America’s Funeral Procession

To the US Supreme Court who refused to even hear the case that is CLEARLY under their jurisdiction, instead choosing to hide behind “procedure,” to the judges at the state level who are legislating from the bench, to the politicians at all levels who didn’t stop them, or were in league with them, you need to understand this. The funeral pyres of America have been lit, and as you watch America burn, as you watch the coming civil war rip us apart, as you cower in horror as the angry mobs kick in your door to drag you into the streets, your last thoughts should be “I could have stopped this.” May God have mercy on us all.

https://clashdaily.com/2020/12/in-7-2-decision-scotus-shoots-down-texas-suit-without-even-hearing-it-here-are-the-deets/

The Kavanaugh Betrayal: Who’s Responsible

Mr. Farah makes a convincing argument.  I’m still waiting to see what rationale Kavanaugh gives for siding with Murder, Inc., and for continuing to allow the federal government to subsidize their murder mill with our tax dollars.

Well, Mr. Kavanaugh?  We’re waiting.

+

---

---

The Kavanaugh betrayal!

Posted By Joseph Farah On 12/10/2018 @ 7:29

I hate to say it, but I saw this one coming.

When President Trump selected Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, I knew it was at least a very risky pick.

But he won the hearts of conservatives because of the insanity of the opposition.

Now we know, for certain, that Brett Kavanaugh is a fraud. He should never have been President Trump’s first choice. He’s a weakling. He buckled to the extreme left to salvage his own reputation. I had a bad feeling about this guy – ever since his role in the Vincent Foster cover-up and his tutelage by former independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

How many times do we have to see this kind of betrayal by Republican nominees of Supreme Court justices – Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, John Roberts?

Kavanaugh Joins Left to Protect Planned Parenthood

Justice Kavanaugh, we need an explanation. Justice Gorsuch has sometimes voted with the liberals, but has always had a constitutional conservative, and legal rationale for doing so. Perhaps you do as well, although I’m having trouble seeing how states can be denied the right to deny funds from supporting something that is morally reprehensible, and NOT protected under the Constitution.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Kavanaugh Joins Liberals To Protect Pro-Planned Parenthood Ruling

Kevin Daley | Supreme Court Reporter | 11:34 AM 12/10/2018 |

The Supreme Court declined to review three cases relating to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood at the state level Monday, over a vigorous dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas.

The dissent was significant because it indicates that Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the high court’s liberal wing to deny review of a lower court decision that favored the nation’s largest abortion provider.

“So what explains the Court’s refusal to do its job here?,” Thomas wrote. “I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’”

“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas added. “If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”

Read”>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5498306-Dissent-From-Cert-Denial-Gee-v-Planned.html”>Read Justice Thomas’ Dissent

Letter to ISIS: We could use a little help

Our government is completely out of control. We have a president who may not even be qualified to hold the office, but congress won’t even ask legitimate questions about his eligibility. He has violated the Constitution and broken the law so many times that they will have to add a new wing to the Library of Congress just to document all of his transgressions. He has been caught lying on video, in his own words, time and time again. In his latest constitutional violation, he said on video more than 20 times over 6 years that he didn’t have the constitutional authority to unilaterally change the immigration laws. Yet as soon as the midterm elections are over, what does he do? Unilaterally changes the law without congress. Then when he is confronted about previously saying that he didn’t have the authority to do so, he denies he ever said that, even going as far as saying “I can rewind the tapes for you.”

Where is congress while they are being rendered irrelevant by a tyrannical president? Cowering in the corner trying to preserve their perks and privileges, but doing NOTHING to exercise the checks and balances at their disposal to defend the Constitution. Rather than use the power of the purse which is exclusively theirs, or the power to impeach a runaway president, they further enable the out of control president by funding ALL of his unconstitutional agenda.

Where are the “Supreme” Court and the federal courts while the lawless president tramples the Constitution and breaks the law? They have been rendered irrelevant. Even in the few instances where they have ruled against Obama’s agenda, he has simply ignored the courts and done whatever he wants to do. Obama controls all of the agencies in government with the means to physically stop him. I’m pretty sure you won’t see Ruth Bader Ginsberg or John Roberts storming the White House with an AR and a knife in their teeth. Thus you have a lawless, tyrannical president whose STATED goal is the “fundamental transformation” of America, and neither of the other two branches designed to keep his branch of government in check doing anything to stop him.

What alternatives are left to heal the ailing patient that is our Constitution?

We administer a 3% solution of 2A.
+

---

Campaign Obama vs. Dictator Obama on Immigration

There are two ways one can view Barack Obama, neither of them flattering.  He is either a STUPID liar who can’t remember which lies he has told, or he is a PATHOLOGICAL liar who lies without remorse or conscience with specific intent to harm.  The mounting evidence supports the latter.  Obama’s OWN WORDS on immigration ‘reform’ bear this out.

When Obama was in campaign mode, he gave a constitutional answer saying that he didn’t have the authority to implement unilateral executive action on amnesty.  Now he says he’s tired of waiting on congress, and MUST act.  I agree with ‘Campaign’ Obama on this issue, and condemn ‘Dictator’ Obama.

