Tuesday, July 3, 2012

MEXICO VS AMERICA VS OBAMA

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

Subj: Mexico consider voters ID crucial to prevent election fraud in their own country
 
Too bad our own DOJ doesn't prize the privilege to vote in the USA!!!!!!!
 
 

PICKET: Mexico's poll workers ask voters for ID at polls


BY: Kerry Picket

Election worker checks a voter ID at a polling site in Mexico City. Photo by Morgan Till/NewsHour.
Mexican voters go to the polls today and are electing a new president. Most are hoping for a leader who will find a way to provide better security to Mexicans from violence stemming from the drug cartels. Polls show Institutional Revolutionary Party's candidate Enrique Pena Nieto leading two other left leaning presidential contenders.
Interestingly, the process voters in Mexico must go through to confirm their ID's at the polls appears to be taken more seriously by the Mexican government than the federal government in the United States. According to PBS
"Backers of Lopez Obrador told Warner at the polling station Sunday that they had "strong doubts" this election would be devoid of the fraud alleged in the last election in 2006, when their candidate narrowly lost to Calderon.
To try to prevent fraud, Mexico's election commission has put certain identification checks in place, including issuing each voter a national ID card, which must be matched against a registry that includes the voter's photo."
But even before there's any evidence of fraud, some are predicting major demonstrations if Lopez Obrador is not declared the winner, Warner said.
The Obama Justice Department is in a number of legal fights with states, including Texas and Florida, that have established voter ID laws or are taking action with cleaning their voter rolls. Democrats and other liberal allies call the voter ID laws "voter suppression" that have "racist" intent, particularly toward hispanics. 

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM OBAMA

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

An important message from our President to his supporters...
نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما
نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا
نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر
رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور
اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست ننور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم
خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت سايه پيدا نيست
CLICK BELOW TO READ MORE

