Ineligible president cited as reason to kill Obamacare Read more

[rtrusty]

A lot of court cases have been filed alleging that Barack Obama never qualified to become president, and therefore is occupying the Oval Office as a matter of fact, but not of law. Now there's a new case that argues since Obama is not legally president, his Obamacare takeover of the nation's health-care industry should be voided.

"It is indisputable and not denied that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama Jr.'s father was a citizen of the British Commonwealth," says the lawsuit, now pending before a federal judge who is awaiting word from the Justice Department on how its lawyers want to defend against the claims.

"By law, it is undeniable Mr. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is ineligible to hold the office of president of the United States. The framers of the Constitution when they adopted the requirement they excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born," the lawsuit says.

"Mr. Obama was born of a father who is a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same. The term 'natural born citizen' is defined, at least since 1758, as 'a child born in the country of parents who are citizens.' Only one of Barack Hussein Obama Jr.'s parents was a citizen at the time of his birth; in this case his mother … was/is a U.S. citizen."

The focal point of the lawsuit brought by former financial company executive Nicholas E. Purpura and Donald R. Laster Jr., acting as their own attorneys, is a request to invalidate Obamacare.

Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency

Their complaint cites more than a dozen reasons why the act is illegal, and has been causing a stir in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, where, according to the plaintiffs, the government has missed several filing deadlines and a judge has expanded the definition of court procedure in order to prevent a default judgment against the government in the case.

According to Terry Hurlbut of the Examiner, who has been writing about the progress of the case ever since its filing a few months back, the latest move is a pre-emptive defense filed by the plaintiffs in expectation that the government will ask for the case to be dismissed.

The case cites 16 alleged violations of the Constitution, or the nation's law, including multiple sections of Article I, Article 2, Amendments 1, 4, 5, 13, 14 and 16, and violations of a long list of other laws.

"The material facts herein demonstrate the Healthcare Reform Act not only illegally and unconstitutionally expands government, in an attempt by a majority party to take control of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, but an intentional fraudulent scheme was concocted by those in the legislature to intentionally circumvent the Constitution and Amendments," the case states.

According to Hurlbut, the latest filing was over the weekend, when the plaintiffs reminded Judge Freda L. Wolfson that a dismissal of the case was appropriate "only if all the specific facts which plaintiff ... alleges collectively fail to state a prima facie case for jurisdiction."

Purpura told WND that the defense was filed even before the expected government motion to dismiss because the judge scheduled the government's brief to be due Jan. 17, on Martin Luther King Day, a federal holiday, and she's scheduled to announce her decision the next day, allowing no time for the plaintiffs to respond.

The case has attracted some of the same attorneys for the government who also are defending Obamacare in lawsuits brought by the state of Virginia, a series of plaintiffs in Michigan and a long list of states cooperating on a lawsuit in Florida. In those cases, two judges have concluded that Obamacare is constitutional and another has said it is not. All are heading to the appellate level.

Hurlbut told WND that the case has advanced to this point even though the federal government, which declined to respond to a WND request for comment, has not responded to any of the deadlines that ordinarily would apply in a lawsuit so far.

"The case is hanging right now because you've got defendants who have never filed a responsive pleading in this matter," he said.

A timeline he's assembled reveals the case was filed in September, and the next month the plaintiffs requested a Temporary Restraining Order seeking to stop enforcement of Obamacare.

The judge ignored their request, but when attorney Ethan P. Davis asked the judge on behalf of the government to deny the TRO request, it was granted in hours.

Now the plaintiffs are seeking a summary judgment, essentially a judge's statement saying they win, because "the Justice Department filed no pleadings, responsive or otherwise, no motions, and indeed no letters until well into December," he reported.

Purpura told WND he wants to get rid of Obamacare because, "the health care bill has nothing to do with health care. This is about control of the people."

"This is insanity," he said.

Among the claims it makes is the one about an ineligible president. It cites the Constitution's requirement, Article 2, Section 1, that says "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president…."

"Plaintiffs are not arguing whether Mr. Obama was or was not born in Hawaii, though it is incumbent for this honorable court to also address that question," the plaintiffs wrote. "The question that mandates an answer, why is Mr. Obama above the law, when by law you need a birth certificate to obtain a driver's license, Social Security card and/or passports," the pleading said.

"There are other questions that demand answers: why does Mr. Obama have scores of Social Security numbers, and those numbers it has been discovered were issued by the state of Connecticut. If a fraud was perpetrated upon the American people it is a crime. Regardless, based upon the Constitution and the British citizenship of Mr. Obama's father, he, Mr. Barack Obama Jr., is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of the president.

