Sunday, April 1, 2012

Abake Assongba, Obama Donor, Accused Of Fraud
WASHINGTON — A major donor to President Barack Obama has been accused of defrauding a businessman and impersonating a bank official, creating new headaches for Obama's re-election campaign as it deals with the questionable history of another top supporter.

The New York donor, Abake Assongba, and her husband contributed more than $50,000 to Obama's re-election effort this year, federal records show. But Assongba is also fending off a civil court case in Florida, where she's accused of thieving more than $650,000 to help build a multimillion-dollar home in the state – a charge her husband denies.

Obama is the only presidential contender this year who released his list of "bundlers," the financiers who raise campaign money by soliciting high-dollar contributions from friends and associates. But that disclosure has not come without snags; his campaign returned $200,000 last month to Carlos and Alberto Cardona, the brothers of a Mexican fugitive wanted on federal drug charges.

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt declined comment to The Associated Press. He instead referred the AP to previous statements he made to The Washington Post, which first reported the allegations against Assongba in its Sunday editions. LaBolt told the paper 1.3 million Americans have donated to the campaign, and that it addresses issues with contributions promptly.

Assongba was listed on Obama's campaign website as one of its volunteer fundraisers - a much smaller group of about 440 people.

Assongba and her husband, Anthony J.W. DeRosa, run a charity called Abake's Foundation that distributes school supplies and food in Benin, Africa.

In one Florida case, which is still ongoing, Swiss businessman Klaus-Werner Pusch accused Assongba in 2009 of engaging him in an email scam - then using the money to buy a multimillion-dollar home, the Post reported. The suit alleges Assongba impersonated a bank official to do it. Pusch referred the AP's questions to his attorney, who did not immediately return requests seeking comment Sunday.

Meanwhile, Assongba has left a trail of debts, with a former landlord demanding in court more than $10,000 in back rent and damages for a previous apartment. She was also evicted in 2004 after owing $5,000 in rent, records show.

In an interview with the AP on Sunday, DeRosa said the allegations against his wife were untrue, although he couldn't discuss specifics because of pending litigation. He said he and Assongba were "very perturbed" by the charges, and said the couple's charity does important work in Africa.

Assongba has given more than $70,000 to Democratic candidates in recent years, an AP review of Federal Election Commission data shows. Her larger contributions include $35,000 to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee between Obama and the Democratic Party, and at least $15,000 to the Democratic National Committee. She also contributed to Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.

Abake's Foundation is listed by the IRS as a registered nonprofit organization; its financial reports were unavailable. A representative who picked up the phone at the foundation's Benin office declined to answer questions, and instead referred the AP to Assongba.

Obama's campaign declined to comment on whether its vetting procedures were thorough enough, or whether Assongba's contribution would be refunded. All told, Obama has raised more than $120 million this election, not counting millions more from the Democratic Party - giving him a financial advantage thus far over any of his Republican challengers.

NEVER WILL WE FORGET...hear that Obama...NEVER!

God Bless the U.S.A. by Lee Greenwood 

"Where Were You When The World Stopped Turning" by Alan Jackson

Have You Forgotten? by Darrel Worley

 My Name is America  by Todd Allen Herendeen


Primary system needs to change

by: Steven Kurlander

As Republicans begin to recognize the damage being done by the primary process, Romney finally is collecting some "important" endorsements from major GOP figures that probably should have come back at the beginning of the process- last week, the latest ones, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, and former President George H.W. Bush, sent a message to the other candidates that Romney is the only one that can beat President Obama and the focus of the race needs to turn now against him now.

aA number of primaries are also coming up in Northern states dominated by moderate voters such as New York and Connecticut where Romney is expected to really outperform the other candidates. On Tuesday, Republican voters in Wisconsin are expected to give Mitt Romney an easy victory in the GOP primary race there and Santorum may lose his home state Pennsylvania the following week.  There was even news of a "secret" meeting between Romney and Newt Gingrich, which could be have been the start of a needed reconciliation to allow Romney to focus on the race against Obama.

Looking at 2016, large states like Florida, California, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and New York, which have a diverse array of Republican voters, should be encouraged-not penalized-to move their contests up to early in the primary season where each Tuesday becomes a Super Tuesday and the primary process ends by March or April.  An interesting alternative would be to have a primary vote in one contest in May where candidates compete in all 50 states and territories so the whole process ends in one shot.

If there is one big lesson to be learned from the 2012 GOP  primary race, it is that the process is too front loaded with primaries in smaller states starting with Iowa and New Hampshire which allows candidates on the political periphery such as Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain and yes, Ron Paul, to collect a few thousand votes and gain unjustified and unrealistic strength and traction in the process to the detriment of stronger, more attractive candidates who can realistically win the general Presidential election against a Democratic candidate in November. 


Joe Biden: I wouldn't want 'a real job'

Claims he was 36-year senator rather than having 'to produce' anything

Vice President Joe Biden, long known for making embarrassing verbal gaffes, echoed the cynical criticism many people levy against career politicians, stating he had stayed in the Senate for 36 years because he didn’t want to get “a real job.”

Biden was speaking to a Democratic fundraiser in Chicago Thursday night, when he turned to praise the work of Richard M. Daley, the city’s former mayor of over 20 years.

“I never had an interest in being a mayor, ’cause that’s a real job. You have to produce,” Biden said, according to a White House pool report. “That’s why I was able to be a senator for 36 years.”

Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972 directly from the county council of New Castle County in Delaware at the age of 29. He turned 30 – the minimum age to become a senator – less than two months before taking office. Biden then served continuously as Delaware’s senator until 2009, when he became Barack Obama’s vice president.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner notes that Biden’s remarks recalled criticism Sarah Palin, a former mayor, posited at the 2008 Republican National Convention against Barack Obama. Both had been charged with inexperience – Palin as a former small-town mayor with only a couple of years under her belt as Alaska’s governor, Obama as a former community organizer with only a couple years under his belt as a U.S. senator.

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer,” Palin said, “except that you have actual responsibilities.”

Biden’s comments also included an evaluation of Obama’s chances of reelection against any of the Republican presidential hopefuls currently seeking the GOP nomination.

“I don’t think we’ll be beaten by those candidates,” Biden said. “I think we’ll be beaten, if we are, by something happening in the Eurozone or something happening in the Gulf, which could be difficult for us, or this barrage of super PAC money.”

“But even with that I feel good,” he added.

PARIS: FEMEN Activists stripped off their tops in the Paris Square in protest against the burqa and in defense of Muslim women’s rights.

FREE THOUGHT The protest was organized by Iranian human rights activist Mariam Namazi, a popular Lebanese actress Darina Al Jondy, well-known French feminist of Arabian origin Safia Lebdi. On the bodies of activists and posters were written slogans against Islamic sharia barbarism against girls and women in the Middle East.

FEMEN urged the Muslim world to stage a topless protest in support of their disenfranchised sisters, wrapped up in full veils, burnt with acid, beaten with whips, and honor killed by Muslim men on a regular basis. FEMEN demands world leaders protect the fundamental rights of women in the Middle East and South Asia  as they protect themselves from terrorist threats.

See the protest video here:

America WILL survive because America MUST survive
by: Diane Sori

While everyone panics about surviving a second Obama term if people are stupid enough to vote him back in, or if he 'steals' (usurps) this upcoming election, let me remind everyone that America and Americans survived the Civil War, Pearl Harbor, two World Wars, The Teapot Dome Scandal, The Stock Market Crash of 1929, The Great Depression, The Cuban Missile Crisis, The Cold War, The Great Society, The Vietnam War, the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, Watergate, Jimmy Carter, the Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster, Timothy McVeigh,  9/11, Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina, numerous OPEC embargoes, and countless other disasters.  Each in their own way changed America, often not in a good way but no matter what, America and Americans survived because America and Americans simply ARE survivors.  

Can we survive a second term under an Obama presidency....we absolutely can and there are two possible scenarios in doing just that.  First, we MUST make sure that we keep the House and retake the Senate, because by doing so we would render a re-elected Obama impotent.  And that is the key to our nation's survival with this scenario, because with a Republican held House and Senate he would get NO bills passed, NO liberals would be appointed to the Supreme Court, NO anything he wanted would get done.  He would be a figurehead and no more.  So, get involved on the grassroots level, help get the vote out, spread the word any and every way you can, but don't sit back apathetically and do nothing, and above all else do NOT surrender to a perpetrated by the lsm supposed inevitable that does NOT have to happen.  This supposed inevitable will only happen if we let it don't!

The second scenario, while not as cut and dry, would still be survivable.  Let's say for argument's sake that he cancels the elections and declares Marshall any of you honestly think our police and our military would allow this...I don't.  This man has so defamed, dishonored, and compromised our brave men and women in uniform that this would be the straw that broke the camel's back, and for Barack Hussein Obama, payback would be a bitch.  Add to that all the militia groups that have formed around the country and you get my drift...he would NOT be a happy camper at all.  And if he ever tried to repeal the Second Amendment all hell would break loose!  Again, in no way do I believe our military would allow this to happen.  Remember, they take an oath to defend the Constitution above all else, and while they technically take orders from the Commander-in-Chief, their primary oath is to defend the Constitution, and that is the key factor here...the Constitution.

While this second scenario might indeed see a Second American Revolution, this revolution is one that 'We the People' would win hands down even though of course there would be casualties, and why you ask.  Well the why is simple...we would be fighting for our children and future generations to have a future and that, my fellow patriots is the most powerful incentive of all...assuring that our children and our children's children continue to live and thrive in the greatest nation the world has ever know...the United States of America.