Rangel’s Democratic opponent claiming voter suppression in contested primary

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

~~~~ 

Lawyers for New York Rep. Charlie Rangel’s Democratic opponent are planning to re-file their court petition citing myriad problems with last week’s primary, after temporarily withdrawing the petition Monday in order to gather more evidence.
Rangel challenger, Democratic New York State Sen. Adrian Espaillat, is suggesting the tight race – in which Rangel declared victory – was marred by voter fraud.
"Voters have been pushed away, and as a result many feel that they were suppressed from voting," Espaillat declared. “The legitimacy of this election is at place right now ... there was a level of voter suppression. We are here to protect a process that must be reliable."
Rangel, the veteran Harlem Congressman who was first elected in 1970, declared victory in the Democratic primary for his 22nd term last week, despite redistricting and the shadow of his censure by the House in a tax and ethics scandal two years ago.
But Espaillat's supporters charge that votes were intentionally suppressed, not counted, and even tampered with. They are demanding that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder step in and launch a federal investigation of the election.
"There was a concerted effort to really steal the election from the community," claimed voter and Espaillat supporter Marilu Garvin. "In the Bronx, they were told that ‘this is a Republican election, not a Democratic election,’" he said about the Democratic primary.
"They were asking for ID's," said voter Espana Arristy. "That’s not requested in order to vote."
Espaillat's supporters also told Fox News that some voters who speak Spanish were not allowed to vote on the machines but told they had to fill out affidavit paper ballots.  Others were told that their names did not appear on the voting lists, and that poll workers even allegedly tampered with completed paper ballots by opening the envelopes after they were voted.
"Over 70 electoral districts came in at zero on election night.  Imagine this, 70 election districts came in at zero on election night, with no results whatsoever," said Espaillat. "That is highly irregular."
Rangel’s lead has narrowed considerably since election night.
The New York City Board of Elections has said that all the machine votes have been counted, leaving Rangel in the lead by just 802 votes. Two-thousand absentee and affidavit ballots will still be counted and the result of that tally is expected to be announced on Thursday.
A group that supports Espaillat, the Dominican American National Roundtable, fears the questionable election activities were an attempt to throw the election to Rangel.
"We believe that there was a concerted effort to suppress or deny Latino voters," said group President Maria Teresa Montilla. She told Fox News they received "countless reports" of problems, including affidavit ballots that she says "were not properly guarded."
At a court hearing Monday, Rangel's campaign manager Moises Perez said both sides want clarity.
“We want this process to be clear, and to be concluded as soon as possible,” Perez said. “We are confident that the Board of Elections will do its job and certify a winner.”
Lawyers for Espaillat temporarily withdrew their petition citing the election problems, and will re-file their complaints with more material.
"If people think their vote doesn't count, if people think somebody's stealing their votes or buying their votes or that the machine reads don't actually record their votes, this is a real blow to the system. We need to believe in this system for it to work," said New York Post political columnist and Fox News contributor Michael Goodwin, who has covered New York City politics for decades.
"Something definitely went wrong. I think there's no question. Now part of it may be simple human error in the sense that these are new district lines, new polling places in many cases," he said. "However this works out, I think this is not good for the integrity and the perception of the integrity in the electoral process."
Rangel’s office so far has not responded to a request from Fox News for comment.
If you suspect voter fraud or problems at the polls where you live, tell us. Voterfraud@Foxnews.com

Dems Admit Obama’s Not Eligible

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

Dems Admit Obama’s Not Eligible


Obama Official Portrait SC 752x1024 Dems Admit Obamas Not Eligible
Weary of defending in court the Constitutional eligibility of their man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Democrat Party has finally admitted Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States– and that it doesn’t matter.
According to a motion filed by Party attorneys in a Tennessee eligibility lawsuit, “…Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office.”
In numerous previous lawsuits questioning the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, Democrats have maintained that voters, not the Constitution, should be the final arbiters of presidential eligibility. Though a disgraceful assertion on its face, such mindless rambling was about all that desperate Democrat attorneys had in their arsenals, apart from the perpetually employed “plaintiffs lack standing” defense.But now, the cat is out of the bag, and the true sentiments of Democrat Party officials have finally been aired. It seems that, according to the left, as long as the acting president has the requisite contempt for the United States, is willing to work tirelessly to destroy the national economy, and will ignore both the rule of law and his Constitutional duty to enforce it, he is eminently qualified to hold the country’s top job.
In February, Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi ignored Supreme Court precedent, made a shambles of case law, and distorted the rulings of other courts in a pathetically obvious mission to find Barack Obama eligible for the Georgia presidential ballot. Although the first judge to decide an Obama eligibility case on the merits, his contempt for an honest judicial process certainly did nothing to mend the rapidly deteriorating reputation of the American legal system.
On Wednesday, United States District Judge S. Thomas Anderson joined a long list of robed colleagues, ruling that plaintiffs in the Tennessee case “lacked standing” to point out Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility for the presidency. That is, plaintiffs could not claim sufficient personal harm should the Manchurian Candidate remain in or be re-elected to the White House.
Strange how the law works. After 3 ½ years of cynical disregard for the borders, language, and culture of the United States, one would think that some 240 million people have suffered “sufficient personal harm” to claim legal standing for a crack at His Royal Highness in a court of law! There are only 30 million illegals currently residing in the United States, and those the Attorney General refers to as “his people” might actually lack legal standing in the eyes of an honest arbiter.
At any rate, Democrats have finally admitted what the rest of us have known for quite some time. Barack Obama is NOT qualified to hold the job won for him by the national media in 2008. But it seems only the voters will have the authority to reclaim it from him. God willing, the vast majority who exercise that authority in November will be both American and alive.

‘Stop Demonizing Socialism’: Obamacare Supporters Demand ‘Free’ Healthcare After Supreme Court Ruling

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

Obamacare supporters demand free healthcare
Much has been made of the Supreme Court ruling on healthcare last Thursday, and for good reason.  The ruling was historic not only in it’s precedent-setting but also in it’s confounding application. The media world exploded with analysts and experts hypothesizing what the obtuse SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) decision will mean for every aspect of American life  into the future.
The Blaze was there on the steps of the court when the ruling came down. While we will leave the hyperbole to the pundits, we did have one question that needed answering:
“What does the Left really want out of healthcare?”
So we followed up with the multitude of progressive protesters that showed up that morning on the steps of the court.  As they marched in a circle with custom signs we asked them:
“Why do you support Obamacare?”
“Do you think healthcare should be free?”
The Answers Below:


RUSSIAN OFFICIAL: “OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST KGB AGENT”

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

RUSSIAN OFFICIAL: “OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST KGB AGENT”

Posted by TCA STAFF On June - 30 - 2011
Moscow, Russia – A Russian government official bragged that Barack Obama was a KGB operative and that his presidency had been planned since birth, an American physicist and government contractor reports.
Tom Fife, an American computer networking specialist and international businessman, reported the alarming facts about the Kremlin’s connection to Barack Obama. The boast from a Communist Party official reportedly occurred during a business trip to Russia, 16 years before Barack Obama was ushered into the presidency of the United States.
“It was like an elastic band snapping all the way from 1992,” Fife shakily admitted, upon recall of the exact moment he realized the Communist official had been telling the truth. “It was a very, very scary feeling.”
Fife, a physicist and computer engineer, had been traveling to Russia for a joint venture with a state-owned company when the shocking revelation was revealed to him. After several business meetings, Fife and his partner were invited to the company owner’s home at the end of the journey for a farewell dinner
~~~~.
~~~~
The owner’s wife was a Communist Party official and was “climbing two ladders”, as Fife puts it, one ladder being the KGB and the other being the traditional Russian society and business ladder. As the evening wore on, the female Communist official became increasingly agitated over a perceived slight and her emotions spilled over.
“You Americans like to think you’re so perfect!” she snarled. “Well, what if I told you that very, very soon you’re going to have a black president… and he’s going to be a Communist!”
The KGB operative was not finished. As she had now dropped this bombshell on the entire gathering, she felt compelled to continue.
“His name is Barack,” she sneered. “His mother is white and his father is an African black. He has gone to the best schools, he is what you would call ‘Ivy League’.”
Fife recalls being stunned and shocked at the words flowing from the Communist’s mouth as she continued to rattle off an incredibly precise set of details about this Communist operative who was to supposedly become president of the United States.
The Communist official then stated that he was from Hawaii, but would very soon be elected to the Chicago state legislature. This has turned out to be an eerily prescient prediction, as Barack Obama was not elected State Senator until 1996, a full 4 years afterwards, as he took Alice Palmer’s seat.
In 1992, Obama had recently graduated from Harvard Law School and accepted a position as a Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.
Perhaps the most shocking revelation is how deep the Soviet Communist network has embedded itself into American political and educational culture. A quick review of Obama’s political “career” shows a track that was inexplicably greased, from his tuition payments at Columbia and Harvard, to a position at UOC Law School, to his eventual electoral “victories” at the Illinois State Senate, United States Senate, and U.S. Presidency.
Barack Obama’s parents ostensibly met in a Russian language class. This could have been where his mother was recruited by Barack Obama Sr, who could have already been working undercover for the KGB.
In order to brainwash the child from an early age, they surrounded him with diehard Communists and fellow KGB agents, such as Frank Marshall Davis, a known Communist Party USA official. The Soviet KGB directly funded the CPUSA. This would fit directly into what the Russian Communist said about ‘Barack’, boasting “He has been raised to be an atheist and a communist.”
“He will be a blessing for world communism,” Fife recalled her saying, after getting over the initial shock of hearing the current president was a KGB agent.
The creepy prediction stayed with the physicist upon his return to the United States, although he paid it no mind until he began to hear of an swiftly rising political star named Barack Obama. When Fife learned that this same Barack was running in the 2008 presidential election, everything snapped into place and he knew he had to tell someone.
Today, Fife admits that it deeply disturbs him and that he has never been able to shake the ominous feeling of foreboding about what comes next, now that the KGB official’s prediction has come true.
“It never leaves you, having someone tell you that they’ve engineered the takeover of your country,” he admits. “It’s really quite scary.”

Hero general: Obama following Castro's plan 'The things done in every Marxist insurgency are being done in America today'


Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV
 
BY: Lt. Gen. (ret.) Jerry Boykin

Earlier this year, a former senior Pentagon official who has battled Marxism around the globe released a video warning that Barack Obama is following in the footsteps of Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin and others who have led communist revolutions in their nations.

Retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, a decorated former Delta Force commander, U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and Purple Heart recipient, explained in the video a six-step plan used by revolutionaries to bring about Marxism elsewhere and drew parallels to Obama’s actions in the U.S.
Boykin’s warning resounds eerily today in particular, as the nation is reeling from the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a massive federal overhaul of health care and on the anniversary of Obama’s pledge to establish a “national civilian security force” – two events Boykin warned were markers of a “Marxist insurgency” in other nations.
“We hear a lot about Marxism and socialism, and there are those, particularly in the media, who would say that we should ‘tone down our rhetoric’ about socialism because ‘we’re not moving to socialism,’” Boykin states in the video. “Well, The reality is … I’ve studied Marxist insurgency. It was part of my training. And the things I know that have been done in every Marxist insurgency are being done in America today.”
Boykin laid out a step-by-step plan he says is the model of how Fidel Castro instituted Marxism in Cuba, Mao Zedong in China, Stalin in Russia and Hugo Chavez in Venzeula:
  1. Nationalize major sectors of the economy
  2. Redistribute wealth
  3. Discredit opposition
  4. Censors opposing viewpoints
  5. Control gun ownership
  6. Develop a constabulary force to control civilian population
Boykin then illustrates how each of these steps have begun to materialize in the U.S.: From a form of “nationalization” through government bailouts, to “hate crime” legislation aimed at silencing the pulpits, to the federal government labeling tea partiers and veterans returning from overseas as potential domestic terrorists, to efforts underway to get the U.S. on board with a United Nations small arms treaty, which would regulate private gun ownership.
Boykin takes particular aim at Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which he says federal administrators have already admitted is a wealth-redistribution plan (step No. 2) and he says includes within its 1,000 pages plans for national security forces at the president’s disposal, akin to national police forces socialist tyrants like Adolf Hitler used to complete their revolutions.
Specifically, Boykin alluded to a speech Obama made four years ago today, in Colorado Springs, Colo., on July 2, 2008, in which he pledged to establish a “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the U.S. military].”
Video of Obama’s speech can be seen below:


~~~

“You need to understand this is happening in America, and it fits the model that has been used when societies have moved to Marxism,” Boykin claims.
“It should be a matter of great concern,” he says. “Get out and do something to help stop this. Use the constitutional tools that our Founding Fathers gave us. Let you congressman know how you feel about this. Be a pain in their neck by constantly emailing and calling them. Find candidates that represent your values as a Constitution-believing American, and get out and get active in some of these movements that are trying to reverse what’s happing in America.
Boykin’s video can be seen below:


A VAST NEW OBAMA FEDERAL POWER

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

 By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street, If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
-- The Beatles in “The Taxman”

Of the 17 lawyers who have served as chief justice of the United States, John Marshall -- the fourth chief justice -- has come to be known as the "Great Chief Justice." The folks who have given him that title are the progressives who have largely written the history we are taught in government schools. They revere him because he is the intellectual progenitor of federal power. Marshall's opinions over a 34-year period during the nation's infancy -- expanding federal power at the expense of personal freedom and the sovereignty of the states -- set a pattern for federal control of our lives and actually invited Congress to regulate areas of human behavior nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. He was Thomas Jefferson’s cousin, but they rarely spoke. No chief justice in history has so pronouncedly and creatively offered the feds power on a platter as he.
Now he has a rival.
No one can know the true motivations for the idiosyncratic rationale in the health care decision written by Marshall's current successor, John Roberts. Often five member majorities on the court are fragile, and bizarre compromises are necessary in order to keep a five-member majority from becoming a four-member minority. Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts really means what he wrote -- that congressional power to tax is without constitutional limit -- and his opinion is a faithful reflection of that view, without a political or legal or intra-court agenda. But that view finds no support in the Constitution or our history. It even contradicts the most famous of Marshall's big government aphorisms: The power to tax is the power to destroy.
The reasoning underlying the 5 to 4 majority opinion is the court’s unprecedented pronouncement that Congress' power to tax is unlimited. The majority held that the extraction of thousands of dollars per year by the IRS from individuals who do not have health insurance is not a fine, not a punishment, not a payment for government-provided health insurance, not a shared responsibility -- all of which the statute says it is -- but rather is an inducement in the form of a tax. The majority likened this tax to the federal taxes on tobacco and gasoline, which, it held, are imposed not only to generate revenue but also to discourage smoking and driving. The statute is more than 2,400 pages in length, and it establishes the federal micromanagement of about 16 percent of the national economy. And the court justified it constitutionally by calling it a tax.
A 7 to 2 majority (which excluded two of the progressive justices who joined the chief in rewriting tax law and included the four dissenting justices who would have invalidated the entire statute as beyond the constitutional power of Congress) held that while Congress can regulate commerce, it cannot compel one to engage in commerce. The same majority ruled that Congress cannot force the states to expand Medicaid by establishing state insurance exchanges. It held that the congressional command to establish the exchanges combined with the congressional threat to withhold all Medicaid funds -- not just those involved with the exchanges -- for failure to establish them would be so harmful to the financial stability of state governments as to be tantamount to an assault on state sovereignty. This leaves the exchanges in limbo, and it is the first judicial recognition that state sovereignty is apparently at the tender mercies of the financial largesse of Congress.
The logic in the majority opinion is the jurisprudential equivalent of passing a camel through the eye of a needle. The logic is so tortured, unexpected and unprecedented that even the law's most fervent supporters did not make or anticipate the court's argument in its support. Under the Constitution, a tax must originate in the House (which this law did not), and it must be applied for doing something (like earning income or purchasing tobacco or fuel), not for doing nothing. In all the history of the court, it never has held that a penalty imposed for violating a federal law was really a tax. And it never has converted linguistically the congressional finding of penalty into the judicial declaration of tax, absent finding subterfuge on the part of congressional draftsmanship.
I wonder whether the chief justice realizes what he and the progressive wing of the court have done to our freedom. If the feds can tax us for not doing as they have commanded, and if that which is commanded need not be grounded in the Constitution, then there is no constitutional limit to their power, and the ruling that the power to regulate commerce does not encompass the power to compel commerce is mere sophistry.
Even The Beatles understood this.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/02/vast-new-federal-power/#ixzz1zYNzcB8Z

Monday, July 2, 2012

Muslim mob assaults Christians in Dearborn, Michigan

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

For the past few years, some Christians who attended the Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan, have encountered vicious verbal abuse, in at least one case a physical assault, and some of the Christians have even been arrested! The good news is, the arrests have been thrown out.

Now, in the shocking video below, a Muslim mob vents its anti-Christian rage in a modern version of stoning. They throw eggs, water bottles, and other projectiles at a small group of Christians holding signs at this public event. In effect, the Muslim mob wants to make this public event a “Muslim only” event—a version of the “no-go zones” prevalent in France.

The police do virtually nothing to restrain the Muslim assailants. In fact, near the end of the video you’ll see the police threatening the Christians with disorderly conduct! The police position is that the Christians are endangering public safety by saying things that are enraging the Muslim mob.

The message is clear—it’s not the violence that endangers public safety, it’s free speech that the mob wants to silence that endangers public safety.

Similar Muslim mob violence has occurred in Europe and the UK.

Now it’s here.

ID PLEASE AND ARE YOU LEGAL IN THIS COUNBTRY ?

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

Arizona flag SC Border States Must Protect Their Legal Citizens
If I am stopped somewhere between my house and downtown (which is only three blocks) for violating a driving law, such as running a stop sign, or speeding, or a number of a other violations, I am asked to present my driver license. This is to show that I am registered by my state to drive a motor vehicle.
Possibly in the beginning, this law upset some folks, but now that it has been on the books these many years, it’s accepted as a good law. This is the way drivers are identified as being legally authorized to drive, and also identifies those that are not legal drivers for some reason or another.
Sb 1070 is only a tool that Arizona can use to identify those that do not have legal authority to be roaming the streets, causing havoc, and destroying private or government property, and draining the tax paying citizens of millions of dollars in the way of welfare.
CLICK BELOW TO READ MORE

The Nation Vs. The Government

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

constitution The Nation vs. The GovernmentThe government, as created by the Founders of the united States of America, was separate from the Nation, or the People. It was a government of (owned by) the people, by (elected representatives) the people, and for (the good of) the people. 
Until the election of Abraham Lincoln, that was pretty much the case. There were some instances of special interests interfering in the smooth operation of the government (The National Bank), but they were beaten back. The Civil War changed all of that.
The States were not allowed to exercise their right to secede from the Union. Rather than the war ending slavery for the black people of the Nation, the white people were put in bondage as sure as bondage is.
In Canada there is, or was, a law that stated that a woman who asked for a divorce three times and didn’t follow through was precluded from filing a fourth time. She then became as good as a slave to the husband. That is about the same thing as what happened when the bankers funding the North in the American Civil War won the war. Of course, the bankers always win. They will win the election in November. They are the major backers of the Hair Do from
 CLICK BELOW TO READ MORE

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS SWITCHES SIDES FOR POLITICAL OR EGO REASONS??

