Forgerygate: Ignoring Arpaio’s report is a scandal in itself
With the exception of The Washington Times, however, no major U.S. media outlet reported this bombshell story. The liberal press corps is desperately trying to suppress any discussion of Forgerygate — potentially one of the biggest scandals in American history. The media class is betraying its fundamental mission to pursue the truth.
“Based on all of the evidence presented and investigated, I cannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic,” Sheriff Arpaio said. “My investigators believe that the long-form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in paper format as claimed by the White House.”
The Washington Times story, written by Stephen Dinan, points out that Mr. Arpaio has called for Congress to investigate the matter. Think about this: A high-profile sheriff orders a team of former law enforcement officials to examine whether the president is truly a natural born citizen and that he has the constitutional and legal right to occupy the White House. Their official report is that Mr. Obama’s documents are shoddy and he likely engaged in deliberate fraud. And yet, most of the American press corps doesn’t believe this is an important news story? The liberal media has become rotten to the core.
Ironically, the foreign press reported widely on the story. For example, Pravda — that’s right, the former official organ of the Soviet Communist Party — did an extensive analysis of Mr. Arpaio’s findings. The article by Dianna Cotter asks the obvious question: What are U.S. journalists afraid of?
The answer is that the issue strikes at the heart of Mr. Obama’s administration: If his presidency is illegal, then all of his accomplishments — the stimulus, Obamacare, the contraceptive mandate, the government takeover of the auto sector and appointments to the Supreme Court — are illegitimate as well. The scandal would trigger a constitutional crisis.
Following Mr. Obama’s surprise news conference last year, when he unveiled the long-form certificate, the media insisted that the controversy was settled once and for all. The “birthers” supposedly had been silenced. Mr. Arpaio’s report, however, changes that. The issue has been resuscitated — except in the eyes of the mainstream media.
A prominent sheriff says he has damning evidence that Mr. Obama probably lied to the public. The international media believes it’s a big deal; many Americans agree. They want to get to the bottom of it. Yet, the liberal hacks at the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC can do nothing more than yawn.
Contrast this with their treatment of President George W. Bush. Throughout the Bush years it was open season: routine comparisons to Adolf Hitler, charges of being a war criminal, calls for impeachment, trumped-up scandals like the Valerie Plame affair, investigations into the partying habits of his teenage daughters, stories about Mr. Bush’s drinking as a younger man, his National Guard service and mediocre college grades — journalists left no stone unturned, no questions unanswered, no topic was beyond the pale.
Not with Mr. Obama. In fact, the opposite is true: Almost everything pertinent is not to be touched. He is the least-vetted president in modern memory. During the 2008 campaign, the liberal media deliberately propped up Mr. Obama. They suppressed vital information about his radical past and deep ties to virulent revolutionary leftists — the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Derrick Bell, Saul Alinsky and Edward Said. For all of their differences, they share one value in common: hatred for traditional America.
To this day, Mr. Obama’s college transcripts, undergraduate thesis and health records remain sealed. We know little about his years in Indonesia as a young boy; his overseas trips to countries like Pakistan in the 1980s; his relationship with his mother and Muslim stepfather; and his time spent as a “community organizer” in Chicago. In short, the president’s past is clouded in mystery. This is not conspiracy-mongering, but objective fact. Americans have a right to know who their commander-in-chief really is. Instead, the media wants to bury any debate or inquiry into Mr. Obama’s background.
Whether you believe Mr. Obama’s long-form birth certificate is a forgery or not, Mr. Arpaio should be applauded. He has done our nation a huge service. He is asking the press corps to look into an issue of the highest importance: Has the president committed a monstrous hoax and fraud upon the American people? In particular, the sheriff’s team has identified a supposed “person of interest” who they believe played a pivotal role in Forgerygate. The media must follow up on the story. If it is false, then Mr. Arpaio will be rightly humiliated and publicly discredited. But if — and I stress if — it is true, then the press will have unearthed a scandal that will shake this country to its very foundations. Either way, it’s time the media did their job and stop acting like Mr. Obama’s poodles.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.
Missouri Man Is First Private Business Owner to Sue HHS Over Contraception Mandate
The lawsuit, filed by the American Center for Law and Justice, requests a permanent injunction prohibiting the HHS from requiring those who have religious objections to abide by the mandate, which requires employers to purchase health insurance for their employees that includes coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.
The lawsuit marks the first legal challenge to the HHS mandate from a private business owner and his company. Until now, only religious organizations or institutions have brought lawsuits challenging the mandate.
Frank R. O’Brien, a Catholic, is the chairman of St.-Louis-based O’Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC, which operates a number of businesses that explore, mine, and process refractory and ceramic raw materials.
O’Brien says his religious beliefs provide the framework for the operation of his businesses, which employ 87 people. The company website states the OIH mission “is to make our labor a pleasing offering to the Lord while enriching our families and society.”
