Friday, November 21, 2014

Through the Lens of the Constitution: Immigration, Obama's Speech

Douglas V. Gibbs has been at the center of the immigration issue, be it last July protesting in Murrieta against the federal government trying to force diseased illegal aliens into his city, to writing and speaking about the issue on his website, radio show, and at various media outlets and events. Now, President Barack Obama has doubled down.

Obama is already in violation of Article II of the United States Constitution for failing to faithfully execute immigration laws, as well as failing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Now, as he has been on other issues, President Barack Obama has decided to legislate immigration reform through executive orders and regulatory actions, and his "I'm the guy in charge so I am circumventing Congress" activities are in violation of Article I, Section 1, which grants all legislative powers only to Congress. Legally, he cannot simply do what he wants, with or without, Congress. Congressional participation in the legislative process is not optional, as Obama seems to think.

During Barack Obama's Thursday Night Speech on Immigration, for fifteen minutes he played his game, trying to set up the Republicans if they dare oppose him. The speech was full of straw man arguments, misrepresentation of Scripture, and twisting of the premise of the immigration issue. His immigration speech to America was typical of his style, and the disgusting strategy employed was typical of leftist Democrats.

During this weekend I will break down the language of the transcript, post it to Political Pistachio and email the link to you once it is done if you are on our mailing list.

Like the community organizer that he is, the speech was laced with political salesmanship. Many of his points were ridiculous. Do we need an executive order to get law enforcement to focus on criminals? However, the reason for those assertions was the salesmanship. This issue is not one he holds close to his heart. It is not an emotional thing to him like he tries to convince Americans. Immigration is a tool, and he is willing to use its effectiveness against his enemies to its fullest.

A number of folks told me he did this now because he knew he couldn't once the Republicans take charge after the first of the year. True, he is using this issue for political reasons, and in fact that is why he held up this action until after the election. Obama did not wish to harm any of the Democrat campaigns by moving on this issue before the midterms. But don't be fooled into thinking Obama is a lame duck, or that he is doing this in an attempt to try and stay relevant as a lame duck? No, he is not a lame duck, he believes he can do as he pleases, he believes he is ruler, and king. Obama's narcissistic attitude is about to go into full throttle, and high gear, and he doesn't care if it is illegal, unconstitutional, or unpopular.

While doing as he pleases, regardless of the law, the opinion of the electorate, or the United States Constitution, the argument, if you listened closely to President Obama's speech, was that he was trying to craft a political argument challenging the Republican narrative. In other words, before they have a chance to respond, demonize any response they may come up with before they come up with it.

Obama also said he wants a rational debate, yet is it rational to take unilateral action? The hypocrisy is incredible, for he is doing what he accused Bush of, and now he's saying, "Let's be rational (which means, do what I tell you) or I will do with my pen and phone what I consider to be rational, and force the issue to comply with my dictates."

In other words, "If you want to keep me from acting illegally based on my own perception of the powers I believe I have, just give me what I want."

He invoked emotion, and Scripture, and even a quote by George W. Bush. He's pulling out all the stops, and his interpretation of the issue, his interpretation of Scripture, and his interpretation of Bush's words on the issue, were disgustingly inaccurate, and out of context.

Obama, during the speech, tried to explain to us how important this issue is. We must address it immediately. If immigration is so important, why did he wait until after the election? He knows it is a losing issue for Democrats, his immigration speech and actions would have jeopardized the campaigns of Democrats during the midterm election as I said earlier, yet his supporters reject the obvious in regards to the delay.

Either they are liars, or they are stupid.

Obama has no compassion for illegals. They are tools that he is using for political reasons. Obama's actions on immigration are all about forwarding his leftist political agenda. He is using the issue for political reasons, while pretending he is doing this for principled reasons.

Barack Obama is playing on the generosity of this nation, and then is deceptively acting like he actually gives a crap about these people. They are pawns in the game of progressive manipulation and deception.

This is not the last hurrah. The Democrats will not close the border after this, and this is an invitation for anyone to cross the border. When President Ronald Reagan signed amnesty during the 80s, he was assured the border would be secured by Tip O'Neill and the Democrats of his era, and he was promised that would be the only time we would grant amnesty. . . that we would never have to do it again. The Democrats reneged on the deal. They lied. They did the opposite of what they promised, and then have covered that part of history up in our education systems, and in the media. Their willingness to do what is legally right, and right regarding the security of this nation, did not exist then, and it does not exist now.

-----

Doug will be addressing immigration on his radio show!

The opening discussion will be about immigration, and the guest is an author who is a first generation immigrant who says we are losing American Exceptionalism.

Constitution Radio: An Immigrant's Search for American Exceptionalism
Airing November 22, 2014 at 2:00 pm Pacific on KCAA 1050AM/106.3FM, KCAAradio.com

If you want to participate in the conversation on tomorrow's radio program, the call in number is 888-909-1050.

Blessings,

Douglas Gibbs
Constitution Radio/Political Pistachio
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.douglasvgibbs.com
www.constitutionassociation.com
www.constitutioneducation.net

Douglas V. Gibbs on Immigration on Conscience of Kansas Radio

Douglas V. Gibbs


Just before Halloween, 2014 I was a guest on the Conscience of Kansas Radio Program, hosted by Paul Ibbetson.  The show airs on a number of stations in the State of Kansas.  Listen to the show by clicking the above picture, or by going HERE.

Hard Starboard Radio: Obama Puts The Republic Out Of Its Misery



With illegal immigration order, Obama moves to cement his coalition; All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress – unless the President says otherwise; Obama wants this policy to depend on who controls the White House in 2017; Which is why, to restore the separation of powers, Republicans’ must win the presidency in 2016.

We are so screwed on Open Thighs Friday at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Rabid Ferguson Lynch Mob Thugs Calmly Discuss A Peaceful Solution With Local Authorities

by JASmius

Yes, for our Malaga, Washington, readers, that was snark:



Yesterday, I referred to these polite, articulate, eloquent young men as "racist animals".  After the post had been up for a few hours, I thought about doing some selective editing (with public acknowledgement) because that phrase could itself be seen as racist.  But then I came to my senses, realizing two things: (1) since I'm a white, Christian, conservative Republican, I'm already considered a "racist" by these upstanding citizens by definition anyway, so what would be the point?; and (2) I remembered the words of Bruce Wayne to Rachel Dawes in Batman Begins:



Anybody - whatever the race or ethnicity or any other demographic category (verbal shorthand for "If I listed them all, it would shove every other post off the main page) - who acts like an animal is defined by that animalistic conduct and, therefore, merits that label.

Even if those in power do "officially" categorize it as "social justice".

Adieu, Landrieu: Louisana Donk Incumbent Trails By 15 Points In December 6th Runoff

by JASmius



It was the noted philosopher Bullwinkle who once said:



After all the runoff rabbits Mary Landrieu has pulled out of her hat over the years, could this one coming up on December 6th finally be a bunny too far?:

Rasmussen Reports’ first survey of the Louisiana Senate runoff shows Republican challenger Bill Cassidy comfortably on his way to joining the new GOP Senate majority.

