Supremely Disappointing

Supreme Court rules against the people of Arizona; illegal aliens hail voting decision

On June 17, the Supreme Court superseded state’s right by torpedoing a November 2, 2004 ballot initiative where Arizona residents overwhelmingly determined that voters must document their United States citizenship before casting a ballot.

By a 7-2 margin, the justices, led by conservative Antonin Scalia, concluded that federal law trumped states’ rights. Specifically, Bill Clinton’s 1993 National Voter Registration Act, commonly referred to as the Motor Voter Act, took precedent over Proposition 200, also known as the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizenship Protection Act.

Arizona residents passed this measure for one simple reason: the Motor Voter Act does not require applicants to show proof of their legal status as a U.S. resident. Rather, when completing a registration form, they merely have to “swear” under penalty of perjury that they are being truthful.

As a border state suffering from an invasion of illegal aliens, Arizonans insisted that a simple oath didn’t suffice. Instead, Prop 200 demanded either a valid driver’s license, birth certificate, passport, or other legal documents to prove someone’s identity.

States such as Texas and South Carolina feel likewise, especially since recent reports by Andy Pierotti of Florida’s NBC2 television station uncovered rampant fraud committed by Democrats during Motor Voter registrations. One woman, Hinako Dennett, admitted to not being a U.S. citizen, yet told Pierotti, “I vote every year.” Another man confessed to lying on his voter registration application, the same crime Arizonans are concerned about.

Attorney Thomas Horne, who represented Arizona before the Supreme Court, reasoned that states have a right to ask for more information beyond the federal forms. “It’s extremely inadequate. It’s essentially an honor system. It doesn’t do the job,” Horne argued. Similarly, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) wants to amend any upcoming amnesty bills to require proof of citizenship before voting.


People of Arizona Outraged at Supreme Court

On June 19, two days after the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona couldn’t demand voter IDs at polling stations, AMERICAN FREE PRESS spoke with five state residents to gauge their reaction. Peni Hamill of the Southern Arizona Tri-County Tea Party set the tone.

“I think its b.s. that nine justices overruled Prop 200 which we passed at the ballot box. More people voted for Prop 200 than the justices who ruled against it.”

Pat Beck of the Colorado River Tea Party offered this contrast.

“I lived in a few different countries over the years, and the thought that a non-resident in a Brazilian election could vote without showing proper ID is ludicrous. But foreign nationals can do it here. Even more amazing, our media and government are fighting to give these illegals the vote.”

Continuing this thought, Beck surmised, “Just because one-half of 1% of the populace doesn’t have IDs, we’re supposed to change the entire voting structure for them? No other country in the world except us does this. It seems like we’ll let anybody vote no matter where they’re from.”

As an aside, Beck suggested, “If illegals were primarily voting Republican, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because Democrats would scream for more stringent ID laws.”

Providing another layer to this topic was author Dave Daehler, author of a book called The ReConstitution Amendments. “Since policemen in Arizona can no longer examine IDs at stop points, we could conceivably have a million people walk across the border from Mexico to fill-out voter registration forms, and they’re not even legal Americans.”

Pragmatic in his approach, Daehler observed, “If you asked for an ID 30 years ago, everyone thought it was fine. What’s wrong with asking someone to show proof before they vote? There is some minimum level of responsibility to vote in this country, but it seems we’ve lost all checks and balances.”

When asked why Democrats were so opposed to proof of ID, Daehler responded, “Because then we’d be able to figure out who’s a citizen and who isn’t.”

Democrats aren’t the only ones to blame, as Michael Hendricks, founder of the Prescott Tea Party, noted.

“Senator John McCain said that illegals were legitimate voters and that the GOP needed to woo them to their side. At one point he told tea party members to grow up and accept these groups as legal voters. Establishment Democrats and Republicans are both part of this mess. Neither of them wants to deal with the issue of voter fraud as an enormous problem.”

More precisely, Chris Rossiter of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party pinpointed who he thought was the primary culprit.

“Attorney General Eric Holder has gone after every state that wants voter IDs.”

As one of the tea party groups targeted by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials, Rossiter further commented, “It’s clear that the Obama administration and other leftists encourage voter fraud because they derive benefits from it.”

With these observations in mind, Ms. Hamill described how Arizona is being affected.

“In every border state, illegals are overrunning our hospitals, having babies, and using all our services. They’re bankrupting us.”

Unafraid to speak her mind, Ms. Hamill concluded, “I’m tired of sitting back and staying quiet. I’m a white Christian girl, and if the NSA is listening to this phone call, I don’t care.”

High Court vs. the States

• Supremes ignore democratically expressed wishes of the people

In a spate of rulings in late June, the Supreme Court weighed in on multiple cases, sometimes siding with states’ rights advocates and other times overruling the will of the people when it came to the issue of who can get married.

