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.

Friday, June 29, 2012

Op-ed:
John Roberts...hero in waiting? 
By: Diane Sori


Chief Justice John Roberts just might be the bravest man in America.

Knowing that he would get flack for his vote, and boy did he, Roberts still held firm and ruled according to the Constitution and by doing so gave Barack Hussein Obama a real cause to worry.

Yesterday, like everybody else, I blamed the upholding of ObamaCare on Roberts’ deciding vote.  But now as I’ve had time to really think this ruling through, I’ve come to realize one very important thing... John Roberts just gave the White House to MITT ROMNEY!

Was this his plan all along when he ruled that the government cannot force people to purchase products or services under the Commerce Clause.  Was this his way to force liberals to finally admit that ObamaCare is indeed funded by tax increases...that’s something we’ll never know.

But it’s important to remember that if Roberts had ruled with the conservative justices the vote would appear and be reported as partisan, and claims of an activist court would be lobbed at them by the left.  And that would give Obama fodder to hurl at us while he pulled the race card out of his pocket just in case it.was needed.

However, by ruling that Congress has the authority to tax, Roberts made certain that the implementation of ObamaCare did indeed make it a tax, a whopping big tax (as in the biggest in our country’s history), something Obama has said since day one that it was not.  

And that, my friends, is something Obama hoped would never be the ruling. 

So, with that call, Chief Justice Roberts has very cleverly handed Mitt Romney a platform to nail Obama on, for what better platform is there than being able to tell the American people that Obama just handed the middle and working class the mother of all tax increases.

In addition, by Roberts siding with the liberal justices, something completely and totally out of his character, and with ObamaCare standing NOT with the Obama wanted mandate but as a tax, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barack Hussein Obama out and out lied to the American people when he said, “this is NOT a tax...your taxes will NOT increase one single dime.”

And let's not forget that with ObamaCare being ruled a tax, Congress now has the ability to revoke it.  If repealed in the House because it's a tax, it would then move to the Senate, where Senate Republicans could repeal the full law through the budget reconciliation process.
Want more good news...since the mandate has now become a tax, people all across the country are beyond mad and are contributing to ROMNEY’s campaign en-masse.  Romney’s campaign war chest increased 1.5 million dollars in just the few hours since the decision was handed down with more coming in every hour.
Thank you, John Roberts.

And here’s something that we all must remember when dealing with Obama, something Justice Roberts obviously remembered, and that is that it’s important to think outside the box, especially when we’re up against a man and his minions who have no respect for our rule of law.  Yes, we were all furious at John Roberts yesterday and that fired us all up with anger but now let's redirect that anger into getting the vote out and getting Mitt Romney in!

So, the bottom line is this, Chief Justice Roberts has actually sent us all a message clearly stating that ObamaCare is of course a TAX and a liberal Congress will never stop imposing them on us when led by Barack Hussein Obama, and that's it’s up to Congress or us voters to stop him.

With that, it's now it’s up to ‘We the People’ to either heed his message and act accordingly or go down with the Obama wanted sinking ship formerly known as America.

I, for one, intend to heed his message, and I apologize to Chief Justice Roberts for not understanding at first what he was covertly trying to tell us.  I hope others across the country understand this now as well.
Roberts' Ruling Took Guts

Roberts' Ruling Took Guts 

By: Jonah Goldberg  / Townhall.net

 
 
Why not just cut open a goat and be done with it?

In ancient Rome, a special kind of priest called a haruspex would "read" the entrails of sheep to divine the will of the gods, the health of the growing season, or whatever else was weighing on the minds of men.

Because animal guts don't, in fact, impart that much information about, say, next year's wheat harvest, the haruspices (called "auspices" in Latin -- from which we get the English word) could pretty much make it up as they went along. The same went for the auguries (priests who studied the flight of birds). Ultimately, the auspices and auguries made their decisions based upon the whims, vicissitudes and demands of politics in one form or another. If the rulers were happy with the result, they didn't much care what the guts actually said.

Fast-forward to chief haruspex John Roberts.

In the majority opinion written by Roberts, the Supreme Court held that the mandate to buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. But Roberts also found that it's constitutional under Congress's power to tax. It is on these grounds that Roberts upheld the constitutionality of ObamaCare, siding with the four liberal justices of the bench.

The upshot is that Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to force you to eat broccoli, but it can tax you into doing so. Huzzah for liberty!

To reach this decision, Roberts had to embrace a position denied by the White House, Congress and vast swaths of the legal punditocracy: that the mandate is a tax for the purposes of constitutional consideration but not a tax according to the Anti-Injunction Act (which bars lawsuits against taxes until after they're levied). Roberts' effort, wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in dissent, "carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists."

