Wasting Time With Alex
Judicial Branch
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Not the least bit surprised…
That’s what I am. Those of us that pointed out that there had to be some dirty and politically motivated directive for the dismissal by Obama DOJ of the Black Panther voter intimidation case that was reported during the 2008 elections at a Philadelphia polling station, seem to be vindicated. My only surprise is that the so many of the incriminating underlying details and facts are coming out so early. Let’s set this up.
The clear and indisputable crime:
The case is straightforward. On Election Day 2008, two members of the New Black Panther party (NBPP) dressed in military garb were captured on videotape at a Philadelphia polling place spouting racial epithets and menacing voters. One, Minister King Samir Shabazz, wielded a nightstick. It was a textbook case of voter intimidation and clearly covered under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
The follow-up:
A Department of Justice trial team was assigned to investigate. They gathered affidavits from witnesses—one of the poll watchers was called a “white devil” and a “cracker.” A Panther told him he would be “ruled by the black man.” The trial team, all career Justice attorneys and headed by voting section chief Chris Coates, filed a case against the two Panthers caught on tape. Malik Zulu Shabazz, head of the national NBPP, and the party itself were also named based on evidence the party had planned the deployment of 300 members on Election Day and on statements after the incident in which the NBPP endorsed the intimidation at the Philadelphia polling station.
A slam dunk case goes awry, and justice is sqaushed:
The trial team quickly obtained a default judgment—meaning it had won the case because the New Black Panther party failed to defend itself. Yet in May 2009, Obama Justice Department lawyers, appointed temporarily to fill top positions in the civil rights division, ordered the case against the NBPP dismissed. An administration that has pledged itself to stepping-up civil rights enforcement dropped the case and, for over a year, has prevented the trial team lawyers from telling their story.
Insult to injury in typical “social justice” progressive fashion:
The Panthers like to tout their “victory” and parrot the Obama Justice Department’s line that the case was unmeritorious. The party held a national convention in Atlanta over Memorial Day weekend (sponsored and attended by the once mainstream Southern Christian Leadership Conference and a grab bag of socialist and anti-Semitic figures). Its website boasts: “The New Black Panther Party has been embroiled in a battle between Republican Congressmen and the U.S. Department of Justice over a ‘voter intimidation’ scandal for the last 18 months. During these 18 months right wing and Republican Newspaper and Electronic media have gone to exhaustive lengths to discredit and slander the New Black Panther Party and its Chairman and Attorney Malik Zulu Shabazz.”
With me so far? Here’s the recap. After a quick investigation of the allegations of voter intimidation, the DOJ determines there is a clear case of voter intimidation, and basically points out they have a slam dunk. Obama’s appointees take over, and they immediately begin to rail road the process. Eventually they dismiss the case and continue to pretend it is done on the merits and there are no political reasons or any of Obama’s people in the loop forcing tat decision. Then after the clear case is dismissed, and emboldened NBPP starts boasting and crowing about how what they did was just fine and dandy. The usual suspects in the MSM drop the ball and go along. After all, these progressives won’t say so, but they all believe that discrimination can only go one way, anyway. And these scumbags all think they have won and that they got away with the crime.
But then the shit hits the fan:
But on June 4, J. Christian Adams, a veteran lawyer in Justice’s voting section and a key member of the trial team, resigned. His reasons were spelled out in a letter that also noted that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which was investigating the dismissal, had subpoenaed him and Coates, but their superiors, in violation of federal law, had ordered them not to testify. He noted that “the defendants in the New Black Panther lawsuit have become increasingly belligerent in their rhetoric toward the attorneys who brought the case. . . . Their grievances toward us generally echo the assertions [by Justice Department officials] that the facts and law did not support the lawsuit against them.” Coates, too, has left the Voting Section, moving to South Carolina to work in the U.S. attorney’s office. Last Friday, the civil rights commission’s general counsel, David Blackwood, announced that he had received an email from Christian Adams’s attorney stating that Adams is now available to provide information to the commission. Commissioner Todd Graziano said they would schedule Adams’s appearance at a public hearing as soon as possible as the commission had been seeking his testimony for many months.