There’s absolutely nothing legal or constitutional about the president unilaterally establishing a “uniform Rule of Naturalization,” which is a power SPECIFICALLY  delegated to congress in Article 1, Section 4, para 8 of the Constitution. And just because the congress doesn’t act WHEN or HOW the president wants them to, there is no trigger in the Constitution that magically gives the president to act unilaterally. The president’s job is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (Article 2, Section 3).  If the president doesn’t like a law the congress passes, he can veto it. If they override the veto, he MUST obey and enforce the law, and can’t just sign it away and ignore it with signing statements and executive orders.  If he doesn’t like an existing law, he can’t just choose NOT to enforce it. It must be ruled unconstitutional by the SUPREME COURT (not the president), or repealed by congress. That’s the CONSTITUTIONAL process. Period. Obama in his own words, when he was running for office, and blaming Bush for everything, said EXACTLY this. But now he pretends that there is now some new found power for him to act unilaterally in a way that will materially damage this nation. He knows the flood of illegals will damage our economy and harm Americans. Go listen to the audio of Obama’s own book. He says it in there, so he can’t deny he once at least pretended to think this way.  Listen to him on the campaign trail, or with UNIVISION.  He said REPEATEDLY that he DOES. NOT. HAVE. THE. AUTHORITY. TO. ACT. UNILATERALLY.  But now he is flip-flopping to say he MUST act, and WILL act, and that he somehow has the power to act.

We are being backed into a corner.  We have all three branches of government acting unconstitutionally, and refusing to employ checks and balances to restrain the other branches of government.  Those three branches have now neutered the military, which by virtue of their oath of office/enlistment makes them the last governmental check on a tyrannical government.  Should Barack Obama attempt to implement this amnesty, on top of the other damaging pseudo-amnesties he has already illegally and unconstitutionally implemented, and should congress and the Supreme Court not IMMEDIATELY impeach him and rule his acts unconstitutional, OR in the absence of such action should the military fail to honor their oath to protect and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, both foreign AND domestic, then American citizens and patriots will have no choice remaining but to remove and replace this government.

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-
–Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

 

---

Read and digest the documented flip-flops of Barack Obama on immigration below…

Send the GOP to Egypt

It’s time to abandon the GOP and encourage the few real conservatives left to join us in forming a new party.  The establishment GOP is nothing more than democrat-lite, and a rubber stamp for the democrat agenda.  The GOP has repeatedly compromised not just on issues, but has compromised the PRINCIPLES upon which the party was founded.  The only thing the “party” represents now is winning elections, which they are NOT doing because they are trying to out democrat the democrats, and even failing at that.

Can you name ONE thing which the GOP would fall on its sword over? <crickets>  Me either.  But what about the democrat party?  Abortion?  Welfare/social spending?  Gun control/confiscation?  Everything the democrats stand for is anti-American, but at least you know where they stand and what they stand for.

Now the GOP establishment is rubber stamping Obama’s arming of the muslim brotherhood terrorists.  This is absolutely unforgivable.  Rand Paul put forth an amendment to stop this madness, but a long list of GOP senators voted to table the amendment (i.e. they voted to let the transfer of arms to the terrorists continue).  We already know the democrats are anti-American, and now we know which republicans stand with them.

---

+

February 2, 2013 4:00 A.M.

Senate Republicans Arm the Brotherhood

Nearly two-thirds of them voted to give weapons to the Egyptian muslim brotherhood terrorist government.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

The F-16 — headed to the Muslim Brotherhood

I’m done grumbling about how President Obama is empowering America’s enemies. After all, it is not just Obama. When it comes to abetting the Muslim Brotherhood, Republicans are right there with him.

Not all of them, of course. This week, for example, Senator Rand Paul proposed an amendment that would have prohibited our government from transferring F-16 aircraft and Abrams tanks to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood–dominated government. This lunatic plan is not just an Obama initiative. It is also a GOP brainstorm — of a piece with 2011’s Libya debacle, in which Republican leaders cheered as Obama, upon consulting with the Arab League, ignored Congress and levied war on behalf of the very jihadists who, quite predictably, have since raided Qaddafi’s arsenal, besieged northern Africa, and massacred Americans in Benghazi.

Obama Demands Court Uphold His “Right” To Ignore Constitution

“Obama made it clear his Administration would ignore the court and its injunction regardless of what the judge may decide, claiming incorrectly that “…[the] injunction would have ‘nil’ effect, for the government would continue to possess the identical detention authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force…” Of course, that is a lie, as the AUMF applies only to known members of al Qaeda or the Taliban.”

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!! (scream of pained frustration)
IMPEACH THIS POWER HUNGRY, USURPING, LAW BREAKING, CONSTITUTION DESTROYING PIECE OF CRAP, AND I MEAN YESTERDAY.  In the many episodes of Obama violating the law (ignoring judges orders to lift drilling ban, ignoring the War Powers Act, breaking contract and bankruptcy laws, etc, etc) at least up to this point he was silent and just did it. Now he is BLATANTLY saying HE. WILL. NOT. OBEY. A. COURT. ORDER. He is emperor Obama. He is above the law. Or so he thinks.

CONGRESS, DO YOUR *&^%$%^* JOB AND IMPEACH THIS ENEMY OF THE REPUBLIC, OR WE WILL REMOVE YOU ALONG WITH HIM.

Every American must follow this story closely since the media has ignored it completely.  The media is now the enemy, and a mouthpiece for a corrupt, tyrannical government.  We, the people must restore accountability to the media and our government.

---

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-demands-court-uphold-his-right-to-ignore-constitution/

August 15, 2012 By Doug Book

Obama’s Department of Justice is demanding a federal judge dismiss the injunction with which she sought to uphold the constitutional rights of the American people.

On May 16^th, federal judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Barack Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), striking down those sections of the Act that provide the president the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without benefit of their 5^th and 6^th Amendment rights.

Under the terms of the Act, Obama had been given exclusive authority to direct members of the US military to arrest and imprison anyone he believed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.” When pressed by plaintiff’s attorneys about the practical extent of this authority, government lawyers admitted “…the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists,” admitting that “…even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.”  (unlimited power in the hands of a tyrant who has repeatedly and consistently ignored the Constitution and our rights is a BAD thing)

Legal Experts Stunned by Roberts’ Obamacare Decision

Obamacare is so OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional that the legal “smart guys” were surprised by the ruling. I was disappointed, but not really surprised after seeing how the SC ruled on the Arizona case. Chief Justice Roberts has forgotten what his and the Supreme Court’s job really is. It is NOT to protect congress, or even the court, but to protect the CONSTITUTION. In Article 6 of the Constitution it says:

“…and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

As spelled out in Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Roberts screwed up.

---

http://blog.rwjf.org/humancapital/2012/07/04/legal-experts-were-completely-stunned-by-john-roberts-healthcare-opinion/#.UAf4FOJ37Uc.facebook

Legal Experts Were Completely Stunned By John Roberts’ Health Care Opinion

We all knew it would be close, but we never saw this coming: The Affordable Care Act survives, but only because Justice Roberts chose to characterize the individual mandate as a tax. The 5-4 outcome isn’t a surprise, but the particular reason is a big big surprise – one that virtually no one predicted (law professors included). How could we be so right, yet so wrong?

First, the unsurprising part:

Obama’s Legal Humiliation (over lack of legality)

Bottom line up front:  Obama broke a bunch of laws, doesn’t understand Marbury V. Madison, and conveniently ignores Minor V. Happersett.  All while illegally occupying the White house.  Simple, no?

The important stuff is highlighted in RED below (mostly last half of article).
+

---

Obama’s Legal Humiliation

Today,there is no American news outlet factually covering the illegal actions of the sitting President of the United States in context. Nor is there one consistently exposing the laws his administration has flagrantly broken,though this corruption now demonstrably permeates every level of the federal system.

Attorneys General Tom Horne,Arizona;Pam Bondi,Florida;Sam Olens,Georgia;Bill Schuette,Michigan;Scott Pruitt,Oklahoma;Marty Jackley,South Dakota;Alan Wilson,South Carolina;Greg Abbott,Texas;and Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia produced a joint memo on March 5^th,2012 detailing 21 blatant violations of law committed by the Obama administration.

By now it is unsurprising the media has by and large ignored this announcement,although AG Cuccinelli did appear in an extended segment with CSPAN (the relevant segment can be found here) on March 18^th.

Administration asks judge to tell the states that healthcare law isn’t optional

The unmitigated gall of these sleazy bastards STILL sickens and shocks me. Even after a federal judge rules his health care takeover unconstitutional, the Usurper in Chief has the gall to ask a federal judge to tell states that they have no option when it comes to participation in Obamacare. At this point, EVERYTHING Obama has done is optional to the states because EVERYTHING he has done to this point has been unconstitutional and illegitimate. When are the American people going to reach the point where they’ve had enough of these usurpers?

Here are some excerpts from the Obama administration filing:

“The Court’s declaratory judgment potentially implicates hundreds of provisions of the Act and, if it were interpreted to apply to programs currently in effect, duties currently …in force, taxes currently being collected, and tax credits that may be owed at this time or in the near future, would create substantial uncertainty.”

The only uncertainty an injunction creates is how much power Obama and the democrats will gain or lose. Obama and the democrats lied about the financial benefits of the bill by reporting costs beginning in 2014, but revenues from taxes that began IMMEDIATELY upon passage of the bill. So, how is it a bad thing exactly when taxpayers get to keep money that was/is being taken for services they will likely never receive?

“Because of the sweeping nature of the declaratory judgment, such an interpretation would pose a risk of substantial disruption and hardship for those who rely on the provisions that have already been implemented.”

Read this to say that “the voters whom we have made dependent on government will not support us anymore when we can’t keep giving them free stuff.”

“This motion respectfully asks the Court to clarify the scope of its order, in particular that its declaratory judgment does not relieve the parties to this case of any obligations or deny them any rights under the Affordable Care Act while the judgment is the subject of appellate review, or, if the Court anticipated otherwise, to address specifically what the Court intends the parties’ obligations and rights to be under the judgment while appellate review is pending.”

In most cases, when something is ruled unconstitutional, or is otherwise under appeal, isn’t it normal to NOT do what is under appeal until the matter is settled? This is like a child molester being allowed to continue molesting children until his case finishes the appeals process.

Why are they Covering Up Kagan’s credentials JUST LIKE THEY ARE COVERING UP OBAMA’S?

Why is Kagan and the Obama administration trying so hard to cover up Elena Kagan’s background?  Simple.  They’re trying to keep it a secret that she is a socialist, just like the man who is appointing her.