Posted By WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR/TV


Chief Justice Roberts Switches Vote... for Politics?

By Bobby Eberle
Could the 5-4 Supreme Court decision which upheld Obamacare have turned out differently? According to news reports, the answer is a resounding YES. The liberal group of justices were set, conservatives like Thomas, Alito, and Scalia were set as well. But Chief Justice John Roberts was supposedly ready to vote with the conservatives to strike down Obamacare... until he jumped ship.
As Jan Crawford reports for CBS News, "Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position."
Roberts formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."
The question is... why? Why would a man who is nearly universally acclaimed for his intelligence and knowledge of the law go back and forth? Could it be... politics?
In a piece by Charles Krauthammer, the logic (or illogic) appears to be a balancing act Roberts is playing between being a constitutional conservative and chief justice -- the person charged with maintaining the integrity of the Supreme Court.
Why did Roberts do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court's legitimacy, reputation, and stature.
As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration's central argument that the individual coverage mandate is a proper exercise of the authority to regulate commerce.
That's Roberts, philosophical conservative. But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the court, acutely aware that the judiciary's arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held. Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren and Burger courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade.
Give me a break! Yes, Roberts and the court would take political heat for overturning Obamacare. But if it is unconstitutional... then guess what? It's unconstitutional! The job of the Supreme Court is to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Period.
As for John Roberts... he's bolting the country for a while. As noted in the AP story on GOPUSA, Roberts will be teaching a class for "two weeks in Malta, the Mediterranean island nation." Roberts joked, "Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress. It seemed like a good idea."
Roberts appeared Friday at a conference hosted by the Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia Circuit, one day after the Supreme Court said the federal government can require citizens to buy health insurance. The impromptu 35-minute session featured Roberts answering alternating questions from Chief Judge David B. Sentelle, of the D.C. Circuit Court, and Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who heads the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Neither judge asked Roberts directly about the health care decision.
Rather, Roberts responded with the Malta quip after Sentelle asked him whether he was "going to Disney World" now that the court has adjourned for the summer.
Whether it's Disney World or Malta... it's probably a good idea for Roberts to get out of town. As both Crawford and Krauthammer write, Roberts had more than just the law steering his decision. He had politics.    
IT MAKES ONE WONDER WHAT THE PAYOFF IS GOING TO BE FOR ROBERTS SINCE HE HAS DESTROYED ANY LEGACY HE HAD AS CHIEF JUSTICE.  AGAIN HE HAS SOLD OUT THE CONSERVATIVES FOR GAIN.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

ANOTHER JUDGE KNEELS IN OBEISANCE TO OBAMA

Posted By WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR/TV

The judge in a Florida lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president has dismissed the case “with prejudice.”
In his issued ruling Circuit Judge Terry Lewis agreed with White House attorneys that Obama’s eligibility could not be challenged under Florida election law because, technically, Obama hasn’t been nominated yet and furthermore, the judge said, Obama’s birth in the U.S. meets the Constitution’s requirements for being a “natural born citizen.”

