Monday, January 31, 2011


SIDEBAR: Sean Hannity criticized the situation in Egypt stating that much of the population lives on UNDER $2 per day.

SAY WHAT? SO DOES OBAMA'S BROTHER IN KENYA and our jihadist in chief does not seem to mind - nor does anything about it!!

Is he simply too ill to care about anything but himself? Look at this  picture BELOW the White House has released of a recent meeting. Does he seem well? Stomach parasites? Well enough to do his job? Or as reports allege, too detached to be engaged in the crisis.

The Egyptian crisis is not some remote situation, the consequences will be hitting our towns and neighborhoods very rapidly. Specially at the gas pumps.

The Suez canal controls a huge percentage of our flow of oil and Europe plus Israel  had to invade Egypt in 1956 - not so - long ago to maintain global security and global economies. Now the Iranian backed shill Al Baradei and his support by the Moslem Brotherhood, which is as virulent a form of Islam as the Iranian Mullahs is about to take control.

Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood

- Allah is our objective.

- The Prophet is our leader.

- Qur'an is our law.

- Jihad is our way.

- Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

And here in the photo below is the Brotherhood's most fervent supporter, recenly even taking  their leaders OFF the banned entry to USA list and offering them visas to come and live here!


Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, in a lawsuit by 26 state attorney generals, has held that Obamacare is unconstitutional.

Judge Vinson first found that the mandate was unconstitutional, and then found that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the entire law be deemed unconstitutional.

Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient (in effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived).

Here is the conclusion of the Order:

"The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task.

Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.

This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” ... In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.

For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED. In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional."

Florida Health Care Mandate Lawsuit, Summary Judgement Order (At link or web address below)


No comments: