Constitution Under Attack: Senate Panel OK’s Stripping States Of Constitutional Power

Constitution Under Attack: Senate Panel OK’s Stripping States Of Constitutional Power

August 21st, 2009 Posted By Greywolfe.


From CNS News.

An amendment to remove the constitutional right of governors to appoint individuals to U.S. Senate seats that become vacant in between elections was recently approved by a 5-to-3 vote in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

The resolution, which favors direct elections rather than gubernatorial appointments to unoccupied Senate seats as the Constitution requires, was introduced Jan. 29, following news of a pay-to-play scheme involving then-Illinois Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of scheming to sell President Barack Obama’s former U.S. Senate seat.

Before introducing the amendment, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, released a statement advocating an end to the constitutional right of Blagojevich-type appointments to Senate seats.

Read the full story here.

Court Expected to Send Runaway Teen Home Despite Muslim Honor Killing Fears

Court Expected to Send Runaway Teen Home Despite Muslim Honor Killing Fears

Friday , August 21, 2009

By Joshua Rhett Miller


A 17-year-old girl who fled to Florida after converting from Islam to Christianity will almost certainly be forced to return home to Ohio, experts say, despite her fears that she will become the victim of an honor killing for abandoning her parents’ faith.

Rifqa Bary, who hitchhiked to an Ohio bus station earlier this month and took a charter bus to Orlando, remains in protective custody with Florida’s Department of Children and Families. A judge is expected to rule Friday on the jurisdiction of the case, but several legal experts contacted by say the girl is bound to be sent back to Ohio.

“She’ll be returned to the original jurisdiction,” said Katherine Hunt Federle, professor of law and director of the Justice for Children Project at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law.

“She probably doesn’t have a lot of options other than to return home.”

Bary, a native of Sri Lanka who turned 17 earlier this month, is neither a U.S. citizen nor a resident of Florida, so if her parents want her returned to their home in New Albany, Ohio, that likely will occur, experts said.

“She’s living and residing in Ohio,” Federle said. “Typically, what happens is, if a child runs away and goes to another jurisdiction, she’ll be returned to the original jurisdiction.”

If she is sent back to Ohio, Bary will not be allowed to live on her own, since the state does not have an emancipation statute.

Florida has such a statute, but it requires parental consent, according to Fred Silberberg, a family law expert based in California who is familiar with the case.

Given that legal hurdle, Bary likely will be returned to Ohio, where authorities could intervene if they believe there is a threat or a basis to act, Silberberg said.

Rifqa fled to Florida after her parents, Mohamed and Aysha Bary, learned that she was baptized earlier this year without their knowledge. The parents reported her missing to Columbus Police on July 19. Weeks later, using cell phone and computer records, police tracked the girl to the Rev. Blake Lorenz, pastor of the Orlando-based Global Revolution Church.’s calls to Lorenz were not returned.

In an emotional six-minute interview with WFTV in Florida, Rifqa, who met Lorenz through an online Facebook group, said she expects to be killed if she is forced to return to Ohio.

“If I had stayed in Ohio, I wouldn’t be alive,” she said. “In 150 generations in family, no one has known Jesus. I am the first — imagine the honor in killing me.

“There is great honor in that, because if they love Allah more than me, they have to do it. It’s in the Koran,” said in the interview, which has been posted on YouTube.

Rifqa, who is seen wearing a large diamond cross during the interview, said she had to hide her Bible “for years,” and she repeatedly “snuck out” to attend Christian prayer meetings. She referred to previous victims of so-called honor killings, in which young Muslim women were murdered for bringing dishonor to their families.

“They love God more than me, they have to do this,” Bary told WFTV. “I’m fighting for my life. You guys don’t understand. … I want to worship Jesus freely, that’s what I want. I don’t want to die.”

Contacted by, Mohamed Bary said he has no intentions of harming his daughter.

“I love my daughter and I want her to come back to the family,” he said, declining further comment.

The Barys reportedly emigrated from Sri Lanka in 2000 to seek medical treatment for Rifqa, who lost the sight in her right eye following an accident at home.

Barbra Joyner, Mohamed Bary’s lawyer, declined to comment on Rifqa’s interview with WFTV but said transferring the case back to Ohio will be in the “best interest” of the girl.