"Not being eligible to be president and commander in chief, Mr. Obama is currently acting without constitutional authority which is causing plaintiffs injury in fact," it said.

In support, it offered an 1875 Supreme Court decision that explained natural born citizens are accepted to be those "born in a country of parents who were its citizens."

Also cited were 1814 and 1939 cases.

"Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was a British citizen and gave his son British citizenship, Barack Hussein Obama Jr., does not meet the 'natural born citizen' requirement of Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the contract represented by the U.S. Constitution nor was he ... alive and a citizen of the United States of America at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is a native born or statutory citizen and is therefore ineligible to exercise the authority of the office of president of the United States and cannot sign bills into law," the case states.

The case argues Obamacare also violates the Constitution because the bill started in the Senate and raises revenue, violates the "posse Comitatus" Act, violates medical privacy legislation, violates due process, discriminates based on religion, violates antitrust laws, violates the 10th Amendment and violates equal protection and treatment.

It alleges those who voted for the plan "are guilty of dereliction of duty, which constitutes a 'high crime and misdemeanor' which are impeachable offenses."

The case is just the latest on the situation, which appears to not be going away.

Consider:

* More than a year ago, polls revealed that a bare half of the people in the United States even knew there was an issue over Obama's eligibility but recent polls have indicated up to 58 percent of Americans now have doubts over that issue.

* Fining attorneys, even jailing defendants, as happened in the recent case against Lt. Col. Terry Lakin at Ft. Meade, Md., hasn't caused the issue to disappear.

* A billboard campaign that simply asks "Where's the Birth Certificate" has appeared in many dozens of locations, and one billboard company that a year ago concluded it was more or less a settled issue now has asked to be allowed to participate in the campaign.

* Various officials have "verified" Obama's eligibility but have declined to document their statements.

* Extensive examinations of the available record suggest Obama likely is, in fact, ineligible.

* There remains a multitude of lawsuits still making their way toward Supreme Court review. One case was rejected just days ago and another is scheduled to be heard in the next few days.

* In Congress, a proposal would have required all candidates for the office of president to document their eligibility under the Constitution's requirement that they be a "natural born citizen."

* Similar plans are moving even more quickly at the state legislature level.

* And there even are predictions that Congress will take up the dispute.

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

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

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

Several of the cases have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined even to hear arguments. Among the cases turned down without a hearing at the high court have been petitions by Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Orly Taitz.

[jaaamie]

Er... I don't know but I feel like the US government would have examined this BEFORE putting Obama in office... Let alone BEFORE letting him run for presidency...

[Soldiering4U]

Good I hope the bump this D-bag out of office on his ear and make him pay back all that he has "earned" as president... then kick all his cronies out with him... repealing Obamacare and shutting down the whole darn thing... anything done while he was in office becoming void and therefor saving the US Trillions of dollars... sounds like a great case to me... can't stand this guy any how...

[rtrusty]

Er... I don't know but I feel like the US government would have examined this BEFORE putting Obama in office... Let alone BEFORE letting him run for presidency...

I promise you if you do a little research with Google on him you'll see what a lot of others see.

[ajskj]

Obviously whoever wrote this knows nothing about US law. Kill Obama care??

Not a chance in hell. Under the De Facto Officer Doctrine all actions taken by the Obama Administration would stay in place even if Obama were found to be ineligible. (The Doctrine was originally promulgated for civil officers.)

In 1995, in Ryder v. United States, the Supreme Court stated:

" The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). "The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office." 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence. "

[rtrusty]

Obviously whoever wrote this knows nothing about US law. Kill Obama care??

Not a chance in hell. Under the De Facto Officer Doctrine all actions taken by the Obama Administration would stay in place even if Obama were found to be ineligible. (The Doctrine was originally promulgated for civil officers.)

In 1995, in Ryder v. United States, the Supreme Court stated:

" The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). "The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office." 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence. "

From some other link I was reading they're going to have him resigned to save face for the USA that is not him.

But we'll see.

[debbieb40]

where is the link so I can read more. thank you for the information. :P :P :P

[ajskj]

From some other link I was reading they're going to have him resigned to save face for the USA that is not him.

But we'll see.

ROFLMAOAY!! Keep dreaming. He has no reason to resign as he is the legally elected President. Oh...and he's BLACK. Deal with it.

[TRERUMPH]

A lot of court cases have been filed alleging that Barack Obama never qualified to become president, and therefore is occupying the Oval Office as a matter of fact, but not of law. Now there's a new case that argues since Obama is not legally president, his Obamacare takeover of the nation's health-care industry should be voided.

