More Hope n Change, sir? Madam? I know many have seen this but I also know how short memory can be so let's refresh. "Obama says,just take a pill. Priceless."

Obama: Giving Medical Care to Old People is a Waste of Money! Priceless Video!

Written on May 7, 2012 by V2A,

Jane asks the President if her 100 year old mother (now 105) would have gotten a pacemaker under his medical plan. Well now that’s a tough one … that costs a lot and maybe we will have to say, just take a pill. Priceless. I wonder if Jane was excited to Obama’s signature Federal healthcare mandate was passed after hearing that?

So now we are forced to play by the Feds rules on healthcare and they get to decide if we can have treatment or not. The free market says everyone gets medical service if they are willing to pay for it. The ObamaCare market says, if it can save us money you don’t get service. There are going to be a lot people being refused medical treatment.

Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U-dQfb8WQvo

Blowing up right in front of us. What happens when he is proven to be something he is not?

WND EXCLUSIVE

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/obamas-conn-social-security-number-hits-rush/

Obama's Conn. Social Security Number hits Rush

Caller on talk show warns of president's mysterious red flags

Rush Limbaugh, the nation’s top-rated radio talk-show host, briefly brought up the issue of Barack Obama’s potentially criminal use of a Connecticut-based Social Security Number, since the president has never lived in the Constitution State.

While speaking with a caller named Rob about Obama’s alleged deception of citizens, Limbaugh tossed out the question: “What are your thoughts on the fact Obama’s Social Security Number is from Connecticut and he’s never been there?”

Rob responded, “That’s what you call a red flag. A red flag is also, ‘First of all, I don’t need to give you my birth certificate,’ and then finally, ‘I’ll give you a copy,’ Oh, that’s a modern copy … We don’t need copies, we need originals.”

Rob continued, “How about releasing all of your college papers and let’s see what you really thought about America when you were in college? He’s deceiving us.”

“That’s true,” said Limbaugh. “They don’t want [us] to see what those term papers, doctoral theses and so forth actually were about, nor do they want us to see the grades. They don’t want us to see the grades.”

Rob had originally focused on Obama’s birth certificate, which Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio has investigated and believes is a likely forgery.

Find out all there is to know about Obama’s Connecticut Social Security Number in Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the Birth Certificate,” both in hardcover and an additional ebook. And we also have the results of Sheriff Joe’s probe into Obama’s birth certificate!

“He says he was born in the United States,” said Rob. “He has not shown a genuine, authentic, viable, verifiable – in order to authenticate any document, you need to have the original.”

“Now wait just a second,” said Limbaugh. “They did release a birth certificate. Even Donald Trump said he’s satisfied with it.”

“The original? But a copy of anything you can’t be satisfied. You have to actually examine the original. … In order to have an expert authenticate it, you can’t go by a copy. You actually have to go by the ink on the paper, as well as many other things.”

Obama’s Social Security Number was not mentioned again in today’s radio exchange, but its discussion is notable because few members of the national media have treaded near that subject.

President Obama has never explained why he has a Conncecticut-based Social Security Number

As WND reported last August, Obama’s possibly criminal use of a Connecticut-based Social Security Number should become an important issue in his quest for re-election in 2012, said Alan Keyes, a former presidential candidate and ambassador in Ronald Reagan’s administration.

The first three digits of Obama’s SSN are 042. That code falls within the range of numbers for Connecticut, which according to the Social Security Administration has been 040 through 049.

“I believe that when you are confronted with a situation that is filled with these kinds of – what shall we call them – anomalies, disparities, it is reasonable common sense to want to try to get straight answers,” said Keyes.

“If you’re trying to ascertain whether or not somebody ought to be sitting with, as they used to say, their finger on the button of nuclear weapons that can blow up the world, their power extending to decisions that can collapse our economy, their influence extending to areas that can destroy the standards and moral conscience of our people in the eyes of the world, I think you might want to know who they were. It might be a good idea!”

Keyes’ comments came during an online interview with Stan Solomon, as he addressed an issue that has been avoided by the White House and almost completely ignored by national news agencies.

