A Collection of Information Available to the public. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." This IS IT ~ TIME to reclaim our Freedom from an out of control Tyrannical Government. LIVE FREE and Fight the Good Fight To Keep That Right.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Thursday, March 5, 2015
THE END GAME OF WIND AND SOLAR POWER IS TO HAVE ENERGY RATIONING.
THE END GAME OF WIND AND SOLAR POWER IS TO HAVE ENERGY RATIONING.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Truth and Action.org "Calling all Hands" for Immediate Arrest of President Barack Obama
http://www.truthandaction.org/calling-hands-immediate-arrest-president-barack-obama/
The Sergeant at Arms, currently Andrew B. Willison, ( @SenateAAS on twitter) is the only person with authority to arrest a sitting president – if the president has violated Senate rules – which Obama has certainly done.
But what if the Sergeant at Arms won’t do his job and arrest the president when crimes have been committed?
If Andrew Willison will not perform his duty and arrest the president for crimes Obama has committed, is Mr. Willison not complicit and guilty of a criminal act himself?
Click the link below for more:
Next Page: »
Can we have Mr. Willison arrested or at least removed for failing to perform his duty? Who can perform this arrest or removal?
Furthermore, if this person won’t live up to their responsibility and arrest or remove the Sergeant at Arms who is complicit in the president´s crimes, who can remove that person?
Is there some place where ‘the rubber meets the road’ here?
Is there a point at which “we as a people” can take legal and lawful action, applying pressure where we can, to ultimately arrest the president and all those complicit in his crimes?
We are calling an ‘all hands’ here to try to discover if there is a valid method for ultimately having the president arrested using the above line of thought.
Please share this post and leave any information you might know in the comments. We request that you don’t make any comments that would appear to be physically threatening to the president or advocates any action that is not LEGAL AND LAWFUL.
Thank you patriots.
EVERYONE CAN TAKE ACTION:
1 – Share this post
2 – Leave comments or ideas that are legal and lawful
Calling “All Hands”: The Immediate Arrest Of President Barack Obama
“The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States,” states the senate.gov website.
The Sergeant at Arms, currently Andrew B. Willison, ( @SenateAAS on twitter) is the only person with authority to arrest a sitting president – if the president has violated Senate rules – which Obama has certainly done.
But what if the Sergeant at Arms won’t do his job and arrest the president when crimes have been committed?
If Andrew Willison will not perform his duty and arrest the president for crimes Obama has committed, is Mr. Willison not complicit and guilty of a criminal act himself?
Click the link below for more:
Next Page: »
Can we have Mr. Willison arrested or at least removed for failing to perform his duty? Who can perform this arrest or removal?
Furthermore, if this person won’t live up to their responsibility and arrest or remove the Sergeant at Arms who is complicit in the president´s crimes, who can remove that person?
Is there some place where ‘the rubber meets the road’ here?
Is there a point at which “we as a people” can take legal and lawful action, applying pressure where we can, to ultimately arrest the president and all those complicit in his crimes?
We are calling an ‘all hands’ here to try to discover if there is a valid method for ultimately having the president arrested using the above line of thought.
Please share this post and leave any information you might know in the comments. We request that you don’t make any comments that would appear to be physically threatening to the president or advocates any action that is not LEGAL AND LAWFUL.
Thank you patriots.
EVERYONE CAN TAKE ACTION:
1 – Share this post
2 – Leave comments or ideas that are legal and lawful
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
The IRS's Case In Halbig v. Sebelius Is Crumbling, With A Little Help From Its Friends (UPDATED)
The IRS's Case In Halbig v. Sebelius Is Crumbling, With A Little Help From Its Friends (UPDATED)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/03/24/the-irss-case-in-halbig-v-sebelius-is-crumbling-with-a-little-help-from-its-friends/
PROMOTED STORIES
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/03/24/the-irss-case-in-halbig-v-sebelius-is-crumbling-with-a-little-help-from-its-friends/
The IRS's Case In Halbig v. Sebelius Is Crumbling, With A Little Help From Its Friends (UPDATED)
Comment Now
Follow Comments
Tomorrow morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments in Halbig v. Sebelius, a case that challenges the IRS’s ability to implement ObamaCare’s health insurance subsidies and mandate penalties in the 34 states with federally established health “exchanges.” Though the IRS prevailed at the district-court level, its allies have been inadvertently undermining the agency’s case ever since.
