OBAMA SLAMS ‘ACTIVIST’ SUPREME COURT, CALLS THEM ‘AN UNELECTED GROUP OF PEOPLE’

Although the Supreme Court has not yet announced its decision on Obamacare, it has undoubtedly already been made.  President Obama says in the video below that he is “pretty confident” (that the Court will not overturn this blatantly unconstitutional law).  But when you watch it, watch him, and ask yourself if this looks and sounds like a confident man?

Can you imagine how Obama will react when Obamacare, this law that bears his name, is declared  unconstitutional (God willing!).  It is obvious to not only the president, but the whole world, that this will be a rejection or Obama himself.  I think that will be too much for him when this happens.

Here’s a portion of the text from the video:  “… uh ultimately I’m confident that the Supreme Court uh will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning uh a law that was passed by a strong majority of uh a democratically elected congress.  And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint that uh an unelected uh group of people would somehow overturn uh a duly constituted and passed uh law. Well, this uh a good example and I’m pretty confident that this court uh will recognize that and not take that step.”

It’s important to note that when Obama speaks of an “unelected group of people,” he fails to mention all of his czars, his many “recess” appointments, and the fact that much of the meat of Obamacare, the things that will do the most damage to our nation and its citizens is not even in the law itself.  It lies in the many thousands of pages in the regulations written (or yet to be written) by kathleen Sebelius’ Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  Talk about your “unelected group of people”.  Maybe this is what Nancy Pelosi really meant when she said: “…but we have to pass the bill so that you can uh find out what is in it.”

The Joys of Government Run Healthcare

  Bureaucracy

Man’s condition deemed permanent

When Evert Stefansson of Nykoping, Sweden, initally made his request for a powered wheelchair, officials declined, citing their doubt in the permanence of his impairment. Both of Stefansson’s legs were amputated due to complications from diabetes. It’s sort of permanent. After a month of being mocked in local media, officials reconsidered and approved his request. “It’s weird that one has to scream so loud in order to get them to listen,” Stefansson’s wife, Siv, said.

Compiled from wire services and other sources by staff writer Jim Webster, who can be reached at jwebster@tampabay.com.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/bizarre/the-skinny-after-58-years-man-is-square-with-city-for-1/1208016

Obamacare Birthday

Red Light Blues

Boston Bruins Goaltender Passes on White House Visit

Boston Bruins goaltender Tim Thomas offered an explanation Monday night for why he chose to not meet President Barack Obama.

Thomas, who took a pass on the team’s White House visit in honor of their 2011 Stanley Cup championship, posted his reasons on his Facebook page Monday evening.

“I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People,” Thomas wrote. “This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.  Continue reading at:  chicagotribune.com.

 

Letter of Intent from the American People

The Courts and Obamacare

Obamacare: Is the Deck Stacked on the Supreme Court?

The following newsletter is from U.S. Congressman John Fleming.  It deals with the issue of whether or not Supreme Court Justice, Kagan should be recused from hearing the challenge of Obamacare when it comes to the Court early next year.

Dr. Fleming has been actively fighting the PPACA from day one and introduced H.. Res. 615 on July 8th, 2009 which states:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who
vote in favor of the establishment of a public, Federal Government
run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate
in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree
to enroll under that public option.

Next year the U.S. Supreme Court will render one of the most important rulings of our lifetimes when it decides whether the government can force Americans to buy health insurance or face a fine. I’m glad the high court has agreed to hear this challenge, but I’m concerned that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan will not be impartial.

You may remember that Justice Kagan was President Obama’s Solicitor General, the attorney who represents the federal government in cases that come before the Supreme Court. In recent months it has become clear that she played an active role as the Obama Administration was preparing its legal defense for health care reform. She cheered its passage, designated her top deputy to oversee its defense, and both received and responded to emails about Obamacare litigation.

In Congress, I have led the call for the release of any documents that would shed light further light on this crucial matter. However, the Justice Department has called our requests for information “unseemly,” and refused to cooperate.

They have insisted that SG Kagan was “walled off” from Obamacare deliberations and decisions. If that’s the case, then they should tell us how it was done. Was there a gatekeeper? What were the instructions? How did they prevent emails from going to her? These are easy questions to answer. Their silence is self-condemning.

Ultimately it will be up to Justice Kagan to decide whether or not she will recuse herself from a case involving legislation that she already actively supported. The law is clear. A federal judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” That’s the threshold. Is it reasonable to look at Justice Kagan’s previous involvement with the Obama Administration and health care reform and have reasonable questions about her impartiality? I think the evidence is clearly pointing what way.

What do you think? I’m asking you that question in a poll on my website: Do you believe there is already reasonable evidence to question Justice Kagan’s impartiality on Obamacare, and should Congress continue to press for more documents on this matter? Please go to my website and register your preference.

Ultimately, I believe that we still need a full repeal of the unconstitutional health care reform law, with market-based solutions put in its place. I will continue to work hard toward that end on Capitol Hill.

Sincerely,

JOHN FLEMING, M.D.
Member of Congress

P.S. If you’d like more information, please take a minute to visit my website at www.fleming.house.gov or follow me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/repjohnfleming or on Twitter at www.twitter.com/repfleming

See a related post at:  http://commonsensepost.com/2011/11/21/senate-gop-leaders-to-holder-your-kagan-testimony-belied-by-the-facts/

 

Slaughter Wants to Change Outcome of Upcoming Supreme Court Vote on Obamacare

Former Speaker Pelosi said “We have to pass the (Obamacare) bill so we can find out what’s in it.”  Former chair of the House Rules Committee, Rep. Louise Slaughter, wanted to use “Deem and Pass” to get Obamacare through the House without a real vote (we didn’t actually pass the bill, but let’s just say that we did).

And now Louise is going after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas because of his wife’s income.  Well, it’s not about Ginnie Thomas’ income.  It’s about Obamacare.  You see, Ms. Slaughter doesn’t want Justice Thomas to be there on the Supreme Court to vote to repeal Obamacare when it comes before the court shortly.

I’m really surprised that Ms. Slaughter even has time for Congress right now.  I thought that she would be on Wall Street protesting and calling for revolution along with Al Sharpton, the mindless hippies, union thugs and former White House Jobs Czar, Van Jones.  Just read this excerpt from her web site as of October 5^th, 2011 at 2:30 PM:

“It’s time for all Americans to pay their fair share.”

WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, Ranking Member of the House Rules Committee, today released the following statement on the three-week old “Occupy Wall Street” movement that began in New York City and is rapidly spreading across the country.

“For thirty years, America’s middle class has watched its living standards erode while the wealthiest one percent amass fortunes that would make the Robber Barons blush. The gap between the haves and have not’s[sic] continues to widen in the wake of the 2008 recession, precipitated by the banking industry. Yet we are told we cannot afford to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires to pay for better roads and help close this deficit? That’s not right. It’s time for all Americans to pay their fair share. And I’m so proud to see the Occupy Wall Street movement standing up to this rampant corporate greed and peacefully participating in our democracy.”

“Robber Barons,” really?  Is this October, 2011 in the United States of America?  Or is this October, 1917 in Russia?  So Louise Slaughter gets taxpayer dollars to talk about how proud she is of the so-called revolutionaries on her government funded website.  If you’ve seen the interviews, you know that most of them don’t even know why they are demonstrating.  I don’t think this is what Russian immigrant, naturalized United States citizen and comedian, Yakov Smirnoff means when he says:  “What a country.”

Citizen Ejected from Public Meeting for Video Recording

More and more frequently our rights to record the audio and video of public meetings is being trampled upon by arrogant and elitist public officials.  Although recording such meetings in a non-disruptive manner is perfectly legal in most situations, many officials try to prohibit it.  Read more on http://commonsensepost.com.

Barack Obama: “If you love me, you gotta help me pass this bill”

What has president Obama done about creating jobs for the past 32 months?  Other than stimulus created government jobs and so-called “green” jobs?  Not much.  Maybe they’re called green jobs because it costs so much “green” to create each one. Continue reading at commonsensepost.com.

Police illegally confiscate citizens’ cell phone cameras at Rep. Steve Chabot (R), Ohio town hall

Congressman Chabot town hall meeting – North Avondale Recreation Center – August 22nd, 2011  Chabot’s town hall was fully funded by the taxpayers and took place at a public location.

