Sarah Palin reacted forcefully to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare today. She said that Obama “lied to the American people” when he said it wasn’t a tax.
Thank you, SCOTUS. This Obamacare ruling fires up the troops as America’s eyes are opened! Thank God.
This proves to be such an unsettling time in America as we undergo the fundamental transformation that Barack Obama promised he would do to us if elected. Obamacare was dealt in deception and confusion by flooding the public with an overwhelming amount of conflicting “rationale” via thousands of pages of unread legislative detail, which is the radical left’s M.O. Obama promised the American people this wasn’t a tax and that he’d never raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. We now see that this is the largest tax increase in history. It will slam every business owner and every one of the 50% of Americans who currently pay their taxes. The other 50% are being deceived if they think they’re going to get a free ride – because Medicaid is broke. Recipients of Obama’s “free health care” will have fewer choices and less accessibility. Trust me – this much more expensive health care WILL be rationed; to claim otherwise defies all economic and common sense.
We will not retreat on this. A newly elected legislative branch is key to defending our Republic and fundamentally restoring all that is good in America.
SCOTUS now rules this is a tax? Well, Congress has the ability to create taxes – and also has the ability to rescind them. Upon their return from the July recess, Congress should act immediately to repeal this terrible new tax on the American people, and indeed they must repeal all of Obamacare. This is the most brazen and sweeping new tax and government overreach imposed on us. We the People did not ask for this tax, we do not want this tax, and we can’t afford this tax. This is not an answer to America’s health care challenges.
It’s time, again, for patriotic Americans to rise up to protest this obvious infringement on our economic and personal freedom. November is just around the corner. Today, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Obamacare. In November, We the People will issue ours.
We believe in America. We believe in America’s people. We believe in America’s system of government. We believe in America’s future.
Like the “front porch” of yesteryear, FrontPorchPolitics.com is a place where you can join people of like mind to find out what is really going on in America.
Unlike many web sites, however, we’re not just critics. We’re visionaries. That’s why FrontPorchPolitics.com is a familiar place to share frustrations as well as the solutions and strategies needed to restore our nation’s former glory.
In the 1980s I was a huge Petra fan. Petra was a Contemporary Christian Rock-n-Roll group, that performed music with awesome lyrics some of which were even worthy for a Christian worship Service. For many years John Schlitt was the lead singer for Petra. Schlitt had replaced my then favorite Petra lead singer Greg X. Volz (SA HERE) who went on to a solo career.
John Schlitt is still doing Christian Rock-n-Roll and Donna Anderson to send a link of one his song “Faith and Freedom”. The song is a mixture of Christian Rock-n-Roll and American patriotism.
Thanks to being on the mailing list of Raiders News Network, Donna Anderson sent this to the subscribers on June 29, 2012 7:28 AM:
Former lead singer for Petra asked us to share with you
Check it out!
Our good friend Jeff McLaughlin and the former lead singer for Petra, John Schlitt asked us during this 4th of July and historic presidential election season to share John's new song 'Faith and Freedom.'
When we asked John why he wrote the song, he said, "As a Christian and as an American, I realize that I’m part of a generation that’s probably the most blessed generation in the history of mankind. My father, my grandfather and the fathers before us sacrificed so much for this country - which was formed under God. Not Buddha, not Mohammed, but Jesus Christ!”
Oscar Hills IV is a person that some believe was unjustly convicted of the crime of fraud in Louisiana. Hills antagonist is apparently an Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and (Explosives) ATFE [I always thought it was just ATF] agent that was driven to investigate Hills case.
I originally posted Hills story because someone went to the trouble to send it to me. In using my main investigative tool (i.e. Google) I have come up with nearly zilch about Oscar Hills IV.
Recently someone again has sent some Hills information having to do with an effort to use the Appellate Court to overturn or vacate his conviction. AGAIN the Google Search Engine is sparse to non-existent on information on Oscar Hills IV.