It now looks like the Obama administration member’s roles in squashing this investigation are going to come out if these proceedings are allowed to go on. And while I am afraid that most people might never hear about it considering the complicit media is likely to cover for them in this election year, the facts will emerge, and the clear disregard and outright contempt by these scumbags will get out there. The Weekly Standard article in question does a fascinating and great job of breaking down the sequence of events, but one thing becomes obvious, and that is that the dismissal of this clear cut case smells.
The actions of King and Rosenbaum were unprecedented in the collective experience of the trial team. They were not alone in that assessment. A former associate attorney general for the civil division Greg Katsas testified before the civil rights commission on April 23, 2010, and termed the Panthers’ actions a blatant case of voter intimidation. He said it was a “straightforward and overwhelmingly strong case” and that the Panthers’ conduct was “egregious and intentional.” As for the party itself and its leadership, Katsas said that under “general principles of agency law” they were liable.
We have been told that the people responsible for the dismissal had no ties to Obama, but this article again points out that’s all bunk. Even more damning is the fact that it now comes out that yet another claim of an investigation by the Obama team claiming there was no problems turns out to be peddling falsehoods.
The administration’s internal investigation also appears to have been fraudulent. Under ongoing pressure from Representatives Smith and Wolf, an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) was finally ordered to commence in July 2009. Until a few days before Adams’s resignation, however, none of the trial team had been interviewed by OPR investigators.
And they got away with it because nobody could get to the truth until recently. The facts are coming out, and while I expect the usual suspects to try and downplay these Obama administration appointee’s roles in dismissing a clear case of voter intimidations in order to protect yet another one of the democrat machine’s criminal enterprises, they are damning. Even more frightening is this revelation:
While the interference by political appointees in the NBPP case has been egregious, there is a critical issue with implications far beyond this single case: Whether the attorneys who populate the civil rights division of the Justice Department believe that civil rights laws exist only to protect minorities from discrimination and intimidation by whites. In a farewell address to his colleagues before his reassignment to a U.S. attorney’s office, Coates spoke about this widespread sentiment and why it was antithetical to the department’s mission to seek equal enforcement of federal laws.
Literally we have the leftist careerists at DOJ championing discrimination. That should frighten us all. Our government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Hopefully, as the article indicates, when Congress and the country finally stops being held hostage by the criminal democrat machine in November, we might get some real light shone on yet another instance of real and undeniable heavy handed government abuse. Bush was accused of being a Hitler like fascist on made up accusations. Demcorats take government abuse to a new level, and nary a peep. No wonder the left feels obligated to brand all others that are not from their own party as evil racists and fascists. They have to give themselves cover.
Blogging • Insane Stuff • All Things Government • Elections • Judicial Branch • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Holder gets a short reprieve
It looks like the WH has handed Eric Holder a reprieve, and just 24 hours before he was to appear in front of the Senate, to answer to the plethora of questions his embarrassing testimonies have resulted in, for today, rescheduled his senate appearance, using the excuse he was needed there when the demcorats sign away our future and try to make Obamacare the law of the land.
US Attorney General Eric Holder was scheduled to have a chat with the Senate today, but, with less than 24 hours on the clock, it was rescheduled for April 14. The postponement is possibly due to the signing of the health care bill, but Republicans think Holder might be glad for the extra time. No matter when it happens, it will not be a passive event. The hearing is officially billed as “oversight of the Department of Justice” but general consensus is he’ll face strong questioning over his decision (which seems more and more likely to be reversed) to try some of the alleged 9/11 masterminds in federal court. The Wall Street Journal has a full report today on criticisms lobbed from both the left and the right and suggest that “the controversies provoked by his decisions threaten to derail his career...”
Holder has huge problems he needs to address. First off, will be an explanation of his DOJ which wants to try terrorists in civilian court will circumvent the obvious strategy by every defense team to demand the government disclose vital secrets and methods of operation against the terrorists that the government doesn’t want to. The fact of the matter is that there is no way to do this successfully in a civilian court unless the trial is rigged and just for show anyway, and Holder knows it. Any defense attorney worth his salt would demand the US disclose everything about how they go after terrorists, national security be damned, and hope that the government when it opted to keep critical procedures, informants, or operational tactics secret, would end up destroying its case. Civilian courts do not really care for or tend to allow secrets, even those with national security implications, from excusing the government from meeting those legal obligations.
At this point nobody that is sane disputes the second point, that this DOJ, despite the claims they were showing more deference to and confidence in our judicial system than the evil Bush clique and their military tribunals - basically switching to treating terrorists at war with us as common criminals - actually intended these trials to be anything but show trials. The choice of New York, where the 9-11 attacks occurred, backs that up. But the killer was Holder’s guarantee during one of his recent meetings to testify to our political class, that all the defendants would be found guilty. I don’t know about you, but I was always thought our system, in an effort to provide fairness and give everyone a chance to prove their innocence, couldn’t guarantee results like Holder promised, unless of course the verdict was already predetermined, and the rest is just for show.
The fact is that the DOJ itself admitted that military commissions would do a better job to in their written submission to these kinds of questions for the congressional committee. There is no disputing that the DOJ admits in this written report that the Classified Information Protection Act (CIPA) that would govern federal courts - where they want to try terrorists like common criminals - offer inferior protections to critical national security and operations secrets compared to those provided by military commissions. In fact, they point out they would have to make changes to CIPA to get similar protection offered by a military tribunal. Here is the relevant passage from the DOJ report:
28. Under the Classified Information Protection Act (CIPA), the government may pursue an interlocutory appeal from orders “authorizing the disclosure of classified information . . . or refusing a protective order sought by the United States to prevent the disclosure of classified information.” 18 U.S.C. App. § 7(a). In United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509 (4th Cir. 2003), the Fourth Circuit held CIPA did not authorize interlocutory appeals from orders related to the “pretrial disclosure of classified information to the defendant or his attorneys.” Id. at 514.
a. Do you agree that under the Moussaoui decision, the government may not seek immediate review of certain decisions authorizing the pretrial disclosure of classified information? If not, please explain your answer.
Response: In cases involving CIPA within the Fourth Circuit, under the Moussaoui decision, appellate courts lack jurisdiction under CIPA § 7 to entertain an interlocutory appeal by the United States of a district court order allowing a criminal defendant to depose a witness who may possess classified information.
b. Senator Kyl has offered legislation, including an amendment in Committee, to amend CIPA to address the deficiencies in CIPA. Given your decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others in federal court, do you support legislation to address gaps in CIPA that could lead to disclosure of classified information?
Response: While CIPA has generally worked well in both protecting classified information and ensuring fair trials, there may be certain portions which could be usefully updated and clarified. The Administration has not yet taken a position on possible legislation to improve CIPA.
And I am even more interested in getting answers from Holder about his previous claim that some 300 hundred terrorists had successfully prosecuted in criminal court and are now in the prison system. If you read the answer in their report it is obvious that they have either “misplaced and/or can’t find” the documents to back their claims, or were lying, and are now stalling to avoid the embarrassment of this idiotic assertion. I vote the later. April 14th will be here sooner than later though, and then Holder can make a bigger jackass out of himself yet again. This is going to be fun to follow.
Blogging • Insane Stuff • Conflicts & Wars • War on Terror • Homeland Security • All Things Government • Judicial Branch • News • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Biden is priceless…
Man, Joe Biden is angling to make Dan Quail, George Bush Sr.’s VP, which became the target of a well orchestrated and vicious campaign intended to make him look stupid, look like Einstein. In his latest faux-pas, he told a group of law enforcement types that Judge Sotomayor would “have their backs”.
Vice President Joe Biden may have crossed the line when he assured national law enforcement groups Monday that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor “has your back.” The remark quickly stirred criticism in the legal world, since Biden was making a pledge that a fair and objective justice would not necessarily be able to keep.
