Federal Spending by the Numbers – Heritage Foundation Report

Editor’s Note – The Heritage Foundation produced a report on federal spending and what it means to you. In the following post, several key points were listed and analyzed by the Daily Signal.

However, the lengthy report has 22 charts to plainly show the true picture, without political talking points. We hope you read the summary below and then take a moment to see the whole report. Here are the titles of the charts (3 are listed in the article):

  1. The Federal Budget, 1994 – 2014;
  2. Entitlements and Interest on the Debt Account for 85% of Spending Growth Through 2024;CP-Federal-Spending-by-the-Numbers-2014-09-2-household_507
  3. Where does all the money go;
  4. Where did every dollar in spending go;
  5. Mandatory spending more than doubled as a share of the economy;
  6. As entitlement spending grows, the discretionary part of the budget falls;
  7. US National Debt Surpasses $18 Trillion;
  8. Debit borrowed in credit markets at 50 year high;
  9. Deficits return to trillion dollar level by 2021;
  10. Net interest cost will double in five years, nearly triple in eight;
  11. Medicaid is the fastest growing major entitlement;
  12. What is driving the growth in entitlement spending;
  13. Obamacare increases federal health care spending;
  14. Obamacare’s annual spending exceeds $200 Billion by 2012;
  15. Food Stamps is one of the largest welfare programs;
  16. Total welfare spending reaches $949 Billion;
  17. Federal spending per household is on the rise;
  18. What if a typical family spent like the federal government; (One of our favorites on right, click for larger image)
  19. Budget Control Act reduces discretionary spending to pre-‘stimulus’ levels;
  20. Budget Control Act reduces discretionary spending after ‘stimulus’ ends, but only temporarily;
  21. House Budget saves taxpayers $6 Trillion compared with President Obama’s Budget;
  22. House Budget balances in 10 years, President Obama makes no attempt;

The report also lists 51 examples of other egregious spending you will want to see. (The article points out a couple below in the article.)

It sites three categories, each with numerous examples. They are: Mismanagement, Corporate Welfare, and Questionable Federal Research.  Happy reading, please read the whole report!

Average Federal Spending Per Household Nearly $30K

By Spencer Woody  – Daily Signal

Did you know that the National Institutes of Health spent $374,000 to find out if a puppet show would convince preschoolers to eat more vegetables? Or that the Department of Agriculture gave $50,000 to a business that packs and sells alpaca manure?

Your tax dollars paid for it–and much more. In 2014, federal spending per household was $28,826.

Here are some more key facts from “Federal Spending by the Numbers 2014,” a new Heritage report.

1.) Even with the temporary drop in deficits and the Budget Control Act, federal spending and the national debt are projected to increase drastically.

The current national debt tops $18 trillion, which is more than 100 percent of the national Gross Domestic Product. Without reforming federal spending, especially on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the rising debt threatens Americans with higher taxes and fewer economic opportunities through less growth. At some point, investors may even lose confidence in the federal government’s ability to service the debt.

CP-Federal-Spending-by-the-Numbers-2014-04-1-debt_509

2.) Federal Spending drives the debt, specifically entitlement spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and on means-tested welfare. 

Entitlement programs are considered mandatory spending, meaning they are set to grow on auto-pilot, unchecked by Congress each year. As spending on entitlement and welfare programs squeezes funding for national priorities, it raises concerns that Congress is not adequately funding America’s national defense because entitlements get the first call on federal revenues.

romina2ndimage

3.) Putting the budget on a path to balance is not an easy task politically, but reining in federal spending is a must to enable economic opportunity and growth for younger and future generations.

As government spending and debt grows, it crowds out private investment, which translates to fewer jobs and lower wages for Americans. President Obama fails to realize this: Under his budget plan, both spending and the debt are projected to increase, despite a trillion-dollar tax increase. On the other hand, the House’s budget plan created by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., balances after 10 years thanks to health care entitlement and welfare reform and elimination of wasteful and duplicated programs.

romina3rdimage

There is plenty of wasteful spending to cut from the budget, as demonstrated in the 51 examples of government waste that are part of this year’s report.