The video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R0a8CcegxI&feature=player_embedded#!

Photographers’ rights: http://www.tutorial9.net/tutorials/photography-tutorials/your-rights-as-a-photographer/

An article:  http://www.pixiq.com/article/ohio-congressman-bans-cameras-from-town-hall-meeting

Judicial Reform:Three Florida Supreme Court Justices

As Tea Party patriots we must also turn our attention and efforts to changing the landscape of our judiciary which, on many occasions, render decisions that trample on our individual rights. Below is an action group that is priortizing the “battle grounds” for the 2012 elections. Please jump in and help-this effort will need volunteers at all levels to be effective.

Restore Justice 2012 Battle Plan

Posted on August 11, 2011 by Jesse Phillips

After our historic effort to remove Florida Supreme Court Justices Labarga and Perry last election, we have been busily at work seeking to educate voters on three activist judges that will be up for retention this election: Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince and R. Fred Lewis.

We’ve analyzed the data from last election in order to prioritize our top battle ground counties for 2012. I am looking for organizers in every county, but right now I am looking for folks who would like to be involved in a vital effort in the following counties.

1. Duval
2. Brevard
3. Lee
4. Polk
5. Volusia
6. Pasco
7. Marion
8. Seminole
9. Escambia
10. Lake

If you or anyone you know would like to help coordinate our efforts in these or any other county, please contact me and I will provide you with a job description to show you what we’re looking for in an organizer.

I can be reached at 407-494-0316 and jphillips@citizen2citizen.us

Jesse Phillips

TTPN Issue Lead for Judicial Reform

Florida D.A. Fired for Talking About Constitution Settles

Way to go KrisAnne!

A former Florida assistant state attorney who lost her job over teaching about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution settled her case for an undisclosed amount Thursday against the Florida state attorney who fired her.

KrisAnne Hall was fired last year after participating in a number of political speaking engagements, including at tea party rallies and on talk radio, in which she discussed her originalist views of the Constitution. Her boss, State Attorney Robert “Skip” Jarvis, said he received a complaint about her activities and gave what Hall described as an “ultimatum,” telling her to choose between her speaking engagements and her job.

“I told him I could not make that choice. I believe that my First Amendment right is my right and I would not stop speaking,” Hall said in an interview with The Blaze.

Hall subsequently filed a federal lawsuit after her dismissal, alleging her rights had been violated and Jarvis had no standing to order her to stop speaking on her own time. Both parties agreed to settle the case Thursday.

Hall would not discuss details of the settlement, except to say she was very satisfied and had her attorney fees paid. She will not be returning to the state attorney’s office.

“I believe strongly that I was within my constitutional right and within Supreme Court precedent,” she said.

Since her firing, Hall said she has “made it a ministry” during the past year to continue to lecture about the Founders’ original intent. She published a book, “It’s Not a Living Breathing Document: Reclaiming Our Constitution” and is working on another one about the Second Amendment. She has also produced a workshop teaching about the Bill of Rights.

“We are sorely lacking in history,” Hall said. “Part of where we have fallen amiss is the fact that we don’t teach history anymore and we have perpetuated this sort of lie that the Constitution is a living, breathing document.”

She estimated that she speaks to about eight groups per month. Her website states, “Civic groups, schools, homeschoolers, churchs…any group, any size.”

“I really believe if we are going to make serious progress in this country we need to teach people,” Hall said. ”Change is not what we need to restore our country…you cannot turn around a ship without a compass.”

“I didn’t choose for this to happen,” she said. “But it’s been a blessing in disguise.”

View past coverage of Hall’s case:

Continue reading and watch the videos at:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/florida-d-a-fired-for-talking-about-constitution-settles-case/

 

Judge Vinson to Obama: Speed up the Appeal or Stop Implementing Obamacare

From the Heritage Foundation:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/03/judge-vinson-to-obama-speed-up-the-appeal-or-stop-implementing-obamacare/

The Obama administration got a well-deserved rebuke today from Judge Roger Vinson in the Florida lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare (aka the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). Judge Vinson issued a new order in response to a bizarre and obtuse “motion to clarify” that the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed on February 17.

