Levin – the left wants it both ways

As Levin said today on his radio show, the Obama Regime is suing Arizona for asking proof of citizenship when arresting individuals, but they are trying to stop Texas from killing a monster because they never asked for proof.

So, I ask these communists, which is it? How do you want it, because you can’t have it both ways.

And who speaks for this little girl who he raped and killed? We have female –  FEMALE – Supreme Court justices who would be screaming for abortion rights but will not speak for this little girl?

Where is the so-called compassion from the left now? They aren’t speaking for the rights of this girl or her family. They are, as they always do, speaking for killers and monsters:  like cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, who I’ve written about before.

It would be nice to see the outrage that has been all over the news over the verdict in the Casey Anthony case, instead all over the news over this. How dare any nation or organization interfere with a sovereign state, within this country? The United Nations are the first to be trashing America for imposing ourselves on other nations but they are not only investigating Arizona for human rights violations (can you believe that?), now trying to tell the state of Texas how to adjudicate and carry out their laws!

We need a president Perry or someone like him who will tell the UN to go to hell and go to hell in a BIG way!

There are 2 little girls who are dead. One who no one will ever be held to account for but another who’s killer has been convicted and sentenced. His sentence was carried out today.

At this man, and anyone who supports him, is where our rage should really be directed.

SCOTUS rules in favor of the 10th amendment and the possible effect on government mandated health care.

I’m not a lawyer and I’ve never played one on tv, so it took me a couple days and re-reading several times to figure out how this case, Bond v. Unites States, would or could have bearing on the ObamaCare lawsuit.

Thanks to Dena for sending this to me.

In a nutshell,  Carol Bond found out there her husband had impregnated her best friend. To exact revenge on her best friend, “Bond placed hazardous chemicals on the homewrecker’s mailbox, car door handles and the like, hoping to injure her now-former friend.  All the ex-friend got was a minor burn.” But instead of this being tried as an assault or manslaughter case in a state court, the federal government decided to step in and “charged her with violating a law that was passed under an international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons.”

“The court of appeals ruled against her, holding that she didn’t even have the legal right (which we call “standing”) to bring the claim, because only a state could argue that Congress had infringed upon state power.  At the Supreme Court, Bond got some help from an unexpected source:  the federal government, which agreed with her that she had the right to challenge the law – a procedure that is known as “confessing error,” or admitting that you are wrong.  So the Court appointed an attorney (in this case, as it usually does, it chose a former Supreme Court clerk) to argue that the Third Circuit had been correct.”

The Supreme Court stated that the federal government had no right to interfere with a STATE’S RIGHTS issue. ” She argued that she couldn’t be charged with federal crimes because her crimes were the kind of crimes that states should prosecute.  Put into constitutional terms, her argument was that when Congress passed the law, it intruded on the rights that the Constitution, in the Tenth Amendment, leaves for the states.”

Last  “Thursday, the Court unanimously agreed with Bond and the government that she did have “standing” to argue that the federal government had gone too far.  The Court pointed out that the right Bond seeks to vindicate is her own, because she benefits from a federalist (states’ rights) system.”

Now how does all this relate to ObamaCare, you ask?

The SCOTUS has ruled that an INDIVIDUAL has the right to claim a violation of state’s rights because that is the system of government that we live under.

Government mandated health care can be construed as a violation of the Tenth Amendment – a subject that must be left up to the individual states and its citizens to decide – not the federal government.

This case, that the SCOTUS found in favor of Carol Bond and State’s Rights, could very well be a foreshadowing of how they will rule on the ObamaCare case when it finally comes before them.

We can all at least hope.

USA against the State of Arizona: some things to think about

I’ve heard no one discuss what might happen if Arizona loses this case that the Obama administration has filed against us.

Personally, I don’t think it will be good. And it scares me to think what might happen.

On another topic, isn’t it interesting that we are going to court against the federal government in a court that is part of the federal government? It’s kinda like playing baseball against a team who furnishes their own umpires and we, on the other team, have none.

How fair is that game?

Just a couple random thoughts…

Newt mincing no words on Kagan

Quote of the day – Ann Coulter

We are at war. The Supreme Court has no right to stick its fat, unelected nose into the commander in chief’s constitutional war powers, particularly in a war against savages whose only reason for not nuking us yet is that they don’t have the technology. (The New York Times hasn’t gotten around to printing it.)

Townhall.com

Chief Justice Stevens: SOTU is now a “political pep rally”

SCOTUS rules to protect free speech

4 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are in favor of book banning and speech censorship. F-O-U-R  of them. And the 5 who voted in favor of the First Amendment are being called ACTIVISTS. Now, isn’t that ironic? To be in favor of the Constitution is now considered radical.

Amazing.

The case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission was decided last week by the U.S. Supreme Court, in a sqeeker vote that should scare all Americans. This case has unveiled to the public, the justices who would be in favor of censoring free speech and who are willling to ignore the first amendment’s stark and direct language:

“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

How much clearer could the Founders have been?

From the AP:

When the Supreme Court first heard the case in March, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, representing the FEC, was pulled into a discussion of an issue that took him down a slippery slope: If the movie were a book, would the government ban publishing the book if it mentioned a candidate for office within the election time frame?

Stewart said that it could.

“That’s pretty incredible,” Justice Samuel Alito said.

Then came questions about electronic devices such as the Kindle.

“If it has one name, one use of the candidate’s name, it would be covered, correct?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

“That’s correct,” Stewart replied.

“It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, ‘And so vote for X,’ the government could ban that?” Roberts asked.

[David] Bossie [founder of Citizens United and maker of Hillary the Movie] said this was the argument that turned a majority of the bench against the FEC and in favor of Citizens United.

“That sent a chill down the Supreme Court,” Bossie said. The argument became a “point of demarcation.”

The marxists progressives are now screaming outrage. This from the Wall Street Journal:

President Obama was especially un-Presidential yesterday, putting on his new populist facade to call it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies” and other “special interests.” Mr. Obama didn’t mention his union friends as one of those interests, but their political spending will also be protected by the logic of this ruling. The reality is that free speech is no one’s special interest. New York Senator Chuck Schumer vowed to hold hearings, and the Naderite Public Citizen lobby is already calling for a constitutional amendment that bans free speech for “for-profit corporations.” Liberalism’s bullying tendencies are never more on display than when its denizens are at war with the speech rights of its opponents.

But the marxists progressives make no mention of networks like MSNBC that is owned by the corporate giant General Electric and that has been nothing short of the communications center for the Obama administration. This case protects their free speech, as well.

As David Bossie writes at BigJournalism.com:

Finally, as the Court acknowledged, the position that corporations cannot engage in political speech has a fatal logical flaw.  Almost every major media outlet in the country is owned by a corporation and most of them advocate for or against candidates via endorsements, opinion columns, or politically-oriented programming.  Why should General Electric, which owns MSNBC, be permitted to use its nearly unlimited resources to influence elections, while I, who made Hillary The Movie using corporate funds for roughly .03% of the budget, could be put in prison for airing the documentary?

What is really frightening is that TheOne has 3 more years to appoint justices. One more liberal appointment could change the entire complexion of the Constitution and it’s protection of Americans. Those appointees have to be confirmed by congress. This is just another urgent reason that Constitutionalists must be elected this  year.

Abortion: a state’s rights issue

“Federalism also diffuses conflict and promotes harmony.  A strong proponant of the death penalty can live in Texas, which has the most active execution chamber, and not care much that New Jersey has just abolished the punishment. Individuals with widely divergent beliefs are able to coexist in the same country because of the diversity and tolerance federalism promotes.” Mark Levin/Liberty and Tyranny

Substitute the word abortion for ‘death penalty’ and this is exactly why abortion should never have been taken from the states to decide. Abortion should be a state’s rights decision and not a governmental edict. The Supreme Court, with Justice Blackmun leading the charge, created this policy. It can’t be called a law because Congress nor THE people ever voted on this.