Let the record show that the sophists were valued defenders of entrail-reading.

Of course, there are substantive arguments in favor of Roberts' reasoning. But as far as I can tell, no one is confident, never mind certain, that Roberts actually believes his own position. And among supporters of ObamaCare, from the White House on down, no one cares whether he does.

President Obama -- self-praised constitutional scholar -- mocked those who called the fees and penalties under ObamaCare a tax. Now he celebrates a decision that mocks him back. Democratic National Committee Executive Director (and former White House aide) Patrick Gaspard seemed to summarize the depth of concern on his side of the aisle when he responded to the ruling on Twitter: "it's constitutional. B----es."

More sober-eyed liberal legal experts took similar positions. Roberts' opinion was "statesmanlike," they claimed, and, more bizarrely, "apolitical." Some, such as constitutional scholar Jeffrey Rosen, speaking on National Public Radio, even celebrated Roberts' brilliance at finding a way to save the reputation of the court by deploying what Thomas Jefferson called "twistifications."

Indeed, before and after the ruling, much of the journalistic and legal establishment argued that a 5-4 ruling to overturn ObamaCare would be "political" because the majority would be comprised entirely of Republican appointees. But a 5-4 ruling to uphold ObamaCare would be apolitical because, well, it just would be.

In other words, if five conservative justices rule according to their well-known convictions, it's illegitimate.

But if Roberts twists himself like an illustration in the Kama Sutra to find a way to uphold the law, then that amounts to "leadership."

Now, I don't know what's in Roberts' heart, but no court watcher I've heard from puts much weight on the idea that Roberts did anything other than reason backward from the result he wanted in order to buy respect from the court's critics at the expense of his own beliefs.

At least that's one thing both fans and critics of this ruling can largely agree on.

Some of Roberts' defenders claim he's outmaneuvered everyone. By upholding ObamaCare, he's made future conservative decisions unassailable. He's poisoned the well of the commerce clause for liberals. He's removed the court as an election-year issue. He's gift-wrapped for Mitt Romney the attack that Obama has raised taxes massively, violating a host of promises and assurances. And, again, he's saved the legitimacy of the court.

That's all very interesting, but it leaves aside the real issue: None of those concerns are what was asked of the court. That so few people seem to care augurs poorly for the rule of law and the auspices of our republic.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Obama panic: 'I will be outspent'

Democrats sound alarm: 'The Romney campaign raises more than we do'

By Jack Minor / WND 
 
Obama_cashPresident Obama’s campaign is pleading for funds, marking a sharp contrast to his fundraising during the 2008 election.

In an urgent appeal sent out to supporters Tuesday, Obama said in an e-mail, “I will be outspent.” He went on to say he was not referring to the so-called Super PACs, but the Romney campaign itself.

“The Romney campaign raises more than we do, and the math isn’t hard to understand: Through the primaries, we raised almost three-quarters of our money from donors giving less than $1,000, while Mitt Romney’s campaign raised more than three-quarters of its money from individuals giving $1,000 or more,” he said. “We can be outspent and still win – but we can’t be outspent 10 to 1 and still win.”

By contrast, the 2008 campaign rejected federal matching funds and shattered fundraising records raising nearly $750 million. John McCain was limited to a mere $84 million as a condition of his acceptance of the matching funds.

This time around, things appear to be vastly different, with the president having to resort to new and creative methods in an attempt to solicit much-needed cash.

Obama became the first sitting president to raffle off meetings with himself and Michelle for those who donate $3 or more to the campaign. The campaign has changed up the specifics of the raffle, and recently it even gave donors a chance to choose a celebrity to join them with the president if they won.

As WND reported, the campaign has even begun soliciting wedding, birthday and anniversary gifts.

The campaign started an “Obama event registry” asking people to forgo birthday, wedding and anniversary gifts and instead ask family and friends to give the money spent on presents to him instead.

“Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up?” the site asks. “Let your friends know how important this election is to you – register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift.”

“It’s a great way to support the president on your big day,” it continues. “Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate – and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.”

The Democratic National Committee also appears to be having fundraising woes of its own. In May, the DNC raised $60 million, compared to $76.8 million by the RNC.

The AP reported that several Democratic strategists have expressed alarm over the lack of fundraising by the campaign and party.

Debbie Dingell, a DNC committee member and wife of Michigan Rep. John Dingell, said, “We’ve all got to get in the same boat and start paddling in the same direction, or we’re going to have some problems.”

The campaign has sent other signals that it having difficulties with its finances. Recently Obama made a campaign stop in Durham, N.H. However, the campaign refused to pay the town for the costs associated with the visit, expecting the town to pay its expenses.