Netanyahu: Israel needs taxes to bolster military, economic security

Responding to calls to lower taxes and increase spending, PM says those making such demands 'lack economic knowledge as well as responsibility,' at cabinet meeting marking three-year anniversary of formation of current Likud-led coalition.

By Ophir Bar-Zohar and Moti Bassok

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected calls to lower taxes and increase government spending on Sunday, saying that his government was using tax money to safeguard Israel's security as well as its economy. 

"We need the taxes to buy more Iron Domes, to complete the fence's construction, to pay for children's free education, to pave roads and lay train tracks, to aid the elderly and needy," the premier said. 

Benjamin Netanyahu - AP - 1.4.2012 Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking at the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Sunday, April 1, 2012.
Photo by: AP 

On Saturday, as hundreds of protesters took to the streets of Tel Aviv, Netanyahu decided to raise the price of gasoline by only 5 agorot a liter, despite an expected 20 agorot increase. 

The new prices that came into force at midnight on Saturday night mean a liter of 95-octane gas will now cost NIS 8 at full-service pumps and NIS 7.79 at self-service pumps. 

The decision to moderate the rise in the price of gas will be achieved by cutting the excise tax on gasoline, and the budgetary shortfall will be covered by cutting spending and government jobs. 

This is the second time in a month that Netanyahu has intervened to prevent gas prices from going over NIS 8 per liter. Like the last time, the announcement of Netanyahu's intervention also came a few minutes before the central 8 P.M. news broadcast. 

The decision came after a lengthy meeting between Netanyahu and Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz. "The solution will make things easier for Israelis. The responsible solution will ensure continued economic growth and the lowest unemployment since 1983," Netanyahu said. 

Addressing growing pressure over the cost of living in Israel – a pressure which resulted in the break out massive social protests last summer – Netanyahu on Sunday rejected calls to cut taxes and increase spending, saying that those making such demands "lack economic knowledge as well as responsibility." 

Netanyahu said that the number of Israeli poor "dropped for the first time in years because we invested in the elderly and encouraged Haredi and Arabs to join the workforce." 

The premier, speaking at a weekly cabinet meeting marking three years since the formation of his Likud-led coalition, called his government the most "stable in the last 20 years," adding that it was a government that "does a lot." 

"Israeli citizens feel safer because of the government's assertive security policy. They feel safer because of the massive budgets we invest in bolstering the home front, specifically the acquisition of Iron Dome batteries," Netanyahu said, also citing ongoing work on Israel's new barrier along its border with Egypt along with "pther activities we undertake to enhance security." 

The PM said Israelis felt that "the State of Israel and its economy are more stable. We've operated well in the face of the global financial crisis. The economy here is growing despite the global crisis and unemployment is at its lowest since 1983."
 Just for VERY smart doggie!

Ariz. sheriff faces crossroads in civil rights case

PHOENIX – America's self-proclaimed toughest sheriff is fast approaching a crossroads where he must decide either to settle claims that his officers racially profiled Latinos in his trademark immigration patrols — and overhaul his practices — or take his chances at trial.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio faces an April 14 deadline for concluding talks with the U.S. Justice Department to settle a wide range of civil rights allegations, including that the sheriff launched some immigration patrols based on letters from people who complained about people with dark skin congregating in a given area or speaking Spanish but never reporting an actual crime. The sheriff has become nationally known for his tough stance against illegal immigration.

A settlement could lead to changes long sought by Arpaio's critics and short-circuit a separate racial profiling case set for trial this summer. Most police agencies facing similar pressures from the Justice Department opt to settle, but critics wonder whether the sheriff's stubborn streak — a quality that endears him to his supporters — will lead him to confront the allegations in court.

"It makes him a hero," said Antonio Bustamante, a Phoenix civil rights attorney and member of a group of Latino and black leaders calling for an overhaul of Arpaio's policies. "We have a different character as a sheriff."

The Justice Department has accused Arpaio's office of racially profiling Latinos, punishing Hispanic jail inmates for speaking Spanish and having a culture of disregard for basic constitutional rights. The sheriff's office has denied allegations of systematic discriminatory policing, and asked federal authorities to provide facts. But it also conditionally agreed to talk with the Justice Department about ways to correct any violations.

The Justice Department is seeking an agreement that would require the sheriff's office to train officers in how to make constitutional traffic stops, collect data on people arrested in traffic stops and reach out to Latinos to ensure them that the department is there to also protect them.

The federal agency has said it's prepared to sue Arpaio and let a judge decide the matter if no agreement can be worked out. Earlier in the three-year investigation, the Justice Department filed a 2010 lawsuit against the sheriff, alleging that his office refused to fully cooperate with a request for records and access to jails and employees. The case was settled last summer after the sheriff's office handed over records and gave access to employees and jails.

