Friday, April 9, 2010


'Where's My Free Health Care?'

Now that ObamaCare has brought Hope 'n' Change™ to all the Fruited Plain, citizens are attempting to claim their fair share. However, it appears that, as McClatchy News notes, "Americans are struggling to understand how -- and when -- the sweeping measure will affect them."
Insurance companies, doctors' offices and hospitals have been inundated with calls reflecting that confusion. According to Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for, "They're saying, 'Where do we get the free ObamaCare, and how do I sign up for that?'"
McClatchy, of course, doesn't blame Democrats for this misunderstanding; it blames conservatives: "That widespread misconception may have originated in part from distorted rhetoric about the legislation bubbling up from the hyper-partisan debate about it in Washington and some media outlets, such as when opponents denounced it as socialism."
We'll give them one concession: Technically, ObamaCare is more fascist than socialist, in part because it isn't initially single-payer. Still, fascism and socialism are ugly twin stepsisters.
For McClatchy to blame defenders of liberty for Americans' misunderstanding of Democrats' misleading promises is yet another example of journalistic malpractice. The Leftmedia has been on board the ObamaCare bandwagon since the 2008 campaign, telling us how it will "provide" or "expand" health care to "all Americans." Likewise, Democrats have lauded themselves for providing "health care for every American" instead of admitting that they're going to force us to buy it. Thus, it's understandable that the average uninformed Joe would mistake an unconstitutional and tyrannical law for a goodie bag of freebies -- at least once 2014 rolls around and all provisions kick in.
These dupes should remember what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in March: "[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Apparently, while IRS authority to withhold tax refunds from those who don't buy insurance is in the bill, free health care isn't.
Dr. Galt Won't See You Now
After the recent passing of ObamaCare, a Florida urologist taped a sign to the door of his practice: "If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your health care begin right now, not in four years."


Dr. Galt Won't See You Now

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

For anyone who believes that the fighting spirit of this country is a thing of the past, that everyone has slipped into complacent acceptance of an administration of thugs, Dr. Jack Cassell wants you to know that that's not true.

After the recent passing of ObamaCare, the Florida urologist taped a sign to the door of his practice that read: "If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your health care begin right now, not in four years."

Cassell will not refuse to treat patients, he just suggests that Obama voters go elsewhere. He also notes that ObamaCare poses far more of a danger to his patients than his sign.

Somehow, though, this quiet but meaningful act of protest has earned Dr. Cassell the label of "racist" by the certifiable Democrat Congressman Alan Grayson. Grayson, who is Cassell's "representative" in Washington, recently emerged from relative obscurity to announce that Republicans "want sick Americans to die," before slithering back under the rock from which he came. Now he has reappeared, this time to try and intimidate those who are standing up for their right to live and work free from government oppression. Grayson is even bringing a suit against the doctor, clearly a message to other physicians who are thinking about opposing our "Dear Leader."

But Cassell refuses to be bullied. ObamaCare, he said, "fatally compromises my ability or any doctor's ability to uphold the Hippocratic Oath" and that he "can't believe that more people aren't standing up."

Maybe now they will.





He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.


“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

- Leo Rugiens

No comments:

Post a Comment