Local officials said they had no problem paying for official presidential visits, but they felt Obama’s campaign should reimburse them for the estimated $20,000 to $30,000 in expenses for police and fire services.

Officials said the city simply didn’t have the money for the president’s campaign stop budgeted for the cost of the services.

Town Administrator Todd Selig said, “Community leaders have taken the position that the campaign, regardless of party affiliation, should absorb the added local public safety costs rather than local taxpayers.”

The campaign initially said it would pay for the cost of the stop, saying it was the responsibility of local governments to pick up the tab for security, traffic control and other expenses whenever the president made a campaign visit.

However, Ann Marie Habershaw, chief operating officer for Obama for America, wrote in a letter sent to Selig: “As a private organization, OFA does not participate in security or traffic control planning. All such decisions, including their impact on costs incurred by federal, state or local governments, are exclusively within the control of the appropriate government officials.”

Why Obamacare Ruling Is Good For Tea Party


Obamacare Slam Dunk Supreme Court SC Why Obamacare Ruling Is Good For Tea Party                                                                           The TEA party movement was born of the threat
Obamacare posed to us. It will send the enthusiasm on our side sky high. It will do very little to excite the Left – hey, they won, didn’t they?

The Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling has placed the weight of pulling America’s wagon on middle class people. In the short run, Democrats will be delirious, and their cheerleaders in the media will be insufferable – in the short run. They will all act as if they have forgotten what happened in the elections of 2010 – but we will remind them in November.

In 2010, when Obamacare was originally passed with no Senate votes from Republicans, it became the driving force that propelled millions of Americas to stand and fight. We converged on Washington from all over the country demanding that something be done  “to fix this.” When it became clear that the way to “fix it” was to vote out the Democrats and vote in a conservative majority in the House and Senate, we rolled up our sleeves and, with rarely seen levels of enthusiasm, marched to the polls. That was BEFORE Obamacare was poured into concrete by Justice Roberts. That was before the absolute urgency of voting out every Democrat in the House and the Senate was staring us in the face.

This will do very little to energize the Left – Democrats will SAY we must elect Democrats to preserve what we have, but saving something that IS won’t fire up voters like changing something that has BECOME.After a few weeks when the decision has been fully understood, the power of America’s TEA party movement will emerge. There will be rallies, and the spirit of 2010 will fill the air.  Those who would say “The TEA party movement is dead” will do so at their own political peril.

This decision keeps the assaults on religious freedoms in place.  Now, which side will THAT fire up?
Op-ed: 
ObamaCare...a rip roaring tax increase on the middle class
By: Diane Sori


America as we know her died today, 06-28-12, as Chief Justice John Roberts sells out to the left.  Of all the justices to do so, this caught us all totally by surprise.

The individual mandate, the heart of the bill, was ruled unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause but was allowed to survive under the power to tax clause.  Yet another tax where the burden will fall on working Americans and Roberts could have stopped this but he didn’t.

Because of him, ObamaCare now becomes the largest tax increase in our nation’s history.  It also means that while you don’t legally have to buy health insurance, if you don’t, the IRS can come after you for not paying a portion of your taxes.

We’re screwed either way...our taxes go up if we buy health insurance and if we don’t we’re guilty of not paying our taxes.

Thanks, Roberts.  And thanks, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, for lying to us yet again with your claim from day one that this was NOT a tax.  Guess what...IT IS!!!

There is however, another way to look at this ruling, and that is that this is actually a good thing for Mitt Romney as public sentiment against a tax increase of any kind (and this is one hell of a major tax increase) will propel people, very angry people, to the polls in November...as it very well might do once the dust settles.

Romney just made a statement saying that he disagrees with the decision and agrees with our dissent and will act to repeal ObamaCare on his first day in office.  He said he knows that while ObamaCare apparently does not violate the Constitution he knows that does not make it good policy or law.  

And here are some numbers he stated that will shock you.  This ruling has now added a 500 billion dollar tax burden on ‘We the People’ which will be handed down to future generations.  This ruling adds trillions to our deficit and national l debt.  This ruling will cause 20 million Americans to lose insurance that they currently have and are happy with. 

Oh what a happy day...NOT!

As Romney stated, this ruling now puts the government between you and your doctor.  And he is right as the government will now be able to decide who gets what treatment and who is worthy of treatment and who is not.

Besides screwing ‘We the People’ this ruling had immediate economic repercussions.  As soon as the ruling was handed down, stocks started dropping.  The Dow Jones industrial average, which was down about 100 points before the court ruled, fell further and was down 160 points within just a few minutes of the ruling came down, and Health care stocks were down even more as doctors and the medical industry got screwed as bad as the rest of us did.

