The dangerous legal progressive activist legislator,if she’s nominated to bench, Elena Kagan
I don’t think the America people are going to hold harmless those who vote to impose a legal progressive activist legislator from the bench upon them.—Sen. Jeff Sessions
On the floor of the Senator Jeff Sessions in no uncertain terms warned his fellow Senators what the ramifications to the United States will be if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court.
For all of the Lindsey Graham Republicans who will vote for Kagan to go along to get along with Democrats you have no excuse, you have been warned right there on the Senate floor. You will not be able to say you didn’t know when your term approaches and you have to face the American people. See Sen. Sessions warning. (see 3:21min video)
A Progressive in the mould of Obama himself—Greg Craig former Counsel to president Barack Obama commenting on Elena Kagan
As Sen. Sessions forewarning goes out to everyone who will listen Elena Kagan is, “a dangerous Progressive Political…Nominee.”
Republicans who love this country and who love the Constitution shouldn’t vote for her. But neither should Democrats.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law), by enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."— U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton
The argument is this, If the Federal government abdicates it’s Constitutional duties (which it has) which are to protect American borders and protect the American people, is a State within the Constitution if that State enforces Constitutional laws that the Federal government refuses to enforce?
Clinton appointee Judge Susan Bolton is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with America. She has made herself complicit in the Federal government’s violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. We are no longer a nation of laws; we are now, a nation of progressive judicial rulings.(see article)
Judge Bolden did not rule on the facts of Arizona’s immigration case nor did she rule on the law. Instead Judge Bolton ruled on the nonsensical “what if” arguments that the Barry Hussein Soetoro administration have been floating in the Progressive Leftwing Media. (Complaint)(Response)(Decision)
The Soetoro administration mischaracterized this case as a civil rights issue instead of the National security or National sovereignty issue that it is. And judge Bolton foolishly bought these unreasonable arguments instead of applying the law. This is exactly the danger of an Elena Kagan and a Sonia Sotomayor on the U.S. Supreme Court because this is exactly what they will do.
The Soetoro administration argued “what if” resident aliens or even Mexican Americans are stopped and asked about their citizenship wouldn’t that be a violation of their civil rights? They also argued, “what if“ there is racial profiling would that be a violation of civil rights?
The Soetoro administration argued for the court to accept that there might be instances of civil rights violations, if Arizona police in the normal conduct of their duties ask someone in a lawful contact to show some identification. Judge Susan Bolton did.
The answers to these “what if” arguments where so simple that even a Federal judge couldn’t mess up a decision on the facts, until of course Judge Susan Bolton did. It is clear now that her apparent inability to adjudicate unbiasly and logically is probably why this Clinton appointee was selected to hear this case.
That notwithstanding, the answers are, one: we are all subject to being stopped and asked for identification. There is no undue civil rights burden placed on anyone asked to produce identification in this manner. As citizens, we carry identification with us at all times. Two, the Arizona law is explicitly written specifically to prevent and discourage racial profiling. Racial profiling is a politically correct trumped up non sequitur meant to cloud the debate and divide the America people by the Left.
Look every time you and I are stopped by the police we are asked for identification, but according to Judge Bolton’s ruling illegal aliens are now a special protected class complete with special rights, they cannot be asked the question that hundreds of thousands of Americans are asked every day, “May I see some identification.” Below are provisions of Arizona’s 1070 bill that Judge Bolton blocked.
Key parts of Senate Bill 1070 that will not go into effect Thursday:
• The portion of the law that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally.
• The portion that creates a crime of failure to apply for or carry "alien-registration papers."
• The portion that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work. (This does not include the section on day laborers.)
• The portion that allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States.
Andy McCarthy said that this decision is "nuts"
The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can't do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement ... which is nuts.
The judge also employs a cute bit of sleight-of-hand. She repeatedly invokes a 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state alien-registration statute. In Hines, the high court reasoned that the federal government had traditionally followed a policy of not treating aliens as "a thing apart," and that Congress had therefore "manifested a purpose ... to protect the liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national system" that would not unduly subject them to "inquisitorial practices and police surveillance." But the Arizona law is not directed at law-abiding aliens in order to identify them as foreigners and subject them, on that basis, to police attention. It is directed at arrested aliens who are in custody because they have violated the law. --Andy McCarthy (source)
Judge Bolton has done irreparable harm to the integrity and independence of all U.S. jurisprudence. Her ruling is further confirmation of the corruption of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the U.S. government.
It is apparent to everyone except the Radical Progressives and Judge Susan Bolton, that the Federal Government is engaged complicatedly with the enemies of the United States to fundamentally change this country. Change it from a country based on the principles of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers into a nation that no longer is a nation of laws but a nation of progressive judicial rulings.
Newt Gingrich and Howard Dean both left pants on the ground regarding the Shirley Sherrod Racism incident in their interviews with Fox News Chris Wallace.
We learned earlier this month that a leftwing group affiliated with the website “Journolist” have plans in place to defeat those who they consider enemies by hurling the Leftwing invective “Racist” at enemies whether they are Racist or not and whether there is evidence of the charge or not.
Many of these “Journalists” write for major newspapers around the country so they regularly access and influence the public square of ideas. In fact they may have helped get Barry Hussein Soetoro elected president by quashing unfavorable stories about him while targeting his opponents with negative and detrimental stories.(see previous post)
The Leftwing has discovered that they can race-bait all they want and at the same time if they want to defeat someone who they perceive is on the right all they have to do is identify them a Racist whether the charge is true or not.
Apparently, the “Racist” epithet is so heinous that when it was reported that a member of the Soetoro administration had made some racist statements at an NAACP meeting the Soetoro administration immediately called for and got Shirley Sherrod’s resignation.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.—Spencer Ackerman
So in a recent Chris Wallace Fox News interview Newt Gingrich and Howard Dean, on the subject of Ms. Sherrod, look foolish. What was interesting is how politically inept and transparent both of these men were.
Gingrich ineptness shows every time he shoots his mouth off before he knows the facts. Wallace was ready to show Mr. Gingrich his pattern of commenting on situations before knowing the facts. If Gingrich aspires to run for the presidency, he’ll need to improve much in this area.
