S Project archives...
Declining joblessness figures, sprouting lately from the current administration like so many spring crocuses, have left even the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, puzzled over numbers that are "out of sync" with the overall economy.
"The combination of relatively modest GDP growth with the more substantial improvement in the labor market over the past year is something of a puzzle," Bernanke admitted to the National Association for Business Economics earlier this week.
Bernanke then proceeded to explain why unemployment figures from the administration seem so out of step with the reality most folks are experiencing. He started with a basic, but often overlooked, part of the jobless equation. "The monthly increase in payroll employment, which commands so much public attention, is a net change," he said. "It equals the number of hires during the month less the number of separations (including layoffs, quits, and other separations)[.]"
Then Bernanke concluded, "the increase in employment since the end of 2009 has been due to a significant decline in layoffs but only a moderate improvement in hiring."
So, despite the Obamedia's attempt to paint a sunny picture heading into the November electionnote their relative inattention to Bernanke's speechvery few new jobs are actually being created during Obama's watch. In fact, the most recent numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cited by Bernanke, show that the number of people being hired has declined in 2012even as Obama officials reported that unemployment figures came down.
Early in his administration Barack Obama said that job creation was goal Number One. He promised to create 3 million new jobs during his first two years in office, a pledge which would seem laughable if his failure didn't adversely affect so many people. Even with recent improvements in jobless numberscaused mainly by a slowing of layoffsas Benanke noted, "private payroll employment remains more than 5 million jobs below its previous peak; the jobs shortfall is even larger, of course, when increases in the size of the labor force are taken into account."
The Obama administration was claiming jobless improvement in a job market that, according to non-Obama sources, was still grim. "American employers put the brakes on new jobs in January," according to Forbes, citing employment firm ADP. And Gallup reported in February that their surveys show new hirings dropped and that "the February score matches those recorded from October through December 2011."
As to the unemployment numbers emanating from Obama's regime, Bernanke noted, "the better jobs numbers seem somewhat out of sync with the overall pace of economic expansion," before concluding, "the job market remains quite weak relative to historical norms."
This article points out the corrupt methodology this administration has used on the American people since day one. Opening the Obama toolbox, one would suffix lie after lie, distortion after distortion, monkey wrench after monkey wrench. Our puerile president is NOT inept. He is defiantly on point, with concerted efforts to deconstruct American history, its industry, its libertyits very way of life. He doesn't seem to care to whom he hands off a weakened Americacould be the Soviets-in-training, the Chinese, or the Islamic Caliphate he works so diligently to reward at the expense of his own supposed homeland.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA’s healthcare initiative is the biggest attempt at a government overreach in U.S. history, Pam Bondi, Florida’s attorney general, who is leading the fight against the program, tells Newsmax.TV.
And that is why Bondi is confident the Supreme Court will vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act after three days of hearings next week.
“We’re optimistic that they will rule in our favor because this is so much bigger than healthcare,” said Bondi in an exclusive interview. “It’s the biggest attempt at an overreach in our history. So we have to fight it and we have to stop it.
“That’s why 26 states, along with the National Federation of Independent Business, are challenging this and that’s why we have been given an unprecedented amount of time, six hours, in front of the court.”
The hearing will start on Monday and go through Wednesday. Attorney Paul Clement will argue the states’ case before the nine justices, while solicitor general Donald Verrilli will defend the law.
“The bottom line is this: the Constitution’s limits on the federal power are real and they must be respected, even if they are inconvenient for the Obama administration’s goal to take over one-sixth of our economy,” said Bondi, a Republican.
The states’ main case is that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to insist that citizens buy anything, including health insurance. “If they can force us to do this, they can force us to do anything,” said Bondi.
Part of Bondi’s optimism is that there has already been a bipartisan decision in favor of striking down the law in the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. “People were playing the numbers game … saying we were going to lose because they had two Clinton appointees and a Bush appointee and look at the opinion we got out of it.”
She is confident that all Supreme Court justices will follow the law and not be guided by their own political views. “I believe when they hear our argument that they will know that this is such an overreach by the federal government,” she said.
Bondi said the Supreme Court case will be split into four distinct parts: