The Obama Hustle

As reported by “The Obama Hustle” : and at World Net Daily article : Tax Fraud Suspected In Obama Land Deal it is now known that Barack H Obama has possibly committed real estate and tax fraud as it pertains to the house that he does not own in Chicago, located at 5046 S Greenwood Ave., Chicago, IL 60615.

The following graphic images will illustrate the point that the Obama’s own nothing.  It has also been stated that the Obama’s own/started the trust that owns 5046 S Greenwood Ave and again the answer to that question is no.  The Northern Trust Co., Trust # 10209 which is a  Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT ) is the actual owner of 5046 S Greenwood Ave.

Fig 1.  Source: The Cook County Recorder of Deeds

Name:  NORTHERN TRUST CO TR Dates:  Any To
 Role:  Grantor Document Type:  Any

View original post 717 more words

Sifting Reality

(Daily Mail) — Nebraska’s new abortion law forced one woman  to give birth to her terminally ill, premature baby who she then helplessly held  dying in her arms.


With this heartbreaking information [that their baby would not survive] the couple decided to have an abortion to avoid the baby going through any pain.

However a new law in Nebraska, the  only one  of its kind in America, bars abortion at 20 weeks except in  specific situations  when the mother’s life is in immediate danger.

The Deavers did not qualify and were not  allowed to have an abortion.  Instead they were sent home where they had to wait  for ten days knowing  that when their baby arrived she had no chance of  surviving.

After the days of waiting Deaver gave birth  to Elizabeth and held her as she  struggled for breath and died fifteen minutes  later.


Danielle Deaver,34, …

View original post 495 more words

Get Your Free Obama Phone

Get Your Free Obama Phone.

If you, or members in your household are, receiving the following benefits you automatically qualify for the Lifeline program. Those interested in the program must have an income of less than 135% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. (For example in the 48 Contiguous States and D.C the income level is $22,350 per year for a family of four.)

■Food Stamps or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
■Supplemental Security Income – commonly known as SSI
■Health Benefit Coverage under Child Health Insurance Plan (CHIP)
■The National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program.
■Low-Income Energy Assistance Program – LIHEAP
■Federal Public Housing Assistance ( Section 8 )
■If you are a low-income Eligible Resident of Tribal Lands
■Temporary Assistance to Needy Families – TANF

A Conservative American Vet's Point of View

Yup, here it is.  People who “qualify” will get free cell phones AND free minutes and all us tax payers get to pay for it……  Gee, just doesn’t sound right to me.  Where does it say everyone has a right to a phone, let alone a cell phone. I thought that if you wanted to have those types things, you had to pay for them.  So I guess this Dem Congress and this Socialist/Marxist President thinks that you and me must pay for those services for those who cannot (or will not) pay for it.  Here are the qualifications required:

The process to qualify for Lifeline Service depends on the State you live in. In general, you may qualify if…

You already participate in other State or Federal assistance program such as Federal Public Housing Assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid.


Your total household income is at or below of…

View original post 109 more words

Obama Buying The Vote: Using The Poor, Using The Minorities

This is sad!

Barrack Hussein Obama is really reaching out to “ALL” Americans, ain’t he?

Knox v. SEIU: An Important Free Speech Victory
Knox v. SEIU: An Important Free Speech Victory
Posted by Trevor Burrus

It may not get the attention of the impending Obamacare decision, but today’s Court’s decision in Knox v. SEIU is an important and somewhat unexpected victory for the First Amendment.

In 2005, the SEIU initiated a mid-year campaign against two California ballot measures, one that would cap state spending and another that would restrict the use of union dues for political purposes. In states such as California that do not have “right to work” laws, unions are allowed to take dues from non-union workers to finance collective-bargaining activities that, arguably, benefit all employees. Since 1977, however, unions have not been allowed to take dues from non-union members to pay for pure political advocacy without adequate protections for possible dissenters. In order to distinguish political money from collective-bargaining money, the Supreme Court requires that a “Hudson notice” be given to all non-union workers. This notice gives non-members the opportunity to challenge political expenditures.

The narrowest question in Knox was whether the notice given by the SEIU Local 100 complied with the Supreme Court’s requirements. There was a broader question, however, pushed by Cato in our brief (joining the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and the Mountain States Legal Foundation), on whether only having the ability to “opt-out” of political spending (rather than to “opt-in”) violates the First Amendment (Tim Sandefur of PLF offers his thoughts here). Opting-out presumes that the non-members want to engage in the union’s political advocacy, and this seems to place the burden on free speech on the wrong party.

In a decision that rings with a chastising tone directed at the union, Justice Samuel Alito affirmed that opting-out can be a First Amendment violation. In his words: “Our cases have tolerated a substantial impingement on First Amendment rights by allowing unions to impose an opt-out requirement at all.” Justice Alito also adopts our argument that balancing the rights of individuals with the “rights” of unions is the wrong way to look at the issue. Unions have long argued that complying with administrative requirements to give notice to non-union members impinges on their ability to be effective political advocates. Moreover, the unions argue, sometimes it is not possible to accurately determine what percentage of their funds will be used for political advocacy and “there is at least a risk that, at the end of the year, unconsenting nonmembers will have paid either too much or too little.” “Which side should bear the risk?” asks Justice Alito. “The answer is obvious: the side whose constitutional rights are not at stake.”

In this case, the First Amendment violation was particularly troubling because the union exacted money from nonmembers in order to defeat a California proposition that would have bolstered nonmembers rights. “If Proposition 75 had passed,” writes Alito, “nonmembers would have been exempt from paying for SEIU’s extensive political projects unless they affirmatively consented. Thus the effect of the SEIU’s procedure was to force many nonmembers to subsidize a political effort designed to restrict their own rights.”

Although the decision does not go so far as to require that unions must always use an opt-in procedure when extracting political war-chest money from nonmembers, it takes a very strong step in that direction, as Justice Stephen Breyer argues in dissent. Opting-in will only be required for such “special assessments” as in this case or for a general “dues increase.”

But Justice Breyer is correct that the majority opinion offers few reasons why opting-in should not be required for all union political dues taken from nonmembers, not just special assessments. In making the strong argument that forced speech without affirmative consent is a First Amendment evil, Justice Alito leaves little room for even the existing opt-out system. Alito and the justices who joined his opinion seem very friendly to the idea that all union political dues for nonmembers require opt-in procedures. Hopefully that case will hit the Court soon. For now, congratulations to Jim Young and National Right to Work Legal Foundation on an important victory.

%d bloggers like this: