Saturday, June 30, 2012

Unexpected turn in eligibility case: 'Put it on record!'

'This judge can't get out; if he screws around, he's violating law'

120618obamaThe attorney in a publicized challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president told WND the Florida case took an unexpected turn in court yesterday, one he says “pulled the rug out” from Obama’s lawyers and should force a quick answer from the judge.

Attorney Larry Klayman told WND he had expected an “uneventful” hearing in the ongoing case, which returned before Judge Terry Lewis yesterday, but instead found a legal tangle that he believes means Lewis will “have to make a decision, have to put it on record.”

Klayman originally filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County.”

As WND reported, however, attorneys representing Obama at the case’s main hearing, which was livestreamed by WND, argued that the Florida presidential preference primary, which listed Obama as the only Democrat nominee, didn’t make him the party’s nominee for president. They urged Lewis to decide that Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee for president and therefore ignore evidence challenging his eligibility.

A video recording of the hearing is available for viewing online at WND.

But Klayman told WND yesterday that Florida law is unique in that it gives the average voter “much greater freedom to challenge eligibility and fraud than most other states.”

Florida law permits filing for “declaratory relief” at any time, Klayman said, a move that would force a judge to rule on the facts of the case even before a decision on whether to compel some legal action. In other words, in the Voeltz case, instead of waiting until the nominating convention – which Klayman called a “shell game” Obama attorneys are playing to put off the issue –Lewis would be pushed to make a declaration on Obama’s eligibility “whether nominated or not.”

“Lewis would have to reach a decision; he would have to put it on record,” Klayman said. “By amending for declaratory relief, we’re pulling the rug right out from Obama and the Florida secretary of state.”

Klayman told WND Obama’s lawyers immediately went into a tailspin and filed to have the amendment for declaratory relief stricken, which the judge granted, arguing he wanted to wait to issue a formal decision in the case.

But Klayman said his team is willing to file a stand-alone complaint for declaratory relief with Lewis as soon as next week and “pull the rug out from under him, too.”

“This judge can’t get out from under his legal requirement,” Klayman said. “If he screws around, he’s violating law.”

In hundreds of cases filed challenging Obama’s eligibility, the full range of questions – from Obama’s birth records, charged by some as fraudulent, to the Constitution’s meaning of “natural born citizen” – have never been ruled upon, dismissed typically on questions of who has “standing” to bring the challenge.

Klayman, however, told WND, “It doesn’t matter how Lewis rules, the losing side will appeal, and this case is going up, maybe all the way to the Supreme Court.”

Still, he said, “I want Lewis to address the issue of eligibility and create a record, so we can take it up before the election. I’m still confident, hopeful that will happen.”

Following the case’s first hearing, the judge said he would review the law, but he had pointed questions for both sides.

For example, When Klayman noted the Founding Fathers established the natural-born citizen requirement because they wanted to avoid foreign influence on a president from a non-citizen parent, Lewis countered by posing a hypothetical situation in which a candidate’s two U.S.-citizen parents later emigrate to Israel.

Klayman said the Founding Fathers’ attempt to avoid a conflict of interest in the Oval Office did not include every possible scenario.

The judge asked whether the Democratic Party, as a private group, had a right to choose a nominee, even if that person was ineligible.

Lewis questioned a citation by Obama’s attorneys of a Florida law that suggests when only one person is on the ballot, that person automatically becomes the nominee. He told the attorneys he would review the details of the law.

The arguments by Obama’s attorneys reflected their request that the judge simply dismiss the case because they claim a sitting president chosen by his party at multiple levels is not yet officially the nominee.

Klayman accused the Obama attorneys trying to delay the issue, as numerous courts did in 2008 until the election was over and Obama was inaugurated.

The judge could remove Obama’s name from the November ballot in Florida, a crucial swing state, should he determine that the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen” can be applied at the primary level.
 
Klayman told WND that during a hearing last month on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that the plaintiff’s brief cited U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875 defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, while the Obama campaign’s arguments provided no citations.

Defining the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility.

The U.S. Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement is not imposed on other federal officials. The writings of the Founders indicate the requirement was meant to ensure that no person who had divided loyalties would serve as commander in chief.

Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.

Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking.

WND earlier reported on the case, which raises some of the same issues that have been raised in other state ballot challenges. Specifically it alleges:

On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior.

There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.

The action follows by weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s eligibility. The investigation by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found probable cause that Obama’s birth certificate was forged and fraudulently presented as a genuine document.

The plaintiff has submitted affidavits from Arpaio and others to support the claim.

The complaint explains that even if Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because his father was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936, making him a British subject, according to the British Nationality Act of 1948.

A case filing explains: “No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.”

When asked by Judge Lewis, Klayman confirmed he could add to the complaint details of the evidence Obama was not born in the U.S.

Obama’s attorneys told the judge that other courts have decided that courts should not make such decisions and the process is better handled by Congress. They said state courts especially are not suited to making a decision on the eligibility of Obama.

“They are precluded from judging the qualifications of candidates for president of the United States,” the Obama attorneys said.

But Klayman pleaded with the judge to decide the issue, because a determination made after the election could negate Florida’s vote.

“Florida has a special duty not just on behalf of the citizens of Florida but on behalf of the United States,” he said.

Klayman referred to a recent Obama order to underscore the significance of the Founders’ desire that the president not have divided loyalties or “not even a hint of foreign influence.”

“Just a few days ago, he issued an executive order … which in effect allows illegal alien students who came into this country … to remain in this country. … The president’s own father was in fact here on a student visa and ultimately was deported because that visa expired.”

Klayman reiterated the Supreme Court’s Minor v. Happersett definition of “natural born citizen” as a person born in the country of two citizen parents.

“The point is this, your honor,” said Klayman. “The president is not like everybody else. If that was the case the framers would have said ‘citizens’ [can be president.]”

He accused Obama’s attorneys of trying to “push the issue down the road” until the legal process would fail due to lack of time.

“It’s a shell game,” Klayman said. ” … Neither the Florida Constitution nor the federal Constitution … would ever sanction what they are saying.”

Obama 'lying' about 'free' health services

Congressman-doctor: Don't like Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling? Fix it at ballot box

By Jack Minor / WND



A physician-congressman – with three decades of experience working inside the nation’s health-care system – is warning that the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare should serve as a wake-up that inspires Americans to rise up and take control of their own destiny.

“It was disturbing that we made the case to Justice Kennedy, who embraced the concept of limited government, only to have it overshadowed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who envisioned the entire issue simply of one over the ability to tax,” Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, told WND.

He added, “The good news for liberty is the inability of Congress to exceed its authority under the Commerce Clause was affirmed. The bad news for liberty is the taxing power of Congress has now been accelerated by this Court.”

In a 5-4 split decision this week, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a tax and, thus, legal under the U.S. Constitution.

Now that the Supreme Court has approved Obamacare, find out what’s really in the bill! 

Burgess has been a medical doctor for more than 30 years. As such, he provides a unique outlook on the ruling both from a lawmaker’s perspective and as a member of the health-care field.

He is author of “Doctor in the House,” a book that explains what needs to be done to fix Obamacare and America’s health-care system.

Now that the Supreme Court has presented its ruling, he said the need to act is more urgent than ever.

“For all the harm Roberts did to us yesterday, he did us a favor by clearly delineating if you don’t like this you have a remedy at the ballot box not the courthouse,” Burgess said. “He was saying to politicians, don’t expect me to rescue you if you make a bad political decision when you cast your vote. You need to pay attention to what you voted for.”

Roberts, drafting the majority opinion, wrote, “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

Based on Robert’s admonition, House Republicans have announced that they are planning to hold a vote to repeal Obamacare on July 11.

President Obama has tried to deflect attempts to repeal portions of his “crown jewel” legislation by declaring, “It’s time for us to move forward.”

He continued to make promises to the American people.

“Because this law has a direct impact on so many Americans, I want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you,” Obama said. “If you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance – this law will only make it more secure and more affordable.”

However, Burgess takes issue with Obama’s statements. He said, contrary to the president’s claims, costs have not gone down, but have actually increased by approximately $2,000 for a family premium under Obamacare.

Burgess warned that Obamacare, by its very nature, will increase costs. He said the real solution for controlling costs is common-sense, market-based solutions.
Burgess is a proponent of catastrophic coverage and health-care savings accounts.

He explained that medical issues typically come in three categories: 1) small and manageable, such as Band-Aids and aspirin, 2) medium range, such as orthodontic visits or maternity issues and 3) unexpected issues, such as accidents or disease.

He said the solution for all of these categories is simple and need not involve government.

For the first two categories, health-savings accounts would allow a person to contribute to a personal fund to pay for these expenses, he explained.

Burgess added that he would also like to see “health-borrowing accounts” made available to people.

“These would be outside the normal credit score criteria and would allow a person to borrow for medical expenses and pay it off over time,” he said.

Burgess noted that there is no question these reforms would lower costs and pointed to current real-world examples to prove his point.

“Take a look at orthodontic services as well as cosmetic and LASIK surgery,” he said. “In each of these areas the cost is coming down and the marketplace responds to competition. We should embrace that.

