Friday, June 29, 2012

VICTORY: COURT DECISION ON ARIZONA'S CONTROVERSIAL IMMIGRATION LAW SB1070

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV


VICTORY: COURT DECISION ON ARIZONA'S CONTROVERSIAL IMMIGRATION LAW SB1070

By Former Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson
June 30, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
Many people are unhappy about the June 25th Court decision on Arizona's controversial immigration law (SB1070) and the fact that the Court struck down three out of the four provisions of the bill that had been challenged. Now, if this were a game of tennis or baseball, losing three out of four would be a near defeat. But the ruling on SB1070 is not about sports, and a mere count of the provisions the court affirmed or struck down is not a measure of the success or failure of SB1070. The court's ruling was, in fact, a great victory. There is no cause for mourning over SB1070.
First, it must be understood that SB1070 was a long, complex piece of legislation that ran for 19 pages and involved 10 sections of statute, some of which had multiple provisions in subsections. Some very important sections of SB1070 were never challenged, such as the sections on human smuggling and employee sanctions. Attempts were made early on to challenge Section 2 (a prohibition against "sanctuary cities") and Section 5(a) (streetside solicitation by day workers). But these attempts to thwart SB1070 were fended off in early court proceedings before the suit arrived at the Supreme Court. So, of the 10 sections to the bill, a full six of them, many with multiple provisions, were either in effect from the start or had been exonerated by the time the challenge arrived at the doorsteps of the Supreme Court. That means that 60 percent of SB1070 had already been cleared before June 25. What remained for review by the Supreme Court were all of Sections 3 and 6, and a single piece each of Sections 2 and 5. Section 2(b) was upheld in the June 25th ruling, so comes off the table (70 percent of SB1070's 10 sections now prevailing.). That leaves three items.
Sections 3 and 6 each address a single provision of law, and each were struck down by the Court. But Section 3 isn't absolutely required in order for the states to arrest and detain illegal immigrants; it was just an additional tool. Nice to have, but not a key provision of SB1070. Section 6 was somewhat redundant because states already have authority for that provision and can work around the court's decision. So, losing Sections 3 and 6 is not a fatal blow to SB1070.
Lastly, Section 5 had seven different provisions in it, but only one was challenged. The Court struck it down, so a mere one-seventh of Section 5 was invalidated by the June 25th ruling, while the remaining six-sevenths stood. So, in the end, three small provisions that were not terribly crucial were struck down by the court. In contrast, the most significant provision of SB1070, the one which allows police officers making traffic stops to check for residency status, was upheld. This provision was the heart of SB1070. It was by far the most important part of the bill, the most important item under judicial review, and the one to which the Justices gave the most attention during oral arguments. And that section was upheld unanimously by all eight Justices.
Despite SB1070's near perfect score after two years of attacks by the Left, and despite the puny success of the opponents who were so enraged about the passage of the bill, the media blathered incoherently the day of the decision about how the court "gutted" the bill and overturned nearly all of it. It's hard to know whether such trash reporting merely reflects the usual incompetence of the mainstream media or is an overt attempt to spin the story to cover up a very public defeat of the radical Left. The anti-American Hispanic groups, the Chamber of Commerce, and various other open borders advocates spent two years and a lot of ink trying to kill SB1070 without success. Considering that the lawsuit against SB1070 was brought by the current administration in Washington, then the administration shares with its Leftist friends the sting of defeat in the face of the court's ruling. Our current leaders forsook the Constitution long ago. The court ruling on SB1070 is a stern reminder to them that even kings (and presidents) are not above the rule of law. 
CLICK BELOW TO READ MORE