A statement of the company’s values begins with the following: “Integrity. Our conduct is guided by the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. We will not discriminate based on anyone’s personal belief system.”
“The HHS mandate would require business people like our client to leave their religious beliefs at home every day as a condition of doing business in our society,” said ACLJ’s Francis J. Manion, who is representing O’Brien. “The HHS mandate tells people like Frank O’Brien that they have to choose between conducting their business in a manner consistent with their moral values, or conducting their business in a manner consistent with the government’s values. The constitution does not allow the government to impose such a choice.”
The lawsuit contends that the HHS mandate “imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion by coercing Plaintiffs to choose between conducting their business in accordance with their religious beliefs or paying substantial penalties to the government.” Manion rejects criticism that opposition to the mandate somehow prohibits others from obtaining the insurance coverage that suits them: “O’Brien and other people of faith aren’t looking to stand in the way of anybody’s access to anything,” said Manion. “They just don’t want the government forcing them to pay for services that go against their sincerely-held beliefs.”
Manion noted that the State of Missouri has its own ‘contraceptives mandate,’ but it allows exemptions for those with religious objections: “There is no good reason why the federal government couldn’t — and shouldn’t – do the same. The Constitution, in fact, demands nothing less,” Manion said.
The lawsuit, posted here, asks the court to declare that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The lawsuit names as defendants, the Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Sebelius; the Department of the Treasury and Secretary Geithner; and the Department of Labor and Secretary Solis.
SD Will Be 15th State to Cut Out Ben Nelson’s Abortion Mandates Under ObamaCare…
South Dakota Becomes 15th to Cut Abortion in Obamacare
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 3/15/12 1:40 PM
South Dakota has become the fifteenth state to cut abortion funding in the controversial Obamacare health care legislation that requires states to set up health insurance exchanges and Americans to purchase health insurance.
Governor Dennis Daugaard has signed into law HB 1185, a bill sponsored by state representative Jon Hansen and drafted from an Americans United for Life model bill on the subject. With the new law, South Dakota joins Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia that have all opted out of having abortion covered in their federally-mandated insurance plans.
“This is yet another proof that Americans are not interested in subsidizing abortion with their own money,” stated Daniel McConchie, Vice President of Government Affairs for Americans United for Life.
He told LifeNews, “South Dakota won’t be the last state to act on this. At least seven other states have similar bills pending right now. Other states are looking to include such a provision as an amendment to a bill that establishes the state exchanges. Passing a bill like this is the only way a state can prevent their citizens from being forced to subsidize abortion.”
The signing of the bill comes as the Obama Administration has taken another step in what amounts to a four-year plan to make abortion-covering health insurance, subsidized by the federal government, commonly available in the United States.
The latest action came on March 12, when the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a lengthy regulation that spells out how some of the components of the massive 2010 Obama health care law (“ObamaCare”) will be implemented.
The new rule — consuming 644 pages, including HHS’s commentary — is concerned mainly with the “exchanges,” which are the government-operated health insurance markets that must be established in every state by January 1, 2014. While states may retain responsibility for administering the exchanges, they must do so according to the detailed blueprints provided in the federal law and in federal regulations, including the new rule.
Nestled within the “individual mandate” in the Obamacare act — that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government — approved insurance or pay a penalty — is an “abortion premium mandate.” This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion. As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.
The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a final ruleregarding establishment of the state health care exchanges required under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
As a knowledgeable pro-life source on Capitol Hill informed LifeNews, as authorized by Obamacare, “The final rule provides for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion” and the change to longstanding law prohibiting virtually all direct taxpayer funding of abortions (the Hyde Amendment) is accomplished through an accounting arrangement described in the Affordable Care Act and reiterated in the final rule issued today.
“To comply with the accounting requirement, plans will collect a $1 abortion surcharge from each premium payer,” the pro-life source informed LifeNews. “The enrollee will make two payments, $1 per month for abortion and another payment for the rest of the services covered. As described in the rule, the surcharge can only be disclosed to the enrollee at the time of enrollment. Furthermore, insurance plans may only advertise the total cost of the premiums without disclosing that enrollees will be charged a $1 per month fee to pay directly subsidize abortions.”
The pro-life advocate told LifeNews that the final HHS rule mentions, but does not address concerns about abortion coverage in “multi-state” plans administered by the Federal Government’s Office of Personell Management (OPM).
“There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act to prevent some OPM (government administered) plans from covering elective abortion, and questions remain about whether OPM multi-state plans will include elective abortion,” the pro-life source said. “If such plans do include abortion, there are concerns that the abortion coverage will even be offered in states that have prohibited abortion coverage in their state exchanges.”
The final rule indicates: “Specific standards for multi-state plans will be described in future rulemaking published by OPM…”