First, a little background. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 clearly, repeatedly, and consistently says that the above-mentioned subsidies and penalties are authorized only “through an Exchange established by the State.” The IRS breezed right past that explicit, recurring, and uncontradicted indicator of congressional intent, however, when the agency announced it would implement those subsidies and penalties in states that did not establish an Exchange and the federal government established one by default. The IRS is thus taxing the Halbig plaintiffs, who reside in states that did not establish Exchanges, without congressional authorization. The plaintiffs don’t like that.
The IRS won at the district-court level thanks to an opinion in which Judge Paul Friedman concluded that Exchanges established by the federal government are “established by the State.” That’s not quite as absurd as it may seem at first. Congress could have deemed federally established Exchanges to be “established by the State” in which they operate, if that had been Congress’ intent. Indeed, that’s what Congress did with respect to Exchanges established by U.S. territories. But Congress did not do so for federal Exchanges. Thus we are firm ground describing Friedman’s ruling as absurd. Congress intentionally offered subsidies only in states that established Exchanges for the same reason it makes numerous categories of federal spending and tax benefits conditional on state action: to induce states to carry out federal priorities.
Ever since the IRS’s victory, however, its friends have been inadvertently undermining the agency’s case.
For one, the Obama administration says it is implausible that Congress meant “established the State” literally. It “makes no sense,” the government asserts, to think that Congress even contemplated allowing federal Exchanges to operate without subsidies. Yale law professor Abbe Gluck writes, “it would be nonsensical to deprive citizens in federal-exchange states of the subsidies.”
Except…several of the government’s friends — including professor Gluck — have now conceded it does make sense, because Congress was actively considering that very idea. Separate amicus briefs by the AARP and the seven congressional Democratic leaders most responsible for the PPACA, as well as a recent blog post by Gluck all acknowledge that allowing federal Exchanges to operate without subsidies was a live issue during the debate that produced the PPACA. (Fun facts: two of those seven congressional Democrats sponsored the idea. And all seven ultimately voted for it in the PPACA, though they now disavow all knowledge. They were for it, before they were against it. Another group of key congressional Democrats complained back in 2010 that the PPACA’s Exchange subsidies, like the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, were conditional and that states could block them. They then voted for the PPACA, yet now claim they never intended subsidies to be conditional. They were against it, before they were for it, before they were against it.)
Gluck further concedes that Congress contemplated withholding those subsidies specifically if states failed to establish Exchanges when she acknowledges the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s health care bill would have withheld subsidies from such states for four years.
The government has also argued that Congress deemed federally established Exchanges to be “established by the State,” despite the statute containing no explicit or implicit language to that effect. Gluck undermines this claim as well. In her discussion of the HELP Bill, she concedes that Congress knew how to deem a state to be an “establishing state” even if the state did not establish an Exchange — something the PPACA did not do. We already know, from the PPACA provisions concerning U.S. territories, that Congress knew how to treat non-states as though they were states. Gluck’s reaffirmation is appreciated nonetheless. Unfortunately, she goes on to assert that courts should interpret the PPACA as if it contains such deeming language for federal Exchanges, simply because a prior bill does.
The more the IRS’s defenders write about this case, the more they will undermine the agency’s position in court, because its position is untenable.
Odds and ends:
Gluck misattributes a line from my brief with Jonathan Adler to the appellants’ brief, and therefore does not provide readers a link to the source material. Here it is.
My coauthor Jonathan Adler offers his critique of Judge Friedman’s opinion at the Washington Post‘s Volokh Conspiracy blog.
Click here for critiques of the pro-IRS amicus briefs in Halbig, and here for a rundown of the pro-plaintiff briefs. Visit here for a complete list of reference materials on Halbig and related cases.
Update: Gluck offers “a quick response.” Of note, she again concedes that the HELP bill allowed federal Exchanges to operate without subsidies. Yet she somehow still claims, “Nothing in the HELP bill contemplates a federally operated exchange with no subsidies” and “Congress never contemplated a federal exchange with no subsidies.” I refer Gluck to her own post: “[a] limitation on the subsidies, for federal [Exchanges], was if the state refused to apply the employer mandate to its own state government employees.” Next, I noted above that Gluck incorrectly attributed to the Halbig plaintiffs’ brief something that Jonathan Adler and I wrote in our amicus brief. Gluck’s response? “Cannon also nits that I did not provide a link to his amicus brief (which I did not do because my post referred to his arguments on the blogs). Glad to provide it here.” Hmm. The problem wasn’t so much that Gluck forgot to include a link to the source of the quote; it was more that she misidentified the authors. Now she claims she was quoting my arguments on “the blogs” rather than our brief, even though her post prefaces the quote with “from the brief” (by which she meant the plaintiffs’ brief, not ours). My head hurts. The quote, which I wrote myself, sadly does not appear in any blog but Gluck’s, where it still lacks proper attribution and a link. Those would be appreciated.
First, a little background. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 clearly, repeatedly, and consistently says that the above-mentioned subsidies and penalties are authorized only “through an Exchange established by the State.” The IRS breezed right past that explicit, recurring, and uncontradicted indicator of congressional intent, however, when the agency announced it would implement those subsidies and penalties in states that did not establish an Exchange and the federal government established one by default. The IRS is thus taxing the Halbig plaintiffs, who reside in states that did not establish Exchanges, without congressional authorization. The plaintiffs don’t like that.
The IRS won at the district-court level thanks to an opinion in which Judge Paul Friedman concluded that Exchanges established by the federal government are “established by the State.” That’s not quite as absurd as it may seem at first. Congress could have deemed federally established Exchanges to be “established by the State” in which they operate, if that had been Congress’ intent. Indeed, that’s what Congress did with respect to Exchanges established by U.S. territories. But Congress did not do so for federal Exchanges. Thus we are firm ground describing Friedman’s ruling as absurd. Congress intentionally offered subsidies only in states that established Exchanges for the same reason it makes numerous categories of federal spending and tax benefits conditional on state action: to induce states to carry out federal priorities.
Ever since the IRS’s victory, however, its friends have been inadvertently undermining the agency’s case.
For one, the Obama administration says it is implausible that Congress meant “established the State” literally. It “makes no sense,” the government asserts, to think that Congress even contemplated allowing federal Exchanges to operate without subsidies. Yale law professor Abbe Gluck writes, “it would be nonsensical to deprive citizens in federal-exchange states of the subsidies.”
Except…several of the government’s friends — including professor Gluck — have now conceded it does make sense, because Congress was actively considering that very idea. Separate amicus briefs by the AARP and the seven congressional Democratic leaders most responsible for the PPACA, as well as a recent blog post by Gluck all acknowledge that allowing federal Exchanges to operate without subsidies was a live issue during the debate that produced the PPACA. (Fun facts: two of those seven congressional Democrats sponsored the idea. And all seven ultimately voted for it in the PPACA, though they now disavow all knowledge. They were for it, before they were against it. Another group of key congressional Democrats complained back in 2010 that the PPACA’s Exchange subsidies, like the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, were conditional and that states could block them. They then voted for the PPACA, yet now claim they never intended subsidies to be conditional. They were against it, before they were for it, before they were against it.)
Gluck further concedes that Congress contemplated withholding those subsidies specifically if states failed to establish Exchanges when she acknowledges the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s health care bill would have withheld subsidies from such states for four years.
The government has also argued that Congress deemed federally established Exchanges to be “established by the State,” despite the statute containing no explicit or implicit language to that effect. Gluck undermines this claim as well. In her discussion of the HELP Bill, she concedes that Congress knew how to deem a state to be an “establishing state” even if the state did not establish an Exchange — something the PPACA did not do. We already know, from the PPACA provisions concerning U.S. territories, that Congress knew how to treat non-states as though they were states. Gluck’s reaffirmation is appreciated nonetheless. Unfortunately, she goes on to assert that courts should interpret the PPACA as if it contains such deeming language for federal Exchanges, simply because a prior bill does.
The more the IRS’s defenders write about this case, the more they will undermine the agency’s position in court, because its position is untenable.
Odds and ends:
Gluck misattributes a line from my brief with Jonathan Adler to the appellants’ brief, and therefore does not provide readers a link to the source material. Here it is.
My coauthor Jonathan Adler offers his critique of Judge Friedman’s opinion at the Washington Post‘s Volokh Conspiracy blog.
Click here for critiques of the pro-IRS amicus briefs in Halbig, and here for a rundown of the pro-plaintiff briefs. Visit here for a complete list of reference materials on Halbig and related cases.
Update: Gluck offers “a quick response.” Of note, she again concedes that the HELP bill allowed federal Exchanges to operate without subsidies. Yet she somehow still claims, “Nothing in the HELP bill contemplates a federally operated exchange with no subsidies” and “Congress never contemplated a federal exchange with no subsidies.” I refer Gluck to her own post: “[a] limitation on the subsidies, for federal [Exchanges], was if the state refused to apply the employer mandate to its own state government employees.” Next, I noted above that Gluck incorrectly attributed to the Halbig plaintiffs’ brief something that Jonathan Adler and I wrote in our amicus brief. Gluck’s response? “Cannon also nits that I did not provide a link to his amicus brief (which I did not do because my post referred to his arguments on the blogs). Glad to provide it here.” Hmm. The problem wasn’t so much that Gluck forgot to include a link to the source of the quote; it was more that she misidentified the authors. Now she claims she was quoting my arguments on “the blogs” rather than our brief, even though her post prefaces the quote with “from the brief” (by which she meant the plaintiffs’ brief, not ours). My head hurts. The quote, which I wrote myself, sadly does not appear in any blog but Gluck’s, where it still lacks proper attribution and a link. Those would be appreciated.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Obama to Fundraise in Texas Today, Won't Visit Child Crisis on the Border - Katie Pavlich
Obama to Fundraise in Texas Today, Won't Visit Child Crisis on the Border - Katie Pavlich
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/07/09/obama-to-fundraise-in-texas-today-wont-visit-child-crisis-on-the-border-n1860304
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/07/09/obama-to-fundraise-in-texas-today-wont-visit-child-crisis-on-the-border-n1860304
Ex-border agents: Immigrant flood ‘orchestrated’
Ex-border agents: Immigrant flood ‘orchestrated’
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/ex-border-agents-immigrant-flood-orchestrated/
An organization of former Border Patrol agents Wednesday charged that the federal government, under the administration of President Obama, is deliberately arranging for a flood of immigrant children to arrive in America for political purposes.
“This is not a humanitarian crisis. It is a predictable, orchestrated
and contrived assault on the compassionate side of Americans by her
political leaders that knowingly puts minor illegal alien children at
risk for purely political purposes,” said the statement released by the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers.
“Certainly, we are not gullible enough to believe that thousands of unaccompanied minor Central American children came to America without the encouragement, aid and assistance of the United States government,” the officers said.
WND EXCLUSIVE: Congressmen say Obama “attempt to flood border” part of infamous socialist “Cloward-Piven” strategy
“Anyone that has taken two six- to seven-year-old children to an amusement park can only imagine the problems associated with bringing thousands of unaccompanied children that age up through Mexico and into the United States.”
Republicans are blaming Obama’s immigration policies for enticing the illegals, particularly the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program launched in 2012, which recently was renewed.
More than 33,000 have been caught in Texas alone over the last eight months, the report said, overwhelming Border Patrol capabilities.
A federal judge even concluded the White House “has simply chosen not to enforce … border security laws.”
FoxNews.com reported this week Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer calls the situation a “creation” of the federal government, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., assigned blame for the “calamity” to Obama.
Fox News reported it had obtained a memo from an official with Customs and Border Protection who said the current policies are serving as an incentive for illegal aliens to sneak into the U.S.
“If the U.S. government fails to deliver adequate consequences to deter aliens from attempting to illegally enter the U.S., the result will be an even greater increase in the rate of recidivism and first-time illicit entries,” said Ronald Vitiello, a deputy Border Patrol chief.
Officials say among Obama’s policies that are attracting illegals is his instructions for “deferred action” for young illegals. Recently, the federal government said it was hunting for lawyers to provide legal help to children who are in the U.S. illegally.
The White House is asking for $1.4 billion more for the illegal-alien children, which by some estimates will grow to 150,000 next year.