“Let’s say that you’re trying to establish someone’s identity for the purposes of an investigation and you come across a Social Security Number that has that person coming from a state that all the other records of their life indicate they’ve never been to,” Keyes explained.

“I think you would look at that as an anomaly that suggests, among other things, that you better probe a little harder to make sure that the identity that you’re dealing with is a real identity – that it’s not something that’s been in some sense fabricated for some particular purpose, because one of the things you want to do if you’re tracking somebody down is make sure you’re tracking them down, not following some phony figment down to dead ends. That’s common sense.”

Keyes thinks there are many Americans who are aware of this Social Security Number mystery and simply can’t understand why it’s not being addressed.

“Is it incompetence? Is it cowardice?” he asks rhetorically. “Is it just indifference and nonchalance of this elite in the courts and in politics, in the Congress and elsewhere?”

Steve Davis, police chief for Southport, Ind., was a co-host on the program, chiming in, “If anyone believes Barack Obama is gonna make an identity-theft commercial soon, forget it. It’s not gonna happen.”

Keyes then went on a scathing indictment of the current crop of political candidates and their apparent unwillingness to take on the issue.

“You know there’s hardly a one of them had the guts to stand forward and speak truly to the issues that are raised by these anomalies and to address the constitutional issues that are involved in [presidential] eligibility,” he said.

“And that, it seems to me, is a big strike against you because at the end of the day if you’re not willing to respect the requirements of integrity with regard to the most potently damaging office that it is in the gift of the American people to give, then I guess you’re willing to misinform and lie to them about just about anything. Because if you don’t care whether their vote for president – the most important vote they cast – can be cast with integrity, then you don’t care whether they’re represented or not.”

Keyes continued: “I know very few – I don’t care which party label they wear – who have had respect for the people, the respect for the Constitution, the respect for the requirements of real and true representation and choice in our elections to stand forward and deal with these matters forthrightly. They’ve allowed folks like myself and others who are outside the purview of government to kind of just twist in the wind. First they called us names and then they tried to tear us down, and as the facts and other things became evident and more and more people lined up, now they’re just silent and cowering in some dark corner, unable to voice their shame. And I think that’s where they belong, most of them.”

In June 2010, WND’s Washington correspondent, Les Kinsolving, asked former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs specifically why Obama had a Connecticut-based SSN despite not having lived there, but Gibbs completely dodged the question and changed the subject, lamenting about inquiries over Obama’s birth certificate.

“There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” said private investigator Susan Daniels. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”

Just this week, a California lawyer who has been leading the legal effort to probe Obama’s SSN made some progress in Hawaii.

As WND reported, attorney Orly Taitz secured an order from United States District Court Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi demanding representatives of the Hawaii Department of Health appear in federal court Sept. 14 to show why Taitzshould be prevented from seeing whatever original 1961 documents theagency has on record regarding Barack Obama’s birth.

To date, most national media have refused to even mention the question of Obama’s possibly fraudulent Social Security Number.

On April 27, 2011, the day Obama released a scanned image of what he claims to be his long-form birth certificate from Hawaii, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell angrily shouted down California attorney Orly Taitz to prevent her from exposing on national television what she claims is Obama’s Social Security crime:

Also in April of last year, some 11 months after WND began publicizing Obama’s Connecticut-based SSN, Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel briefly addressed the issue while reading his viewer mail on the air.

Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel

Unfortunately for O’Reilly, the news anchor falsely asserted the president’s father lived in Connecticut.

In his viewer email segment April 13, 2011, O’Reilly was asked: “What about Obama having a Connecticut Social Security Number? He never lived there.”

“His father lived in Connecticut for several years,” O’Reilly claimed, adding that “babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents.”

In reality, there is no evidence Barack Obama Sr. ever lived in Connecticut. He left Hawaii in 1962 to study at Harvard in Massachusetts and then returned to his home country of Kenya.

When WND publicized O’Reilly’s major error, the information vanished from the Fox News Channel’s website, as well as BillOReilly.com.

O’Reilly’s full explanation of the “truth” of Obama “myths” is here:

The BirtherReport.com website, responding to complaints by Fox podcast customers that O’Reilly’s Social Security claim, broadcast on Fox, had gone missing from the audio archive, trumpeted the headline: “Busted: Fox News scrubbed Bill O’Reilly’s 4/13 mailbag segment on Obama’s Social Security Number reserved for Connecticut applicants.” The site added, “Not only did Fox News scrub the podcast, they also left out the viewer email about Obama’s Social Security number at O’Reilly’s website. I report, you decide!”

You just cannot make this ****e up! Seriously folks have you heard of this Treaty name "LOST" Seriously LOST? Is this a joke on this nation? Unfortunately NO it isn't! Wake folks the "Liberal Progressives" are signing away the future.

Quote:
*** TREATY FROM HELL...*****

SHARE THE WEALTH/// YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET...CHECK OUT THE LAW OF THE SEAS TREATY ...or LOST!!

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Already signed, it requires that the U.S. give half of our royalties for off-shore oil and gas drilling to an international body of 160 countries that vote on which countries should get the money. How frightening is this? We have only one vote of the 160, and panting nations of the world are lined up for the spoils. Obama will push for its ratification, with the aid of Senator Richard Lugar (RINO, Ind.), after Lugar's primary this fall. (That way the little rat can ratify with relative impunity.)

It also mandates us to share our offshore drilling technologies with other countries for free. What do we get in return? Zip.

THIS IS NO JOKE.... AND THEY ARE GETTING READY TO SIGN IT IN JUNE !!
Call YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND TELL THEM NOT TO RATIFY IT. HELL WE ARE BEING HERDED LIKE SHEEP TO THE EDGE OF THE CLIFF!

United States non-ratification of the UNCLOS

The United States was among the nations that participated in the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which took place from 1973 through 1982 and resulted in the international treaty known as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The United States also participated in the subsequent negotiations of modifications to the treaty from 1990 to 1994. The UNCLOS came into force in 1994. Although the United States now recognizes the UNCLOS as a codification of customary international law, it has not ratified it.

UNCLOS, also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea Treaty, defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans; it establishes guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. To date, 161 countries and the European Union have joined the Convention.

Contents 1 History 1.1 UNCLOS III 1.2 Revision of the UNCLOS 1.3 Latest developments 2 Debate 2.1 Pro-ratification arguments 2.2 Anti-ratification arguments 3 See also 4 References 5 Further reading 5.1 General resources 5.2 Pro-treaty resources 5.3 Anti-treaty resources

History

UNCLOS III

The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) was convened in late 1973 in New York. The most significant issues covered were setting limits, navigation, archipelagic status and transit regimes, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), continental shelf jurisdiction, deep seabed mining, the exploitation regime, protection of the marine environment, scientific research, and settlement of maritime boundary disputes. With more than 160 nations participating, the Conference continued until its final meeting in late 1982, at which time the final act was signed and the Convention was opened for signature. As time went on, it became clear that the United States, among other developed states, was not willing to agree to Part XI of the Convention concerning deep seabed portions and mining of potentially valuable metals.^[1]

The United States objected to Part XI of the Convention on several grounds, arguing that the treaty was unfavorable to American economic and security interests. The U.S. claimed that the provisions of the treaty were not free-market friendly and were designed to favor the economic systems of the Communist states. The U.S. also argued that the International Seabed Authority established by the Convention might become a bloated and expensive bureaucracy, due to a combination of large revenues and insufficient control over what the revenues could be used for.

Revision of the UNCLOS

From 1983 to 1990, the United States accepted all but Part XI as customary international law, while attempting to establish an alternative regime for exploitation of the minerals of the deep seabed. An agreement was made with other seabed mining nations and licenses were granted to four international consortia. Concurrently, the Preparatory Commission was established to prepare for the eventual coming into force of the Convention-recognized claims by applicants, sponsored by signatories of the Convention. Overlaps between the two groups were resolved, but a decline in the demand for minerals from the seabed made the seabed regime significantly less relevant. In addition, the decline of Socialism and the fall of Communism in the late 1980s had removed much of the support for some of the more contentious Part XI provisions.

In 1990, consultations were begun between signatories and non-signatories (including the United States) over the possibility of modifying the Convention to allow the industrialized countries to join the Convention. The resulting 1994 Agreement on Implementation was adopted as a binding international Convention. It mandated that key articles, including those on limitation of seabed production and mandatory technology transfer, would not be applied, that the United States, if it became a member, would be guaranteed a seat on the Council of the International Seabed Authority, and finally, that voting would be done in groups, with each group able to block decisions on substantive matters. The 1994 Agreement also established a Finance Committee that would originate the financial decisions of the Authority, to which the largest donors would automatically be members and in which decisions would be made by consensus.

Thus, modifications to that provision were negotiated, and an amending agreement was finalized in July 1994. The U.S. signed the Agreement in 1994 and now recognizes the Convention as general international law, but has not ratified it at this time. UNCLOS entered into force in November 1994 with the requisite sixty ratifications.^[1]

Latest developments

On April 24, 2004 Jeane Kirkpatrick (Reagan Administration United Nations Ambassador 1981-1985), testified against United States ratification of the treaty before the Senate Armed Services Committee, in which she argued that "Viewed from the perspective of U.S. interests and Reagan Administration principles, it was a bad bargain," and that "its ratification will diminish our capacity for self-government, including, ultimately, our capacity for self-defense." ^[2]

On April 11, 2006, the 5-Member UNCLOS Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal, presided over by H.E. Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, rendered after two years of international judicial proceedings, the landmark Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, which resolved the maritime boundary delimitation (in the East, Central and West sectors) to satisfaction of both Parties and committed Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago to resolve their fisheries dispute by means of concluding a new Fisheries Agreement.

On May 15, 2007, United States President George W. Bush announced that he had urged the Senate to approve the UNCLOS.^[3]

On October 31, 2007, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to send the treaty to the full U.S. Senate for a vote.^[4]

On September 20, 2007, an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under UNCLOS issued its decision on a longstanding maritime boundary dispute between Guyana and Suriname, which contained a ruling blaming both nations for violating treaty obligations.^[5]

On January 13, 2009, speaking at her Senate confirmation hearing as nominee for United States Secretary of State, Senator Hillary Clinton said that ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty would be a priority for her.^[6]

Debate

In the United States there has been vigorous debate over the ratification of the treaty, with criticism coming mainly from political conservatives who consider involvement in some international organizations and treaties as detrimental to U.S. national interests. A group of Republican senators, led by Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, has blocked American ratification of the Convention, claiming that it would impinge on U.S. sovereignty. Other commentators have argued that although the Bush administration, the Pentagon and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee favored ratification,^[7] other US congressional committees possessing oversight jurisdiction have yet to undertake an open, transparent and substantive public review of this most complex treaty's significant environmental regulatory and judicial enforcement provisions, their relationship to the provisions of other multilateral environmental treaties, and the need to amend US federal environmental, wildlife, chemicals and offshore drilling laws and/or regulations in order to implement the international legal obligations the US would assume upon ratification of the UNCLOS.^[8] It is arguable whether such a review would have revealed the relationship between US UNCLOS accession efforts, environmental legislation previously proposed by members of the 111th Congress and oceans policies adopted by the Obama administration.^[9]

Pro-ratification arguments

• The environment: Oceans cover over 70% of the Earth. In the U.S., there are laws to keep marine resources available for future generations. UNCLOS sets a legally binding international standard which aims to protect the marine wildlife and environment.

• National security: The U.S. military, which relies heavily on its ability to freely navigate on and fly over the sea, has been a strong advocate of UNCLOS. In the absence of treaty law, the US relies on customary law that can change as states' practices change. Also, under this customary law, the Pentagon claims that countries often make unreasonable and irresponsible claims on marine territory that frustrate U.S. military action. The U.S. has tried to work around these claims, but without a legal framework to support them, the Pentagon believes it risks compromising its intelligence and military operations at sea.

• International diplomacy and peaceful dispute resolution: The Convention offers a peaceful way to resolve territorial and natural resource disputes through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), based on agreements to which signatory parties have already committed. In contrast, without ratification, the US has no peaceful recourse if another non-signatory party decides to close its straits to navigation except through the Permanent Court of Arbitration which was established in 1902 to allow States to settle disputes in a manner other than war.

• It helps American businesses: Each country has exclusive rights to manage the resources in areas near its coast. Under the terms of UNCLOS, which maps out the boundaries of these areas, the American zone is larger than that of any other country in the world. The size of this zone is 3.36 million square miles — bigger than the lower 48 states combined. In addition, under UNCLOS, coastal states can exercise sovereign rights over natural resources within the extended continental shelf area beyond this territory. It would also give US companies an opportunity to apply for licenses with the ISA, which manages claims to resources in the deep seabed, an area over which no country has sovereign rights.

Anti-ratification arguments

• National sovereignty: The treaty creates the International Seabed Authority (ISA) with its own dispute resolution tribunal. However, should the U.S. stop its current compliance with the U.S.-negotiated laws of the Convention, the U.S. could not be taken to the Law of the Sea Tribunal since the U.S. has indicated that it would choose binding arbitration rather than availing itself of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea.

• The environment: Some of the Convention's conservation provisions would provide new avenues for non-U.S. environmental organizations to affect domestic U.S. environmental policies by pursuing legal action in both US and international courts.^[10] In addition, requirements that nations either harvest their entire allowable catch in certain areas or give the surplus to other nations could result in mandated overfishing.^[11]

• Taxation: The license fees and taxes levied on economic activities in the deep seabed area by the ISA would be, in effect, a form of 'taxation without representation'. Citizens would be indirectly taxed through business and governmental activities in the area.

• Economics: Businesses can already exploit resources from the international area; ratifying the treaty would force them to buy licenses for that right and pay taxes on the proceeds.

• Navigation rights not threatened: One of the treaty's main selling points, legally recognized navigation rights on, over, and under straits, is unnecessary because these rights are not currently threatened by law or by any military capable of opposing the U.S.

• Harm to de-militarizing operations: The treaty would require all undersea ocean vessels, including submarines used for mine detection to protect ships exercising the right of innocent passage, to navigate on the surface in territorial waters to be entitled to the right of innocent passage. The operative language is identical to that contained in the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone to which the U.S. is already a party.^[10]

• Limited control over funding: The U.S. would have no direct control over how the money is used.

• Eminent domain: The treaty applies eminent domain to intellectual property giving the UN the power to seize technology and share it with potentially enemy states.

• Lack of need: The U.S. already honors almost all the provisions of the treaty. For practical purposes, there is no pressing need to ratify it that outweighs the negatives of the remaining provisions.

324,000 Women Dropped Out of Labor Force in Last Two Months--As Number of Women Not in Labor Force Hits Historic High

By Terence P. Jeffrey

May 9, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - 324,000 women dropped out of the nation’s civilian labor force in March and April as the number of women not in the labor force hit an all-time historical high of 53,321,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The civilian labor force consists of all people in the United States 16 years or older who are not in the military, a prison, or another institution such as a nursing home or mental hospital and who either have a job or are unemployed but have actively sought work in the previous four weeks and are currently available to work.

The civilian labor force is a subset of what BLS calls the civilian noninstitutional population, which includes all people in the country 16 or older who are not in the military, a prison, or another institution such as a nursing home or mental hospital. cont http://cnsnews.com/news/article/324000-women-dropped-out-labor-force-last-two-months-number-women-not-labor-force-hits

And who said there was no mid week news?

Obama: Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines Are 'Fighting on My Behalf'

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama said on Wednesday that members of the U.S. military are "fighting on my behalf."

Obama used the expression while explaining to ABC News that he really does support same-sex marriage.

"When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," said Obama. to see rest with video go here... http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-soldiers-sailors-airmen-marines-are-fighting-my-behalf