Redstate.com posted a copy of Ms. Kagan’s college thesis here, but it was removed when a complaint about “copyright violations’ was raised.  Here is a screen shot of the page with the link pulled.

The coverup begins...

Never fear.  The thesis is still out there.  Try HERE, or 31359104-Elena-Kagan-s-College-Thesis

THIS is why criticism of the Arizona Immigration Law has NO credibility

This is why Obama, Holder, and the rest of the liberty crushing liberals in Washington are losing credibility on ANY law they propose or argue against.  THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT’S IN THEM, BECAUSE THEY DON’T READ THEM.  They aren’t even the ones who write them.  They are written by groups like the Apollo Alliance, and the so-called Center for American Progress, George Soros funded groups.  The White House, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi blubber “Well, th, th, that’s just not true!”, or “Are you serious?”  Yet they have yet to disprove it.  Just like all the evidence Glenn Beck dredges up on the Obama administration and gives them a standing invitation to come on the show and disprove.  They have not ONCE disproved anything he’s said.  Yet they keep assassinating his character by calling him a liar and other things much worse.  Very presidential.  Seems I remember Mr. Obama condemning just such a thing on more than one occasion.

Obama, Holder, et al, there are just three words to say to you before you open your gaping fly traps to say ANYTHING about these laws:  READ THE BILL.

---

AG Eric Holder admitting that he hasn’t read the Arizona bill, yet he seems to have no problem issuing opinions about it.

---

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/holder-hasnt-read-ariz-law-he-criticized/

Holder hasn’t read Arizona law he criticized

Thursday, May 13, 2010

By Stephen Dinan

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona’s new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn’t yet read the law and is going by what he’s read in newspapers or seen on television.  (…i.e. the media that is overly sympathetic to Obama and the liberal causes)

Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama’s request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.

“I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is,” Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.  (But like John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, and even Obama (…police “acted stupidly…”), he is not afraid to get in front of a camera and microphone to grand stand on an issue he knows nothing about.  He said it was “unfortunate,” and said it “opens the door to racial profiling” without even having read the bill.  I know it’s a tough read, being a whopping 10 pages long, but you think that the nations top law enforcement officer might take the time to read the thing before offering opinions about it’s constitutionality.  Would that be too much to ask?  It’s not like the bill is 2,700 pages long or anything.)

This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program that the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” He had earlier called the law’s passage “unfortunate,” and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.  (If the federal government were protecting our borders as they are constitutionally mandated to do, Arizona and other states wouldn’t need to take the defense of their citizens into their own hands.  Self defense is a right that can’t be taken away, but that is exactly what Obama, Holder, and all the liberal critics are trying to do.  Arizonans are dying by the dozens every day because of the flow of illegal aliens and drugs across their border, yet Washington does nothing about it.  Sorry, Washington.  Arizona has turned the other cheek more times than they should have had to while waiting for you to do your job.  You have failed, so get out of the way.)

Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn’t yet read the legislation.

“It’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven’t even read the law,” the Texas Republican told the attorney general.

The Arizona law’s backers argue that it doesn’t go beyond what federal law already allows, and they say press reports have distorted the legislation. They point to provisions in the law that specifically rule out racial profiling as proof that it can be implemented without conflicting with civil rights.

But critics said giving police the power to stop those they suspect are in the country illegally is bound to lead to profiling.  (This is where the critics are wrong.  An officer has to have a LEGITIMATE reason to stop someone.  If during the course of that stop the officer has reason to believe that the person is here illegally, then he may ask for documentation.  Oh, by the way, LEGAL immigrants have been required by law to carry their immigration papers on their person for decades.  CITIZENS of this country get asked for their driver’s license or other ID several times each day, yet that doesn’t seem to be an issue.  The next time the cashier at Wal-Mart asks me for my ID when I try to purchase something with my credit card, should I scream “PROFILING!” and call CNN?  That may sound ridiculous, and it is.  But that’s exactly what the critics of this bill are doing.)

Mr. Holder said he expects the Justice and Homeland Security departments will finish their review of the Arizona law soon.

+

---

Obama Nominates another “Mini-Maobama”

B-HO is nominating another “mini-maobama” for the Supreme Court.  If he wasn’t ABSOLUTELY sure that she was a dyed in the wool liberal, she would never be nominated.

As Mr. Meese points out, due to her alarming lack of experience and casework, the senate must be VERY thorough in vetting this nominee.  They must interpret the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN, not as they wish it were written.

---

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/10/morning-bell-former-attorney-general-ed-meese-on-supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan/

Morning Bell: Former Attorney General Ed Meese on Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan

Posted May 10th, 2010 at 9:37am in Rule of Law

According to multiple sources, at 10 am today President Barack Obama will announce his decision to name Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Kagan, who served as the Dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009, would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years. But this does not mean she is in any way a stranger to the Senate confirmation process. In fact, in 1995 she authored an article on judicial confirmations for the University of Chicago Law Review where she wrote:

The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, the role of the Court, and the views of the nominee; that discussion at once educated the public and allowed it to determine whether the nominee would move the Court in the proper direction. Subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis. Such hearings serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government. … [T]he fundamental lesson of the Bork hearings [is] the essential rightness—the legitimacy and the desirability—of exploring a Supreme Court nominee’s set of constitutional views and commitments.