"It is indisputable and not denied that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama Jr.'s father was a citizen of the British Commonwealth," says the lawsuit, now pending before a federal judge who is awaiting word from the Justice Department on how its lawyers want to defend against the claims.

"By law, it is undeniable Mr. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is ineligible to hold the office of president of the United States. The framers of the Constitution when they adopted the requirement they excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born," the lawsuit says.

"Mr. Obama was born of a father who is a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same. The term 'natural born citizen' is defined, at least since 1758, as 'a child born in the country of parents who are citizens.' Only one of Barack Hussein Obama Jr.'s parents was a citizen at the time of his birth; in this case his mother … was/is a U.S. citizen."

The focal point of the lawsuit brought by former financial company executive Nicholas E. Purpura and Donald R. Laster Jr., acting as their own attorneys, is a request to invalidate Obamacare.

Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency

you know what all you people that keeps this BS up because that man is BLACK and he is PRESIDENT of these suppose to be UNITED STATES, kill that **** and get a life. You must be a racist because every day that man is trying to fix a f**k up that the other president left for this country. But like one of the people on here said and i quote" dont you think before he could run for President that there was a fulkl background check as with all uUS citizens running for office. Do you think he would have gotten that far? do your on investigation instead of going or following in the racist people words..!!!!! come up with your own words and stop being a follower!!!!!! every time a black man or women gets a high venue job with the government its peolple like you and the followers try to find something against them. Every one is not perfect and neither or you. If you dig into your past you will fine out a lot about your ancestors that we all have the same blood line black,white,indian and the others, now go investigate that. Stop being a hater against the movement of the direction the US i s going in.If you do your investigation on a lot of people in congress you will find a lot of s#!t on the but you people are just concentrating on a BLACK man which he is half white do but you all dont see that you just see the color of skin and his persona. like i said get a life and do your on investigation because whats good for the goose do u think its good for the gander????????????????????

Their complaint cites more than a dozen reasons why the act is illegal, and has been causing a stir in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, where, according to the plaintiffs, the government has missed several filing deadlines and a judge has expanded the definition of court procedure in order to prevent a default judgment against the government in the case.

According to Terry Hurlbut of the Examiner, who has been writing about the progress of the case ever since its filing a few months back, the latest move is a pre-emptive defense filed by the plaintiffs in expectation that the government will ask for the case to be dismissed.

The case cites 16 alleged violations of the Constitution, or the nation's law, including multiple sections of Article I, Article 2, Amendments 1, 4, 5, 13, 14 and 16, and violations of a long list of other laws.

"The material facts herein demonstrate the Healthcare Reform Act not only illegally and unconstitutionally expands government, in an attempt by a majority party to take control of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, but an intentional fraudulent scheme was concocted by those in the legislature to intentionally circumvent the Constitution and Amendments," the case states.

According to Hurlbut, the latest filing was over the weekend, when the plaintiffs reminded Judge Freda L. Wolfson that a dismissal of the case was appropriate "only if all the specific facts which plaintiff ... alleges collectively fail to state a prima facie case for jurisdiction."

Purpura told WND that the defense was filed even before the expected government motion to dismiss because the judge scheduled the government's brief to be due Jan. 17, on Martin Luther King Day, a federal holiday, and she's scheduled to announce her decision the next day, allowing no time for the plaintiffs to respond.

The case has attracted some of the same attorneys for the government who also are defending Obamacare in lawsuits brought by the state of Virginia, a series of plaintiffs in Michigan and a long list of states cooperating on a lawsuit in Florida. In those cases, two judges have concluded that Obamacare is constitutional and another has said it is not. All are heading to the appellate level.

Hurlbut told WND that the case has advanced to this point even though the federal government, which declined to respond to a WND request for comment, has not responded to any of the deadlines that ordinarily would apply in a lawsuit so far.

"The case is hanging right now because you've got defendants who have never filed a responsive pleading in this matter," he said.

A timeline he's assembled reveals the case was filed in September, and the next month the plaintiffs requested a Temporary Restraining Order seeking to stop enforcement of Obamacare.

The judge ignored their request, but when attorney Ethan P. Davis asked the judge on behalf of the government to deny the TRO request, it was granted in hours.

Now the plaintiffs are seeking a summary judgment, essentially a judge's statement saying they win, because "the Justice Department filed no pleadings, responsive or otherwise, no motions, and indeed no letters until well into December," he reported.

Purpura told WND he wants to get rid of Obamacare because, "the health care bill has nothing to do with health care. This is about control of the people."

"This is insanity," he said.

Among the claims it makes is the one about an ineligible president. It cites the Constitution's requirement, Article 2, Section 1, that says "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president…."

"Plaintiffs are not arguing whether Mr. Obama was or was not born in Hawaii, though it is incumbent for this honorable court to also address that question," the plaintiffs wrote. "The question that mandates an answer, why is Mr. Obama above the law, when by law you need a birth certificate to obtain a driver's license, Social Security card and/or passports," the pleading said.

"There are other questions that demand answers: why does Mr. Obama have scores of Social Security numbers, and those numbers it has been discovered were issued by the state of Connecticut. If a fraud was perpetrated upon the American people it is a crime. Regardless, based upon the Constitution and the British citizenship of Mr. Obama's father, he, Mr. Barack Obama Jr., is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of the president.

"Not being eligible to be president and commander in chief, Mr. Obama is currently acting without constitutional authority which is causing plaintiffs injury in fact," it said.

In support, it offered an 1875 Supreme Court decision that explained natural born citizens are accepted to be those "born in a country of parents who were its citizens."

Also cited were 1814 and 1939 cases.

"Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was a British citizen and gave his son British citizenship, Barack Hussein Obama Jr., does not meet the 'natural born citizen' requirement of Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the contract represented by the U.S. Constitution nor was he ... alive and a citizen of the United States of America at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is a native born or statutory citizen and is therefore ineligible to exercise the authority of the office of president of the United States and cannot sign bills into law," the case states.

The case argues Obamacare also violates the Constitution because the bill started in the Senate and raises revenue, violates the "posse Comitatus" Act, violates medical privacy legislation, violates due process, discriminates based on religion, violates antitrust laws, violates the 10th Amendment and violates equal protection and treatment.

It alleges those who voted for the plan "are guilty of dereliction of duty, which constitutes a 'high crime and misdemeanor' which are impeachable offenses."

The case is just the latest on the situation, which appears to not be going away.

Consider:

* More than a year ago, polls revealed that a bare half of the people in the United States even knew there was an issue over Obama's eligibility but recent polls have indicated up to 58 percent of Americans now have doubts over that issue.

* Fining attorneys, even jailing defendants, as happened in the recent case against Lt. Col. Terry Lakin at Ft. Meade, Md., hasn't caused the issue to disappear.

* A billboard campaign that simply asks "Where's the Birth Certificate" has appeared in many dozens of locations, and one billboard company that a year ago concluded it was more or less a settled issue now has asked to be allowed to participate in the campaign.

* Various officials have "verified" Obama's eligibility but have declined to document their statements.

* Extensive examinations of the available record suggest Obama likely is, in fact, ineligible.

* There remains a multitude of lawsuits still making their way toward Supreme Court review. One case was rejected just days ago and another is scheduled to be heard in the next few days.

* In Congress, a proposal would have required all candidates for the office of president to document their eligibility under the Constitution's requirement that they be a "natural born citizen."

* Similar plans are moving even more quickly at the state legislature level.

* And there even are predictions that Congress will take up the dispute.

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

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

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

Several of the cases have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined even to hear arguments. Among the cases turned down without a hearing at the high court have been petitions by Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Orly Taitz.

[Chape]

ROFLMAOAY!! Keep dreaming. He has no reason to resign as he is the legally elected President. Oh...and he's BLACK. Deal with it.

Shame on folk who call the race card!!!!

That is what forces separation of "race " in this country.

Always letting the other race feel unequal! Just like they are being trodden on.

People should not fall for this disparity.

Cheers All..

[ajskj]

It's funny how people claim that someone is "pulling the race card" when their own racism is pointed out.

[NotReallyTex]

Shame on folk who call the race card!!!!

That is what forces separation of "race " in this country.

Always letting the other race feel unequal! Just like they are being trodden on.

People should not fall for this disparity.

Cheers All..

Well for some reason this bothered me.

I am not prejudiced but truthfully ever since Obama came into office he has allowed a huge surge to have separation of a lot of things himself. Especially God.

JMO

[dinartie]

And all this has WHAT to do with the IQD RV?

[jaaamie]

Why did I bother reading this? I'm from Canada!

needless to say it's interesting.

[TRERUMPH]

Good I hope the bump this D-bag out of office on his ear and make him pay back all that he has "earned" as president... then kick all his cronies out with him... repealing Obamacare and shutting down the whole darn thing... anything done while he was in office becoming void and therefor saving the US Trillions of dollars... sounds like a great case to me... can't stand this guy any how...

f^*king RACIST

[TRERUMPH]

I promise you if you do a little research with Google on him you'll see what a lot of others see.