I've made a career standing up to that kind of stuff and I think that was a mistake on the part of the Obama administration. But I'm not going to let the right wing press off the hook on this. –Howard Dean
However, Howard Dean is just a straight Partisan Pol who disregards facts as most cats avoid water. It was clear that Dean by his own statement was there to call Fox News Racist and smash Rightwing News through a plate-glass window to let them know that there is a cost for reporting on Leftwing Racism thereby putting Rightwing News in a constant state of fear.
However when confronted with the facts as Chris Matthews forced Dean to do, Dean still insisted that there was a Racist somewhere (that wasn’t Democrat) and he was going to find him or her and make them live in a constant state of fear.
“[R]aise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a right-winger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.”— Spencer Ackerman
(see 7:19min video)
GINGRICH: I have on occasion sided with the NAACP's characterizations. All I'm suggesting, and I think it's very worrisome to people:
If the Obama Administration is this afraid of Glenn Beck, how do they deal with the Iranians? I mean, if, if they a news show forces this level of...
DEAN: There may be some similarities, Newt. There may be some similarities.
What is interesting is that both Gingrich and Dean seemed to acknowledge and agreed that the way the Soetoro administration fired Shirley Sherrod and mishandled this latest Racism from the White house flap it is becoming clear that the real Racists are in the White house and live in a state of constant fear.
Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night. -- Karen Mracek and Thomas Beaumont
America is bleeding.
For decades, American corporations without any fidelity to the country of their birth have been outsourcing the manufacturing base and economic infrastructure of America to India and China for slave labor wages and usurious profits.
At least since 1983 to 2004 2 million manufacturing jobs are estimated outsourced to foreign countries. The trend has not slowed and is not reversing in the years subsequent 2004 until now.
2 million manufacturing jobs that are estimated to have moved offshore since 1983. These numbers are predicted to rise. Management consulting firm McKinsey & Company's economic think tank, the McKinsey Global Institute, predicts that white-collar offshoring will increase at a rate of 30 percent to 40 percent over the next five years. By 2015, Forrester predicts, roughly 3.3 million service jobs will have moved offshore, including 1.7 million "back office" jobs such as payroll processing and accounting, and 473,000 jobs in the information technology industry. --Sharon Otterman, Council on Foreign Relations (source)
In a one, two punch first to the abdomen and then to the head, America has been hit by treacherous corporate practices meant to empower and enrich the new “International Corporations” that have divest themselves from their mother country through decades of outsourced American jobs . Now the coup de grace American tax payers were forced to bailout Goldman Sachs and AIG who plotted, planned and executed the Global financial meltdown and then acted as a front to send Billions of America's taxpayer money to foreign banks. Again, America is bleeding.(see article) (see 5:13min video)
All of this is happening because the guardians of the American people, the U.S. Congress and the U.S. president are complicit in the bleeding of the America people. It was the Congress and the President who approved the bailouts, it is Congress and the President that continue to heap mountains of debt on the American people in the middle of the greatest economic depression since the great depression and it is Congress and the President that are using this economic crisis to advance their expensive Progressive Socialist Big Government plan.
"We thought originally we were bailing out AIG. Then later on ... we learned that the money flowed through AIG to a few big banks, and now we know that the money went from these few big banks to dozens of financial institutions all around the world."-- Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia.
In addition, it is Congress and the President that continue to preside over a jobless economy with no plans to hold “International Corporations” responsible for gutting the U.S. economic infrastructure.
The only plan that this Congress and this president has is asking for more American taxpayer money to enlarge the federal government. This is what they call job creation and job stimulus.
America is bleeding. The bleeding is called, spreading America’s wealth around the world or the bleeding is called the great transference of wealth from the West to the East. Whatever one calls it know this, American is bleeding jobs and taxpayer moneys and our Congress and president are complicit in the bloodletting.
Billions of dollars for Global warming by governments, foundations, multinational corporations, even Big Oil but where’s the warming?
Global warming has billions of dollars, governments, foundations, multinational corporations, movie stars and Big Oil all backing it. That it doesn’t have is the Global actually getting warmer.
Christopher Booker notes that these are desperate days for advocates of Catastrophic Global Warming. There is no worldwide GW weather Catastrophe, there is no worldwide warming. Furthermore, the science that global warming was built on has been proven massively fraudulent and based on bad information, and lies.
In addition, according to the Al Gore’s original GW claims which he started in 1990 with his slideshow presentations which, evolved into a 2006 Book and Movie, “AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It.” The United States is supposed to be submerged in Ocean water within five to six years of his claim. However, the EPA claims that sea levels will rise during the next century.
"The area where the World Trade Center Memorial is to be located would be under water" - Al Gore
The EPA estimates the sea levels to rise from 50 to 200 cm during the next century. Approximately 14,000 sq miles of the U.S. will be inundated. (see source)(see 1:04min video)
The die has been cast and although the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is discredited and everyone who supports the theory of AGW has been exposed as frauds. There is so much deception, money, foreign and domestic government backing behind the implementation of a worldwide carbon cap and trade scheme that truth no longer matters only usurious profits for carbon traders, big oil companies and the carbon investors that embrace the Global warming scheme.
I FIND MYSELF NOT GUILY
No doubt, you’ve heard of the University of East Anglia emails that were leaked last November suggesting some of the world's leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct. Well just recently, the East Anglia University commissioned their very own study and found themselves not guilty of any wrongdoing in the dubious undertaking that is dubbed Climategate. (see article)
Last week "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review," commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.-- PATRICK J. MICHAELS
So now warming alarmists are once again up to their old three phase tactics:
• Attribute to global warming almost any unusual weather event anywhere in the world.
• Repeat incessantly that the official inquiries into the "Climategate" scandal have cleared the top IPCC scientists involved of any wrongdoing, and that their science has been "vindicated"
• Claim that leading skeptics only question warmist orthodoxy because they have been funded by "Big Oil" and the "fossil fuel industry"
They think, we of course, are too stupid to recognize that cap and trade is a global initiative to transfer U.S. tax payer moneys to fund an international government (one world government) as well as fund an international business scheme.
The pseudo science of Climate change is just the vehicle to get U.S. taxpayers to commit their moneys without a revolt against government and international business. If U.S. citizens can be duped into a supposed noble cause as, saving the planet it will be too late to change when they are finally made aware that their government officials in Congress sold them out to Carbon Traders and the United Nations.