Biden made the remark at an assembly of eight law enforcement groups after he detailed Sotomayor’s tough-on-crime record in the courtroom. “There’s a part of her record that seems to be, up to now, been flying under the radar a bit. And that’s her tough stance on criminals and her unyielding commitment to finding justice for the victims of crime,” Biden said. He then repeatedly said, “She gets it,” and sought to assure the law enforcement groups that she would be on their side.
Now I am no lawyer, nor am I a legal matter expert, but I think any judge that, as Joe “Open mouth-insert foot” Biden says, “has the backs of law enforcement types” basically will at some point, and then sooner than later, run into a conflict of interest and can be accused of both lacking objectivity and having a bias. I am pretty sure that judges, especially supreme court ones, should never admit to have these. At a minimum, justices that want to be considered credible should not admit to letting their biases interfere with their ability to do job: follow the law.
I know that, just like they did with that vaunted nearly $1 trillion dollar patronage bill they passed in record time, because they claimed it was desperately needed to create an economic stimulus to fix our really bad slump - a bill which most lawmakers didn’t even read, and which really is not going to be stimulating anything but democratic campaign coffers – and make all things right, the democrats are again at it. This time they are in a hurry to confirm Sotomayor, before anyone can point out that, like that patronage bill there are serious problems, and when things come out they end up with egg on their faces. But unlike that disastrous patronage bill, which can be repealed, in parts or wholly, with new laws, a SCOTUS judge is for life.
Maybe Biden just did us citizens all a favor by giving those that see this railroading as a bad deal a breather. Now this nomination can be made to go through the proper process and people can have a chance to find out what we are getting before it is too late. Thanks Joe! You are the best…
All Things Government • Judicial Branch • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
About the Sotomayor nomination..
Andrew McCarthy hits it out of the ballpark when he points out that Obama’s appointment of Sotomayor clearly illustrates his belief that what matter isn’t the rule of law, but the rule of lawyers. In short, Obama’s vision of government, not as an entity given certain responsibilities and a whole lot of restrictions in our constitution, but as the final arbiter and dispenser of justice, is what this nomination was all about. It’s about pushing the agenda, not the rule of law at all.
Our ideal of judging was perhaps best explained by John Roberts during his 2005 confirmation hearings. The judge is like an umpire, Roberts mused. The umpire calls balls and strikes; he doesn’t design or alter the rules of the game. That’s how it’s supposed to work. The judge’s courtroom is the level playing field where even the visiting team can win if the law — the objective law — is on its side. Sure, the crowd and the local paper will root, root, root for the home team. The rules, however, don’t have a rooting interest. Justice is blind. The umpire is there to see that justice is done — not manufactured.
Which is precisely why people that feel and believe like Obama, hate this country. They do not want a level playing field and a system of equal rules applying to all. They want a system that redresses those injustices they perceive exist and that guarantees equality of results to all, no matter how many bad and stupid choices these idiots make. That’s precisely why Sotomayor was chosen:
Judge Sotomayor is unabashed in claiming license to judge, and, indeed, to make law, in accordance with her feelings and her politics, which are decidedly leftist. For her, the nation’s appellate courts are the places “where policy is made” by judges, not the places where policy already made by the public is applied by judges. And as she proclaimed in a 2002 speech, legal decisions by judges of her background should be affected by their “experiences as women and people of color.” She insisted, in fact, that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
In short she will do what the left loves: legislate – in favor of leftist ideology – from the bench. Our legal system has been dealt another blow by people that prefer the rule of lawyers over the rule of law. These are the people that would see someone like Obama trampling the constitution and figure that because he means well (or is helping the cause), he should be allowed to do what he’s doing. Like take money/debt owed to investors by some private corporate entity, and transfer majority ownership of the entity to his supporters/donors, the unions.
A truly wise judge would know the rule of law doesn’t change depending on whether it’s being read by a Latina woman or by a white male — but the rule of lawyers does.
Word!
Blogging • Insane Stuff • All Things Government • Judicial Branch • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sotomayor nominated for SCOTUS
I could ramble on about this stuff, but people much smarter than I have articulated it much better:
Evidently, the characteristics that matter most for a potential nominee to the Supreme Court have little to do with judicial ability or temperament, or even so ephemeral a consideration as a knowledge of the law. Instead, the tag line for this appointment says it all. The president wants to choose “a daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in Bronx public housing projects to become the nation’s first Hispanic justice.”