On this point, we find agreement with Ms. Kagan. As we documented first with the Justice Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, and again with the University of California at Berkeley law school Associate Dean Goodwin Liu hearings, President Obama’s leftist legal nominees have been completely unwilling and unable to defend their liberal legal views from Senate questioning. Instead they have retreated or renounced their past writings in an all too familiar spectacle that Kagan has said: “takes on an air of vacuity and farce.” We sincerely hope that Kagan continues to reject this model and that the U.S. Senate fulfills its proper advice and consent role. Responding to the news of Kagan’s nomination, Former Attorney General Ed Meese released the following statement:

First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan’s complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.

Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.” The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama’s frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law–is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as “despised and disadvantaged.” The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country.

The American people agree. According to a national post-election 2008 survey of 800 actual voters, the polling company, inc. found that 70% of respondents preferred that judges not base their decisions on personal views and feelings. And according to the latest Quinnipiac University Poll by a 16 point margin more Americans believe the Supreme Court should only consider the original intentions of the authors of the Constitution instead of considering changing times and current realities. And finally, the latest Gallup poll shows that more Americans “would prefer a new Supreme Court justice who makes the court more conservative (42%) over one who would make the Court more liberal (27%).” Let’s hope the Senate gives the American people what they want.

---

---

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/10/Martin.kagan.Supreme.court/index.html?hpt=T1

Left is mute on racial double standard in Kagan pick

By Roland S. Martin, CNN Political Analyst//

// -1) {document.write(‘May 10, 2010 — Updated 1549 GMT (2349 HKT)’);} else {document.write(‘May 10, 2010 11:49 a.m. EDT’);}
// ]]>May 10, 2010 11:49 a.m. EDT

//

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Roland Martin says that there’s a double standard in pick of Elena Kagan for Supreme Court
• Of 29 posts Kagan filled at Harvard Law, 28 were whites, 1 was Asian-American, he says
• He says left ignores troubling issues about diversity in pick to protect Democratic president
• Martin: Feminist, civil rights groups should demand answers about Kagan’s diversity record

//

Editor’s note: Roland S. Martin, a CNN political analyst, is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of “Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith” and the new book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House.” He is a commentator for TV One Cable Network and host of a Sunday morning news show.

(CNN) — If a white Republican president of the United States appointed a white male as his next Supreme Court justice, and upon the inspection of his record, it was discovered that of the 29 full-time tenured or tenured track faculty he hired as dean of Harvard Law, nearly all of them were white men, this would dominate the headlines.

It would be reasonable to conclude that the special interest groups that vigorously fight for diversity — civil rights organizations, feminist groups and other liberal institutions — would be up in arms, declaring that this person’s records showed him unwilling to diversify academia, and unqualified to consider diverse views as one of nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court. There would be widespread condemnations of Republicans having no concern for the nonwhite males in America.

But what if the choice were made by a black Democratic president, and it was a woman? A white woman? A white Democratic woman?

Some of you may not like the fact that I am focusing on the race of the individual, but when diversity is raised, the person’s skin color, gender and background are considered germane to the discussion. And if there is silence from black and female organizations, their race and gender matter as well.  (Diversity only seems to matter politically if the conservatives aren’t using enough of it to suit the left.)

We may very well witness this now that President Obama has selected Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Guy-Uriel Charles, founding director of the Duke Law Center on Law, Race and Politics, has heavily scrutinized Kagan’s hiring record as head of Harvard Law School. In a scathing blog post, he has said that of the 29 positions Kagan had a chance to fill, 28 were white and one was Asian-American. And of the group, only six were women — five white and one Asian-American.

These numbers on the surface are appalling, and would be ripped to shreds by those who value diversity, but my gut tells me that even though Kagan has been tapped by Obama, the normally vocal and persistent voices in this area will be tight-lipped and quiet, unwilling to oppose or heavily criticize the nomination of a woman to the court, and especially one made by an African-American Democratic president.

If that does happen, Republicans will rightly cry foul, saying it represented a double standard — that the silence was a signal of partisan hacks more concerned about not offending the Obama administration, rather than the ideals they hold near and dear.

They don’t want to be seen as going against an ally, and they are more concerned about their access to the White House than the mission they have always valued.

Even before she was chosen, the White House was fighting back against the attacks on her record by Charles, which have been amplified by Salon.com.

According to the site, the White House has disseminated talking points stressing that the real issue is not those who took the jobs, but the offers Kagan made. In addition, they highlight the number of other African-Americans on the faculty, as well as the percentage of minority students during her tenure.

So basically, the White House wants everyone to believe that Kagan made offers, but nearly all of the minorities chose not to go to work for the most prestigious law school in America. (What does a bull do when his bowels are full?)

Folks, I wasn’t born yesterday.

The real issue will be reaction from the left. It is shameful and disgusting when civil rights organizations, feminist groups and others lose their conviction and sense of purpose when a Democrat gets in the White House. They need to decide what matters: their principles or their politics; their mission or their liberal money; their convictions or chicken dinners in the White House.

Some have already spoken up. The Black Women’s Roundtable of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation released a letter Sunday night questioning Kagan’s commitment to civil rights, as well as criticizing the Obama administration for its failure to seriously consider African-American female judges.

“As we continue to promote the legacy of our late founding leader and Co-Convener, Dr. Dorothy I. Height, we will always seek to highlight the concerns of Black women, our families and our communities. Thus, as Dr. Height stated in our previous meeting with your Administration, we believe it is time for African American women to be represented in all sectors of government — including the Supreme Court of the United States, which in its 221 year history has not had a Black woman nominated to serve on our highest court in the land,” the letter stated.

“Our trepidation regarding General Kagan is premised on the lack of a clearly identifiable record on the protection of our nation’s civil rights laws. As women leaders, we greatly respect General Kagan’s intellectual capabilities and highly accomplished record in the Administration and academia. Nonetheless, there is a dearth of a specific emphasis on the civil rights laws utilized in the protection of racial and ethnic minorities and those traditionally disenfranchised in this nation.”

Credibility and consistency are vital for any organization. And if the leaders of civil rights and feminist organizations do not demand strong and clear answers from the White House about Kagan and her diversity track record as dean of Harvard Law School, they are failing the people they say they represent.

Demanding accountability about diversity isn’t a one-way street meant only for Republicans. Democrats should never get a pass either. (Well said, Sir.)

---

State of the Union-Loving, Narcissistic, Undocumented President

Lie after lie after lie.  David said it quite well when he said “Obama not only wasn’t contrite about his broken promises and disastrous record; he was on the attack, daring anyone to oppose his agenda.“

Here are a few of the adjectives I would use to describe Chairman Maobama’s State of the Union(s) speech: angry, narcissistic, disjointed, dishonest, unrepentant, unpresidential, classless, lacking decorum, and pathological.

The writer of his speech should be fired, then taken to the woodshed for the number of lies, lack of facts, and other breaches of decorum in the speech.  But we know that will never happen, because O-bow-ma believed just about every word of the speech (except, of course, the part about drilling for oil and building nuclear power plants.)

The few democrats left that might remotely consider themselves as AMERICANS need to head for the life boats.  The true “progressives,” the followers of “the one,” are going down with the ship.

It’s time to start whispering “IMPEACHMENT.”

---

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/dlimbaugh/2010/dl_0129p.shtml
There Was the President’s Speech, and There Is Reality
By David Limbaugh
January 29, 2010

Watching President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech makes me wonder whether the reason he tells so many fibs is that he believes them himself. Either that or he is an even better actor than he is a teleprompter reader.

Obama not only wasn’t contrite about his broken promises and disastrous record; he was on the attack, daring anyone to oppose his agenda — even in the face of the Massachusetts rebuke. But let’s see how some of his statements match up with reality.

On health care, he taunted congressmen to “let me know” if any of them have “a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses,” as if his own plan would do those things.

Even the Congressional Budget Office has said most of the Democratic plans would increase the budget. Besides, you can’t reduce overall costs when government forces an increase in demand, even if it caps insurance premiums and shifts costs elsewhere and/or imposes rationing. The CBO has also reported that with Obamacare, millions would remain uninsured. So under his plan, costs would rise, quality and choice would decrease, care would be rationed, millions would remain uninsured and, worst of all, the government would acquire an unprecedented level of control over all aspects of our lives.

Do conservatives have better ideas? Of course. Restore market forces through tort reform, strengthening health savings accounts, abolishing government coverage mandates, allowing consumers to purchase policies across state lines and eliminating the tax laws incentivizing employer-provided health care, which unnecessarily increase demand by making prices invisible to consumers.

A candid Obama would have said, “If any of you have a plan that does not involve restoring market forces and reducing government’s role in the health care industry, I’ll at least pretend to look at it.” “Make no mistake,” neither Obama nor his Democratic colleagues will support genuine health care reform, because to reduce costs, we must reduce government control, and they can’t abide that. Period.

As for spending, Obama didn’t once apologize for his reckless expenditures. Instead, he blamed his soaring deficits on his predecessor, completely misrepresenting the projected deficits under President Bush and ignoring his own deliberate doubling of the national debt over the next 10 years. That’s the issue Americans are losing sleep over, and he offers only Band-Aids and smoke and mirrors.

He says he will freeze a portion of the discretionary budget, but as Cato Institute reports, 83 percent of the budget will be off-limits. Other than his “stimulus” insanity, the real explosion in spending is occurring in the entitlements that he refuses to touch. Even his mini-freeze wouldn’t begin until 2011 (why wait?), and it would be dwarfed by his planned spending increases for other socialistic projects, including a new “stimulus plan.” And how about that assault on personal and fiscal responsibility with his promise to forgive student loans after 20 years?

How Obama can stand before the nation and insist on spending more borrowed money to accomplish something his first “stimulus plan” didn’t achieve (job creation), but exacerbated, is beyond me. How he can blame President Bush for his own broken promise that unemployment wouldn’t exceed 8 percent if his “stimulus” bill were implemented is jaw-dropping. He even said he saved 2 million jobs. Scary delusional! Or scary sinister!

Speaking of chutzpah, did he actually dare to utter the words “transparent” and “accountable”? How about those phantom legislative districts receiving stimulus monies, Mr. President? How about that promise to televise the health care debates on C-SPAN?

