Fighting to Preserve Liberty in America
Gabrielle Giffords’ shooter won’t be going to trial anytime soon. I have a question for Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ). In the wake of the Tucson shooting, what are you doing about getting mentally impaired people off the street, instead of rendering citizens defenseless?
We knew it was coming because the situation was so clear. Congressman Paul Ryan introduced a bold plan to deal with out of control government spending and the Democrats had no credible plan of their own. So what does one do in a case like that? Lie, smear, distort, and scare the uninformed into thinking that we should shut up and surrender our liberties to the government. But the level of the latest lies is remarkable if only because of how shameless it is.
You have probably seen a lot of comparisons in the main stream media trying to compare President Barack Obama to President Ronald Reagan. Try to make this comparison to a conservative and they will look at you rather oddly. Tell it to a progressive and they lap it up, because they know that President Reagan was a leader and by comparing the two men, perhaps some of that leadership will rub off on the incumbent.
It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. – Judge Roger Vinson opinion in STATE OF FLORIDA v UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Perhaps the most arrogant, condescending act of Congress was the passage of ObamaCare. Opinion polls consistently counted the American public to be strongly against it. Town hall meetings during the summer before its passage were raucous and united in opposition as politicians cowered before their constituents. Many politicians who voted for the bill stopped holding town hall meetings, choosing instead to hide under their desks. During the fall 2010 elections, rare was the Democrat who boldly campaigned on ObamaCare.
“Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly.” – President Obama commenting on a police incident in Cambridge, Mass. involving Sgt. Crowley and Professor Gates
“We don’t know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions,” – President Obama speaking about Major Nidal Hasan after he killed 13 at Fort Hood.
“There is no credible evidence so far that this attack was more than at least one person, the driver,” said Mayor Mike Bloomberg. “After that there is no evidence that anyone else was involved. It may be, but we can’t say that it is.”…“If I had to guess, twenty five cents, this would be exactly that,” Bloomberg said. “Homegrown maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.” – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg commenting on the Times Square bomber
“You know, at this point I have no information that it’s anything other than a one-off,” – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano commenting on the Times Square bomber
“The odds are quite high that this was a lone wolf.” – New York Senator Charles Schumer commenting on the Times Square bomber
“Rep. Andre Carson said he and Rep. John Lewis had racial slurs yelled at them as they left the Cannon House Office Building, with protesters chanting what he referred to as “the N-word” fifteen times.” – CBS News report on the Health Care Vote. Andrew Breitbart put up $100,000 to anyone who came forward with video or audio proof of Carson’s accusations. To date, no one has come forward.
Whether you call it an iceberg or a torpedo, ObamaCare just struck something or vice versa and it doesn’t look good. The ship is taking on water and you can hear the orchestra tuning up as they rearrange the deck chairs.
The baseball season has ended. The San Francisco Giants are the world champions for the first time since 1954 when they were the New York Giants. The stadiums are empty and the spring training fields have not yet gotten busy. But, fear not, the free agent season is heating up.
We have come to expect a fight whenever a seat opens up on the Supreme Court as there are distinct battle lines between conservatives who believe the Constitution should be interpreted how it was written and liberal/progressives view it in light of what they feel it should be today. In other words, conservatives approach the Constitution with a magnifying glass while liberal/progressives approach it with an eraser and pencil.
I happen to believe that elections have consequences and that for the most part the president should be allowed to nominate who he chooses to fill a Supreme Court vacancy and have them approved. However, as Democrats like to point out when a Republican sits in the White House, the Senate has a Constitutional role to give advice and consent on such nominees, not just rubber stamp them, which is true enough. Unfortunately, today the advice and consent process is almost a sham, because the nominees have learned how to keep their mouths shut and defer from answering all but the blandest questions under the cover that it may come up before them in a case on the court. We can thank Ted Kennedy for this as he turned the advice and consent role into an opportunity to smear a nominee, Judge Robert Bork, in the most vile and mendacious way to pander to the base of the Democratic Party. Since then, it’s been lights out on any serious probing of the thought process of nominees to our highest court.
But what about Elena Kagan? After the Senate Judiciary panel approved her nomination along nearly party lines (Lindsey Graham – R voted in favor) most Americans (87%) believe she will be confirmed, according to Rasmussen. However, in the same poll Americans oppose her nomination 42% to 36%. Is she qualified to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court?
One of the arguments against her is that she has never been a judge before. That is true, but it is also true for about one-third of past Supreme Court justices. However, among those past Supreme Court justices who were not judges, they had on average 20 years experience in the private practice of law. Ms. Kagan has two years experience in private practice, two years. The rest of her experience in academia or government service.
Before her current position of Solicitor General, she had never argued a case at a trial. She has no judicial experience, next to no private practice experience, and thanks to Ted Kennedy, she revealed as little as possible about her judicial philosophy to get confirmed. Her key strength, according to Barack Obama, is her ability to build consensus. I’ll give you a translation of what that really means. Her job will be to vote with the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court and use her persuasive powers on Anthony Kennedy to peel him off and generate as many 5-4 wins as possible. President Obama does little without a purpose and his purpose is to pull the Supreme Court in the same direction as the laws he has jammed through against the will of the American people.
Despite the approval of the Judiciary committee, an effort must be mounted to reject or filibuster her approval. How can we accept someone with so little in the way of qualifications to a lifetime appointment? We know next to nothing about her judicial philosophy. There are no cases on which she has written opinions that can be examined. With regard to what she has written in the government service she simply says I was acting as an advocate for my client, and those are not necessarily my views. Who could argue with that? So what are her views? We don’t know and like Nancy Pelosi claimed with the health care monstrosity, “we’ll just have to pass it to find out what’s in it.” With a lifetime appointment, you can’t take it back later if you disagree with her eventual positions. The track record of the “Trust me” presidency is downright frightening.
With all due respect to Elena Kagan, I don’t see how we can idly sit by and silently accept another Obama abomination of ramming through his agenda without regard for the people who elected him. He is essentially asking us to grant a lifetime appointment that could profoundly affect our liberties, to someone who is a blank slate that we know little about. He should withdraw the nominee and submit another candidate.
Over the past eleven months, have you ever gotten a feeling that you are watching a magician, rather than a president run our country? As any practitioner of the art of the illusionist will tell you, one of the key things is to keep the audience distracted. Have them watch the left hand, while the right is slipping the coin into the pocket. The Obama Administration is about to unleash their greatest trick yet, trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civil court in New York for the 9/11 attack on America. Why?
The Greatest Show On Earth
The trial will become an absolute three ring circus, with all the world watching closely. The liberal pundits say, “this is our chance to show the world our justice system. We can demonstrate how civilized we are, and show the Muslim world how fair we are.” Really?
Remember to the footage in the Muslim world immediately following the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. They were dancing in the street, laughing and singing, shouting praise to Allah. What do you think the reaction will be if Khalid Sheik Mohammed, jumps up in court and screams out, “Kill the infidels! This is a fraud meant to disguise these devil’s tricks!” Do we let him ramble with a global audience? Do we have the bailiffs wrestle him to the ground? Do we put him in restraints for the rest of the trial? Who exactly is going to show the world what?
We Have No Secrets
In a civilian trial there is a process called discovery, where the defense is told everything the prosecution plans on bringing to court, including witnesses, so that the defense has a chance to prepare their rebuttal case. How much of the CIA’s methods and contacts are we prepared to reveal to the world and to Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s allies? Or, how much are we not going to use in order to protect that information and at the same time increase the chances that he will be acquitted?
Can Anybody Say O.J.?
Do you remember the O.J. Simpson trial? A slam-dunk if ever there was one. There was blood evidence, DNA evidence, means, motive, opportunity, it couldn’t get any easier. But what happened? Judge Lance Ito, lost control of his court room in the klieg lights of national television. One of O.J.’s attorneys or advisors told O.J. to stop taking his arthritis medication so his hands would swell and then the famous glove trick, abra cadabra, “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” What happened after that trial? Dancing in the streets of the black community.
The Jury Pool
Are Muslims going to be excluded from the jury pool? If so, on what grounds and would a judge allow it? In the O.J. case we had what was called jury nullification, where a jury handed up a verdict not based on the evidence presented, but based on a social determination. O.J. was a symbol for all black men put on trial and all past injustices. He was a sports hero to millions and he wasn’t going down, no matter what. What if a someone with strong beliefs sees disrupting the outcome of the trial as the new jihad? Don’t use suicide bombers in New York, that’s so Middle East, let’s kill them softly by getting Khalid Sheik Mohammed acquitted or a give them a hung jury. What better way to humiliate the Great Satan. It will be like David and Goliath all over again.
The Real Trial
Or is it really the Bush Administration that Obama wants to put on trial? The Obama administration’s popularity is sinking link a stone. The stimulus package was a bust. Cap and Trade is a disaster. Health care a debacle. Tea Party’s are breaking out all over. The Democrats got trounced in Virginia and New Jersey, and even New York’s 23rd is still alive as recounts have dramatically closed the gap. A show trial of the Bush Administration is just what the Obama Administration needs to keep the focus off what they are really doing.
This is a tragedy and a travesty and there should be no end to the shame heaped upon this administration if they follow through on this.