After his lawyers attended a negotiation session in early February, Arpaio's office said both sides agreed to work on an agreement and were committed to avoiding unnecessary litigation.

The status of negotiations since the February meeting is unknown. Arpaio's lawyers didn't return messages seeking comment, and the Justice Department declined to provide an update, other than saying negotiations are continuing.

Arpaio said he didn't know how the case would be resolved, but that his lawyers are trying to cooperate. "We'll just have to look at the big picture and see what they want and see if we agree to it," Arpaio said. "I presume that if we don't agree, they'll go to court."

Separate from the Justice Department's allegations, a lawsuit that alleges that Arpaio's deputies racially profiled Latinos in immigration patrols is scheduled for a July 19 trial in federal court.

A small group of Latinos who filed the lawsuit alleged that officers based some traffic stops on the race of the drivers of in the vehicles, and made the stops so they could inquire about the driver's immigration status. 

Arpaio denies racial profiling, saying people pulled over in the sweeps were approached because deputies had probable cause to believe they had committed crimes.

U.S. District Judge Murray Snow, who will decide the lawsuit, has already imposed restrictions on Arpaio's immigration powers and said at a March 23 court hearing that a settlement in the Justice Department's investigation might make the lawsuit moot.

But if Arpaio refuses to settle and the federal government follows through on its threat to sue, the profiling lawsuit will go to trial, ensuring that the allegations would be publicly aired a few months before voters would decide whether to give Arpaio a sixth term as sheriff of the county covering the Phoenix area.

Lawyers who've worked in the Justice Department's civil rights division say the targets of such investigations typically are not required to acknowledge wrongdoing as part of settlements.

Brian Landsberg, a professor at the University of Pacific's law school in California, who worked in the Justice Department's civil rights division for more than 20 years and wrote a book about the division, said Arpaio could reject settlement offers if he feels the federal government's facts are incorrect, but that approach carries risks.

"If it goes to trial and they lose, then the court could impose more onerous sanctions," Landsberg said, noting that one incentive for settling a civil rights case is so police agencies can help shape the settlements they'll have to operate under.

Bustamante said the sheriff might decline a settlement offer in hopes of seeing what becomes of the racial lawsuit, which he can always settle if it isn't going well. "He might regard it better to hang in there for a while and see how close he can get to the election," Bustamante said.

As for the sheriff, he said his November re-election bid isn't a factor in his consideration of whether to settle. "I don't care about the politics," Arpaio said. "I don't plan things for political reasons."

Obama Administration won’t prosecute Muslim who threatened to ‘blow up White House’

From: Jihad Watch

Why not? Do you think they would have hesitated to prosecute if a "right wing extremist" had threatened to blow up the White House? "Obama Administration Won’t Prosecute Saudi It Claims Threatened to ‘Blow Up White House,’" by Edwin Mora for CNS News, March 29 (thanks to Barbara):
( - The Obama administration says it will not prosecute a Saudi Arabian national who the administration claimed in congressional testimony entered the United States on a student visa and then was arrested after threatening to blow up the White House. 
On March 6, top officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security in both written and verbal testimony that DHS had arrested a Saudi national who was “threatening to blow up the White House and the Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission to the United States.”
A U.S. anti-terrorism law--18 U.S.C. 113B--says that a “person who, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction … (3) against any property that is owned, leased or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside of the United States; or 4) against any property within the United States that is owned, leased, or used by a foreign government, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”
The statute says “the term ‘weapon of mass destruction’ means … any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title.” Section 921 says: “The term ‘destructive device’ means— (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—(i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses.”
In a written statement provided to, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the DHS division responsible for enforcing the immigration law inside U.S. territory, said it has had the Saudi national in custody since Jan. 10 and that he is undergoing deportation proceedings. The statement said that “federal and local authorities declined criminal prosecution.”
The March 6 congressional hearing at which the DHS officials said this Saudi national had threatened to blow up the White House was called to examine why the U.S. government had allowed Moroccan national Amine El Khalifi to live illegally in the United States for 13 years before he was arrested while allegedly attempting to commit a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol. The ICE officials who testified cited the January arrest of a Saudi national who they said had threatened to blow up the White House as evidence of ICE’s effectiveness in tracking foreign nationals whose visas had expired or been revoked.
The two DHS officials who testified were John Cohen, DHS’s deputy counterterrorism coordinator, and Peter Edge, the deputy executive associate director for investigations at ICE.
“More recently in January 2012, ICE Special Agents from the Washington, D.C. office arrested a Saudi Arabian national who was admitted as an F-1 nonimmigrant student and violated the terms and conditions of his admission,” Cohen and Edge said in written testimony they jointly submitted to the committee. “The individual was referred for investigation after his status was terminated in SEVIS for failure to maintain student status, as well as for possessing several indicators of national security concerns, including threatening to blow up the White House and the Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission to the United States.”
Edge told the committee about the Saudi national in his verbal testimony before the committee.
“In January 2012, for example,” Edge testified, “ICE special agents from our Washington, D.C., office arrested a Saudi Arabian national who was admitted as an F-1 nonimmigrant student and violated the term and condition of his admission."
“The individual,” Edge said, “was referred for investigation after his status was terminated in SEVIS [Student and Exchange Visitor Information System] for failure to maintain student status as well as for possessing several indicators of national security concerns, including threatening to blow up the White House and the Saudi Arabian cultural mission to the United States.”
SEVIS is an Internet-based system created by DHS to house information about people who come to the United States on student visas.
After Cohen and Edge testified in the subcommittee, asked ICE a series of questions about the Saudi national the two officials said had threatened to blow up the White House: Has he, or will he, be charged with any crime? Is the individual in custody or has he been removed? Where and what was he studying? How long has he been in the United States?
ICE initially responded by directing to the local police department of Fairfax County, Va., saying that it was handling the investigation.
Fairfax County Police Spokeswoman Shelley Broderick confirmed that her department carried out an investigation of the Saudi national, but said that the police department could not provide any information about him because he had never been charged by them. Broderick added that federal authorities, not local ones, would be responsible for any terrorism-related charges....
When asked if an individual who threatens to blow up the White House can be prosecuted by federal authorities, a Department of Justice spokesman said in an e-mail, “Whether or not such a case would or could be charged in federal [court] depends entirely on the evidence available to investigators and prosecutors, the underlying facts/circumstances of the matter, and the law.”
“That's all I have for you,” said the Justice Department spokesman.
According to the report of the 9-11 Commission, one of the Sept. 11
hijackers, Hani Hanjour, was a Saudi Arabian national who was admitted to the U.S. on a student visa.