Here is a round-up of those cases:

• In one ruling that at least temporarily abates some seriously scary technology, the high court unanimously resolved that human genes could not be patented. Synthetic, man-made genetic materials were still patentable, however. This decision prevents corporations from being able to block research into lifesaving gene therapies because they discovered a particular gene in the human body.

• In one questionable ruling, the Supreme Court chose not to weigh in on a longstanding case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, where a white female student sued a college that refused her entry because of affirmative action quotas.

Abigail Fisher, whose test scores surpassed those of other minority students, was denied entrance to the University of Texas due to “racial factors” and the institution’s desire to create a more multicultural atmosphere on campus.

On June 26, the justices sidestepped the entire issue by returning it to a lower court, thus delaying a final blow against the failed social-engineering program known as affirmative action.

• On June 25, the Supreme Court struck down in a 5-4 decision a key provision of Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 Voting Rights Act that prevented states from changing certain election laws without federal approval. Particularly affected were southern states such as Alabama and Mississippi that can now redistrict counties without approval from the Department of Justice (DoJ). In response, Reverend Al Sharpton opined that Martin Luther King’s “dream” had been canceled by the majority justices.

• In another June 25 decision, the Court ruled that a father who had forfeited his child to adoptive parents could not retain custody simply because he possessed a trace amount of American Indian blood. This outcome at least partially negated the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act that favors the placement of Native American children with families of similar descent, instead opting to allow child welfare organizations and charities to continue to make this decision for children.

• On June 26, the Supreme Court overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Initially passed by Congress on September 21, 1996 during the Clinton administration, DOMA negated all benefits—including health insurance, Social Security payments and joint income tax returns—for federal workers in same-sex relationships.

This landmark Supreme Court case, officially known as United States v. Windsor, arose after New York’s Second District Court stated on June 6, 2012 that DOMA discriminated against homosexuals, thus deeming it unconstitutional. It didn’t matter, though, as Eric Holder’s DoJ had already stopped enforcing DOMA, thus violating federal law.

Further complicating matters, in 2008, California voters passed by a 52-48% margin a ballot measure called Proposition 8 that constitutionally banned marriage for same-sex couples.

This case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, arose after the Supreme Court of California determined that homosexual marriage was legal. However, voters spoke out against the court through the Prop 8 ballot initiative and overturned the decision. Similar to Eric Holder, though, Governor Jerry Brown refused to enforce Prop 8.

On the same day as the DOMA decision, the Supreme Court negated California’s Prop 8, nullifying votes made at the ballot box. Akin to the Motor Voter Act trumping Arizona’s Prop 200, the nine justices betrayed not only the will of each state voter, but also the founding fathers’ original intent of giving much greater power to states than the federal government.

In effect, the Supreme Court said that if an attorney general or governor doesn’t agree with a law or initiative passed by the voters, he can render it null and void.

The implications are obvious: The Constitution and traditional values no longer prevail, as political correctness and cultural decay are fundamentally transforming America.

Hillary and Bill Trilogy

The Weird Case of John Roberts and Obamacare

To Supreme Court watchers, the biggest shock in recent memory arrived when Chief Justice John Roberts, an ardent conservative and supporter of limited government, suddenly switched his decision at the 11th hour to cast a final decisive vote in favor of Obamacare.

Ever since, conjecture has run rampant as to the cause of Roberts’ last minute about-face. Speculation abounded even more so after revelations about the National Security Agency’s (NSA) PRISM surveillance program became public. Had Roberts been intimidated à la the IRS campaign against tea party groups?

Or, as NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed, “An analyst at anytime can target anyone . . . I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authority to wiretap anyone.”

It seems everyone has an opinion. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) warned that Roberts had been overtly pressured by the Obama White House, while radio talk show host Glenn Beck alluded to hacked e-mails and extortion. When another NSA whistleblower, Bill Binney, was asked during a June 12 interview about the potential for blackmail, he replied, “With all the data being collected, it’s possible.” One website even floated the notion that a Secret Service agent overhead the President and former senior adviser David Axelrod discussing how they’d coerce Roberts into voting for Obamacare.

Of course, absolutely no proof exists to verify these theories. A prime example concerns long-standing rumors in Washington, D.C. that Roberts is a closet homosexual who married late in life to cover-up his alternative lifestyle. After all, critics claim, he did conduct plenty of pro bono work for gay rights groups early in his career.

Another plot revolves around Roberts and his wife using a child trafficking agency in 2000 to scurry their adopted son and daughter from their birthplace in Ireland to Latin America. They did so, it’s alleged, to sidestep Irish laws that prohibit adoptions by non-residents.

Whatever the case, in a June 11 article, Mike Adams, editor of Natural News, wrote, “The NSA almost certainly has a full dossier on every member of Congress, federal judge, State Department employee and high powered corporate CEO.”

In this context, Roberts’ inexplicable behavior on Obamacare may be more understandable.

Victor Thorn

Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and author of over 40 books.