NJ Mother Pressured to Turn Over Her Guns, Charged With ‘Terroristic Threats’ After Reading the Constitution at Tax Dispute Assembly

A New Jersey mother was arrested and told to turn over her guns after reading the Constitution and peacefully protesting at a tax dispute forum, she says.

Eileen Hart was with her husband Keith and her 7-year-old daughter on Saturday at the Gloucester Community Center to dispute a mandatory home re-evaluation that would roughly double her property value (and therefore dramatically increase her rates), objecting on multiple grounds. As an Orthodox Jew, she refused to have the inspectors in her home when her husband was away at work. As an American citizen, she objected to the seemingly arbitrary reappraisal, noting that she is not planning on selling her home and hasn’t renovated her kitchen in 30 years.

But at the forum, Hart was allegedly told that since she didn’t let the inspectors into her home, the state has a right to “assume” its value.

“How could they assume that my value had doubled when there is absolutely no housing market?” she asked TheBlaze rhetorically over the phone. “There is basically no GDP growth.”

After Hart started citing the Constitution, a representative of Appraisal Systems, Inc.– the company contracted by the state to conduct appraisals– started “freaking out,” she said, and called for New Jersey tax assessor Robyn Glocker-Hammond.

“Sit down and shut up,” Hart said Glocker-Hammond told her, adding that she (Glocker-Hammond) was there to “enforce the law.”

“I didn’t see a badge,” Hart noted. “Her title is tax assessor, not law enforcement officer.”

Glocker-Hammond started speaking to Hart’s husband like a “two-year-old,” Hart claimed, and after she objected, Glocker-Hammond once again told her to be quiet.

“I have a right to speak out against this, this is a public place, my tax dollars pay your salary,” Hart objected to the tax assessor, already incredulous at the drastic increase in her rates.

“I don’t work for you,” the assessor allegedly retorted.

At that point, Appraisal Systems, Inc. representative Andrew Colavecchio started advancing towards her, she said, like he was about to grab her arm. “Don’t you dare touch me,” she said after he allegedly got so close he touched her coat.

Glocker-Hammond then told her she had to leave the public forum and threatened to call the authorities, though Hart swears she never cursed or acted inappropriately.

That’s when things got serious.

As Hart left the building she saw Colavecchio “sneering” at her and said to him in passing, “look at the little pencil-pusher.”

Hart said Colavecchio threatened to call 911 and “ran after us in the parking lot like a banshee, his face was purple, [he was] disheveled, [he] started to take down my license plate and ran off. When he got to the doors of the building he screamed at us, ‘let’s see if you can pay your taxes now!’”

Much to her surprise, Hart returned home to numerous police cars, the officers asking if they could bring her in for questioning even though they did not have a warrant. She was not allowed to drive behind with her husband, but was forced to ride in the police vehicle.

Colavecchio had apparently told the police that Hart was “yelling and screaming” and threatened to return to the meeting with a gun.

Read more here.

U.S. Constitution Deemed Too Controversial For WMAL News Talk

A Washington, D.C., conservative radio station has refused to sell airtime for a political statement from the writer-actor-singer who performed for years as television’s Buck Howdy – deeming it too “controversial.”

“How sad that we live in a time when a message supporting the Constitution is deemed too controversial,” Grammy-winning musician Steve Vaus, creator of the Buck Howdy character, told WND today.

He has recorded a song that defies those advocating gun confiscation with one of the slogans of the Texas Revolution, “Come and take it.”

Vaus said he had attempted to purchase air time on WMAL News/Talk to play his recording, but was rejected.

An email from General Sales Manager Todd Freundlich, forwarded by Vaus, said, “After reviewing the spot with my program director we have determined that it is too controversial for us to air.”

His email continued, “Sorry that we can’t help you with this but if I can answer any additional questions please let me know.”

It doesn’t appear, however, that the bump in the road will stop Vaus.

“Nothing will stop me from getting this message heard in Washington, D.C. If I have to stand in front of the White House and the Capitol Building with a boom box so be it,” Vaus said.

He had requested the prices and information for a one-minute spot, he said.

Read more here.

Stunner. Obama White House Takes Credit for Illegal Immigration Deal

The Politico reported:

White House press secretary Jay Carney on Monday welcomed an immigration deal reached by a bipartisan group of senators and gave credit to President Obama for pressing the issue.

“I think it’s important before we let the moment pass to acknowledge that the progress we’re seeing embodied in the priniciples put forward by this bipartisan group is happening for a reason: I think it’s happening because consensus is developing in the country, a bipartisan consensus, and it’s happening because the president has demonstrated significant leadership on this issue,” Carney said.

He said that when immigration reform failed in 2010, Obama continued to press for it, giving speeches repeatedly and putting out a detailed blueprint for reform.

“He made clear in the campaign last year that this would be a top priority of his in a second term, and he is keeping that commitment by pressing forward today,” he said.

Carney declined to address a key difference between the White House and the senators’ plan, which would allow a path to citizenship only after increased border security.

Clemson Fans Cheer Constitution & Boo Obama at Game

5 Supreme Court Justices Prove They Do NOT Know Anything About The U.S. Constitution

In a momentous ruling touching virtually every American, the Supreme Court narrowly upheld President Barack Obama’s historic health care overhaul Thursday with the unlikely help of conservative Chief Justice John Roberts.

But the decision also gave Republicans unexpected ammunition to energize supporters in the battle for the White House and to fight “Obamacare” as a new tax on people who don’t obtain health insurance.

Roberts’ vote, along with those of the court’s four liberal justices, preserved the largest expansion of the nation’s social safety net in more than 45 years, including the hotly debated core requirement that nearly everyone have health insurance or pay a penalty. The aim is to extend coverage to more than 30 million people who now are uninsured

The 5-4 decision meant the huge overhaul, still taking effect, could proceed and pick up momentum over the next several years, with an impact on the way that countless Americans receive and pay for their personal medical care.

The ruling handed Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in approving the plan. However, Republicans quickly indicated they would try to use the decision against him.

At the White House, Obama declared, “Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country.” Blocks away, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney renewed his criticism of the overhaul, calling it “bad law” and promising to work to repeal it if elected in November.

Demonstrators for and against the law crowded the grounds outside the Supreme Court Building on Capitol Hill as Roberts, sitting at the center of the nine black-robed justices inside, announced the decision to a packed courtroom.

Breaking with the other conservative justices, Roberts read the judgment that allows the law to go forward. He explained at length the court’s view of the insurance mandate as a valid exercise of Congress’ authority to “lay and collect taxes.” The administration estimates that roughly 4 million people will pay the penalty rather than buy insurance.

Congress called the payment a penalty, not a tax, but Roberts said the court would not get hung up on labels. Among other indications it is a tax, Roberts said, “the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation.”

“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” Roberts said.

Many Republicans oppose the law, arguing that it marks a government takeover of health care at the same time it curtails Medicare spending and raises taxes. They also point to studies that predict private employers will be forced to reduce or eliminate coverage and that the legislation will wind up costing far more than estimated, raising federal deficits as a result.

Stocks of hospital companies rose and some insurance companies fell after the ruling.

The decision should help hospitals by adding millions of people to the rolls of the insured, expanding the pool of health care consumers. But by the same reasoning, insurance companies will also gain millions of premium-paying customers.

The court found problems with the law’s expansion of Medicaid, but even there it said the expansion could proceed as long as the federal government does not threaten to withhold states’ entire Medicaid allotment if they don’t take part.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined Roberts in the outcome.

Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Read more here.