This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=185349
Thursday, July 29, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INVASION USA
Unconstitutional attack on the state of Arizona
Exclusive: Alan Keyes combats judge's use
of 'the doctrine of pre-emptive dereliction'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 30, 2010
By Alan Keyes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate votes to recommend the confirmation of Elena Kagan as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. A federal judge blocks implementation of key provisions of Arizona's now famous immigration law. Both events are part of the Obama faction's final assault on the government of limited, delegated powers established by the Constitution of the United States.
Back in April, I wrote a column pointing to the constitutional provision (Article I, Section 10) that recognizes that when one of the United States is "actually invaded," the state government may act, without federal authorization, to defend itself. Due to the federal government's ongoing dereliction, in open and abusive defiance of existing federal law, Arizona and several other states of the Union are the victims of an ongoing invasion, which endangers and damages the lives and livelihood of their inhabitants.
According to the Constitution's language, when actually invaded, a state may go to war in defense of its citizens. Arizona has undertaken instead to respond to the invasion by directing its police forces to make a special effort to do what the federal government refuses to do – carry out existing federal law. But even if there were no such federal laws, Arizona has the clear constitutional prerogative to respond to the actual invasion of its territory.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton seeks to suppress this clearly stated constitutional prerogative. She claims that it is pre-empted by the federal government's refusal to enforce the existing federal laws. So a prerogative established by the Supreme Law of the Land is somehow pre-empted by the perjurious refusal of federal officials faithfully to carry out laws enacted in accordance with the Constitution's provisions. In effect, this doctrine of pre-emptive dereliction replaces the rule of law with the lawless abuse of authority. It aims to force the states to accept whatever damage the federal government chooses to inflict upon their citizens by its neglect of duty.
Arizona and other states in a similar situation are being invaded. Those presently wielding the authority of the federal government refuse to respond to the invasion. The judge's ruling implies that the forces of the U.S. government may now be used to prevent the state's police forces from defending its people against invasion. The U.S. government implicitly threatens war (i.e., enforcement of the U.S. judge's order) against any states that dare to do so.
Judge Bolton's doctrine of pre-emptive dereliction is both unconstitutional and irrational. In the final analysis, it represents an abuse of federal authority like none we have seen before in the nation's history. Are the states obliged to surrender their constitutionally recognized prerogative of self-defense in deference to federal authority when that authority is invoked in order to sustain the U.S. government's derelict unwillingness to honor the U.S. Constitution and carry out provisions of law made pursuant thereto? Or does such derelict abuse of federal authority depart from the basic premise of the constitutional compact, turning it from an instrument of government that respects the common good of the governed, into a suicide pact that surrenders and violates the most evident and unalienable right of the people?
All the claims of right and law in this matter are on the side of the government and people of Arizona. The natural law supports their right of self-defense. The Constitution supports their state government's prerogative to defend against actual invasion. The federal law provides the basis for identifying and constraining the perpetrators of that invasion. Nothing supports the dereliction of the Obama faction, or the opinion whereby Judge Bolton seeks to provide legal cover for its malfeasance. That is, nothing but the extraordinary notion that the demands of foreigners, who have invaded the country in contravention of its just and duly enacted laws, supersede the prerogatives and unalienable rights of the citizens. Yet, in consequence of their God-ordained rights, it is the citizens' sovereign will that authorizes the U.S. Constitution and the just powers of the government it ordains and establishes.
Do the people of Arizona, or for that matter of the whole United States, have no right to defend the property of their state and nation? If, in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, the U.S. government may leave the property of the whole people open to invasion by foreign citizens, what of the property rights of individuals? If the federal government refuses to act against certain groups that invade and seize private property (as they have refused to act against the Black Panther group that sought to deprive people of the liberty of their vote), does Judge Bolton's new doctrine of pre-emptive dereliction mean that state police forces are forbidden to interfere with their crimes?
During his election campaign, Obama called for the establishment of a national police force as large and well-equipped as the military. But the doctrine of pre-emptive dereliction would allow his faction to dispense with the need for such a force. The federal government could, by dereliction, unleash lawless forces against any people who dare to assert constitutional prerogatives and rights the Obama faction means to destroy. Then, the implicit threat contained in the doctrine of pre-emptive dereliction would keep state authorities loyal to the Constitution from intervening to defend the lives and liberties of those in the targeted population.
Federalism was intended to provide people in the states with natural rallying points for their efforts to resist the unconstitutional abuse of power by the national government. If accepted, the irrational doctrine of pre-emptive dereliction implies the legalistic destruction of that vital line of constitutional defense for liberty.
As Published: WND.com
How Do You Spell "Thug?"
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Dick Morris Weighs In
"When Judge Susan Bolton granted an injunction halting the enforcement of key provisions of the Arizona immigration enforcement law, she ruled in favor of the Justice Department's position, but against the president's political interest.
Had the judge sustained this law, it would have made moot Obama's opposition to the Arizona law. As it is, she has transformed the law into a big campaign issue against Obama. Now the President is standing in the way of a state that wants to enforce the law that he won't.
The Arizona law is massively popular in the United States. Over 60 percent of all American voters support it. But the president has sought and has succeeded in stopping it from taking effect. Now this majority -- close to two-thirds of the electorate -- that backs the law will be able to focus their blame for its non-enforcement squarely on the President of the United States.
In the long term, the Bolton decision will likely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and Arizona will find itself vindicated. But, in the meantime, the decision endangers the re-election chances of three Democratic Congressmen from Arizona. Their constituents will not be satisfied with statements from these Democrats supporting the Arizona law. They will become embittered because Obama's Justice Department has overridden their will.
Why did Obama bring the suit in the first place if it hurts him? Because he was seeking to increase the turnout of Latino voters and trying to win them by the same huge margin (2:1) that they delivered to him in 2008. Since he took office, Obama's approval among Hispanics has dropped to 54%, foreshadowing a massive abandonment of his Congressional candidates in November.
But what Obama miscalculated was the intense support from among most voters that the Arizona law has elicited. As he bid for Latino votes, he has sacrificed much of his liberal, Democratic base."
Hat Tip: DrGOG
Had the judge sustained this law, it would have made moot Obama's opposition to the Arizona law. As it is, she has transformed the law into a big campaign issue against Obama. Now the President is standing in the way of a state that wants to enforce the law that he won't.
The Arizona law is massively popular in the United States. Over 60 percent of all American voters support it. But the president has sought and has succeeded in stopping it from taking effect. Now this majority -- close to two-thirds of the electorate -- that backs the law will be able to focus their blame for its non-enforcement squarely on the President of the United States.
In the long term, the Bolton decision will likely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and Arizona will find itself vindicated. But, in the meantime, the decision endangers the re-election chances of three Democratic Congressmen from Arizona. Their constituents will not be satisfied with statements from these Democrats supporting the Arizona law. They will become embittered because Obama's Justice Department has overridden their will.
Why did Obama bring the suit in the first place if it hurts him? Because he was seeking to increase the turnout of Latino voters and trying to win them by the same huge margin (2:1) that they delivered to him in 2008. Since he took office, Obama's approval among Hispanics has dropped to 54%, foreshadowing a massive abandonment of his Congressional candidates in November.
But what Obama miscalculated was the intense support from among most voters that the Arizona law has elicited. As he bid for Latino votes, he has sacrificed much of his liberal, Democratic base."
Hat Tip: DrGOG
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tyranny, Thy Name is "Diversity"
A little-noticed section of the "Wall Street reform" law grants the federal government broad new powers to compel financial firms to hire more women and minorities — an effort at promoting "diversity" in the workplace.
Buried inside the massive overhaul bill, Congress granted the Federal Government authority to terminate contracts with any financial firm that fails to ensure the “fair inclusion” of women and "minorities," forcing every kind of company from a Wall Street giant to a private law office to account for the composition of its work force.
Just dwell on that for a moment: The Federal Government has just granted itself power to force businesses to hire a "fair share" of skin tones, genders or trans-genders, and a panoply of other supposed "minorities" instead of hiring based on experience, skills, talents, or abilitiies. Sort of like the last Presidential election., and look where that got us.
Do you truly want Barney Frank and/or Charlie Rangel telling you who to hire? Will Chuck Schumer or Chris Dodd become your company's new H.R. director? Hilda Solis thinks an illegal alien should have access to YOUR job.
An absolutely totalitarian government is only one election away, friend. If the Federal Government can dictate hiring policies based solely on a left-wing agenda in the same fashion that it dictates college enrollment policies, the demise of individual liberty is assured in YOUR generation. The death of the last bastion of freedom in the entire world is not far away, thanks to our Socialist Utopian Congress.
Dear God, remember America: some of us mourn Her passing.
Buried inside the massive overhaul bill, Congress granted the Federal Government authority to terminate contracts with any financial firm that fails to ensure the “fair inclusion” of women and "minorities," forcing every kind of company from a Wall Street giant to a private law office to account for the composition of its work force.
Just dwell on that for a moment: The Federal Government has just granted itself power to force businesses to hire a "fair share" of skin tones, genders or trans-genders, and a panoply of other supposed "minorities" instead of hiring based on experience, skills, talents, or abilitiies. Sort of like the last Presidential election., and look where that got us.
Do you truly want Barney Frank and/or Charlie Rangel telling you who to hire? Will Chuck Schumer or Chris Dodd become your company's new H.R. director? Hilda Solis thinks an illegal alien should have access to YOUR job.
An absolutely totalitarian government is only one election away, friend. If the Federal Government can dictate hiring policies based solely on a left-wing agenda in the same fashion that it dictates college enrollment policies, the demise of individual liberty is assured in YOUR generation. The death of the last bastion of freedom in the entire world is not far away, thanks to our Socialist Utopian Congress.
Dear God, remember America: some of us mourn Her passing.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
A Tale of Two...
For solving today's "Story Problem," you may use a calculator. Please show your work.
There are two men: "Jose Legal" and "Joe Illegal". Both men's families have both parents at home, both have two children, and both families live in Woodburn...
Jose Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with state and Federal taxes, workers' comp, Social Security and Medicare deducted.
Joe Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table," and he pays NO taxes.
Ready? Now pay attention...
Jose Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1,000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 Per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00 to spend each year.
Joe Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Joe Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Jose Legal pays for medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Jose Legal now Has $24,031.00.
Joe Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and Local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year to him. Joe Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Jose Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or Welfare. Jose Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per Year. Jose Legal now has $18,031.00.
Joe Illegal has no documented income and is therefore eligible for food stamps and welfare. Joe Illegal still has $31,200.00, plus a food allowance, shelter allowance, and medical care costs.
Jose Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Jose Legal now has $9,631.00.
Joe Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Joe Illegal pays $0.00 per month rent, or $0.00 per year. Joe Illegal Still has $ 31,200.00.
Jose Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Jose Legal Now has $7,231.00.
Joe Illegal says, "I don't need a driver's license or insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
Jose Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Joe Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Jose Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Joe Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Jose Legal's and Joe Illegal's children all attend the same school. Jose Legal pays for his children's lunches while Joe Illegal's children get a taxpayer-subsidized free breakfast, lunch, and snack. Joe Illegal's children have an after School ESL program. Jose Legal's children go home, or to day care, if Jose can afford it.
Jose Legal and Joe Illegal both enjoy the same police, fire protection and other government services, but Jose Legal pays for them while Joe Illegal does not only not pay for them, but receives the "lion's share" of public services: family or other counselling, medical and dental treatments, nutrition "support," public or publicly-funded housing, flu shots, utility bill assistance, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Do you get it now?
If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens...
YOU are part of the problem!
Hat tip: SS
There are two men: "Jose Legal" and "Joe Illegal". Both men's families have both parents at home, both have two children, and both families live in Woodburn...
Jose Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with state and Federal taxes, workers' comp, Social Security and Medicare deducted.
Joe Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table," and he pays NO taxes.
Ready? Now pay attention...
Jose Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1,000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 Per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00 to spend each year.
Joe Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Joe Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Jose Legal pays for medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Jose Legal now Has $24,031.00.
Joe Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and Local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year to him. Joe Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Jose Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or Welfare. Jose Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per Year. Jose Legal now has $18,031.00.
Joe Illegal has no documented income and is therefore eligible for food stamps and welfare. Joe Illegal still has $31,200.00, plus a food allowance, shelter allowance, and medical care costs.
Jose Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Jose Legal now has $9,631.00.
Joe Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Joe Illegal pays $0.00 per month rent, or $0.00 per year. Joe Illegal Still has $ 31,200.00.
Jose Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Jose Legal Now has $7,231.00.
Joe Illegal says, "I don't need a driver's license or insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
Jose Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Joe Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Jose Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Joe Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Jose Legal's and Joe Illegal's children all attend the same school. Jose Legal pays for his children's lunches while Joe Illegal's children get a taxpayer-subsidized free breakfast, lunch, and snack. Joe Illegal's children have an after School ESL program. Jose Legal's children go home, or to day care, if Jose can afford it.