Cassidy posts a 15-point lead – 56% to 41%- over incumbent Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu among likely Louisiana voters in our latest statewide telephone survey. Just three percent (3%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Landrieu edged Cassidy, a U.S. congressman, 42% to 41% on Election Day earlier this month, with eight candidates officially in the race. But under Louisiana’s so-called “jungle primary” rules, the contest will now be decided by a December 6th runoff because no candidate cleared the 50% mark.

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of the state’s likely voters say they are certain to vote in the runoff, and Cassidy leads 57% to 41% among these voters.

Wow.  Looks like that internal Republican poll last week showing almost exactly these numbers wasn't an outlier after all.  It also looks like having persuaded Harry (G)Reid to bring Bill Cassidy's House-passed Keystone XL pipeline bill to a floor vote and voted for cloture only to have the rest of her caucus-mates filibuster it to death wasn't enough to save her chubby rump.

Of course, I throw in all the caveats about the race not being over, the horse isn't yet in the barn, the wheat is not yet eaten, the cheese has not yet bound, the nut has not been busted, etc., etc., etc.  But....fifteen points.  In two weeks.  A few points at the margins can be overcome by the Donk voter fraud machine, but not a sinkhole of this magnitude.

The opera isn't over until Mary Landrieu sings....



....but she certainly looks like she's warming up the ol' pipes.

Probably mortgaged her hat, too.

The Immigration Proclamation

by JASmius



Another typical Obama "historic" speech: Power-grabbing, full of lies, partisan sniping, massacring one more army of strawmen, all while claiming to only want a "rational discussion" on an issue that, like pretty much every other, his churlish, scheming perfidy has so completely destroyed any possibility of trust and so squandered any lingering credibility as to make compromise and "working together" ludicrously impossible.  Which he then cites as "proof" that Republicans are "unreasonable racist extremists" defying the will of the American people, who were REALLY saying in electing a GOP Congress in blowout fashion two and a half weeks ago that they want "progress," not repudiating The One and every despicable thing he stands for.

Listening to an Obama speech is like watching David Bowman going through the Stargate....



....It's so surreally detached from reality, so drenched in delusional "socialist reality" propaganda fantasism, that it's akin to a rhetorical acid trip.

House Speaker John Boehner wasn't inhaling, and was quick on the draw with a panning, slamming rejoinder:



So basically, the GOP was willing to pass some form of amnesty, but The One went so absurdly overboard and so "poisoned the well" that Republicans couldn't risk being seen as collaborating on a policy direction their own base, and a huge majority of Americans, virulently loathe.  Why?  Because of the universally lusted-after "Hispanic vote," even though a majority of Hispanic voters (54%) oppose his imperial majesty's illegal amnesty decree, and Republicans will never racially out-pander Democrats.  That's another reason for this year's Border Crisis and the next influx of foreigners last night's proclamation will trigger: King Hussein wants all the "credit" for amnestizing millions of illegals (and jihadists) for himself.

So what's the Speaker going to do about it?  He certainly talked a good game....:

“President Obama has turned a deaf ear to the people that he was elected and we were elected to serve. But we will not do that. In the days ahead the people’s house will rise to this challenge.” “We will not stand idle as the president undermines the rule of law in our country and places lives at risk.” “We’ll listen to the American people, we’ll work with our members and we will work to protect the Constitution of the United States.”

....but it was all generalities.  How will "the people's house" rise to this challenge?  How will the Republican majorities "work to protect the Constitution of the United States" with which Barack Obama (again) wiped his scrawny ass last night?  Will Boeher and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell heed Ted Cruz's eminently practicable strategy of using Congress's appropriation and confirmation powers to inflict a stiff price on the White House for Dear Leader's lawless despotism?  Will they listen to their caucuses instead of (allegedly) trying to shut them up?

Because this is about more than just amnesty; it is, in fact, a rare "teachable moment" regarding how constitutional government is, and is not, supposed to work.  False Messiah wants to bury it in the usual "partisan squabbling" white noise, but if Republicans don't just stand with three-quarters of the American electorate against amnesty, but can also highlight its unconstitutional illegality and illustrate the tyrannical lengths to which Democrats are willing to go to get their way in "ends justify the means" fashion - which the polls show the vast majority of Americans already instinctively grasp - they can not just win the immigration issue - hell, they already did that on Election Day - but can so devastate the Democrat "brand" as lawless, radical extremists parsecs outside the "mainstream" that "turning the country around" (i.e. resurrecting the Old American Republic) might actually reenter the realm of possibility.

Or they can chicken out, play it "safe," duck any confrontation or showdown with the White House, fund the illegal amnesty against which they so conspicuously railed, deflate their base (again), watch all remaining "red" states turn blue, and start planning their political exiles.

Doesn't seem like a difficult choice to me.

How Obama Ransomed Bowe Bergdahl

by JASmius



To refresh yourselves on the quixotic "rescue" of "Sergeant" Bergdahl from his Taliban "captors," go here, here, here, aaaaaaaand here.  In a nutshell: The VA scandal was raging, Barack Obama needed a related PR distraction, the specter of freeing one of our own from enemy "captivity" would perfectly fit that "squirrel!" bill, and since he'd be significantly emptying Gitmo as "payment" and "Sergeant" Bergdahl was a fellow jihadi-symp, it would advance his ideological agenda and reward a loyal fellow-traveler at the same time for his "honorable and distinctive" treason to the country they both hate.

The one thing the Bergdahl caper lacked that is usually Obama's trademark (or so some believe) was incompetence.  However perverse the motivations and reasons, the Bergdahl-Taliban (now ISIS) Dream Team "swap" was carried out swiftly and decisively.  Or so it was thought.

As is another Obama trademark, months after the deal faded from the headlines, the other shoe has dropped:

The Obama administration made a ransom payment to an Afghan “con man” earlier this year in an unsuccessful attempt to secure the release of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, according to a Washington Times report. Best-selling author Brad Thor predicted there was likely money exchanged as part of the deal in a previous op-ed on TheBlaze.

Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA50) revealed the ransom payment in a November 5th letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. The congressman noted that the DoD’s Joint Special Operations Command delivered the payment, but it was stolen by the “intermediary” who claimed to represent the hostage takers, the report adds.

“Given the significance of this matter, as well as the fact that Pentagon officials have denied that a payment was even considered — and you also said you were unaware of any such attempt — I ask you to immediately inquire with JSOC to determine the specific order of events,” Hunter stated....

The explosive report comes one day after White House press secretary Josh Earnest said President Barack Obama believes that it’s “not in the best interest of American citizens to pay ransoms to any organization, let alone a terrorist organization.”

"Explosive"?  I'm hard-pressed to see how.  If O was willing to give up the top five Taliban commanders for a lowly deserter, it's hardly shocking or implausible that he would have tried to buy off the Taliban to get Bergdahl back.  That is tantamount to the U.S. funding a terrorist organization?  The Obama Regime was arming the jihadists fighting the Assad government in Syria, including the Islamic State, through the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.  If anything, the revelation that the White House tried to ransom the Left's idea of the "perfect soldier" can be spun to mitigate what they actually paid for him - "After the millions of dollars were stolen, we had no choice but to capitulate to the Taliban's demands to release their top five leaders, because "Sergeant" Bergdahl was about to die!"