FBI removes 876 pages of training material on jihad for being inaccurate or offensive to Muslims

From: Jihad Watch

The Obama Administration continues its war against the truth about Islam and jihad. If any of this material was really inaccurate, then certainly it should have been removed. One wonders, however, who was judging its accuracy -- was it Muslim Brotherhood-linked operatives intent on whitewashing uncomfortable truths about Islam? Or was it an informed and patriotic analyst? And removing material deemed "offensive to Muslims" is unconscionable, especially since Islamic supremacist anti-freedom groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations find offensive any and all anti-terror material that is accurate at all about the source of the jihad threat.

"At FBI, 876 pages of agent training material related to Muslims found offensive or inaccurate," by Pete Yost for the Associated Press, March 30 (thanks to all who sent this in):
WASHINGTON (AP) — An FBI review of agent training material critical of Islam uncovered 876 offensive or inaccurate pages that had been used in 392 presentations, including a PowerPoint slide that said the bureau can sometimes bend or suspend the law.
The bureau has not released the material, but Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois described a few pages of it in a letter asking FBI Director Robert Mueller to institute five changes so that inappropriate FBI training on Islam doesn't happen again. On Friday, the FBI confirmed the number of inaccurate or offensive pages and presentations.
The bureau also said the documents that are either offensive or inaccurate have been taken out of training presentations.
Every trainer was identified and interviewed by an FBI inspection team and the team determined that the problems were performance-related — poor judgment or inadequate training — rather than intentional misconduct, said FBI spokesman Michael Kortan.
As a result, instructors were counseled and in some cases removed from training positions.
Durbin said he's disturbed that the FBI doesn't plan to produce a written report on the six-month review. He said he wants the agents who received the bad training to be retained.
It began last September after the online publication reported that the FBI had discontinued a lecture in which the instructor told agent trainees in Virginia that the more devout a Muslim is, the more likely he is to be violent. The analyst subsequently gave a similar lecture at an FBI-sponsored public-private partnership in New York City.
Kortan declined to address the issue of retraining.
Out of 160,000 pages of training material reviewed, just 876 pages — less than 1 percent — were "inconsistent with the FBI's core values," said Kortan. "We strongly disagree that the analysts being trained were led to believe that we actually bend or suspend the law in any way. The one reference used in the slide was poorly described."...
Durbin is out for blood, and Stalinist reeducation:
Durbin's letter said he wants the FBI to turn over the offending training material to the Senate Judiciary Committee and wants unclassified versions of the material to be released to the public; wants instructors responsible for the inappropriate training reassigned; and wants to retrain agents who received the bad training. Durbin also wants the bureau to undertake a review of FBI intelligence analyses of Islam, American-Muslims and Arab-Americans; and wants a detailed training curriculum on Islam that has been approved by experts on Islam. 
Earlier this month, the FBI posted on its website a set of training principles which said that training must emphasize that religious expression, protest activity and the espousing of ideological beliefs "are constitutionally protected activities that must not be equated with terrorism or criminality" in the absence of other information about such offenses.