If anyone can dig up some information about Oscar Hills IV send it to john.houk@gmail.com. In the mean time here is the latest information sent to me via my old SlantRight.com archive site email of john@slantright.com.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-30071
USDC No. 3:11-CV-352
USDC No. 3:09-CR-46-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. OSCAR HILLS, IV, Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
O R D E R:
Oscar Hills, IV, federal prisoner # 05251-095, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his convictions for wire fraud. He has also filed an appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion for release on bond pending appeal, and he moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, for expedited consideration of his IFP motion and his appeal from the district court’s denial of bond, for release on bond pending appeal, and to supplement his COA motion. To the extent that Hills requests a COA with respect to the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider those claims because he did not separately appeal the denial of that No. 12-30071 motion. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).
In order to obtain a COA, the movant must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner “satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
Hills asserts that the district court did not address his claim that the trial court’s failure to consider his pretrial request for substitute appointed counsel was a structural error that resulted in the violation of his due process rights and his right to effective representation by counsel. He also argues that his counsel was ineffective because he suppressed evidence and coerced his guilty plea. Hills has not shown that reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s denial of these claims or that jurists could conclude that the issues deserve encouragement to proceed further. See id. Any remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that Hills raised in the district court have been abandoned.
See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999).
Hills also argues that the district court failed to consider his claim that he was denied counsel at a critical stage of his criminal proceedings, namely the hearing held to consider his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and that the denial of counsel constituted a structural error. He states that he was forced to proceed pro se at his plea withdrawal hearing and that his pro se representation prevented him for presenting relevant issues to the trial court.
Hills did not raise these claims in his original § 2255 motion, but he did raise them in later filings during his § 2255 proceedings. Accordingly, a COA is 2 No. 12-30071 granted in part as to the preliminary issue whether these claims were properly raised before the district court.
To the extent that the claims were properly raised before the district court, Hills has, for the following reasons, demonstrated that they deserve encouragement to proceed further. SeeMiller-El, 537 U.S. at 327. This court has not yet held but has assumed that a plea withdrawal hearing is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding requiring the assistance of counsel. See United States v. Robles, 445 F. App’x 771, 778 (5th Cir. 2011).
If a plea withdrawal hearing is a critical stage of the proceeding, it is debatable whether, if Hills requested appointed counsel for the plea withdrawal hearing, the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel, or whether, if Hills indicated his intent to proceed pro se at the hearing, the trial court erred in failing to warn him of the dangers of proceeding pro se. See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648-59 (1984); Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 802, 813-18 (1975); United States v. Cano, 519 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, a COA is also granted in part with respect to whether Hills’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the trial court did not address his request for appointed counsel in connection with the plea withdrawal hearing and when the trial court allowed Hills to proceed pro se at the hearing without first ensuring that his decision to proceed pro se was knowingly and intelligently made.
Hills’s motion to proceed IFP is granted. His remaining motions are denied.
COA GRANTED IN PART; COA DENIED IN PART; IFP MOTION GRANTED; ALL OTHER MOTIONS DENIED.
/s/ Leslie H. Southwick
LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE 3
______________________________________
SlantRight Note: TaWana Gayle sent this information without comment. Since I had to format it for posting I am guessing this was from a converted PDF file or an OCR scanned document. I found some footnotes however I found no footnoted material. TaWana if you see these notes perhaps you can send a summary of Oscar Hills’ legal battles so that I can post for interested readers. For that matter, could anyone send some information on Oscar Hills’ legal issues from start to the present?
Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress today by the GOP majority in the House. Democrats and especially the Black Caucus have made Holder’s refusal to come clean about Fast & Furious into a race issue to deflect the real reason for the contempt citation.
Namely, Holder has been caught in several lies and adding to Holder’s refusal to cooperate with the House investigation to find the idiot who signed off on Fast & Furious smacks of the Watergate Cover-up Republican President Nixon faced in the early 1970s. In that cover-up the President was saved from impeachment and a Senate trial by a blanket pardon for Nixon. That pardon came from the only President not elected to Office as a President or Vice President. In my growing political youth that Presidential pardon solidified me as a Democrat at the time causing my first vote for the Office of President to go to Jimmy Carter. Carter was such a failure I departed my Leftist ways and have become a permanent Conservative (although not always a Republican) ever since.
I mention my brief personal feelings on Watergate because the Fast & Furious scandal has all the appearances of a Watergate Cover-up. In this case the Cover-up would then be to protect the Leftist-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama.
Could the GOP be flexing its muscles after the Supreme Court in a close 5-4 vote upheld the central financing of Obamacare ruling Individual Mandates a tax rather than forcing citizens to buy a product under the Commerce Clause?
Unofficially I’d have to say, “You’re darn toot’in!”
Chief Justice John Roberts insinuated he voted the tax route so that Congress would legislate via the purse strings rather than SCOTUS formulating policy. I don’t know if I agree with the Roberts reasoning; however having Congress act rather than SCOTUS appears to be some slick Constitutional interpretation by throwing the issue back to Congress.
The House GOP is flexing its muscles according to the constituents that voted them into Office. I am guessing some of those constituents were represented by Democrats prior to 2010. Ergo whether the Dems are crying race or political motivation – STICK A SOCK IN IT and listen to your constituents as you will probably lose more seats in the House in 2012 AND perhaps lose the Senate to the GOP in 2012 as well.
Here is the Fox News report on Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt of Congress.
The GOP-led House voted Thursday to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to provide key information pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, making Holder the first sitting Cabinet member to be held in contempt.
The vote was 255-67, with 17 Democrats breaking ranks to side with Republicans in favor of contempt.
The vote follows a roughly 16-month investigation by the chamber’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee into the failed gun-running sting known as Fast and Furious -- run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a division of the Justice Department led by Holder.
Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., filed two subpoenas over that period requesting additional information. But he has more recently focused on information related to a February 2011 letter to Congress that falsely claimed the ATF was unaware the operation involved the underground sale of the assault weapons.
“Today, a bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for his continued refusal to produce relevant documents,” Issa said after the vote. “This was not the outcome I had sought and it could have been avoided had Attorney General Holder actually produced the subpoenaed documents he said he could provide.”
Congressional sources tell Fox News that House GOP leaders will now meet to decide the next steps, but the investigation is expected to go forward with more subpoenas being issued.
“Today’s vote is the regrettable culmination of what became a misguided and politically motivated investigation during an election year,” Holder said afterward. “By advancing it over the past year and a half, Congressman Issa and others have focused on politics over public safety.”
The vote, which holds the attorney general in criminal contempt, was followed by a second vote that held Holder in civil contempt of Congress. The civil contempt vote allows Congress to go to court to seek additional documents.
The criminal-contempt vote is supposed to direct a U.S. attorney to convene a grand jury to review the case and decide whether to indict Holder.
However, considering Holder would be investigated by his own employees, some analysts have said it's unlikely that would happen. If the case proceeds, though, Holder could face a maximum one year in jail if convicted.
The votes came on one of the busiest days in Washington in recent history, with the Supreme Court ruling 5-4 in the morning to uphold the president’s health care reform law.
Details about Fast and Furious emerged after U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in a December 2010 shootout in which two of the assault weapons connected to operation were found at the scene.
“The Terry family takes no pleasure in the contempt vote,” according to a statement from the Brian Terry Foundation. “Such a vote should not have been necessary. The Department of Justice should have released the documents related to Fast and Furious months ago.”
Federal officials launched the operation in Arizona in an effort to get the weapons into the hands of arms dealers with the hope they would lead to organizers of Mexican drug cartels.
Others guns surfaced in crimes in Mexico, and roughly 2,000 remain missing.
Several meetings involving Obama administration officials and House Republicans, which involved negotiations about releasing additional documents, failed to stop the contempt votes.
White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer on Thursday called the vote a “political stunt."
“Despite the major economic challenges facing the country, they talked openly about devoting taxpayer-funded, congressional oversight resources to political purposes,” Pfeiffer said.
Among Democrats most opposed to the votes were members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who led more than 100 House party members in boycotting the vote and walking out of the chamber.
"Today, we are witnessing the great lengths to which Republican leadership will go in an attempt to discredit the Attorney General and embarrass the president,” said caucus Chairman Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo. “Leadership’s actions are destructive, election-year politics.”
Prior to the vote, House John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, “It’s important to remember how we got here. The Justice Department has not provided the facts and information we requested. … It’s our constitutional duty to find out.”
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi argued House Republicans were more politically motivated in attacking Holder than getting to the bottom of the failed operation.
“What is happening here is shameful," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
Lawmakers earlier voted against a proposal by Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., to return the matter to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