OBAMA LYING ABOUT HEALTHCARE COSTS

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR/TV


Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas

A physician-congressman – with three decades of experience working inside the nation’s health-care system – is warning that the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare should serve as a wake-up that inspires Americans to rise up and take control of their own destiny.
“It was disturbing that we made the case to Justice Kennedy, who embraced the concept of limited government, only to have it overshadowed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who envisioned the entire issue simply of one over the ability to tax,” Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, told WND.
He added, “The good news for liberty is the inability of Congress to exceed its authority under the Commerce Clause was affirmed. The bad news for liberty is the taxing power of Congress has now been accelerated by this Court.”
In a 5-4 split decision this week, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a tax and, thus, legal under the U.S. Constitution.
Now that the Supreme Court has approved Obamacare, find out what’s really in the bill!
Burgess has been a medical doctor for more than 30 years. As such, he provides a unique outlook on the ruling both from a lawmaker’s perspective and as a member of the health-care field.
He is author of “Doctor in the House,” a book that explains what needs to be done to fix Obamacare and America’s health-care system.
Now that the Supreme Court has presented its ruling, he said the need to act is more urgent than ever.
“For all the harm Roberts did to us yesterday, he did us a favor by clearly delineating if you don’t like this you have a remedy at the ballot box not the courthouse,” Burgess said. “He was saying to politicians, don’t expect me to rescue you if you make a bad political decision when you cast your vote. You need to pay attention to what you voted for.”
Roberts, drafting the majority opinion, wrote, “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
Based on Robert’s admonition, House Republicans have announced that they are planning to hold a vote to repeal Obamacare on July 11.
President Obama has tried to deflect attempts to repeal portions of his “crown jewel” legislation by declaring, “It’s time for us to move forward.”
He continued to make promises to the American people.
Because this law has a direct impact on so many Americans, I want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you,” Obama said. “If you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance – this law will only make it more secure and more affordable.”
However, Burgess takes issue with Obama’s statements. He said, contrary to the president’s claims, costs have not gone down, but have actually increased by approximately $2,000 for a family premium under Obamacare.
Burgess warned that Obamacare, by its very nature, will increase costs. He said the real solution for controlling costs is common-sense, market-based solutions.
Burgess is a proponent of catastrophic coverage and health-care savings accounts. He explained that medical issues typically come in three categories: 1) small and manageable, such as Band-Aids and aspirin, 2) medium range, such as orthodontic visits or maternity issues and 3) unexpected issues, such as accidents or disease.
He said the solution for all of these categories is simple and need not involve government.
For the first two categories, health-savings accounts would allow a person to contribute to a personal fund to pay for these expenses, he explained.
Burgess added that he would also like to see “health-borrowing accounts” made available to people.
“These would be outside the normal credit score criteria and would allow a person to borrow for medical expenses and pay it off over time,” he said.
Burgess noted that there is no question these reforms would lower costs and pointed to current real-world examples to prove his point.
“Take a look at orthodontic services as well as cosmetic and LASIK surgery,” he said. “In each of these areas the cost is coming down and the marketplace responds to competition. We should embrace that. Those providing these types of services often work with patients to provide them with payment plans and compete with others in their field.”
However, Burgess argued that Obamacare drives costs up by forcing doctors out of private practices and into hospitals.
“Cardiologists and other doctors are closing their private practices and moving to hospitals because, under Obamacare, the hospital reimbursement rate under Medicaid and Medicare is so much higher for them then if they remain in private practice. The hospital is then seeing an increase in their bottom line,” he lamented. “We are going in the wrong direction, the prices are not coming down they are going up.”
During his own experience running a private practice with several physicians, Burgess said he had to hire two full-time employees just to file insurance paperwork.
“There are multiple codes for a sprained ankle,” he explained. “That is simply an attempt by someone outside the practice of medicine attempting to exert control over us and it drives us crazy.”
Burgess said ultimately the health-care solutions need to be physician led, rather than allowing politicians to interfere with care.
Obama has touted a variety of purportedly “free” services Americans are now able to receive from insurance companies and doctors.
“They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms – a provision that’s already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance,” he said.
But Burgess said, as a member of the health-care profession he is outraged over attempts to portray these services as free.
“There is no free cost here,” he said. “When the president talks about free screenings and free tests, that is not right. There is nothing free in medicine. The cost will be borne by somebody somewhere in the system.”
Burgess even went so far as to point the finger at Obama for “lying” about his legislation to get votes.
“Stop talking about free stuff for people,” he said. “That sounds as if you are pandering, because you are. But more to the point, you are lying because nothing is free.”
Finally, Burgess said the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision proves the 2012 election is exceedingly important.
“The man on the street needs to look at this decision,” he said. “They’ve got a big election coming up, and they need to examine these facts and incorporate other facts that are important to them. They then have a big choice to make, which has become even more apparent than it was two weeks ago.”
Burgess added, “There is a bright line between the philosophical differences of the two parties, and even the presidential candidates and people need to make their choices accordingly.”

Nancy Pelosi Botches Brian Terry's Name While Addressing Congress on Holder Contempt Charges

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

In this C-SPAN footage of the House floor during the contempt vote against Attorney General Eric Holder, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) expresses her sadness over the death of border patrol agent “Brian Tay-Tay-Terry.” Click the picture to see exactly how sad Nancy Pelosi was. Share this you’re your friends if you agree this shows just exactly how on top of this investigation the Minority Leader is!

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare despite Supreme Court ruling

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

The Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's health care law on Thursday, but Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a possible Republican vice presidential contender who has refused to establish a federally mandated health care exchange in his state, said Friday that he will continue to ignore it.
"We're not going to start implementing Obamacare," Jindal said during a conference call with Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. "We're committed to working to elect Gov. Romney to repeal Obamacare."
Under the Affordable Care Act, states must set up a health insurance exchange program by Jan. 1, 2014, and will receive grants from the federal government to implement it. Several Republican governors, including both Jindal and McDonnell, have put off setting up the exchanges in the hope that the law would be repealed or struck down by the court. Now that the law has been upheld, Jindal said he won't change course and is looking to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to lead the repeal effort if he takes office in 2013.
"Here in Louisiana we have not applied for the grants, we have not accepted many of these dollars, we're not implementing the exchanges," Jindal said. "We don't think it makes any sense to implement Obamacare in Louisiana. We're going to do what we can to fight it."
Despite the court ruling, there is still a chance that Republicans in Congress can repeal much of the law next year even if they don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Because Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the mandate to purchase health insurance—one of the key provisions of the law—was a tax, Republicans can use a procedure called "budget reconciliation" to pass a repeal bill that requires only a simple majority to pass. But this scenario relies on the Republicans' ability to win the White House, keep the majority in the House and gain enough seats in the Senate.
On the same conference call on Friday, McDonnell, also considered a contender to become Romney's running mate, said he would "evaluate" his options in Virginia now that the court has upheld the law.
"We don't even know exactly what that federal exchange would look like, so there's still some uncertainty at this point as to what the right course is, and in the next days and weeks we're going to be evaluating the case as well as the options for Virginia," McDonnell said. "I think each state is going to have to weigh that and look at the time frame to determine what to do. But I agree absolutely that the priority right now is to elect a new president and a new Senate so this law can be repealed."
McDonnell, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association, added that he has not yet polled fellow state executives in the GOP about how they plan to proceed after the ruling, but said that most are looking to the election in November for guidance.

‘It’s Constitutional, B**ches:‘ Political Fallout From SCOTUS Ruling Examined by ’Real News’

Posted by bh
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV GBTV REAL NEWS

We knew that no matter how the Supreme Court ruled on ObamaCare Thursday, each side would likely use the decision as a rallying call for their base this November. But with the support for ObamaCare coming from Chief Justice John Roberts rather than the often swing voting Justice Anthony Kennedy, a fly may be in the ointment of the Obama campaign team’s plan to run against a partisan, mostly conservative court. With polls showing the race tight and additional polls showing most Americans wanted this law overturned – might this be an opportunity for Romney?
Democrats in Washington D.C. may also be doing themselves a disservice with instances of “spiking the football” for the affirmation of their unpopular law– Nancy Pelosi throwing a party and the DNC executive director tweeting “It’s Constitutional. Bitches” may rub some people the wrong way.
Furthermore, Roberts’ defense of the mandate as a taxing power rather than constitutional under the Commerce Clause, challenges claims made by the president that the healthcare law “isn’t a tax.”
On “Real News” Thursday the panel discussed how these developments will play out in the general election campaign:

~~~~

Woman Arrested for Holding Sign Warning Drivers of Speed Trap

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

Houston Woman Warns Other Drivers of Speed Trap Ahead and Is Arrested for Allegedly Standing in the Street
Natalie Plummer's speed trap sign. (Image: ABC screenshot)
Radar detectors to warn drivers of speed traps may be illegal, but what of a person physically warning those passing by of an officer pulling drivers over for going too fast? A Texas woman was doing just this, holding up a sign warning those passing down the road of an upcoming speed trap until she got arrested.
The local ABC affiliate reports Natalie Plummer of Houston saying she felt like a police officer was “just pulling random cars over” for alleged speeding last week, so she pulled her own bike over and made a quick sign that she used to tell drivers of the situation ahead. She said that she felt like she was “simply warning citizens.”
Plummer claims that she was on the sidewalk the whole time holding the sign, but she was soon approached by an officer who arrested her for standing in the street. She also said the officer claimed she was being taken to jail for obstructing justice, which comes with a few years of automatic jail time if found guilty.
Watch the report with some footage from Plummer showing the officer pulling over vehicles:


~~~ 
ABC reports Plummer instead only received a misdemeanor for standing in the road. She spent 12 hours in jail.
Although the police department could not speak in detail about the incident, ABC notes a spokesperson saying Plummer standing in the road was “a danger to herself and others” and “…the sum total of which was is an arrestable offense.” Police also said Plummer resisted arrest.
Plummer believes that because the officer could not actually arrest her for warning speeders that they made something up to take her in.

NEW CARTOONS PAGE JUNE 29 ABOVE ON PAGES

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

CARTOONS FROM THE JUNE 29 CARTOON PAGE ABOVE

ROBERT'S UNDER INFLUENCE OF MIND ALTERING DRUGS ??

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR/TV


Talk radio host Michael Savage told his listeners today that the use of mind-altering drugs to treat seizures could explain why Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts upheld Obamacare today along with four liberal colleagues.
Roberts shocked most analysts by siding with Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor in a 5-4 decision upholding the lynchpin provision of the president’s signature legislation, the so-called individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act.

Savage told his “Savage Nation” listeners that on the way to the studio for his program tonight he visited a world famous neurologist he knows, and they talked about Obamacare.
The physician urged Savage to check out Roberts’ history with epilepsy, referring him to a New York Times report in August 2007. The article said that after Roberts suffered a seizure, doctors were weighing whether to treat him with powerful drugs with “troubling side effects,” including mental slowing and forgetfulness.
Roberts had suffered a seizure 14 years earlier. The seizures meet the criteria for epilepsy, the Times report said, because they were “unprovoked,” meaning that they were not caused by a head injury, a drug reaction or another known factor.
The neurologist told Savage that Roberts’ cognition could be affected by taking epilepsy medicine.
“I’m going to tell you something that you’re not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to,” Savage said.
“It’s well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication.”
Savage said that “if you look at Roberts’ writings you can see the cognitive disassociation in what he is saying.”
“Roberts has no logic in what he said,” Savage asserted.
“He said the law is a tax, but if the law wasn’t written as a tax, how can he say it’s taxation?”
Savage was referring to the fact that the Obama administration had argued that the law’s mandate for individuals to buy health insurance was based on the power given to Congress under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate trade. The administration, including President Obama himself, however had vehemently argued that the mandate was not a tax.
Tipping point
Savage noted that while most pundits had believed the Supreme Court would strike down the mandate, Savage predicted on his show Tuesday that Roberts would uphold Obamacare. He based his prediction on the fact that Roberts read the majority opinion in the Arizona immigration law case, which backed the Obama administration in striking down most of the law.
Savage opened his show today declaring that “a tipping point has been reached” in the “dawning of red America.”
“We are now becoming Venezuela and on the way to becoming Castro’s Cuba,” he said.
Many conservatives, he said, have been “misled into believe that if only you elect a Republican, things will change.”
“Let me remind you Roberts is the spawn of George W. Bush,” Savage said. “Roberts is a compromised Supreme Court justice.”
He predicted Obamacare will bankrupt America.
“Who is going to pay for the fraud, waste and corruption called Obamacare?” he asked.
Savage argued that the same people who are failing to control Medicare and Medicaid are in charge of trying to control Obamacare.
“America is over as you know it,” he said.
A plan to get rid of Obamacare
Citing his book “Trickle Up Poverty,” Savage contended Obamacare could have been overturned by citing the Schechter brothers U.S. Supreme Court case decided during the Franklin Roosevelt administration in 1935.
Under FDR’s socialist-style “New Deal” regulations, customers could buy a whole or half coop of chickens but could not select particular birds. The policy conflicted with the religious beliefs and practices of the Jewish Schechter brothers. Under kosher laws, unhealthy animals must be removed from the stock.
A lower court found the four brothers guilty of allowing their customers to buy individual chickens, and they served jail time.
Ultimately, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the brothers, holding that FDR’s regulations exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause.
Justice Louis Brandeis remarked: “This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the president that we’re not going to let this government centralize everything.”
Savage said the “same message should be sent to Obama.”
Savage reasoned that the Schechters’ lawyers could have taken another tack and won on the ground that their religious freedom was being violated. Under Obamacare, he noted, there were exemptions for various religious groups, such as the Amish and Christian Scientists.
So he urges other religious groups to find exceptions until there are so many exempted from the system, they won’t possibly be able to pay for it.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