Obviously, none of these factors disqualifies anyone for the Supreme Court. But affirmative action standards are a bad way to pick one of the nine most influential jurists in the U.S., whose vast powers can shape virtually every aspect of our current lives. In these hard economic times, one worrisome feature about the Sotomayor nomination is that the justices of the Supreme Court are likely to have to pass on some of the high-handed Obama administration tactics on a wide range of issues that concern the fortunes of American business.
I am sure the activists on the left are ecstatic one of theirs is on the way in. So what happens when the “empathy” the left wants is not the right kind of empathy? Like the people doing it care about the law, the victim, and not the criminal like the leftists do....
UPDATE: I for one can do without this kind of empathy> Can you imagine if the reverse statement was made how up in arms the “empathy” crowd would be??
In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
I guess “empathy” is new code for drastic leftists activist?
All Things Government • Judicial Branch • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Monday, October 27, 2008
Be afraid, be very, very afraid..
We are screwed if Obama wins. You must be one of the people hoping to stick it to the people that work hard and did not screw up or a total stupid idiot that still believes socialism can work if you think Obama is going to do anything but destroy our economy & prosperity. Obama is avoiding the media and any possibility of though questions, because he knows he will have to lie about what he plans if he wants to win this election. These will look like the good days when Obama gets his plan going. And don’t worry. Even though energy now is getting cheaper, oil is dropping and might fall below $50 a barrel due to the slump, there will be no economic growth or economy left to profit from this. This guy is ready to piss away our Constitution, the document that helped make this country great, people. Look at their reaction when asked about what they plan. The people that did this will pay for daring to do this. I have no doubt about that. Barney Franks, whom covered for his boyfriend that was running Fannie Mae (ironic that the word fannie comes up when Franks is involved) and prevented any legislation that might have stopped these practices that destroyed our economy wants to gut our defense in today’s scary world. This means we will have more people losing jobs, less security, and likely have to capitulate as soon as that first crisis Biden warned us about happens. But that is what democrats like: to play the victim. The democrats basically believe the time has come to burn the Constitution up and make us all slaves of government. Of course they being the elites will not have to be subjected to the same shit we will be. Welcome to the USSR take 2. This is how a great nation will die: raped by politicians whom have adopted collectivism as a means to absolute power while pretending to be looking out for the little guy.
UPDATE: Simply WOW!. Do not miss this stuff. This guy is a hard core marxist and nothing else. America is about to be screwed and screwed hard. He got a law degree, Constitutional lawyer even, and he pisses all over the Constitution. This stuff can’t be made up. Barack basically says that the role of government is to regulate the citizen’s wealth. That is as un-American as it can ever get. Pray this guys loses people or this country is done.
Blogging • Insane Stuff • Conflicts & Wars • All Things Government • Elections • Healthcare Reform • Judicial Branch • Economics • News • Liberal Media • The Left • Science & Technology • Energy • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Monday, October 13, 2008
Obama explains his real tax plan..
For those of you that really believe Obama will limit his tax hike to those making $250K and over, have a look at this video over at Breibart. Basically Obama’s point is that he wants to spread the wealth. Does not matter how you got the wealth he feels it is unjust that you have wealth. So if you sacrifice, work hard, do not make mistakes or fall prey to the common vices that drag people down, and then make it, Obama basically feels you stole from those that did not do anything. be prepared to give up a huge chunk of your cash if you make $40K or more. There is no way the democrats can offer all the “bennies” they want to to their constituents without basically stealing all the money from those that make anything over $40K. Have a look at what they already have planned, and this is a new $300 billion expendature over what Obama has teed up already. If you think we are in an economic mess right now you are dead wrong. Can you say bye-bye economy? We are hosed, hosed real bad.
Blogging • Insane Stuff • All Things Government • Elections • Healthcare Reform • Judicial Branch • Economics • Social Security • News • Liberal Media • The Left • Science & Technology • Energy • Global Warming • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Friday, September 26, 2008
How our economy lost it’s groove..
The sad fact is that people saw this coming and republicans tried to correct it only to be blocked by democrats whom used PC knock down tactics to intimidate and shut up anyone that would not let their scheme keep makign them big cash! Remember that these are the same people blocking our change in energy policy, reform of Soical Security, Medicare, and all those other colelctivist boondoggles. This crisis is just the first one. Their constant attempts to block any and all proposals to dirll at home for natural gas & oil, build more nukes, and use our coal are going to basically cripple this nation in a decade or so. And I think that is exactly the plan because then government can take everything over. By then we will likely get taken over by the people that have told us to either submit to Allah or die and these democrats will welcome it.
Conflicts & Wars • All Things Government • Elections • Illegal Immigration • Healthcare Reform • Judicial Branch • Tort Reform • Economics • Social Security • News • Liberal Media • The Left • Science & Technology • Energy • Global Warming • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Friday, September 12, 2008
Gonna be interesting..
As the electoral battle scheduled for November heats up and people are finally starting to take a look at what the hell is going on, it looks like even Congress where the MSM was also telling us the democrats where going to sweep is now in play. Frankly I can’t say I am surprised. The donkeys won in 2006 by pointing out how bad republicans had been, and the republicans had been bad and spent money just as they where a bunch democrats-light themselves over the previous 4 years, only to take over and show people they would not just outspend the republicans but do so without anything good to show for it. While the MSM is doing its damnedest best to not point out that most of our economic woes are tied to Congress and democrats in particular, the meme is Bush is doing all the crap and less and less people are buying this line of garbage, the American people are noticing this fact. And they are also noticing that democrats have a solution: tax us to death and spend even more. But spend on wealth redistribution schemes that put more people on the government dole and guarantees them voting for (D)s to keep their goodies is not making too many people that are not collectivists happy, and they are turning away from this disaster. I for one could not believe so many people thought the democrats could do better. The only good thing to come out of the democrat’s victory in 2006 is that they got to show everybody how inefficient and worse they could be. Especially their stance on energy. And even if the MSM is covering for them, people are noticing and opting to look elsewhere. Talk about snatching defeat right when they where supposed to win it all.
Conflicts & Wars • All Things Government • Elections • Healthcare Reform • Judicial Branch • Economics • News • Liberal Media • The Left • Science & Technology • Energy • Global Warming • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Congress should, but this one will not
Andrew McCarthy has a real good piece today on NRO dealing with why Congress should right now, for the protection of our troops on the battlefield and the security of all Americans, to take action to reverse Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision granting constitutional habeas-corpus rights to alien enemy combatants. The only people that like this decision are the BDS infected nut jobs that want to see America lose the GWoT. Unfortunately their elected representatives, the democrats, run Congress. Even though they might very well end up with a democrat as president come next year, these idiots are not going to do anything about this disastrous and ridiculous granting of rights to people that want to wipe our nation off the planet by our own SCOTUS unless it is in their interest.
All Things Government • Elections • Judicial Branch • News • Liberal Media • The Left • War on Terror • Homeland Security • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Every once in a while…
It looks lice the SCOTUS occasionally does get it right and follows the Constitution. It still frightens me that 4 leftist that like to make law from the bench disagreed with something that is so clear in the Constitution. Of course, if you understand what collectivism is about, you understand why their “progressive” elites champion the idea of removing from the citizenry the ability to defend themselves from a totalitarian government. This issue can not be clearer. The forefathers wanted to make sure the citizens never again found themselves without the ability to throw off the yoke of a tyrannical government - and it does not get more tyrannical than the collectivists bullshit - and that is what the 2nd Amendment is all about. The leftist have lied repeatedly to confuse the issue - hence that living & breathing Constitution crap - so they could disarm the citizenry and then impose their tyrannical ways without fear of a revolution. Screw them and their collectivist dreams to enslave us all.
When honest citizens are denied the rights to protect themselves, only criminals and government will be armed. The criminals and government will then both abuse the citizenry as can be seen in every collectivist state including the ones in Western Europe. Screw that. I expect the collectivists in the MSM to cry foul and call this a bad thing. Screw them too. Dark times are ahead, and I do not want to depend on the grace or good will of collectivists in government which always seems to care more about the rights of criminals (like they themselves are) for my safety.
All Things Government • Elections • Judicial Branch • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Liberalism in a nut shell
I have to agree that this ruling is beyond disgusting, but can not say I am surprised. Liberals have forever defended the rights of vilest and most evil beings on this planet at the expense of their victims. The only villain they claim was evil was Hitler, and that is because they where able to confuse so many people into believing that the Nazis where conservatives instead of another offshoot of collectivist scum (Nazi is a contraction or slag based on National Socialism which was the platform of Hitler and his ilk). As soon as this myth is done away with, Hitler too will become a misunderstood and poor victim.
Anyway, back to this horrible ruling. Basically the liberals have told us that the vilest and most horrible crimes are not good enough a reason to put to death scums so vile they do not deserve to be part of any society and let alone humanity. But these are the people whom the left chooses to champion causes for. Disgusting is an understatement. Get ready for much more of this. Frankly I am beginning to think that the left is so concerned and adamant to scale back punishment for the vilest and most evil acts, because the left is the home of so many of the world’s biggest scum. Thus they are eroding our legal and justice system for when they have to face it. In the mean time the only victims that can never get justice are the ones of horrible crimes because morally inferior bastards have chosen to side with the vile criminals. How pathetic and sad.
All Things Government • Elections • Judicial Branch • News • Liberal Media • The Left • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Saturday, June 14, 2008
As well he should!
It looks like even John McCain whom has never been a proponent of the Guantanamo detention center gets the enormous problem that that rediculous liberal faction of the SCOTUS stuck us with.
John McCain on Friday described the decision by the Supreme Court to allow Guantánamo Bay prisoners to challenge their detention in US courts as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country”. The Republican presidential candidate said he agreed with the four dissenting justices on the nine-member court that foreign fighters held at the detention camp were not entitled to the rights of US citizens.
He criticised Barack Obama, his Democratic opponent, for supporting the decision and said it highlighted the importance of nominating conservative judges to the Supreme Court. His remarks represented a hardening of his position from his more moderate initial response to the ruling on Thursday, signalling a strategic decision by the McCain campaign to make it an election issue.
Basically the 5 libs and Bush haters on the SCOTUS have given terrorists which do not even qualify as enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention rights and access to our courts. This basically means that uniformed soldier that do meat the Geneva Convention requirement are then also guaranteed this right. So the military is left with only a hand full of solutions to deal with these people. The first is to just kill all enemy combatants because there is no way that during a major conflict the government could provide legal means to deal with lets say 100,000 captured enemy combatants. Of course I am certain the idiots that made this ruling did not even consider this problem their violation of the Constitution has caused and the effects it will have. The alternative is to keep all captured combatants in other countries where this ruling has no meaning. Of course that carries risks of its own.
I am sure that these justices think they struck Bush a blow, but what they have done is strike America and its ability to fight an enemy that does not play by any rules a huge blow. Of course to the BDS infected idiots this is of no importance. If there is any justice in the universe they would be the only ones to suffer from this idiotic ruling, but we all know better. At least McCain is on the right side of this issue. Obama of course is not. And that does not surprise me. he is a Marxist that views this country with nothing but contempt after all.
UPDATE: It looks like I am not the beliefs the liberals on the SCOTUS really screwed us hard, and then for purely political reasons, by handing terrorists the same rights as criminals. Did we not try this approach all through the 1990s - Bill Clinton was the prez! - only to end up with the September 11th attacks? Why does the left refuse to accept the fact that this is war, and a new kind of dangerous war, and that police tactics will not serve the citizens well. Basically the left believes we should deal with terrorists just like common criminals after they have committed their crime and killed. But when they can kill thousands, we do not have that luxury. Americans deserve a government and a judicial branch that puts their interests ahead of the enemies of our state or their own political ambitions and agendas (I mean the agendas of both the enemy and the left which seem to way too often coincide). And to have the 5 libs on the SCOTUS completely ignore the Constitution and try to screw with presidential power is even more frightening. We will all pay for this ridiculous ruling. Remember again which political ideology we can thank for another ridiculous ruling from the bench that not only encroaches on the powers and responsibilities of another branch, but that puts Americans in general in serious danger while offering protections to vile and evil people. Disgusting.
