On Monday, Jan. 9th 2012 the Supreme Court handed down a decision rejecting a free-speech challenge to the longtime ban on contributions by foreign citizens who temporarily live and work in the United States. A three-judge panel had already affirmed and upheld the ban that was adopted by Congress to prevent foreigners from effecting U.S. Elections. Key points to consider in this most recent attempt to allow foreigners to donate money to U.S. politicians can be found in the fact that President Obama and fellow Democrats in Congress criticized the ruling, while Republicans applauded it. Once again Barack Obama and the Democrats are proven to be desperate to win the 2012 elections at any cost. Add to that the justice department’s blatant attempt to promote vote fraud in 2012 by trying to stop voter ID laws, and yes, it certainly appears that the current campaigner in chief knows darn well he is in trouble in his upcoming reelection bid. Several key Supreme Court decisions are to be handed down this week, some very important, and as you will see, some appear to be a waste of time and leave people wondering just how they got before the SCOTUS in the first place. NewsDaily provided the following ridiculous claims made by the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case of Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, No. 11-275.
The case involved Benjamin Bluman, a Canadian citizen who attended Harvard Law School and now works as an attorney for a New York law firm. He has lived in the United States since late 2009 and can remain in the country until November 2012.
The U.S. Justice Department said Congress adopted and then amended the law over the past 50 years in response to specific incidents of foreign interests seeking to spend money to sway American elections and government decisions.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the Supreme Court that invalidating the ban would allow millions of foreign nationals in the United States to spend unlimited amounts on election advocacy and contribute money directly to candidates, even at the behest of hostile foreign governments.
In addition to seeking to make campaign contributions, Bluman wanted to spend money to express his political views, seeking to print flyers that support Obama’s re-election and to distribute them in Central Park.
Note the key information in the above paragraph: A foreign citizen that graduated from Harvard simply wants to donate money and distribute fliers to Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign, so the Supreme Court has to spend valuable time reaffirming that no foreign money from non-U.S. citizens will be allowed to sway American elections and also sway… .government decisions. Meanwhile the Supreme Court refuses to be bothered with such trivial cases as to whether the POTUS is actually qualified to be president according to the Unites States constitution, as can be seen here. Seems like someone has gotten their priorities backwards there, as far as the Supreme Court’s actual sworn duties are concerned.
Also on Monday the Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in the case of an Idaho couple that has been maliciously bullied and threatened with huge fines by the EPA simply because they wanted to build their dream home on a property they had bought years ago. An article at cnsnews.com has a complete rundown of this situation here. The lot they had purchased is bordered by houses on the north and south sides of the lot, is 500 feet from the shore of Priest lake and contains not one drop of standing water, yet the EPA has denied them usage of their own land simply because it has been deemed “wetlands.”
The Pacific Legal Foundation is representing the Sacketts, who have been given the run-around by the EPA in attempts to resolve this issue for going on four years now. The Sacketts filed suit in 2008 seeking to establish that EPA “wetlands” designations are subject to judicial review. Both the federal district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the EPA. The court held that the Sacketts could not seek judicial review of the EPA “wetlands” designation until after they had restored the land to its original status and had applied for and had been denied a wetland permit. The wetland permit application is much more expensive and time consuming than local permits. The hidden message in the court decisions denying the Sackett’s due process in a court of law? The EPA is the federal government and the taxpayers have no right to question their decisions, ever.
Let’s hope the Supreme Court will put a stop to the EPA’s tyrannical unconstitutional law-making political agenda in this situation and that they set a precedent to reign in their power grab. Denying the Sacketts usage of the land they purchased hinges on the most ludicrous example of government stupidity to ever have to go before the Supreme Court: The supposed “wetlands” actually is as dry as a bone. The lake is across the road. There are already houses to the north and south of their land. Is this what our founding fathers meant when they said a government of the people by the people and for the people? Not even close. This is a very small case that has huge implications for all landowners in America. What are the consequences of the Supreme Court refusing to stop the unconstitutional law-making of big government power-brokers in the near future? We then get things like Barack Obama, with help from the EPA and the Interior department banning uranium mining on 1 millions of public land outside the Grand Canyon for 20 years, as can be seen here. Here are a few facts from the CFP article :
Most people will be surprised to learn that nearly 30% of the 2.63 million square miles of the United States is directly owned by the federal government.
This federal land is located primarily in the West. For example, 69.1% of Alaska is owned by the federal government and 84% of Nevada. More than half of both Utah and Idaho is owned by the federal government. Other western states such as Arizona, California, Wyoming, Oregon, New Mexico and Colorado have from 53.1% to 36.6% of their land allocated to the federal government.
Check out the complete CFP article to see how the U.S. Congress in 2010 took more steps ( while under control of Democrats) to keep stealing taxpayer dollars to put into shady “trust funds” to take State land and to control every drop of water in the United States.
The Supreme Court will also be reviewing three separate Texas redistricting cases this week which may be reviewed here. These disputes are, at their core, a fundamental test of historic questions about federalism — that is, the roles of federal vs. state governments in managing election processes. With the U.S. Justice Department infringing on State’s rights more every day today, all of this week’s Supreme Court decisions will have huge implications for all Americans in the very near future.
Pay attention America, 2012 is here, and with it could come four more years of Barack Obama and his radical power-brokers that are indeed, already transforming America.