NEWS FROM DAVE AND DAN FOR WFZR FREE ZONE MEDIA

Posted by BH 
Submitted by Dan Vincent from Dave Holenbeck
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV
 
 
 
Need 
A teacher goes around her class asking each of the kids what do they need at home.
1st kid says "A computer".
Teacher replies "That'd be very useful."
2nd kid says "A new lawn mower" and gets a similar response.
Little Johnny pops up and says: " At my house we don't need anything."
The teacher asks him to think again carefully as everybody needs something.
Little Johnny replies, "Nope I'm sure!   When my sister started dating a Kenyan, 
I remember Dad saying,
 
"Well, that's the last f@#$%^&  thing we need around here!"
From: Harley Morris 
 
ARE WE READY TO SAY ''GOODBYE AMERICA - HELLO GREECE?" 
IF NOT...
THEN Please send far and wide!!! - NOW!!
Subject: Day One, Job One: Full Repeal of Obamacare - [1 min. 2 secs. SEND AROUND!]
Please send far and wide!!! - NOW!!
 
 
 
OBOZO LIED!! 
HERE'S THE PROOF - MAYBE AND I DO MEAN ''MAYBE''
SOME OF YOU WHO REFUSE TO BELIEVE HE'S ''NO GOOD FOR AMERICA'' WILL TAKE A LOOK!!
(if you do, I'd like your feedback)
 
OBOZO LIED TO ALL - THE LATINOS MOST OF ALL...
The Ad Before Terrell Lovell is...
**A SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE 'LATINO RACE!**
"Obozo's Lie Makes Christina Look Like An Idiot!"
From: Dave Hollenbeck VIDEO!!!
Subject: Dr Terrell Lovell-- Supreme Court Decision June 28, 2012 
 
Obamacare = Obamatax
The Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate survived as a tax...
but wait, didn’t everyone who shoved this law through Congress claim that this ruling WASN’T a tax?
Just another lie from The White House.
Take a look back at all the times the people involved with this legislation lied to the American people
 
 
LIKE HIM OR NOT, NEWT WAS RITE WHEN HE SAID THAT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM WAS BROKEN...
AND WE NEEDED TO TAKE A BROOM AND CLEAN OUT THE MESS NOW, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
WELL IT'S COMING BACK TO ''BITE US ON THE ASS!''
Subject: WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: OBAMACARE …”Now we are truly ready to fight.”
A longtime D.C. political operative considers today’s Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare a good thing in the fight to defeat Barack Obama in 2012. 
Here’s why 
 
'MAY BROTHER MICHAEL (my cousin Brother Michael Suazo) EXCUSE ME!
I'M SENDING EXACTLY WHAT I GOT AWHILE BACK FROM ONE OF OBOZO'S KOOL-AID DRINKING IDIOTS!
(except for this part)
THE OUT OF WORK ASSHOLE   WROTE ME AND SAID:
(and I qoute)
'YA'LL JUST MAD CAUSE THE HEAD N@$$%* HE IN CHARGE!!'
W.T.F.?
LET ME ADD THAT THIS DIPSTICK WAS OUT WORK AND WAS HOPING I COULD FIND HIM EMPLOYMENT.
(and I was willing to help till...) 
HE HAD THE BALLS TO SEND ME THIS.
(I gave him the address to the whitehouse)
LET'S SEE WHAT HIS GUITAR PLAYING OUTTA WORK ASS DOES WHEN HE'S FORCED TO BUY iNSURANCE!!
FOLKS - ''THAT'S AN IDIOT FOR YOU!"
'Did Our Constitution Just Die Today???
D.V.
Subject: To The Point News -- AIRHEAD AMERICA
It's hard to fathom why John Roberts would murder the Constitution today, but his mental contortions don't matter. 
The reality is that America no longer has a Constitution,
thanks to his vote and that of the four other loony-left libs on the No Longer Supreme Court.
 
Subject: Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
Today, Barack Obama won the battle, but will lose the war. 
The Supreme Court decision makes Obamacare the central issue in the 2012 election, just like it was in the 2010 election. 
And we know how that turned out.
 
 
Subject: Special Edition: Watch Complete SCOTUS Round Up For Free On GBTV - News from TheBlaze.com
this and more...
 
OBAMACARE IS UPHELD: Glenn reacts to SHOCKING Supreme Court ruling
The bottom line: The entire Obamacare bill is upheld.
Shockingly, the ruling saw liberal Justice Kennedy siding with the conservatives on the court while Chief Justice Roberts sided with the progressives -
handing the Obama administration a HUGE victory.
So what do you do now? And how has this day sealed the fate of the Obama administration?
Glenn passionately speaks out against the one hundred year progressive plan that has led to this moment and what you MUST do to turn things around.
The time for sitting around is over and it’s time to take action. MORE 
 
“Conservative” judge casts key vote in Obamacare case!
After today, it’s safe to say that Glenn has had more than enough of the Republican establishment.
This morning on radio he reacted to the Obamacare ruling and the vote from George W. Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts.
Glenn had a warning for the progressives on the right who are trampling on the right of individuals and expanding big government!
 
Unhappy with Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare? Here are FOUR things you can do about it:

Romney: I will work to repeal Obamacare on first day in office
If we don’t want Obama in office next year, our only option is Mitt Romney.
Did he step up and say the things the American people needed to hear today?
And what does Glenn expect to hear from the Republican candidate?
 
Subject: Why Obamacare Ruling Is Good For Tea Party
THIS AND MORE...
 
Subject: Supreme Court Strikes Down Law That
 Makes It Illegal to Lie About Receiving Military Awards  
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/supreme-court-strikes-down-law-making-it-illegal-to-lie-about-receiving-military-awards/
 June 28, 2012  WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — The Supreme Court has struck down a federal law making it a crime to lie about having received
the Medal of Honor and other prized military awards.
Subject: Supreme Court strikes down Stolen Valor Law
w
.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57462642/supreme-court-strikes-down-stolen-valor-law/?tag=stack
This was lost in the hubbub over Obama-care this morning. all the more reason to vote for Romney so he can put true Americans
on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Subject: Obama's AG in Criminal Contempt of Congress; 17 Dems Vote Yea
WE NOW KNOW OBOZO LIED - NOW LET'S SEE HOW MUCH HOLDER'S DONE. 
HERE'S A LIST FROM DAV E...
Subject: Complete List of Democrats Voting to Hold Holder in Contempt of Congress  
The House of Representatives just voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt of Congress for stonewalling the House Oversight
Committee's efforts to get to the bottom of what occurred in the horrifically planned and ultimately deadly "fast and furious" program.
Subject: House Votes To Hold Holder In Criminal Contempt of Congress 255-67
ALSO...
 
Subject: US Airways, unions try to 'skyjack' American
The first 10 years of the new millennium for the U.S. airline industry is often described as the "lost decade."
 
 
om: Harley Morris 
“Turn In Your Guns At Your Local Church”
Subject: Can you say 'bend over??
 