All Things Government • Judicial Branch • News • Liberal Media • The Left • War on Terror • Axis-of-Evil • Homeland Security • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Why who is in the WH matters.
Many of my fellow conservatives have taken the stance that since McCain is no worse than your average democrat when it comes to his social beliefs, showing your dissatisfaction with him by helping a democrat win the WH and then get the blame for the damage the supposed socialist policies both they and McCain would enact will help the conservative cause. I think these people are crazy because they are hoping that a shift to the right in Congress would somehow check a donkey in the WH. i am not sure why they feel so assured Congress will go right in the next election. But that is an argument for a different time. What I am writing about is the presidential power to appoint judges to the SCOTUS. It is a given IMO that the next president will appoint at least 2 judges. All you need to do is read this article about the effects of the Medellin v. Texas SACOTUS decision and this other one about how that decision translates to the US ratifying the Kyoto protocol or some other such international treaty would have played out if the left had been the majority on the SCOTUS and abdicated our Constitutional rights to some international body like the ICJ. Read them both.
All Things Government • Elections • Illegal Immigration • Judicial Branch • Economics • News • The Left • Science & Technology • Global Warming • War on Terror • Homeland Security • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Monday, April 23, 2007
What is going on these days
Well I have not posted much lately because I have been too busy with other things and this is just a hobby, but I have some time today to discuss the goings on of late. Where to start.. Ah yeah Iraq. Our troops are fighting and trying to win while the left is hard at work, not just undermining their cause, but making sure they lose. After all, we all know that the only war the left is behind is that against civilization, and this crap about limiting the use of toilet paper is just another example of their radicalized views. Just look at how Harry Reid is hard at work aiding the enemy. Think our troops are not getting what is going on? And it is not just Islamic terrorism that the left is in love with. Oh how they love the red machine. I bet they still pine for the USSR. The Islamic enemy has not been vanquished yet people, as news of future plans continue to be found. It is not a question of how but when they will strike again. With Iran still busy working to build nukes, I wonder if the objection to this missile umbrella by the Russians isn’t because they are not under it. Maybe it will take a catastrophe like this to awaken these sheep to the fact their passivity and absolute desperate need to avoid conflict will guarantee us a certain world wide conflict. Just look at how South Korea, taking a stark lesson from the results of German reunification, is trying hard to avoid a Korean reunification, even when it props up a monstrosity.
And speaking of the VA massacre. Of course I knew as soon as it happened that the anti-gun crowd would blame the guns not the lunatic that did this - a true child of the left, inculcated with all the hatred for the very society that he lived in that is so prominent on the left these days, and as deranged as they come - for the deaths. I wonder how many people he would have killed if someone had been able to defend themselves with a fire arm. This slaughter was proof positive that gun bans don’t work. VA is a gun free zone. And yet here you have someone that didn’t respect neither those laws nor human life not just armed with a gun, but able to use it without fear of anyone being able to stop him. Of course anyone that points this out will pay for their heretical views. Mark Steyn got it right.
What else? Sanjaya is of Idol. How sad, since I was praying he would win so that idiotic show could die the death it deserves. Imus being a racist tool might be making a difference although the Jesse Jacksons & Al Sharptons of the world sure do not like this kind of talk. The SCOTUS ruled against partial birth abortions. Democrats are still trying to create a politically motivated scandal even though the WH is telling them they will not play ball. And stupid juries are still able to be outlaywered into letting horrible monsters walk. Speaking of horrible monsters.
All Things Government • Elections • Judicial Branch • News • Liberal Media • Science & Technology • Global Warming • War on Terror • Homeland Security • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink