Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category
Can we all agree that , the recent riots in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, MO, had as much to do with the police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown as it did with a hurricane in Hawaii or a square dance in Iowa?
As I have written in the past, a legitimate protest consists of tossing tea into Boston Harbor; it doesn’t involve stealing a TV. Time and again, young black thugs in Detroit, L.A., Philadelphia and now St. Louis, have taken advantage of an event to run amok, turning over cars, looting stores and setting fires. They do it because they are bottom-feeders who feel empowered by corrupt politicians, a liberal media and race hustlers like Al Sharpton, to carry out the sort of violence which when committed by one or two individuals results in jail time, but when committed by a mob results in liberal pundits justifying the mayhem.
A reader, Bob Alton, wrote to me, posing the following question: Now that Hillary Clinton is speaking out against Obama’s foreign policy, can we expect her to be branded a racist? It’s a fair question when you realize that her husband was labeled one in 2008 for no other reason than that he campaigned for his wife during the primaries, and “racist” has been branded on the rump of every Republican who has voiced an objection to anything Obama has said or done over the past six years.
It’s no secret that Democrats, including Obama, have been pressuring the older liberals on the Supreme Court to retire ASAP so that Obama can leave a longer lasting impression on America. I think it’s a move that can wind up biting the Democrats in the butt in 2016. After all, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 81, Anthony Kennedy, 78, and Stephen Breyer, 76, are too old for the job, which pretty much consists of sitting around reading briefs and occasionally casting a vote, it might be hard to convince people they should run out and vote for Hillary Clinton, who will be 69 when the 2016 election takes place, and a ripe 77 by the time her second term would conclude. But perhaps they simply assume that being the commander-in-chief is as easy a gig as Obama makes it seem: rounds of golf, interspersed occasionally with expensive vacations and fund-raising galas.
Speaking of things that have not only ripened, but dropped off the tree and are well on their way to being mulch, we have Jimmy Carter. According to a recent article in the Washington Times, the reason that Carter, who once condemned Israel as an apartheid nation, is such a vociferous fan of Hamas is because he blames his loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980 on Jewish voters.
As a Jew, nothing would make me prouder. However, inasmuch as Reagan garnered 43 million votes to Carter’s paltry 35 million, and 489 electoral votes to Carter’s infinitesimal 49, and that Jews represent a mere 2% of the population, it’s a bit far-fetched. What’s more, although he did better than other recent GOP presidential candidates, Reagan still managed to lose the Jewish vote 39% to Carter’s 45%.
The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans when it comes to illegal immigration is that the Democrats stand to benefit from increasing the Hispanic vote. But both are equally guilty when it comes to not stemming the invasion. Otherwise, we would hear the Republican politicians demanding that a huge wall be erected along our southern border, instead of parroting Obama’s call for comprehensive immigration reform (aka amnesty).
The problem is that folks on both sides of the aisle want to privatize the profits to be accrued from cheap labor while socializing the costs. If we were serious about solving the problem, we would, one, stop subsidizing illegals with free health care, free education and free food; and, two, we would fine and jail anyone responsible for hiring them. And I’m not just referring to smalltime outfits that hire a few guys to help out on construction jobs, but the folks who own the hotels and restaurants where these people are making beds and busing tables.
Obama wants Congress to help him bring what he refers to as “the best and the brightest” to the United States. If he’s referring to those illiterates sneaking across the border, perhaps he’s auditioning for a career as a stand-up comedian. Until now, I had assumed he kept his sense of humor concealed in the same vault where he’s concealed his birth certificate, his early travel visa and his college application.
The EEOC, like every other federal bureaucracy under Obama, has over-stepped its authority by constantly filing lawsuits against companies that insist their employees speak English.
But, then, there is no government agency that I wouldn’t like to see either diminished or eliminated altogether. What’s more, I would see to it that no government bureaucrat, be it at the city, state or federal level, ever received another bonus. What do they ever do that deserves one? It certainly can’t be for working overtime. As we all know, anytime you show up at one of those offices after closing time, whether it’s at 4:01, 4:31 or 5:01, you’ve found the doors locked and the lights off.
Speaking of federal agencies, I bet no conservative in America was surprised to hear that our State Department was far more incensed over the killing of one Arab youngster than it was by the killing of three Jewish teenagers in Israel. What’s more, Israel arrested six suspects in the murder of Abu Khdeir after a couple of days, whereas the Palestinians not only haven’t made any arrests in the murders of Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar and Naftali Fraenkel, after a few weeks, but aren’t likely to in the next fifty years. But it’s only Israel that is ever condemned by the weasels at the U.N. and the anti-Semites who infest academia and the media.
It seems that Hillary Clinton, who is pinning most of her political hopes on carrying a large majority of the single woman vote, once, as a 27-year-old lawyer, defended a creep who beat and raped a 12-year-old girl. Recently, a four decades-old tape popped up on which she is heard laughing while saying that she had lost all faith in polygraph tests because her client had fooled the machine.
Only a liberal dunce could seriously contend that the exclusion of four of 20 contraceptive options constitutes a war on women. And yet in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, that is exactly what people like Hillary Clinton, Sandra Fluke and the three politically partisan harpies on the Court, Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, would have you believe.
As I see it, the fact that young women actually expect that people with whom they’re not having sex should provide them with free birth control pills is clear evidence that the real war is the one being waged on the American taxpayer and commonsense.
I realize that Sen. Thad Cochran’s primary victory in Mississippi is being appealed by his challenger, Tea Party favorite Chris McDaniel. If I lived in that state, I very likely would have voted for the challenger. But the real mystery is why on earth registered Democrats are allowed to cross over and vote in a Republican primary. I’m not asking as a conservative. After all, I assume Republicans are also allowed to vote in Democratic primaries. But how dumb is that!
It’s bad enough when the Democrats financially support the Republican candidate in a primary because they assume he or she will be the easiest to defeat in the general election or when they run a fake Republican in the general election, hoping to fool a sufficient number of dummies into splitting the vote with the actual nominee. But a state really has to be addicted to stupid pills to have open primaries, which negates the whole purpose of having primaries in the first place. What’s next, declaring the winner of a Mississippi election to be the candidate who receives the fewest number of votes?
Recently, after encountering “ISIS” in one of my articles, a reader wrote, asking what I was referencing. I explained that the scumbags currently overrunning the cesspool known as Iraq started out calling themselves the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria before, like certain show biz celebrities, shortening their name to the Islamic State. But my first reaction to being asked to define ISIS was to channel my inner Bill Clinton. I then immediately took a shower.
Speaking of congenital liars, it occurred to me the other day that the only time Barack Obama can be trusted to tell the truth is when he’s telling his fellow jihadists the date upon which the U.S. will be withdrawing its troops from a war zone.
I wasn’t a great fan of either George H.W. Bush or his son, but even compared to them, Obama is the ultimate bush leaguer. For the life of me, I can’t imagine why his approval ratings remain in double figures or how it is that any Democrat in the House or Senate can refrain from calling him out over Benghazi, the VA, the IRS or his constant trashing of the Constitution. Is it conceivable that Satan has worked out the traditional swap of eternal damnation for successful careers with each and every one of them?
By Alan Caruba
I have said it before and I will say it again, I love Sarah Palin. Governor Palin has come out strongly calling for the impeachment of President Obama. I say, “Way to go, sister!”
During an interview, Sarah expressed the frustrations of millions of patriotic Americans, myself included. http://bit.ly/1swJnJf Enough with being intimidated and impotent to act because Obama is black. Enough with the smartest pundits in the room’s explanations why it would be politically unwise to challenge Obama’s unprecedented lawlessness. Enough with being politically castrated by fear of the mainstream media.
Palin is calling for Obama’s impeachment simply because it is the right thing to do. Palin cites 25 impeachable offenses by Obama thus far.
While politicians express their shock and awe regarding Obama’s daily acts of lawlessness, a tsunami of illegals is flooding our country with Obama gleefully having ordered the opening of the floodgates. Some say allowing the invasion of illegals to continue will change America forever.
Remarkably, the Administration will not allow the GOP to visit the federal facilities where illegals are being held to assess the situation. http://bit.ly/1oBVdze This is astoundingly arrogant and totalitarian – the action of a supreme dictator rather than a U.S. President.
We cannot allow a lawless imperial president to run rampant wreaking havoc on our great nation for two more years, in the hope his behavior will harm Democrats in elections. Reversing Obama’s vote-winning entitlements and laws may be extremely challenging, if not impossible.
And another thing, this Administration’s secrecy, stonewall cover-ups, and iron fist tactics against any individual or institution that challenges or disagrees is outrageous and totally unacceptable. It should no longer be tolerated. It is vitally important that Americans immediately wake up and smell the tyranny and act accordingly.
Here is a recent prime example of this Administration brazenly attempting to bully even the U.S. Supreme Court. Henchman Harry Reid has announced that he intends to punish the “five white guys” on the Supreme Court for ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby. http://bit.ly/TSIYoa
By the way, one of those so-called five white guys is black, Justice Clarence Thomas. Note the Democrats’ trademark tactic of insidiously playing the race card in Reid’s “five white guys” statement. This man is an awful evil human being, characteristic of the many hit men and women of the Obama Administration – Lois Lerner and Eric Holder to name a few. Remember, leadership emanates from the top down.
Relentless in their efforts to force everyone to yield to king Obama, Reid has basically said screw the Supreme Court ruling. He will continue going after Hobby Lobby.
What more evidence of an out-of-control tyrannical Administration, believing themselves invincible, does one need? Obama is king and whatever he says or desires is law. Period.
A movement to impeach Obama has been underway for awhile. Governor Palin as the face of it is the perfect leader to give it legs.
As an individual proud American who happens to be black, I wholeheartedly support Governor Palin’s movement to impeach our imperial president, Barack Hussein Obama.
© Lloyd Marcus
Sen. Patty Murray authors ‘Not My Boss’s Business Act’ to exempt O-care from law she voted for in ’93
Democrats and women’s health groups believe they have a powerful campaign weapon in pushing back on the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that Hobby Lobby and other closely held for-profit companies don’t have to comply with the health law’s contraceptive coverage requirement if it violates the owners’ religious beliefs.
The bill was drafted by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a longtime women’s health advocate, and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who is up for reelection this year. Sen. Mark Begich, a Democrat up for reelection in Alaska, joined them at the press conference to release the bill.
The Democrats’ bill would essentially exempt the Affordable Care Act from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the law that the Supreme Court said the contraception requirement violated.
Some Democrats have Wile E. Coyote’d their way into having to remove another obstacle of their own placing (to read more about this subject, search DADT and DOMA).
Dems, including Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Patty Murray, overwhelmingly supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, and Bill Clinton signed it into law that same year. Now they’re blaming the Supreme Court for applying a law they helped put into existence. But how many MSM stories about this will point out that little detail?
If anybody finds the idea of politicians attempting to overturn the same laws they voted for a couple of decades earlier to be ridiculous, I suggest term limits.
That was, in part, how former First Lady / U.S. Senator / Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that business owners with religious objections can refuse to pay for health insurance policies that cover contraception.
“I obviously disagree” Mrs. Clinton told the crowd at the “Aspen Ideas Festival” in Colorado on Monday June 30th. “I disagree with the reasoning as well as the conclusion.”
Since that time, Democrat Senators Patty Murray (D-Washington) and Mark Udall (D-Colorado) have joined forces with Seante Majority Leader Harry Reid (d-Nevada) in crafting legislation that would – once again – force business owners to pay for coverage of abortions and abortion-inducing medications, even if aborting children violates a business owner’s religious beliefs.
Clinton and her fellow liberals have framed the dialog over the Supreme Court’s decision in very predictable ways: the decision was grounded in sexism; women will be left victimized without” healthcare as a result; and the decision makes no sense because “corporations are not people.”