Obamacare fight 'soon to be over'? LOL!

'We are already … preparing for years of new court battles'

Pretty soon the Supreme Court will rule on the validity of Barack Obama’s plan to have the government tell consumers what products to buy – in the Obamacare case – and then all those arguments will be done. After all, that is the highest court in the land, right.

LOL! As the new text-language expresses for “laugh out loud.”

“We are already looking beyond June and preparing for years of new court battles over health care mandates,” explained Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute.

“Without question, we expect the Supreme Court’s decision to have both immediate and long-term impact on the authority of the federal government on our lives,” he said.

In an unprecedented series of arguments over three days this past week, attorneys for the Obama administration argued that the government has the authority to specify which government-approved products consumers must buy from which companies – or be fined. The plaintiffs in the case said Obamacare simply goes a step too far, not by regulating interstate commerce, but by regulating people who do not participate.

Chief Justice John Roberts appeared skeptical of Obama’s arguments, asking whether the government then could require citizens to buy cell telephones, while on the other end of the spectrum was Elena Kagan, who served as solicitor general for Obama while Obamacare was being strategized and, according to emails that have been released, was an active cheerleader for the program.

In hearing the arguments despite multiple calls for her recusal because of her previous involvement with the very law being challenged, her questions appeared to endorse the massive government control plan.

A decision is expected to be announced, probably in June, but no matter what happens, the program and its details will be tied up in court likely for years more.

Pacific Justice attorneys said they see several major flashpoints, depending, of course, on the course of the court.

“Litigation will continue on separate grounds against the contraceptive mandate that more recently sprang from PPACA regulations developed by HHS,” the organization reported. “Further down the road, the courts would also need to clarify the scope of the religious exemption to the individual mandate, and countless more federal regulations related to the law have yet to be written.”

Even should the court overturn the entire law, the Obama administration already has had two years of work – and money – to install the various restrictions, limits and oversight. Would it be possible for those simply to become null and void?

And further, if the individual mandate, or the entire law, is banished, the organization “expects an immediate push in states like California to enact their own universal health care.”

“California lawmakers have come close to taking such a step within the last few years but have so far deferred to President Obama’s plan. A state-based approach would present new legal challenges since key limitations like the Commerce Clause do not apply to them,” the report said.

“We’re not waiting around for June,” Dacus said. “We will be crafting contingency plans and mapping out legal strategies to promote freedom and keep government power in check.”

Officials with Liberty Counsel said based on the oral arguments, “there is good indication that a majority will rejected the Anti-Injunction Act applying to this case and, thus, reach the merits.”

The government, which has argued both that the fines for those who refuse to buy the government-specified insurance are “taxes” and “fees,” lately argued that they are “taxes,” because federal precedent requires those to be imposed before they can be challenged.

Because the law is phased in over years, that would allow the Obama administration another couple of years and billions of dollars more to install the tentacles of the program before a court would review it.

“It appears that a narrow majority (5-4) are inclined to strike down the individual mandate. It also appears a majority will find that the individual mandate is so intertwined with the ‘guaranteed issue’ (pre-existing coverage) and the ‘community rating’ (removing the insurance companies’ ability to manage and spread risks) that those core provisions will also be struck down,” the organization’s analysis said.

“It remains unclear whether a majority will strike the entire law, although it would be judicial activism for them to, as Justice Scalia said, determine which parts are good and which parts are bad. The entire law should be stricken and Congress should begin again.”

The analysis also noted that politicking and influence is not unknown inside the court.

For example, Liberty Counsel noted, in 1992 following the argument in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a majority voted to overturn Roe V. Wade.

“For 30 days the late Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion. Justices O’Connor and Souter convinced Kennedy to change his vote. At the end of May, he met with Blackmun, who authored Roe v. Wade, to tell him he switched his vote.”

“I am pleased with the overall direction of the oral argument,” said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “I pray that a majority of the Supreme Court justices vote to strike down Obamacare.

Obamacare has been a constitutional and economic monstrosity. Obamacare was not written with the Constitution, states rights, or individual liberty in mind. It is time to put an end to this unprecedented assault on our freedom.”

Van Irion, of Liberty Legal Foundation, raise the prospect that the entire process could be restarted – because of the position of the arguments presented to the Supremes.

He noted that both sides were in agreement that the case “Wickard v. Filbum” is a good law of the land.

That ruling concludes that if an individual does anything to enter “commerce,” the government effectively can regulate anything linked to that. In the specifics, the high court upheld an order that a farmer grow less wheat, even though he planned to use it for his family, because his decisions affected interstate commerce.

“Liberty Legal Foundation has been warning you about this since the beginning. I was still hoping for a pleasant surprise. I was hoping that one of the lawyers arguing against Obamacare would make some statement that Wickard leaves no limits on congressional authority. But it didn’t happen,” Irion told supporters in a newsletter.