Just as growth in federal spending and in the scope of the federal government often resulted from small, incremental increases, reining back the federal government starts with small steps. Congress and its constituents should keep this report and its lessons close at hand when considering the budget and other spending requests.

Sheikhs, Lies & Videotape – Shifting your focus

By Scott W. Winchell

We are living in very disingenuous times. Nothing is what it is portrayed to be. The media has you focusing on the inane, the left has you believing its all about ‘likability’. The pollsters are pushing results on you that are not statistically accurate nor are they a true reflection – rather they are driving a message. Its all a miscarriage of information that is quite frankly the basest form of propaganda.

The incumbent administration is working hand-in-hand with the media and many pollsters – why? Because they need to keep you looking away from the failures, the lies, the untruths, the dismal situation in which they have planted us. If they do not, they have no chance of winning the votes of any more than the “47%” they berate Romney for speaking about. But what was missing from that surreptitious tape?

What was missing were the parts that matter most – the real picture, the real leadership that is possible, the fraud perpetrated on you – not the ‘dog and pony show’, not the appeal to ‘coolness’ by cavorting with Hollywood types, not the play on our sentiments and emotions. Why we ask again – because they do not want to face the hard decisions that you are not going to like if you knew the whole story. What is not missing are the stark lies of the administration, like Susan Rice on the talk shows, and the sudden reversal of the official story from the White House on the 9.11 (Eleven) terror strike in Libya.

Andrew McCarthy once again addresses what is really happening below in yet another concise and deeply meaningful analysis of the day. But before you read that article, watch this video about what the media is not trumpeting to cause Romney harm, to cause you to shift your focus:

Hat Tip to Flopping Aces

A Duplicitous Administration

After Libya and more, we can hardly trust Obama on the Blind Sheikh.

By Andrew C. McCarthy – National Review Online

If they lie, you can’t trust them. That’s a fairly straightforward rule. It is certainly the one that trial lawyers bank on.

It is not a hard and fast rule. A person may shade the truth for various reasons: vanity, personal allegiances, financial incentives, etc. Usually, once you figure out the relevant motivation, you can sort out on what matters he is probably credible and what he is prone to lie about. Sometimes, though, the story is so unbelievable, so insulting to the intelligence, that a rational juror knows it is best to discount all of the testimony — or, worse, to conclude that the truth is likely the opposite of the witness’s desperate version.

Of course, all the world’s a stage, not a courtroom. I am reminded of this when, as now, I happen to have a book out (Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy) that speaks to events currently roiling the world. I am reminded, that is, that I am no longer a trial lawyer making arguments to a jury. Now I am a writer who makes his arguments to the public and, at book-publication times like these, through the prism of the mainstream media. So it was that, in a few interviews this week, I have been asked about two currently raging symptoms of “Spring Fever,” the Libya attacks and the Blind Sheikh.

Today’s journalists do not resemble jurors. The interviews proceed in a now-familiar pattern. We go through the events of last week’s atrocity in Libya, where U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered in Benghazi. Again and again, Obama-administration officials insisted that the killings were the result of spontaneous rioting over an obscure movie casting Islam’s prophet in an unflattering light — a movie from months ago, a movie virtually no one knew about, much less saw, a production so cockamamie that calling it a “movie” fails the straight-face test.

As the administration well knew, this was a coordinated jihadist attack led by al-Qaeda-affiliated forces, clearly well-trained and equipped with sophisticated weapons. One of the participants was a former Gitmo prisoner, detained there for years because it was patent that, given the chance, he’d go back to the jihad. There appears to have been forewarning about likely trouble on the 9/11 anniversary.

Did anyone really need in-depth intelligence to recognize these dangers? Part of the reason the United States struck up an alliance with Qaddafi’s despicable regime was his intelligence cooperation: Per capita, Libya sent more jihadists to Iraq to fight against American troops than any other country. The only difference between then and now is that, with Obama having toppled Qaddafi in a war the U.S. launched without provocation and on the side of al-Qaeda, the rabidly anti-American Islamists of Benghazi now have access to high-powered weaponry previously unavailable to them. A movie? Before the president ever got to his unseemly Vegas fundraiser, with the nation still mourning its dead, it was pluperfectly obvious that we’d been subjected to a terrorist strike that had nothing to do with a moronic movie.

Yet our U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, repeated the farcical Obama-admnistration line with a straight face. It was insulting, and even reporters for whom Obama can do no wrong could not take it seriously. In some of my interviews there has been nervous laughter — not over the situation, which is so deadly serious, but over the administration’s line, which has been ludicrous.

But then we get to the Blind Sheikh. I prosecuted Omar Abdel Rahman back in my former trial-lawyer life. He is less than 20 years into his life sentence for terrorism convictions. During his time in prison, he nevertheless managed to issue the fatwa Osama bin Laden credited as the required sharia green-light for the 9/11 attacks. So I have been asked often this week about reports that he may be transferred to his native Egypt. There, as Spring Fever demonstrates, the populace is overwhelmingly adherent to the supremacist Islam that dominates the Middle East. There, his war against America makes him a hero, and he would be welcomed, triumphantly, as such.

Could that possibly happen? “You bet it could,” I’ve told my interlocutors, “it could and it will.” Watch for the frightening weeks between Election Day and Inauguration Day, when, no matter who wins the election, Barack Obama will retain all the awesome power of the presidency without any of the accountability of an impending election.

“But wait,” I’m admonished. “They’ve denied it. The Justice Department has denied it. So has the State Department, and at least one member of the National Security Council. How much clearer can they be?”

I don’t know. How much clearer could they have been about Libya?

The Obama administration is the witness whose testimony a jury would discount out of hand. We trust jurors to decide important questions because they bring to the task the common sense of the community. After Libya, the sensible person says, “Never again.” The sensible person does not even see the point of asking Obama officials for information.

Not the media, though. Whether it is Libya, the “practically complete fence” along the Mexican border, the Obamacare tax that is not a tax, the indignant denial of gun-running, cutting the deficit in half by the end of the first term, the composite girlfriend, the “most transparent administration in history,” and so on — the media compartmentalizes from lie to lie, assessing the next as if the last had never happened.

Does the president rate the benefit of the doubt at this point? Seriously?

No way this administration would spring a notorious terrorist? Are you kidding?

The president has already released the terrorists responsible for murdering our five soldiers in Karbala. In his last go-round at Justice, Eric Holder orchestrated pardons for convicted FALN terrorists — pardons signed off on by President Clinton, who went on to release two convicted Weather Underground terrorists on his way out the Oval Office door.

There is nothing new here. Reports that the State Department was discussing a transfer of the Blind Sheikh back to Egypt surfaced months ago, in the context of a potential swap for democracy activists the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces was then detaining. The administration then issued a visa to Hani Nour Eldin, a member of the Islamic Group — the Blind Sheikh’s terrorist organization, to which it is a felony to provide material assistance. The purpose was to invite Eldin to, yes, the White House, for consultations with top American national-security officials on prospective relations between the United States and the new, Islamist Egypt. As the administration had to know he would do, he pressed his top agenda item: The United States must return the Blind Sheikh as a “gift to the revolution.”

Eldin obviously felt very comfortable making the demand. We do not know exactly what he was told or what message he took back to Egypt. We do know that shortly afterward, as soon as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi was announced as winner of the July presidential election, Morsi publicly vowed to pressure the United States to transfer the Blind Sheikh back home.

Did the Obama administration express outrage? Did the president tell Morsi, “Not in a million years”? No, he dispatched Secretary of State Clinton to Cairo for a friendly face-to-face meeting with Morsi — right after she paid a visit to the ruling generals, squeezing them to surrender power to the popularly elected Brotherhood regime. Then the Obama administration got about the business of planning both more billions in aid for Egypt and a red-carpet welcome for Morsi at the White House — the kind of meeting our actual ally, Israel, asked for but can’t seem to get as our busy commander-in-chief bounces from David Letterman to Jay-Z.

But don’t worry: Obama would never send the Blind Sheikh back to Egypt after the election, when the wrath of voters is no longer a concern for him. After all, administration officials have sworn otherwise, and we know we can take that to the bank, right?

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and executive director of the Philadelphia Freedom Center. His latest book is Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, recently published by Encounter books.