Republicans (in the rare moments when they have actually engaged in the discussion) have largely responded by citing Clinton, to Clinton. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law passed almost unanimously by Democrat majorities in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, provided the legal foundation with which the Hobby Lobby corporation successfully argued that their owners shouldn’t be forced to pay for things to which they religiously object.
It’s certainly worthwhile to remind Mrs. Clinton (and her fellow Democrats) of her husband’s work, and the fact that they are now trying to eliminate the religious freedom that was restored 21 years ago should be alarming to all Americans, and to people of all faiths.
But Americans who still love their liberty should also seek to reframe the discussion beyond Mrs. Clinton’s allegations of sexism and victimization. It’s difficult to imagine Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) or Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) articulating any salient points on the matter. Yet those of us who reside outside the hallowed halls of Congress can start right now to reject Clinton’s logical fallacies and falsehoods on religious freedom, and force the discussion to move in a more truthful direction.
As for Clinton’s falsehoods about the Supreme Court decision, consider this statement: “It’s the first time our court has said that a closely held corporation has the same rights as a person when it comes to religious freedom…” This was yet another part of the assessment she offered at the gathering in Aspen, and it’s not entirely true.
“Corporate personhood,” a legal theory stipulating that corporations can be recognized as individual persons in the eyes of the law, is nothing new (surely Mrs. Clinton, a lawyer, knows this). The recent Supreme Court decision over the religious liberty of business owners perhaps affirms corporate personhood in a new and different way, but the legal theory itself was a component of several previous Supreme Court decisions, including the 1886 Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific ruling pertaining to federal regulations of railroads. In that Supreme Court decision, the court affirmed tha the equal protection clause of th 14th amendment imparts protections to corporations as well as individual persons.
It wasn’t that long ago that a prospective Supreme Court justice was blackballed because he had occasionally smoked marijuana while in college. Although it seems as if it happened a hundred years ago, it wasn’t that long until we elected Bill Clinton, who admitted he had smoked pot, but lied about never having inhaled. That’s like saying you ate a T-bone steak, but didn’t swallow.
We then elected Barack Obama who not only smoked the shit on a regular basis, but bragged about it in his autobiography. All along, I had thought that all of his obvious problems were the result of his having been abandoned as a child by his mother, father and stepfather, and left to be raised by communist grandparents and a sexual pervert, Frank Marshall, who served as a mentor to young Barack.
However, now that medical research has linked marijuana not only to a diminished mental capacity, but to schizophrenia, I have had to revise my diagnosis. It’s just possible that marijuana played an equally large role in the stoner’s turning out to be such a lousy excuse for a president.
Considering the way he has constantly fed us one whopper after another, I find it surprising that we haven’t begun to see those old posters of Richard Nixon captioned “Would You Buy a Used Car From This Man?” popping up bearing Obama’s likeness.
What do you think the odds are that Ahmed Abu Khattallah, the captured Benghazi terrorist, will blame the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his three colleagues on a spontaneous uprising over a certain video when he finally testifies in a New York court? After which, Obama will grant him executive clemency and send him back to Libya when it’s discovered that Khattallah is suffering from inoperable cancer.
If you’re one of those parents who are mortgaging their home in order to subsidize your kid’s college education, you might be interested to discover that UCLA coughed up $300,000 and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, ponied up $225,000, in order to get Hillary Clinton to give one of her brain-numbing speeches on campus.
Thanks to Hillary Clinton using her book tour as the first step in her 2016 presidential campaign, things are heating up even earlier than usual. With an eye on the Republican ticket, I would say, based on my recent poll, that I have a better chance of winding up as the GOP nominee than either Jeb Bush or Chris Christie. Having said that, I still prefer to see a governor at the top of the ticket. That’s because the office calls for someone with executive experience. And as much as we might like and admire certain senators, congressmen and even a retired surgeon, I don’t believe that voting, giving speeches or removing a gallbladder provides the necessary prerequisites.
Of course, living in California as I do, I am merely judging governors on the basis of rumor.