Craig McCarthy, an attorney for Aysha Bary, agreed that the case should be moved back to Ohio and added that the girl’s mother is afraid for her safety.

“[Aysha Bary] has shifted to downright frightened, scared of what might confront her publicly on Friday,” McCarthy told “She is scared for her family, of losing her daughter, of never knowing the truth of what happened and for her own safety.”

McCarthy said Rifqa’s account of how she traveled to Florida has “holes in it,” but declined to elaborate. He also declined to respond to allegations that Bary’s father abused the girl when he learned of her conversion to Christianity.

Dr. Phyllis Chesler, an author and professor of psychology at the Richmond College of the City University of New York, said she believes Bary will be in danger if she is sent back to her parents.

“Anyone who converts from Islam is considered an apostate, and apostasy is a capital crime,” Chesler wrote “If she is returned to her family, if she is lucky, they will isolate her, beat her, threaten her, and if she is not ‘persuaded’ to return to Islam, they will kill her. They have no choice.”

Chesler, who wrote “Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?” for Middle East Quarterly, said the tradition of such slayings is not fully understood by most Americans, including those in law enforcement.

“She escaped from her family’s brutal tyranny and shamed her family further through public exposure,” Chesler said. “Muslim girls and women are killed for far less.”

Ordering a Pizza in 2012!

Ordering a Pizza in 2012!

This is absolutely hilarious, but the scary part about it is that it’s probably not too far away from being reality, providing Obama has his way with socialized medicine, and digitizing medical records.

Want to know how to order a pizza in 2012? Click the link and see.

Turn up the volume, listen closely and watch the pointer!

Obamacare to be 1 big ‘death panel’

Obamacare to be 1 big ‘death panel’
By Richard Poe, WorldnetDaily
President Obama has promised huge cuts in medical spending. In fact, he has warned that, if America fails to make such cuts, it will face financial Armageddon. “Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy…,” Obama told the American Medical Association in Chicago June 15. “It is a ticking time bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America… If we fail to act, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care within a decade. And if we fail to act, federal spending on Medicaid and Medicare… will eventually grow larger than what our government spends on anything else today.” To avoid this catastrophe, America must make drastic cuts in health spending, says Obama. The size of his proposed cuts varies from speech to speech, but the figure cited most often by Obama’s advisers is 30 percent per year–up to $700 billion annually. A 30-percent annual cut is going to take a big bite out of somebody’s health care. The only question is whose. The numbers make clear that most of these cuts will have to come at the expense of those who need health care the most — the elderly, the disabled and the gravely ill.
Read the Rest of the Story:

Sarah and the Death Panels

Sarah and the Death Panels

Posted 08/21/2009 ET
Updated 08/21/2009 ET


“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

Of Sarah Palin it may be said: The lady knows how to frame an issue.

And while she has been fairly criticized for hyperbole about the end-of-life counselors in the House bill, she drew such attention to the provision that Democrats chose to dump it rather than debate it

And understandably so. For if Congress enacts universal health care coverage, we are undeniably headed for a medical system of rationed care that must inevitably deny care to some terminally ill and elderly, which will shorten their lives, perhaps by years. Consider:

Democrats call Medicare the model of government-run universal health care. But Medicare is a system whereby 140 million working Americans pay 2.9 percent of all wages and salaries into a fund to pay for health care for 42 million mostly older Americans. And Medicare is already going bust.

If Obamacare is passed, the cost of health care for today’s 47 million uninsured will also land on those 140 million. And if Obama puts 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens on a “path to citizenship,” as he promises, they, too, will have their health care provided by taxpayers.

Here is the crusher. The Census Bureau projects that, by 2050, the U.S. population will explode to 435 million. As most of these folks will be immigrants, their children and grandchildren, the cost of their heath care would also have to be largely born by middle-class and wealthy taxpayers.

Now factor this in.

In 2000, the average American male in a population of 300 million lived to 74; the average female to 80. But in 2050, the average male in a population of 435 million Americans will live to 80 and the average female to 86. And, according to U.N. figures, 21 percent of the U.S. population in 2050, some 91 million Americans, will be over 65, and 7.6 percent, or 33 million Americans, will be over 80 — and consuming health care in ever-increasing measures.