Subject: Southland cities struggle to avoid joining Stockton in bankruptcy
NO mention that California (State Counties Local) pay out $21 BILLION/year in benefits to Illegal Aliens
 
Subject: Don-Anti-Islamic activist Tom Trento interview in 1 hour...
Don, 
At noon Central Time, I'll be interviewing anti-Islamist activist Tom Trento whose theunitedwest.org
has been instrumental in exposing sharia and The Muslim Brotherhood's infiltration of the Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Office and other important institutions in the U.S.  
As you know, theunitedwest.org showcased the stoning of peaceful Christians in Dearborn, MI on June 15-17, 2012
at that city's annual Arab Festival.  
You can hear that interview at  
Dave
 
UNBELIVEABLE.........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...Please boycott  lowes.....Cleve.....
Subject: Can anyone tell me...
First, quote (see below):
"They re-interpreted the penalty clause as a tax.
And of course, Congress can levy taxes.
That’s the path taken by this tortured process — a path that could only be dreamed up if someone
had already determined the outcome they sought instead of being an independent jurist.
" YESSSS!!!! You nailed it. But here is something I want to know" Since there are SOOOO many people receiving assistance,
such as food stamps, welfare, unemployment, disability, etc, do THOSE people -- whom working stiffs are already carrying --
exempted from the requirement to buy insurance?
In other words, are we buying THEIR insurance as well (via taxes, just as we pay the banks to screw us over)?
Not much of a question, since I suppose that must be the case.
But does anyone know for sure?
Don Hank

THE FUTURE OR NOT THE FUTURE AS OBAMA SEE'S IT ?

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV



 
The following letter describes in precise terms exactly what Obama has been doing and intends to do. There can be no doubt about when you look at the legislation that was passed in the first two years of his presidency, and what has been happening since. We are in deep, deep s**t if somehow he manages to get reelected by hook or by crook – which is the only way it could be done. Should that happen, there can be nothing less than civil war in this country and the removal by force of that imposter on Pennsylvania Ave. If that happens, let’s just hope that the military will stand with us. I’ve seen indications lately that they will.
I do not see Obama being reelected, but if he is, I do not see him surviving a second term. He will have to be taken out to save our country. When Romney gets the keys to the White House in January, and Republicans have control of Congress, they must spend the first year of the new Congress repealing everything that piece of s**t has done to our nation. JR.
Forwarding as received:

Time for a BIG gut check.  Read this letter and tell me what is wrong with John's thinking/analysis of Obama's politics.  Hopefully he is totally wrong and if not we are really it deep doo doo and may be unable to swim upstream to find safety from being run by an all-powerful dictatorship.  All the pieces seem to be falling into place according to John Porter.

Don't delete.  Read it with serious thought and ask yourself is he or is he not right?

Remember, between the House and the Senate there are only a little over 500 members! Ever heard of a Civil War? We need to take control of this!
 
From: John Porter
To: Americans everywhere

I was sitting at my keyboard halfway through my writing a letter to you about how Barack Obama was fulfilling his pledge to "Transform America" by "Changing the fundamentals of America", so that our government would become the plantation, he the owner, and we the slaves, when this article by Steve McCann appeared in my in box. After checking it for accuracy, and finding it so, I put my writing on hold and here present it to you, for I could not say it better.

  ...Is it already too late?
Obama's Second Term Transformation Plans 

     
The 2012 election has often been described as the most pivotal since 1860. This statement is not hyperbole. If Barack Obama is re-elected the United States will never be the same, nor will it be able to re-capture its once lofty status as the most dominant nation in the history of mankind.

The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama's first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of "transforming America” in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress. That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party office holders.

The most significant accomplishment of Obama's first term is to make Congress irrelevant. Under the myopic and blindly loyal leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have succeeded in creating an imperial and, in a second term, a potential dictatorial presidency.

During the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats overwhelming controlled both Houses of Congress and the media was in an Obama worshipping stupor, amyriad of laws were passed and actions taken which transferred virtually unlimited power to the executive branch.
 
The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they and not Congress would subsequently write. 

For example, in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they "shall" do something and more than 200 times when they "may" take at their sole discretion some form of regulatory action. On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the "Secretary determines." In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once ObamaCare is fully operational in 2014.