A woman in Texas was forbidden by law from having an abortion on demand. At the time the law in Texas allowed abortion only “by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” And of course, her life was not in danger. This case gave the SCOTUS an extraordinary moment in history.

Blackmun made policy by establishing which trimester a fetus was protected under the Constitution. In other words, he determined when a fetus became a human being – although many and the state of Texas believed that at the moment of conception it is a human being –  and therefore, when it was provided rights and protection under the state.“Blackmun specifically declared that the unborn child was not a ‘person’ under the fourteenth amendment and thus, had no equal protection rights.” Mark Levin/Men in Black

This is how more absurd it got: “Blackmun constructed a hyper-technical analysis to break down the rights of the mother and the state. In the first trimester, the decision to abort must be left up to the mother’s physician. In the second trimester, the state may regulate abortion procedures to promote its interest in the mother’s health. In the third trimester, in the interest of protecting the unborn child, the state can regulate and even ban abortion, except where, by medical judgment, it is necessary to preserve the mother’s life or health.” Men in Black

And keep in mind Blackmun was not talking about the ‘state’ of Texas. He was talking about the federal government when he used the word ‘state.’

“To be true to its constitutional role, the Supreme Court should refuse to be drawn into making public policy, and it should strike down legislation only when a clear constitutional violation exists.” Men in Black

The result is that the justices impose their own personal theories and biases on issues that the constitution does not address and is outside their purview.

The right  – or not – to abortion should be the people’s decision. It’s a morality issue and therefore has no place in the courts. It should be struck down and given back to the states and their citizens to decide. This is an issue that does not find cover under the invisible “right to privacy” which does not even exist in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has become a legislative body by the de facto creation of policies.  And unfortunately we have president who plans to continue to appoint policy making justices.

Lest we forget:

Obama’s stealthy coup

I’ve said this before but I think Obama’s czar thing is an end run around congress and an attempt to shift all power to the executive branch. Roger Simon thinks so too and he puts it in much better words and perspective than I have.

Obama is appointing all these people to policy positions that we know nothing about. Congress has no idea who’s in charge of what and who these people are. And at a time when we have almost 10% unemployment, Obama keeps filling the executive branch with more employees, growing government, paid for by our tax dollars: our tax dollars and they are not answerable to anyone but Obama.  None of these guys are accountable to you or me but we are paying their wages.

It’s just now starting to concern congress and it’s about time. From Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana: “The president should suspend any future appointment of so called czars while the administration and the Congress carefully examines the background and qualifications of the more than 30 individuals who’ve been appointed to these czar positions,” said Pence, speaking to reporters. “And the Congress ought to initiate a thorough inquiry into the constitutionality of this practice which has spanned Republican and Democrat administrations.”

While I thank Pence for bringing it to the attention of the people and congress, “the president should suspend” is pretty mild language.  No, Congressman Pence, the president MUST suspend these appointments until congress and the people know who and what Obama has in mind with these czars.

I’m afraid it will end with that: concern with no action from congress. Congress can’t do much because it’s packed with Democrats. They aren’t going to challenge Obama and remember, they won. They don’t have to do anything that conservatives, the American people or the Republicans in congress want done. Can this be constitutionally challenged? Not for long because he’s planning to load the SCOTUS with progressive, policy-setting judges. He’s on that path already with the recent supreme court appointment.

The LameStream Media isn’t at all concerned. They aren’t asleep at the wheel, they are drunk with Obama Kool-Aid. Unless Fox News takes up this topic and pounds the dangers of it home, no one will realize the dangers in these czar-ships.

The point of these czars is to set policy and regulations that congress has nothing to do with and nothing to say about and by extension, you and me.  Just as we have been making great moves against Obamacare, we have got to make noise about this.