Now if a primary purpose of Obamacare is to “bend the curve” of soaring health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and the number of seniors will grow by scores of millions, how do you cut costs without rationing care?

And how do you ration care without denying millions of elderly and aged the prescriptions, procedures and operations they need to stay alive?

Consider two beloved Americans: Ted Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Since he was diagnosed with brain cancer more than a year ago, Sen. Kennedy has had excellent care, including surgery and chemotherapy, which have kept him alive and, until very recently, active.

For a decade, President Reagan, because of round-the-clock care, lived with an Alzheimer’s that had robbed him of his memory and left him unable to recognize his own family and close friends.

In the future, will a man of Kennedy’s age, with brain cancer but without the means of offsetting his own health care costs, be kept alive, operated on, given chemotherapy — by a government obsessed with cutting health care costs?

Will a bureaucracy desperate to cut costs keep alive for years the tens of thousands of destitute 80- and 90-year-old patients with Alzheimer’s, as was done with Ronald Reagan?

What if, in 2050, Palin and her husband are not here. And 42-year-old Trig, with Down syndrome, has been in an institution for years, and the cost of his care and that of hundreds of thousands like him with Down syndrome is draining the resources of the health care system?

Will there not be voices softly suggesting a quiet and merciful end?

In Oregon, the law permits doctors to assist in the suicide of terminal patients who wish to end their lives. Let us assume numerous patients have Alzheimer’s and, so, cannot be part of the decision to end their lives. Who then makes the decision to continue or end life? Would it be unfair to call the decision-makers in those cases a death panel?

Almost a third of all unborn babies in America have their lives terminated each year with the consent of their mothers. Fifty million since Roe v. Wade have never seen the light of day. For many, the quality of life now supersedes in value the sanctity of life. That is who we are.

Between 2012 and 2030, 74 million baby boomers will retire, cease to be the major contributors to Medicare and become the major drain on Medicare. How long will an overtaxed labor force in a de-Christianized America be wiling to pay the bill to keep all those aging boomers alive?

Rationed care is coming, and the death panels will not be far behind.


Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, “The Death of the West,”, “The Great Betrayal,” “A Republic, Not an Empire” and “Where the Right Went Wrong.”

Obama Has a ‘Pony’ for You

Obama Has a ‘Pony’ for You

By Jan LaRue

Even little kids know when they’ve been had.

Like the little girl in the bank commercial who gets a tiny plastic pony while the other little girl gets a real pony, and the little boy who gets the cardboard truck, most Americans think President Barack Obama is hiding behind the fine print in his incomprehensible health care plan.


It’s why Obama’s poll numbers are dropping faster than the faces of the kids in the commercials.


Obama’s presidential approval index is now at minus 6; 32 percent strongly approve of him and 38 percent strongly disapprove. Since his inauguration, his job approval rating has sunk from 65 percent to 51 percent. Only 27 percent trust him with the economic crisis, according to Rasmussen daily tracking polls.


Like the guy in the commercials, if you don’t ask, Obama won’t tell. If you sign up for his government-run health care plan because he promises you a pony, I wouldn’t load up on hay.


Recall that Obama assured Americans during the presidential campaign that he wouldn’t “take away folks’ guns.” Despite his record of voting for every gun control bill that was introduced in the Illinois Senate, the majority voted for him.


He said the Second Amendment is a personal constitutional right. At the same time, he said that a District of Columbia law banning private possession of a handgun in the home was “constitutional.” His first Supreme Court appointment, Sonia Sotomayor, ruled against Second Amendment rights every chance she got.


At the “Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency” last August, candidate Obama said, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” Obama also said he didn’t support a constitutional amendment “with that definition” because marriage has “been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition.”


Spoken like a true believer in plastic federalism.


The media continue to recite Obama’s marriage mantra without question, even though he wants the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for purposes of federal law and protects the right of the states to do so, repealed.


He opposed California’s Prop 8, which Californians enacted after homosexuals persuaded four members of the state supreme court to declare its statutory marriage law “unconstitutional.” Speaking on MTV, Obama said “I would vote no on the proposition.”


So much for “our tradition” of defining marriage under “state law.”


Just as he promised the homosexual lobby when he was running for the U.S. Senate, Obama’s Department of Justice is working to repeal DOMA at the same time that its “defending” it. Obama commented on brief: “This brief makes clear, however, that my administration believes that the act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits.”


It’s more Obama overload. Instead of opposing just the benefits section of DOMA, he wants the section defining marriage repealed as well. And that’s from the man who says marriage is a “sacred union” with “God in the mix.”


Unless you’re okay with defending your life and home with a toy gun, and marriage means no more than a plastic ornament atop the cake, trusting Obama with your health care could be fatal.


When Obama says health care — you’re probably thinking life-saving surgery — Obama is thinking pain killers. Think of it as health care based on the Jack Kevorkian model.


Obama said he was for a “single-payer universal health care plan” before he was against it:


I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we’ve got to take back the White House, we’ve got to take back the Senate, and we’ve got to take back the House.


Even after the video clip from June 28, 2008, was exposed, Obama denied on Aug. 11, 2009, that he ever said he was “for a single-payer system.” He made a “distinction between a universal plan versus a single-payer plan, because those are two different things.”


Watch the clip again: “A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see.”


He made no distinction. Who are you going to believe, Obama or your lying eyes and ears?


It’s why Obama can’t sell Americans on his signature issue despite all of his fear-mongering and demonizing of insurance companies. According to Rasmussen daily tracking polls:


  • 54 percent say that passing no healthcare reform is better than passing a congressional plan.
  • 51 percent fear government more than insurance companies.
  • 57 percent are opposed to a single-payer system (government provides coverage for all), while 32 percent favor it.


Obama says “Over 45 million Americans-including over 8 million children-lack health insurance.” His source, according to footnote five of “Barack Obama And Joe Biden’s Plan To Lower Health Care Costs And Ensure Affordable, Accessible Health Coverage For All,” is an August 2008 report by the Census Bureau. Obama has repeated the bogus figure at least four times.


Obama toys with truth because he’s not used to anybody checking his sources.


The report states on page 19 that 45.7 million people in the United States do not have health insurance. According to page one, “The population represented (the population universe) is the civilian noninstitutionalized population living in the United States.”


Obama counts people as Americans even if they came into the United States over a fence or through a tunnel. Inflating the numbers enhances the empathy-factor and paves the way for Obama to include illegal aliens in government healthcare.


Obama says private insurance companies can compete with a government-run insurance system. To bolster our confidence, he pointed to how well FedEx and UPS compete with the U.S. Postal Service. He said, “It’s the Post Office that’s always having the problems.”


He probably thinks of it as postal workers acting stupidly.


Maybe he’s found the perfect slogan for his government-run health care option: “When you absolutely, positively want to live overnight, trust the ones always having the problems.”


Obama on the Second Amendment, marriage, and health care-it all makes sense if you’re into plastic ponies and cardboard trucks.


Jan LaRue is Senior Legal Analyst with the American Civil Rights Union; former Chief Counsel at Concerned Women for Women; former Legal Studies Director at Family Research Council; and former Senior Counsel for the National Law Center for Children and Families.

Page Printed from: at August 21, 2009 – 11:29:53 AM EDT

Charlie Cook: Dem situation has ‘slipped completely out of control’

Charlie Cook: Dem situation has ‘slipped completely

 out of control’


Charlie Cook, one of the best political handicappers in the business, sent out a special update to Cook Political Report subscribers Thursday that should send shivers down Democratic spines.

Reviewing recent polling and the 2010 election landscape, Cook can envision a scenario in which Democratic House losses could exceed 20 seats.

“These data confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Today, The Cook Political Report’s Congressional election model, based on individual races, is pointing toward a net Democratic loss of between six and 12 seats, but our sense, factoring in macro-political dynamics is that this is far too low,” he wrote.

“Many veteran Congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats.”

Cook scrupulously avoided any mention that Democratic control of the House is in jeopardy but, noting a new Gallup poll showing Congress’ job disapproval at 70 percent among independents, concluded that the post-recess environment could feel considerably different than when Congress left in August.

“We believe it would be a mistake to underestimate the impact that this mood will have on Members of Congress of both parties when they return to Washington in September, if it persists through the end of the Congressional recess.”