F^#kING RACIST...... THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY DO YOU WHITE PEOPLE ALWAYS TRY TO BASH A BLACK PERSON WHEN THEY JUST HAPPEN TO COME INTO POWER????? WHY? IS IT THAT BAD?? YOU F#$K HEADS ARE THE REASON THIS COUNTRY WON'T MOVE FORWARD. YOU PEOPLE ARE JUST LIKE THIS WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.. MY REASON IS...FORMER PRES BUSH IS THE TALIBAN... LETS JUST SAY THAT WHEN HE F83kED THE AMERICAN ECONOMY NOBODY SAID S#!T ABOUT IT. JUST LIKE WHEN TALIBAN KILLS A BUS LOAD OF PEOPLE NONE OF THEM SAY ANYTHING, BUT NOW PRES OBAMMA IS THE MILITARY.. HES TRYING TO DO GOOD OF THE SUPPOSEDLY UNITED STATES, AND WHEN HE IS DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT EVERYONE (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE) IS ALWAYS TRYING TO BASH HIM IN PUBLIC BUT DONT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT AND GOING OFF OF WHAT SOME OTHER RACIST HAS SAID WHICH MAKES THEM A FOLLOWER AND DONT KNOW HOW TO LEAD WHICH IN A SINCE YOU ARE REALLY A NOBODY CAUSE YOU DONT HAVE ALL THE FACTS JUST HEARSAY, GET A LIFE AND LEAVE ALL THAT RACIST BS ALONE AND BE HAPPY THAT WE DO HAVE A PRESIDENT THAT IS NOT CORRUPT LIKE SOME OF THE ONES BEFORE HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!......

And all this has WHAT to do with the IQD RV?

I WISH SOMEONE WOULD TELL ME??????? I SEE IT AS A BUNCH OF RACIST KNOWING THAT THEIR FELLOW COUNTER PARTS(BLACKS AND HISPANICS) ARE ABOUT TO BE RICH AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE SOMEONE IN A MINORITY TO BASH......LETS GO RV......

[touchedthesky]

Frankly, it doesn't matter if Obama is black, brown, white or green. Being a Good American is far more important than being a "good Republican" or a "good Democrat".

Regardless of factions, "Obamacare" makes Obama into an Enemy Of The State.

Sharing information;

Please verify this outrageous 'ObamaCare' Constitutional Tyranny information for yourself, share it with others and encourage them to verify it too: (This issue concerns the Dinar subject too, as you will soon see)

HB3200 Page 50 Section 152:

The bill will provide health insurance to all non-US residents, even if they are here illegally.

Page 52 and 59:

The government will have real-time access to an individual's Bank Account, and will have the authority to make Electronic Fund Transfers from those accounts.

(that one should send a chill down everyone's spine)

Page 202 Line 14-15:

The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax.

(How could anyone in their right mind come up with that?)

Page 241 and 253:

Doctors will be paid the same regardless of their specialty, and the government will set all doctor's fees.

Page 272 Section 1145:

Cancer hospitals will ration care according to the patient's age.

Page 317 and 321:

The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansions, however, communities may petition for an expansion.

Page 425 Line 4-12:

The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend a end-of life-planning seminar every five years (death counseling).

Page 429 Line 13-25:

The government will specify which doctors can write an end -of -life order.

This bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are exempt from the Social Security system, and enjoy a well funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, there is no doubt that they would find a rapid and quick fix to make the plan financially sound (and profitable) for their future.

This is another outrageous assault against our Constitutional Republic.

Edited January 17, 2011 by touchedthesky

[kevnutz]

[Soldiering4U]

f^*king RACIST

Many of my fellow soldiers both whom I have served under and who I am over as their team leader have been from all walks of life Black, White, Asian, Jewish, German, and Hispanic... from low income house holds to guys who hide their wealth so they can serve this great country because of their great since of duty... I have never been nor have I ever been accused of being even close to racist... I am Jewish my-self and I think people who choose to use their heritage or skin color to belittle someone else place no value in themselves or on other human beings... what divides this country are people who choose not to conform to it's beliefs and throw slanderous terms around to cover their short falls....

I am not racist that term means I think my race is superior to any others... that is simply not true... the word I think you meant to use is Prejudice.

Do you know the true meaning of someone who is prejudice? to be prejudice means you prejudge someone before you even know them... so my good friend I find you in fault by the meaning of the word in which was just used in fact you by prejudging me are a Prejudice person... please get to know someone before you judge.... you can not offend me my good man for there is only one who will judge me and it make a difference my friend and to quote the late, grate Tupac "Only God Can Judge Me" therefor your words have no effect on me, but do me a favor please do not be prejudice to others now from here on out... thank you