That was a lie, of course.  The "swap" itself was a traitorous outrage.  Hiding the botched money transfer was the coverup.  And the botched money transfer itself is the incompetence.  So far from this story being "explosive," it merely checks off the final box in the Bowe Bergdahl affair long after the public has forgotten about it.

The only potential saving grace is that the Obarmy's investigation into/whitewash of the "Sergeant's" desertion and defection was extended back in August.  But I wouldn't count on even that much justice being done, if I were y'all.  Bowe Bergdahl's treachery being confirmed wouldn't be "explosive" either, but that could bring that headache back to the PR front-burner, and that'd be a distraction the Marxist-Alinskyist revolutionary in the White House doesn't need.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Temecula Constitution Class: Right to a Jury, Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Amendments 7 and 8

Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Faith Armory
41669 Winchester Road.
Temecula, California

Thursdays at 6:30 pm to 7:30 pm.

Temecula Constitution Class

----------

Amendment VII
Right of Trial by Jury in Civil Suits


“In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

The 7th Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in most civil suits heard in federal court.  Remember, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, apply only to the federal government unless the document states otherwise.  The 7th Amendment serves to preserve the historic line separating the province of the jury from that of the judge in civil cases by separating cases that should have a jury in federal court, from those that are smaller cases, and may not require a jury.  During the time the amendment was ratified, a case requiring a jury was one where “the value in controversy” exceeded twenty dollars.  The cutoff in the court system today is $75,000.  Any disputes that involve amounts less than $75,000, in fact, will not even be handled in a federal court.

State courts don’t have to honor this provision in the 7th Amendment, and often don't.  People bringing a suit do not have to have a jury trial.  Individuals can waive their right to a jury trial if they so choose.

The 7th Amendment also expressly forbids federal judges to re-examine any "fact tried by a jury" except as allowed by the common law.  This means that no court, trial or appellate, may overturn a jury verdict that is reasonably supported by the evidence.

Prior to the Declaration of Rights in 1689, English judges served the King of England.  These judges showed bias towards the King, resulting in unfair rulings.  Judges in the American colonies were also biased towards the king, and when King George III got rid of trials by juries in the Colonies, the colonists viewed the decision as more kindling for the fire of independence that had been blazing in the pubs, churches and meeting halls of the Colonies.  The Bill of Rights applied what the Framers learned under the rule of Britain to the American System.  In the American courts the Framers believed it was important to have a fair court system, so the right to have a trial by jury is mentioned a number of times, and is a fundamental part of the United States legal system.

Together with the due process clause of the 5th Amendment and the right to an impartial jury enumerated in the 6th Amendment, the 7th Amendment guarantees civil litigants the right to not just a jury, but to a jury who is not biased for any reason.

Terms:

Bill of Rights - The first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution; a formal summary of those rights and liberties considered essential to a people or group of people.

Declaration of Rights - Enacted in 1689, the English Bill of Rights is one of the fundamental documents of English constitutional law, marking a fundamental milestone in the progression of English society from a nation of subjects to a nation of free citizens with God-given rights.  The evolution began with the Magna Carta in 1215.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  What historic line does the 7th Amendment preserve?
2.  Must the States abide by the 7th Amendment?
3.  Can a person bringing suit waive the right to a jury trial?

Amendment VIII

Excessive Bail, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
  
The 8th Amendment reads, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

As a nation founded on honorable Judeo-Christian principles, the United States legal system is expected to be fair and just.  This means that Americans should insist upon a due process that protects individuals from excesses and abuses by the judicial system.  Such expectations include that no individual should be singled out, or treated differently, in the eyes of the courts.  A fair and equitable judicial system includes no excessive bails or fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, for one person while others guilty of similar crimes do not receive similar treatment.

Today’s definitions attempt to set a limit on where “excessive” or “unusual” lies.  When a harsh penalty is applied for a crime, even when it is similar to the punishment received by others for the same crime, challenges are launched regarding if the penalty matches the crime.  These challenges are fine, and an important part of the American judicial system seeking to adjust itself in regards to its fairness, but the debates during the Federal Convention and State ratification conventions did not focus so much on where the line between excessive and not excessive, or unusual as opposed to usual, exists as much as are the bails, fines and punishment consistent with the bails, fines and punishment consistent with others guilty of the same.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  In the context of the time period during which the 8th Amendment was written, what was meant by “cruel and unusual punishment?”
2.  How has the original definition of “cruel and unusual punishment” changed since the founding of the United States?
3.  How does the 8th Amendment apply the concept of uniformity to cases?
4.  Why would the Founding Fathers see the need to enumerate the right of an individual to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment?

Resources:

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder’s Constitution –
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).


Copyright 2014 Douglas V. Gibbs

NFL Week 12 Kickoff

by JASmius



I know that Thursday night games are not as marquee as Monday Night Football, or even Fox's "America's Game of the Week" on Sunday afternoons, and that even Thursday night games go down in visibility after midseason when CBS stops picking them up and they're relegated to just the NFL Network.  But....seriously?  The league can't do any better than a lopsided blowout "matchup" between the #4 and #30 teams in my current power rankings, the latter of whom are still winless?  Man, am I glad I don't subscribe to NFL Network.

Of course, having beaten the Champs this past Sunday and tied Denver for the AFC West lead after the Broncos' inexplicable upset loss at St. Louis, the Chiefs are probably due to go into Oakland and fall on their faces a week too late.  I mean, after all, the Faiders have to win sometime, right?

To quote Chancellor Gowron, "Perhaps someday; but not today".

Kansas City* (-7)
Oakland

Either way, I won't be watching it.

Oregon Shows Political Trend Regarding Immigration Moving Away from Democrats

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Oregon voters, in a State that consistently votes Democrat, has a warning for President Barack Obama.

In a growing trend nationally, voters are standing against liberal left policies on the immigration issue.  Even though Oregon voters strengthened Democrat control over their State, and legalized the recreational use of marijuana, voters overwhelmingly voted to cancel a new State law that would allowed driver's licenses to people who are in the United States illegally.

Immigration is a losing issue for the Democrats, but President Obama does not care about the will of the people, or the rule of law, as he prepares to act unilaterally on the immigration issue.  Tonight, his speech will either announce his unilateral actions, or will level a threat against Republicans that if they don't give him what he wants, he is going to move on the issue without Congress.

While the Republicans are threatening to use their power of the purse to defund his illegal move on immigration, and the House of Representatives is ready to move on a lawsuit against the President should he unconstitutionally circumvent Congress on this issue, the people of the United States, including blue States like Oregon, have their own message to send.  "Pass amnesty, or other immigration policies that support illegal aliens, and the political cost will be significant."

The State law in Oregon giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens seemed popular on the surface, and the drive to gather enough signatures to put the repeal question on the ballot barely reached the minimum number needed.  During the campaign, pro-amnesty groups outspent their opponents 10-1.  Yet, when it came to the polling place, the effort to repeal the law won with 66% of the vote in their favor.

Despite the GOP sweep of the midterm elections a couple weeks ago, and messages from places like Oregon on this issue. Obama is still moving forward on immigration reform, claiming he has to because "Congress has deadlocked on immigration for years."

Never mind the stack of bills on Harry Reid's desk that never came to a Senate vote after the House of Representatives passed them.

Immigration is a losing issue for the Democrats, but for some reason the media, and the leftist politicians, think it is a winning issue.  They believe it will be because of the influx of Hispanics that will come into the country, ready to vote Democrat as a result.

Polls, however, have shown that immigration is an issue that ranks low on the list of the issues with Hispanics.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary


Senator Ted Cruz Uses Cicero to Address President Obama on threat of Immigration Executive Orders

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

Today on the floor of the United States Senate:



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Senate Democrats Regarding Upcoming Obama Immigration Executive Order

By Douglas V. Gibbs

On C-Span, today, the Democrats of the United States Senate got together to discuss tonight's Obama Immigration Amnesty Executive Order Speech.  Harry Reid was on camera, and I am sure he had much to say, or had already said it.  I mostly caught Chuck Schumer's blithering, and a female Senator I did not recognize that took the microphone after him.  After she began to speak, I could not take much more of their insanity, and switched off the television.

Schumer essentially revealed that tonight's Obama speech was designed to announce a unilateral, unconstitutional executive order granting amnesty, or that the President was going to make that threat if the Congress does not come up with its own plan he is willing to sign.  Like all other Democrats, Schumer considers Congress broken because the Republicans dare to stand against the unconstitutional demands of the liberal left progressives, and their grant ruler, the tyrant in the White House.  Schumer's advice, was, that if the GOP does not want the President to act on his own, come up with a plan.  That's the way to stop it, he explained, likely referring to the Republican Party's willingness to use the court system to go after the President - an action that includes threats of a lawsuit for the President's unconstitutional actions regarding immigration by Rick Perry, the governor of the State of Texas.

Did you hear that?  If you want to keep the President from forcefully, illegally, tyrannically taking what he wants without allowing a peep out of Congress regarding the issue, the solution is to give him what he wants.  Give him what he is willing to take unlawfully, if you want him not to act unlawfully.

That borders on extortion.

The female Senator that followed Schumer behind the microphone began by calling the current immigration policies "cruel and unfair."

Existing laws are adequate, and are designed to protect the receiving population from the dangers that may exist among unscreened immigrants.  Our immigration laws, if the immigrant does not walk across the border, but goes through the procedures in place, screen the applicants to ensure they are not carrying infectious disease, do not have a criminal record, and are not members of terrorist groups, or other organizations, that are considered enemies of the United States.  That is hardly cruel, unfair, or racist.  The laws are in place to ensure the receiving population is protected, a reasonable request by a population that has been threatened by terrorism, and is currently experiencing a rise in infectious diseases that were all but gone prior to the latest illegal immigration push encouraged by the lawless President residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Illegal entry into the United State is unlawful (hence, the word "illegal") and should not be rewarded.  To reward entry with amnesty, or continuing to give the illegal aliens "free stuff" paid for by public funds, not only will not curb the problem, but will intensify it.

The common comeback by those that support amnesty to someone like me who supports deporting illegal aliens, and tightening enforcement of existing laws, rather than fall into the flawed argument that our immigration system needs to be reformed, is "so are you going to just round up and deport the millions of 'undocumented immigrants' in this nation?"

First of all, we don't need to round up the 40 million lawbreakers that have crossed the border with complete disdain for our laws.  Stop giving them free stuff, secure the border, and enforce existing laws with the assistance of law enforcement, and the flow will dwindle to a trickle, and the illegals in this country will deport themselves because the flow of free stuff has stopped.

As for the idea we are not capable of finding the people "living in the shadows," much less deport them, that is a flawed argument.  When mad cow disease was moving through herds, we were able to figure out what cows were infected, and eventually found the original "patient zero."  Yet we can't find illegal aliens?

The fence is even an easier problem to fix.  Build it, and increase enforcement.  If we can send a man to the Moon, send a probe to Mars, and create a nationwide cellular network, we can build a dang fence.

While the liberal left Democrats are trying to focus everyone's attention on the premise of "these poor people," they have distracted the attention of Americans from the national security angle of this issue, and away from the fact that regardless of if you think something is right or wrong morally, the laws in place do not allow for amnesty, sanctuary cities, welfare to illegal aliens, or unconstitutional actions by a President illegally expanding the scope and power of the Office of President in ways no other President before him ever attempted (including George W. Bush, of which the Democrats during Bush's presidency accused Dubya of doing what Obama is doing, while he wasn't, and now are silent while Barack is doing those things).

Whether immigration reform is a good idea, or a bad idea, Obama doing it through unilateral action is unlawful, and should be throwing up red flags with people that this President so disdains the rule of law, that he will ignore the concept of separation of powers inherent in the United States Constitution, as detailed in the first sentence of each of the first three articles of that document.  And if this President is willing to illegally bypass Congress on an issue like immigration, what other issues will he be willing to circumvent Congress, and the Constitution, to get his way regarding, in the future?  Is that not tyrannical behavior?  Is that not the dangerous actions of an authoritarian ruler that our Founding Fathers designed our system to protect us against?

Immigration is a losing issue for the Democrats.  They are overextending themselves, tackling the issue in such a way that, though they believe they will inherit oodles and oodles of Hispanic votes for it, the majority of existing voters will turn away from them in anger.  However, that does not mean people will automatically turn to the GOP.  The Republicans have to go get those people abandoning Obama by "rejecting" all of Obama's illegal, leftist policies.  In many ways, the Republicans have been complicit with the Democrats in the handling of this issue, and if the Party of the Elephant even slightly compromises, and goes along with amnesty, or any version of a law that advances the illegal alien's push for legalization without using existing laws to pursue legalization, it will be suicide for the party.

The Democrats know that the issue is a dangerous one for Republicans, and that is why they are trying to bait the GOP into some kind of immigration reform law.  I know that in politics, on some issues, you give a little to get a little back.  This is not one of those issues.  The GOP has won a majority in both Houses in Congress, and the best thing for them to do is give the Democrats nothing on this issue, let Obama act unconstitutionally, and then nail him to the wall for his unconstitutional executive action because of the illegality of it.  Show everyone that Obama is a tyrant, and that the rule of law means nothing to him.  Doing so will set the table for the Republicans in 2016, so that they may retrieve those voters running from Obama as they realize the tyrannical nature of his presidency.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hard Starboard Radio: Obama’s Imperial Transformation Is Now Complete



Barack Obama doesn’t care about the means, so long as he gets his end; Obama has become everything he claimed to have run against; What Obama is contemplating will undermine the achievements of over four centuries of Anglo-American political progress; Obama sets off a scorched-earth rampage; When Democrats acquiesce to Obama's amnesty coup, Congress will be overseeing its own demise; and yes, this is a constitutional crisis.

The Old American Republic committed suicide 744 days ago; the corpse finally stops flopping and keels over at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Ebola Amnesty

by JASmius



It just never ends:

People from Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone in the United States as of Thursday may apply for protection from deportation, as well as for work permits, for eighteen months, said a Department of Homeland Security official. After eighteen months, the Secretary of Homeland Security will assess whether the protection should be extended, based on the level of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials estimate that eight thousand people will be eligible to apply.

Betcha it's a lot more than that, regardless of whether or not they have ebola.  Like the Obama Regime was ever going to deport them.  Like the Obama Regime would deport anybody here illegally and unsafely.  Except Christians, Constitutionalists, Conservatives, Republicans, and Tea Partiers, of course.  Just you wait.