Jose Legal and Joe Illegal both enjoy the same police, fire protection and other government services, but Jose Legal pays for them while Joe Illegal does not only not pay for them, but receives the "lion's share" of public services: family or other counselling, medical and dental treatments, nutrition "support," public or publicly-funded housing, flu shots, utility bill assistance, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Do you get it now?
If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens...
YOU are part of the problem!
Hat tip: SS
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Just Follow the Yellow Brick Road
At a partisan rally on Monday to crusade for endless unemployment insurance benefits extensions, President pro-tem Obama lectured Republicans to “Stop holding workers hostage to politics.”
Orwell's "1984" speaks of the "Ministry of Plenty" (keeping the population in a state of constant economic hardship)
Arizona Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Umbass), urged civic, religious, and political groups to take their convention dollars elsewhere. “Do not do business with this state,” (you know, the one he was hired to represent) Grijalva told open-borders zealots bent on punishing law-abiding citizens to “send a message.”
Orwell described the "Ministry of Truth" (propaganda and altering history).
President (pro-tem) Obama calls for a "Global Contingency Plan" to deal with Muslim terro-, er, "other man-caused disasters." He calls the flood of illegal aliens "Undocumented Guests" and "Undocumented Workers," barely masking the REAL definition: "Undocumented Potential Future Democrats." Add 12 million pro-Obama Latino voters to the next election cycle, and voila! : a continued, if not perpetual, Democrat majority!! More "Ministry of Truth."
The list of parallels goes on and on and on:
We are living in the beginning of a new epoch, the epoch of a Socialist Totalitarian Regime in America, the world's last fortress of freedom. Witness:
prolefeed: the steady stream of mindless entertainment to distract and occupy the masses. We are being told that "There's a lot of hate speech out there on talk radio" and "too much information can be a distraction..." according to the Socialist-in-Chief. Interesting that "hate speech" can also be described as "thoughtcrime," or "politically incorrect thinking."
How much better off we would be as a society if we all just watched "The Bachelor," "Dancing with Stars," and re-reruns of "America's Funniest Home Videos," rather than the hate-mongers on Fox, particularly that loathsome Glenn Beck; listening to the scurrilous Rush Limbaugh, and the lying harlots such as Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and Hannah Giles.
oldthink: Ideas inspired by events or memories of times prior to the (Socialist) Revolution:
"The Constitution was written by a bunch of white landowners..." "a fundamentally flawed document..." which "doesn't address the redistribution of wealth" nor "social justice." Barack Obama, 2001-2010. More revisionist "history" from the "Ministry of Truth."
"(Americans have a right to) Freedom of Worship..." Barack Obama, 2009-2010
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Amendment I, U. S. Constitution
What's the difference? It's just semantics, right? Worship is done in private, largely: in "houses of worship." Religion is exercised in public: "fish" logos, burqas, kosher foods, refusal to fight in wars, public prayer, crosses which mark graves at Arlington, bumper stickers, street preachers, yarmulkes, and a host of other free expressions of "religion" are Constitutionally protected in that "document of negative limitations" as Mr. Obama describes the Law of the Land. "Freedom of worship" is not Constitutionally protected, as, I am certain, our former "Constitutional Law professor" knows full well. Getting the picture? More Orwellian doublethink from Big Bro BHO.
The Federal Government, courtesy of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid troika, now owns 98 percent of all home mortgages; a controlling interest in General Motors, and most of Chrysler: a large portion of, if not yet all, American banks, and is rapidly closing the noose around healthcare providers, oil companies, the fishing industry, at least in the Gulf states, and over-regulating the very industries which produce a mere 70 per cent of the world's goods and services. The FDA regulations concerning cabbage are a mere 70,000 words long, or roughly ten times longer than the Constitution and Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence combined. Cabbage. Nope, no red tape here, folks. Move along, move along, nothing to see.
Tell me, do you get a "tingle up your leg" knowing that financial geniuses like Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel and Chris Dodd are regulating stock transactions as well as they regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? As one brave "town hall" attendee told California Congressman Pete Stark (D-Umberass): "Don't p*ss on my leg and tell me it's raining!"
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e6_1253058391
Does this chart look vaguely familiar? Big Brother, the semi-mystical leader of the Party, the elitist "Inner Party" at the nation's capital, the "Outer Party" of bureaucratic drones whose primary function is the propounding of red tape and regulation, and the Proles, the 85% of general populace who pay for and to their leaders.