Vinson’s original order on January 31 could not have been clearer: He declared the entire law unconstitutional and specifically said that, because he presumed that officials of the executive branch would adhere to the law as declared by a court, his declaratory judgment striking the law down was the functional equivalent of an injunction. Judge Vinson wrote then that he presumed that the executive branch would follow his order, which any lawyer (including a lawyer President) would know requires them to cease implementing Obamacare with respect to the 26 states that are plaintiffs and the National Federation of Independent Business. That turned out to be a faulty presumption, indeed.

After waiting more than two weeks, the Obama Administration filed an insulting motion that essentially said the federal government would not comply with the judgment unless Judge Vinson issued another order “clarifying” that he really meant what he said: that the executive branch was enjoined from implementing this unconstitutional law. This was a political motion, not a legal motion that any serious litigator would file. In fact, Judge Vinson said that if the government was really unable to understand his original order, “[i]t was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to ‘clarify.’”

Vinson indirectly pointed out the Administration’s bad faith when he noted that DOJ lawyers said in their reply brief that the reason for the delay was because Vinson’s order needed “careful analysis.” Yet this was “contrary to media reports that the White House declared within hours after entry of [Vinson's] order that ‘implementation will proceed apace’ regardless of the ruling.” Judge Vinson also wrote of the government’s legal citation in its most recent motion “borders on misrepresentation.”

So today, Judge Vinson reaffirmed that he meant it when he said the law was unconstitutional and that he had expected the executive branch to abide by his decision. Judge Vinson said the language in his original order “seems to be plain and unambiguous. Even though I expressly declared that the entire Act was ‘void,’ and even though I emphasized that ‘separate injunctive relief is not necessary’ only because it must be presumed that ‘the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court,’ which means that ‘declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction,’ the defendants have indicated that they ‘do not interpret the Court’s order as requiring them to immediately cease [implementing and enforcing the act].’” The judge was obviously annoyed that the government has “reportedly continued with full implementation.” He went on to “clarify” his order that he expected his declaratory judgment to “be treated as the ‘practical’ and ‘functional equivalent of an injunction.’”

The plaintiffs had asked the judge to treat the DOJ’s motion to “clarify” as a motion for a stay and to deny the motion. Judge Vinson did treat the motion to clarify as a motion to stay his earlier judgment but then offered a clever compromise to the Obama Administration: He granted a stay for seven days but only on the condition that the Administration file an appeal within that period that requests expedited appellate review, either in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit or in the Supreme Court. Judge Vinson also noted that the appeal could be expedited because the briefing on the underlying legal issues was already submitted in his court.

This is a serious strategic loss for the government. Judge Vinson has challenged the federal government to speed up the appeals process, which would normally take much longer, forcing the hand of the Administration, which would like to slow down the litigation through questionably legal tactics if it can get away with it so it can implement as much of Obamacare as possible before it gets to the Supreme Court. And it is also a clever suggestion to the appellate courts that will next hear these claims: The Administration’s dilatory tactics should not trump the rule of law. As Judge Vinson correctly observed, “[i]t is very important to everyone in this country that this case move forward as soon as practically possible.” Important to everyone except the Obama Administration.

Co-authored by Todd Gaziano.

Tags: individual mandates, Obamacare

Author: Hans von Spakovsky

The One-Year Anniversary of Citizens United

David and Goliath – The One-Year Anniversary of Citizens United

One year ago today, on January 21, the Supreme Court released its landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The decision corrected an anomaly in campaign finance law, and in doing so was a tremendous victory for the First Amendment and Americans who wish to participate in our political process.

The case found its origins in 2007 when my group, Citizens United, a membership organization, sought to promote, distribute, and broadcast via video-on-demand a film critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. If Citizens United would have done so, we were told by the FEC that it would have been a willful violation of the provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (better known as “McCain-Feingold”) which prohibited corporations from making independent expenditures and electioneering communications.

http://biggovernment.com/dbossie/2011/01/21/david-v-goliath-the-one-year-anniversary-of-citizens-united/

Next Page »