[T]he big oil companies have long been putting their real money into projects dedicated to showing how they are in favor of a "low-carbon economy". In 2002, Exxon gave $100 million to Stanford University to fund research into energy sources needed to fight global warming. BP, which rebranded itself in 2004 as "Beyond Petroleum", gave $500 million to fund similar research.—Christopher Booker
To be sure, nothing is, as it seems the science of Global Warming does not match the empirical data and our government is no longer acting on behalf of the people of the United States.
The Grantham Institute provides another example. It was set up at the LSE and Imperial College with £24 million from Jeremy Grantham, an investment fund billionaire, to advise governments and firms on how to promote and invest in ways to "fight climate change", now one of the fastest-growing and most lucrative businesses in the world.—Christopher Booker
Don’t be silly Climate Change is not some altruist movement to save the earth, Climate Change is going to be a multi-trillion dollar international business funded by taxpayer’s money.
Don’t believe me, look around if Carbon dioxide actually trapped heat in our atmosphere and that heat had nowhere to go causing the earth’s temperatures to increase then why are we experiencing global cooling?
According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.-- Jonathan Strong
Liberals hate Conservatives. All of them. They hate every last iota of a Republican!
King Shamir Shabazz of New Black Panther fame, couldn’t have said it any better. The Left wants the Right to live in a state of constant fear. Hum, that sounds a little like terrorism to me. Just a little! You know what else sounds like terrorism, the remarks of “Journolist” member Spencer Ackerman (the Shamir Shabazz of Journalism) of the Washington Independent who encouraged his fellow Leftwing Liberal Media Elite reporters to, “raise the cost on the right of going after the left.
In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.” Boy! Shamir Shabazz could take some lesson on hate from this guy. And one wonders why politics are so volatile in 2010? It’s because the Left has literally declared Jihad on the Right.
In 2008, Barry Hussein Soetoro was a candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America. Videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America. During an ABC News Presidential debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Soetoro was asked about his affiliation with the Rev. Wright and why he had not responded, until of late, to charges that Rev. Wright seemed to be an anti-American, anti-Semitic Racist. And by inference, because he sat in Wright’s church for 20 years, Mr. Soetoro was too.
Unknown to Americans liberal journalists were watching the debate too and they took offense that Mr. Soetoro was being treated as any other candidate would be treated in a similar situation. These journalists were connected by a liberal media site called “Journolist” and they conspired to affect the 2008 elections by protecting Mr. Soetoro from what they considered unfair treatment.
At the same time these “journalist” plotted to promote Mr. Soetoro’s cause they also plotted to smear his Republican opponents with charges of Racism. (see article)
These are the revelations of The Daily Caller’s Jonathan Strong. According to Mr. Strong, employees of news organizations including but not limited to Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic colluded to throw the election into the favor of Barry Hussein Soetoro.
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”—Jonathan Strong
It is one thing to promote your favor candidate, it is quite another thing to promote a candidate while using the supposed expectation of neutrality that the media is given. The unsuspecting public had no idea that a media conspiracy was afoot. But there was, and that conspiracy was simply to get Barry Hussein Soetoro elected president at any cost.
“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”—Jonathan Strong
More than a conspiracy, it was declared war. The left declared jihad on the right just as sure as Osama bin Laden declared jihad on the United States in 1998.
Ackerman went on:
I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously, I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.—Jonathan Strong
Smoking gun? It was always suspected that the Media is Liberal, ergo the name the Liberal Media Elite. Now, it simply cannot be denied with any credibility.
Instead of fulfilling its duties as the Constitutional Fourth Estate, those who comprise the Liberal Media Elite have chosen a side and that is neither neutral nor unbiased.
The Liberal Media Elite is an arm of the political Progressive Liberal Democrats and they control much of what is seen and heard in the media in this country. They also control messaging with the small exception of Fox News (which they are attempting to destroy with help directly from the White house). Any Conservative media outlet like talk radio for example is being targeted by Liberal Media Elite.
Their tactics seem to be:
• Ignoring news that would potentially be unfavorable to their Party and politician(s).
• Calling their Political opponents Racist
• Smearing their political rivals in general
• Terrorizing the Right with unfavable media (think Sara Palin)
• Giving the appearance of neutrality and objectivity
• Playing mind games on the Right
• Destroying Fox News
• Demonizing Talk Radio
There can be no doubt when one hears the echo chamber of reports like, “President Obama signs sweeping Financial Regulations” Over and over again, ad infinitum on every station and channel except Fox News (but even them sometimes too)without any analysis or questioning, you just need to understand that media is no longer reporting the News.
The Liberal Media Elite is ensuring that their favor politician get his message out. While at the same time, they intend that Conservatives be made to live in a state of constant fear. They wish to crush and destroy Conservatism.
Spencer Ackerman might even enjoy killing some Conservative babies. Obviously, I mean this rhetorically.
They who would trade liberty for security soon have none and deserve neither.-- (Both Franklin 1775 and Thomas Jefferson said variations of this about the same time of the Founding of the United States)
People on the left were incensed when former president Bush used warrantless wire tapping as a tool to fight terrorism. They made wild and exaggerated claims that he was shredding the Constitution.
So why aren’t those same people concerned when we have a President and Congress that show so little regard for the Framers and the Constitution? Instead of accusing Priest and Arkin of undermining National Security without evaluating what they’re reporting why don’t we objectively look for who represents real threats to our liberties.
Unlike a Thomas M. Tamm, a former lawyer in the United States Department of Justice's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review who Liberals hail as a hero for leaking to the press warrantless NSA surveillance during the Bush administration. Washington Post’s Investigative reporter Dana Priest, columnist, and reporter, William M. Arkin spent two years investigating this story for a report to the American people. By the way, the courts found that president Bush wiretaps where in fact Constitutional. (see article)
Tamm has admitted that his leak was politically motivated. He’s conceded that it was his anger over other Bush-administration policies at the Justice Department that helped justify in his mind to bypass procedures in place for “whistleblowers. The policies that Tamm was most upset with included the Bush administration’s aggressive pursuit of death-penalty cases and the legal justifications for "enhanced" interrogation techniques that many believe are tantamount to torture. The NSA warrantless wiretaps were but the final straw that lead Tamm to go directly to the press to leak government classified secrets.(see article)
This is not the case with reporters Priest and Arkin who plainly state that after 9/11 they saw the exponential expansion of secretive government and launched a two-year investigation. Priest and Arkin included the government at several points in this investigation, they allowed the government to see the report site several months ago in case the government had any concerns. When the government had specific concerns about material, those things were removed. (see 7:25min video)
With all of the organizing, money and resources expended since 2001, we need to know why we have had intelligence failures such as the Fort Hood shooting and the Christmas plane-bombing attempt.