Those providing these types of services often work with patients to provide them with payment plans and compete with others in their field.”

However, Burgess argued that Obamacare drives costs up by forcing doctors out of private practices and into hospitals.

“Cardiologists and other doctors are closing their private practices and moving to hospitals because, under Obamacare, the hospital reimbursement rate under Medicaid and Medicare is so much higher for them then if they remain in private practice. The hospital is then seeing an increase in their bottom line,” he lamented.

“We are going in the wrong direction, the prices are not coming down they are going up.”

During his own experience running a private practice with several physicians, Burgess said he had to hire two full-time employees just to file insurance paperwork.

“There are multiple codes for a sprained ankle,” he explained. “That is simply an attempt by someone outside the practice of medicine attempting to exert control over us and it drives us crazy.”

Burgess said ultimately the health-care solutions need to be physician led, rather than allowing politicians to interfere with care.

Obama has touted a variety of purportedly “free” services Americans are now able to receive from insurance companies and doctors.

“They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms – a provision that’s already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance,” he said.

But Burgess said, as a member of the health-care profession he is outraged over attempts to portray these services as free.

“There is no free cost here,” he said. “When the president talks about free screenings and free tests, that is not right. There is nothing free in medicine. The cost will be borne by somebody somewhere in the system.”

Burgess even went so far as to point the finger at Obama for “lying” about his legislation to get votes.

“Stop talking about free stuff for people,” he said. “That sounds as if you are pandering, because you are. But more to the point, you are lying because nothing is free.”

Finally, Burgess said the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision proves the 2012 election is exceedingly important.

“The man on the street needs to look at this decision,” he said. “They’ve got a big election coming up, and they need to examine these facts and incorporate other facts that are important to them. They then have a big choice to make, which has become even more apparent than it was two weeks ago.”

Burgess added, “There is a bright line between the philosophical differences of the two parties, and even the presidential candidates and people need to make their choices accordingly.”
Op-ed:
ObamaCare...null and void 
By: Diane Sori


I love Chief Justice John Roberts!
 
The man that everyone has been criticizing, denigrating, and made into a political foible since the ObamaCare decision was handed down, has in reality saved our country by ruling this monstrosity to be a TAX.  

The word ‘TAX’ has been sticking in my mind ever since the ruling was announced, and the fact that Chief Justice Roberts kept reiterating it over and over again led me to believe that he was trying, albeit in a very covert way, to lead us to the answer of how to get ObamaCare repealed or better yet, rendered null and void.  We just had to listen very carefully to what he said and then digest his words very slowly.

And I did just that.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution says, “The Congress shall have Power 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.”

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution says, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives...”

And here in the very words of our US Constitution is the two-fold punch that just might be our answer to repealing or negating ObamaCare in full. 

Punch One...First, a little lesson on the nature of bills as this is key to overturning ObamaCare.  Bills originate mostly from individual members of Congress.  Bills can be brought to a House member by a constituent; or a bill can be submitted to a member of Congress by one or more state legislatures; or the President or his administration might suggest a bill themselves, as was the case with ObamaCare.

No matter how it’s brought to the attention of a House member, it must be submitted for consideration by that member. In the House, Representatives drop a copy of a bill into a bin specifically placed to receive new bills.  In the Senate, the bill is given to a clerk at the President's desk.

Bills can be introduced in either house but a bill must eventually pass both houses to become law.  The exception to this is that BILLS FOR RAISING REVENUE MUST ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE AND NEVER, I REPEAT NEVER IN THE SENATE!

Bingo!!!  Bills for raising revenue MUST originate in the House and NEVER in the Senate.  I cannot stress the importance of those words enough because ObamaCare is indeed a bill that raises revenue.  Let me explain...with there being a penalty clause in ObamaCare that says if you don’t have health insurance you WILL be fined, and because any fine raised from a law comes under the heading of revenue, that automatically should negate ObamaCare because this revenue generating bill was initiated in the Senate and NOT in the House where it should have been as per our Constitution.*

Second, Mr. Supposed Constitutional lawyer himself, Barack Hussein Obama, knew damn well that his precious ObamaCare was indeed a tax to raise revenue and he knew it from the get-go even while claiming it was not.  He knew it and yet he still tried to pull one off on ‘We the People’ by saying it wasn’t a TAX so he could introduce it in the Senate knowing he had a Democratic majority there.  And he also tried to mask the intent to raise revenue by using the word ‘mandate’ instead of the words, ‘revenue-generating TAX.’

But Chief Justice Roberts caught him and by doing so he was able to rip the mask off the individual mandate clause and show us all, including the members of Congress, that ObamaCare was indeed a TAX that raised revenue by bringing to the forefront the penalty clause and making such an issue of it. 