As politicians start chiming in let’s remember what House Speaker John Boehner said on Wednesday...if the law remains intact, the House will work to repeal the entire law.

“We’ve made it pretty clear and I’ll make it clear one more time: If the court does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal what’s left of it,” Boehner said.

‘We the People’ must hold him to those words even as he just announced that the House will start proceedings on this in July.

Senator Marco Rubio, hopefully Romney’s VP pick, said the Supreme Court's decision on ObamaCare just means the law is constitutional, not that it is a good idea.

“What’s important to remember is that what the Court rules on is whether something is constitutional or not, not whether it’s a good idea,” Rubio said. “And while the Court has said that the law is constitutional, it remains a bad idea for our economy, and I hope that in the fall we will have a majority here that will not just repeal this law, but replace it with real solutions that will insure more people and cost a lot less money.”

Not a good idea is putting it mildly. 

Now as the dust starts to settle and we wait to see what Congress and the individual states do (remember there are still lawsuits pending on a state level against this), I’ll tell you this, if this abomination of a ruling doesn’t unite us together as a cohesive voting force I don’t know what will.
Op-ed:
ObamaCare...the twelfth hour countdown begins
By: Diane Sori


OK guys, let’s all be honest here and admit that there was never any question that the BIG decision on ObamaCare would be released today, the last day of the Supreme Court’s 2011 term.  After all, no matter which way the Court rules they know they need to get out of town fast and not look back, because never mind which side prevails, some will not be happy campers.

Remember back when this all started... “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it,” said Senate wannabe queen Nancy Pelosi.

Unfortunately, the bill passed but thankfully it got challenged, leaving it up to the Supreme Court to decide if ObamaCare is Constitutional and stays put, or if it violates our rule of law and gets ditched.  And today is that day.

And the options are...drum roll please...if this monstrosity gets thrown out in full, as I hope it will, the Supreme Court would have rendered dead and buried what amounts to a federal entitlement program having an astronomical cost that ‘We the People’ can ill afford.

If the Justices invalidate only the hot button issue of the individual mandate, the part that forces us to purchase something we don’t want and can’t afford, at least then ‘We the People’ would be under no obligation to carry medical insurance if we don’t want to, thus leaving what remains of ObamaCare lacking any strength for enforcement or funding.  

But even if striking down the mandate only is the ruling, it still forces insurers to remain bound by the law to accept applicants no matter what their medical condition, would still limit what insurers could charge their oldest and sickest customers, and would still allow millions of uninsured individuals to get coverage through Medicaid’s expansion, all the while allowing 15 million or so middle-class Americans to become eligible for federal subsidies to purchase insurance, although premiums would most likely go up.

Still, even with this the winner would be ‘We the People’ as the choice to get medical insurance or not would be ours NOT the governments.  And that’s the crux of this whole situation...can the government force us to purchase something we do NOT want and/or cannot afford for fear face of facing a ‘penalty’ if we don’t.

The last time I checked freedom of choice was still something ‘We the People’ had, and I hope after today that it stays that way.

However, if the Supreme Court Justices rule that ObamaCare is indeed Constitutional and allows it to stay as is, most Americans will NOT be happy, NOT happy at all, as poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Americans do NOT want the government telling them what they must purchase or else.

So, as we sit or as we pace the floor while counting down the remaining few hours until we know the outcome, one final question remains...how will the decision come down...will it be along ideological and party lines or will a few Justices have the courage to cross party lines and do the right thing.  

Come on guys, we know the answer to that one, but if the decision indeed does come down along party lines, who cares, because at least ‘We the People’ will be the winners and Barack Hussein Obama will be the loser.

And I, for one, can happily live with that.

Federal judge refuses to block Florida voter purging
Rebecca DiLeonardo / Jurist

Photo source or description
[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida [official website] on Wednesday denied a request by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] to issue a temporary injunction barring Florida from continuing the practice of purging its voter rolls. The DOJ alleges that Florida's policy violates the Voting Rights Act (VRA) [text] as well as the National Voter Registration Act [text], which requires all voter roll maintenance to cease 90 days before the primary election, meaning all purging in Florida should have stopped by May 16.
 
In his decision, Judge Robert Hinkle said that the law was put in place to prevent the removal of lawful voters, and that it does not bar the state of Florida from removing individuals who do not have a right to vote in the US. The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida (ACLU-FL) [advocacy website] has previously alleged that the purging of voter rolls discriminates against racial minorities, and that in practice, citizens are frequently forced to re-verify their citizenship or lose their right to vote.
 
Florida Governor Rick Scott [official website] praised the decision [press release], saying that halting the purging process would result in "irreparable harm." 