Last fall, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly opened fire at Fort Hood, Tex., killing 13 people and wounding 30. In the days after the shootings, information emerged about Hasan's increasingly strange behavior at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he had trained as a psychiatrist and warned commanders that they should allow Muslims to leave the Army or risk "adverse events." He had also exchanged e-mails with a well-known radical cleric in Yemen being monitored by U.S. intelligence.
But none of this reached the one organization charged with handling counterintelligence investigations within the Army.—Dana Priest and William Arkin
We need to know what this government is doing and why what it is doing is not working.
These were all clues to what would happen when a Nigerian named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab left Yemen and eventually boarded a plane in Amsterdam bound for Detroit. But nobody put them together because, as officials would testify later, the system had gotten so big that the lines of responsibility had become hopelessly blurred.—Dana Priest and William Arkin
Priest and Arkin are not harming Intelligence work in this country. On the contrary, they are performing the country a service as the fourth estate.
They who would trade liberty for security soon have none and deserve neither.-- (Both Franklin 1775 and Thomas Jefferson said variations of this about the same time of the Founding of the United States)
I’ve read the brief Washington Times’ Quin Hillyer article entitled, “Is Wash Post harming intelligence work?” It included memo embedded in it allegedly from Mission Support Center of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Hillyer questioned whether rival paper the Washington Post’s two-year investigative report on secrecy in the federal government was somehow compromising National Security. (see article)
The short answer is no, it is not!
And in response I say the question ought to be—is anyone going to do enough to protect the American people from this unprecedented build up of federal power? (see :21sec video)
Presently there is a move afoot to amass power in the federal government. The FCC just claimed power over Internet providers (see article)
The Senate just gave the President power to shut down the internet. (see article)
Over every sphere of American life, from what we eat to how we think, the federal government is encroaching into places that the founding fathers specifically designed the Bill of Rights and Constitution to prevent it from doing as long as we are the United States of America. What ’s more, those in the government are using National Security concerns to do it.
The fact that this administration promised to be the most transparent administration in the history of the United States lends itself to a curtain irony when we find out by the reporting of Dana Priest and William Arkin that this government is spending billions upon billions of dollars dedicated to secrecy. (see article)
Nine days after the attacks, Congress committed $40 billion beyond what was in the federal budget to fortify domestic defenses and to launch a global offensive against al-Qaeda. It followed that up with an additional $36.5 billion in 2002 and $44 billion in 2003. That was only a beginning.
With the quick infusion of money, military and intelligence agencies multiplied. Twenty-four organizations were created by the end of 2001, including the Office of Homeland Security and the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Task Force. In 2002, 37 more were created to track weapons of mass destruction, collect threat tips and coordinate the new focus on counter-terrorism. That was followed the next year by 36 new organizations; and 26 after that; and 31 more; and 32 more; and 20 or more each in 2007, 2008 and 2009.—Dana Priest and William Arkin
Does this portend of the Obama Civil Security force that is just as powerful, just as strong and just as well funded as the military? Just what is the government planning to do with all that power? Moreover, what do they know about threats, if any, on the horizon? (see 1:47min video)
Tomorrow: Are we trading our Liberty for Security?
[T]he IRS is already "greatly taxed"—pun intended?—"by the additional role it is playing in delivering social benefits and programs to the American public," like tax credits for first-time homebuyers or purchasing electric cars. Yet with ObamaCare, the agency is now responsible for "the most extensive social benefit program the IRS has been asked to implement in recent history."—WSJ Opinion Journal
Barry Hussein Soetoro emphatically stated that he was a believer in knowing what one is doing before taking on a job. With that bit of wisdom, he implied that he would not to run for the Office of President of the United States in 2008. Ok, ok just the first of many lies that this man would tell. The just elected Senator of Illinois said he believed that he would virtually have to start running for President from day one of his Senate term. (now that was true!)(see: 36sec. video)
Well, here we are Soetoro is president of the United States and out of a 6 year Senate term Soetoro worked about a total of 143 days as an active Senator and the rest he spent campaigning for president. I’d say he owes Illinois a little less than three and a half years of salary for a job that he was hired to do but didn’t do.
That aside this president has saddled America and America’s future generations with debt so unsustainable that China could foreclose on America any day and make us all move out. Wouldn’t that be a sight? I can envision a mass invasion into Mexico with Mexico’s president Felipe Calderon welcoming Americans with open arms, “Mi paÃs es tu paÃs!” And of course we would expect immediate citizenship, we’d expect to vote in Mexico’s elections and of course we’d need emergency room and medical access, we’d expect welfare and free education for our children while we look for jobs that Mexican’s won’t do because the pay used to be a bit better in America.
But I digress, before anything like that (God forbid) look at what Democrats and Soetoro have empowered the IRS to do by their new Health Care law. The IRS’ new duties include (see article)
• audits to determine who has the insurance "as required by law"
• collecting penalties from Americans who don't
• punishing Companies that don't sponsor health plans
• new regulation to monitor small business reporting, i.e. the value of goods they buy from a single vendor that total more than $600 annually—including office supplies and the like.
Republicans argued during the health debate that the IRS would have to hire hundreds of new agents and staff to enforce ObamaCare. They were brushed off by Democrats and the press corps—WSJ Opinion Journal
With more government intrusion, expansion, regulation, taxation and debt Americans are feeling more like citizens of Oceania of George Orwell’s 1984 rather than like free Americans.
Democrats toasted Health Care as a victory for the Democrat Party and president Soetoro but not for the American people. Did they know and understand that they were unleashing the IRS with new oppressive powers on the citizens of the United States of America?
If they did this is unconscionable. if they didn’t even read the bill then this is one of the most negligent derelictions of duties in the history of the United States Congress. Either way the Liberal Progressive Socialist dream that president Soetoro and Democrats have unleashed on American is a greater mess than the over 56million gallons of oil that has spilled in the Gulf of Mexico since April 20, 2010.
Like the coastal cleanup of all that oily mess it will take years and years to clean up the mess that Democrats have wrought on the economy and society of this country.
No. That's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. –president Barry Hussein Obama
Congressman Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) had it right all along. This president is a liar! He and his Democrat Party manipulate words and meaning like a Crack-ho manipulates her mamma for money to buy milk for her baby.
“Mamma I need twenty dollars, I promise I’m going to buy milk for the baby.” Mamma knows that her daughter the Crack-ho is probably lying, yet there’s that outside chance that she might be telling the truth this time. Out of hundreds of disappointments, this may be the time. But alas, Social Services called. They have the baby again and the crack-ho mama is nowhere to be found.
President Soetoro stated emphatically on nation television with George Stephanopoulos that if his mandated Health Care reform measure was pass by Congress it wouldn’t be a tax increase on the American people. (see article)
The Democrats in Congress knowing passed this legislation to give Soetoro and their Party a victory rather than look out for the best interest of the American people and protect us from this misguided legislation.
Well American people, Social Services just called and they want you to pick up the baby!
That’s right but first, just to remind you somewhat forgetful Americans here’s the White house Crack-ho wasting over two minutes of George Stephanopoulos’ time arguing that health care reform is not a tax increase. (see 2:38min video)
STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate...
OBAMA: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ...during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here -- here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average -- our families -- in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's...
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.
You see Progressives can make up reality out of whole cloth by using language while totally disregarding the traditional language and law. Specifically, they do this by using politically correct language, propaganda or lies, (or as I refer to it their Orwellian Worldview) feed it to a Progressive judge, he or she rules, et voilà a new precedence in law is made out of whole cloth!
No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase. –president Barry Hussein Soetoro
No he can't Mr. president, you’re correct, the ability to just make up language and decide meaning by rights is totally patented by Progressive Democrats and you.
This is the thinking, which Elena Kagan represents to the Supreme Court. As well, this thinking is what Progressives hope will influence Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker out in California deliberating whether to strike down the law, which amends California’s Constitution, which defines marriage for the State of California. It is Progressive’s hope that Judge Walker will accomplish the Orwellian feat of changing the meaning of marriage by simply ruling that California’s law is unconstitutional even though it is not. (previous post)
But I digress, earlier this year president Soetoro made his case to the American people that if his health care reform were passed his reforms wouldn’t represent a tax increase on the American people.
Yet currently the Soetoro Justice department is presently in court arguing against more than 20 states and several private organizations that have filed claiming that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate that Americans buy a government-mandated product.
To counter those arguments the Soetoro Justice department is arguing that Americans must comply with the government mandated health care reform because it is a tax!
That’s right you read correctly, health care reform is a tax increase, the Crack-ho left you the baby and is on vacation in Maine. (see article)
When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”-- ROBERT PEAR
But wait there’s more, not only is the Soetoro unapologetically defending this “tax increase” they are claiming extra Constitutional powers to do so. And just what are extra Constitutional powers? Those, ladies and gentlemen, are illegitimate powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution of the United States of America.
In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.
Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce. —Robert Pear
According to the Soetoro administration, Congress can use taxing power even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions of the Constitution.
And it gets even stranger than that! According to reporter Robert Pear, Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.
What!?! You’re not shocked yet?
Well there’s more. Apparently, the law describes such a levy of fines against people as a penalty rather than a tax. However, the Soetoro administration says in one breath the law doesn’t matter, precise form of words they don’t matter either.
And here’s the tricky part, I called it the Elena Kagan approach to law. What the Soetoro administration did it cited “a long line of Supreme Court cases” which according to them grants them constitutionality based on judicial precedence, totally disregarding what the actual Constitution says thereby they supersede the Constitution with judicial precedence (pretty tricky huh?) on the tax or penalty’s “practical operation.” Simply deviously manipulative!
The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.
Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office. —Robert Pear
And what is its practical operation? Well according to the Soetoro administration, this “penalty” will raise $4 billion, a year by 2017, therefore it is a tax!
So the president and his administration have effectively managed to avoid calling fines under mandated government health care penalties but in order to argue their constitutional validity in court Soetoro’s Justice department are calling the penalties, taxes!
George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. —president Barry Hussein Soetoro
Imagine that, mandated Obamacare is both penalties and taxes simultaneously or not, depending on which meaning the president chooses to use. It’s no wonder the president didn’t want George Stephanopoulos to use the dictionary.
In the president’s progressive worldview, all things are defined as he wishes. In his mind, only he is the arbiter of meaning, independent sources like dictionaries notwithstanding. That my Dear Readers, is the essence of Creating Orwellian Worldview by Machiavellianism!
No administration has been tougher on enforcement—David Axelrod, White house senior adviser
Like the brother who constantly over compensates for his multiple failures in life by telling wild exaggerated stories of accomplishments.
Accomplishments that, he will be quick to tell you, through no fault of his own somehow got away. David Axelrod White house senior adviser went on the Sunday circuit with talking points about the Barry Hussein Soetoro immigration policies that amounted to over compensated wild and exaggerated stories that one might hear from a loser brother.
I can always tell when someone received coaching to carry the Party line. Eyes roll back to the back of their heads until you see the whites. Then they begin to regurgitate nonsensical echo chamber gibberish that we’ve all heard ad infinitum from their colleagues and compatriots.
Such was the case with Axelrod. Every word he spoke to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday was carefully crafted propaganda straight from the president’s own teleprompter.
Axelrod’s gestures where practiced and fake and the lies that he told were obvious to even the most amateurish politico. (see 3:21min video)
When making the case for the Obama administration’s legal challenge to Arizona’s new law against illegal immigration, White House senior adviser David Axelrod said “no administration has been tougher” on immigration enforcement than the Obama administration.—Breitbart TV
Even when faced with the corrective truth as Chris Wallace attempted to do partisans like Axelrod with not relent from their scripted sheet of lies.
The facts are this present administration has not done more than any other administration in the history of the United States to combat the problem of Illegal aliens. Moreover, had they thought the American people weren’t so ignorant they would not keep repeating the same bald face lie in attempts to disparage Arizona.
Which by the way, is the only state in the Union that is presently attempting to defend the constitution and defend America!
What other administration did more than this administration to stem the tide of illegal aliens? I wrote about it 2 years ago. Please see below.
Everything’s Free in America!
Or so it would seem by the lack of enforcement of United States borders. I’ve heard a lot of discussion about it and I’ve engaged in some very spirited debate regarding what if anything can be done about the 11million to 20million illegals that are presently in the United States of America.