As we nationally slouch silently toward either becoming a Socialist Totalitarian Third-World poverty pit, or toward the impeachment of a President who pushes daily for the "Fundamental transformation of America," ask yourself the famous Marxist* question: "What are you going to believe: what I'm telling you, or your own two eyes?"
*That's Groucho Marx, Karl's capitalist cousin.
Orwell's "1984" speaks of the "Ministry of Plenty" (keeping the population in a state of constant economic hardship)
Arizona Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Umbass), urged civic, religious, and political groups to take their convention dollars elsewhere. “Do not do business with this state,” (you know, the one he was hired to represent) Grijalva told open-borders zealots bent on punishing law-abiding citizens to “send a message.”
Orwell described the "Ministry of Truth" (propaganda and altering history).
President (pro-tem) Obama calls for a "Global Contingency Plan" to deal with Muslim terro-, er, "other man-caused disasters." He calls the flood of illegal aliens "Undocumented Guests" and "Undocumented Workers," barely masking the REAL definition: "Undocumented Potential Future Democrats." Add 12 million pro-Obama Latino voters to the next election cycle, and voila! : a continued, if not perpetual, Democrat majority!! More "Ministry of Truth."
The list of parallels goes on and on and on:
We are living in the beginning of a new epoch, the epoch of a Socialist Totalitarian Regime in America, the world's last fortress of freedom. Witness:
prolefeed: the steady stream of mindless entertainment to distract and occupy the masses. We are being told that "There's a lot of hate speech out there on talk radio" and "too much information can be a distraction..." according to the Socialist-in-Chief. Interesting that "hate speech" can also be described as "thoughtcrime," or "politically incorrect thinking."
How much better off we would be as a society if we all just watched "The Bachelor," "Dancing with Stars," and re-reruns of "America's Funniest Home Videos," rather than the hate-mongers on Fox, particularly that loathsome Glenn Beck; listening to the scurrilous Rush Limbaugh, and the lying harlots such as Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and Hannah Giles.
oldthink: Ideas inspired by events or memories of times prior to the (Socialist) Revolution:
"The Constitution was written by a bunch of white landowners..." "a fundamentally flawed document..." which "doesn't address the redistribution of wealth" nor "social justice." Barack Obama, 2001-2010. More revisionist "history" from the "Ministry of Truth."
"(Americans have a right to) Freedom of Worship..." Barack Obama, 2009-2010
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Amendment I, U. S. Constitution
What's the difference? It's just semantics, right? Worship is done in private, largely: in "houses of worship." Religion is exercised in public: "fish" logos, burqas, kosher foods, refusal to fight in wars, public prayer, crosses which mark graves at Arlington, bumper stickers, street preachers, yarmulkes, and a host of other free expressions of "religion" are Constitutionally protected in that "document of negative limitations" as Mr. Obama describes the Law of the Land. "Freedom of worship" is not Constitutionally protected, as, I am certain, our former "Constitutional Law professor" knows full well. Getting the picture? More Orwellian doublethink from Big Bro BHO.
The Federal Government, courtesy of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid troika, now owns 98 percent of all home mortgages; a controlling interest in General Motors, and most of Chrysler: a large portion of, if not yet all, American banks, and is rapidly closing the noose around healthcare providers, oil companies, the fishing industry, at least in the Gulf states, and over-regulating the very industries which produce a mere 70 per cent of the world's goods and services. The FDA regulations concerning cabbage are a mere 70,000 words long, or roughly ten times longer than the Constitution and Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence combined. Cabbage. Nope, no red tape here, folks. Move along, move along, nothing to see.
Tell me, do you get a "tingle up your leg" knowing that financial geniuses like Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel and Chris Dodd are regulating stock transactions as well as they regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? As one brave "town hall" attendee told California Congressman Pete Stark (D-Umberass): "Don't p*ss on my leg and tell me it's raining!"
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e6_1253058391
Does this chart look vaguely familiar? Big Brother, the semi-mystical leader of the Party, the elitist "Inner Party" at the nation's capital, the "Outer Party" of bureaucratic drones whose primary function is the propounding of red tape and regulation, and the Proles, the 85% of general populace who pay for and to their leaders.
As we nationally slouch silently toward either becoming a Socialist Totalitarian Third-World poverty pit, or toward the impeachment of a President who pushes daily for the "Fundamental transformation of America," ask yourself the famous Marxist* question: "What are you going to believe: what I'm telling you, or your own two eyes?"