Florida also faces challenges to its purging policy from the ACLU-FL and a coalition of rights groups [JURIST reports] on behalf of several Florida citizens. The purging of voter rolls in Florida has created a national controversy in recent weeks. Earlier this month, amidst calls to end its purging practices, Florida filed suit [JURIST report] seeking access to a federal database that will help it verify the citizenship of registered voters. Earlier in June, a spokesperson for Scott said that the state would continue to search for ineligible voters [Huffington Post report], even after receiving a letter from the DOJ ordering them to stop the practice [JURIST report].

Also this month, federal judge blocked [JURIST report] part of Florida's new election law that required any group that conducts a voter registration drive to turn in registration forms within 48 hours of collecting them or else face a $1,000 per day fine. Last October, the state submitted a request [JURIST report] to a federal court challenging the VRA.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

The biggest scandal in U.S. history

Ann Coulter explains how Dems' '90% lie' tied into Fast and Furious

Forget executive privilege, contempt of Congress, Fast and Furious, how many documents the government has produced and who said what to whom on which date.

The Obama administration has almost certainly engaged in the most shockingly vile corruption scandal in the history of the country, not counting the results of Season Eight on “American Idol.”

Administration officials intentionally put guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, so that when the guns taken from Mexican crime scenes turned out to be American guns, Democrats would have a reason to crack down on gun sellers in the United States.

Democrats will never stop trying to take our guns away. They see something more lethal than a salad shooter and wet themselves.

But since their party was thrown out of Congress for the first time in nearly half a century as a result of passing the 1994 “assault weapons ban,” even liberals know they’re going to need a really good argument to pass any limitation on guns ever again.

So it’s curious that Democrats all started telling the same lie about guns as soon as Obama became president. In March 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced to reporters on a trip to Mexico: “Since we know that the vast majority, 90 percent of that weaponry (used by Mexican drug cartels), comes from our country, we are going to try to stop it from getting there in the first place.”

As she sentimentally elaborated on Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren show: “The guns sold in the United States, which are illegal in Mexico, get smuggled and shipped across our border and arm these terrible drug-dealing criminals so that they can outgun these poor police officers along the border and elsewhere in Mexico.”

Suddenly that 90 percent statistic was everywhere. It was like the statistic on women beaten by their husbands on Super Bowl Sunday.

CBS’ Bob Schieffer asked Obama on “Face the Nation”: “It’s my understanding that 90 percent of the guns that they’re getting down in Mexico are coming from the United States. We don’t seem to be doing a very good job of cutting off the gun flow. Do you need any kind of legislative help on that front? Have you, for example, thought about asking Congress to reinstate the ban on assault weapons?”

At a Senate hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said: “It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors … come from the United States.”

And then, thanks to Fox News – the first network to report it – we found out the 90 percent figure was complete bunkum. It was a fabrication told by William Hoover, of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF), and then spread like wildfire by Democrats and the media.

Mexican law enforcement authorities send only a fraction of the guns they recover from criminals back to the U.S. for tracing. Which guns do they send? The guns that have U.S. serial numbers on them. It would be like asking a library to produce all their Mark Twain books and then concluding that 90 percent of the books in that library are by Mark Twain.

You begin to see why the left hates Fox News so much.

Obama backed away from the preposterous 90 percent claim. His National Security Council spokesman explained to Fox News that by “recovered,” they meant “guns traceable to the United States.” So, in other words, Democrats were frantically citing the amazing fact that almost all the guns traceable to the U.S. were … traceable to the U.S.

Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters that even if the percentage is inaccurate, the “vast majority” of guns seized in crimes in Mexico come from the United States. And he should know, because it turns out he was sending them there!

Apart from the guns Holder was giving them, this was an absurd claim. Most of the guns used by drug cartels are automatic weapons – not to mention shoulder-fired rockets – that can’t be sold to most Americans. They are acquired from places like Russia, China and Guatemala.

Right about the time the 90 percent lie was unraveling, the Obama administration decided to directly hand thousands of American guns over to Mexican criminals. Apart from the fact that tracking thousands of guns into Mexico is not feasible or rational, the dumped guns didn’t have GPS tracing devices on them, anyway. There is no conceivable law enforcement objective to such a program.

This is what we know:

1. Liberals thought it would be a great argument for gun control if American guns were ending up in the hands of Mexican criminals;
2. They wanted that to be true so badly, Democrats lied about it;
3. After they were busted on their lie, the Obama administration began dumping thousands of guns in the hands of Mexican criminals.

We also know that hundreds of people were murdered with these U.S.-government-supplied guns, including at least one American, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

But let’s look on the bright side. The BATF was originally going to ship warheads to Iran until realizing the explosions might disable the tracking devices.

(Contrary to more Democratic lies, there was no such program to dump thousands of guns in Mexico under George W. Bush. The Bush administration did have a program that put GPS trackers on about 100 guns in order to actually trace them. That operation was ended almost as soon as it began because of the lack of cooperation from Mexican officials. You may as well say Holder’s program was “started” by the first cop who ever put tracer dye on contraband.)

No one has explained what putting 2,500 untraceable guns in the hands of Mexican drug dealers was supposed to accomplish.

But you know what that might have accomplished? It would make the Democrats’ lie retroactively true – allowing them to push for the same gun restrictions they were planning when they first concocted it. A majority of guns recovered from Mexican criminals would, at last, be American guns, because Eric Holder had put them there.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, some brave whistleblower inside the government leaked details of this monstrous scheme. As soon as Congress and the public demanded answers, Holder clammed up. He just says “oops” – and accuses Republicans of racism.

Team Obama's Brother Sharpton Moment 

By: Michelle Malkin  / Townhall.com


Attorney General Eric Holder's people have no shame. After months of stonewalling, misinformation and petulant disregard for the victims of the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal, President Obama's Justice Department is hiding behind the most despicable race-card demagogues on the planet. "Post-racial" America never looked so bitter, clingy and cowardly.
 
At a Tuesday press conference in Washington, D.C., human shield Al Sharpton condemned the upcoming House vote on a contempt motion against Holder as "reckless" and "morally reprehensible." Yes, the infamous hate-crimes hoaxer, cop-basher and riot incitement specialist is now the self-appointed sheriff of Capitol Hill morality. A Huffington Post report hyping Sharpton's protection racket decried the contempt citation as an "assault on minority rights." In typical race-baiting style, Sharpton told the leftwing website: "I'm not saying that this is because Holder is black, and I'm not calling (Republicans) racists. I'm saying what they're doing has a racial effect."

Of course Sharpton's accusing Republicans of racism -- and by extension, he's smearing every American demanding truth and justice in Obama's bloodiest scandal. That includes the family of murdered Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, whose December 2011 death came at the hands of a Mexican thug wielding a Fast and Furious weapon. What about the Mexican government officials left in the dark about the deadly operation? And the hundreds of families of Mexican victims of Fast and Furious-enabled bloodshed? Yes, yes, they are all racists and minority vote suppression advocates, too.

Sharpton forged ahead, comparing the effort to hold Holder accountable for his serial delays and deception to racial profiling. The race-hustling reverend invoked driving-while-black imagery in lambasting the Republican oversight staffers who have "stopped and frisked" Holder, the nation's first black attorney general, "without probable cause" to be "made an example of."

While he regurgitated DOJ talking points about Holder's "unprecedented" level of cooperation, Sharpton neglected to mention that the agency has delivered less than 8 percent of the 80,000 documents sought by congressional investigators. He forgot to acknowledge that of the 70 DOJ officials involved in Fast and Furious, 48 have been blocked by DOJ from testifying. He failed to detail the withdrawn Feb. 4, 2011, letter to Congress falsely denying the existence of Fast and Furious, Holder's flip-flops over what he knew and when, and Holder's blame-shifting assertion, withdrawn last week, that falsely accused former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey of being briefed on a separate gunwalking operation.

Lest we forget, the White House's racial guardian and MSNBC host is the same bigoted clown who manufactured the Tawana Brawley fake hate crime and tried to frame police officers, railed against "Chinamen," "Greek homos" and "n****rs," inveighed against Jewish "diamond merchants," and stoked black mobs at white-owned Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem, which was burned to the ground in 1995 after protesters broke in and gunned down four employees.

Team Obama can no more dissociate itself from Sharpton's bloody legacy than Sharpton can dissociate himself from his own poisonous tongue. In return for his blind and tireless defense over the past year and a half, Holder has publicly embraced Sharpton and endorsed his toxic racial smokescreen. In April, Holder lavished praise on Sharpton "for your partnership, your friendship and your tireless efforts to speak out for the voiceless, to stand up for the powerless and to shine a light on the problems we must solve and the promises we must fulfill." Obama himself addressed Sharpton's spring convention, as did several other Cabinet secretaries. White House visitor logs show more than a dozen entries for "Al Sharpton" or "Alfred Sharpton" over the past three years.