The best situation that I’ve come across is one that was already implemented in the 1950s. The 1950s, you ask, did we have an illegal alien problem way back then?
Yes, we did, however, we had a President who had the will and took the initiative to do something about illegals and protect this country’s integrity.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower solved the problem of illegal aliens and virtually stopped illegal immigration into the United States and the results of these efforts were felt for over 10 years in this country.
President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.
How did President Eisenhower virtually stop the flow of illegal immigration into this country?
President Eisenhower hired the right people, he resisted powerful political and corporate interests, and he enforced the law.
On June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.
By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho and eastward to Texas.
By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.
Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.
Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.
The sea voyage was "a rough trip, and they did not like it," says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.
It’s really not that hard! It’s already been done. The question is does America have the political will to self correct or will political, special and corporate interest continue to convince citizens that nothing can be done?
President Eisenhower already solved this problem; the only problem, which remains, is how we wrest control of our country back from the political, special and corporate interests that are vehemently fighting to keep the illegal status quo entrenched in this country for profit and for political advantage. (previously posted)
To be sure the Soetoro administration has not done more to protect American from an invasion of illegal aliens than any other administration. Nor is this administration doing the very minimal to protect this country now.
In fact this administration is aiding and abetting illegal entry while attempting to give the appearance that they are the greatest American defenders ever.
They are not!
And David Axelrod is the over compensating, teleprompter, talking points, Party line partisan brother who tells lies and the rest of the family nods their heads knowing that what he says can’t be believed.
In an interview earlier today with the South African Broadcasting Corporation to air in a few hours, President Obama disparaged al Qaeda and affiliated groups' willingness to kill Africans in a manner that White House aides say was an argument that the terrorist groups are racist.—Jake Tapper
And I suppose releasing the New Black Panthers from voter intimidation charges just because the Black Panthers are Black is not Racist Mr. Soetoro?
Oh this is rich, president Barry Hussein Soetoro who just accused Jews of having a problem with him because his middle name is Hussein (but not because of his anti-Jewish policies) is now accusing al Qaeda of racism. (see article)
During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion."—Haaretz Service
Look, I’m not going to waste your time or mine arguing whether or not al Qaeda is an “equal opportunity” terrorist organization but neither should the President.
But I do think that if the word Racist is the strongest pejorative invective that the Obama administration can come up with (and it is) against Fanatical Islamists that use terrorism to hurt, maim and killing in the name of Allah’s holy jihad against non-Muslims world-wide, then we are in a world of politically correct trouble.
Now I supposed since the Obama administration scrubbed the words and phrases: terrorism, war-on-terror, Muslim extremists and Islamic terrorists, from political correct speech the word Racist is the strongest negative that they could muster.
"Additionally, U.S. intelligence has indicated that al Qaeda leadership specifically targets and recruits black Africans to become suicide bombers because they believe that poor economic and social conditions make them more susceptible to recruitment than Arabs," the official said. "Al Qaeda recruits have said that al Qaeda is racist against black members from West Africa because they are only used in lower level operations."—Jake Tapper
Therefore, calling al Qaeda Racist is the strongest pejorative in the Liberal Progressive lexicon.
What other depreciatory words are on the Liberal Progressive list. Let’s see next to Racist there’s the word Republican. Wouldn’t it be fun to see the headline; Obama and White house say that al Qaeda are Republicans! Truth is he hates Republicans worst than al Qaeda!
Or here’s one, Obama and White house say that al Qaeda are homophobes! I can hear the valley girls out in California saying , Oh my God! Jennifer, did you hear that al Qaeda is homophobic, guy… that is sooo gay!
Then al Qaeda would have to defend its honor… “We are not this homophobe”
“Some of our best suicide bombers are homosexuals!”
Or maybe al Qaeda doesn’t believe Obama was born in the United States that would make them “birthers.” Now boy that’s nasty. Birthers are stupid crazies who won’t believe internet postings of Barry Hussein Soetoro’s birth certificate.
What if al Qaeda where tea partiers they would be Racist tea baggers (Oh there you go full circle)
Or maybe al Qaeda doesn’t believe in Global warming then they would be deniers or flatearthers who receive funding from big Oil Companies.
Or the worst disparaging thing you could say about anyone, al Qaeda is Bush! Then Soetoro could blame them for everything: high unemployment, the deficits, out of control Congressional spending, the oil spill in the Gulf, etc.
Maybe NASA could launch a mission to al Qaeda. To teach al Qaeda they can feel good about themselves without having to feel racially superior to Africans. I mean NASA is already in the area teaching practitioners of Islam self-esteem.
In any event, now that we know that the word Racist is the strongest derogatory word in the Liberal insult bag, wouldn’t AG Eric Holder and the president qualify as Racists for their apparent Racial favoritism toward Blacks and their obvious hatred of White people (see previous posts here and here)
Maybe Barry Hussein Soetoro can arrange a beer summit between al Qaeda and Africans. Mind you, we wouldn’t expect such a meeting to teach al Qaeda to value African life, but boy what a fabulous photo op!
In terms of…we have a new poll out in NBC news and it shows some pretty bad numbers about 51 percent (bad numbers for the president) 51 percent would rather have the Republicans run Congress to act as a check on Obama’s policies. Why do you think a majority of the country would want the other Party to take over to be a check on Obama’s policies? –NBCNews Reporter, White house press corps
Leaving aside his smartass persona for a brief moment press secretary Robert Gibbs attempted to explain why a recent Washington Post poll indicates that a majority of Americans would trust Republicans in Congress to offset president Barry Hussein Soetoro’s policies. (see 6:07min video)
Gibbs somewhat disjointed in his response, used PowerPoint and charts to explain what he says is the American’s people frustration with the economy.
Ahh…No Mr. Gibbs you just don’t get it, do you? While the American people are frustrated with the Soetoro administration’s failed fiscal policies that is not what is stuck in our craw! (see article)
What the American people are most upset about is the president’s Radical Liberal Socialist Progressive agenda stupid!
You know Mr. Gibbs, the agenda that you, the president and Democrats call hope and change.
However what the American people discovered was, what president Soetoro was calling hope and change was really the president hoping that he could change the way we believe as Americans about the Constitution, Religion , Homosexuality, American prosperity, the rule of law, Immigration, entitlements, the founding fathers and a host of fundamental American beliefs.
But the resounding answer back to the Soetoro administration is, we’ve seen your hope and change and no thank you—you radical Liberal Socialists Progressive pigs!
Green jobs are a waste of space, a waste of money, a lie, a chimera. You know that. I know that. We’re familiar with the report by Dr Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of the Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain which shows that for every “green job” that is created another 2.2 jobs are LOST in the real economy. —James Delingpole
President Barry Hussein Soetoro claims that America is going in the right direction when it comes to his vision of a new green economy.
So let me ask this simple question. If I could show you how to make $1,000 extra dollars a week, only one small thing, it would it cost you $2,200 dollars every time you made a $1,000. Would you consider that a good deal? No if you’re smart, you wouldn’t.
Yet this is the deal what the president of the United States of America is offering America with his Green jobs economy. The president Soetoro has claimed that Spain is the paradigm in creating good green jobs. It is in the direction of Spain that he plans to take America. But according to a recent Spanish report on green jobs and renewable energy their tax payer subsidized green jobs efforts are unsustainable (see report)
[A] Spanish study concluding that for every green job created in Spain resulted in the loss of 2.2 other jobs.— Doris de Guzman
It is common knowledge that the green economy is a bust. (see article)
Here is president Soetoro touting Spain as the model for good green job creation. (see 1:40mins video)
The study finds that only one in 10 renewable energy jobs created in Spain were of a permanent nature. Two-thirds consisted of temporary jobs in construction, fabrication and installation jobs; one quarter were positions in administration, marketing and projects engineering; and only one of ten was related to more permanent operations and maintenance of renewable power systems.-- Doris de Guzman
Furthermore, British reporter James Delingpole reports Green jobs are a waste of space, a waste of money, a lie, a chimera. You know that. I know that. We’re familiar with the report by Dr Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of the Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain which shows that for every “green job” that is created another 2.2 jobs are LOST in the real economy.(see article)
The study calculated that, since 2000, Spain spent $774,000 to create each "green job", including subsidies of more than $1.3 million per wind industry job. It found that creating those jobs resulted in the destruction of nearly 113,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every "green job" created. Jobs lost were mostly in the fields of metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing, beverage and tobacco.
"The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices," Calzada said in an interview with Bloomberg News. –Doris de Guzman
Mr. Delingpole also alerts us to the fact that president Obama knows that his green jobs initiative is a fraud. When two reports came out, the Spanish one just mentioned and a Denmark report citing the inefficiency of wind farms, both totally repudiating Soetoro claims for green jobs--the Obama administration recruited left-wing lobbyists to attack both reports.
After two studies refuted President Barack Obama’s assertions regarding the success of Spain’s and Denmark’s wind energy programs, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals the Department of Energy turned to George Soros and to wind industry lobbyists to attack the studies.—James Delingpole
According to Delingpole, Via the Freedom of Information Act or the FOIA request, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has learned that the Department of Energy — specifically the office headed by Al Gore’s company’s former CEO, Cathy Zoi — turned to George Soros’ Center for American Progress and other wind industry lobbyists to help push Obama’s wind energy proposals.
Yet Soetoro sells his go green initiative and good green jobs as beneficial to the American people and the American worker. Wrong! Good green jobs are meant to benefit Corporations like BP and big money interest like George Soros. In addition to that, Soetoro persists on selling good green jobs to an unwary but increasingly skeptical American public. (see 2:26mins video)
President Soetoro’s energy plan is a job killing fraud and he knows it. And it is becoming increasingly evident that he doesn’t care that we know that it’s fraudulent. Or does he think the American people that stupid?
November will show just how stupid the American people are mr. president! I’m hoping that we are smart enough to throw Democrats out of office for their gross incompetence from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to a green energy jobs creation initiative that will destroy 2.2 jobs for every 1 job created.
"I've got lots of things I want to do" [in a lame duck] --Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.)
“If I can’t have you then nobody can!”
Those are the words of a crazed obsessed murderous rejected lover with crimson knife in hand standing over the bludgeoned body of a wife who rejected him and was going to file for divorce. He’d been abusing her for years and she finally summoned the courage to protect her and her children from this psychopathic monster.
Likewise fearing that the American people have had enough and will abandon them in November 2010 Democrats are planning to get their last stabs in on the American people before the people can file for divorce.
What are the partisan legislative slabs that Democrats plan to bludgeon the American people? I’m glad you asked, they are: Cap and Trade, Card-check—the measure to curb secret-ballot union elections, Federally mandated universal voter registration system to override state laws, Deficit commission recommendations, New taxes, Ratification of the New Start nuclear treaty, Budget resolution to lock in increased agency spending and of course more pork sending.
Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate committee overseeing labor issues, told the Bill Press radio show in June that "to those who think [card check] is dead, I say think again." He told Mr. Press "we're still trying to maneuver" a way to pass some parts of the bill before the next Congress is sworn in.—John Fund
What I am talking about is Democrats plans to use the anticipated upcoming lame duck session to traumatize the American people with more unpopular partisan legislation. These plans are in the works as partisan Democrats begin to plan their fates. This tact is now made possible because the legislators who will be voting for these highly damaging bills have either retired or polls indicate that there is no way that they will be returned to Congress. Therefore, these rejected Democrats feel they have nothing to fear from the American electorate any longer. (see article)
The rush to recess gives Democrats little time to pass any major laws. That's why there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don't want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.—John Fund
So in the most anti-American “in your face” one finger jester that Democrats can muster they are going to muscle through as much of their agenda as possible while they lock down the measures which they’ve already passed before America can send them packing.
These unconscionable acts fit only for saboteurs and traitors place ideology and partisanship above the welfare of country.
To which I say if Democrats really want a bloodbath this November now that the American people are warned, the people should grant them their wishes. Any Democrat running for office this November in local, State or National elections should bear the consequences of their psychopathic Congressional Democrat leadership.
If Democrats feel that they are going to go out while destroying democracy on their ways to the exit doors the American people should rid their government of as many of these psychopaths and possible.
Moreover, if Democrats proceed with their plans to muscle through more of their partisan agenda before they leave, then let the voters send so many Democrats out this November that no other party would think of lifting a contemptuous middle finger at the American people because the people had enough and voted the scoundrels out!
Kagan being welcomed to the “Old Boys” club by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), right, and his colleagues Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), second from right, and Sen. Jeff Session (R-Ala.), back left, as she enters the hearing room.
Senator Coburn, I -- I said in my opening statement that I was only going to make a single pledge, and that was the pledge that I made in my opening statement, but I'll meet you another. I'll re- read the Federalist Papers.—Elena Kagan
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-- IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (excerpt)
Yeah re-read the Federalist papers because you clearly don’t understand the basis of U.S. jurisprudence Ms. Kagan. You may also consider some of our other fine Founding Documents Ms. Kagan.
It is the birth certificate of our Nation, The Declaration of Independence. In it are the reasons, beliefs and justifications, which guided the men who gave birth to the idea that became the United States of America.
By It’s principles the Founding Fathers wrote the United States Constitution. They wrote the constitution in hopes that Americans never be subjugated to Oligarchies, Depots or Tyrants ever again. That, I think, is a very important thing to know if you are vying to be a part of the leadership of this country.
One would think that someone who is interviewing for a position on the United States Supreme Court would know the tenants of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. One would also think that a Supreme court nominee would be knowledgeable about the body of work that made both the Declaration and Constitution possible.
Equally, one would think that a Dean of a Law school would have a better understanding of the fundamental principles that gave raise to both of these sentinels of American law. So it was surprising to see Elena Kagan demonstrate ignorance of the historical record of our country’s jurisprudence.
Senator Coburn, to be honest with you, I --I don't have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution, and my job as a justice will be to enforce and defend the Constitution and other laws of the United States.—Elena Kagan
If Ms. Kagan doesn’t have a view of what natural rights are and if she isn’t readily familiar with the Federalist papers she has closed herself off from the vision of what American jurisprudence is meant to be. That is what Sen. Tom Coburn was able to demonstrate with his line of questioning. (see 1:56mins video)
Ms. Kagan’s indicated to Sen. Coburn that her view of judging is an inbred insular approach from which she has no appreciation for original intent. Instead she seems comfortable relying on current decisions which could or could not be in keeping with the Founders view of constitutional law depending on whether judges believe that their own interpretations are more current and therefore superior to original intent. Here is an example of that in an exchange between Sen. Coburn and Ms. Kagan:
COBURN:
I -- I would want you to always act on the basis of a belief of what our Declaration of Independence says.
KAGAN:
I -- I think you should want me to act on the basis of law, and -- and that is what I have upheld to do, if I'm fortunate enough to be concerned -- to be confirmed, is to act on the basis of haw, which is the Constitutions and the statutes of the United States.
COBURN:
Going back to the Second Amendment, what we know with the two most recent cases is that they didn't necessarily take away the precedent in the Miller, does it?
KAGAN:
I'm sorry?
COBURN:
They don't necessarily take away the precedent of Miller.
KAGAN:
As -- as I've not read McDonald yet, because of these hearings, but if I understand Heller correctly, Heller -- Heller did not find it necessary to reverse Miller.
COBURN:
Right.
KAGAN:
Heller distinguished Miller, involving a different kind of weapon. (see source)
As you can see Ms. Kagan’s, “can’t see the forest for the trees” approach to judging would allow for changing the original intent of the constitution by basing her decisions on judicial decisions without an understanding of what the overall effect of her decisions would make on the country. We all know that there are activist judges.
And if law begins to change because a judge feels it’s time for a sea change in society and another judge, such as Kagan, cites that judgment as precedence to support a newer decision one can see how Ms. Kagan’s method of judging would begin taking law down a slippery slope away from the constitution. This approach is judging based on current popular opinion of the law rather than judging based upon what the intent of the law really is. That is why Kagan should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
For instance Massachusetts Federal Judge Joseph Tauro just legislated from the bench by striking down federal law, DOMA. Homosexuals are already calling for California Judge Vaughn Walker to use this ruling as a means to change the California Constitution in a case that is pending his ruling. California’s Constitution was amendment to defines marriage as it has always been define in California and throughout the annuals of human history and human law.
If the Judge rules against the people of California he wouldn’t be able to do it on precedence. He’ll have to use fiat rulings like to one in Massachusetts impose a similar oligarchical decision on the people of California.
That is why Sen. Coburn was questioning Ms. Kagan along these lines of natural law. If a person like Kagan is confirmed she would undoubtedly, as supported by her testimony before the judicial committee, be in favor of this type judicial legislating from the bench.
If Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is looking for a little more ammunition in order to shoot down Proposition 8, one of his Massachusetts colleagues just gave him some.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled Thursday that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violated the Equal Protection Clause. Congress passed DOMA in 1996, defining marriage as a heterosexual union for purposes of a host of federal benefits and classifications.--Dan Levine (see source)
Knowing this why would any Republican vote to confirm Kagan? Well we know that so far, nine republicans won’t vote to confirm her, and they are; Mike Johanns(Neb), Johnny Isakson (Ga), John McCain (Az), Robert F. Bennett (Utah), Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), Mitch McConnell (Ky), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Jim DeMint (S.C.), James M. Inhofe (Okla).
So what of the other 32 Republican Senators which of them will vote for Kagan? (see graph)
Whoever that Republican is we will know that that person has no understanding of the Progressive agenda. If that person understood the Progressive agenda but voted to confirm Kagan anyway that person hates the constitution as much as president Soetoro and Ms. Kagan does.
Below is 20 minutes plus of Sen. Coburn and Ms. Kagan exchange. (see 20:51min video)
Ms. Kagan made it evident that her knowledge of the foundations of American jurisprudence is quite limited which spurred the request from Sen. Coburn for Ms. Kagan to re-read the Federalist papers.
It's my appeal for you to go back and look at the Federalist Papers and what are -- I -- I thought they had tremendous wisdom.
They weren't -- they didn't get it all right, but they sure got a lot of it right, and the proof's in the pudding of where we are today.—Sen. Tom Coburn
Which lead to Ms. Kagan to break a self imposed pledge of only making a single pledge for the hearings. Ms. Kagan amended her pledge to included that she would re-read the Federalist papers. Good for her! I hope she includes the Declaration and the Constitution as well.
Senator Coburn, I -- I said in my opening statement that I was only going to make a single pledge, and that was the pledge that I made in my opening statement, but I'll meet you another. I'll re- read the Federalist Papers.—Elena Kagan
Republicans should let Democrats confirm their partisan nominee. And equally let’s hope Ms. Kagan learns something about the law and judging according to the Constitution.