He said he hadn’t raised income taxes “a single dime” on 95 percent of the people. Yet in almost the same breath, he promised to redouble his efforts on cap and tax, which would increase the average family’s energy costs by almost $3,000 per year. I don’t believe his campaign promise was limited to income taxes, by the way. (He also said he had CUT taxes on the middle class. Being solidly in the middle class, I think I would know if that had actually happened. Reducing my withholding so it looks like I’m getting a tax break, when it actually pushes me into a higher tax bracket forcing me to pay that much and more on April 15th is NOT a tax cut. A “stimulus” check, which just gives back a small portion of what was mine to begin with, is not a tax cut. Giving that same “stimulus” check to those who don’t pay taxes at all is just a handout, and communist redistribution of our hard earned money.)

How about his righteous ranting on earmark reform? Sorry, we’ve been down that twisted road with you before, Mr. President. (There were some 9,000 earmarks in the O-bow-ma porkulus bill. I’d call that a step in the right direction, wouldn’t you? (facetiousness intended))

Then there was his audacious riff on lobbyists. Been there, done that, too, Mr. President, with your phony promise to keep lobbyists out of the White House.

Obama also railed against “partisanship, shouting and pettiness” as he filled most of his speech with just those things, even castigating the Supreme Court, erroneously, for opening the door to foreign corporations’ campaign contributions.

How about his statement that “America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity”? Hmm. Tell that to the Iranian and Honduran peoples. He must have meant once he’s out of office.

Then there was his bizarre out-of-body pivot, when he blamed Washington for our problems. (Narcissistic clown.)

All of this, especially Obama’s obvious incapacity for self-doubt, is disturbingly surreal. (It’s like the speech he gave the other day on “tax cuts.” In that speech, he said “I” over 120 time while mentioning the subject of the speech, tax cuts, only TWICE. It’s kind of like the Toby Keith song “I wanna talk about me.” (I wanna talk about me, Wanna talk about I, Wanna talk about number one…) He is a self-centered, communist/progressive, anti-America, probably NOT American danger to America, our constitution, and our way of life.)

—

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book “Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party” was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at http://www.DavidLimbaugh.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

---

Obama’s State of the Union, January 2010: Unpresidential and Uninspiring

An open letter to Barack Obama in response to his State of the Union speech:

---

State of the Union, January 2010

Mr. Obama, here are my reactions to and impressions of your State of the Union speech last night.

First of all, let me make one overall recommendation to you, Mr. Obama.

Grow up and take responsibility.

You say “I’m not interested in re-litigating the past.”  Yet you continue to blame George W. Bush for EVERYTHING under the sun.  You point fingers and blame everyone else on the planet for your problems, and for things you don’t like while dodging any and all personal responsibility for events taking place in America now.  It makes you look immature and petty.  The minute you signed onto the stimulus and began taking over companies and banks, you owned this economy, and your senatorial votes during the Bush administration played a significant part in the economy’s demise.

You said that you understand the “burden of working harder for less,” and “I know the anxieties out there now.”  Really?  Sir, most of your life has been one of privilege financed by others.  Now you are at the pinnacle of that life living in the lap of luxury, throwing lavish parties, traveling all over the world, flaunting power all at the expense of the American taxpayer.  If you really understood, you wouldn’t be throwing your weekly parties for your cronies, and you wouldn’t be spending millions of taxpayer dollars flying all over the country and world on Air Force One just to get photo ops for your never ending campaign.  You would be staying in Washington, D.C. working on REAL, bipartisan solutions.

You stated that you had cut taxes for millions of us in the middle class.  Really?  Being solidly in the middle class, I think I would know if you had.  Allowing us to keep more money up front and then taxing it away from us on April 15^th is not a tax cut.  Mailing me a check for a SMALL PORTION of the tax money that was mine to begin with is a REBATE, not a tax cut.  When you mail those same checks to the 50% of Americans who don’t pay income taxes anyway, that’s just a handout.  When you’re charitable with your own money, that’s generosity.  When you’re charitable with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY, that’s called THEFT or REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH when it’s done by the government.

You talk of creating government/public service jobs to help the economy.  Since you were supposedly a “professor,” I would expect you to be educated enough to understand that public-sector, government jobs by definition CAN NOT CREATE WEALTH, which is what will stimulate our economy.  A government job by definition takes money away from the economy to pay for itself.

Mr. Obama, you said you wanted a “jobs bill” on your desk immediately.  Sir, here’s the jobs bill guaranteed to create jobs, and stimulate economic growth.  I’ve delivered it to you before congress could, and kept it so brief that any child could understand it.  Here it is.  Are you ready?

CUT TAXES!

Cut personal income taxes, cut corporate taxes, and eliminate the “death” and “marriage” taxes, and I GUARANTEE that the economy will take off like a rocket.

You also mentioned that you were going to “double exports” to reduce our trade deficit.  That sounds good, but how do you plan to achieve that, and what do you plan to export?  The liberal policies of taxing businesses and creating a business climate that forces them to move their businesses overseas has left us with very little to export.  When you make a corporate environment that ATTRACTS businesses, we will once again produce what the rest of the world wants, and exports will be a natural byproduct of that.

When it comes to health care reform, you have been wrong, and continue to be wrong.  You have been dishonest in your dealings with the American people, and have outright lied about the “transparency” that was supposed to be the hallmark of these negotiations and of your administration.  CSPAN?  How’s that working for you?  I guess I just missed all of those broadcasts, because I haven’t seen any of them.  You said “if anybody has a better idea (about health care) let me know.”  Oh, dear Lord in Heaven (I can introduce you to Him), please keep my head from exploding.  You and the rest of your “progressive” (read communist) buddies have SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED REPUBLICANS from the entire process, and refused to listen to, include or consider ANY of their ideas while crafting your government takeover of the health care system.  Sir, the ideas are there but you are unwilling to listen to any ideas that do not fit your agenda.  Tort reform, tax cuts, competition across state lines, and several other ideas have been put forth that are proven successful strategies for making health care better and more affordable.  Yet you won’t allow them to be put on the table because they don’t pay your union buddies, or contribute to the takeover of health care.  I pause to conjure the spirit of Rep. Joe Wilson.

You said you were going to “freeze spending for three years.”  You speak of how that won’t start until 2011 because “that’s how budgeting works.”  How convenient that it works out that you are putting it off until AFTER the midterm elections so that any possible pain associated with your policies won’t be felt until after Americans cast their votes. Your “spending freeze” sounds good to the uninitiated and uneducated that you hoped were the majority of your audience last night.  But the reality is that you have already allowed HUGE spending increases in nearly every government agency that they wouldn’t have seen in the next 5-7 years COMBINED.  Then you exempt the largest portion of government spending from any freeze.  That would be the ENTITLEMENT SPENDING upon which you and the liberals depend for your political lives, and to which NO ONE IS ACTUALLY ENTITLED.  If you were serious about eliminating the deficit, and paying down the debt, then you would get serious about ELIMINATING GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.  Go to a flat tax (which is a FAIR tax) with no exemptions and eliminate the IRS.  That would save about $11 Billion per year.  The Department of Energy was established to “end our dependence on foreign oil.”  How would you say that’s working?  The DoE is about as useful as mammary glands on a boar hog.  Scrap it and save the billions of dollars per year that it sucks up from the tax payers.  You could legitimately close the doors of 75% of the Federal government with no negative impact on America.  You would in fact allow America to prosper by simply getting government out of the way, and saving us all of that money.

You speak of dismantling our nuclear arms and “agreements” with the Russians.  You obviously are not a student of history.  When we weaken ourselves, our enemies do not follow suit.  Whether it be the Soviets/Russians, the Iranians, or the North Koreans, they have proven themselves to be liars.  They will say whatever you want them to say to gain short-term political favor.  They will not disarm themselves.  Disarming unilaterally and dealing from a position of weakness will only open us up to aggression and attack from the likes of Russia, China, and Iran, not to mention the many terrorist groups who want nothing more than to see Americans die.  We need to be the biggest, strongest kid on the block to ensure peace for us, and for the rest of the world.

The one thing from your speech on which we agree is the building of nuclear power plants, and removal of restrictions on offshore drilling.  Everyone agrees that we need to try to develop clean, self-sustaining forms and sources of energy.  But letting private innovation lead the way and develop products that Americans ACTUALLY WANT is the only way to make “green” energy a success.  By forcing it down our throats while demonizing and destroying our other inexpensive, reliable forms of energy will only destroy those jobs before new ones emerge, skyrocket the cost of energy (which you promised us under YOUR plan), and destroy an economy that depends on energy at an affordable price.  I’m beginning to think this may actually be your intent.

Finally, you displayed your true, anti-American, communist, thug, street organizer colors when you quietly announced your “enemies list” during your speech.  You and your band of thugs like Rahm Emanuel bully and intimidate people to get your way.  You did so with Fox News and the other news outlets when you declared that Fox News was not a legitimate news organization, would not be treated as such, and that the other “news” outlets would be “wise” not to treat them that way either.  Attempt to destroy one to make an example of them, and use fear to control the others, a strategy from your idol, Saul Alinsky.  In a total breach of decorum and decency, you publicly flog the Supreme Court, who can’t defend themselves, and lie about their decision that actually reaffirms the 1^st Amendment freedom of speech.  You hand down the list of people whom you will combat and try to destroy if they stand in your way, a list which includes bankers, capitalist “fat-cats,” the Supreme Court, and anyone in the media or with a microphone, megaphone, or pulpit from which to deliver a message that exposes the fallacies of your agenda.  You are blatantly trying to stifle free speech.  Woodrow Wilson and FDR were two of the “progressives” who employed similar tactics.  No more, Mr. Obama.  We will not tolerate your attempts to silence us.

Mr. Obama, you simply don’t care about Americans or America.  The people of Massachusetts, a solidly liberal state, sent you a loud and clear message.  But you won’t listen.  Congress didn’t give you what you wanted, so rather than reevaluate whether what YOU want is what Americans want or need, you boldly declare that you will simply sign executive orders to bypass the congress, and any other entity that stands in your way.  You attack and besmirch the Supreme Court because you don’t control them.  You lied when you said you “never said you could end divisiveness and start a post-partisan, post-racial era.”  BULL CHIPS!  You campaigned on EXACTLY THAT PROMISE!

Sir, you are an arrogant, dishonest narcissist who is a danger to America.  You attempted to include yourself in the greatness of America when you said that “our ideals built America.”

Mr. Obama, it was OUR ideals that build America, NOT YOURS.

Out of patience,

///SIGNED///

---