President Clinton had his Sister Souljah moment: a public attempt in 1992 to distance Democrats from radical racial demagoguery. The current White House has turned that centrist maneuver on its head, and American voters of good will shouldn't forget it. Obama's Brother Sharpton moment, a calculated deflection from the Fast and Furious scandal, is an unrepentant bear hug of racial extremism. Shame, shame, shame.
JWHeaderAS3
Which is worse: Jihad terror or “Islamophobia”?
by Robert Spencer

 “Which is the more serious problem today: Islamic extremism or anti-Islamic bigotry?”

This is the question Reason magazine’s Cathy Young asks in a new piece on “Islamophobia.” Young long ago demonstrated that she had no understanding of the nature or magnitude of the jihad threat, and tended to blame those who were calling attention to it rather than the real perpetrators. So it is no surprise that she would now be fronting for the manipulative Muslim Brotherhood coinage of “Islamophobia,” which is designed to guilt-trip people into being afraid to resist jihad, but in a new piece, “Young: Islam navigates shoals of extremism,” published last week in Newsday, she rises to a whole new level of Useful Idiocy.

So which really is worse? Well, let’s see. All genuine bigotry is absolutely unacceptable, but in fact, Muslims are rarely its victims. FBI statistics show that there is no “Islamophobia.” Contrary to media emphases and preoccupations, many “anti-Muslim hate crimes” have been faked by Muslims, and Jews are eight times more likely than Muslims to be the victims of hate attacks.

And as for “Islamic extremism,” recent jihad plotters include Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; Nidal Hasan, the successful Fort Hood jihad mass-murderer; Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber.

All of them and many others invoked the Qur’an and Sunnah to explain and justify their deeds. But as far as Cathy Young is concerned, it is hard to tell whether they represent a greater threat than a virtually non-existent anti-Muslim bigotry.
Many American Muslims stress the importance of combating not only anti-Muslim bigotry but extremism in Muslim ranks. The modernization of Islam is an essential priority for the world. Right-wing Islamophobes such as bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are hostile to this effort, insisting that Islam is beyond reform and any talk of moderation is a deceptive smoke screen.
Which American Muslims “stress the importance of combating not only anti-Muslim bigotry but extremism in Muslim ranks”? The main Muslim advocacy groups in the U.S., such as Hamas-linked CAIR, focus exclusively on painting resistance to jihad and Islamic supremacism as “anti-Muslim bigotry,” and never do a single thing to fight “extremism in Muslim ranks.” I have no idea who Cathy Young might mean, outside of Jasser and Manji, both of whose Islam is wholly eccentric and non-traditional, and Young doesn’t say.

What is “right-wing” about fighting for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for all people before the law? Again, Young doesn’t say, but that she considers people fighting for freedom to be her enemies is telling, as is her use of the Muslim Brotherhood neologism “Islamophobia.”

Are there deceptive moderates? Of course. Hamas-linked CAIR portrays itself as moderate. So do Boy Reza Aslan and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Does this mean that any and every attempt to reform Islam is insincere and deceptive, and should be met with hostility? Of course not, and I have never suggested such a thing. But as I have said many times, a genuine reform in Islam would acknowledge what needs to be reformed, not deny its existence, and violence and supremacism are deeply entrenched within mainstream Islam. Young is equating realism about the prospects of Islamic reform with “Islamophobia” -- very well, then: I ask her to produce evidence of this genuine reform of which she speaks. But she won’t, because she can’t.

Cathy Young is nothing special. She is just another herd thinker, thinking all of today’s conventional thoughts. The problem is that she is offering false hope that will lull people into further complacency about the jihad, and damaging the efforts of those who are trying to protect the freedoms she enjoys. If anyone remembers her at all, history will judge her and her ilk with extreme harshness.
Op-ed:
Thursday’s only the start...there’s more surprises to come
By: Diane Sori

As the saying goes, "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.” - Marcus Tullius Cicero

While all our attention is focused on the big events due out of DC on Thursday (the Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare and Eric Holder’s contempt of Congress vote), let’s not forget there is another major incident that we must NOT lose focus on...the security leaks supposedly coming from this White House.

As if Eric Holder doesn’t have enough problems, yesterday a group of 31 senators from both sides of the aisle put pressure on him by presenting a letter demanding the appointment of a special ‘independent’ counsel to oversee the investigation into who leaked sensitive intelligence information (including possible U.S. involvement in cyber-attacks on Iran and an al Qaeda plot to place an explosive device aboard a US bound flight) that put the lives of our citizens, our troops, and our allies in danger. 

And when uber liberal Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, joins in and says that she too is “deeply disturbed by the continuing leaks of classified information to the media,” Holder and Obama should know they are in deep doo-doo.

Holder continues to resist setting up a special ‘independent’ counsel (this from the same man who won’t turn over subpoenaed documents), and that in and of itself raises red flags, and that could be why the senators also let it be clearly known that a congressional investigation may be needed if an independent council, with ‘independent’ being the key word, is not set-up.

Why an independent council and NOT the Department of Justice, who would normally investigate things such as this?  Why...because the security leaks are not a single, isolated instance but are a multitude of leaks on major national security matters, and as such cannot be trusted to be investigated in a fair and straight forth manner by the DOJ.  If the DOJ did indeed conduct the investigation it would be like Obama and his administration investigating themselves, and you know that if that was the case NO ONE would be found guilty.

A few weeks ago Obama condemned the leaks saying, "We're dealing with issues that can touch on the safety and the security of the American people, our families, or our military personnel or our allies.” "We don't play with that, and it is a source of consistent frustration, not just for my administration, but for previous administrations when this stuff happens.” 

He went on in his bloviating saying that he promises that any in his administration found guilty would suffer consequences.

Yeah right...like ‘We the People’ trust or believe anything he says.  And what consequences would those found guilty suffer...maybe a week of ‘healthy’ dinners prepared by Michelle (insert sarcasm here).

Come on Obama, we all know NOTHING would happen as you probably, in my humble opinion, gave the go ahead to leak the information yourself!  Or at best you deliberately declassified information that should NOT have been declassified in the first place, thus allowing it to be released for political expediency because your poll numbers continue to drop.

And remember, you are famous for siding with our enemies instead of with our country or our military.

So my friends, as we all sit and nervously wait for Thursday’s rulings to come down, let’s NOT forget that the leaking of classified intelligence secrets, possibly by our own ‘enemy within,’ could very well be the mother lode of Barack Hussein Obama’s betrayal of not only our country but of ‘We the People’ as well.

Can you say traitor...

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Obama, Why Don’t You Just Resign?

Obama Official Portrait SC 752x1024 Obama, Why Dont You Just Resign?
                                    
Barack Hussein Obama has decided that in order to punish Arizona for having dared enforce American immigration laws, he has ordered his federal agencies to basically stop working with Arizona’s law enforcement agencies concerning illegal immigrants. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr has also made it known as the nations chief law enforcement officer that he too is only going to selectively enforce immigration laws that he personally likes. More to the point, Holder will only enforce what is beneficial to his boss’s re-election campaign. If I’m not mistaken, this attitude by both men is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL and falls under the heading of “high crimes and misdemeanors’, an IMPEACHABLE offense!

Mr. Obama, how in the world can you look at the people of Arizona and tell them that YOU are not willing to give them EQUAL PROTECTION under the laws of the United States? Brian Terry, an American Border Patrol Agent, was shot in the back 18 miles INSIDE the border of the United States! Jaime Zapata, an ICE agent, was also killed because of an illegally run and botched program known as Fast & Furious.

Being an accomplice to murder, Mr. Obama, is a crime punishable by prison time. Maybe you and Mr Holder could share a cell? Anyway, I digress…..again!

My feelings are, Mr. Obama, that you should be impeached before any more American and Mexican bodies pile up because of your insanity. Mr. Holder should be found guilty of contempt of Congress and charged with negligent homicide in the cases of the two dead federal agents. You and Holder should also have to face justice in the death of the Arizona rancher and others who were killed by your illegal compadres coming across our borders and onto American’s rightfully-owned land. I have an idea for a reverse gun walking program that I would like to run called “Slow & Deliberate”! It’s a program whereby I legally get to use federal funds to LEGALLY buy guns from LEGAL gun shop owners and arm American citizens to help guard the American border from the intrusion of illegals from everywhere. No problems, no paperwork, no questions! All neat, tidy, and LEGAL!

I realize that my program would severly curtail a large number of illegal votes, but those citizens along our Southern borders would sleep better! Mr. Obama: you and Holder took an oath to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Consdtitution of the United States”, not your Communist manifesto or Saul Alinsky’s Bible of social justice. If it is beyond your will to do so, then please step aside and let someone who loves this country and ALL of its laws sit in the seat that rightfully belongs to them.

Your willingness to sell out the majority of Americans to curry favor with radical minority groups is not only shameful, but dangerous to our country. Our Constitution was designed to protect this country from despots like yourself, and it is time that our so called “representatives in Washington D.C.” realized that and grew a spine to deal with you. Not one more American should have to suffer intimidation, injury, or death because you are more interested in getting re-elected than enforcing our laws and doing what’s right for the American people.

I sincerely hope and pray that the American people wake up to what you and SOCIALIST PROGRESSIVISM has done and is doing to our country. You don’t deserve to be where you are, let alone get re-elcted to continue your destruction. Retire quietly, Mr. Obama, for the sake of us all.

P.S.: take Janet Napolitano with you.