Where We Create & Share Music, Talk Radio Shows, Conservative News & Cartoons for Our Subscribers, Viewers, Other Artists & the General Public. (WFZR Radio / TV Coming Soon)
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 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
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
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.
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:
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.”
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:
Nationalize major sectors of the economy
Redistribute wealth
Discredit opposition
Censors opposing viewpoints
Control gun ownership
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.
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.
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.
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.
The 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
Chief Justice Roberts Switches Vote... for Politics?
By Bobby EberleJuly 2, 2012 7:13 am
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.
Drew Zahn is a former pastor
who cut his editing teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of
Leadership, Christianity Today's professional journal for church
leaders. He is the editor of seven books, including Movie-Based
Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing
love affair with film and his weekly WND column, "Popcorn and a
(world)view."More ↓Less ↑
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.”
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."
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.
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.
Where We Create & Share Music, Talk Radio Shows, Conservative
by 