The same is true in the 2,319 pages of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act which confers nearly unlimited power on various agencies to control by fiat the nation's financial, banking and investment sectors. The bill also creates new agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not subject to any oversight by Congress. This overall process was repeated numerous times with other legislation all with the intent of granting unfettered power to the executive branch controlled Barack Obama and his radical associates.

Additionally, the Obama administration has, through its unilaterally determined rule making and regulatory powers, created laws out of whole cloth. The Environmental Protection Agency on a near daily basis issues new regulations clearly out of their purview in order to modify and change environmental laws previously passed and to impose a radical green agenda never approved by Congress. The same is true of the Energy and Interior Departments among many others. 

None of these extra-constitutional actions have been challenged by Congress. The left in America knows this usurpation of power is nearly impossible to reverse unless stopped in its early stages.

It is clearly the mindset of this administration and its appointees that Congress is merely a nuisance and can be ignored after they were able to take full advantage of the useful idiots in the Democrat controlled House and Senate in 2009-2010 and the Democrat Senate in the current Congress. 

Additionally, Barack Obama knows after his re-election a Republican controlled House and Senate will not be able to enact any legislation to roll back the power previously granted to the Executive Branch or usurped by them. His veto will not be overridden as there will always be at least 145 Democratic members of the House or 34 in the Senate in agreement with or intimidated by an administration more than willing to use Chicago style political tactics.

 
The stalemate between the Executive and Legislative Branches will inure to the benefit of Barack Obama and his fellow leftists.

The most significant power Congress has is the control of the purse-strings as all spending must be approved by them. However, once re-elected, Barack Obama, as confirmed by his willingness to do or say anything and his unscrupulous re-election tactics, would not only threaten government shutdowns but would deliberately withhold payments to those dependent on government support as a means of intimidating and forcing a Republican controlled Congress to surrender to his demands, thus neutering their ability to control the administration through spending constraints. 

Further, this administration has shown contempt for the courts by ignoring various court orders,e.g. the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium, as well as stonewalling subpoenas and requests issued by Congress. The Eric Holder Justice Department has become the epitome of corruption as part of the most dishonest and deceitful administration in American history. In a second term the arrogance of Barack Obama and his minions will become more blatant as he will not have to be concerned with re-election. 

Who will be there to enforce the rule of law, a Supreme Court ruling or the Constitution? Nobody; Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers will be unchallenged as they run roughshod over the American people.

Many Republicans and conservatives dissatisfied with the prospect of Mitt Romney as the nominee for president are instead focused on re-taking the House and Senate. That goal, while worthy and necessary, is meaningless unless Barack Obama is defeated. The nation is not dealing with a person of character and integrity but someone of single-minded purpose and overwhelming narcissism. Judging by his actions, words and deeds during his first term, he does not intend to work with Congress either Republican or Democrat in his second term but rather to force his radical agenda on the American people through the power he has usurped or been granted.

The governmental structure of the United States was set up by the founders in the hope that over the years only those people of high moral character and integrity would assume the reins of power. However, knowing that was not always possible, they dispersed power over three distinct and independent branches as a check on each other.

What they could not imagine is the surrender and abdication of its constitutional duty by the preeminent governmental branch, the Congress, to a chief executive devoid of any character or integrity coupled with a judiciary essentially powerless to enforce the law when the chief executive ignores them

Conservatives, Libertarians, the Republican Party and Mitt Romney must come to grips with this moment in time and their historical role in denying Barack Obama and his minions their ultimate goal. All resources must be directed at that end-game and not merely controlling Congress and the various committee chairmanships. 

Steve McCann
May 12, 2012  

I would add but 6 words to those above mentioned, Conservatives, Libertarians, the Republican Party and Mitt Romney, to say "and we the American people also", must come to grips with this moment in time and our role in denying Barack Obama his lifelong goal of "transforming" us into his slaves working on his government plantation.

Please forward this to all you can, maybe together we can save America for ourselves and those who will follow after us.

May God bless America.
Until next time: 
John Porter 118 Approach Drive
Harrison , Arkansas 72601
870-741-4119
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...