But what's another eight thousand on top of the six million O is going to legalize with the stroke of his pen tonight, right?  Other than that they could kill us all with ebola even faster than Latin American illegals can with enterovirus-D68 and all the other pestilences they brought, and bring, and will bring, with them.

Exit comment from Liberty News:

What about “protected status” for American citizens? When will that be granted?

The last chance for any such reprieve was November 6th, 2012.  Hope you're not holding your breath, pal.  Once your lungs start to liquify, you'll need all the oxygen you can get.

Ferguson Rioters Demand Strict Rules Of Engagement Be Imposed On Police

by JASmius



I.e. neutering police and allowing criminals free reign.

Boy, the sense of entitlement in these animals is absolutely limitless, isn't it?

They want a 48-hour notice in advance of the grand jury decision for riot prep (presumably to stockpile rocks, bricks, bottles, etc). They want to be able to use social media and cell phones to shift and focus riots (a lesson they learned from the “Arab Spring”) with impunity and without communications interference. They want to be able to assemble mobs as large as they want, wherever they want, for as long as they want. They want police officers to allow rioters extensive latitude in their actions, while heavily restricting police response. Perhaps most disturbing, they want to police to have minimal defensive protection against rioters, and assurances that the police won’t use the tools that may be needed to break-up riots once they turn violent. And of course, they want virtual “get out of jail free cards” for both the leaders of their movement and the rioters themselves.

The verbatim demanded "rules of engagement" from the "Don't Shoot African-Americans, Shoot Crackers, Their Bitches & Their Babies" Coalition can be found here.

I believe Wolverine once gave the appropriate response....



....will Ferguson and Missouri officials - all Democrats, incidentally - heed his coarse wisdom? Are you kidding?


UPDATE: Here's the coast-to-coast race war - at least, the Black Klan and the Obama Regime hope it is.

BREAKING: Shooting @ Florida State University Leaves Three Wounded, Shooter Dead

by JASmius

Another "gun-free zone" strikes again?:

Florida State University police fatally shot a gunman at the campus library early Thursday in a shooting that left three others wounded as hundreds studying inside the library fled or took cover in panic. Officers confronted the gunman and ordered him to drop his weapon, but he fired one shot at them and they unleashed a volley of shots, Tallahassee Police spokesman Dave Northway said. Tallahassee Memorial Hospital officials said they were treating two of the victims, one critical and one in fair condition. Police said a third, who was grazed by a bullet, was treated at the scene and released. While police did not say if the wounded were shot by the gunman, senior Sarah Evans from Miami said she was inside the library and heard a male student say he had been shot. When she looked at him, he was on the ground with blood spreading on his pants leg.





Obama "An Emperor," "Like A Dictator Or King"

by JASmius



Looks like this impression of Barack Obama as a communist despot is starting to get around a "smidgeon":

Barack Obama thinks he's an "emperor" and will prove it Thursday with an expected plan to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation, conservative commentator and radio host Rush Limbaugh says.

The president's declaration in February 2013 that "I'm not . . . the emperor of the United States" and can't stop deportations that would tear immigrant families apart was just "buying time," Limbaugh said on his radio show Wednesday.

"What he didn't say was, 'I don't care about any of that,'" Limbaugh said. "'The only thing stopping me is there's an election coming up, and, when the election's over, that's when I'll do it. But I'm not gonna do it before that because that will hurt my party and maybe me.'

"He should have just told them to be patient and wait until after the election, because he doesn't believe he's not an emperor," Limbaugh charged.

Okay, that was Rush Limbaugh, and you'd expect him to say that.

But he's not the only one:

This last election was a referendum on amnesty. And the American people overwhelmingly rose up and said “no.” We don’t want lawless amnesty. And, I’m sorry to say President Obama’s reaction is defiant and it is angry with the American people. And, if the president goes forward with this, if he goes forward unilaterally defying the Congress elected by the people, defying the American voters, then it’s incumbent on Republicans in Congress to use every single constitutional tool we have to defend the rule of law to reign in a president so the president does not become an unaccountable monarch.” [emphasis added]



Paint O into a corner by passing separate appropriations bills instead of this "omnibus"/continuing resolution crap and compartmentalize the DHS appropriation with anti-amnesty riders, forcing Democrats to filibuster and/or Obama to veto...well, everything, all in service to an illegal imposition of an immigration policy three-quarters of the American people specifically and pointedly rejected at the polls two weeks ago?  Not confirm a single one of his appointees to anything until he capitulates on dictatorial amnesty?  I don't know about you, but I'm starting to get a little aroused, if you know what I mean.

But that was Ted Cruz, and you'd expect him to say that.

But not....Orrin Hatch:

With President Barack Obama set to announce executive orders that could grant work permits [and voter registration cards, no doubt] to as many as five million illegal immigrants, "he's coming off like he's a dictator or king," Senator Orrin Hatch told Newsmax on Wednesday.

"He has a right to do whatever he wants to do, but he doesn't have a legal right to do what he wants to do," the Utah Republican, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. "These are important issues — and it should unnerve every citizen that we have a president who, in some respects, is out of control."....

"That is not a power that a president should have or does have," Hatch said. "In a way, I think he's just sticking his thumb in the eyes of everybody in this country."

Not quite the metaphor I would use, Senator....



How appropriate, then, that tonight's imperial edict from Supreme Leader comes on Mexico's "Revolution Day":

Obama is making his announcement to grant legal status for millions of illegal immigrants on Mexico’s “Revolution Day.” The president’s prime-time address Thursday [November 20th, 2014] coincides with the date in 1910 when the Mexican revolution began. The timing hasn’t escaped the notice of the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, a group that opposes the president’s plan. “November 20th is Mexican ‘Revolution Day‘ or Mexican ‘Civil War Day,’ which is the equivalent of America’s 4th of July,” said William Gheen, president of ALIPAC. “Obama’s choice of this date for his departure from his oath of office and the U.S. Constitution creates a permanent symbolic relationship between his actions and Mexico’s violent revolutionary and civil wars from 1910-1920.”

An American equivalent of which would be entirely to The One's liking.  The very tantalizing prospect probably makes him cream his "mom jeans".

Let not your hearts be entirely troubled, though, my friends, as there is a punchline to this post:

Barack Obama will announce his highly anticipated plan to deal with millions of illegal immigrants [tonight]. While the cable news networks will carry the 8PM EST announcement, the broadcast networks — deep into November sweeps — will not.

According to network insiders, the White House did not request time from the networks for tomorrow night’s primetime speech. But because it comes at 5PM PST the network evening newscasts will have to update their programs. [emphasis added]

Why are the broadcast networks not carrying his infernal majesty's latest "historic speech"?  Because they don't get ratings.  Why do they not draw viewers?  Because nobody believes anything this asshole says anymore, and after six long, dismal years, they've finally tired of being yammered at, hectored, and mendatiously dictated to.  That, and the networks aren't willing to kick away millions in advertising revenue just to hold another idolatrous national Godbama service.

Although I would be remiss not to point out that if you think the past six years have been long, hard, and dismal, that was just the "getting acclimated" grace period.  Because Maximum Leader is going to be in power, yammering, hectoring, lying, and dictating to "Us, The People" for years and years to come.

His amnesty decree will see to that.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Religious Choice Now!

by JASmius



Atheists, like every other tentacle of the extreme Left, are like Kyle Reece's description of the Terminator: "[They] can't be reasoned with; [they] can't be bargained with; they don't feel pity, or remorse, or pain.  And they absolutely will not stop - ever - until you [reject God]."

The Monmouth County [New Jersey] family, identified in court papers as John and Jane Doe and their child, sued the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District in February, alleging the phrase “under God” in the pledge is discriminatory. State Superior Court Judge David Bauman heard arguments on the school district’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The case was filed by the American Humanist Association, which claims the recitation of the pledge violates Article 1 of the state’s constitution.

That would be the AHA's "zero tolerance policy" against any and all expressions of deism, much less Christianity.  Still waiting on their upcoming lawsuits against CAIR and other domestic Islamist organizations over their agitations to impose Sharia law.

“Public schools should not engage in an exercise that tells students that patriotism is tied to a belief in God,” said David Niose, attorney for the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center.

Actually, Mr. Niose, it is: "When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of nature and of Nature's God entitled them...."  Or: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."  Or, as John Adams once wrote: "[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.....Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  And then there are the words of Richard Henry Lee: “[T]he experience of all times shows religion to be the guardian of morals.”

It's almost as if the Founding Fathers were looking ahead 216 years to that into which the Republic they bequeathed "Us, The People" would degenerate.

“Such a daily exercise portrays atheist and humanist children as second-class citizens, and certainly contributes to anti-atheist prejudices.”

"Anti-atheist prejudices"? Get over yourself, Mr. Niose. There is no such thing as "anti-atheist prejudice". Show me any example in the history of human civilization on this planet of "anti-atheist" persecution. Point out a single instance of an "anti-atheist" pogrom.  You can't, can you? And do you know why? Because there isn't any. Which is why you have to resort to claiming that "the free exercise of religion" is an "establishment" of it.

You do realize, do you not, Mr. Niose, that you are elevating "pro-atheist sensibilities" to the level of the....sacred?

As you've no doubt already suspected, this lawsuit gives the term "frivolous" a bad name:

The school district doesn’t require that students say the pledge. Bauman said there wasn’t any evidence the student in question had been “bullied, ostracized or in any way mistreated.” but he also noted during his questioning of district attorney David Rubin that district policy requires parents whose children don’t say the pledge to furnish an explanation in writing.

....for record-keeping purposes, not as a quasi-legal justification for excusing their kid from reciting the pledge, any inadequacy of which would compel said recitation.  The school district doesn't require it, remember?  Indeed, knowing grade school children as I do, having fathered a couple of them (a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away) as well as having spent a few years as an AWANA leader, it's quite likely that not every last child recites it, or recites it accurately, as it is.

This nuisance litigation is nothing but atheist intolerance on garish display, and of course, it should be summarily dismissed.  But it is taking place in New Jersey, after all, so don't be surprised if "John & Jane Doe" emerge victorious.

That is a stick.  This is more of a carrot with a stick inside of it:

[Outgoing] Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley made national news last year when he fought to pass and signed a tax bill that levied a tax on Marylanders, businesses and churches for the amount of “impervious surface” they have on their property.

Roofs, driveways, sidewalks, and parking lots qualify for the “rainwater remediation fee” to “protect the Chesapeake Bay.”

Though the O’Malley administration calls it a “fee,” it is commonly called the “rain tax” throughout the state. It is wildly unpopular and the promise to fight to repeal the tax was a large factor in Maryland electing Republican Larry Hogan governor this month.

Now Prince George’s County is offering a way for churches to avoid paying the tax, which is estimated to be an average of $744 per year for them — preach “green” to their parishioners. [emphases added]

I seem to recall that churches being tax-exempt was inherent to the idea of religious liberty, don't you?  Now here comes the State of Maryland, bludgeoning churches (but not mosques, I'll wager) with a big, fat tax, but then using it as a "carrot" of sorts to coerce them into disseminating State-dictated paganism from the pulpit.

And they've scrounged up at least a few dozen apostates:

So far thirty "pastors" have agreed to begin “‘green’ ministries to maintain the improvements at their churches, and to preach environmentally focused sermons to educate their congregations” to avoid being hit with the tax, the Washington Post reports.

In case you think this is "voluntary," think again:

Prince George’s County’s Department of Environment director Adam Ortiz told WBAL Radio churches “don’t have to preach, per se,” that they could avoid the tax if they “provide educational programs to teach them (parishioners) about how to be more sustainable.... [emphasis added]

In other words, indenture themselves as subsidiaries of the Prince George's County Department of Environment.

Asked about the concern of government telling churches what to preach to their members, Ortiz said he had no concern over that. “It’s an opt-in. It’s up to them, if they want to help participate and help clean up the bay, they can opt-in to this program and we can all work together to clean up the bay.”

“All of us are part of the problem,” Ortiz said, “and we can also be part of the solution.”

Between thirty and forty additional churches have filed applications to avoid the tax and participate in the program, according to Ortiz. “It’s completely voluntary,” he said, “and paying this fee is state law.” [emphases added]

Which means the "opt-in" is not "completely voluntary" because churches are being forced to pay a tax from which they should be exempt, and are being extorted to turn over their pulpits to greenstremist zealots like Adam Ortiz.  Otherwise known as "leverage".

Exit comment from Warner Todd Huston:

I thought the libs were always balling themselves up over “separation of church and state”? But now we have a liberal government telling churches what they should preach from the pulpit? So, this “separation” business only works when it is the church trying to get its way? But when government wants to impose its will on religion it's no holds barred, eh?

School Choice Now!

by JASmius



In the town of Milford, Massachusetts, it is now illegal to be a ten-year-old boy.  What did Nickolas Taylor, the obvious future mass-murderer, do to earn a two-day suspension from Stacey Middle School?

Pretend his finger was a "gun" and make "pew-pew" noises.  Or what, oh, I don't know, every ten-year-old boy in the history of the human "species" has done dating back to the invention of gun powder.  Indeed, the school officials that threw him out of school had no idea if his hand was supposed to be a "gun-gun" or a laser pistol or a type-II hand phaser or a squirt gun.  Nor did they care.  "Zero tolerance" means "zero tolerance," by golly, even if there actually isn't anything in the school's anti-gun rules that makes any mention of "finger guns":

“I think this is very slanderous toward Nickolas and his character,” said [the boy's father] Taylor. “It was non-threatening. He’s just a typical boy with an imagination.”

Precisely.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Taylor, it's slanderous toward you as well.  Obviously you're not raising young Nickolas to believe in fantasies and delusions, such as that guns are sentient and irredeemably evil and can mentally compel people to pick them up and fire them at innocent targets.  You're not "teaching" your son about the vast flocks of Glocks and herds of assault weapons that used to roam this land before gun control statutes culled their numbers down to a manageable level.  Indeed, guns are the only "species" that leftists feel free to endanger.   Perhaps the National Rifle Association should change their name to the "National Firearm Wildlife Fund".

If you were a "responsible" parent, Mr. Taylor, young Nickolas would know all of these things that are not so.

On the other hand, maybe his "sin" was saying "pew" in school property.  Because you know what has "pews," right?  Churches.

Predictably....:

A conduct slip, written by Assistant Principal Noah Collins, lists the offense as a threat.

Collins could not be reached for comment despite numerous phone calls and emails seeking comment – nor could Stacy Principal Nancy Angelini. Superintendent Robert Tremblay also did not return phone calls and emails.

Of course.  Every time one of these stupid-ass public schools pulls one of these stupid-ass anti-gun "zero tolerance" stunts, it always attracts national attention and always embarrasses the educrats who perpetrate them, and they never have any comment for the media, because what can they say?  "We're stupid-ass anti-gun nuts, and [BLEEP] you!"?

I wasn't kidding up above about there being no rule against "finger guns":

According to WCVB the school’s handbook mentions that toy guns (and real weapons, of course) are banned inside the school but notes that the rules do not mention any proscription against fingers being shaped like a gun.

Now that Stacy Middle School's status as a "gun-free zone" has been publicized, care to place any bets on how long it will be before a gunman bursts into the building and starts mowing down everybody in sight?  Oh, but don't worry - he'll get a stern "conduct slip" for his heinous actions.

And now we transition from stupid-ass silliness to genuinely insidious danger:

An elementary school handout that has been in use across the nation since at least 2009 teaches kids that government “gives us rights,” an idea that goes 100% against the principles upon which the USA was formed. Titled “Being a Good Citizen,” the handout was written by Phyllis Naegeli and was recently found on edhelper.com. [emphasis added]

Since at least 2009, eh?  Something significant happened in 2009, as I recall.  Something wholly consistent with the heretical notion that "government gives us our rights".

Let us revisit a document Ms. Naegeli has evidently never read:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [emphases added]

Or, to paraphrase President Gerald Ford, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."

Again, eminently predictably, as soon as the light of public scrutiny was shown on this "teaching aid," "government gives us our rights" was changed to "government protects our rights."  Which means that Ms. Naegeli knew the difference between those two concepts damn good and well and is part of the all-out leftwing effort to brainwash "young skulls full of mush" to believe the former and never learn about the latter, all the better to become good little Obamunist drones....



....any questions?

Class dismissed.

Hard Starboard Radio: Amnesty Fight Club



Jonathan Gruber was an ObamaCare architect who helped draft the law. This is a fact regardless of whether it's currently convenient for the Left; Obamerikastan now out of the personal freedom top twenty; Conventional wisdom finally acknowledges that the Israeli-Palestinian "two-state solution" was never alive in the first place; Don’t make amnesty a battle between Congress and Obama, make it a battle within Congress?; Encouraged by black racists like Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Al Sharpton and other agitators, too many see rioting as a black entitlement; and Republicans have to get along with each other if we’re going to, you know, win in 2016.

"Getting along" is so "white" at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Man-Made Climate Change Is Real

by JASmius



....and here's the proof:

Officials say residents of a Central Valley [California] community where hundreds of home wells have run dry can now take hot showers. Andrew Lockman of the Tulare County Office of Emergency Service said Tuesday that they’ve brought in portable showers for residents of East Porterville. The ongoing drought has caused many of their shallow wells to run dry, forcing them to drink bottled water and bathe from buckets. Lockman says they are worried about residents taking sponge baths during the cold winter. He says people have to bring their own soap and towels to the portable showers, but for many it will be the first hot water they’ve felt in months. Officials say the county is paying $30,000 a month for the showers set up in a church parking lot. [emphases added]

How is this not man-caused climate change, gentlebeings?  Drought is climate change; California's drought is entirely artificial; it's been brought about and is being maintained by human decisions and actions.  It just so happens that those humans are environmental extremists and their decisions and actions are not to "belch carbon emissions" but to cut off any and all irrigation to what had been one of the cornucopias of America on behalf of an inedible fish nobody had ever heard of and nobody would ever miss, and on behalf of which the human population is being bankrupted, impoverished, starved, and left (up to now) to suffer from thirst and filth, which can only breed pestilence right along with it.

You want to "fight climate change"?  Defeating environmental extremism is a great way to start.

Eric Holder Sides With Black Cop-Killers (Again)

by JASmius



Who needs cop-killer advocate Debo Adegbil as Deputy Reichsfuhrer for "Civil Rights" when you already have a black racist militant still in charge of the Obamastapo, pending the confirmation of "straight-shooter" Al Sharpton ally Loretta Lynch as his replacement.  I'm guessing that sparing the lives of four more gang-banging black murderers of white cops is his version of "playing out the string":

Four gang members who were charged with the murder of a reserve Virginia police officer, Kevin Quick, will not be facing the death penalty, federal prosecutors told reporters Friday. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has taken the death penalty off the table, but the co-defendants will face the possibility of life in prison for their alleged role in killing Quick, 45. He was reported missing on February 1st [2014] and his body was found several days later. ….. The suspects — Daniel Lamont Mathis, Shantai Monique Shelton, Mersadies Lachalle Shelton and Travis Leon Bell, also known as Kweli Uhuru — were charged in May, according to the Associated Press. Two other men, Darnell Stokes, Jr. and Halisi Uhuru, were also charged with second-degree capital murder during abduction, WTVR reported in February. According to the station, both have criminal records. Stokes spent twelve years in prison and was released in October 2012 and Uhuru, who was arrested in 2005, was released in December 2013. Indictments released in May allege that the suspects who carjacked, kidnapped and killed Quick were members of the Virginia street gang, 99 Goon Syndikat, which reportedly has ties to the Bloods from Los Angeles.

Not to be too obvious about it, but if Messrs. Mathis, Shelton, Shelton, and Bell had been white and murdered a black police officer, d'ya think maybe the death penalty would have remained "on the table"?  Methinks it would, for the exact same reason why the Black Klan is insisting that Officer Darrin Wilson be railroaded for the "crime" of defending his own life against the drugged, rampaging, murderous Michael Brown.  Indeed, I'm more than a little surprised that they were even charged in the first place, as I thought that under the Obama Regime, black-on-white violence was categorized as "social justice".

Exit question: When Reichsfuhreress Lynch takes the reins, will she put execution back "on the table" as a sentencing option, or will her "straight shooting" be in only the same direction as Eric "The Red's" has been for the past six years?  Do we even have to ask?

Israel Relaxes Gun Laws After Jerusalem Synagogue Attack

by JASmius



After one or more murderous gunmen open fire on defenseless civilians in America, the clarion cry always goes out and up for confiscation of guns, as though cracking down on the law-abiding can keep firearms out of the hands of the lawless.  After one or more murderous Muslim gunmen open fire on defenseless Jewish civilians in Jerusalem, the Israelis respond by making it easier for Jewish civilians to not be defenseless.

Do I even have to rhetorically ask which is the more rational response?:

Israel is temporarily easing its guns laws in the wake of one of the worst Palestinian attacks in the city in years, according to media reports.

“In the coming hours, I will ease restrictions on carrying weapons,” Israel’s public security minister, Yitzhak Aharonovich, said Tuesday in remarks broadcast on public radio, the AFP reported.

Two Palestinians burst into a Jerusalem synagogue Tuesday during morning services and attacked worshipers with a gun, knives and axes, killing three U.S.-Israeli citizens and a British-Israeli and wounding seven people, Israeli police said.

How exactly the rules would be adjusted isn’t clear. But speaking from the scene of the attack, the security minister suggested the rules would relax carrying restrictions for private security guards and off-duty army officers, the AFP said.

They could "adjust" the rules by allowing concealed carry for all adults, and making the adjustment permanent.  Why Israel, of all countries, hasn't encouraged an armed citizenry before now is inexplicable, but better late than never.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the Japanese commander of the attack on Pearl Harbor, was once asked why he thought a Japanese of invasion of the United States could never succeed.  He is said to have replied, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."  Imagine Palestinians invading a synagogue and finding a rifle behind each pew, pointed at them and spewing a hail of lead.  Render there no such thing as a "soft" target.  That'd sure as shinola make the "active shooter" mode of terrorism a lot less attractive.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Adieu, Landrieu: Senate Democrats Kill Keystone XL (Again)

by JASmius



Insidiously brilliant, no?  Harry (G)Reid brings up Keystone XL for the Senate vote he's been blocking for years in the lame-duck session, outgoing majority Dems vote it down, but Mary Landrieu can go on record as having voted in favor of it.

-Me, a week ago

The Assholiated Press estimates there are a total of fifty eight Senate votes for the Cassidy bill, so it likely can't escape a Donk filibuster to even make it to getting killed by an Obama veto, much less get the additional nine votes needed for an override if it somehow did pass.

-Me, last Friday

I was one vote off.  So sue me:

Senator Mary Landrieu’s Keystone XL pipeline bill fell short by the slimmest of margins Tuesday, leaving the $8 billion pipeline still on the table for the ascendant Republican Party to push the project to President Barack Obama’s desk in January.

The 59-41 Senate vote was just shy of the sixty votes needed to pass the bill, following a dramatic six days of whipping by the embattled Louisiana Democrat on an issue that almost all of Washington had expected to sit idle until next year.

The defeat deals a blow to Landrieu’s campaign ahead of her December 6th runoff against GOP Representative Bill Cassidy, whom polls show running comfortably ahead. Winning on Keystone would have helped her demonstrate her clout on the Hill as a champion of her state’s influential oil and gas industry.

Persuading Dirty Harry to bring the Keystone XL bill up for a vote and then voting for it isn't enough?  She had to push it through the Senate over her own party's fanatical resistance?  Doesn't that beg the question of why she would have the "clout" to do that now when she hasn't displayed any such clout over the past six years?  And even if she had, or enough of her Donk colleagues had indulged her, how would she have gotten Barack Obama to sign the bill?  A "prayer" vigil?  Yes, "prayer moves the hands of God," but Marxist-Alinskyist demigods tend to be a lot more stubborn.

If this is Senator Landrieu's swansong, wouldn't you have to say that it was a home run for the GOP?  Representative Cassidy sponsors the Keystone XL bill in the House and gets it passed, Senator Landrieu whips it good in the Senate and it goes down in flames.  "With friends like these...." and all that.

But I will reiterate now what I wrote five days ago:

But consider this a sneak preview of the next couple of years, as the GOP lays the foundation for a successful Scott Walker presidential run in 2016 by forcing The One to veto one popular conservative bill after another - which we know he will.

What few they can get past the Donk filibuster blockade, that is.

Corona Constitution Class: Amendments 7 and 8

Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Corona Constitution Class, November 18, 2014; 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
douglasvgibbs@reagan.com


AllStar Collision, Inc.
522 Railroad Street
Corona, CA

Sponsored by TLCC
Truth and Liberty Covenant Coalition
Corona · Norco · Eastvale
info@tlccoalition.org

www.tlccoalition.org

Amendment VII
Right of Trial by Jury in Civil Suits


“In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

The 7th Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in most civil suits heard in federal court.  Remember, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, apply only to the federal government unless the document states otherwise.  The 7th Amendment serves to preserve the historic line separating the province of the jury from that of the judge in civil cases by separating cases that should have a jury in federal court, from those that are smaller cases, and may not require a jury.  During the time the amendment was ratified, a case requiring a jury was one where “the value in controversy” exceeded twenty dollars.  The cutoff in the court system today is $75,000.  Any disputes that involve amounts less than $75,000, in fact, will not even be handled in a federal court.

State courts don’t have to honor this provision in the 7th Amendment, and often don't.  People bringing a suit do not have to have a jury trial.  Individuals can waive their right to a jury trial if they so choose.

The 7th Amendment also expressly forbids federal judges to re-examine any "fact tried by a jury" except as allowed by the common law.  This means that no court, trial or appellate, may overturn a jury verdict that is reasonably supported by the evidence.

Prior to the Declaration of Rights in 1689, English judges served the King of England.  These judges showed bias towards the King, resulting in unfair rulings.  Judges in the American colonies were also biased towards the king, and when King George III got rid of trials by juries in the Colonies, the colonists viewed the decision as more kindling for the fire of independence that had been blazing in the pubs, churches and meeting halls of the Colonies.  The Bill of Rights applied what the Framers learned under the rule of Britain to the American System.  In the American courts the Framers believed it was important to have a fair court system, so the right to have a trial by jury is mentioned a number of times, and is a fundamental part of the United States legal system.

Together with the due process clause of the 5th Amendment and the right to an impartial jury enumerated in the 6th Amendment, the 7th Amendment guarantees civil litigants the right to not just a jury, but to a jury who is not biased for any reason.

Terms:

Bill of Rights - The first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution; a formal summary of those rights and liberties considered essential to a people or group of people.

Declaration of Rights - Enacted in 1689, the English Bill of Rights is one of the fundamental documents of English constitutional law, marking a fundamental milestone in the progression of English society from a nation of subjects to a nation of free citizens with God-given rights.  The evolution began with the Magna Carta in 1215.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  What historic line does the 7th Amendment preserve?
2.  Must the States abide by the 7th Amendment?
3.  Can a person bringing suit waive the right to a jury trial?

Amendment VIII

Excessive Bail, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
  
The 8th Amendment reads, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

As a nation founded on honorable Judeo-Christian principles, the United States legal system is expected to be fair and just.  This means that Americans should insist upon a due process that protects individuals from excesses and abuses by the judicial system.  Such expectations include that no individual should be singled out, or treated differently, in the eyes of the courts.  A fair and equitable judicial system includes no excessive bails or fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, for one person while others guilty of similar crimes do not receive similar treatment.

Today’s definitions attempt to set a limit on where “excessive” or “unusual” lies.  When a harsh penalty is applied for a crime, even when it is similar to the punishment received by others for the same crime, challenges are launched regarding if the penalty matches the crime.  These challenges are fine, and an important part of the American judicial system seeking to adjust itself in regards to its fairness, but the debates during the Federal Convention and State ratification conventions did not focus so much on where the line between excessive and not excessive, or unusual as opposed to usual, exists as much as are the bails, fines and punishment consistent with the bails, fines and punishment consistent with others guilty of the same.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  In the context of the time period during which the 8th Amendment was written, what was meant by “cruel and unusual punishment?”
2.  How has the original definition of “cruel and unusual punishment” changed since the founding of the United States?
3.  How does the 8th Amendment apply the concept of uniformity to cases?
4.  Why would the Founding Fathers see the need to enumerate the right of an individual to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment?

Resources:

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder’s Constitution –
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).


Copyright 2014 Douglas V. Gibbs