 

Eternally shifting sands of Obama's biography – Mark Steyn

Editor’s Note – Its about proof, fraud, and eligibility – but they call it “birther-ism”. More importantly, its about the ‘rule-of-law’, not the whim of the day, cult of personality, revision of the Constitution, or inconvenient facts to be hidden or amended. Here, Mark Steyn, as usual, gets to the core of the issue. Its about the ‘shifting sands’ of Obama’s biography.

By Mark Steyn – Orange County Register

It used to be a lot simpler. As E.C. Bentley deftly summarized it in 1905:

“Geography is about maps. But Biography is about chaps.”

But that was then, and now Biography is also about maps. For example, have you ever thought it would be way cooler to have been born in colonial Kenya?

Whoa, that sounds like crazy Birther talk; don’t go there! But Breitbart News did, and it turns out that the earliest recorded example of Birtherism is from the president’s own literary agent, way back in 1991, in the official bio of her exciting new author:

“Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

So the lunatic theory that Barack Obama doesn’t meet the minimum eligibility requirements to be president of the United States was first advanced by Barack Obama’s official representative. Where did she get that wacky idea from? “This was nothing more than a fact-checking error by me,” says Obama’s literary agent, Miriam Goderich, a “fact” that went so un-“checked” that it stayed up on her agency’s website in the official biography of her by-then-famous client up until 2007:

“He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister.”

And then in April 2007, someone belatedly decided to “check” the 16-year-old “fact” and revised the biography, a few weeks into the now non-Kenyan’s campaign for the presidency. Fancy that!

When it comes to conspiracies, I’m an Occam’s Razor man. The more obvious explanation of the variable first line in the eternally shifting sands of Obama’s biography is that, rather than pretending to have been born in Hawaii, he’s spent much of his life pretending to have been born in Kenya.

After all, if your first book is an exploration of racial identity and has the working title “Journeys In Black And White,” being born in Hawaii doesn’t really help. It’s entirely irrelevant to the twin pillars of contemporary black grievance – American slavery and European imperialism. To 99.99 percent of people, Hawaii is a luxury vacation destination and nothing else.

Whereas Kenya puts you at the heart of what, in an otherwise notably orderly decolonization process by the British, was a bitter and violent struggle against the white man’s rule. Cool! The composite chicks dig it, and the literary agents.

And where’s the harm in it? Everybody does it – at least in the circles in which Obama hangs. At Harvard Law School, where young Barack was “the first African-American president of The Harvard Law Review,” there’s no end of famous firsts: As The Fordham Law Review reported, “Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995.” There is no evidence that Mrs. Warren, now the Democrats’ Senate candidate, is anything other than 100 percent white. She walks like a white, quacks like a white, looks whiter than white. She’s the whitest white since Frosty the Snowman fell in a vat of Wite-Out. But she “self-identified” as Cherokee, so that makes her a “woman of color.” Why, back in 1984 she submitted some of her favorite dishes to the “Pow Wow Chow” cookbook, a “compilation of recipes passed down through the Five Tribes families.”

The recipes from “Elizabeth Warren – Cherokee” include a crab dish with tomato mayonnaise. Mrs. Warren’s fictional Cherokee ancestors in Oklahoma were renowned for their ability to spear the fast-moving Oklahoma crab. It’s in the state song: “Ooooooklahoma! Where the crabs come sweepin’ down the plain.” But then the white man came, and now the Oklahoma crab is extinct, and at the Cherokee clambakes they have to make do with Mrs. Warren’s traditional Five Tribes recipe for Cherokee Lime Pie.

A delegation of college students visited the White House last week, and Vice President Biden told them: “You’re an incredible generation. And that’s not hyperbole, either. Your generation and the 9/11 generation before you are the most incredible group of Americans we have ever, ever, ever produced.”

Ever ever ever ever! Even in a world where everyone’s incredible, some things ought to be truly incredible. Yet Harvard Law School touted Elizabeth “Dances with Crabs” Warren as their “first woman of color” – and nobody laughed. Because, if you laugh, chances are you’ll be tied up in sensitivity-training hell for the next six weeks. Because in an ever-more incredible America being an all-white “woman of color” is entirely credible.

Entering these murky waters, swimming through it like a crab in Mrs. Warren’s tomato mayo, Barack Obama refined his own identity with a finesse that Harvard Law’s first cigar-store Indian lacked. In 1984, when “Elizabeth Warren – Cherokee” was cooking up a storm, the young Obama was still trying to figure out his name: He’d been “Barry” up till then. According to his recently discovered New York girlfriend, back when she dated him he was “BAR-ack,” emphasis on the first syllable, as in barracks, which is how his dad was known back in Kenya. Later in the Eighties, he decided “BAR-ack” was too British, and modified it to “Ba-RACK”. Some years ago, on Fox News, Bob Beckel criticized me for mispronouncing Barack Obama’s name. My mistake.

All I did was say it the way they’ve always said it back in Kenya. But Obama himself didn’t finally decide what his name was or how to say it until he was pushing 30. In the shifting sands of identity, he picked his crabs carefully.

“I suppose he’d had the name ready for a long time, even then,” says Nick Carraway in “The Great Gatsby.” “His parents were shiftless and unsuccessful farm people – his imagination had never really accepted them as his parents at all. The truth was that Jay Gatsby of West Egg, Long Island, sprang from his Platonic conception of himself… . So he invented just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen-year-old boy would be likely to invent, and to this conception he was faithful to the end.”

In a post-modern America, the things that Gatsby attempted to fake – an elite schooling – Obama actually had; the things that Gatsby attempted to obscure – the impoverished roots – merely add to Obama’s luster. Gatsby claimed to have gone to Oxford, but nobody knew him there because he never went; Obama had a million bucks’ worth of elite education at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law, and still nobody knew him (“Fox News contacted some 400 of his classmates and found no one who remembered him”). In that sense, Obama out-Gatsbys Gatsby: His “shiftless and unsuccessful” relatives – the deportation-dodging aunt on public housing in Boston, the DWI undocumented uncle, the $12-a-year brother back in Nairobi – are useful props in his story, the ever more vivid bit-players as the central character swims ever more out of focus, but they don’t seem to know him either. The more autobiographies he writes, the less anybody knows.

Like Gatsby presiding over his wild, lavish parties, Obama is aloof and remote: let everyone else rave deliriously; he just has to be. He is, in his way, the apotheosis of the Age of American Incredibility. When just being who you are anyway is an incredible accomplishment, Obama managed to run and win on biography almost entirely unmoored from life. But then, like Gatsby, he knew a thing or two about “the unreality of reality.”

Disowning the Truth – It matters little inside the 'beltway'

Editor’s Note – By now, even the most ardent nay-sayer of so-called ‘Birthers’ must admit, this Obama document fraud issue, and ignoring the eligibility question stinks to the high heavens. In the privacy of their own abodes they surely must admit it when they look in the mirror in the morning.

Obama is a fake, a fraud, and a usurper of the Oval Office. Most are afraid to say anything in public for fear that when the truth is finally out in the cleansing freshness of the sun light on a clear crisp day, people may remember what the pundits said long before.

Who committed the fraud...and was it condoned?

People will remember the disparaging remarks, the demogoguery, the patronizing tones, and the fact that they were too afraid to touch this third-rail. Why? Because they were and are, afraid of being lumped in with the very people they besmirched. Reputations have been sullied, and now, its a big CYA to protect their own.

Disowning Birth Certificates, Disowning Truth

By Diana West – Death of the Grown-up

Below is this week’s syndicated column: “Is Obama Disowning His Online Birth Certificate?” It takes in the shifting strategy of the Obama defense team in fending off challenges to Obama’s eligibility to appear on presidential primary ballots. Obama’s eligibility is a signal concern for the nation which should be the subject of informed, serious debate on the front pages, on news shows, and also, most important, in the Congress. Such debate is non-existent. Such concern is non-existent, too. It doesn’t seem to matter to the citizenry that a fraudster may be completing one term in the White House while seeking another.

I recently had the occasion to discuss the matter with a very famous American conversative.

Famouse Conservative said to me: Tell me what columns of yours are getting a big response lately.

I had earlier written this column about the Georgia ballot challenge hearing in which President Obama ignored a subpoena for the certified copy of his birth certificate (among other documents). This column elicited a great response from readers, many of whom asked me the same question: why this important story wasn’t being covered in the media.

They’re really interested in this whole eligibility story, I said.

Famous Conservative: I’ll bet they are.

Me: Aren’t you?

FC: No.

Me: No? Why aren’t you?

FC: If this were happening back at the time of the election, maybe.

I told FC  this is an election (ding-dong).

FC: Exactly. But this will alienate the people we need to defeat him at the polls.

I made some naive-sounding comment (which I thoroughly subscribe to) about the seeking the truth regardless of the outcome, adding that the truth would likely alienate plenty of people from Obama, too.

Impasse.

New tack for Famous Conservative: If this were true, why hasn’t Rush or Hannity taken it on?

Me:  They’re afraid.

FC: (Scoffs.)

Me: Look, Rush won’t talk about a lot of things: Islamization, for one. Sharia. Muslim Brotherood, those kinds of things. He has a comfort zone.

FC: (Disbelief.)

Impasse.

FC: Well, maybe if some respected conservative journalist were to examine the story —

Me: (What am I, chopped liver?) Who, for instance?

FC: John Fund, Daniel Henniger …

Hey boys, have at it. But there’s a problem. According to the FC (1) the truth will alienate voters so we mustn’t seek the truth; and (2) it can’t be true anyway because otherwise Rush, Sean, John and Dan would be all over the story. Of course, if FC’s conservative journalists subscribe to #1 or some variation thereon as partisans or Republicans, we’ll never get to #2. Meanwhile, across the journalistic aisle, the MSM has the another, equally heavy stake in preventing the truth from outing. They want Obama re-elected.

What’s wrong with this picture? Conservative logic, conservative morality.

Needless to say, I didn’t make any inroads with FC although FC’s spouse shares my concern in the subject, so that’s something.

——-

The column:

Almost exactly one year ago – with Donald Trump on top of presidential polls and author Jerome Corsi on top of Amazon’s best-seller list, both for asking where President Barack Obama’s “real” birth certificate was – Judith Corley, the president’s personal attorney, flew to Hawaii. She went there to pick up two certified copies of the president’s long-form birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health.

At least, that’s what then-White House Counsel Robert Bauer told us last April 27 at a White House press briefing called to unveil the new, certified document. Multiple copies were passed out to the press, while NBC’s Savannah Guthrie became the one witness I know of to touch the certified document. (She reported she “felt the raised seal.”) A computer image of this Obama long-form birth certificate appeared on the White House website, where now you and I can download it for ourselves as proof of the president’s bona fides.

Or is it?

It is this same Internet image that the Cold Case Posse, a group of lawyers and former law enforcement professionals assembled by Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio to vet Obama’s identity documents, has concluded is most likely a forgery. At its March 1 press conference, the posse further explained that it believed the online imageoriginated as a computer file. In other words, a paper document did not exist before the image appeared on the White House website.

If the posse’s mind-blowing findings are correct, what is it that Judith Corley couriered back to Washington? And what is it that Savannah Guthrie touched?

I find such questions most intriguing – even if the rest of the media do not – particularly after last week’s court hearing into Obama’s eligibility to appear on the ballot in the New Jersey presidential primary. After literally dozens of such eligibility cases since 2008 (evidently, the media are waiting for a discernible story trend to emerge before they pounce), I can report, having watched a video of the New Jersey hearing online, that the president’s team is making progress. Only now it’s away from his long-form birth certificate.

The curious fact is, President Obama’s attorney, Alexandra Hill, couldn’t have been more adamant about not citing the online birth certificate as a means of proving the president’s identity in this recent challenge – and after everyone went to so much trouble to get it! Indeed, she called the Internet image “legally irrelevant,” arguing that New Jersey law doesn’t specifically call for a birth certificate to qualify a presidential candidate for the ballot.

Exactly how a presidential candidate demonstrates he is at least 35 years old and “natural born,” the constitutional requirement New Jersey upholds, Hill didn’t say, but Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin found her arguments persuasive to the point of preventing an expert witness from offering testimony that the online image is a forgery.

Even though the Obama team entered no documentation of the president’s identity into the record – not even that “certified” birth document Obama’s personal lawyer traveled so far to retrieve – Judge Masin managed to find that the president was both born in Hawaii and “natural born.”

Neat, huh? But note the shift in legal tactics. If, in New Jersey, the online birth certificate was “legally irrelevant,” in January’s Georgia eligibility hearing, the president’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski, considered it legally decisive. Jablonski cited “the documents evidencing the birth of President Obama” that are available online to try to quash a subpoena that “commanded” Obama to come to court and bring “any and all birth records” with him (among other documents).

A golden opportunity to show off that certified, hand-couriered birth doc from Hawaii, and be done with it, no? No. When Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi refused to quash the subpoena, Jablonski and Obama ignored it. They just didn’t show up. Not to worry: Flouted subpoena and all, and without any evidence from the Obama team, Judge Malihi found that the president was both born in Hawaii and “natural born,” too.

Amazing how that works, and no matter what the president’s lawyers do – so long as they don’t enter tangible evidence of the president’s identity into the court record.

As for that new birth certificate that came online last April? Since government and media have abdicated their responsibility to help determine whether it’s the real McCoy or a forgery, what else is there to do but wish it a happy first birthday?

MSM – "We the People" and the Constitution?…cover the news!

Editor’s Note – Apparently ‘news’ is a subjective term. If you only watch the MSM, how would you know anything? We at SUA see better coverage from Russia and the Middle East…not on their issues…on ours!

Even a Democrat is suing to have Obama vetted. In Florida:

Another lawsuit has been filed asking state officials to remove Barack Obama’s name from the 2012 election ballot because he has not documented that he is eligible for the office, but this case in Florida has a twist: It was brought by a Democrat.

The case was filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch USA on behalf of Democrat Michael Voeltz, “a registered member of the Democrat Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County, who was an eligible elector for the Florida Primary of Jan. 31, 2012.”

Wake up folks, time to rattle the phones at the MSM. Remember, this is only one of soooo many stories you have not heard yet! Embargo the MSM!

Media blackout continues on Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation

BY LINDA BENTLEY

Sonoran News

‘This will be an historic event in Arizona. Please come and be a part of history. The public is invited to attend. Come early. Learn the truth.’

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (l) and Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo will hold a press conference on Saturday, March 31, at 1 p.m. at the Church on the Green to present their findings and updates regarding Obama’s fraudulent Selective Service System registration form and Certificate of Live Birth.

SURPRISE – While the media blackout continues over the largest story in American history, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is stunned, but undaunted, and said his Cold Case Posse will continue to pursue its investigation into President Barack Obama’s fraudulent Certificate of Live Birth as well as his Selective Service registration, both of which it has deemed forgeries.

Although the March 1 press conference presenting the Cold Case Posse’s preliminary findings was somewhat well-attended, the mainstream media made it abundantly clear they were more interested in whether the investigation was politically motivated than in the evidence presented.

Arpaio finds the media blackout astounding, noting the media otherwise reports “every time I go to the toilet.”

Since Arpaio’s investigation began at the behest of a petition signed by 250 Surprise Tea Partiers last year, the Surprise and Sun City West Tea Parties have teamed up to host a public press conference at 1 p.m. on Saturday, March 31, at the Church on the Green, 19051 R.H. Johnson Blvd., Sun City West, where Arpaio and Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo will present their preliminary findings and updates.

This is the information the national media refuses to report, which Zullo learned during the investigation was because the media had been threatened with FTC investigations and commentators were threatened with their jobs if they dared report on the Cold Case Posse’s findings of forgery and fraud associated with Obama’s documents.

Zullo stated the threats even caused some to quit their positions “over safety concerns for their families.”

A petition will be circulated during the event requesting the Arizona State Legislature, in conjunction with Secretary of State Ken Bennett, take action requiring the Democratic National Committee to provide documentation satisfactory to Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse that validates Obama’s true identity and eligibility before he can be placed on the 2012 ballot in Arizona.

The Tea Parties hosting the event stated, “This will be an historic event in Arizona. Please come and be a part of history. The public is invited to attend. Come early. Learn the truth.”