The former Border Patrol agents said the campaign is a “political deception,” and the responsibility rests with the political leaders who support “a path to citizenship, regularization or any other form of amnesty for illegal aliens before providing for full protections for national security (jobs and economy) and public safety (the right of the people to be secure in their property and person).”
The officers argue that the non-enforcement of immigration laws is “the next step in becoming a failed state.”
“Yes, our leaders are guilty. However, we are responsible because it is the American voter [who] has placed untrustworthy people in positions of power and kept them there when they have clearly demonstrated that they have violated that public trust.
“These successful con artists are well dressed, attractive and charming,” the statement said.
The officers even questioned whether “this heartless criminal exploitation of Central American infants and children [will] finally awaken Americans to the ruse being foisted upon them by their government, the media and other interested parties.”
“Has America lost her ability to stand up against the tyrants and do what is right rather than what is easy? Obviously, this administration thinks you are as corrupt as they are and will vote them back into office or these young children would not be streaming into America to tug at your hearts and empty your heads of reason,” the statement said.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/ex-border-agents-immigrant-flood-orchestrated/#hXaRSirV7melfjbP.99
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/ex-border-agents-immigrant-flood-orchestrated/
Ex-border agents: Immigrant flood 'orchestrated'
'We are not gullible enough to believe thousands came without aid and assistance'
Subscribe to feed- Text smaller
- Text bigger
An organization of former Border Patrol agents Wednesday charged that the federal government, under the administration of President Obama, is deliberately arranging for a flood of immigrant children to arrive in America for political purposes.
“Certainly, we are not gullible enough to believe that thousands of unaccompanied minor Central American children came to America without the encouragement, aid and assistance of the United States government,” the officers said.
WND EXCLUSIVE: Congressmen say Obama “attempt to flood border” part of infamous socialist “Cloward-Piven” strategy
“Anyone that has taken two six- to seven-year-old children to an amusement park can only imagine the problems associated with bringing thousands of unaccompanied children that age up through Mexico and into the United States.”
Republicans are blaming Obama’s immigration policies for enticing the illegals, particularly the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program launched in 2012, which recently was renewed.
More than 33,000 have been caught in Texas alone over the last eight months, the report said, overwhelming Border Patrol capabilities.
A federal judge even concluded the White House “has simply chosen not to enforce … border security laws.”
FoxNews.com reported this week Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer calls the situation a “creation” of the federal government, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., assigned blame for the “calamity” to Obama.
Fox News reported it had obtained a memo from an official with Customs and Border Protection who said the current policies are serving as an incentive for illegal aliens to sneak into the U.S.
“If the U.S. government fails to deliver adequate consequences to deter aliens from attempting to illegally enter the U.S., the result will be an even greater increase in the rate of recidivism and first-time illicit entries,” said Ronald Vitiello, a deputy Border Patrol chief.
Officials say among Obama’s policies that are attracting illegals is his instructions for “deferred action” for young illegals. Recently, the federal government said it was hunting for lawyers to provide legal help to children who are in the U.S. illegally.
The White House is asking for $1.4 billion more for the illegal-alien children, which by some estimates will grow to 150,000 next year.
The former Border Patrol agents said the campaign is a “political deception,” and the responsibility rests with the political leaders who support “a path to citizenship, regularization or any other form of amnesty for illegal aliens before providing for full protections for national security (jobs and economy) and public safety (the right of the people to be secure in their property and person).”
“Yes, our leaders are guilty. However, we are responsible because it is the American voter [who] has placed untrustworthy people in positions of power and kept them there when they have clearly demonstrated that they have violated that public trust.
“These successful con artists are well dressed, attractive and charming,” the statement said.
The officers even questioned whether “this heartless criminal exploitation of Central American infants and children [will] finally awaken Americans to the ruse being foisted upon them by their government, the media and other interested parties.”
“Has America lost her ability to stand up against the tyrants and do what is right rather than what is easy? Obviously, this administration thinks you are as corrupt as they are and will vote them back into office or these young children would not be streaming into America to tug at your hearts and empty your heads of reason,” the statement said.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/ex-border-agents-immigrant-flood-orchestrated/#hXaRSirV7melfjbP.99
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)