“The lawyers opposing Obamacare all argued that the test from Wickard is valid, but that the individual mandate goes too far. Their argument is that the individual mandate forces individuals into commerce. They concede that once an individual has entered commerce by performing any affirmative act, Congress can essentially do anything to that person in relation to the commercial activity. They claim that the individual mandate is different because a person who has done nothing can be forced into commerce. They urge the court to add to the Wickard standard a requirement that Congress can’t regulate a person until that person voluntarily enters commerce by performing some affirmative act,” he explained.

“This is an enticing argument. It might temporarily kill the individual mandate in its current form. However, it must be understood that this proposed new requirement would not limit Congress in any way. You see, any ‘non-activity’ can also be described as an activity by simply changing perspective. The government has already demonstrated this by arguing that the current individual mandate regulates activity, not non-activity. The government argues that the individual mandate is a regulation of the decision to not purchase insurance. Making a decision, they argue, is an activity. This is just one example of how a non-activity can be re-defined as an activity,” Irion said.

“Before you think that such an absurd argument could never work, remember the Wickard standard: A farmer growing wheat on his own land for use by his own family on his own farm is interstate commerce because if many other farmers did the same thing it would reduce demand on the interstate wheat market. This logic is as twisted as the new absurdity: making a decision to not act, is activity. Never underestimate the ability of power-hungry men to twist logic.”

He said should that belief be in the majority, there will be “no real limits on Congress. Even if the court rejects the government’s current argument that making a decision is an activity, the government will find another way to describe non-activity as activity. In other words, even if the court strikes down the individual mandate, if they do it for the wrong reasons we will see the individual mandate back again under another name.”
He said his organization already has begun work on a class action lawsuit that targets the federal legislation based on that argument.

“If the court leaves the Wickard standard … Liberty Legal will give the Supreme Court another opportunity to correct its mistake.”

Justice Antonin Scalia said the issue wasn’t really complicated, however. He said if Congress can compel consumers to buy health insurance because that’s “good for you,” it also could issue an order that Americans must eat broccoli, because that’s also “good for you.”

The decision might very well hinge on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often is a swing vote between conservative and liberal.

One of his questions was to the government, and related to under what constitutional authority could the government force Americans to buy products?

That, he said, “is different from what we have in previous cases – and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”

A transcript of the arguments has been posted online.

AFDI/SIOA Calls for Congressional Inquiry on Obama's Sabotage of Israel's Defense Against Iran

AFDI/SIOA Calls for Congressional Inquiry on Obama's Sabotage of Israel's Defense Against Iran
NEW YORK, March 30, 2012 / Christian Newswire/ -- A prominent national human rights organization is calling for Congress to open an inquiry into allegations that Barack Obama has leaked information to the press in order to pressure Israel into not defending itself against Iran's nuclear program. 
The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and its Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) program deplored reports that Obama was moving to prevent Israel from acting in its own defense. ABC News reported Thursday: "Two reports today about Iran's nuclear program and the possibility of an Israeli military strike have analysts in Israel accusing the Obama administration leaking information to pressure Israel not to bomb Iran and for Iran to reach a compromise in upcoming nuclear talks."
AFDI/SIOA Executive Director Pamela Geller said in a statement: "Obama's policies compromise American security. Iran is clearly a threat to America. They have been at war with us since 1979. Israel was willing to do the heavy lifting because our reckless and feckless president was too weak, too compromised. But to betray an ally like this? This leak is part of an ongoing campaign to thwart Israeli defense strategy against the Iranian genocidal threat."
AFDI/SIOA Associate Director Robert Spencer: "We call on patriotic members of Congress who respect Israel as America's most reliable ally in the Middle East to launch an immediate full-scale investigation into Obama's efforts to undermine Israel's security, and the larger implications of those efforts for our own national security."
Dear Patriot,

Imagine you had a deadline at work and because it was a difficult task you went past your deadline…… by more than two years! Would you still have a job?  Would you still be getting paid? I didn't think so.

This is exactly what has happened in Congress. The Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to live up to their obligation to pass a budget in more than 2 years and now there is a bi-partisan bill to hold them accountable.

The No Budget, No Pay Act sounds like exactly what it is. If Congress fails to pass a budget by their October deadline, their pay is immediately cut to zero until they fulfill their constitutional obligation. The bill has bi-partisan support and, with a little pressure from the public, we have the opportunity to make this commonsense legislation a reality!

We have launched a new petition and we need each of you to sign it.
*You are NOT required to contribute in order to participate; simply scroll down and click "Sign The Petition Without Donating." Your generous support does allow us to continue to offer this service free-of-charge! 

Our goal is to reach more than 100,000 letters sent to Congress before the end of the week, and 250,000 signatures by the end of the month! Help us spread the word and pass No Budget, No Pay!

Thank You,

Todd Cefaratti
Freedom Organizer

Highlights Of Sheriff Joe’s March 31 Press Conference

 Sheriff Joe Arpaio March 31 993x1024 Highlights of Sheriff Joes March 31 Press Conference

Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the lead investigator of the MCSO Cold Case Posse, Mike Zullo, presented their preliminary findings  today (March 31, 2012)  regarding their investigation into the “probable” forgery of Barack Obama’s online birth certificate and selective service forms. Most of the event was comprised of information that has already been released in earlier press conferences, but not widely reported on by the mainstream media, out of fear of ridicule, or perhaps fear of sanctions by the federal government.   Despite this, here were several updates to this case that were disclosed today. The conference took place at the Church on the Green in Sun City, Arizona.

Update: Western Journalism has uploaded the Full video of Sheriff Joe’s March 31st Press Conference

After introduction by some of the leaders in the Surprise Tea Party, Sheriff Joe spoke. Along with other comments on this investigation, he insisted that this investigation is not about politics and that he began this investigation with the intention of clearing Obama of any wrong-doing. According to Sheriff Joe, however, the evidence quickly pointed elsewhere. The sheriff thanked his wife of 55 years (also present) for putting up with his long hours at work and joked that until recent death threats, she started his car every day. As the media was not present, Sheriff Joe seemed  relaxed and even cracked quite a few jokes. Sheriff Joe concluded by asking the audience (about 1000 people) for their continued support and prayers, saying they still had a lot of “digging” to do.

A petition was circulated at the event requesting the Arizona State Legislature, in conjunction with Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s office, to take action and pass a specific resolution.

This resolution asks the Democratic National Committee to provide documentation validating Obama’s placement on the Arizona 2012 ballot. This documentation must be satisfactory to Sheriff Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse, the Arizona Legislature, and the Arizona Secretary of State’s office. 

Mr. Zullo, who has volunteered his time and efforts for the past six months without pay, then took some time to present the preliminary results of the investigation. He presented the videos from the original press conference, and commented between each video.  Throughout this presentation, the crowd was responsive, often gasping at certain moments in the videos, and clapping at the end of each video.

After this presentation, Mr. Zullo revealed various  updates on the continuing investigation. He hinted about new analysis of the typesetting of the online birth certificate. According to Zullo, the word spacing and typewriter fonts on Obama’s birth certificate are uneven, suggesting the use of multiple typewriters, and consequently, cutting and pasting from various original documents. In addition, he said that the team is looking into the numbers listed on the online document, suggesting that the numbers are out of sequence with other birth certificates released around the same purported time of Barack Obama’s birth.   Zullo informed the audience that five experts, in various professions, were working on these further investigations.  Mr. Zullo concluded that his team would continue the investigation and that “we won’t quit until it is finished.”

The topic then shifted from the birth certificate to Obama’s selective service card. Sheriff Joe sent a letter to the Selective Service feds conveying his concerns. In response, he was told that nothing was wrong and that if he had a reason to inquire further, he should get in touch with the FBI. For background of the investigation into Obama’s selective service card, watch this video.  According to Zullo, the sheriff will continue to pursue this matter with the selective service authorities.

After presenting this information, Zullo opened up the conference to questions from the audience. When asked who could be behind a conspiracy of this magnitude, he admitted that they do not yet know exactly who is behind this conspiracy. When asked if George Soros was behind it, Zullo seemed to admit the possibility. Zullo was also asked if the team would go to other states to testify at various court challenges to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot; he answered that they would not as they wish to focus strictly on their investigation. In response to a question about the “African” designation on the online birth certificate, Zullo answered that they would likely not pursue that in depth, as he wants to make sure that this investigation is not about race. He insisted that, contrary to claims by the liberal media, this is not about race or even political party; if a Republican’s citizenship were questioned, Zullo (a Republican by self-admission) says that he would probably push even harder in investigating that matter. In response to questions about a purported Kenyan Birth Certificate, as well as a video making the rounds that seems to show Obama telling an audience he is from Kenya, Zullo made clear that both were fabricated and both distracted from real issues in Barack Obama’s eligibility.

Mr. Zullo said that it is possible there will be another press conference in the near future, possibly with a round table of the experts. He admitted that the scope of the investigation is increasing, even spreading internationally. Although a lot of this information is mind-numbing, he said, there is no doubt that we have a forgery on our hands. The team is on the hunt for those who committed the forgery, Mr. Zullo said, and that they “have some pretty good ideas” about who committed the forgery.  He admitted that he is doing all of this work for his country, his family, and his children.

To watch Sheriff Joe’s press conference earlier this week concerning legislation making its way through the Arizona Senate, please go here.

To watch Sheriff Joe’s original March 1 Press Conference, go here.