*That's Groucho Marx, Karl's capitalist cousin.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
RA-A-ACIST !!!
I have a problem: apparently, I'm a racist, at least according to current definintions:
I have long found myself to be attracted to blonde, blue-eyed females over all other alternatives such as any-colored-eyed, hairy males. Just look at the record: my wife of 25 years is a blue-eyed blonde. Several of the women I dated before marriage were also blondes and blue-eyed, with the occasional redhead and/or brunette thrown into the mix.
Nary a stableboy, however. Nor an illegal alien, so I must REALLY be racist.
Only one is a professing Democrat: this must be a partisan issue.
Never dated a Muslim woman: I'm therefore a religious bigot/zealot.
Never dated a police officer: anti-authoritarian.
Never dated a different species: not eco-friendly/earth-friendly.
Never dated a paraplegic: anti- "special-needs citizens."
Never dated another man: OBVIOUSLY homophobic. See "religious zealot" above.
How can I continue to live like this? Perhaps I can get help from the Federal Bureau of Intrusion or some such Nanny-state program.
How about you?
I have long found myself to be attracted to blonde, blue-eyed females over all other alternatives such as any-colored-eyed, hairy males. Just look at the record: my wife of 25 years is a blue-eyed blonde. Several of the women I dated before marriage were also blondes and blue-eyed, with the occasional redhead and/or brunette thrown into the mix.
Nary a stableboy, however. Nor an illegal alien, so I must REALLY be racist.
Only one is a professing Democrat: this must be a partisan issue.
Never dated a Muslim woman: I'm therefore a religious bigot/zealot.
Never dated a police officer: anti-authoritarian.
Never dated a different species: not eco-friendly/earth-friendly.
Never dated a paraplegic: anti- "special-needs citizens."
Never dated another man: OBVIOUSLY homophobic. See "religious zealot" above.
How can I continue to live like this? Perhaps I can get help from the Federal Bureau of Intrusion or some such Nanny-state program.
How about you?
Monday, July 19, 2010
Dear Senator:
Dear Senator ***:
Elena Kagan has zero judicial experience. Zero. Zip. Nil. Nada. I understand that becoming Dean of the Harvard Law School is a tremendous accomplishment, but there is a deep, wide gulf between the academics of Law and the practice thereof, just as having read an anatomy tome is no substitute for hands-on surgical experience, or having "studied foreign relations in college in the 90's" does not make one an elder statesman.
In the realm of courtroom experience, she has willingly altered written testimonies from others in order to support her personal political beliefs rather than the Constitution as written, and/or the rule of law. There is written proof of her intrusion into evidentiary documents, in her own handwriting. Such flexible ethics ought not be present amongst the members of the Supreme Court.
While answering pointed questions from members of Congress regarding her ethics and her political viewpoint, she was, well, let's just say she was adeptly evasive in her answers, leaving broad avenues for interpretation.
Not since Harriet Miers has a less-qualified individual been nominated to the highest court in the land.
This, Mr. Senator, is not the time nor the venue for on-the-job training.
I therefore ask you to reject the nomination of Elena Kagan.
Most sincerely,
NeonLeon
p.s. I have a substantial wager placed that you will vote 100 per cent in agreement with party dictates.
Elena Kagan has zero judicial experience. Zero. Zip. Nil. Nada. I understand that becoming Dean of the Harvard Law School is a tremendous accomplishment, but there is a deep, wide gulf between the academics of Law and the practice thereof, just as having read an anatomy tome is no substitute for hands-on surgical experience, or having "studied foreign relations in college in the 90's" does not make one an elder statesman.
In the realm of courtroom experience, she has willingly altered written testimonies from others in order to support her personal political beliefs rather than the Constitution as written, and/or the rule of law. There is written proof of her intrusion into evidentiary documents, in her own handwriting. Such flexible ethics ought not be present amongst the members of the Supreme Court.
While answering pointed questions from members of Congress regarding her ethics and her political viewpoint, she was, well, let's just say she was adeptly evasive in her answers, leaving broad avenues for interpretation.
Not since Harriet Miers has a less-qualified individual been nominated to the highest court in the land.
This, Mr. Senator, is not the time nor the venue for on-the-job training.
I therefore ask you to reject the nomination of Elena Kagan.
Most sincerely,
NeonLeon
p.s. I have a substantial wager placed that you will vote 100 per cent in agreement with party dictates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)