The attorney challenging Obama’s eligibility, however, told WND the judge’s ruling is “intellectually dishonest” and so poorly written it makes an appeal “relatively easy.”
A fund has been set up for donations to cover legal expenses for the case.
As WND reported, Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County,” had challenged Obama’s eligibility, arguing that the “natural born citizen” clause was rightly understood in historical context to mean a child not only born in the U.S., but born to two American-citizen parents, so as not to have divided loyalties. Obama, however, readily admits to being born a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship.
Judge Lewis rejected Voeltz’s and attorney Larry Klayman’s arguments on three grounds.
First, the judge insisted, Obama’s candidacy cannot be challenged because he has not been nominated yet.
“The respective major political parties determine their nominee at a national convention [that hasn't occurred yet],” Lewis writes. “Thus, under Florida law, Mr. Obama is not presently the nominee of the Democratic Party for the office.
Second, the judge insisted, it’s not the Florida secretary of state’s job to determine a presidential candidate’s eligibility.
Quoting Florida law, Lewis writes, “The secretary of state has no affirmative duty, or even authority, ‘to inquire or pass judgment upon the eligibility of a candidate to hold office for the nomination for which he is running.”
Third, Lewis insisted, Obama should be considered a natural born citizen.
“The United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States,’” Lewis writes.
Then citing district and appellate court ruling from other states, Lewis adds, “Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of president of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”
As WND reported, Klayman had earlier suggested he would seek “declaratory relief” in the case, regardless of whether or not Lewis considered Obama “nominated” yet or not, a move Lewis appears to anticipate in his ruling.
“Plaintiff suggests the possibility of a declaratory judgment claim,” Lewis writes, “but I don’t see how Plaintiff, as an individual voter, would have standing to seek declaratory relief.”
Klayman, however, spoke with WND to break down what he says are glaring flaws in the judge’s ruling.
“The decision issued today by Judge Terry Lewis was poorly reasoned and written,” Klayman asserts. “It goes against prior Florida Supreme Court precedent in particular, thus making our chances on appeal great. … In any event, Plaintiff Micheal Voeltz filed a new complaint today for declaratory relief, which will, in addition to his appeal, now proceed forward. In short, we remain confidant that if the Florida courts ultimately decide to obey their own election law, we will prevail in the end.”
Specifically, Klayman objected first to Lewis’ assertion that Obama’s nomination is a matter for the Democrats’ national convention and not subject to Florida law.
“He basically said that a presidential candidate can never be nominated under Florida law, ever, and that’s just wrong,” Klayman said. “He made our appeal relatively easy, because he flies in the face of the Florida statute and also a Florida Supreme Court case. There’s nothing on which for him to come to this conclusion. The law is clear here that Obama was nominated for office.”
And as for the judge’s concession that Voeltz might have cause for an election challenge after Obama is elected president, Klayman scoffed, “That’s a disingenuous dodge.”
At the heart of the case, however, was the judge’s reasoning that a citizen born in the U.S. fulfills the U.S. Constitution’s “natural born” citizen requirement for the presidency.
“The judge equated being a ‘citizen’ with a ‘natural born citizen’ and cited no authority to conclude the two terms are the same,” Klayman continued in his analysis. “He quotes other state’s cases, where judges reached that conclusion, but that’s not precedent for him. What other courts said in lower cases means nothing to him.”
Klayman also bristled at the judge’s claim that the “burden of proof” fell upon Voeltz to demonstrate Obama’s ineligibility, despite denying Klayman’s team “discovery,” a process that may have allowed subpoena power of Obama’s identifying documents.
“How can you say we have the burden of proof, then not allow discovery?” Klayman asked. “He says we have burden, but doesn’t allow us to meet it. We’re entitled to discovery. That’s a very vulnerable part of this case going forward.”
Finally, Klayman marveled that the judge would declare his client doesn’t have “standing” for declaratory relief – a common argument many judges around the country have used to dismiss eligibility challenges without considering them on merit.
“That’s not true, we do have standing under Florida law,” Klayman said.
“The ruling is intellectually dishonest, from a Democrat judge who didn’t want to be put on the hot seat by his own party,” Klayman asserted. “We’re immediately appealing, and we’re confident on appeal. The main thrust of the judge’s decision is contrary to how the Florida Supreme Court has already ruled on when a candidate is nominated.”
Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issue

BOEHNER ORIGINALLY VOTED AGAINST THEN SWITCHED

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR/TV


Report: Roberts Originally Voted to Strike Down Obamacare

Sunday, 01 Jul 2012 04:31 PM


Chief Justice John Roberts originally sided with conservatives who wanted to overturn Obamacare but then switched positions on the Affordable Care Act to ultimately side with liberal justices, according to a CBS report released Sunday.

The highly detailed report, quoting anonymous sources apparently close to the Supreme Court, reveals many details concerning the super-secretive negotiations that go on behind the scenes during major deliberations.

“Two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations" told CBS that Roberts originally sided with the four conservative justices in declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional.

Together, that 5-vote majority of justices would have struck down the entire law because they believed the mandate was essential to the entire system of Obamacare being able to function.

But while Roberts agreed that the individual mandate was unconstitutional under Congress' power to regulate commerce, he felt less strongly about whether the entire law should fall.

Roberts switched positions to side with the liberal justices, perhaps in response to increasing pressure from outside the Court to rule in favor of the law, CBS reports. The conservative justices tried to lobby him back, but he wouldn’t budge and in fact attempted to convince Justice Anthony Kennedy to join him on the decision to make the court appear more unified on the issue.

CBS also reports that Justices Kennedy and Antonin Scalia wrote most of the dissent, and that speculation that parts of the dissent were originally written by Roberts before he changed his mind are incorrect.

"He was relentless," one source told CBS of Kennedy's efforts to sway Roberts. "He was very engaged in this."

But Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

The article suggests that Roberts was as concerned with his reputation and the Court's popular standing as he was with the merits of the case.

"Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public," the article states.

"There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

"Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint."


Read more on Newsmax.com: Report: Roberts Originally Voted to Strike Down Obamacare
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

BOEHNER PROMISES TO RIP OUT OBAMACARE BY IT ROOTS

Posted By Woody Pendleton

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER   WFZR/TV

Boehner, Republicans Vow All-out Effort to Repeal Obamacare

The two top Republicans in Congress vowed on Sunday to push ahead with efforts to repeal President Barack Obama's healthcare law despite the Supreme Court upholding it, but the White House said it is time to stop fighting and start implementing it. "This has to be ripped out by its roots," House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, said of the 2010 law on the CBS program "Face the Nation." Boehner added: "We will not flinch from our resolve to make sure this law is repealed in its entirety."
The House, controlled by Republicans, has scheduled a vote on July 11 to repeal the law. The Democratic-led Senate, as it has done in the past, is certain to block any repeal legislation.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the law, Obama's signature domestic policy achievement and the most sweeping overhaul since the 1960s of the unwieldy U.S. healthcare system. The ruling was written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the court's four liberals.
"I think the thing that the American people want is for the divisive debate on healthcare to stop," White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said on "Fox News Sunday."
"I think that what we need to do is get on with the implementation now, and that's what we intend to do," Lew added.
The healthcare law battle promises to figure prominently in the Nov. 6 election in which Obama is challenged by Republican Mitt Romney, who as Massachusetts governor pushed through a state healthcare overhaul with provisions similar to Obama's plan.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Sunday showed public support for the law rising to 48 percent after the ruling from 43 percent before the court's decision.
The U.S. system, unlike other rich countries, is a patchwork of private insurance and restrictive government programs. The United States pays more for healthcare than any other country, but about 50 million of the roughly 310 million Americans still have no insurance.
The law was meant to bring coverage to more than 30 million of the uninsured and slow soaring medical costs. Critics deride the law as "Obamacare" and say it meddles too much in the lives of individuals and the business of the states.
'SINGLE WORST PIECE OF LEGISLATION'
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans will insist that the Democrats who control the chamber hold a vote before the election on repealing the law.
"If I'm the leader of the majority next year, I commit to the American people that the repeal of 'Obamacare' will be job one," he said on "Fox News Sunday."
McConnell said he would use a process called "reconciliation" in the 100-member Senate to permit a simple majority to pass a repeal of the law rather than the customary 60 votes. McConnell had criticized Senate Democrats for using that same process in passing the bill in 2010.
"Yes, that could be done with a simple 51 votes," he said.
"This is the single worst piece of legislation that's been passed, certainly in modern times. And it will be an issue, a big issue, in the fall election," McConnell said.
"We've got one last chance here to defeat Obamacare. We can do that in the November election," added McConnell.
McConnell labeled the law's "individual mandate" provision - requiring most people to obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a financial penalty - a middle-class tax increase.
Asked whether a similar provision in Romney's healthcare law in Massachusetts was also a middle-class tax increase, McConnell said, "Well, I think Governor Romney ought to speak for himself about what was done in Massachusetts."
The White House and fellow Democrats refuse to label as a tax the law's penalty on people who decline to obtain health insurance - even though the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" only because it was permissible under the congressional power to levy taxes.
"It's a penalty. It's something that only 1 percent of people - who can afford insurance and choose not to get - it will pay," Lew said on CNN's "State of the Union."
Nancy Pelosi, the top House Democrat, added on NBC's "Meet the Press": "It is a penalty for free riders."
Asked what Republicans would do - if they succeed in repealing Obama's law - to provide coverage to the tens of millions of Americans currently with no insurance, McConnell said: "That is not the issue. The question is how can you go step by step to improve the American healthcare system. It is already the finest healthcare system in the world."
"We're not going to turn the American healthcare system into a western European system," he added, referring to government-run systems that provide near universal coverage.


Read more on Newsmax.com: Boehner, Republicans Vow All-out Effort to Repeal Obamacare
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

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
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...