Sunday, July 1, 2012

SUPREME COURT EXPOSED OBAMA HEALTH CARE

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

US supreme court building SC Supreme Court Exposed Obama Health Care While Defending It
CNN originally reported that
the Supreme Court found that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of the commerce clause and that it appeared as if the Supreme Court had struck down the individual mandate. Then CNN followed up by saying that the court actually did uphold it under the taxing clause, with a narrow reading of the U.S. Constitution. People are calling this a screw-up.
Both reports were correct.
Five to Four, the Supreme Court has said that although the individual mandate (that everyone must obtain health care coverage) does not stand via the commerce clause, in essence it stands via the provision in the U.S. Constitution for Congress to tax the American people. This is because people who do not obtain coverage will have a fine “taxed” onto their yearly income taxes, via the IRS 1040 income tax form and/or another form.Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress is allowed to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
The Supreme Court is not saying that the health care law in and of itself is constitutional, as per Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. But instead, it is saying that taxing people who don’t have coverage is constitutional under this section because it is viewed as “Providing for the general welfare of the United States.” By saying this, they are not saying “general welfare,” as in our personal health care welfare. it is saying that the taxation is needed for the “general welfare,” as in the fiscal welfare of the United States (the money.)
In other words, the court is saying that if Congress feels that the fiscal (monetary) welfare of this nation is harmed by people who do not obtain health care coverage, that it is in the best interest of this “general welfare” of the United States to tax such people in order to make up some of the revenue that is lost each year by uncovered hospital visits, doctor visits, etc. This is because otherwise, the cost largely goes to taxpayers and people who do pay for health care coverage, which hurts the overall economy.
What was exposed:
Basically, the Supreme Court has said Obama’s health care act’s core reason for being is in fact to place a tax on people who already cannot afford health care coverage.
Obama had sworn he would not put any new taxes on anyone earning under $250,000.00 a year. Many of us were fully aware that he was lying, as were many of us fully aware that Obama’s health care act was simply a back door to taxing of the poor and an increase in the overall cost of health coverage on most everyone else. This is, of course, excluding Congress and presidents, who are all excluded from the act.
Then there is the fact that this is all just a step to the liberals in Congress working our nation towards the single-payer system that will eventually make the government the financial middleman in charge of all of that money. And remember that this health care act puts the health care of the average American citizen into the hands of the politicians as a campaign bargaining chip for each and every election season.
What went wrong:
Where the challengers of the law messed up was in failing to challenge the health care law in its entirety, instead of challenging parts of it. The main reason the law is unconstitutional was totally missed.
If someone broke into your home, would you stand there arguing with him as to what is okay for him to take and what is not? Of course you wouldn’t. And yet that is what has happened with the health care law. People argued some things in the law instead of the fact that the law is there to begin with and shouldn’t be.
There is no power given to Congress that allows them to take over the privately-owned health insurance industry and turn it into a government-run health care system. The health care law is basically saying that there is no longer any such thing as health insurance. ObamaCare is a health “care” act, not a health “insurance” act. Hence the reason that no one can be turned down. It is not insurance. Insurance insures us in case something happens, not after it happens. We don’t get house insurance after our kitchen burns down, after all.
It is now health care, a government-run entity, in which everyone has to put into the pot. It is the government’s takeover of an industry, the dissolving of it, and the forcing of those who were in that industry to now work for a government-run entity or to find another source of income. It is like this: You own a clothing store. The government says that you can no longer run it as a store; you now must run it as a place where people can come and just get whatever it is that they need to wear within the government’s standards; and everyone who gets their clothing from you must pay a yearly amount to you that does not go over a government-set amount of cost to them. You no longer own a store. You now work for the government in a government-run clothing distribution place. And you are no longer allowed to own and operate a true store again. You are not allowed to make a profit above what the government allows you to have. The government’s claim is that it has a right to regulate what you do for the good of this country, because everyone needs clothes.
Debra J.M. Smith 06-28-12

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Unexpected turn in eligibility case: 'Put it on record!' 'This judge can't get out; if he screws around, he's violating law'


Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

120618obamaThe attorney in a publicized challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president told WND the Florida case took an unexpected turn in court yesterday, one he says “pulled the rug out” from Obama’s lawyers and should force a quick answer from the judge.
Attorney Larry Klayman told WND he had expected an “uneventful” hearing in the ongoing case, which returned before Judge Terry Lewis yesterday, but instead found a legal tangle that he believes means Lewis will “have to make a decision, have to put it on record.”
Klayman originally filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County.”
As WND reported, however, attorneys representing Obama at the case’s main hearing, which was livestreamed by WND, argued that the Florida presidential preference primary, which listed Obama as the only Democrat nominee, didn’t make him the party’s nominee for president. They urged Lewis to decide that Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee for president and therefore ignore evidence challenging his eligibility.
But Klayman told WND yesterday that Florida law is unique in that it gives the average voter “much greater freedom to challenge eligibility and fraud than most other states.”
CLICK BELOW TO READ MORE

FDA Approves Spraying Viruses On Meat Products

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

This is another reason to, at the very least, scale back the efforts of the FDA dramatically if not abolish it.  ENJOY YOUR MEALS TODAY ?


Weird Turn To Rangel Primary Vote Count

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

Charlie Rangel Official Weird turn to Rangel primary vote count
Did Charles Rangel win his primary race on Tuesday night or not?
Incredibly, it still isn’t clear. A slew of snafus, mysterious missing precincts, and a failure to count some absentee and provisional ballots leaves the issue in doubt.
In an interview, Vazquez, the spokeswoman for the embattled Board of Elections, defended the office’s efforts, saying that it had simply followed the vote counting process as prescribed by city law.
The reason six percent of votes had not yet been tabulated, Vazquez said, is that the police officers tasked with providing an unofficial record of the data from those precincts after securing voting boxes on election night had not done so. Once election workers downloaded voting files from each precinct to reach an official total, Vazquez said, a complete count would be reached.

Issa Puts Details Of Secret Wiretap Applications In Congressional Record

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

By Jonathan Strong.
Darrell Issa SC Issa Puts Details of Secret Wiretap Applications in Congressional Record
In the midst of a fiery floor debate over contempt proceedings for Attorney General Eric Holder, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) quietly dropped a bombshell letter into the Congressional Record.
The May 24 letter to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member on the panel, quotes from and describes in detail a secret wiretap application that has become a point of debate in the GOP’s “Fast and Furious” gun-walking probe.
The wiretap applications are under court seal, and releasing such information to the public would ordinarily be illegal. But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which offers immunity for Congressional speech, especially on a chamber’s floor.
Read more at Roll Call. By Jonathan Strong.

JUST ANOTHER BROKEN OBAMA PROMISE

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV


AFP’s Blistering Ad Bashing The $2 Trillion Obamacare Tax

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

President Obama promised that his healthcare law was not a tax increase, but now we know it is actually one of largest tax increases in history. We need to tell Congress to repeal Obamacare and other unnecessary health care regulations already on the books.
 OR WE COULD JUST VOTE THE A-H OUT ?

A REAL BLUEGRASS CHICK (BIRD)

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV
"ONE HOT BLUEGRASS CHICK"

BREAKING: Issa May Have Just Cornered Eric Holder On Fast and Furious Cover-Up

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV
THE ULSTERMAN REPORT

BREAKING: Issa May Have Just Cornered Eric Holder On Fast and Furious Cover-Up

Media just now reporting on a clever move by Congressman Darrell Issa to enter into the public record a document that appears to contradict the entire Obama administration’s contention it knew little to nothing about the failed and deadly Fast and Furious operation – a SIGNED wiretap application by top DOJ officials no less.  
 THIS COULD BE VERY BIG.
EXCERPT:
Mr. Issa contends the wiretap application contradicts Mr. Holder’s claim that nothing in there would have shown gunwalking was going on.
“The affidavit explicitly describes the most controversial tactic of all: abandoning surveillance of known straw purchasers, resulting in the failure to interdict arms,” Mr. Issa said in a letter he placed in the Congressional Record. It appears on pages H4409 through H4411 of Thursday’s official chronicle of its debates.
The information in the wiretap affidavit is sealed and was not supposed to be released in public, but Roll Call reported Friday that Mr. Issa was using constitutional protections for speech and debate in Congress to put the information before the public.
An email seeking comment from the Justice

Obama Contributor, Who Helped Enact Assault-Weapons Ban, Ran ‘Fast and Furious’

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

Dennis K. Burke
Former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) – Dennis K. Burke, who as a lawyer for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1990s was a key player behind the enactment of the 1994 assault-weapons ban, and who then went on to become Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano’s chief of staff, and a contributor to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential primary campaign, and then a member of Obama's transition team focusing on border-enforcement issues, ended up in the Obama administration as the U.S. attorney in Arizona responsible for overseeing Operation Fast and Furious.
When Obama nominated Burke to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, Burke told the Arizona Capitol Times he believed he understood what the president and his attorney general wanted him to do.
“There’s clearly been direction provided already by President Obama and Attorney General Holder as to what they want to be doing, and this is an office that is at the center of the issues of border enforcement,” said Burke.
Over the course of several days, CNSNews.com left multiple telephone messages with Burke for comment on this story. He did not respond.
Dennis K. Burke has had a long career working as an aide and political appointee to Democratic elected officials. From 1989 to 1994, he was a counsel for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, working in that capacity for several years on an assault-weapons ban, which was finally enacted on Sept. 13, 1994 as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. That act expired on Sept. 13, 2004. (See NYT: Dennis Burke, Sen. DeConcini, Weapons Ban.pdf)
From 1994-95, Burke served in the Clinton Justice Department in the Office of Legislative Affairs, and in 1997-99, he was an assistant U.S. attorney in Arizona.
From 1999 to 2003, Burke was chief deputy and special assistant to Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano.
In 2003, when Napolitano became governor, Burke became her chief of staff. He stayed in that job until the fall of 2008, when he left to help Democratic political campaigns, including then-Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign.
napolitano
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. (AP Photo)
Federal Election Commission (FEC)records show that on Jan. 9, 2008, while working as Gov. Napolitano’s chief of staff, Burke contributed $2,000 to then-Sen Obama’s presidential primary campaign. Since 1997, according to FEC records, Burke has contributed a total of $16,350 to various Democratic candidates.
After Obama was elected in November 2008, Burke joined his presidential transition team, serving on the Immigration Policy Working Group.
Eight days before Obama’s inauguration, on Jan. 12, 2009--while Burke was working on the transition team--Obama met with Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the Mexican Cultural Institute in Washington, D.C. At that meeting, Obama “pledged” to take action to stop the flow of guns from the United States to Mexico.
Obama also decided to put Burke’s old boss, incoming Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in a leadership role in making the gun-trafficking problem a top priority.
“President-elect Obama expressed support for efforts in the border states in both the United States and Mexico to eradicate drug-related violence and stop the flow of guns and cash,” incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement at the time. “He told President Calderón that he intends to ask the Secretary of Homeland Security to lead an effort to increase information sharing to strengthen those efforts. He pledged to take more effective action from the United States to stem the flow of arms from the United States to Mexico.”
When Napolitano became Homeland Security secretary, Burke moved from the Obama transition team to become her senior adviser. On Feb. 25, 2009, a little more than a month after Obama had made his “pledge” to Calderon, Napolitano testified in the House Homeland Security Committee. She stressed that stopping the flow of guns to Mexico was a top priority of the Obama administration and key focus of her work.
Rahm Emanuel
Former Obama chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green, File)
Responding to a question about violence on the border, Napolitano said the administration was going to work with the Mexican government on the issue. Then she said: “Secondly, it is looking at, government-wide, at what we can do to stop the southbound export of weaponry, particularly assault-type weapons and grenades that are being used in that drug war.”
Napolitano further noted that drug cartels were targeting Mexican government officials and law enforcement officers, and that, given the seriousness of the threat, Obama’s national security adviser, the attorney general, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and Customs (of which the Border Patrol is part) would all be working on the issue.
“I've met with the attorney general of Mexico and the ambassador already,” said Napolitano during the February 2009 hearing. “One of the things that I particularly am focused on is southbound traffic in guns, particularly assault weapons, and cash that are being used to funnel and fund these very, very violent cartels.”
The same day Napolitano testified in the Homeland Security Committee, Attorney General Holder addressed the issue of drug-trafficking-related gun violence in northern Mexico. He said he had had conversations about the issue with the Mexican attorney general and that the Obama administration believed that re-instating the assault-weapons ban in the United States--the one Dennis Burke had initially helped push through as Senate aide in 1990s--would help the situation in Mexico.
“Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder said. “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”
Four-and-a-half months later, on July 10, 2009, Obama nominated Burke to be the U.S. attorney in Arizona. The Senate confirmed Burke on Sept. 15 of that year.
It was in July 2010, after his nomination as U.S. attorney, that Burke told theArizona Capitol Times that he had  “been working on homeland security and border enforcement issues” during the transition, and that there had “clearly been direction provided already by President Obama and Attorney General Holder as to what they want to be doing.”
“What I hope to do, if confirmed by the Senate,” Burke told the paper, “is to ensure that those plans and strategies are being implemented and we’re moving quickly on prosecutions.”
After the nomination, former Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) had high praise for Burke’s work in getting the assault weapons ban through Congress back in the 1990s.
“We ended up getting senators who had never voted for a gun bill, like Lloyd Benson of Texas and Sam Nunn of Georgia and Al D’Amato of New York, who were friends of mine that I worked real hard,” DeConcini told the Arizona Capitol Times.  “But Dennis worked the staff. He was responsive to them and several of the senators mentioned to me what a great staffer you’ve got there, and I said, ‘Boy, you’re telling me.’”
The Arizona Republic has reported that “DeConcini said Burke fostered the measure in concert with a key figure in the white House, policy analyst Rahm Emanuel, who years later would become chief of staff for President Obama. … ‘Dennis was the one who worked with everyone on the Judiciary Committee to line up these members and votes,’ DeConcini said. ‘Dennis had all these pictures of these guns--the Streetsweepers and the AK-47s. And it passed by one vote. A lot of it was not my eloquence on the bill, it was stuff that Dennis had done.’”
Six weeks after Burke was confirmed, on Oct. 26, 2009, Eric Holder named him to the
Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC) of U.S. Attorneys. In his capacity as an adviser to Holder, Burke chaired the AGAC subcommittee on border and immigration law enforcement while Operation Fast and Furious was happening.
The same month that Burke joined Holder’s advisory committee with a specific responsibility to report to Deputy Attorney General David Ogden on border and immigration enforcement, Ogden’s office made a significant change in the federal government’s strategy for dealing with gun-trafficking on the Mexican border.
“This new strategy directed federal law enforcement to shift its focus away from seizing firearms from criminals as soon as possible, and to focus instead on identifying members of trafficking networks,” House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa wrote in a May 3 memo to other members of his committee, summarizing what the committee had learned about Fast and Furious.
“The Office of the Deputy Attorney General shared this strategy with the heads of many Department components, including ATF,” said Issa.
The next month, November 2009, the ATF in Arizona moved forward with the new strategy by creating Operation Fast and Furious.
Eric Holder
Attorney General Eric Holder testifying in the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 12, 2012. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
“Members of the ATF Phoenix Field Division, led by Special Agent in Charge Bill Newell, became familiar with this new strategy and used it in creating Fast and Furious,” Issa wrote in his May 3 memo. “In mid-November 2009, just weeks after the strategy was issued, Fast and Furious began. Its objective was to establish a nexus between straw purchasers of firearms in the United States and Mexican drug-trafficking organizations (DTOs) operating on both sides of the United States-Mexico border.”
“Straw purchasers,” Issa explained, “are individuals who are legally entitled to purchase firearms for themselves, but who unlawfully purchase weapons with the intent to transfer them to someone else, in this case DTOs or other criminals.”
Remarkably, under Operation Fast and Furious, the ATF deliberately allowed guns to move south across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of the drug cartels. Weapons were allowed to be sold to straw purchasers with the intent of tracing the guns to the cartels.
“During Fast and Furious, ATF agents used an investigative technique known as ‘gunwalking’--that is, allowing illegally purchased weapons to be transferred to third parties without attempting to disrupt or deter the illegal activity,” Issa wrote in the May 3 memo. “ATF agents abandoned surveillance on known straw purchasers after they illegally purchased weapons that ATF agents knew were destined for Mexican drug cartels.”
The purpose of the operation was to trace the guns recovered from crimes scenes “to their original straw purchaser, in an attempt to establish a connection between that individual and the DTO.”
Brian Terry,  border agent
U.S. Border Agent Brian A. Terry, shot and killed on Dec. 14, 2010, near Rio Rico, Arizona. (AP Photo)
The ATF Phoenix Field Division applied to Justice Department headquarters to become an“Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force” (OCDETF) case. In preparing their application in early January 2009, the ATF in Phoenix wrote a memo explaining the investigative technique of Fast and Furious.
The application for Fast and Furious was approved and, in January 2010, as Issa stated in his memo, it “became a prosecutor-led OCDETF Strike Force case, meaning that ATF would join with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement under the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona.”
In other words, it was under the leadership of Dennis Burke.
“Although ATF was the lead law enforcement agency for Fast and Furious, its agents took direction from prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” Issa says in his May 3 memo. “The lead federal prosecutor for Fast and Furious was Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley, who played an integral role in the day-to-day, tactical management of the case.”
Issa states in his memo that Burke’s U.S. attorney’s office made it more difficult for ATF agents to interdict guns.
“Many ATF agents working on Operation Fast and Furious came to believe that some of the most basic law enforcement techniques used to interdict weapons required the explicit approval of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and specifically from Hurley,” Issa wrote. “On numerous occasions, Hurley and other federal prosecutors withheld this approval, to the mounting frustration of ATF agents. The U.S. Attorney’s Office chose not to use other available investigative tools common in gun trafficking cases, such as civil forfeitures and seizure warrants, during the seminal periods of Fast and Furious.”
“The U.S. Attorney’s Office advised ATF that agents needed to meet unnecessarily strict evidentiary standards in order to speak with suspects, temporarily detain them, or interdict weapons,” Issa said. “ATF’s reliance on this advice from the U.S. Attorney’s Office during Fast and Furious resulted in many lost opportunities to interdict weapons.”
A report on Fast and Furious released by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Democrats in January 2012, indicates that on Jan. 5, 2010, officials from the ATF Phoenix office met with Assistant U.S. Attorney Hurley and determined that the gun-trafficking investigation should continue because it wasn't ready for prosecution. The Democrat report quotes a briefing paper prepared by the ATF three days after the meeting--which would be Jan. 8, 2010--that says U.S. Attorney Burke was briefed on the matter and agreed that the investigation should continue.
"Investigative and prosecutions strategies were discussed and a determination was made that there was minimal evidence at this time to support any type of prosecution," said the ATF briefing paper, "therefore, additional firearms purchases should be monitored and additional evidence continued to be gathered. This investigation was briefed to United States Attorney Dennis Burke, who concurs with the assessment of his line prosecutors and fully supports the continuation of this investigation."
gun
(AP Photo)
Eight days after this briefing paper was produced, on Jan. 16, 2010,straw buyers bought three assault-weapon rifles, two of which would figure prominently in the unraveling of the program. They were the weapons that would later be found at the scene of the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
On. Nov. 24, 2010, just a few weeks before Terry was murdered, Burke--who had begun his career in public service working to enact an assault-weapons ban--had an email exchange with another U.S. attorney about an investigation he was working on that involved "straw purchasing of assault weapons."
“What a great investigation. What is the ETI (estimated time of indictment!)” U.S. Attorney Jenny A. Durkan for the Western District of Washington said to Burke in an email.
Burke responded, “Would love to chat. We are about to indict around [REDACTED] clowns for a Gun Trafficking to Mexico operation. It's a T-III investigation that we have been working w/ATF for a long time and IRS is all over some money laundering charges. It’s going to bring a lot of attention to straw purchasing of assault weapons. Some of the weapons bought by these clowns in Arizona have been directly traced to murders of elected officials in Mexico by the Cartels, so Katie-bar-the-door when we unveil this baby.”
The e-mail exchange, with the subject line “Gun Shows,” did not specifically mention Operation Fast and Furious.
Operation Fast and Furious was halted after Dec. 14, 2010 after two of the guns that a straw buyer had been allowed to purchase during the operation ended up at the murder scene of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Fast and Furious later became the subject of a congressional investigation, and an investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General.
President Barack Obama and President Bill Clinton
Former President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
On Dec. 14, the same day of Terry's murdered, Burke sent an emailreplying to an e-mail from Monty Wilkinson, Attorney General Holder's deputy chief of staff. In this email, Burke said his office had a large firearms trafficking case that he wanted to discuss. In a follow up e-mail the next day--Dec. 15, 2010--Burke alerted Wilkinson that Agent Terry had been murdered. Wilkinson responded, “Tragic, I’ve alerted the AG, the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.”
The exchanges between Burke and Holder's deputy chief of staff at the time of Agent Terry's murder are reported the report published by the committee Democrats.
"Several hours later on December 15, 2010, U.S. Attorney Burke learned that
Agent Terry had been murdered," says the Democratic report. "He alerted Mr. Wilkinson, who replied, 'Tragic,
I’ve alerted the AG, the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.'"
"Later that same day, U.S. Attorney Burke learned that two firearms found at Agent Terry’s murder scene had been purchased by a suspect in Operation Fast and Furious," says the Democratic report. "He sent an email to Mr. Wilkinson forwarding this information and wrote: 'The guns found in the desert near the murder [sic] BP officer connect back to the investigation we were going to talk about—they were AK-47’s purchased at a
Phoenix gun store.' Mr. Wilkinson replied, 'I’ll call tomorrow.'
Despite this email from Wilkinson, Burke told the committee he did not recall actually having such a phone conversation, and the Department of Justice told the committee that Wilksonson does not recall making the call. Also Attorney General Holder himself testified that his deputy chief of staff never told him about the tie between the gun-trafficking investigation and Agent Terry's murder.
"In his interview with Committee staff, U.S. Attorney Burke stated that he did not recall having any subsequent conversation with Mr. Wilkinson that 'included the fact that Fast and Furious guns were found at the scene' of Agent Terry’s murder," the Democrat report said.
"In a November 2011 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Charles Grassley asked Attorney General Holder, 'Did Mr. Wilkinson say anything to you about the connection between Agent Terry’s death and the ATF operation?'"
The Democratic report says: "Attorney General Holder responded, 'No, he did not.” In a January 27, 2011, letter to the Committee, the Department stated that Mr. Wilkinson 'does not recall a follow-up call with Burke or discussing this aspect of the matter with the Attorney
General.'"
Brian Terry's murder caused an apparent change of plans for the Justice Department.
Darrell Issa
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)
“Washington-based Justice Department officials had earlier discussed bringing Attorney General Eric Holder to Phoenix for a triumphant press conference with Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke to herald the conclusion of the Department’s flagship firearms trafficking case,” said a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee memo from May 3, 2012.“In the aftermath of Agent Terry’s death, the task of announcing indictments at a press conference fell to ATF Phoenix Division Special Agent in Charge William Newell and Burke. Holder did not attend.
“At the press conference on January 25, 2011, Newell triumphantly announced the indictment of 20 members of an arms trafficking syndicate that had been supplying weapons to the Sinaloa Cartel, Mexico’s largest and most powerful cartel led by the notorious Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman,” the May 3 memo said.
When Newell was asked if ATF agents purposefully allowed weapons to enter Mexico, he responded, “Hell no.”
Two days after the press conference, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote then-Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson about reports from whistleblowers regarding gunwalking and Agent Terry’s death.
Allegations of gunwalking “are based on categorical falsehoods,” Burke said in a Jan. 31, 2011 e-mail to Jason Weinstein, the deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division.
Days later, on Feb. 4, 2011, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich responded to Grassley denying that the Justice Department “sanctioned” the sale of guns to people they believed were going to deliver them to Mexican drug cartels.
As the scandal began to build by that summer, Brian Terry’s mother--Josephine Terry--testified at the hearing of the House Oversight Committee. The mother of the slain Border Patrol agent told the committee that Burke informed the family of the agent’s death, but did not provide details about Operation Fast and Furious.
“He was just trying to explain to us exactly what happened and--roundabout way--we really never got anything out of the visit that he did have,” Josephine Terry told the committee on June 15, 2011. Asked how she found out about Fast and Furious, she responded, “Most of it I heard is from the media. We haven't really got anything direct--phone calls or nothing from anybody.”
At the same hearing, Weich, who wrote the Feb. 4, 2011 letter to Grassley, told the committee, “Everything that we say is true to the best of our knowledge at the time we say it. As more facts come out, obviously our understanding of the situation is enhanced.”
On June 29, 2011, a reporter asked the Oversight Committee about leaked documents related to whistleblower ATF Agent John Dodson.
Fast and Furious
Attorney General Eric holder speaks to reporters following his meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 19, 2012. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
“Congressional investigators later determined that the individual who was behind the leaked documents was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, Dennis Burke--the Obama Administration political appointee who led the office in charge of Operation Fast and Furious,” said Issa's May 3 Oversight Committee memo.
“Burke later testified that the reporter contacted him, and that he believed the reporter had already seen the documents or had them read to him from someone else in the Department of Justice. Instead of e-mailing the documents to the reporter in Washington, Burke, who was in Arizona at the time, e-mailed them to a friend of his in Washington, who then printed out the documents and then delivered them to the reporter personally,” Issa said in his May 3 memo. “These efforts successfully kept Burke’s fingerprints off of the leak until he publicly admitted his role more than two months after his August 2011 resignation as blame for Fast and Furious spread.”
On Aug. 18, 2011, House Oversight Committee staff interviewed Burke. They asked him: “To your knowledge as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, did the highest levels of the Department of Justice authorize [the] non-interdiction of weapons, cutting off of surveillance, as an investigative tactic in Operation Fast and Furious?”
Burke responded, “I have no knowledge of that.”
The committee also asked, “Did you ever authorize those tactics?”
Burke answered, “No.”
During that same Aug. 18, 2011 interview, the committee staff asked Burke: “And did anyone ever—from the Department of Justice, Main Justice I will call it--ever tell you that you were authorized to allow weapons to cross the border when you otherwise would have had a legal authority to seize or interdict them because they were a suspected straw purchase or it was suspected that they were being trafficked in a firearms scheme?”
Burke answered, “I have no recollection of ever being told that.”
Twelve days after this interview, on Aug. 30, 2011, Burke resigned as U.S. attorney. Burke’s assistant U.S. attorney, Emory Hurley, the lead prosecutor in Operation Fast and Furious, also resigned, as did ATF Director Melson.
During an Oct. 19, 2011 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley asked Burke's old boss, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano, “Have you had any communications with Mr. Burke about Operation Fast and Furious?”
Napolitano said, “No.”
Grassley followed up: “So you then obviously didn’t talk to him, anything about Agent Terry's death?”
Napolitano said that after Agent Terry was killed, “I went to Arizona a few days thereafter to meet with the FBI agents and the assistant U.S. attorneys who were actually going to look for the shooters. At that time, nobody had done the forensics on the guns and ‘Fast and Furious’ was not mentioned. But I wanted to be sure that those responsible for his death were brought to justice, and that every DOJ resource was being brought to bear on that topic. So I did have conversations in--it would have been December of  '09 [actually 2010]--about the murder of Agent Terry. But at that point in time, there, nobody knew about Fast and Furious.”
burke
Dennis K. Burke, former U.S. Attorney for Arizona in charge of Operation Fast and Furious.
It was not until Dec. 2, 2011 that the Justice Department withdrew its Feb. 4, 2011 letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to Grassley in which DOJ had denied that gun-walking had occurred.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has subpoenaed about 100,000 documents from the Department of Justice. The department has produced about 7,600 documents. The committee believes that is insufficient.
Last week, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted on a resolution of contempt against Attorney General Holder for withholding documents that the committee has subpoenaed.
Just hours before the vote, on June 20, Deputy Attorney General James Cole notified the committee that President Barack Obama was invoking executive privilege to deny the committee access to the documents.
On June 28, the full House of Representatives voted, 256-67, with 17 Democrats joining the Republican majority, to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to release the documents requested by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
On ABC’s This Week, on June 24, reporter Jake Tapper asked House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Issa: “You really think that there's a possibility that they were sending guns across the border not because they were trying to get people in the Mexican drug cartels, not because they were trying to figure out drug--I mean, gun trafficking--but because they were trying to push gun control?”
Rep. Issa said: “Two things quickly. First of all, this was so flawed that you can't believe they expected to actually get criminal prosecutions as a result of it. So the level of flaw--flaw--flaw, if that's a word, here is huge.”
“But here's the real answer as to gun control," said Issa. "We have e-mails from people involved in this that are talking about using what they're finding here to support the--basically assault weapons ban or greater reporting.”
“So chicken or egg?" asked Issa. "We don't know which came first; we probably never will. We do know that during this--this Fast and Furious operation, there were e-mails in which they're saying we can use this as part of additional reporting or things like assault weapons ban. So the people involved saw the benefit of what--what they were gathering. Whether or not that was their original purpose, we probably will never know.

ANARCHOTYRANNY OR REVOLUTION

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV


ANARCHOTYRANNY OR REVOLUTION

By Kelleigh Nelson
June 30, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
My friend, Joe, sent me a great article from the June, 2012 Chronicles magazine. It is entitled, "Sam Francis was Right," by Tom Piatak. Joe said, "Kelleigh, this article is everything you've been saying to me since I met you!" I want to give a few pertinent quotes from that article and apply it to what has happened in America, not just today, but over many decades.
Political analyst, Sam Francis, said, "What we have in today's America is Anarchotyranny." Here is his definition:
"What we have in this country today ... is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny--the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through "sensitivity training" and multiculturalist curricula, "hate crime" laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens, but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures."
We all can name the exact things Sam Francis is talking about, but the Obamacare law is the epitome of laws "by the state for oppressive purposes." If our government can tell us we must buy health insurance, then they can tell us what we must buy to live in, what we must buy to drive, what we must buy to eat, what we must buy to wear, what we must buy in books, what we must buy in education for our children, and on and on and on. Wait until the food police give you a ticket for not buying broccoli one week!
CLICK BELOW TO READ MORE

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.”
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...