Third, we all know that Obama presented ObamaCare not as a TAX as it should have been but with a mandate clause instead, because he knew it never would have passed the Senate or the House if he had. But it is, was, and always has been a tax according to the SCOTUS ruling.  So with that being the case, ObamaCare was actually presented to Congress for vote under knowingly false pretenses, and since it was presented under knowingly false pretenses that should again automatically negate it as null and void.

Punch Two...In doing what he did by presenting to Congress ObamaCare as something that it was not along with initiating it in a place where it should never have been initiated, Barack Hussein Obama once again deliberately and with malice trampled on our Constitution as he tried again to radically lead our country down the path to socialized medicine.

Well, Chief Justice Roberts caught him and now it’s up to both Congress and ‘We the People’ to right this horrible wrong.  Congress must take immediate action to rule ObamaCare null and void as it was submitted outside of Congressional procedure due to the fact that this bill was submitted and passed in a strictly partisan vote in a so-called emergency Congressional middle of the night session in addition to its being proposed on a false premise, then Barack Hussein Obama must be held in contempt of Congress for knowingly and willfully lying and misleading the House and Senate with his intentions; and finally come November 6th ‘We the People’ must vote this miserable, lying, Constitution trampling, excuse of a president out of office.

The United States of America, the country we all so love and hold dear is depending on us for her survival and we cannot let her down.

*********************************************************

* For those who have any doubts about the premiss of my Op-ed, please remember that all revenue generating bills MUST originate in the House only as per the Constitution. A 'NEW' bill was introduced in the Senate and NOT the House as Harry Reid had radically altered and changed the actual ORIGINAL House bill, thus the one he presented for passage in the Senate was NOT the one the House had passed. Instead of his NEW bill going back to the House first for approval it went straight to the Senate and as a totally different NEW bill it should NEVER have been introduced for passage in the Senate.
Op-ed:
Guilty as charged! 
By: Diane Sori


Attorney General Eric Holder has the oh so special distinction of being the first sitting Attorney General in US history to not only be brought up on contempt of Congress charges but also to be found guilty of those charges.

On Thursday, while we were all focused on the ObamaCare ruling another happening of a very unique nature occurred not far from the Supreme Court building...the House voted to find Eric Holder in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents critical to the Fast and Furious investigation.
  
Rep. Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called for that vote on the grounds that Holder refused time and again to turn over documents that could have explained why the Obama administration took 10 long months to admit that gun-walking had occurred.

And why did Holder refuse to turn those documents over...that’s quite simple...they most likely showed his and Obama’s involvement in the operation and as such have long since been destroyed.  You can’t turn over documents that no longer exist can you.

However and so true to form, even with Congress’s findings, the DOJ claimed Holder's withholding of those documents did not a crime make, and as such they refuse to prosecute him for contempt of Congress even though he was found guilty as charged.  And why...because Obama put a blanket of Executive Privilege over Holder.

Come on guys, did you even for a moment think they would...I sure didn’t.

And to make it even more of a dog and pony show, Eric Holder, the ever defiant arrogant bastard that he is, claimed the verdict and the charges themselves were nothing but a “politically motivated investigation during an election year."

To that I say bull!  These charges were brought not just because the gun-walking operation went sour but primarily because one of our own, Border Agent Brian Terry, was murdered by one of the very guns that Holder was supposed to have been tracking. 

Also, what Holder just doesn’t want to understand and accept is that to be politically motivated means a partisan vote, yet 17 of his very own liberal Democrat buddies crossed the aisle and voted with the Republicans. In a vote of 255-67 Holder was found in criminal contempt, and then in a vote of 258-95 Holder was found in in civil contempt.
  
And now, coming out of the blue and hitting Holder smack in the face is a document just read into the Congressional Record that appears to go against Holder’s claim that he and Obama knew little or nothing about Fast and Furious.

The document concerns a secret wiretap application with details about Fast and Furious, including words that would have tipped off anyone who read them about what tactics were being used and who used them. 

Can you say Barack Hussein Obama and Eric Holder.

And to make it worse is that the wiretap application is signed by senior DOJ criminal division officials Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco and a few others.

With this new information on top of the contempt vote Eric Holder should NOT be allowed to casually walk away free just because his own department won’t prosecute him.

There are several options that can be taken including having a US Attorney for the District of Columbia deciding to have Holder testify before a grand jury or members of the House could appoint a special prosecutor to follow through on the contempt charges. 

Congress has jailed those found in contempt before but never a sitting Cabinet official but if there was ever a time to do so it’s now.  Brian Terry’s family deserves no less.